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

R_Chance's page

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 2,488 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,488 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bill Webb wrote:


They are using our printer guys--the binding quality will be bomber. Even if you don't use JG in your game, this one is a piece of history that should not be missed.

Anyone unfamiliar with what the City State is should google it up--I cannot do it justice, and I own every product ever made by JG. It was the first city ever made for the game.

JG was making whole cities while TSR was making short modules back in the day.

I have the original. It was THE city for a long time in more ways than one, with a huge influence on succeeding products from other publishers. I never used it in my game, but my own cities have always been done in the same style and the idea of how a city should be done / run is there... definitely a great product back in the day. If you want a city that is more than a shopping venue this is great stuff.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TheSideKick wrote:


why would you guys necro this thread?!?!?! it died and came back because you people wouldn't leave the lake!!

it Friday the 13th xxvii run away!! only no nudity :(

A spammer necroed it. Then those posts were deleted and the game was afoot again. I caught it when it made it's return. I groaned, I looked, flagged and moved on. Then I noticed "real people" were posting again in it and the "comments" that brought it back were gone.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:


Dustin Ashe wrote:


If only Skye had a protective older brother and they leased part of their plane to a geisha....

We dunno what Simmons's hobbies are...

Kthulhu, thanks for the laugh. It came at a good time.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thanks anyway :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Wolfgang Baur wrote:


Those who preordered the print book at Paizo should be getting the PDF included with their order.

If that's not happening, Paizo customer service can certainly fix it!

Thanks. I had wondered if I was going to have to order the PDF separately from my print copy.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

When we started playing original D&D in 1974 it referred you to the Avalon Hill Wilderness Survival game (which we had). In that game lack of food and water could kill you. We packed rations, water skins and kept track. We had rules for hunting / foraging as well. In the beginning there weren't the variety of spells for sustenance and the ones that were available used valuable slots. Even now, spell slots used on food are a slot that could have been used for something else that isn't cheap and readily available (in most environments).

I'm still in the habit of tracking food, water and other necessities (bed rolls, cold weather gear, tents, etc.) as both a player and a GM. My players plan ahead and it grounds them in the game / setting.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have the print copy of Kobold Press' Deep Magic preordered in my side cart. I would liker the new print / PDF preorder bundle instead. Do I remove the print preorder and add the print / PDF bundle? Or is it too late to switch?

Thanks.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:


You also have to not hook them too hard for anything tough. They've got to be free to turn things down. If the characters are too emotionally involved or the stakes are too high, they may not be willing to back off when they should.
"The drow are sacrificing pious priests" is one thing. "The drow are about to sacrifice Harry, the priest from our village who's healed us and counseled us so many times" is something else entirely.

Of course, the flip side is that avoiding that kind of emotional investment takes away much of what I'm looking for in a game. Playing a character who's just running around looking for adventure and loot isn't as much fun as playing a character who's driven, who loves and hates and cares about quest(s) he's on.

Yes, but it, as you pointed out, can drive the game. Mine hunted a vampire that killed an NPC friend. They were really fired up about it. I wasn't sure if they were ready. As it happens they drove it out of the city without managing to destroy it. One adventure successfully concluded, one future adventure to go...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
pres man wrote:

The Paradox of Choice

The argument of dictators everywhere and there is some truth in it. Especially for people who are not prepared to make choices (and live with the consequences). One of the primary functions of education irl is, or should be, preparing people for choices.

As for games, being used to judging decisions and making choices is the key. If you've been led by the nose, or had your in game choices restricted artificially by storyline or DM intervention it can be uncomfortable to be offered non-tactical choices.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jack Assery wrote:


It's an awesome concept for how to give players a "path" to make decisions compared to their power level.
In my own sandbox game, I gave plot hooks to things they "should" face at way higher levels, and the PC's had to figure if they could possibly tackle such things at that point. If they were 5th level and had the option of finding some derro who've abducted citizens, taking on ninja to find info on a BBEG or finding drow who are sacrificing pious priests, they can make a decision on what is realistic for them to tackle. Sometimes it gets a little more hard to figure lol and they had to retreat from some things to address later, and it was pretty successful in that respect.
One thing is maybe those decisions might've been a sort of metagame knowledge, I would argue that but it doesn't matter, they had fun and owned their decisions.

Yes. They have to have a grasp on their own capability vs. the opportunities for adventure. Mine have skipped things they view as too tough and backed off from things that turned out to be tougher than they thought. I try to provide appropriate in game clues and let them make the call. Part of the fun of sandbox games is the uncertainty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DM Under The Bridge wrote:


As a fan of sandboxes and having dmed more than a few, the sandbox doesn't quite require that much detail, prep or knowledge. You roll with it, you craft some major places and areas (and be ready to move them around as they are "discovered", and the rest you fill with imagination and whatever takes your fancy on the day.

A sandbox doesn't mean you have to make all the sandcastles before the players sit down to play.

I agree. The other thing about sandboxes is longevity. I've run the same setting for just shy of 40 years (2 months to go). Over time I've built up a lot of background / world detail. Some of it is still Original / 1E / 2E, but it can be updated on the fly as needed :) Themed games (and APs) have an end game in sight and it's more difficult to keep building on the established details. There have been world changing events in my home brew over the decades but the current game includes and builds on that background. Game "history" is very useful.

*edit* Er, 4 months to go as DM. 2 months as a player. That's my 40th anniversary in RPGing :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Russ Taylor wrote:


DrDeth wrote:


Coulson & Fitz are absurdly pretty? May is OK if you like that type, and I don't think Skye is anywhere near as HAWT!!! as they are making her out to be.

So, wrong again.

That sort of comment sort of goes to the lopsided standards of appearance propagated by American media. Watch BBC for a while, particularly the ones not aimed at US audiences. And enjoy your heavily processed people on US TV :)

I do watch quite a bit of BBC and I don't see what you see apparently... I also watch quite a few foreign films and I don't see the differences (other than varying cultures versions of "pretty"). I think visual media world wide tends to use people who are more attractive than average with different shows varying by genre / intent. But then my mother was a subject of the U.K. and my father's American. Maybe I'm hopelessly muddled...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I run a sandbox game. Fortunately my players can make decisions... of course they started playing in 2E or before. Some people blame it on video games. They contribute to the problem. But APs have contributed to PC "tunnel vision" too (if not as much). This is not a slam on APs, or video games, btw. They have a direct story to tell and players, having agreed to play the game, decisions are tactical rather than operational / strategic. I think more people run AP type games today as opposed to sandboxes. Of course a lot of games are hybrids as well. I like letting them make the high level decisions and then they can get down to tactics later.

In a slight derail, I probably restrict PC creation more than some people do (not all classes exist, etc.). And back stories don't need to be novel length. I'm an old geezer and our characters wrote their stories in game...

Different styles for different groups. Nothing new about that...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Marc Radle wrote:


Quick heads up!

Deep Magic, the massive hardcover tome of spells and magic from Kobold Press is now shipping!

Better yet, Deep Magic fully supports the various spell-casting New Paths Compendium classes :)

Well, another Deep Magic sold Marc. Thanks.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
nomotog wrote:


True. It's something I puzzled over myself trying to think of a way to make an items description descriptive, vague and complex. Some items are kind of easy. Like color coded medicine. Call something strange blue icor in a glass jar and the players will have a hard time guessing it's a healing potion. Others are a little hard. Like how do you describe a gun without players imminently saying oh that's a gun and knowing everything about it. (I tried to do this myself once before and it didn't do all that well.)

Then there is the question of how many often do you want to do the laser caveman thing in an adventure. On every item, or just the big ones.

That was the problem. When I used flowcharts I used them for categories of similar items. I don't know if you're familiar with Petal Throne / Tekumel but there is a category of tech item known as "eyes". Small oval eye shaped objects with a stud on one side and an aperture on the other. You press the stud and the effect emits from the aperture. Once you solved the simple method you could activate any of the 3 dozen or so eyes but you wouldn't know what the effect was without a written inscription or using the item. I also had multiple charts for different complexities of items. And "mishaps" were fun :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
R_Chance wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


nomotog wrote:
I have a question about the book as well. Are you including rules or guidelines for PC learning how to use tech artifacts? I really don’t expect a barbarian to be able so simply pick up a laser gun and know exactly how to use it without at least a little fiddling, and maybe a little bit of accidentally shooting their foot off.

Yes. The rules work pretty similar to how folks identify magic items, in fact, but have some gateways that folks need to pass through in order to do so.

For those familiar with Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, we do not use flowcharts to model this, though. I thought about that, but then discarded it in favor of a less complex, faster method that allows the identification of technological items to work better with the skill system.

Too bad. I can see why you'd skip the Gamma World type flowchart thing and integrate it into the skill system but it was both fun and cool to go through back in the day...
True. They were fun. Imagine doing that for every single magic item you find in an adventure, though... it gets old fast.

Pretty much what I thought. It depends on how many tech items you find I guess. Utilizing the existing skill system would be simpler and more streamlined. Certainly easier than adopting a new subsystem in any event.

nomotog wrote:


I thought that chart was needlessly complex. Your like rolling randomly to move along a chart with almost zero context. I think I liked "Return to the Temple of the Frog" way better. It basically described the items in very basic descriptions and think the idea was for the players to RP them guess what the item was and what each button did.

nomotog, the only problem with descriptions is coming up with sufficiently vague descriptions that aren't too non functional. The flow chart had little context (except charting how far along you were) but when it comes to fiddling with unknown essentially alien tech stuff I thought it worked well to simulate the process and progress. I used a similar flowchart for an Empire of the Petal Throne game in the late 70s and it worked well. Then too, there simply weren't that many technological artifacts encountered.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

atheral, GigNorseWolf, Lord Fyre - exactly what I was wondering / thinking...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:


nomotog wrote:
I have a question about the book as well. Are you including rules or guidelines for PC learning how to use tech artifacts? I really don’t expect a barbarian to be able so simply pick up a laser gun and know exactly how to use it without at least a little fiddling, and maybe a little bit of accidentally shooting their foot off.

Yes. The rules work pretty similar to how folks identify magic items, in fact, but have some gateways that folks need to pass through in order to do so.

For those familiar with Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, we do not use flowcharts to model this, though. I thought about that, but then discarded it in favor of a less complex, faster method that allows the identification of technological items to work better with the skill system.

Too bad. I can see why you'd skip the Gamma World type flowchart thing and integrate it into the skill system but it was both fun and cool to go through back in the day...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:


EDIT:

Ninja'd by brad2411 while I was typing my post!

Enjoy it anyway!

And the downside to long posts is... :D


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Interesting. Not something I'll use in my regular campaign but I'll enjoy reading it anyway. And when I resume my Tekumel / EPT game the technology stuff may come in handy. Very handy :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To the OP: Is it OK? Within bounds it is, imo.

I have a random background generator for my campaign designed to produce a character / adventurer typical of that setting. You can roll on it or choose off of it, your call. Special stuff needs to be discussed with me.

The background generator is keyed to class and race (which you have already chosen after you generated your characteristics). Note it is designed to produce a background for a typical adventurer in the setting, not a typical character. Based on that, it gives a nationality, social background, and family information (parents, siblings, your birth order, if you're legitimate or not, whether they are living or deceased and if you have step parents / siblings or half siblings). Your relationship with said family is up to you. You can pick / choose or roll on any part. It's designed to help with the background and still give a character who is "grounded", if you will, in the setting. There aren't huge life shaping things on it, the choice to be an adventurer is pretty much the first of those. There aren't any atypical "special" backgrounds included - those would need to be discussed with me.

I think it gives structured choices which are right for the setting. It allows those players who know what they want to choose - within limits for the game world, those who aren't sure can use it for inspiration, and those who don't care can just let the dice fly. It's worked for the last 30+ years (I came up with it in the early 80s when 1E was the game we played) with some modification for editions, and race / class changes.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

*sigh*

lokiare wrote:


Unless 5E is completely different from the play test any kind of module they tack on will not provide enough balanced tactical options to make 5E worth playing for me.

You said it. "For me". You are not everyone. Different people will place a different value on those options and, for that matter, on the issue of whether they are balanced or, if balance is that important.

lokiare wrote:


They would have to redesign most of the classes from the ground up, giving non-casters as many options as casters (something like doubling their options each level to keep up. i.e. 3 at first 6 at second etc...etc...).

Why? Are options always good and are they all good? Does everyone need the same number? Can you get by with fewer, better options? It's like saying "we want more of... something". The need for everything to be balanced is based on a design assumption that has never been a part of D&D, until 4E (if then).

lokiare wrote:


I just don't have your optimism for a product we haven't heard of or seen. I mean it might be different if they talked about it at all. The last I heard they were trying to tell us that 1E's facing would provide tactical options rather than making the game a dance fest as everyone dosedos around each other to get advantage from attacking backs. Other than that I haven't heard or seen anything on the subject.

It's obvious you are painfully pessimistic for a product you haven't seen. For DDN as a whole for that matter. Posting about it btw makes me think you have heard of at least the possibility. As for facing, until you know how / if they are using it and see it's place in the system you can't really say much about it. Other than making assumptions based on a bad experience in an old video game.

lokiare wrote:


I remember when they mentioned facing being part of the tactical module. The WotC forums erupted in anger and despair. Almost no 4E fans thought it was a good idea. A few people who didn't like or had never played 4E said they liked it and asked what the problem was, but anyone that has ever played Final Fantasy Tactics knows exactly what I'm talking about.

My comment on facing is above. As for "forums erupting in anger and despair"... pretty much every other thread on some of them. It really depends on how many people you are talking about too. The anger and despair of a handful of prolific posters just doesn't impress me that much. The use of facing in an old video game has little to do with what it may, or may not, be in a future paper and pencil rpg release.

My attitude on DDN is "wait and see". I like some things I saw in the playtest, other elements not so much. Until I see the final product I'm not passing judgment on it.

My 2 cp.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pan wrote:


Is it possible the "Gary and Dave" thing was just PR talk?

I'd say it's probably just this. As for Gygax and Arneson they built from scratch. Considerably more difficult job than current designers have. If you look at it from that point of view it makes more sense to wonder what they would do with it now. If you have a copy of Dangerous Journeys around you can see Gygax's progression as a designer. It's a different game entirely.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
lokiare wrote:


Those are still just keywords, they are just more familiar, whether an 'archer' in a 1E or 2E style game just shoots arrows, or if in a 3.x style game 'archer' means multiple shots with a bonus to offset melee penalties, or in a 4E style game where 'archer' means +2 to attack as well as a special rechargeable power (5-6 on 1d6) to shoot everyone in a 15' cube or in a spy game meaning a very talented killer that is clueless in every other way. Its still just a keyword.

Yes, they are keywords. And they are more familiar. Key words that are already understood and require no time to learn beyond what is already common knowledge. That's the point.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:


I wil say, Season 6 makes Order 66 that much more terrifying.

** spoiler omitted **

Which would only make Sidious happier... and that moment when Anakin / Vader throws him down the energy conduit in Return of the Jedi that much more satisfying.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Oh, and a starter set, PHB, MM, DMG are confirmed now (at GAMA). Supposedly looks good, but nothing released from the show. First AP in Forgotten Realms called "Tyranny of Dragons". I could skip the starter set and the AP, but it's nice to know the big three. Apparently only 1 PHB this time with all the core goodies, the MM to have all the iconic monsters, and magic items etc. to be in the DMG. Source: EN World, right on the front of the news, no link provided, much speculation follows... :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
goldomark wrote:


The D&D boat as sailed for me. Too much money invest in PF to start buying and learning a new edition because it is super important to get new versions of the fighter and wizards. The alpha playtest was rather meh, too. Nothing very exiting.

I'll be picking up both PF and DDN. I have my own setting so I don't typically buy setting related material unless it's something I can "plug in" to my own game without issues or it seems really interesting. I don't plan on switching from my 3.x campaign, but it's a possibility. And I enjoy reading RPG material.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:


Given the mythological origins of the word, I'd think it would be a better choice for a tiefling than intersex. Even though it doesn't apply to the closest humans come to the concept.
It also doesn't really make any sense to say that mythology was incorrect about the nature of mythological beings.

*sigh* In the ancient world intersex humans were thought to be hermaphroditic irl. That is incorrect. Hence my reference to mythological assumptions being incorrect. I could have made that clearer. If the reference was to a wholly mythological being then it would not have been incorrect...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Crystal Frasier wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
I have a character i may be playing soon that has the "bishonen" look but is actually a hermaphrodite (as randomly rolled on the tiefling features table in Blood of feinds i think) and im really not sure how the group will feel about him. It is for skull and shackles so im really hoping we do not start off too stripped because i really wanted to wait to explain this one

Oh lord, did we actually print "hermaphrodite" as a possible random feature for tieflings?

"Hermaphrodite" is not a good term to apply to people. Hermaphrodite is for talking about snails and flatworms. For humans (and tieflings), the world you want is "intersex".

That's "word" Crystal in any "world" :) Hermaphrodite may be technically correct for a Tiefling if both sets of sexual organs are functional. In mythology the (incorrect) assumption was both were functional (in terms of reproduction). Intersex humans irl do not have both functional sets. Who knows with a race in a fantasy game with an interplanar human - fiendish heritage. Some animals do (as you have pointed out) and some animals may switch genders during their lives (referred to as serial hermaphroditism iirc), frogs for example. Not an easy topic to deal with in a game (or irl given our society I'd say). Hopefully anyone who does, in game, has a mature group to play with. And, in real life, a supportive one.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Te'Shen wrote:


taldanrebel2187 wrote:

My personal opinion on psionics is that it just doesn't fit into the setting that well in many cases. I would likely ban it in every single scenario. I am 99.9% certain that psionics are banned in Society games. So many players are used to playing them, that I think basically nobody remembers they are 3rd party.

No. I can't forget. It was core in D&D. In Pathfinder, I can't read three different threads without someone mentioning that it's 3rd Party.

Psionics was never "core". First party publisher (TSR, WotC) yes, but not core. It was always optional. From original D&D on it appeared in a supplement, not the "core" books. Now it's 3PP and, still, not core. Doesn't mean it's not "fun" of course...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Friendly NPCs are effectively "GMPCs". They may be regular, recurring or one shot characters. Just don't make them overpowered, don't overshadow the PCs and don't get too emotionally invested in them (as the GM). The PCs have some control over them (they are making the major decisions) but they make a GMs job easier in terms of plot hooks and rounding out the party without forcing a PC to play something they're not too hot on. Played well they become important to the party and help pull the players into the setting.

When most people say "GMPC" they mean an NPC who is not being played well. A character who is always there, dominating the party, competing with other players or generally just being a jerk. As is the GM. So just don't be a jerk and it's not a problem :)

All imho, of course.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Sean, Thank You. All the best to you and Jodi.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
lokiare wrote:


Steve Geddes wrote:

I think one problem with that model would be the supplements. How would you write an adventure (for example) which had a focus on both quick combats against a horde of enemies (a la early editions) and complicated, tactical battles against single opponents?

Publishing supplements for a small segment of your fan base has been shown to be a failing model.

The supplement would be universal. It would say 3 goblin cutters, 2 goblin archers, and a goblin hexer. For 1e style games that would just be 5 goblins with funny names and a goblin leader.

The trick would be to use keywords and then define them differently based on the play style you want.

Using the same terms defined differently based on a "playstyle" would, I think, be confusing. Players going from one style of game / campaign to another would have very different expectations of the same terms. Unless the players are all familiar with however many definitions of the common terms there are and, essentially, are all as well versed as the GM in the rules...

I'd say skip the fancy terms and stick with "3 Goblins with short swords, 2 Goblin archers and one Goblin caster" (Shaman in 1E, etc.). Terminology is a barrier to understanding that RPGs have, inherently, in large quantities without adding yet more. You might have to define what type of casters Goblins have depending on your game, but everybody understands "shortsword" and "archer" regardless of "style".


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Maccabee wrote:

In my beloved Chair Force we like to attCh grandiose titles to the officer side of the house even though it's the same job .

The Airforce has a wiki? My info is from the Airforce, several friends, and some research done years ago. The AFSOC page is:

http://www.afsoc.af.mil/


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Maccabee wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
What do battlefield airmen do? Would you lack base cops entirely? Walk us through what it would really be like as an air force op.

Battlefield Airmen (Pararescuemen, Combat Controllers, TACP's, or Special Operations Weathermen) are the guys conducting patrols, directly engaging the enemy, performing reconnaissance on foot, attached to other branches SOF troops, and they're the only ones with the extensive skill set to do those things. Our cops guard the base, give traffic tickets, and protect the planes. A pilot would never be on the ground leading an "elite team" doing anything.

As far as O'neill, who's rocking pilot wings in the movie, and Cyberwarfare wings in the tv show....yeah no.

Don't forget the Special Tactics Officers who run herd on the rest of the Airforce SOF types. Whatever the insignia issues in SG-1 it makes fairly good sense to have AFSOC run something like the Stargate program - especially back when SG-1 was a current show. Less joint ops in those days, more turf wars :) SG teams were reconnaissance as much as anything. They operated drones and gathered data. They used specialists (archeologists etc.) in their teams. They did drag in the Marines for combat teams. It would be different today I'm sure.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Maccabee wrote:


Hama wrote:

Well, you can't expect movie makers to get everything right. Plus I think that SG teams are recruited from every part of the military, there are airmen, marines, rangers...etc...

Plus, some advisers military lends to a production team tend to screw up.

Majority of the SG teams on screen are Airmen, at least in the main SG show. The stripes and badges are a dead giveaway. I know I saw some USMC/NAVY cammies in Atlantis and the other series, but all I saw was backwards USAF stripes in the original. Doesnt help that it takes place at one of my former duty locations (Cheyenne Mt.), which is 99% Air Force. I know they cant get everything right, and it usually doesnt bug me, but this show is 150% worse than any other I've seen at plausibility (in that regard).

Air force has a special tactics SOF element. Not just aircraft (they have that too) this is ground combat. They get in, do ugly things to people and leave by air generally... or Stargate I guess.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I liked the movie a great deal, but I preferred the series (SG-1). The casting was perfect for the original team (despite my misgivings over "Macgiver") and not bad in it's last couple of years. Atlantis was decent, it took me awhile to decide I liked it but I warmed up to it. Universe was a bit dry at first. Then it started getting good. So, of course, they cancelled it. Sci-Fi, excuse me Sy-Fy made some bad decisions for several years (like trying to turn it into a sports / reality network). They seem to be doing a bit better lately. Now, we need a new Stargate series :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:


Is it Necro Thread Week or something?

And when, on these boards, is it not? :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If the starter set is simpler / more basic there may be less to change later than you would think. Or nothing to change for that matter. The basic / core elements of the game might be pretty straight forward and need little to no adjustment. The more complex "fiddly" bits coming in the full game and the later expansions.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Terquem wrote:


well, some people liked the loose pages, and there is no reason to think it could be improved upon, given that things like what you mention (printing two different monsters on one page, back and front) could be easily avoided

It was improved. They turned out a hardcover book :) Among other things the loose pages were fragile and the binder rings tore out the hole punches. I ended up using sheet protectors. Then there was filing, interleafing and generally fitzing with it... I was incredibly happy with the hardcover as a result.

The one advantage I remember was pulling the pages you needed into a "mini monster manual" for a given game session. Which led to the adventure of finding the missing monster pages...

A PDF where you could print out individual monster pages might be nice. Especially if the monsters were kept on separate pages with no overlap. Sounds like something a 3pp could do. A page could include artwork and extra information. Assuming DDN has an OGL type license of course.

*edit* And I look up and right above my new post someone makes the same point / idea... I should read to the bottom before commenting.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The $10 my brother and I spent on the original woodprint box set we picked up in 1974 seemed like a lot. But we'd tried the game and it was really fun. The $25 we spent on the boxed Empire of the Petal Throne game was pretty stiff in 1975 (iirc). $50 a book isn't that bad, but I make better money these days :) I collect the core PF books and I'll collect the DDN books as well. The DDN playtest looked like a decent game in the making. We'll see how it goes.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Crusader wrote:


It is absolutely one of perception.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Because all FAQs that haven't been marked as cleared (answered in FAQ, answered in errata, question unclear, no response needed) are "pending."

Or, to look at it another way: when we look at the FAQ queue, one of the things we do is to clear out items that we know have already been answered in the FAQ, already answered in errata, or don't need a reply. Everything else is stuff that will be addressed in time.

In all fairness, this basically says, "If you never hear from us, it's because we're not ignoring you." Which you have to admit, is a bit of a mixed message.

Maybe an additional tag...? Instead of "Answered in FAQ" or "No response needed," it could be "Under consideration."

At which point people would be harassing staff for that pending answer... "we want it now" would be the attitude. Others, with a bit more patience would be asking just how much time "under consideration" is. Or do you think the internet is going to be "reasonable" suddenly?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just to be practical, it doesn't really matter if you consider the Barbarian's act neutral, or evil (and I take it that no one has called it "good"). He's probably toast. They killed a Paladin. And guards. But not all of them. That means witnesses. Were there other witnesses as well? Let's see... Paladin... does he have an order? Does he have a deity, complete with Clerics (Divination time) etc.? And the guards have an organization behind them as well. And this guy doesn't sound hard to find. All of which probably equals "dead". Problem solved. One dead cop killer. Everyone can argue the morality of his act later after his head goes up on a pike :)

And as other posters mentioned, it sounds more like a problem with his DM anyway.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:


Detect magic specifically does NOT work on invisible creatures.

Edit: I had this come up before, but I can't seem to track down the rule. I may have imagined it, or it may have been a different system.

IIRC it detects the magical aura of the spell but not the invisible creature. And it would take three rounds to get it down to a specific square. It's been asked / answered here before (I think), a search of the threads / boards should bring it up.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

August 1988... I was about two months shy of 30. And had been playing D&D for 14 years and 1 month. Getting older and better. And crankier :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This won't be out for a year plus, but the kickstarter succeeded (to the tune of about 1.75 million USD) and it sounds incredible. Definitely worth a look... if you like 1st person multi platform medieval RPGs with a significant level of realism :) Check out the trailer.

It's on the Cry Engine and they are sharing tech / work with RSI / Star Citizen (another game I'm waiting on...).

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1294225970/kingdom-come-deliverance


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thank you Sean. I'll miss your input on the game. All the best to you and Jodi. Enjoy the peace and quiet.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:


thejeff wrote:


Kryzbyn wrote:


In the LGBT thread, it's come up quite often that queer is a prefered term.

It's also come up, perhaps less often, that people find it offensive.

Regardless saying something is "for queers" as the equivalent of "bad" is definitely using it in a derogatory manner.
Oh, hadn't seen the deleted post, just reiterating what had been said.

The post Nathanael Love is complaining about is still there I believe. The poster was making fun of a certain argument which involved the use of the term in question (among others). I believe Nathanael understood this (?) but was objecting to the use of a term which could be offensive to some (even if it was not intended to offend the "target" group). The poster of the comment indicated as much and the discussion has centered around various labels and whether they are offensive or the degree to which they are (and to whom they are). The layers of explanation / posts and the necessity of dancing around the terms as well as everyone's attempts to not offend other posters makes that difficult to determine if you weren't following along.

Oddly enough, the sensitivity to others in the ensuing confusion above is encouraging. As for the original point (about the lack of moderation for that post) it would be a difficult decision. If you read it (as moderators apparently did) and understood it the way it was intended you would probably let it stand. Which, unfortunately, might offend people who did not read it that way or who were predisposed to be offended or who were worried that it would offend others.

As for me, occasional decisions aside, I find the moderation here well done. It's light enough to let discussions occur and reasonably deft at the elimination of unnecessary and unpleasant posts. On the whole I think the community here is a good one as well. There are some threads that get "heated" but that's the subject matter more than the posters.

All imho of course.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pan wrote:


Sweet trailer

** spoiler omitted **

Siouxsie. Cities in Dust. Nice choice in music.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:


I find these boards typically to be incredibly rude, hostile, full of people who demean others, littered with offensive slurs (This or that is "for queer" which was allowed to stand even after a moderator looked at the thread).

I've greatly cut back my actual money expenditure on this game since I started coming to the boards; its a pretty hostile environment to be perfectly honest.

Really? Where do you post where people are more polite? Or is this just a problem with boards in general? Curiosity. If anything these boards seem fairly tame to me. I have seen more problems in the last couple of years (as opposed to 5-6 years ago) but still, nothing compared to most.

1 to 50 of 2,488 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.