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. 4,888 posts (4,941 including aliases). 2 reviews. 3 lists. 1 wishlist. 14 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,888 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Male Agathion (Leonal) Gestalt Monk-Paladin (with bardic performance!)

Al, please be a little more respectful: she battles depression, and it can be difficult for her. Thanks!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Huzzah! I thought I was alone for a bit. Though, if you'd held off posting until the beginning of the next page, I'd have gone ahead and "skipped" dice rolls for some time, accelerating the Somnolent Gods' loss and everyone else's power-gain.

Actually, Drejk, do we want to do that? Roll a lot, then blow everything on a megastravaganza before wrapping up this world?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

C'mon, man! I did this explicitly for that purpose and everything! :)

Ah, well. I thought I was the only one on these worlds for a little bit.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

.
.
drop

.
.

Also, now rolling the theorem of divine stability!

Theorem of Divine Stability
Sunday/Nichiyobi (Sunday, April 13): 2d8 + 4 ⇒ (5, 2) + 4 = 11

Moonday/Getsuyobi (Monday, April 14): 2d8 + 4 ⇒ (4, 4) + 4 = 12

Fireday/Kaiyobi (Tuesday, April 15): 2d8 + 4 ⇒ (6, 1) + 4 = 11
<also called Toilday>
Waterday/Suiyobi (Wednesday, April 16): 2d8 + 4 ⇒ (4, 2) + 4 = 10
<also called Wealday>
Woodday/Mokuyobi (Thursday, April 17): 2d8 + 4 ⇒ (7, 3) + 4 = 14
<also called Oathday>
Goldday/Kin'yobi (Friday, April 18): 2d8 + 4 ⇒ (1, 6) + 4 = 11
<also called Fireday; outsiders sometimes confuse this with the other Fireday, above>
Earthday/Doyobi (Saturday, April 19): 2d8 + 4 ⇒ (1, 5) + 4 = 10
<also called Starday>

Hordshyrd (being the current god of cataclysm) gets only half the listed points if he claims any. (That will shift at the end of this age to someone else.)
A reminder of what this is:
1) If, at any point in the rest of the week, anyone who has missed days pops in, they can claim the points generated from these dice rolls.

2) Similarly, in the future, anyone can claim these dice rolls instead of making some of their own.

3) If a particular poster fails to claim any of these dice rolls, before the beginning of the next week's "rolls", that poster generally loses the rolls (though a small window of grace is granted to people who miss Fireday and/or Starday, naturally, as otherwise those rolls may well be useless).

4) The purpose of this is to ensure that people no longer miss rolls, unless they miss a large span of time.


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

Stop the argument. Please.

In-comics, it was generally accepted that they are magical, divine, and all that, as well as extra-terrestrial. There are gods and the divine. They're just not exactly the typical Western version of divine.

More recently, the concept of "super-science" has been gaining traction. This is, to a limited extent, how they explained things in the movies (though they clouded the concept with non-scientifically-possible stuff).

Okay, so there we go. /sniping?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Not all people lived 900+ years - most did so, but a few stand-out as less; Methusela is notable for being the longest recorded at almost 1,000 (969). After the flood, though, the lifespans shortened dramatically and noticeably.

thejeff wrote:

This is one of those funny bits of the Bible that never made sense to me.

You can interpret that text as "Hey, guys, come see Pops naked!", but that's not in the text. My first impression of the text was more like "Ham looks in the tent, see Noah, warns his brothers who are right outside: 'Dad's passed out naked'", which lets them behave more appropriately. And that's no less in the text.

It gets interpreted the first way because Ham has to have done something horribly wrong to get cursed like that. Otherwise it wouldn't have been fair or just.
It's not the only place in the Bible where you have to read into the text to justify the good guys actions.

Though actually I suspect this one originally comes from some kind of taboo against seeing the father naked. It doesn't matter why. Even if it was accidental and you did it as respectfully as possible, you still broke the taboo. You're screwed.

Eh... it's possible. The Bible often makes absolutely no claims about the morality of those involved. I, too, have oft wondered about the nature of many of the elder folks written about, and how we've come to the generally accepted conclusions of their morality.

One major difference is that Noah - at least before the flood - is noted as being a righteous man (i.e. not prone to violence, with the strong implication of cruelty). In many other instances, that's not the case, though. It's just, "Hey, they do this thing." and you go, "... uh, wow, that seems terrible." and the Bible makes no comment on it whatsoever other than, "This happened."

To me, in most such cases, I generally take it as, "No one is perfect - even the heroes are flawed, imperfect people who sin, make mistakes, and do bad things. All have fallen." and it's generally self-evident that this is so.

Occasionally, the Scripture will come in and explain, "No, this was totally justified." or, "No, this was totally whack." and explain why. But especially when the people of God come into conflict, I've noticed a tendency to just explain things as they happen with no justification. Very fascinating, and removing my own desires for people "like me" (i.e. going outside of my own cultural mindset) can lead to a greater understanding of some of the things written later, as well.

In any event, it's true that the actual text doesn't declare one way or the other. At the moment, I can't recall if it's ever revisited by later writers with the explanation given by Seb, or if that's just a broadly accepted interpretation. But maybe someone who does remember will speak up.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

^Seb is correct.

LazarX wrote:
There were considerable liberties taken with the story, because there really ISN'T much to Noah's story. Sodom and Gomorrah according to Biblical history weren't built until AFTER Noah's death. The central figure in Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't Noah, but Lot, Abraham's relation if I remember correctly.

This is fairly accurate. In Noah's case, there wasn't much to the story before the flood other than, "All of humanity sucks except Noah. Because he's not absolutely horrid, unlike everyone else, God decided to allow him and his family to live when he wipes out the rest of the world."

The story of Noah itself is here (chapters 5-9), though chapter five is mostly just "Adam's lineage to Noah" and can be safely ignored by those uninterested in reading without losing too much. Chapter 10 deals with descendants of Noah's sons, and thus wasn't written here.

The Bible according to me:
The Bible according to me wrote:

Noah be old.

Sons of God (often thought be either angelic creatures or the descnedents of Shem, Adam's third son, depending on who you ask) married whoever (or whatever) they felt like. God gets ticked off with humanity (possibly related to the above, possibly not). It seems that this gave rise to the Nephilim (often thought to be giants), but it's possible that this is all slightly unrelated, though it seems to be part of the same thing.

After this, God saw that there was lots of evil everywhere, and (emotionally) regretted making humanity. They were that bad. But Noah was actually pretty cool, and was the only guy not a complete reprobate. Everyone else was super-violent and depraved.

God warned that he was going to destroy everything, but instructed Noah how to build and ark (which he does) and to take his wife, sons, and sons' wives onto it (to rebuild humanity later), and how to load it; once it's all loaded up, God closes the door. 40 days and nights of awful flooding kill everything, and after about 150 days on water, the ark finally lands (the waters had been steadily receding for days, due to wind and sinking into the earth, and other things). After 40 days of sitting there, Noah let a dove out - it came back. After seven more days, he let another out, and it came back with a branch. After seven more days, he sent out another dove, but it didn't come back.

After that, he eventually removed the covering of the ark, then later got the go-ahead to leave. Everyone happily left. Noah makes a sacrifice. God notes that he won't kill everything like that again, makes a promise not to destroy the whole world by flooding it again, and proves it with a rainbow. People are allowed to eat meat, killing people is noted as being a really bad thing - like, you murder a human, you are ended. No question. (This is likely a response to the tremendous violence noted earlier.)

Noah grew a vineyard. He made wine, got drunk, and (inside his own tent) got naked (with the implication that he's doing dumb, drunken things). Ham told his brothers who took pains to cover their father without embarrassing him. Due to what his sons had done, he cursed Ham, and blessed Shem and Japeth. Then he lived a while and died.

Noah's sons basically repopulated the world.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
pH unbalanced wrote:

Reign of Winter: Tolc

"The ground trembles where Arqueros treads and legend tells that not even Baphomet’s charge could move the mighty empyreal lord."
Otherwise known as the entire world in this AP.

I'm pretty sure you meant not that, but I don't have access to the quote in question. Otherwise, awesome post!

Major_Blackhart wrote:

One of my favorites is Smiad, the dragon slayer.

He just seems built for warriors, so it bugs me a bit that he's lawful good. A guy like that seems like he should be neutral or chaotic good. But that's neither here nor there.

Paladins, Clerics, Waricles, and the like should definitely love him. I also see Vikings, Barbarians, and Fighters paying homage to him.

I just wish there was more about him, especially with his blessings.

I'm really not sure what you mean by this. Do warriors need to be chaotic good or true neutral? (Or, if that's what you meant, "neutral good or chaotic good" - the sentence structure could indicate either, so I'm covering both bases. :D)

I'm mostly just not sure of how why he needs to not be lawful good, there. As with most Empyreal Lords, I entirely agree that there needs to be more about him. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

.
.
drop

.
.

ME: 5d6 ⇒ (5, 2, 3, 5, 5) = 20
Stock: 318
Total: 318+20 = 338

Somnolent Gods' loss (Threshold: 619)
Troas: 381 - 3d6 ⇒ 381 - (6, 4, 5) = 366
yellowdingo: 329 - 3d6 ⇒ 329 - (1, 2, 2) = 324
ulgulanoth: 338 - 3d6 ⇒ 338 - (1, 5, 6) = 326


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

.
.
... lowering...

.
.

To Grand Zanlifae: 1d6 ⇒ 3
3d6 + 1210 ⇒ (1, 2, 3) + 1210 = 1216
Stock: 20,660,659
Total: 20,660,659 + 1,216 = 20,661,875

Somnolent Gods' loss (Threshold: 901)
yellowdingo: 598 - 4d6 ⇒ 598 - (3, 1, 4, 1) = 589
lucky7: 578 - 4d6 ⇒ 578 - (4, 6, 6, 2) = 560
Turambur: 609 - 4d6 ⇒ 609 - (2, 5, 3, 1) = 598
ulgulanoth: 727 - 4d6 ⇒ 727 - (6, 6, 4, 5) = 706


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Glad you like it! I've always loved the beguilers... and never had the chance to actually play them in real games. :/

(No one wants to play a game with me having mind-control...)
EDIT: I still play characters with mind-control... >:)

I also wanted to say, your formatting work is mind-blowingly well done. Absolutely fantastic. I really like what I've seen of your stuff so far. It looks an awful lot like I've always thought Beguilers should look. I'm one of those that mourns the skill-loss, but I'm not going to fight it, as it makes sense*, and adding. I did wanted to mention, that there is no way that Beguilers are better skill monkeys than standard bards, for the simple reason that versatile performance exists - with that one ability, a bard effectively gains two additional skills, or rather, they gain one more skill per skill-point spent; now, granted, they can only gain so many different skills**, and they gain them in lumps, and there is overlap on many of the different perform types, but they still can get up to effectively eight additional skills known (or, if you don't count their perform skill, up to four additional skills), if they're careful with their performance-type selection***. As the beguilers have nothing like that, they're not going to compete - I really doubt a beguiler is going to suddenly sprout a +16 increase to their intelligence (+18, really for perform, or, if you want to get really technical and include the four additional bard skills, +24) over a given bard. :)

THAT SAID, I'm not arguing for beguilers to gain more skill points (outside of the archetype; a great choice!), but rather just to explain that idea.

* For one, there are fewer skills now. For two, it differentiates a beguiler from a bard a bit more.

** Bluff, Disguise, Intimidate, Acrobatics, Fly, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and Handle Animal, to be precise.

*** Specifically, if they choose Act (Bluff, Disguise), Dance (Acrobatics, Fly), Percussion (Handle Animal, Intimidate), and Oratory (Diplomacy, Sense Motive) they cover all of their possible skill sets, require absolutely nothing in terms of equipment ("percussion" can be done with rocks, sticks, hands, or anything else), and it's basically pure win. They do have to choose, however, at 2nd, 6th, and 10th; but by 14th, they've got all they need to: the 18th one is just kind of "meh", since they have all of their skills already.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

To me, from what I've played of the numbered non-MMO Final Fantasy Series (of which I've played 1-8 and 10), FF6 was and remains the best of them.

My all-time favorites from Square are (in no particular order) FF6, Chrono Trigger, FFT (I actually like the original better than the War of Lions remake*), and Vagrant Story. I enjoyed FF7, and FF4, FF5, and FF8 were all really good*... right up until the end (at which point you kind of went, "Uh... what? Riiiiiiiiiight. Okay... going for the 'from nowhere' vibe... for some reason. I see."), while FF1 was... extremely basic, and not terribly gripping**. FF3 was just... well... it was... I mean... you know, it happened, and that's okay***.

For the other FFs, I'm missing a lot. I've played FFX-2 (great gameplay, really annoying characterization), and (obviously) FFT, but I've missed most of the other non-core series of games.

I really like what I've played of Last Story****, though being a stay-at-home nets me a surprisingly little amount of time to play.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand now I've gone on a Final Fantasy tangent. Liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiz! Look what you made me dooooooooooo!

... also, do you happen to know how much the iOS version is, and how it plays? 'Cause that's... interesting.

Asterisk city!:
* Yes, most people think I'm insane. But that's par for the course, really. FF8 was actually quite fun, though it needed an altered casting mechanic. War of the Lions was great, but I missed the in-game graphics: not because they were better, but because with the animated cut scenes, there was a jarring difference between the visual styles; also staring down at that screen for those long periods of time started giving me a neck ache. :/ Also, also, because Gameshark.^

** I mean this in both gameplay and story-crafting; it's not a bad game, but it's not really up to any of the other standards, which makes, considering it was the first.

*** It was a good experiment that didn't work like they wanted it to. I still think it has great potential, though the execution could use some work.

**** Though, bizarrely enough, the men's clothing looks much better on the women, while the women's clothing looks much better on the men. I mean, really. Why would you make their clothes completely change every facet of style, substance, and essence like that? In any event, it's relevant because several of the FF designers moved on over to making that game...

^ Yes, it was after I'd beaten it several times already first. Sheesh.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ertw wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

If I may suggest a slight alteration, due to the existence of a current (if 3rd Party) similar spell and the modify memory spell itself:

Tyrone's Mind Eraser:

Tyrone's Mind Eraser
School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level beguiler 9
Targets one living creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 feet apart

This spell functions like mass modify memory, except as noted above and as follows. All targets of the spell who fail their Will saves become fascinated by the beguiler while she forms their new memories. She only requires 1 minute of concentration after the spell is cast to modify up to 10 minutes of the targets' memories, and can concentrate for up to 1 minute/2 caster levels (to a maximum of 10 minutes). Once the new memories are formed the targets' fascination is broken and the spell ends.

The reasons for these changes are:
1) It feels more like a ninth level spell
2) Being restricted to Beguiler's only means it's likely to be a bit more powerful - it's their own special "thing" that's just for them, after a fashion
3) Much like the original, it does several things other than increase the amount of targets that can be hit; however, I don't think that this is a breaking-level power. The fascination effect that was already there was a nice touch, true, but it didn't seem like a "seal the deal" so to speak and, by allowing for an increased concentration-time, you can imitate effects more along the lines of, say, the MIB.
4) The existence of a mass modify memory spell, even if third party, made it feel like the ante should be upped a bit.
5) (Unrelated): I do think that beguilers should get modify memory (and the mass version, if you're okay with allowing other third-party material).

As always, feel free to take or ignore whatever you like. :D

As far as the feat goes, I could see it as being a good idea, though not necessarily replacing Tyrone's Mind Eraser (either the original or my suggested tweaked one above).

Simply have the feat note that any spell that is a single-target spell with a range other than touch or personal has the target entry change to, "one target per caster level, so long as no two of the targets are more than 30 ft. apart." and requires a +4 on the level increase. This allows research of specific spells that go along similar lines, but be a bit easier to deal with (for various reasons) while also allowing a flexibility currently lacking.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So there are never more than 72 eidolons at one time?
EDIT: "is" to "are"


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So, hey, on the other thread...

Tels wrote:

On the subject of Proficiency, funny thing, did you know that feats like 'Simple Weapon Proficiency', 'Martial Weapon Proficicency', and 'Exotic Weapon Proficiency', don't actually grant proficiency with the weapon?

Feats wrote:

SWP: Benefit: You make attack rolls with simple weapons without penalty.

Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.

MWP: Benefit: You make attack rolls with the selected weapon normally (without the non-proficient penalty).

Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.

EWP: Benefit: You make attack rolls with the weapon normally.

Normal: A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.

Nowhere in the feats does it actually say you actually become proficient with the weapon, you simply don't take the penalty. So in the context of Pathfinder, I would have to say that not taking the penalty on the attack roll is the same as being proficient with the weapon.
Tacticslion wrote:

... okay, that's awesome. Well played, Tels. Well played.

EDIT: Linkage!
Simple
Martial
Exotic

Yeah, that pretty much seals it. There's non-standard English ways of explaining the RAW and noting that the feats don't grant proficiency, but then you're being pedantic for... no real purpose. PFS would almost have to accept the ruling that not taking the penalties is the same as being proficient.

That pretty much means that the only way to argue against rock proficiency is the fact that the feats aren't named "proficiency" which is a really poor argument to make, considering some feats are named in ways that seem contrary to the purpose, or have no bearing on mechanics.

Just as an example, Burn! Burn! Burn! doesn't actually cause something to "burn"*, but rather to be burned (a little - 1d4 fire) and to get a bonus to reflex saves to avoid being burned. That's... an odd feature for a feat titled "Burn! Burn! Burn!".

Ultimately, isn't it what we're always told: go with the rules text rather than titles? In this case, there's no mechanical way to differentiate between the different feats.

* I.e. the verb-command form of "to burn" that we normally associate with someone yelling "Burn!" at something*, in which the implied sentence is "You, burn!" for getting across the idea, "I want you to burn!", either because there is a desire for fire or (more normally) a hatred of the thing in particular. I mean, I suppose, sure, you could argue that the designers meant that the little goblin is just jumping up and down yelling about the noun, "burn" as in "this is a burn!" but that's a pretty silly thing to argue. Of course, goblins are kind of silly, so... I could see it. None of that invalidates the point, though, that it would be a very-non-standard form of English to arrive at the conclusion that the Proficiency feats don't grant proficiency... or that they only grant proficiency due to their nomenclature instead of their actual rules text.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Our eidolons so far:

1) a disgraced Pasha shaitan who, in granting a wish to a cruel drow mistress, twisted it, forcibly destroying her, and forever binding himself to whomever his next would-be-master would be, by transforming them into his drow mistress (though leaving their mind and levels intact); now it acts as a lawful neutral slave to a lawful neutral former-human-now-drow young woman who had wished for long life and great power...

2) the left-over remnants of the shattered spirit of a cornugon (horned devil) murdered as part of a failed Chelaxian experiment to control demons; the husk was taken by a human slave at the orders of his master... and accidentally bonded with it; now used as a CG liberator of the oppressed with little to no trace

And that's pretty much it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

... okay, that's awesome. Well played, Tels. Well played.

EDIT: Linkage!
Simple
Martial
Exotic

Yeah, that pretty much seals it. There's non-standard English ways of explaining the RAW and noting that the feats don't grant proficiency, but then you're being pedantic for... no real purpose. PFS would almost have to accept the ruling that not taking the penalties is the same as being proficient.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

To me, the best way to handle any sort of live-action magical fantasy series is to actually dedicate to it, in the form of short-films.

Similar, in many regards, to the BBC Sherlock series.

In other words, you've got to have a pre-approved budget, and access to a large suite of costumes, make up, and similar.

It would probably have relatively "short" seasons - again, like Sherlock, perhaps three (or-maybe-four) episodes per Season.

One of the things that I wouldn't mind, and, in fact, would encourage, is the costume and prop department actually re-used old things, even things from other series, presuming those old things were in good enough condition to re-use in the first place (though they very well might not be the case in many instances).

Ultimately, it's very unlikely to come to fruition in the States right now.

There just simply isn't the perceived need or desire - between the financial investment, the distinctly (perceived) less-than-zeitgeist fan market, and the difficulties in pulling all of that off, especially when compared to (relatively) in-expensive and popular modern-setting designs, it seems very unlikely within this decade, at least not more than, say, Game of Thrones or the effectively-ascended-fan-projects like Journey Quest*.

Though I do have to check out Once Upon a Time in Wonderland (as well as the rest of Once Upon a Time!).

* Journey Quest is a professional production, and an excellently done one, but that doesn't make it not an effectively-ascended-fan-project. Being an independent studio is awesome, but it also comes with some drawbacks, such as, unfortunately, lacking a consistent budget (though it does have a budget), and the release schedule is difficult to make work in a timely manner because of it. I think they do a great job, and I wish to be clear: I entirely support Z.O.E. and Dead Gentlemen Productions, and desire that they continue doing what they're doing as long as possible!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
strayshift wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
I'm barely resisting the urge to have my players run into Armstrong, a dwarven Oracle / Warpriest devoted to Rocky (patron of rocks, boxing, and training montages). His rock-throwing technique was likely passed down his family line for generations.

Or perhaps this god...

Linked for the convenience


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Dot. Neat.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Imbicatus wrote:
Green Smashomancer wrote:
So, what would one enchant a rock with? Returning is the obvious choice, next maybe, keen? agile? (would it work with weapon finesse? my first thought is no, but how big is the rock in question?) Flaming Burst?
How does one make a masterwork rock?

Masterwork Transformation.

Profession (rock-banger)*, yields "rock" as a tool.

Rough and Ready trait. This grants rock proficiency.
EDIT 3: dang, it! Not taking penalties is not the same as proficiency. That'll teach me to read instead of only remember. Alright, continuing to think about this...
EDIT 4: Okay, as noted in the other thread, the ranger who selects natural weapon combat style could get the weapon focus feat sans prerequisites. Hm. That nets us the weapon focus (and a level earlier, too!), but drops two feats; fighter Weapon Training doesn't apply in any event. Anyway, hm...

Sacrifice Strong Arm, Supple Wrist because, while nice, that extra +10 ft is going to prevent you from full-attacking.
EDIT 3:This advice still stands...

Does that solve any questions, hesitations, or problems we might otherwise have?

* Rock-banger: "Look, I don't know, man, but I just keep banging these rocks together as hard and loudly as I can - the more people nearby the better -, and after, like, seven days or so, about eight hours a day, a bunch of people just get together and tell me to, "Stop, because we're done'. Then they throw money at me, to make me quit! That sounds like a profession to me."

R-B's buddy: "No, it's not, it's called being annoying."

R-B: "... that sounds like a profession to me.

R-B's Buddy: "Look, professions aren't 'stop, because we're done', they're 'stop because you're done.' See?"

R-B: "Than what about middle management?"

R-B's buddy, a middle manager: "... okay, we're done here."

R-B: "I don't think we've solved the underlying issues inherent in the soul-crushing social dynamic of middle manage-"

R-B's former buddy: "Look, if I give you money, will you just shut up and go away?"

R-B: "See? It's totally a valid profession!"

EDIT 1 and 2 and 5: to clarify something super-important.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

.
.
... lowering...

.
.

To 1d2 ⇒ 1 Grand Zanlifae: 1d6 ⇒ 3
3d6 + 1210 ⇒ (4, 4, 5) + 1210 = 1223
Stock: 20,659,436
Total: 20,659,436 + 1,223 = 20,660,659

Somnolent Gods' loss (Threshold: 901)
yellowdingo: 614 - 4d6 ⇒ 614 - (6, 2, 3, 5) = 598
lucky7: 593 - 4d6 ⇒ 593 - (6, 5, 2, 2) = 578
Turambur: 621 - 4d6 ⇒ 621 - (1, 3, 6, 2) = 609
ulgulanoth: 740 - 4d6 ⇒ 740 - (4, 5, 3, 1) = 727


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

.
.
drop

.
.

ME: 5d6 ⇒ (6, 4, 2, 6, 3) = 21
Stock: 297
Total: 297+21 = 318

Somnolent Gods' loss (Threshold: 619)
Troas: 389 - 3d6 ⇒ 389 - (3, 4, 1) = 381
yellowdingo: 336 - 3d6 ⇒ 336 - (3, 3, 1) = 329
ulgulanoth: 348 - 3d6 ⇒ 348 - (2, 3, 5) = 338


Male Agathion (Leonal) Gestalt Monk-Paladin (with bardic performance!)

I'm sorry you're feeling sad, UR! But I'm glad you're talking to us!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
"Listen, I watched four episodes of 'Lassie' before I figured out why the little hairy kid never spoke. I mean, he rolled over, sure, he did that fine, but I don't think he deserved a series for that."

"We'll always have Paris."

"Paris? PARIS? BYE, BYE."

Explorers!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sindalla wrote:
Lindsey Stirling - Crystalize

Stirling! Stirling! Stirling! :D


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

.
.
... lowering...

.
.

To 1d2 ⇒ 1 Grand Zanlifae: 1d6 ⇒ 3
3d6 + 1210 ⇒ (3, 1, 3) + 1210 = 1217
Stock: 20,658,219
Total: 20,658,219 + 1,217 = 20,659,436

Somnolent Gods' loss (Threshold: 901)
yellowdingo: 622 - 4d6 ⇒ 622 - (3, 2, 2, 1) = 614
lucky7: 608 - 4d6 ⇒ 608 - (1, 5, 3, 6) = 593
Turambur: 634 - 4d6 ⇒ 634 - (5, 3, 4, 1) = 621
ulgulanoth: 755 - 4d6 ⇒ 755 - (5, 5, 2, 3) = 740


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

.
.
drop

.
.

ME: 5d6 ⇒ (1, 1, 5, 3, 1) = 11
Stock: 286
Total: 286+11 = 297

Somnolent Gods' loss (Threshold: 619)
Troas: 400 - 3d6 ⇒ 400 - (4, 3, 4) = 389
yellowdingo: 346 - 3d6 ⇒ 346 - (6, 3, 1) = 336
ulgulanoth: 363 - 3d6 ⇒ 363 - (6, 6, 3) = 348


Male Agathion (Leonal) Gestalt Monk-Paladin (with bardic performance!)

^ What those two said. I'm okay with this. Just exhibiting patience is key. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Thanks! :D


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ack! I realized I didn't link anything with The 10th Kingdom before! Oops! Now that that's fixed, it's also worth noting that The 10th Kingdom does do comedy - a lot. It's actually quite slapstick at times. But the plot is good, the drama is sincere (even when it's silly) and the characterization and acting is usually really good (despite any comedic moments going on). Just... don't read the plot summary before you see the show.

Heck, IMBD and the official trailer (which is... actually not a very good preview).

Also, I left out talking about the old Merlin film, for some reason - I vaguely recall seeing it as a mini-series, though I might be mis-remembering. I... don't know about the new series. Looks interesting.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

1) Rorschach, Watchmen
2) Tony Stark, Iron Man 2
3) Wolverine and Cyclops, X-Men
4) I dunno?
5) Already done by Readerbreeder (Robocop in Robocop)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Greylurker wrote:
I'm a firm believer that humans can be nastier than any Demon given the right conditions.

I disagree with this - I'd suggest the capacity is equal, but only in terms of relative immediacy.

The idea that (a) human(s) - with their finite lifespan, and tendency toward lower mental ability scores - could consistently out-do (an) immortal creature(s) literally made of evil with higher ability scores (on average) is one of hubris at its finest.

So could a given human out-evil a given demon? Yes.
Could a given group of humans out-evil a given group of demons? Yes.

Can humanity, on the whole, out-evil demons? No. ... at least not in Pathfinder.

Demons (in PF cosmology, at least) are made from the distilled essence of evil human (and other mortal) souls. So it would be like claiming that pig iron is better for weapons than Damascus steel. It's possible that they're both just as destructive, in different circumstances, but on the whole, Damascus steel wins out every time.

If, on the other hand, you're talking more "real-world"-style theology... you might actually have something, though I find that debatable, and, in our context, I don't define things too terribly much on their "levels" of evil (it's a little more "loose" than that).

:D


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Dot for information when running APs.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

QQ


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jaelithe wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
To me, it's always sounded like a colon, i.e.
"I find your obsession with colons disturbing."

Safe for work. It's a t-shirt.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Nah, they've gotta be different.
Sissyl... and Sissyl1. See?
:D


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's funny (to me) that I've never really heard the "comma".

To me, it's always sounded like a colon, i.e., "No: I am your father." or a period, i.e. "No. I am your father."

EDIT: Oh, hey, those links (both of which are to the same thing) contain spoilers. For the curious.


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

First, it's hard to have a "party rail-roader", if no one else is making decisions. At that point, it's not a rail-road, it's a log-jam-breaker, as the Leprechaun said. It's only a party rail-roader if everyone is trying to make different decisions. If they all want to do different things, have a vote. If it's a tie, roll a dice or flip a coin (odd X/even Y). Voila!

Kimera757 wrote:
Erik Freund wrote:
Give them more to work with. You presented three options (the genie, the princess, and the dragon) which all look the same. Don't let them look the same. Because if there are truly the same, there's no decision-making even needed.
They didn't look the same to me. The princess is the most time-sensitive, and the genie the least, so I would do those in that order.

The other way of looking at it, to me, is the idea that the genie could fix the other two problems:

Wish 1) I wish the princess was safe, alive, unharmed, and healthy back in her castle
Wish 2) I wish the dragon was converted to our side and battling the orcs (after truly and fully volunteering all his treasure and holdings to us)
Wish 3) I wish all of the dragon's treasure and holdings were with us, and the princess, at her castle, where we were celebrating and partying!

Step 4) Profit!

:D

... the facts that most GMs seem to hate wishes (or rather, hate the people who use them) with a tremendous passion and these are narrative-style wishes rather than Pathfinder-game-style wishes will not stop me from dreaming, dang-it.

Also, if they're experienced and indecisive, as you suggest, perhaps it's because they've been badly burned in the past, before you were playing?

Alternatively, as Billy and knightday said, perhaps they're just not into it right now. Have a table discussion; figure out what's going on, why they're indecisive. Laithoron has a great description of how to use a GMPC, if they decide they want to go on with the game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Nononono. You need to add a 1 on the end, Sissyl1.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Dot for eventually... maybe.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

.
.
... lowering...

.
.

To 1d2 ⇒ 2 Grand Zanlifae: 1d6 ⇒ 3
3d6 + 1210 ⇒ (3, 1, 4) + 1210 = 1218
Stock: 20,657,001
Total: 20,657,001 + 1,218 = 20,658,219

Somnolent Gods' loss (Threshold: 901)
yellowdingo: 640 - 4d6 ⇒ 640 - (5, 3, 5, 5) = 622
lucky7: 619 - 4d6 ⇒ 619 - (2, 3, 3, 3) = 608
Turambur: 645 - 4d6 ⇒ 645 - (1, 3, 5, 2) = 634
ulgulanoth: 771 - 4d6 ⇒ 771 - (1, 5, 4, 6) = 755


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

.
.
drop

.
.

ME: 5d6 ⇒ (2, 4, 1, 3, 2) = 12
Stock: 274
Total: 274+12 = 286

Somnolent Gods' loss (Threshold: 619)
Troas: 412 - 3d6 ⇒ 412 - (6, 1, 5) = 400
yellowdingo: 354 - 3d6 ⇒ 354 - (4, 3, 1) = 346
ulgulanoth: 373 - 3d6 ⇒ 373 - (4, 4, 2) = 363


Male Agathion (Leonal) Gestalt Monk-Paladin (with bardic performance!)

While I love the basic idea, random resources make for a very GM-intensive game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Actually, as I've said before, through no one in particular's fault, it's always ended... badly... for my groups when it's happened. It became an unspoken policy that we simply stopped doing that, because it generated situations that were uncomfortable for some of the players. GMs play members of the opposite sex, sure, but there is a level of separation that is different from an actual character. I can understand that becoming a group's policy as a result, even if it's not mine.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

To be honest, despite my post above, it's not all that surprising that there's an "H"... of anything... much less a by-definition fetish-series like Please Teacher!

Personally, I kind of ignored the fetishy-parts of it, and enjoyed the characters, and fantastic situation. In a way, it's similar to the Tenchi series (though turned up to "11") - I didn't care for the fetish-parts, and enjoyed everything else.

Semi-sadly, I haven't ever really gotten into the whole "collect anime" thing outside of very specific series or groups; I certainly haven't been collecting since getting married*. Too expensive*. My collection slowly grows through gifts and free online perusal*.

The primary "thing" in Please Teacher! is that the protagonist is "too young" for the love interest (the eponymous teacher) he ends up with (even getting married to her!); although it's strange, the primary conflict of this is kind of "resolved" by him actually being one year "older" than he seems, due to a strange condition where he "froze" (effectively suspended animation) for a year... making it legal. :/

That said, the primary "squick" factor isn't so much a problem for me, as, while I've taught kids that age - and entirely find them as "kids", and not anything "attractive" -, there's often not that great a difference between the age groups they're talking about (the two primary cast members), and, historically speaking, I know that such age-differentiation was once normal (though usually... and this does enter "squick" territory... even more extreme, and in the reverse, gender-wise). Plus it's not even terribly much dwelt on - it's more or less, "HERE'S A PROBLEM, OKAY, THEY'RE MARRIED, LET'S CONTINUE" and then dropped as setting-background.

That one element aside the rest of the series is quite fascinating - it explores the dynamic between a couple who are learning how to adjust to married life, how they resolve conflicts of interest (how does she give her husband a bad grade?), and similar problems, all set with a (honestly mostly ignored, except for occasional light humor) backdrop of aliens and extraplanetary life coming to explore, interact, and learn. It actually has good insights into the state of marriage, resolving conflicts, and the characters involved.

The last episode(s?) revolve around a strange conflict in which the couple attempts to... actually... have... uh... "interpersonal exchange", weirdly encouraged by the eponymous teacher's mother (who may or may not be serious in her attempts to seduce the guy), and it's oddly suggested that they may have had relations before, but left ambiguous as to whether or not they have... so... uh... I don't know. Outside of the very beginning and very end, it's really good, though.

The... *sigh*... sequel... is not. Please Twins is all about a young man and two women, all orphans. Both of the young girls have various reason to believe that the young man is their older brother, although by the limited records available (basically only a picture), he only has one sister; both girls share his strange eye color, and none of them have the same hair color. And both of them fall in love with him, and he with both of them.

They all live in the same house (he takes them in as their "brother" until they can figure out who is actually related by blood), and the entire rest of the show is the tension of who is really the sibling - and thus gets to stay - and who is really the "stranger" (stupid on so... many... levels...!) - who then has to go. Eventually, the girls make a pact to ensure he ends up with no-one, but one of them, whoever isn't the sister.

... and that's basically where the series ends.

So... uh... if a story about "maybe, probably, potential incest and an unresolved love triangle" is your sort of thing, then you might enjoy. Otherwise... ugh.

Dragon Ball was really quite mind-blowing as a child. Not until Gargoyles and Batman the Animated Series did I see a show that took me seriously and actually cared about whether or not I thought about the continuity of the world at large. Quite awesome.

* The one exception to this is purchasing the complete box-set of Princess Tutu. My wife and I both agreed on it before-hand. We are the demonstrable result of "try before you buy".


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There's... an... "H"... Please Teacher!... manga... D:


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Others have mentioned it, but Once Upon a Time splits itself half between what you are asking for, and half a modern-day interpretation of the characters in every episode. It uses "flashbacks" to explain the fantasy story, and the transformation into the modern versions, without missing a beat.

Unfortunately for me, I've only seen the first season, which I've been informed was the best, but it's really well done.

The basic premise is that fairy tale folk (Snow White, Prince Charming, etc) have come to the modern world. However, before you start talking about (the incredibly excellent*) Fables series, though, that's the end of the similarities. For one major difference: the fantasy characters don't know who they "really" are... or, to be more accurate, only one, young, troubled boy "knows" who they really are, and he only "knows" because of a strange book that was given to him by his teacher.

And from there, you should see the rest on your own. Don't read the wiki I linked - it just contains spoilers. Heck, don't read the box.

That said, it's not as out-right humorous as some other series - it's certainly comical at times, but the comedy is less the focus than minor one-off beats (with a few, minor, recurring jokes).

Beyond that, as Shadowborn mentioned, the incredibly great series Journey Quest exists, and is very fun. It's strongly comedy, but there's a slightly serious side to it as well, with some moments of decent drama and genuine pathos.

Very (very!) similarly, Standard Action is a mostly-comedy series with a minor bit of drama (although less hilarious and less dramatic than Journey Quest, still entirely fun).

Beyond that, mostly "fun" instead of "dramatic" is the (now older) "The 10th Kingdom" miniseries that was quite good, complete with props, costumes, and magical effects.

Also, was the old, "The New Adventures of Robin Hood", though I never really got to see much of that series. As a bonus, it was filmed in Lithuania! That's awesome!

... and that's about all I've got.

Beyond that, Laz, DQ, and Lamontius all have excellent ideas and points that I would have otherwise covered. Well done, y'all! :D

* No, seriously, if you've not read this, yet, go get it. Now.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Heh.
"Literally".
Man, what a classic.
...
Don't kill me.

So, uh, random confession time, for some reason:

Favorite Gundam: 08th MS Team (right up to the ending, anyway, which was... meh)*

Favorite Anime: much harder, but it's up there between Cowboy Bebop, Record of Lodoss War (I saw it before I ever even knew what D&D actually was - so awesome!), Dragon Ball (the original 13 episodes; as opposed to DBZ**), Princess Tutu (shut up, I don't care), most (but not all) Miazaki/Ghibli stuff (most especially Whispers of the Heart and Princess Mononoke), and... uh... Please Teacher!***

There is a lot of anime that doesn't make that list, and a lot that I probably have forgotten that should. But that's what I've got at present. :)

* And I don't caaaaaaaa~aaaaaaaaare~! :D

** I can say with no hesitation that Dragon Ball was my first anime, which might explain my strong reaction to it. So good was it (at the time), that I got up at 5:30 A.M., setting my alarm, to sneak down stairs and watch it ("sneak" for the purpose of "avoid waking sleeping family", as opposed to "avoid getting caught doing something wrong").

*** Hey! Don't judge! It's actually really well done! ...sort of. At least it's not the reeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaally creep-tastic sequel. *shivers*


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Imbicatus wrote:

A: We're immortal, we can do anything!

B: Oh yeah? Clap.

Also

A: Ooh, ah, Ow, ah, ooh, ah!

Buffy!

... the original movie, not the series.

EDIT: to be technical (and clear), it should be "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"

1 to 50 of 4,888 << 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.