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. 10,674 posts (16,955 including aliases). 14 reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 32 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 10,674 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

There is no such thing as western civilization.

Lord Snow wrote:
Middle East where Putin has a free reign to act could become a bloodbath...

as opposed to what have been happening?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm sure somebody else would say the reconverting words my mind is unable to put together, Bob, I just wanted to say you've been a good person/poster the time I've been in the paizo forum, I hope your situation improves.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Indigenous Peoples Day happens to fall on the same day. What are the odds? :P

1/365 :p

EDIT: Assuming Columbus day was already settled down.

1/365.25

February the 29th seems like an unlikely day to choose if you want to commemorate something on the same date every year.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
Indigenous Peoples Day happens to fall on the same day. What are the odds? :P

1/365 :p

EDIT: Assuming Columbus day was already settled down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
quibblemuch wrote:

It has long bothered me that it did not seem that RAW excluded Reflex saves for immobile creatures. The above quotes suggest that RAW do require you be able to move in order to get a Reflex save. My reading is that if you can't move, you can't roll a Reflex save.

Chains of light imply the contrary

"A creature targeted by this spell is held immobile by glowing golden chains composed of pure light. The creature is paralyzed and held in place, but may attempt a new saving throw each round to end the effect."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Another memorable one I saw played was this guy a friend brought over who bragged that his character was unkillable. This was in a 2e game when traps meant something and he died a horrible, rat filled death. He stormed out screaming incoherently and I never saw him again.

Behaviour like that are weird and I never understood them taking into account how easily characters can die in 2e.


Saldiven wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Should be a disclaimer in that AP that reads "You must be this stronk to ride".

Personally, I think this goes back on the GM.

Before a GM is going to run a campaign, he/she should have a pretty strong idea about the kind of opponents and environment will show up. During the character creation process, the GM should give enough information about the campaign that the players can make more appropriate choices. The GM shouldn't give out huge spoilers or anything, of course, but can steer the players away from obviously bad choices that would result in a frustrated player once the adventure got going.

Lately, I'm preferring to just choose enemies at random or give fight so diverse that they don't follow a thematic. In two pbp campaigns I'm Dming the enemies that appear, besides all kind of goblins, depends largely on what portion of the world the players want to explore and what the random tables say. Seems fun to me that way.


Chess Pwn wrote:

I hadn't even mentioned the FAQs that get reversed. Monk's flurry is or isn't able to be done with one weapon, dev intent was no, then when they said no they realized how bad of intent that was and changed their intent to yes. I'd be SUPER surprised if you had predicted that as the obvious way to have parsed the rules text.

SLA are spells or not. Does Spell focus evocation work for SLA fireball?
Does Elemental focus fire work for SLA fireball?
No they aren't spells... But yes cause Augment Summoning works?

Did you accurately predict the weapon-like Spells FAQ answer?

If you feel that all of these are obvious and you get 90+% of all FAQs right, good for you! You are most likely not the majority, else these topics wouldn't have so much debate.

+1

Also pretty sure there are topic where the Dev didn't even consider before somebody asked about it, like the spear training + gloves of dueling FAQ. T


James Risner wrote:
Nicos wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Nicos wrote:
That's like far from 99%.
3 out of how many hundred entries on the CRB page alone?
I had the examples he gave in mind. That he or anyone actually predicted all the results from the FAQ of the CRB alone is even less credible. Or did anyone predicted those FAQS that contradicted/superseded the other FAQS?

Look at my posts. Find any other examples where I got it wrong.

I can't recall any others, so find one and I'll cede the claim.

You want me to provide evidence for what was in your head before each FAQ?


KingOfAnything wrote:
Nicos wrote:
That's like far from 99%.
3 out of how many hundred entries on the CRB page alone?

I had the examples he gave in mind. That he or anyone actually predicted all the results from the FAQ of the CRB alone is even less credible. Or did anyone predicted those FAQS that contradicted/superseded the other FAQS?


James Risner wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Mechanics that have long been accepting as working.

Working by players, not by GM or by Paizo.

Pretty sure that a player can't play a mechanic without the DM accepting it.

James Risner wrote:


Also, yes I'm right on 90%+ or more like 99% of the time. But I'm also aware I'm not in the majority.

The only FAQ I've been wrong about:
Maneuver Master Flurry of Maneuvers
Sohei Flurry in Light
Free actions during Attacks of Opportunities

I've been right on:
double stack ability
weapon like
spiked shields
virtual size with actual size
ranged sneak attack from flanking
and so many others that I can't count...

That's like far from 99%.


Chess Pwn wrote:
If those feats are meant only for swashbucklers then they should be class features of the swashbuckler and not feats that anyone can take.

Agreed. LEt's just say that the ACG was not stellar design.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
We also can't assume that is the intent behind the ability, because JJ (and several others who actually are/were designers,) has been overruled before. It's not definitively stated that he designed the feat, so I can't give him the benefit of RAI in that situation, either.

As he designed the feat, pretty much he is the only one who can tell what the intention was.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


All magi go dex because of this feat is different than all melee going two handed because of power attack. Power attack is a nice addonn, but its not what you build a character around. This is something you build your character around and that shouldn't be the case.

There is only one decent way to build a dex to damage magus and you are complaining that magus that go dex to damage take that option. Perhaps the game should just allow people to play they perfectly not-broken option.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:


And I seriously doubt they will make that change simply because of how prolific the build is.

Saying Spell Combat doesnt' work with Dervish Dancing would break 90% of PFS Magus builds.

That's probably an indication that it needs to be fixed.

"Let's break the builds a lot of people have fun with", yeah, but it doesn't feel like an excithing thing.


James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Likewise, if Slashing Grace can't be used with Spell Combat, neither can Dervish Dance.

I'm waiting to see the look on everyone's face when/if that ruling ever comes down.

Do you really think they would want to nerf the class that much?

If you are serious, then no I don't think they would nerf it. I think they would design it such that it isn't a nerf at all, it is a clarification.

Dervish dance is several years old, and DD + spell combat magi have been well known in PFS, and the topic have received a lot of attention in the forum. At this point any change is, well, a change and not a clarification.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm too lazy for that, that's why I prefer tweaking pregenerated NPCs.


Snowlilly wrote:
Nicos wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Now, I thought the distinction that a buckler was strapped to your arm was a bit of a stretch, but since they allowed it for slashing grace which is functionally identical there is NO reason not to allow it for dervish dance.

They are far from identical. You can dervish dance + spell combat but no slashing grace + spell combat.

Spell combat has nothing to do with bucklers.

Spell Combat wrote:
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free

As quoted in prior posts:

1. Bucklers do not occupy a hand
2. Spells may be cast while a buckler is equipped

since a Hand can be a "hand", in the metaphorical sense, there is not enough clarity to make a undisputable ruling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would like to try some OC classes, they seem cool fluff-wise, but they seems to be too complicated mechanical-wise for me to bother, and i don't make mch Pcs anyways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never liked the CRB, I might buy the horror adventures since it seems more useful for DMs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Now, I thought the distinction that a buckler was strapped to your arm was a bit of a stretch, but since they allowed it for slashing grace which is functionally identical there is NO reason not to allow it for dervish dance.

They are far from identical. You can dervish dance + spell combat but no slashing grace + spell combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
Nothing in RAW even hints that Slashing Grace's list of exclusions are tied to a metaphorical "off-hand" usage

They are metaphorical for a reason.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do you know the dungeon crawl classic adventurers? what do you think about them?

What are your favorite PF and non-PF rpg books?


http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?501800-One-Step-Beyond-OOC-Pa thfinder


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Nah. That's kind of a load of crap. As thejeff notes it's eminently possible to pay attention to what behavior offends people and try to minimize it.

Will everyone ever be happy? No, but you can minimize the number who are unhappy if you try.

That will offend somebody somewhere, I'm kidding I'm kidding :p


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

- More mesmorable characters you have played

- most memorable characters you have seen when DMing.

- least memorable characters you have played

- least memorable characters you have seen when GMing

>.>

Heh.

if he can remember them then they were not so un-memorable.


Like with a lot of slangs, different people in different situations interpret "gamer girl" in different ways .

If the intention of the speaker is to be derogatory then chances are that the woman in question will not feel good with the term. While for other people they could be a non-offensive words.

Of course, if somebody doesn't like to be called by it you don't go around calling her that way. Specially if you want to keep playing with that person.


Spastic Puma wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:

I talked with about 40+ female gamers for my thesis and none of them seemed very fond of the term. Most of them just wanted to be seen like any other gamer.

Sounds like an interesting thesis.
Definitely more fun than poring over NIBRS or the UCR. At least for me.

No idea what's is a NIBRS, so I will just take our word on it.


Spastic Puma wrote:

I talked with about 40+ female gamers for my thesis and none of them seemed very fond of the term. Most of them just wanted to be seen like any other gamer.

Sounds like an interesting thesis.


I find it unnecessary.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's just case by case. Somebody here ask for a rule and it happens that there is no rule at all that covers the situation, they will have to ask their DM or if they are the Dm they will have to make a rule by themselves.


Coming for an even crazier country than the US I'm not sure my opinion is worth something, but it seems that the thing with the police in the US (besides the racist component) is not in vacuum but symptomatic of some culture that permeates the country. There is a culture of violence that is absent on other 1st world countries.

While the mindset exists the problems of violence, and in particular the problems of violences by cops will remain.


ok, ok.


I guess, you can report here

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?500933-Talk-to-Ashiel-About-A nything-Mark-II&p=21235609#post21235609

since lemmy is posting there.


Bennybeck Wabbittracks wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Bennybeck Wabbittracks wrote:
Are there examples in Golarion of what might be considered Native American, Meso American or Hispanic cultures?
Not well developed yet. The continent of Arcadia is the Americas analog. There was a bit about it in Distant Shores and some hints elsewhere.
The lack of development then could be argued as a lack of inclusive ty to the fan base. There are members of these groups which play the game as well.

And those members could very well understand that no fantasy world can possibly cover all world cultures not it should be demanded to do it. As an Hispanic I know I do.

Moreover, what Paizo choose to put or not in their setting is irrelevant for my games. It could be nice to see their take on arcadia, but I don't be offended if they never publish about it.


John Robey wrote:
Nicos wrote:
John Robey wrote:


3) I don't particularly like adventure paths or megadungeons, and that's all the Big Names do these days. -.-

Uhm, what do you like?

I like single-adventure modules ("Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth" sized, for ex), smaller adventures, and sidetreks that I can easily string together myself. (Hence item #4, that Dungeon magazine doesn't exist. Before the emergence of adventure paths, it was far and away the best value in gaming.)

-TG

I see. Though I can think of a couple of few great not-that big adventures in 3pp.


Scavion wrote:
Lemmy said he'd be game to play on the Giants in the Playground forums if yall wanna keep this going.

So, what do you guys say?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

- More mesmorable characters you have played
- most memorable characters you have seen when DMing.


John Robey wrote:


3) I don't particularly like adventure paths or megadungeons, and that's all the Big Names do these days. -.-

Uhm, what do you like?


Steve Geddes wrote:

I much prefer playing in a game where the DM is comfortable making a judgement on the fly. That's partly due to watching people argue with some things for ages and noting that once we go to the effort of digging out what the rulebook actually says, it turns out the success chance is within 5-10 percent of the off-the-cuff ruling anyhow.

In my view, the benefit from speed of play outweighs the occasional inconsistency since the DC is generally set by the DM anyhow. So if the ruling is out, just think of it as following the rules with a slightly different DC.

My original group of players greatly prefered the time we basically played bookless, they got bored with the rules once we managed to get the 2e player guide.


HeHateMe wrote:


I guess she wasn't looking to collect on the "alive" bounty, just the "dead" one?

That's correct.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
In general we all agree that nowadays, manifestations exist. And they should, because they keep psychic casters from dominating people without any warning whatsoever. They also clarify why you can use spellcraft on component-less spells and SLAs.

I don't know if all will agree that they "should" exist. Not everyone use the occult stuff, and having a new book messing with 6 years of released material could displease quite a few.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Of people that I know that DM: DMG, Ravingdork, TOZ Grimmy (I miss his pbp Dming), Kobold cleaver, Hmm, mosts of the grognards from the grognard thread, all the people who convert AD&D adventures to PF or 5e, Stefa hill (gods I had to check 15 pages of "my favorites" to remember this name).

A special one is creighton broadhurst, because godam the adventures he writes.


Crystal Frasier wrote:
I think recent events have shown just how terrible the general public's concept of moderation practices is.

Not necessarily. One can be pleased enough with the moderation in general and still disagree with some cases.


wraithstrike wrote:


You can be out of their line of sight, while the illusion is in it,

Yes, but being out of their line of sight means they are also out of your line of sight. But ok, I can live with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Women and gays and trans folk can internalize self-hateful bullsh!t just like everyone else. Being trans (or whatever) isn't an automatic defense against repeated tired old debunked anti-trans rhetoric.

So, the trans that were ok with the posts were just wrong because they are internalizing self-hateful bull#%&#?, good there are other people in the world to correct them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Nicos wrote:

Exactly. Nobody knew that talking about the things they were talking was bad. In fact it's pretty much arguable that it was not.

The other poster and I have butted heads on these same points before, and she was informed by more than me that her conclusions on those points were problematic and hurtful at best.

But again, thanks for the summary dismissal.

You are dismissing the ones that think the opposite, so we are equal.


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

Moreover .. and this is just me pondering aloud .. if you know that doing X (in this case engaging in being critical of LGBT characters) would provoke a post or ten to be removed, why would you continue on that track?

If you know that taking a certain action will cause a certain response, then doing it over and over again is either being provocative or trying to what, make a point about the evils of censorship? Or am I am just going crazier?

Exactly. Nobody knew that talking about the things they were talking was bad. In fact it's pretty much arguable that it was not.

Really?

yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Rysky speaks up, three posters get defensive and try to gaslight and dismiss him. Rysky is the target for blame because he tried to engage in good faith

...


wraithstrike wrote:

If the guards have line of sight to you they should see you casting just due to that. The manisfestion is not even needed. There is also the issue of casting being done in a strong voice so they will also hear you.

Since you need line of sight/effect to create the illusion that greatly reduces the utility of illusions out of combat, but ok.

1 to 50 of 10,674 << 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.