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. 2,649 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,649 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zmar wrote:


They may show which way to go. With KS you propose the project not to the marketing etc., but rather directly to the customer.

Anyway I doubt that PF core was hindered in sales THAT significantly, because a lot of people who bought 5E core books have already their PF core on the shelves from the past. If there was a PF2 core release then it would have been different, but things that might have been touched are more likely the adventures and settings, that might just get purchased as an alternative to the Tiamat compaign for 5E, or not. That's the field where direct confrontation could be seen IMO.

I subscribe to the Pathfinder RPG line with occasional purchases of other Paizo products and a number on non-Paizo products. I bought all three 5E core books and the DMs screen (the books from Amazon, the screen at a B&N brick and mortar location). I don't buy Paizo adventures and won't buy WotCs either. Or 3PP adventures. I run my own game / adventures and I'm thinking of running both 3.x and 5E in my own setting. We'll see, there are things I like about both systems.

As for Kickstarter, I've been in on several (Traveller 5 and Bethorm). Neither of these came at the expense of another purchase or replaced another game. I've always liked Traveller and I'd like to run it again some day. And I'm a sucker for everything Tekumel related. From my point of view KS doesn't matter to my RPG habit, it just provides nice little surprises occasionally. I probably have a larger budget for RPGs than a lot of younger gamers though. It would be nice if I had the time I used to devote to them. *sigh* Oh, waiting on Star Citizen, but that's another addiction entirely :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:


Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:


If you don't want me using or altering it, don't make backgrounds.
...
The character is yours and yours alone (given that it fits the game), the rest of the world is mine.

If the character is mine alone, and the background is part of that character, why are you allowed to alter it against my will?

Probably, as he said, to ensure the PC fits the setting. I have random tables which will generate typical backgrounds for characters of different classes (originally done for NPCs, then expanded for PC use). I let PCs roll or choose as they wish. The player has chosen his class first (and rolled his characteristics etc.). Nationality, social class, family members (parents, siblings, birth order, legitimacy) are rolled / chosen. If they want something not on the tables they need to discuss it with me to ensure it fits the world. I leave a lot of details up to the PCs. For example the nature of your relationship with your family. Backstories should be fairly concise (you can always add to it / expand it later if needed). Say you choose or roll the fact that your a b@stard. You define your relationship with your parents (like, dislike, even know them, etc.), siblings etc. Or, again, you can roll reactions for them and build off what the dice reveal. Generally the adventurers start in an area in which they are not native. If family enters it is generally at the players choice ("I'm going home, you guys coming with me?"). Their NPC friends are far more likely to end up as adventure hooks. You're stuck with family, but you choose your friends :D


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Personally I favor Kaspersky for my ASUS tablet, but I use it (the Windows version) for my laptop as well. It's about $15 a year iirc. I think Amazon suggests if you stay in their walled garden for aps you don't need it (I looked because I thought my mom might be interested, but she likes her dead tree reading format). Personally I'd disagree with that but I'm not a fan of the walled garden approach. And it only takes one outside purchase to drag malware in out of the wild even if their security is as good as they suggest...

*edit* Iirc, the Amazon AP store has AV solutions in it specifically designed to work with the modified Android used by the Fire.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Glad to hear you got it working. I've poked around a couple of times since I last posted and the final version was all I could find.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:


We call it "Character Sheet Solitaire."

Perfect name for it :) Never done it as a player in D&D, plenty of it as a DM of course. It takes me back to 1977 when Traveller came out. It was fun to generate characters and see how they turned out. But hey, your character could die during character generation in Traveller making it something of a mini game in it's own right. Especially after High Guard and Mercenary came out...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That would be the 1.42.1 version of Kaedryn's PrC hakpak. The final version iirc. I was hoping I could find you an older version to try (or that I still had one of the older ones), but I don't and everywhere seems to have the same version (the final one) mostly linking to the same site you downloaded from. You may have gotten a corrupted file, I'd try downloading it again or checking to see if your NWN 2 is the latest version. I don't have NWN 2 on my new PC (although I'm thinking I should install it now...). If I find a different version out there I'll post here or PM you. Good luck.

I had trouble with the site today as well btw...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Where did you download from and what version did you try?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MannyGoblin wrote:


There are old games like Hexen and Heretic that are fantasy based FPS with a little rpg thrown in.

Hexen II is my favorite of that bunch. And yes, it's a FPS with limited RPG mechanics (experience points, level progression, improved powers). The hands in front of you while casting in Battle Mage is dead on for the look in Hexen II playing the Necromancer. The nice things about Hexen II included four classes (five with the Portals of Pravus expansion), partially destructible environments, and multiplayer including a Siege game type using the Hexenworld client. The classes were the Paladin, Crusader, Assassin and Necromancer. Think Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard and you won't be too far off. The added class in the expansion was the Demoness. The code was released by Raven software a few years ago (It's Quake engined). The game is available on Steam and there was a small dedicated mod community years ago (not sure about any now and haven't checked on the Steam community for it). There were additional classes, maps, game types etc. developed for it. Fun game.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thegreenteagamer wrote:


R_Chance wrote:


thegreenteagamer wrote:


Damnit, I want realism in my game where I can mumble jibberish, move my hands thus-ly, and throw bat poop at people until it turns into a ball of flame!

Let's see... why not have no rules? Or none that reflect reality even vaguely? This makes as much sense as the magic eliminates any grounding in reality argument.

Magic has always been allowed to trump reality. Much of the rest of the rules establish a reality that is somewhat... realistic. It's the grounding for verisimilitude in the game. Magic is allowed to be magical because we have no reality to base it on. The rest is based, to a greater or lesser extent, on reality. It also saves you having to figure out how everything works. It works like real life.

The question is how much realism you need vs. magic stuff. That varies with different people. So why don't you play nicely with each other? Neither will get the last word or be "right". And since you've all done this dance before you should know it :)

I'm sorry, let me rephrase that for you, then.

Damnit, I want realism in my game where I can...

*snip*

thegreenteagamer wrote:


Yeah, you're right. It's the magic that suspends disbelief in this game.

Well, Magnus Janus saved me most of a reply so I won't include or go over the point by point :) The part of my post you ignored was "The rest is based, to a greater or lesser extent, on reality." Yes, it is an RPG based on heroic action. Heroes may surpass normal people. It still has a connection to reality, especially at lower levels. The part of my post you ignored was the last paragraph about playing nicely with people who prefer a slightly different game to you. That was the main thrust of the whole post. The whole post was aimed at a dismissive attitude to other play styles. Maybe it's just an internet disconnect...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rathendar wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Arpeggio of Blue Steel is a fast and fun action-drama! More action than drama, which is just fine by me. :) It follows the adventures of Chihuya Gunzou, his crew, and various cyborg ship-avatars who help and hinder him as he struggles to give humanity a fighting chance to take back the seas from the mysterious Fleet of Fog, which had crushed all human naval power 17 years prior.

What I found unusual about this show is that all but one of the developed characters are cyborgs, and the one human character who does has some depth (Captain Gunzou) doesn't change during the first season at all. The show's drama is mostly about the cyborg ship-avatars 'evolving' through making contact with Gunzou and interacting with his other cyborg allies. All of the cyborgs apparently have 'emotional subroutines,' or some such, which can make them very very human.

Anyhow, lots of action as I already mentioned! A medium amount of fanservice and a couple of highly suggestive comments about 'naval warfare,' but no watermelon boobs!

In minor point, they are more like AI's then cyborgs.(which implies they were once human) Mental Models is the term used in series.

The manga is much more interesting depth wise in addition to the vessel combats being more cat-and-mouse tactical(reminiscent of similar like the hunt for red october etc), but i happily enjoyed both. The crux of the AI development is that the more they try to understand humanity, the more their programming starts to diverge and personalize their traits. It's like each one develops a quirk that slants it's behavior going forwards.

Two thumbs up from me.

Thanks to both of you for Arpeggio of Blue Steel. I'm seven episodes in and enjoying it. The mental models reminds me of an old 1950ish sci-fi novel, Across Time by David Grinell. The ship in it, Master Cruiser 12-12-12, had a human appearing control panel / avatar. The "Ever Perfect Lieutenant" or EPL through which a 20th century officer exercised control of mankinds final and ultimate physical warship... I don't think the EPL ever wore underwear like the Fleet of Fogs MMs though. Well, probably not. It was a PG rated novel :)


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


Damnit, I want realism in my game where I can mumble jibberish, move my hands thus-ly, and throw bat poop at people until it turns into a ball of flame!

Let's see... why not have no rules? Or none that reflect reality even vaguely? This makes as much sense as the magic eliminates any grounding in reality argument.

Magic has always been allowed to trump reality. Much of the rest of the rules establish a reality that is somewhat... realistic. It's the grounding for verisimilitude in the game. Magic is allowed to be magical because we have no reality to base it on. The rest is based, to a greater or lesser extent, on reality. It also saves you having to figure out how everything works. It works like real life.

The question is how much realism you need vs. magic stuff. That varies with different people. So why don't you play nicely with each other? Neither will get the last word or be "right". And since you've all done this dance before you should know it :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Imbicatus wrote:
Dafydd wrote:


I banned guns in my home game because of the silliness with them.

Silliness: You can matrix dodge out of the path of bullets but being in a steel can is useless.

Yep, this is silly

One penetrated in the picture, one didn't.

They used to "proof" breastplates by firing an arquebus at them at close range in the late 1500s - 1600s. If it didn't penetrate they were "proof". As in bullet proof. Or ball proof at least :) They came with the dent to prove it. There was an arms / armor race over this and breastplates became increasingly heavy as time went on. So, yeah, all that metal is "useless". Well not really, of course the breastplate only covers about half the target. Still, an important half. This is not to say that it wouldn't knock you @ss over tea kettle if it hit you of course. And you might take a ball in another area, but the armor is still effective at providing some level of protection. I think the devs just wanted it kept as simple as possible and went with touch armor class. Imo, of course...

Anyway, it really depends on the time period as to how useful armor was vs. it's cost and weight and increasingly powerful firearms.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you want fairly familiar game mechanics, there is a D20 version of BESM which had (? has) it's own SRD as well... anyway the D20 revised BESM is available on Drivethrough RPG (as is the 3rd edition of the Tri-stat BESM).


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:


BTW that action point system is something I wrote on my own, and I have no idea if what they're doing for Unchained is anything like it (I didn't work on Unchained at all).

Thanks. Good to know. And I like your system :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Liz Courts wrote:


Link fixed.

Thanks Liz!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Class redesigns are all well and good, but what is known about this new action system? That is far and away the most exciting thing on the list.

I just scanned the thread and couldn't find much beyond a reference to "totally messing with the action economy".

So, is there anyone who's been following this closely that can drop some wisdom from a podcast or something? Or is everyone just blinded by the sexiness of class updates?

SKR posted an action point system they tried out in a Pathfinder session in information on his 5 Moons RPG. Maybe it's based on something similar. This is a link to the Blog post outlining the PF play test system he tried out in 2013. No clue if it's remotely similar btw, but it can't hurt to see what he was trying out...

Link to Five Moons RPG website

Hmm... I messed up the link, but the address is above. And I had to hunt through his blog posts on RPGs to find it. *sigh*


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A square grid is a convenience we use mostly in buildings and "dungeon" settings. Rulers and tapes rule in outdoor encounters. The old wargame standby of burst radius, cones etc. work well. A ruler and commonsense can be used just as well. As has been mentioned above, it can take a bit more time, but I like using terrain where possible. Unfortunately the bulk of terrain makes transportation problematic and adds further to the extra time needed in setup and break down after battle.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:


Nope...I wouldn't think that at all, in fact, the problem in my lowly opinion was that most were NOT familiar with Chainmail (and in fact I haven't played it to this day, so no idea how those rules really worked. They are referenced in the booklets I have of the original D&D, but how it worked is yet a mystery to me in regards to the chainmail rules). That's why the D20 alternate gained favor and popularity in my opinion, and why almost immediately many of the ideas that went into GreyHawk were abounding.

Of course that's my opinion...I could always be wrong, but with how it became more solidified over time with the alternate system becoming the primary system...I'd say chainmail was actually not familiar to most who picked up the D&D rules.

I think chainmail gained more popularity from the D&D rules and more tried to get it...but originally I think D&D in many ways was more of a promotion of the Chainmail rules and pushing those than anything those picking up the booklets were familiar with.

After D&D came out, I think many more people became familiar with chainmail, but not enough to over ride the alternate system becoming the more popular one to game with.

We were all miniature wargamers in the groups I knew back in the day. Chainmail was our "gateway drug" :) TSR even advertised D&D as a "fantasy miniature wargame" as I recall. And Chainmail was their big seller. It took TSR quite a while to sell through their first printing of D&D. Up until D&D all TSR made was miniature wargame rules. Before TSR Chainmail was published by Guidon. D&D appealed to other people too of course. And subsequest printings sold rapidly. I'd guess local experiences with this will be varied and anecdotal.

*edit* I just grabbed a whitebox copy off my shelf and it's subtitled as "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures". Our old woodgrain box label said the same thing iirc. It's squirreled away at my brothers.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Logan1138 wrote:


strayshift wrote:


All over version 5 is D&D Dumbed Down (AD&D,D,D.) and whilst fine for a one off game or players who just want to play a 'simple system' it will eventually have to become more sophisticated to appeal to a lot of older players in the long run (although I suspect it is aiming for a 'new crowd' which is fine).

Hmmm...I'm an "older player" (age 42, began playing D&D in 1981) and I prefer the simplicity of 5E to 3.X/PF. 5E is closer to B/X and 1E in terms of options and complexity which is what I prefer. It still has a LOT of "new" stuff I don't like (spammable cantrips and non-magical healing are two examples) but I still would actually be willing to play it. I will not play 3.X/PF/4E.

I'd be willing to bet that there is a large group of players like myself (late 30's and older) who prefer 5E's simpler game to the complex "building game" of 3.X/PF/4E.

Another older player here. I started playing D&D in 1974. I'm 56 :) 5E is looking pretty good. For me, it's about the world and the adventure, not the perfect character build.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bluenose wrote:


R_Chance wrote:


Digitalelf wrote:


Original D&D also listed every weapon, regardless of type, as only doing 1d6 damage.

Most weapons. If I recall, there were several with a + or - ... dagger -1, two handed sword +2... but that might be from EPT or house rules. My OD&D is in my bedroom bookshelf and the wife is asleep. She gets grumpy when I wake her up at midnight :) In any event the Greyhawk supplement dropped in 1975 which used the more typical die ranges for weapons. And weapons had a damage range for man-sized (and smaller) and large. A longsword was 1-8 / 1-12 (vs. large), a two handed sword was 1-10 / 3-18... similar, if not as complex / complete as the range of weapons / damages in 1E.

According to one of the players, Gygax wasn't a fan of having different weapons doing different damage and had to be persuaded to have it as an option. There were also arguments that weapon damage should be based on the HD of the user, too. In retrospect he believes Gygax was probably right. When his book comes out it sounds like it'll be a very interesting read. Old Geezer on the RPG.net forums, Mike Morcom irl, is the person in question.

In the original D&D combat involved using the Chainmail skirmish rules - an entirely different rule book from D&D. All weapons in that did the same damage (a "hit", translated to D&D as 1d6 damage). The hit probability was based on the weapon vs. armor type (it used 2d6 and a weapon vs. armor matrix). Daggers, for example, were less likely to hit armored characters. This meant that effectively they did less damage than say, a sword. Characters received more attacks as they leveled up. A "Hero" / 4th level Fighting Man, for example, received 4 attacks. The "optional" system introduced in D&D used a d20 and hit probability was based on character level, not weapon type. Characters received one attack (except vs. 0 level and low hit dice monster like Goblins) and, I think, the need for variable weapon damage was born. It made sense for a character to do more damage with his single attack when using a sword vs. a dagger. It also kept the relative advantage of swords over daggers consistent between the early Chainmail based system and the newer d20 optional system. In the beginning I think most D&D players were familiar with Chainmail and had it at hand. As more and more people played D&D who didn't have access to Chainmail the "optional" system came to dominate. That's imo, of course. No way to know for sure. Despite being miniature wargamers we adopted the optional system pretty quickly. Hit probability based on level seemed appropriate for a game in which characters "leveled up" and grew in power.

Well, now I need to go dig up original game booklets, supplements and, of course, Chainmail. Nostalgia ftw!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Digitalelf wrote:


Original D&D also listed every weapon, regardless of type, as only doing 1d6 damage.

Most weapons. If I recall, there were several with a + or - ... dagger -1, two handed sword +2... but that might be from EPT or house rules. My OD&D is in my bedroom bookshelf and the wife is asleep. She gets grumpy when I wake her up at midnight :) In any event the Greyhawk supplement dropped in 1975 which used the more typical die ranges for weapons. And weapons had a damage range for man-sized (and smaller) and large. A longsword was 1-8 / 1-12 (vs. large), a two handed sword was 1-10 / 3-18... similar, if not as complex / complete as the range of weapons / damages in 1E.


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


Freehold DM wrote:


Rynjin wrote:


As far as SJWs are concerned, Asian people are just white people from a different part of the world.

Makes it easier to explain why they're totally not an inconsistency in their whole oppression narrative.

there are plenty of white people who prop up Asians as a model minority and put them into the spotlight as such, especially in tv. Green Hornet was possibly the best example.

Asians are not a minority, but multiple minorities. Asia does stretch from the Urals, Dardanelles, and Suez Canal in the West all the way to the Pacific Ocean and Bering Straight in the East. There are a lot of ethnicities and races in-between.

And you can say the same thing about Europeans / whites, Africans / blacks, etc. We all tend to be lumped into some larger grouping...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've always called Barbarians "Berserkers" in my game, which encompasses the whole rage bit. The Norse term bare sarc, iirc "without a mail shirt", for frothing mad warriors who fought without armor is where the term berserker comes from (as Secret Wizard mentioned above). A barbarian is, to me, anybody from a non literate tribal society, no matter the character class. And yeah, as Bandw2 says, the Greek term is barbaros, again iirc, it means "babbler" or "babbling idiot", which describes anybody who doesn't speak Greek :) And don't get the Greeks started on those country hicks from Macedonia with their terrible accents, next best thing to barbarians... and in another nod to Secret Wizard, outlander is a good translation of the intent of the Greek term. Just remember to heap the phrase with scorn for those poor wretches who don't speak the proper language of civilized men, Babbling semi-human savages :D

*edit* As an aside, in my game "barbarian" as a term in Common is derived from the Elvish term for "Humans" :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:


R_Chance wrote:


To summarize, this argument could go on forever. Or at least over a thousand posts...

And it has. Many times over.

I know. I usually just ignore them or read / skim them. They tend to be repetitive. Every once in a while I fail my Will save and post in one... the result of which is usually... hey! That's it. Alignment threads are an evil act. I have penance to do :)


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

DM control is generally only a problem if your DM is an jerk. If he is, find another DM, because no matter what you can craft / acquire, the DM can always outgun you. If he's a jerk. If he's not, no problem. My 2 cp.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Marroar Gellantara wrote:


R_Chance wrote:


Planar Binding does not have a tag iirc.

The spell: "When you use a calling spell to call an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type."

You use your force of personality to force outsiders to do your biding. Which includes making angels murders orphan. Which if spells are moral actions, would be a good action.

I forgot the end of the spell description. So, right on the tag (and that makes sense), wrong on your ability to force Angels to kill orphans though. Imo. I remembered there being some line in the description that would put a crimp in things like that. So I cracked the giant book and... as the spell states "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to." Asking a supernatural creature of good to commit an evil atrocity probably falls into the "unreasonable commands" category. Ymmv of course, as in all things related to alignment it's pretty much GM territory. Then, of course, the argument over impossible or unreasonable starts :)

Now, if you could impose your will to that extent, the evil of your action (commanding an Angel to slaughter the innocent) would greatly outweigh the good of summoning one to this plane. So, evil is evil. Again, as always in alignment it's imo / ymmv. If you, or rather your GM, considered the actions (the spell and your command to the Angel) of equal weight then you could argue for it cancelling out and being "neutral".

Personally, the point of having a GM is to deal with odd issues like this. How they do this does, I'm positive, vary. Well, dealing with issues like this and avoiding huge encyclopedic collections of rules which could break book shelves and overload hard drives, which has always, to me, been one obvious reason for the vague nature of alignment rules :)

To summarize, this argument could go on forever. Or at least over a thousand posts...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Marroar Gellantara wrote:


R_Chance wrote:

Some of the tags on spells are alignment related. Not all of them...

How so?

Because by that logic enslaving angels via planar binding is a [good] action.

As someone pointed out, you could be killing orphans with these angels, but casting the spell is a good act and thus has consequences. Eventually you may turn good because enslaving angles is a good action.

That person looked at the inverse of doing good with evil spells, but logically the inverse must hold.

I'm not sure what logic you're imputing to me. Personally I don't find good / evil tags to be the same as a "fire" tag. One deals with ethics / morality and the other with energy type. Ymmv. Planar Binding does not have a tag iirc. Planar Binding traps a creature, it doesn't compel them to obey you. You have to "persuade" (in the spell description - Charisma checks w. modifiers) / bargain or otherwise get them to obey you. Good luck, no pun intended, in getting Angels to slaughter orphans.

Somewhere above I gave my take on alignment change and minor aligned actions. That they could push you to the edge but it would take a more significant act to push you over the edge. A minor aligned act pushes a character, slightly, one way or the other. People might careen back and forth within their chosen alignment. Unless they are riding the edge and perform a significant act. Then it's over the edge. That takes some work, or some pretty spectacular acts of good / evil.

I've always assumed good / evil and law / chaos to be relatively equal. A creatures culture / environment pushes them towards one or the other if they are not aligned by nature...

As in all things alignment related, ymmv.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scythia wrote:


R_Chance wrote:


Dramatically speaking, the "letters" don't matter.

Broadly speaking, I would agree.

In my experience, they (nor the system they represent) don't contribute to or improve storytelling.

I don't think they inhibit storytelling either. They're just a tool to let the GM and player know about where they are in the story.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scythia wrote:


Jaçinto wrote:


Scythia wrote:


Jaçinto wrote:


Probably wrong here but this feels like it is coming to a roleplay vs rollplay issue. One side uses alignment for story and character development and world immersment, and the other just sees it as a resource to be monitored through a profit/loss system.

Some of us who oppose the idea of aligned spells shifting alignment oppose it because we see it as getting in the way of storytelling and development. In fact some who oppose alignment in general see it as an impediment to telling stories about characters that feel real or compelling.

Real people deal with moral consequences for their actions. Compelling stories can come from someone realizing what they did was horribly evil and feel the need to repent. It shows character development.

This part is exactly why I was saying that alignment can get in the way of good storytelling and character development. No complex or compelling character can have their morality summed up into two letters. Saying "I started out as Lawful Good, but made some hard choices and ended up Neutral" isn't compelling or a good example of development. Dealing with consequences should be based on your actions, not an arbitrary system of absolute moral and ethical categorization. If you murder someone, you face the consequences such as investigation of wrongdoing, potential for family or lover vengeance, facing imprisonment, or loss of property, and potential divine judgement. That a letter might change from G to N, or possibly E depending on severity of the murder, is not necessary to make an interesting story out of it, and can instead distract from focus on the compelling parts of such a story.

In short, someone seeking redemption isn't more compelling because they want to change their letter back to G. They're compelling because of the journey they undergo.

Changes in alignment are simply labeling the stages in that journey. Doesn't change it. Tracking / using alignment is a tool to reflect the characters journey. Things get quantified in games that don't in books or real life. That's to give the GM and players a handle on what is going on and the potential consequences. Properly applied, changing alignment reflects the characters actions over time. Dramatically speaking, the "letters" don't matter.


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


Digitalelf wrote:


Marroar Gellantara wrote:

But yeah, RAW. Spells have no rule making them the action of their type. Fireball isn't a fire action. Casting acid splash doesn't turn me into an ooze.

But those spells do not have [fire] or [ooze] tags associated with them, but Infernal Healing does have a tag associated with it.

Fireball does have the [fire] tag...

So how do you justify fireball not being a fire action when infernal healing is an evil action?

Because "Fire" is not an alignment? Some of the tags on spells are alignment related. Not all of them...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ninja'd by TriOmegaZero and Deadmanwalking... like getting run over by two cars going opposite directions :)

At least this thread has pulled back from the rather rude posts it had suffered. I was wondering whether there was a discussion still in here that didn't involve sarcasm, aspersions against someone's intelligence or honesty. Glad to see things being debated politely...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The rules on alignment are general. Words like "oppression" etc. describing actions broadly and being open to interpretation. Given the inability to list every possible action (without an encyclopedic collection of possibilities and a new definition of "rules lawyer") this makes sense. The casting of a spell with the "evil" descriptor is specific, and is called out as an evil action. Last time I checked specific trumps general. That goes for "good" too. Casting a spell with the evil descriptor is "evil". The good descriptor is "good". Etc.

If your good character has to perform an evil act for the "greater good", oh well. It's a "necessary evil", as the saying has it, so just do it and take the consequences. Outside of Paladins most characters can commit the occasional "opposite aligned act" without catastrophic consequences, if there are any at all. If, on the other hand you do it frequently... the road to H3ll is paved with good intentions. Or heaven, depending :) Or maybe you just sucked it down and took one for the team. Depending on your perspective.

Alignment exists in D&D / PF. It is a system with absolutes of good and evil. In our world of cultural relativism it often doesn't seem to make sense. It doesn't have to make sense to us. Just to the characters in that world. Role playing. pretending to be someone different, somewhere different. It does make sense in a fantasy world replete with demons and angels. And, in the end, it's up to the GM (or the players in a shared world set up) to decide anyway. So, why drag it onto a forum when the only answer really needed is derived from your GM / group. Unless this is PF society...

Oh, and in this different world there is nothing "wrong" with being evil. In our world evil = "wrong". There, evil thinks it is "right" (as does good) and the opposite is wrong. See how easy that is :D

My 2 cents tossed into the endless sea of alignment arguments...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ed Reppert wrote:


R_Chance wrote:


That's why neither Pathfinder Unchained or WotC's PHB 2 was a "2.0" version of the game. Both were additive to an existing body of rules...

"Were"? "Unchained" isn't due out until next April! :-)

True, but that's how PF: Unchained has been described. Alternative takes on classes seems to dominate the discussion of it (along with the revised Action system). I'd be happy with "alternative" stealth rules, Feats / Feat effects, Spell descriptions and having a system of unarmed combat integrated directly into regular combat (rather than as a separate subsystem). But, we'll just have to wait and see. In any event "new takes" and "alternatives" seems to cover everything in the current description.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:


Well, WotC's PHB2 didn't have all the rules either.

That's why neither Pathfinder Unchained or WotC's PHB 2 was a "2.0" version of the game. Both were additive to an existing body of rules...

Of course you might consider it a CRB 2 rather like the PHB 2. I just think some people are expecting too much from 1 regular hardback book.

Looking back at ElementalXX post I see he meant it might be a CRB 2. Maybe, but I'm not sure I'd see it the same way. PF Unchained stirkes me more like UA. Alternative / replacement rules rather than just more classes / rules. We'll see I guess. And it may very well do both...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ElementalXX wrote:


Depending on how this goes this might as well be "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Core Rule Book 2"

It won't cover all the rules, so nnly if you already have the original CRB and a lot of other books :)


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

It was 1974. We were all new to the game, but then so was pretty much everybody else who didn't live in Lake Geneva :) We had been playing miniatures for years, including Chainmail and using the fantasy supplement in Chainmail. It was a natural transition.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chris Mortika wrote:


And for that matter, why do both SHIELD and HYDRA assume Attillan still exists, after millennia?

Laying aside the other questions, this one is simple. You look because the other guy is looking. If it doesn't exist, oh well. You have the opportunity to mess with the enemy. If it does exist and the other guy finds it you are... well it's an impolite, if accurate, term I shouldn't post on a message board :)


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


bugleyman wrote:


lorenlord wrote:


But like many of you, I wish and hope that they get a bigger digital presence out there.

Unless and until they do, 5E is dead to me.

New drinking game - every time Bugleyman posts about this, take a shot!

:)

What distillery do you have stock in? :D


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


Tarantula wrote:


gamer-printer wrote:


Chengar Qordath wrote:


Truth. It's like people think this is supposed to be a fun game instead of "Realistic Fantasy Simulator 2015."

Why is it that "Realistic Fantasy Simulator 2015" = this would not be fun to play. I don't get this notion at all. Perhaps trying to make PF equivalent to that isn't the preferred game, but why would it be "unfun" if it were? I don't see standard PF as the only fun way to play it.

Realistic simulator wouldn't be fun because of the amount of houserules that would have to be applied to get rules for everything. Basically, pathfinder is not a "realistic" game, and so making it one changes the character of the game to a point of not being recognizable as pathfinder any more.

Yeah, I find the sheer amount of rules bloat involved in making the game "realistic" rapidly becomes problematic. Not to mention that in my (anecdotal and limited) experience, most people trying to make the game realistic do it through fairly arbitrary and slapdash rules that often don't actually make the game any more realistic anyway.

Rules bloat? Looking at a couple of shelves of 3.x and PF stuff... I wouldn't say anything added to that is "bloat". Rules "different" maybe... and that's OK. Given the variety of d20 based games variations that have branched off of the tree (including PF) I'm not sure why anyone worries about bloat. Game systems get stretched in different directions to accommodate different ideas and themes. If they get stretched too far from the base, "ding" new game. Not a problem really.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
gamer-printer wrote:


While I never said I'd want to play a realistic fantasy simulator game, per se - I'm thinking that what I'd need in such a game versus what you'd expect are probably two different things. And to state that to make Pathfinder into such a game, would undoubtably require so many changes that it wouldn't really be Pathfinder anymore, but as I stated further up thread - who cares, except the people playing that game? Why is it wrong to play a heavily houseruled game for any purpose?

I'm not a simulationist gamer anyway, but if someone was and created playable add-ons to change PF to their liking, wouldn't it be OK at least to that person's game? I see no reason to ever keep a Pathfinder game purely Pathfinder.

I'd say you hit it on the head.

gamer-printer wrote:


I've been looking at both the Tech rules from Paizo, and EN Publishing Santiago setting to create a home game set in a hard sci-fi setting. I see that I'd have to create rules for space travel and ship to ship combat in 3D space since there is nothing I can convert within PF rules to do that. If the game works well, I might publish those add-on rules and perhaps create a full module set in such.

Similarly I've also been considering building a Deadlands-ish, magical Old West setting centering around the gunslinger and gun wielding archetypes for other classes (including a Shootist magus archetype, I've already created).

Both those ideas are quite different from standard Pathfinder, and would really not require too many add-on rules to accomplish, though indeed some would be necessary. I see nothing wrong with playing a Pathfinder game that strays far from the typical. And I don't see a necessity to learn and play a different ruleset to accomplish either. Pathfinder "adjusted" would work just fine in my thinking.

Interesting. I'm not interested in the Gunslinger for my regular game, but I thought it might be fun for a "gunpowder and magic" 17th century type game. Or a pirate themed 18th century type game. My "go to" game for science fiction is either Traveller or Stars Without Number, but a science fiction version of PF / 3.x could be fun.

gamer-printer wrote:


Also, this thread is getting me thinking of a possible low magic PF game where there are no PC casters at all, not even half-casters, but allowing only martials using a stash of "magic items or an artifact" found that was created before the "fall of magic" to serve as the only magic...

And somebody will probably tell you you're "wrong" and expound on why it can't / shouldn't be done...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Shadowborn wrote:


I'm hoping there's a "plan within a plan" here, because otherwise it was just bad TV. Handcuffing him in the front? A guy who's trained to kill with his bare hands? That's usually combined with waist chains and leg restraints exactly so things like this don't happen.

Normally a prisoner is cuffed behind the back (unless their is a medical reason or additional restraints applied or they need to use their hands -- to sign documents for example). I suspect they wanted you (the viewer) to see what happened and having it happen behind the back would have made that difficult. In terms of doing what he did once he slipped the cuffs it wouldn't have made any difference (and for that matter you can do a lot with hands cuffed to the front anyway). So, sloppy restraint procedure or TV necessity. Your pick.


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


Chris Mortika wrote:


Lord Fyre, I presume that ** spoiler omitted **

It will be interesting to see how the bad guys align against Our Team.

Not only that, but you could clearly see that the handcuffs were put on very loosely, not tightened at all. Clearly the whole thing was planned to go down like that... but by whom? Coulson?

Ward cleared his mind and focused before slipping out of the cuffs. They were not especially loose. Cuffs are not supposed to cut off circulation, or be perfectly snug around a wrist. They are not form fitting (ties are better in some ways) nor are they torture devices intended to inflict injury or pain. They are supposed to be tight enough to prevent (normal) prisoners from slipping them off. They made the fatal error of assuming Ward was normal. Ward dislocated his thumbs to slip the cuffs. Muscular dislocation (and relocation) is difficult and painful. And a fairly esoteric skill. Ninja used it to escape bonds, slip through narrow spaces etc. by dislocating various joints and "popping" them back in afterwards. That appeared to be what Ward did.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:


I'm ordering a new joystick off Amazon right now.

Damn it... I'm in the Christmas "blackout" phase of the year. I'll have to wait until then to get a new joystick. Or my wife and kids will kill me. Great news though :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thanks. Time to order my Print/PDF bundle...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Te'Shen wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
boring7 wrote:
band of murderhobos
This term should be shot dead, and it especially doesnt apply to the Nine Walkers.

As an aside...

Were the Nazgul killers? Yes.
Did they have a home after transitioning to lichdom/the living death where they served Sauron? Not really.

Murderous Hobos TOTALLY APPLIES to the Nazgul, the Ringwraiths, the Black Riders, or simply the Nine.

(Isn't the Nine also one of the Pantheons in The Elderscrolls games?)

If you were referencing the Nine Walkers that was Frodo and company. Not so murder-hoboish all in all :) And the Nazgul did indeed have "homes", or at least the Witch King did... Angmar and later Minas Morgul.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Atarlost wrote:


Quark Blast wrote:


Atarlost wrote:


<snip>Beren and Luthien had possibly just one magic item between them and Luthien was so epically powerful she could put an entire fortress to sleep. That's thousands of hit dice over a range of probably over a mile most of them through solid rock.<snip>

Precisely my point!

In D&D terms Luthien could sing Morgoth <cough>Orcus<cough> to sleep in his own fortress and both Beren and Luthien could just set Balrogs <cough>Balors<cough> on ignore as they gallivant around the continent.

Very high magic indeed.

And yet it's still low magic by PF standards. There are far fewer magic items; no other planes (and therefore no outsiders except the Ainur) except something that can, if you're extremely generous, call the shadow plane; an entire very large school of magic completely missing apart from the healing subschool; and no divine magic.

Magic in Middle Earth is rare but powerful. When people say "low" or "high" magic I think they often aren't using the same definition of the terms. I'd be more apt to look at the scarcity of magic and the effectiveness of it. And how "overt" or subtle it is.

In ME there are fewer magic items, especially in the Third Age. More in the First Age when the armor and weapons of ordinary Dwarves and Elves might be "magic" in the eyes of men. As for outsiders, the Valar have visited ME (and nearly destroyed it with their presence during the war against Morgoth), there are 5 Maiar (? spelling) hanging out pretending to be "wizards" in the Third Age, Balrogs, and Sauron and Morgoth are all outsiders. Even the Noldorin Elves are former residents of heaven and carry the Light of the West within them. Heaven and Middle Earth used to be on the same plane, but heaven (the Uttermost West) was removed from the rest of the world, arguably becoming another plane. And you mentioned the shadow realm in which wraiths exist. and as for divine magic, pretty much anything the "Wizards" do, they are after all essentially angels, as well as anyone revealing the Light of the West (heaven) to discomfort the enemy and his creations.

I'd say magic in Middle Earth was rare (extremely rare in the Third Age), subtle and powerful (more in a strategic sense than in the normal D&D / PF tactical sense). It's a very different take on magic.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sharoth wrote:


Borderlands the Pre-Sequel comes out tomorrow. There goes a few hundred hours of my life. ~sighs~

Not for me... I have a birthday coming up soon *sigh*. The wife has stopped my self purchasing pending the b-day.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Keep posting :) It's interesting to see your ideas and I like a lot of the basic concepts in your "FAQ" / op above.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Laurefindel wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:
That was the case with Firefly. The Train Job was a good episode but a poor pilot IMO.
'The Train Job' wasn't Firefly's pilot. It's the second episode. I agree that it would be a bad pilot. The real, feature length pilot is called 'Serenity' (like the movie) and sets up the characters nicely.

My point exactly; the actual pilot, serenity was aired after The Train Job which effectively acted as the "revised" pilot. Something about the network people thinking serenity was too slow paced or something, and so The Train Job was commissioned instead.

The episodes of Firefly were played out of order by Fox. Whedon moved Buffy off Fox (which was moving it around to support other shows) and bad things happened to Firefly. A lot of people suspected malicious intent. Myself, I don't ascribe malicious intent to what can be more simply explained by stupidity. But that's just me...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
dien wrote:


Our temperatures aren't even blazingly hot right now! :P

I live in Bakersfield. Hot is relative and the 90s (97 today) we have right now is not what I'd call "hot". it's supposed to dip down into the high 80s / low 90s and head back into the 90s next weekend... pretty much the same weather as Fresno :)

1 to 50 of 2,649 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.