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

Tacticslion's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. 7,917 posts (9,737 including aliases). 2 reviews. 3 lists. 1 wishlist. 24 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,917 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thymus Vulgaris wrote:
Omg, Ico! I just finished that last week or thereabouts, because I'm super late fashionably late to the party.

SO GOOD!

lucky7 wrote:
Would you rather face off with a Sea Serpent a la Moby Dick, or fight through Dante's version of Hell?

Hm... while it all depends on the level, and how similar, exactly, it is to those works.

Higher similarity -> Divine Comedy (as I'd be basically safe)

High level, mostly PF game -> Moby Dick (as that could be an interesting story-telling experience; figuring how to lure a creature immune to divinations)

QUASI-EDIT, do to NINJA

Aasimar, by far. Otherworldy characteristics, sure, but they don't look like standard presumptions of evil.

/QUASI-EDIT

Would you rather play a game based on the Kung Fu Panda series or the How to Train Your Dragon series (or, as a wild card, Mega Mind)?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

:(


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Glad you do, CJ!

Feel better, Drejk!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The latter!

Would you rather Campaign Cards or no Campaign Cards?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It could also have just been that the GM was so blown away that they couldn't think of a solution at the time. It happens. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The latter. Both would be irritating, but at least there's something I enjoy.

Would you rather play exclusively with books or exclusively with PDFs?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Skeld wrote:
memorax wrote:
Personally I agree that people can change certain behaviors like swearing. But they have to be willing to change. If not good luck. It's way too easy to say "well I did it so can you". Another person might turn around and say "good for you I'm not and if you don't like it your free to leave". The problem to day is that everyone assumes that people will act and behave like themselves. Which is usually not the case.

That's true; you won't change unless you're willing.

Doesn't the attitude of "if you don't like [my behavior] you're free to leave" seem kinda anti-social?

About as anti-social as "If you won't stop your behavior, get out." Maybe even less so.

I think it's more "If you won't stop your behavior, I shall leave (unless I can't)." which, to be frank, is more than fair (for both parties).

The OP's case was a case of being in someone else's home, hence this wasn't an option - instead the invitation was not extended again. Different situations.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Also makes sense!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Imbicatus wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
With a title like that, this should totally be a rapier-build. C'mon, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan. C'moooooooooooooooooooon. ;P
It's got to be a staff. :)

Ah! I was getting the wrong reference*! Objection officially withdrawn!

* And an incorrect quote while I was at it! Memoryyyyyyyyy~! *shakes fist*


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

With a title like that, this should totally be a rapier-build. C'mon, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan. C'moooooooooooooooooooon. ;P


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Also cool, EOD!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:
James Jacobs has advised that the similarities are completely intentional. Searching his thread should give you some answers - I believe he's been asked about this several times.

Excellent!

Slightly more recent post with a tad more explanation! :D


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mikaze wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
I saw this thread title and upon clicking on it was prepared to ask if the OP and drank their milk.....only to find it a thread from 2 years prior.
The birth of a legend.

Will Smith was born in this thread?!

#badmoviepun

Sorry, I couldn't resist!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Weeeeeeeellll...

EDIT: Wrong link, sorry: here we go. Not exactly perfect, but still pretty neat!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Not a zombie/virus infected mouth-breather fan, but Resident Evil, definitely. I'd enjoy destroying that bratty little computer!

Game at home (or equivalent) or at a FLGS?

HOME. (Stay-at-home dad of two kids - one three, and one four months, born 2 months prematurely).

Have PCs that constantly come up with unexpected or strange strategies that are really cool (if having unpredictable results); or have PCs that always "buy-in" to the degree that they want to make a singular, coherent story with you and share your vision (even if they don't know the plot elements before hand)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BretI wrote:
So really the question is if changing the materials only affects limitations associated with the armor, or does it affect other things that have limitations based on armor type?

"... all limitations"?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Table top! By far!

Would you rather play Resident Evil: The Table Top (PF Edition, naturally) or Ico: The Table Top (still using PF rules)?

Note that both will be forced to some element of adaptation from either PF rules or game-presumptions, but the idea is that the PF rules form the basic chassis for the play-experience.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
John Kretzer wrote:
Would you rather play with bunch of teens or a bunch of 50+ year olds?

Really hard question. I'd probably go with the teens, however, in the hopes that I "do it right" and help spark more interest in the hobby over-all.

Would you rather use Lego to create and enact your battle maps, or have to draw-and-erase everything by hand in pencil and pen?
Presuming you use battle maps. I, however, do not tend to do so well at this, either way.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Skeld wrote:
It wasn't hard to make that change. I just had to be cognizant of the words coming out of my mouth. Unlike behaviors that a physiological or addictive component (like smoking or drinking), swearing is one of those behaviors you can change by choosing to change it.

I would entirely agree with this!

I just also want to note that, much like those other habitual behaviors, some have a more difficult time changing them, and experience higher degrees of stress in doing so, than others.

Different folks are different!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
I don't condem those that don't like foul language, I just don't see it as some unbearable burden to ignore it if someone is swearing. Especially if that someone is someone you consider a friend.
Replace "foul language" with "racist language" and look how ridiculous the argument becomes.
Replace "foul language," with "to stab me in the eye with a fork," and look how ridiculous the argument becomes.

Yeah, both of those are pretty ridiculous!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kalshane wrote:
Yeah, I love Ultimate Spider-man, at least up until they changed artists. I dropped it soon after that because I just didn't like the new guy's style. But there's still 110 issues of Bendis/Bagley awesomeness up to that point. (Though the story-telling started to get a little tired toward the end, too, and I do agree with Adjule's comment about change for change's sake. I didn't care for the reveal about Doc Ock and his arms at all.)

This is exactly what I meant: I can't comment on anything later, but the first part was pretty amazingly great (and far, far better than the Ultimate X-Men, which came off as "teens are spiteful and rebellious, the X-Men are teens, so they should be spiteful and rebellious!" which didn't match my teen years at all, so...)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

:D


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
memorax wrote:
I think their needs to be a little give and take on both sides imo. If a person who has a habit of swearing is in the presence of someone who does not approve. They should tone it down. That being said if one also decides to hangout with people who do one also has to either learn to accept a certain level of swearing. Or find another group to hangout socially. I don't see why one side has to give or take. Let me tell you . I rather be with a person who I don't have to walk on eggshells constantly in a social context.

Makes sense to me! :D

me wrote:
Hence, if we want to hang out together, one, the other, or (preferably) both of us should alter the way we comport ourselves.

That's what I mean. If two people hang out together - or really have any sort of relationship at all - one, the other or (preferably) both will have to find some sort of change or balance together. It really doesn't matter what the issue is. Most people tend to hang out with those who have (relatively) small differences - small enough to ignore or be unconscious about. Sometimes this isn't the case and more active compromise is necessary. Sometimes people just don't feel like being social with someone who is on one point or another simply too different. None of these are bad, but all should be known and acknowledged. :D

EDIT:

memorax wrote:
Let's be honest here as if you or anyone else would be hanging out with someone who is racist in the first place. Their a huge difference between a few swear words and making comments about a racial group. I wish posters would stop using extreme examples. I have a friend who swears. Perhaps a bit much he is in no way racist.

Aaaaaaaaaactually, one does not have to be "racist" to use "racist" language. Similarly, most any kind of ethnic or cultural slur. It's why incredibly inappropriate people can, honestly, say, "But I have <X> friends!" (where "<X>" is whatever people group they've casually denigrated by speech in the first place).

It's similar to using the word "gay" to mean "bad".

That's incredibly offensive, and rightly so. (Offensive - sort of - for two reasons, in my case - one it denigrates a people group, and the other it's actively in opposition to the word's actual meaning, which, while much less important, is irritating.)

There are people who are genuine and kind and love people of various ethnicities whose language filters - generally due to age or cultural adaptation - contain little to no boundaries when it comes to certain modes of speech. (I don't just mean old white people talking about other ethnicities, either. The pendulum swings in all directions.)

This is true of all hate speech - some people just fail to grasp the malevolence their words have to others.

We either forgive those people for their good qualities (and attempt to educate them as best as possible, while suffering through their set-in-their-ways habits), or we avoid being with them.

EDITed: to make sense, due to the post I was responding to having additions to it after I'd written my post (but likely before I posted)! :D


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

... no. I definitely did not know that. And... I still have so little context, that I might as well not. I'm reasonably certain you're speaking English...

SPOILER:
Actually, while I do know what a Dog Show is, I don't recall ever specifically hearing about that one so, while I'm presupposing it's of some historical significance, however minor, this is my very, very silly way of saying, "I don't really know anything about Dog Shows", because, alas, I do not. Good for Ms. P's owners, though! Yay! :D


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orthos wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
The game mechanics very often fall apart due to "simple logic", again I would suggest the OP ask on the DSP boards if they want what what the writers intended to be clarified.
I'm guessing you didn't recognize Andreas as one of DSP's writers? ;)

I didn't! :D

(I suck at reading Credits... :/ Sorry!)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Erik Mona wrote:

No. Sales on the Campaign Cards have, unfortunately, been pretty terrible, so we're giving the concept a rest for a while and focusing on other types of card decks that seem to be more appealing.

I'm glad you enjoyed them (doubly so because they were my idea).

I only wish there were more folks like you out there! :)

But... but... I just got Campaign Cards! :'(

Totally understandable! Alas! Also: link is totally to the wrong place, but, hey, I couldn't find a YouTube clip anywhere, so, that's as close as I could come.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DSXMachina wrote:
Well yesterday we had sun & blue skies, interspersed with snow flurries.

This is awesome! Almost as awesome as blue skies interspersed with lots of rain! :D

I... I like the rain. A lot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I strongly recommend reading Ultimate Spiderman, even if only the earlier installments. Those first issues (when I was reading it) were amazing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Nice!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Trimalchio wrote:
I quoted the rules, not much more I can do beyond that tacticslion.

As did I. Funny, that! :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I don't condem those that use foul language, I just don't see it as some unbearable burden to turn it off if it's upsetting someone. Especially if that someone is someone you consider a friend.
Sissyl wrote:
I don't condem those that don't like foul language, I just don't see it as some unbearable burden to ignore it if someone is swearing. Especially if that someone is someone you consider a friend.

While the second is humorously goofy (and gets it's intended point across, despite its shortcomings as a technique in this situation), both of these fall under:

me wrote:
Hence, if we want to hang out together, one, the other, or (preferably) both of us should alter the way we comport ourselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So...

Tacticslion wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Irori is Buddha.
With fists.

:D

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, condescending, or mocking in the slightest. I just think this is really cool.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TarkXT wrote:
GM: "Sure, but as your science officer will tell you the cavern is made out of unstable stewartanium isotope number 43. A mineral that detonates into an atomic explosion when hit with a high energy beam like a phaser."

Player: EVEN BETTER! :D


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Voadam wrote:
I generally see invoking God or Jesus as exclamations as the opposite, religiously based and not attempts at blasphemy. People call out to God or their saviour in extremes out of awe or as a call for help. Even when done in anger the attempt is to invoke the divine to witness a wrong, not to curse the divine and mock the religious.

It can be, but it is often exactly not that.

Especially when you command Him to condemn something to eternal fires (pretty much the worst thing you could desire for anything) because you... stubbed your toe.

This especially flies directly in the face of His request on how to handle His Name and Person. Definitely not polite.

Again, it's not always cut-and-dried, as you point out. And, as I said, despite the fact that I find it pretty terrible, it's not something I hold against any individual. It's still a thing, and it's a culturally accepted (and expected) idea that those who have no idea about, interest in, or reverence for God, His Son Jesus, or anything related to the Jewish or Christian religions to utilize those elements to express their displeasure about what is, in the end, a minor nuisance, or, worse, in order to be "edgy" or "hardcore".

This is not some separated-from-reality presumption on my part. Having lived in a large host of places, around a large host of people (all of whom I try to respect), which have many, many different views from my own. While I dislike aspects of their presented character, I like some of them, regardless; others I was around because I was in college and they were too inebriated to be allowed to drive or even walk far on their own (near, as they were, to passing out) and too foolish to go back to their dorms. Others were in professional workplaces or public meeting locations. Some are as you say (this especially tends to be true among Catholic groups) while a large number of others - in my experience the vast majority of others - have no religious inclination or desire whatsoever. A few, such as a notable character from a different forum that I frequent, actively worships an entity that purports to be the foe of my own God, and uses such language as a casual part of her everyday speech and posting.

Hence, it cannot be all placed under a singular umbrella, but the vast preponderance of my experience pushes the ideas that it is vulgar (in the modern usage, as opposed to the older and original one), needless, and entirely profane; generally a sign of both disrespect and/or immaturity. A great amount of experience has informed this idea. While I accept that there is a difference elsewhere, it is a purposeful cognitive dissonance on my part to look past a trait that has been repeatedly shown to be most often caused by a character flaw.

It does not make a person a bad person.

It is most often (in my experience) associated with unpleasant traits due to a huge array of cultural reasons.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ross Byers wrote:
Irori is Buddha.

With fists.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Trimalchio wrote:

The continued wailing of RAW this or RAW that for a section that repeatedly calls for gm adjudication is rather amusing.

The 75% for each charge and each caster level is certainly one way to play the game but insisting that is raw is laughable.

I find your continued lack of recognition of anyone's opinion other than your own regrettable.

The fact that you are as condescending as you are is... a shame, really. It is, in fact, laughable, but not for the reasons you seem to imagine.

As noted before, I do hope you continue to have good gaming experiences, however, and please feel free to present more convincing arguments on the matter!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Charender wrote:
In the interest of keeping things civil. Yes, I did read the whole thread and no, the link you posted does not back up your claim that different number of charges == different magic item for the purpose of the 75% roll. It only shows that different number of charges == different price. There is still quite a logical hurdle to jump over to get to different price == different item for the 75% roll. Further, it has been pointed out in this thread why the "different price == different item" does not automatically follow as you seem to think it does.

First, the part you quoted for the above was explicitly to Laz, not to you! I thought that would be obvious by placing it directly under a quote by him, instead of your own (to which I had more exacting responses and several variable options listed beyond straight-forwardly "not reading the thread", though that was an option).

Second, the fact that you do not find it convincing - which is fine, and entirely valid for an opinion - is entirely irrelevant to the fact that evidence has, in fact, been presented, and functions without major "logical leaps".

If you are unable to follow it, alas.
If you are unwilling to follow it, fair enough, that's you're choice.

Stating,

your post wrote:
I have yet to see any RAW to back up the idea

... is a falsehood, intentional or not, and should be avoided, because, as the four pages in this thread have shown, it has been addressed.

Again, if you are personally unconvinced by said evidence is irrelevant to the fact that said evidence has been presented.

Thanks! :D


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Charender wrote:
I am sorry, but you are mistaken. I have yet to see any RAW to back up the idea that different number of changes == different item == another 75% chance for the item to be there.

Then you either haven't really read anything - you either skimmed looking to prove your point or ignored the evidence presented.

Charender wrote:
In the absence of any RAW on this point, I don't see how anyone can claim that the RAW is firmly their side. If I choose to only let a player roll once for a wand of X and you choose to let them have one roll for each charge, there is nothing that says either of us is doing it wrong. Beyond that, several people have pointed out how from a RAI perspective your interpretation trivializes the 75% roll to the point of "why even bother?".

There is RAW. You may choose to interpret it differently. That's interpretation, not RAW.

Charender wrote:
That said, I see several people who are jumping on a single poster, and pulling their comments WAY out of context. They were responding specifically to my comment(you know the one right above theirs), which was in the context of whether there is any RAW to support the different number of charges == different item == new chance to roll 75%, and the RAI implications of the different interpretations. Their unforgivable sin was apparently forgetting to quote me.

You definitely missed a number of posts that were removed. They gave a great deal more context than you can currently see.

This post should make that clear.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnd before I can even post, someone who hasn't read the thread:

LazarX wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

New thread.

You can have a 75% chance to find an appropriately-valued magic item, which includes wands at reduced charges, as defined by Charges, Doses, and Multiple Uses:

[

It most certainly does not. Wands can ONLY be created as 50 charge items. Wands of other than 50 charges are custom items and as such that availability is determined solely by the GM. The proprieter may (and mostly iike will) have wands of fewer charges but those would be placed by the GM like any other form of non-random treasure.

Please read the whole thread first. Thanks! :D

1-minute EDIT: it is definitively possible that you've read the thread, but you've bypassed a large number of arguments to post on an earlier assertion. Hence the assumption.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Lion tamer: chair LION

Fixed!

Your first suggestion was wildly more accurate than my "fix", but, you know... ;P

Sorry, but I can't envision myself swinging a lion by the tail.

Catch a tiger lion by the tail?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
<snip> I find it shocking that in this thread just how appalling lacking are many folks are in basic civility, and how some seem to have been either totally raised without manners, or simply glory in that lack of them. <snip>

In this, I entirely tend to agree with you. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
I have no idea what that is.
manspreading

Thanks!

I now know what that is! (Also, yes: SUPER hard! :D)

Now, given that...

LazarX wrote:
Is this the gamer "manspreading" thread?

... what does this mean? I'm sorry. I'm sleep-deprived, and not quite getting the angle you're applying this to. I'd like to understand, however!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
Some have given up on me because of that - I consider that a good measurement of their interest in spending time with me.

I'd say it is, and I'd say it's not a bad thing - either for you or for them.

What's more, while profanity is the issue at-hand, I'd be willing to go so far as to note the same is true for any number of things that people feel the need to use to "be themselves" - this is the fundamental part of what a "personality clash" is all about.

To my mind and experience, much like Orthos', I've consistently been introduced to profanity by way of people who have no self-control, verbally. This makes it look like exactly that thing: a lack of self-control or maturity. It doesn't mean it is that thing, just that, due to my formative experiences, it looks like it. This, obviously, clashes with others'. Hence, if we want to hang out together, one, the other, or (preferably) both of us should alter the way we comport ourselves.

This is basic human decency.

If neither of us can or will change, then we simply shouldn't hang out together. There is nothing wrong with that, sad as it may be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have no idea what that is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Make all of your magic items magical tattoos with superior invisible ink.

No longer able to be stolen!

(No, really, talking about it first; then leaving; barring that, most of the other options already presented by others are ideal.)

One final note: if the Rogue continually sells people the wrong magical items (or cursed items that look like correct items) that he steals off of you, he will quickly find not only his buyers dry up (as he's selling them cursed items that don't do what they claim), but also make some very serious enemies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Me: "The evil goddess gives you a tiny shard of her divinity as a reward!"

PC: "Sweet!"

Me: "It's a TRAP! MUWAHAHAHAH! And she can take it back at any time!"

PC: "That's okay! I use the little piece to steal the rest of it and and destroy her!"

Me: "I, uh, I don't think you can-"

PC: "No, I totally succeed!" *natural 20, plus earlier rules shenanigans mixed with a rather epic struggle*

Me: "Huh. Well, congratulations. You've just become goddess of revenge and undeath. Also immortal and prone to coming back from the dead."

PC: >:D

This is a gross compression/hand-waive of the actual events, and all dialogue is changed to protect the innocent fact that I can't remember it, but it's the gist that really counts. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Digitalelf wrote:
memorax wrote:
I will never ever respect low self imposed tolerance levels. When one is certain age it comes across as being social awkward.
I don't go out of my way to avoid someone that lets slip the occasional profane word or two, but if I call that person friend, and that person claims to call me friend as well, yet that person just refuses to even try and make a sincere attempt to avoid using profanity around me, I have to wonder... As I do my best to not do something that I know offends or annoys the people I call friends, no matter how small or insignificant I personally see the action.

^ This thing. Again. :D

EDIT 1&2: Well, ^ that just looks kind of stupid, now that I'm at the top of a page... HAH! Now no one will ever know that I just wrote words and a carrot, that looked dumb hanging out by itself! ... wai-!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
I am from Brooklyn, hence cursing is quite normal to me, though I rarely do so myself. What sounds strange are made up words to avoid cursing, and people who lose their s~&+ at someone else saying g@~#@#mit. The strangest of all are people who complain about someone cursing when that person has just suffered considerable physical injury.

For me, it's a combination of being polite and sensitive to others (for offensive words in general), and of religious blasphemy and vanity (in the case of a great many swear words in general).

It's not so much a case of someone expressing their extreme duress and pain (which is entirely understandable) but expressing it through using what amounts to "You and your religious faith - and especially the single most important Person - are the method through which I express everything I hate." which, you know, is really unpleasant.

I don't hold it against people, because it's impossible to avoid, culturally. I do find an extreme displeasure at the cultural context that makes it acceptable and even expected in many cases.

Swear words are, in the end, just words. But their use, meaning, and implications, just like any words, are important and must be cautiously applied to given situations.

Using someone's name or title as a method of expressing anger or displeasure is unpleasant. Hence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Indeed. My "swear" repertoire officially consists of "crap" (which I don't consider bad, but my wife's family does), and, beyond that, I've managed to utter curse words a grand total of around... eleven times? Maybe twelve? Before college, I could count them on less than one hand (and did, though I don't recall if it was three or four now). Of the (comparative) large number used since? All of them were academic discussions (about half a dozen instances) or slips of the tongue (a couple) due to local company.

Making a guttural noise of pain or frustration is a shockingly effective communication tool when it's the communication tool you use and stick with.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I like it!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I got to get this off my chest! :D

1 to 50 of 7,917 << 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.