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

Talonhawke's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 5,071 posts (5,227 including aliases). No reviews. 3 lists. 2 wishlists. 12 aliases.


1 to 50 of 479 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Crap we almost went 9 days focus people we have the skills keep this thing alive we don't need more zombies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
I assume by sexy we are actually meaning scantily clad lots of skin showing armor not actually protecting the body properly.
Not necessarily. There was a female paladin figure, with full plate, but still a feminine figure, flowing hair, determined expression, kinda Joan of Arc look, that I thought was very hot.

That's where I was headed if we use that standard then male and female tend run fairly close, I rarely see ugly art period.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Answer:
Christmas tree?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

OTOH,I've been the goto guy for rules in several groups even when other people were running with no problems.

I've also seen players try to (and sometimes succeed) talk the GM into allowing corner case rules interpretations to work in their favor. At length and to the point of disrupting the game.

Rules lawyers in the negative sense exist.It's not always they just don't like players who know the rules better.

Yep its possible to be a bad rules lawyer, I had one which is what pushed me to learn 3.5 nearly backwards and forwards. I am fine with a guy who can quickly clarify a rule at the table. I do not need an extended argument mid session.

Adjule wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Adjule wrote:

Tank, in MMORPG terms, is someone who takes hits while holding all attention of the enemies while everyone else attacks it (or heals the PCs). The part of being a tank that doesn't really translate into TTRPG is the "holding aggro" where the enemy focuses solely on the guy in front of him with tunnel vision.

So making a "tank" is really difficult and requires GM cooperation. Of course, most creatures who are somewhat intelligent wouldn't focus solely on one person (unless they can take him out, in which case the player would probably get angry that his tank didn't perform like he thinks it should have).

As others have pointed out, the reason that role is called "Tank" in an MMO, is becasue plate fighters were called Tanks in TTRPGS before MMOs existed.

The aggro mechanics of the MMO is irrelevant when using the term to describe a role you want your character to portray in a TTRPG.
Everyone understands what it means, unless you spend time splitting hairs.
I know this. But typically when I hear people say "I'm going to make a tank", they expect the enemies to focus on them (holding aggro) so they can keep the "squishies" from being hurt.

If I tank in PF that usually means I made a fighter with whip feats and look for bottle necks. As long as I can disarm/grapple/trip/re-position what I am fighting I can keep squishes alive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And my productivity for the day just plummeted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Claxon wrote:
The basics of the Stromwind Fallacy deal with the idea that optimized characters are inherently bad for role playing and/or that non-optimized characters are better for role-playing. Which gets turned into "you're a bad role player if you optimize".
The Stormwind Fallacy is a rebuttal for an argument never made. It is however a correct observation that an obsession on min-maxing does have a impact on roleplaying decisions.

So you claim the argument is never made and then make the exact argument in the exact same post?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Yeah, we know.

And Mark was saying some people don't like to play like that. Are they wrong? Do they not know how they like to play? Do they need to be stopped and made to play correctly?

Fluff can be ignored. Rules can be ignored. Fluff can be changed. Rules can be changed. Various different groups have different tolerances for such approaches. That's okay. It really is. They don't need to be made to conform to your superior way.

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
So again the fact that you feel fluff is there to be ignored where as other do not should say something to you, IMHO.

That was someone being superior. And that was what I responded too. Yes you can monkey around with the engine and tweak it. Hell I run Kirthfinder over Pathfinder any chance I can, but I still have an engine. You can't actually play a game without some form of mechanics and rules, you can't actually play an RPG without it either. But when the character is all said and done it will run with a new paint job. If I get told to build a character for Rise of the Runelords, and show up and we are now running in Eberron and the DM is writing his own adventures but still using the PF rules set I'm probably gonna be just fine outside of a handful of fluff things that might not work in the setting. But if you say we are running a PF in Ebberon and I show up to 5E the fluff might be fine 100% but I have to rebuild the engine before it'll go.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Marc Radle wrote:

I agree with pretty much all the things mentioned in this thread!

Pally, barb, gish, boss, meat shield, healbot, skill monkey etc all make me absolutely bat-crap crazy!

Something I don't think I've seen mentioned yet, but it really annoys the bejeezus out of me ... actually saying things like HP, AC, or XP in conversation! It's one thing to use the abbreviations in a stat block, but dear lord use the actual term when speaking!

[sarcasm] Wouldn't that be statistics block, not stat block then if we want to use actual terms?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
jocundthejolly wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
jocundthejolly wrote:
Skill monkey annoys me and should be retired from RPG parlance as one of those terms of derogation which have been discussed so much recently on these boards.
Wait, you've seen it used as a derogatory term? Really? Huh. I've only ever seen "_____-monkey" used as a shorthand for meaning that your abilities are focused heavily into whatever thing comes before the word "monkey". Can you provide an example of how it was used negatively? You've got me fascinated and curious. :)
I perceive -monkey as disparaging, not neutral. First, I don't like terms that seem to reduce a character to certain (game) mechanical choices. Second, to me -monkey means that someone does certain low-status tasks repetitively and mindlessly, e.g., A trained monkey could bag groceries, mop floors, what have you (I would never talk that way about people who do those jobs, I'm just adducing examples). Irina Krush once complained that fast time controls chess players to "clock punching monkeys". No one refers to a thoracic surgeon as a scalpel monkey or to the head chef at a Michelin starred restaurant as a kitchen or cooking monkey.

It may tie back to background such as growing up with an uncle who called himself a grease monkey (a mechanic for anyone who doesn't know) . But like Jiggy I have never heard ____ monkey used derogatorily. I have used monkey used that way just not with a qualifier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Meatshield and healbot don't get seen much in our games unless its my good friend from highschool's warforged cleric.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jocundthejolly wrote:
Skill monkey annoys me and should be retired from RPG parlance as one of those terms of derogation which have been discussed so much recently on these boards.

I have never seen that one in a bad light personally, hell in my home group it's usually the second dibs, right after arcane caster. And I do mean someone will yell out "I'm the skill monkey"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Realistic/realism...it always seems to be followed by some reason why x cannot be accomplished even if the rules perfectly lay out how to do it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

Chess Pwn,

I have to disagree with you in that I know quite a few people that find it help to to put either of the two terms in add's seeking new players. (both in person (home,game store, other) and online.

After talking to them about it our experience has been that most negative reactions are do to the person not being allowed to play and or being asked to leave the game. Which can pose a problem and is why such descriptive language was included in the game description to begin with.

As I said I appreciate this topic and I am being more selective in where i use the term (and try and explain it before hand) but even then in the last few days since this topic started the people that I would expect to have problems with the term have done so because it defines they play style to a T and if a new term was coined then they would have a problem with that term also.
I do understand that not everyone's experiences will be or are the same but I know that I try and get many different opinions and ranges of experience when I seek out information and I thank you and the others who have such feeling's for your's.
MDC

The problem is who is defining those terms, and how are they defining them. If I am both am i allowed or banned? What level of optimization is the cutoff before I am too Rollplay and not enough Roleplay?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes get it reopened we need to get the Capt. a Section 8 for his Multiple Alias Disorder, it really is getting out of hand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

TROUBLE AM HAPPEN FOR GM AND GM'S MONSTERS IF GM GET TO TABLE AND MORE THAN ONE AM AM AT TABLE.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
JonathonWilder wrote:
I'll be fine with either roleplayers or rollplayers in my game

*headdesk*

*headdesk*

*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*

Breathe deeply and let it flow through you and then your head will become like the desk and pass through to the other side, or just hit it harder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well if you wear enough of them in the right positions you can get a decent set of armor after awhile.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anyone needs snacks since we are gonna be here awhile?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So every time the players come up with a tactic you don't like you simply threaten to use it against them amp'd up to 11 to discourage it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also wouldn't a barred window have more than one "hole"?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bitter lily wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
Sticking your arm through the hole may interfere with your somatic component. That's probably how I'd rule it: giving you some level of ASF.
Some level of...???

Arcane Spell Failure


8 people marked this as a favorite.
prd wrote:

A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.

You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must "hit" the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.

The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.

Based on bolding I would say you should be good if you can fire through the hole aiming through should be no problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
What's different between SKR's views and the FAQ in regards to Take 10?

Don't have a handy quote but I believe SKR had said that the check itself couldn't prevent take 10. So a jump over a lava pit was allowed even though lava was hot and dangerous. However if you were being shot at no luck. (I would have said no dice but you actually need them for this)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Wyrm Ouroboros wrote:

In over thirty years of RPGing, I've had friends who had to have other people not only create their character, but keep them updated, and help them with almost every roll. I've had friends who could literally - used properly - not act (roleplay) their way out of a paper sack, or who couldn't go from 'my character does X' to 'I do X'. I've had friends who could come up with a character's entire history, personality, friendships, school experiences, work and color and home and clothing preferences in a ten-page document or thirty-panel powerpoint before they ever managed to start on the character's technical bits. I've had friends who couldn't NAME their character until they had every number set, item bought, THAC0 determined, and at least two gaming sessions went by for them to find out who the character was.

There is no One Right Way to roleplay.

But. (You knew it was coming.)

There ARE wrong ways to play.

The person who needed their hand held would take twenty minutes to figure out 'the best way' to open up a door, and had to have every option explained to them again and again. Yes, eventually he learned how to keep track of things himself, and not worry about every single possible consequence. But he had to be taught how NOT to be a bad roleplayer.

The person who had no real concept of roleplaying-as-acting could go through characters like paper, because that's all they were to him - which means he did frankly stupid sh!t that would, half the time, get other PCs killed - and couldn't understand why they got so upset because 'it's only a game'. He too learned that other people made emotional connections with their characters, and how to not do dumb/crazy stuff and be a team player instead of enjoying getting himself killed in new and psychotic ways. But he had to be taught how NOT to be a bad roleplayer.

The girl who wrote thirty pages before starting character generation would try to be the center of Every Single Scene, and then felt betrayed if...

Yes there are bad ways to play

The person who came to the table with a wonderful backstory and vision that required her character to cower from any combat, and choose only spells that would help her escape a fight. Yes playing a pacifist is fine but not if you are a detriment to your fellow adventurers. After a while she learned how great buffs or de-buffs could be eventually preventing some combat all together.

The guy who wanted to be the party face but thought he should be able to get by on words alone without ever picking up a dice. After a bit he left the group not really happy with us that we needed the dice to tell the story.

Or the guy who had to be the best he found every internet build and pushed to the max till he was the only one doing anything. We removed him from the group for a while when he came back he was calmer and understood everyone wanted to play.

There is no One Right, True Way to rollplay.

But there are wrong ways. And our responsibility as rollplayers, however we approach the game, is to teach those who make characters who get people killed, who only want to tell a story, or optimize to the point of no return to learn how to be better players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll have to look over spells and such to see if there is any other decent options. Do keep in mind rogues can get shadow hand manuvers.

As for Magical array I run it that it's from a 9 level list unless it only appears on a smaller list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
Kullen wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
The two gaming styles are mutually exclusive at any given point in time.
In the same way that only the moon or the stars can be out at night, but never both!

See the example I posted above for Roleplay vs Rollplay.

** spoiler omitted **

Still not seeing the exclusivity here. I can in the middle of combat get into my characters head mocking and taunting my foes as they fall around me, choosing my targets as a cunning swordsman would calling out those that hang back with bows as cowards. All without a dice being rolled or needed beyond each swing of my blade.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I can usually manage if someone or even two people miss a game. We just say they wandered off into another area. The running joke is that they have jury duty.

*shudder* Arcane disciples of the god of law popping up and spiriting party members back to major cities for jury duty out of nowwhere. Time to add that to my homebrew.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is the problem with feats is that they are not just things you can do anymore they are things that affect your heritage or background which really can't turned off.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Based on the how some of these rules readings come across you would need to add length to a lot of things. A lot of small changes over a big book is still a lot of page count possibly increased.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

That moment when the fight has drug on and your below zero standing only with Diehard and are attacked by a creature with a 1d4-3 attack routine and hope it rolls max.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll stick to my ruling of yes you can 5ft step and yes you have to pass and acrobatics check to do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:
It's only 312 people wanting to know. I'm sure there's more pressing matters.

5ft steps into/out of grease and do you actually have to move to makes saves verse pit spells will one of these newcomers power to the top or will one of our old contenders such as Bardic masterpieces or 4-armed PC's and multiweapon fighting take the PDT next time on FAQ!!!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nennafir wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
You can't take free actions when it's not your turn and its probably not your turn when you're making the save, so free action isn't the model you're looking for.

"To implant a trick, the mesmerist must take a standard action and either touch a willing creature or implant the trick in himself. A creature can be the subject of only one mesmerist trick at a time. The mesmerist can activate the trick as a free action when a triggering condition is met (as defined in the trick's description), even if it isn't his turn. The subject must be within medium range (100 feet + 10 feet per level) for the mesmerist to trigger the trick."

Hmmm.... I think you can take free actions when it is not your turn.

Only the ones specifically called out to be allowed so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hold still I might still be able to manage a D20 Modern Knockout punch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pizza Break!: The party has done something so odd and so unexpected that the DM needs at least 30mins of time to reprep everything following the incident.

Based on a true story of a goblin who used a wish he had been granted to shift the alignment of a major evil NPC to good. Thus leaving the horde of orcs no real leadership and averting a major war.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Profession Shipwright?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well new plan...... BEER!!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just prep endure elements in all your slots.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think she meant you could find a save file online that might be at least somewhat close to where you were at.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*smacks DrDeth in the back of the head*

Dammit Deth rule #258 always pop true strike against kobolds.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Rock n' Roll Troll wrote:
What about the blues.

What about The Blue Girl*?

* I think this is an anime. TOZ likes some of these.

That said, I would not mind hearing the legendary TriOmegaZero sing.

Make it happen on it, Scooby, and I suspect you're next live stream would go through the roof...

Don't know about The Blue Girl but I know of La Blue Girl and that's all I am saying about that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes yes let the sadness and confusion flow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It could actually work just a human named Bruce Jenkins. No need to break out the Leeroy until its too late to stop the pain train.

Would Bruce Leeroy Jethro Gibbs work better?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You sit down for a nice political intrigue game and this alias is the character someone is playing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay next topic on the cards:

Kobolds: Subterranean Menace or Nature's Macguyver.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Trekkie90909 wrote:
I'm not sure anyone here is arguing that being offended by something should be used as a weapon.

Yeah I don't really know what that even entails. Do you mean people pretending to be offended in order to silence discussion or something?

It seems to me that, if they're not involved in the discussion (because you're tried and failed to explain what you mean so you are now just not replying to them) it's going to be pretty transparent isn't it?

You have the right of it. It's the fact that you can claim offense even on someone else behalf, and if the subject matter is right then a bandwagon can follow causing a cascade of offense until it is silenced even if no-one was actually offended to start with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:

So, a grievance.

I have a friend and long time gaming partner who just moved to my town. Like me, he loves gaming, etc. But my grievance is this; we already have 2 games we're running and barely have time for those. He's been running a module that hasn't been much fun (and he's not that great a GM to begin with) but out of the spirit of the game we've been playing. But he won't play in our established games.

The first is a 10th level d20 Call of Cthulhu/Vampire: the Masquerade mashup set in WWII. We're having a helluva time with it, but he's not interested in it. Fair enough. The second is my campaign, a 13th level/mythic tiers 1-3 game intrigue based game that's been going for over 3 years. He says he can't play a high level character because he can't feel connected to it and MUST always start at low levels when he plays. Yet he expects us to play in his game, and when he finishes this module he wants me to co-GM an evil, city based intrigue oriented game starting at 2nd level. Well, we already have one of those except for the evil and low level, but he won't play in it. And not many people are showing any interest in his, so I do feel bad for him. But it just seems a bit unfair that he won't play in our games but expects us to play in his.

Grievance over. Carry on.

I swear the more of your post I read and knowing you are from the same smallish state really makes me wonder if we either have played together or at least have some of the same players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Mental note - order Jiggy fan club tee shirt.

I know where we can get these printed... same place I do my Take 10 T-shirts. But what do we put on it?

"If you want to change for the better, you're going to have to throw out whatever methodology isn't working and try something else."
and/or
"If you keep on doing what you're doing, you're going to keep on getting what you've got."

- Jiggy, Sept. 19, 2016

one line, or both? and can we get the little green lizard guy with the pencil and scroll? nah, I'm guessing that is I.P., so protected by copy write or something like that.

Let's combine both shirts "You can't just Take 10 on things and hope for a better outcome'


4 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:


Your second paragraph highlights the problem. I can only speak for the USA here, as I've only attended school there, but both myself and many (many) years later my children were both given the same sorts of lessons on being nice, not acting up, not "speaking your mind" and so on.

People manage this every day -- we go to work, the store, the theater and so on without being overly offensive. Just as you wouldn't speak to a bank teller the same way you'd speak to your brothers, I still hold that people are aware of how they are speaking here, they just choose to ignore social niceties because, well, it's the internet and they don't have to look the person in the eye or be held accountable.

<Insert crazy old man back in my day ramblings>

We're asking the mods to strive to a higher standard. It isn't too much to ask the same of the posters, is it?

You would think that however years of retail work have shown me people do not have that filter you believe they posses. Most yes wouldn't come in and act anything short of cordial, but a far larger percentage than you might think will come in and before you even have spoken to them are already in a-hole mode from the start simply because their day has gone awry in some way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Egg of Coot wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Kirth a quick question on sneak attack. Under synergy it's says that one strike feat even if the normal activating conditions ae not met. So for killing stroke does this allow a rogue to force a CdG save on any sneak attack?

No, because the BAB-based scaling of the feat still applies. (Needing "base attack bonus +X" is a prerequisite, not an "activating condition.") To force a CdG on a sneak attack, you'd need to be at least 21st level (which the system doesn't really support), or else spend a number of rounds studying the opponent before attacking (which duplicates the assassin's death attack, BTW).

That said, a 16th level rogue can be forcing a CdG every other round...

I'll quote Kirth from when I asked a while back.

1 to 50 of 479 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.