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

Talonhawke's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 4,864 posts (4,987 including aliases). No reviews. 3 lists. 2 wishlists. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 408 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I don't hate the furry races, I just don't get the attraction. Nor do I hate the people who play them. I know in my homebrew there's only one (and I allowed it very early on in my first Pathfinder campaign because the player begged for it) but I wish I hadn't. But no one else has bothered to play one so on my next homebrew rules update I may toss them out.

My personal homebrew has antro Boston Terriers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CigarPete wrote:

The chronicle sheets for Maelstrom Rift and Serpent's Ire had level ranges listed, so I would start with those or reducing to level 1.

As far as actual play experience, I don't understand the trepidation around character death. It's part of the game, and is nothing more than a resource tax - you screwed up or got unlucky (greataxe crits in lvl 1 scenario grumble grumle), go pay 7k gold. In the event of a pregen, it's go pay 1k gold after selling off their gear. I put both chronicles on real characters, fully expecting to pay or retire if needed.

I can assume there is more of a feeling of I have less control over events playing a pregen than a character I know. I would feel more comfortable failing using my own character that I have leveled since the outset and know fairly well than one I just picked and don't know how every piece of the watch works.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Maelstrom Tapewyrm wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Whatever was in the fridge.
Since that's past tense do we assume you don't know what you ate or just don't care?
Maybe it was "C. TL tried to eat whatever was in the fridge, but he lost"? Now it has assumed his appearance and begun posting on the Internet.

Er, no. No, definitely not that last one. Definitely not. I have no idea where you got such a weird idea. Nope. Not a single clue. And this is certainly not a suspiciously copious and excessive denial, that's for sure.

>.>

Nope.

Not. At. All.

*Whistles in a definitely inconspicuous manner and wanders away.*

(It's a combination of both of what Talonhawke suggested, actually. ^-^)

Yep yep nothing at all to Tacticslion merely had a wonderful meal, nothing to be concerned with....... ALL HAIL LORD WRAITHSTRIKE.....I mean lunch yes all hail lunch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or they boost his armor and saves to the 9s and let him tank since he has the main character bulls-eye and thus can protect everyone else by virtue of being unkillable


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The last of my pot of red beans and rice........sadness ensues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I only know as much as I do from family of friends down in that area.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bbangerter wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

So we can for instance have a sorcerer who wants to cast an enlarged fireball using a lesser quicken rod. In the area of effect is a wizard who has lesser Globe of Invulnerability up. How do we apply the FAQ?

1. It is more disadvantageous to cast as a swift action so the spell can't be used with the rod but still over comes the Globe. (Use higher level)

2. It is more disadvantageous to overcome the Globe so we can use the rod but its still a 3rd level spell and the wizard is save. (Use lower level)

3. Apply each circumstance on its own and treat this as a 4th level spell for the rod and a 3rd level spell for the Globe. (Use whatever is most disadvantageous for each spell level check)

Just gonna post my question and point of contention from the other thread. If it is as people are suggesting and 3 it really bothers me that spells can have 2 effective levels.

Being personally bothered by it does not mean the reading of the rule is wrong. (Lots of people are bothered by the hands of effort/physical hands FAQ - but it is still the rule).

+1 to what Ryric said. No response needed for this FAQ request (though PDT may choose to further clarify it anyway like they did the fairly recent "flanking is melee only or not" question).

I'll keep the rest of my responses restricted to the other thread.

So spells have 2 levels if meta-magic is involved? And for x number of situations x can change based on what would be worst? That seems to be a flaw not just my issues with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:

So we can for instance have a sorcerer who wants to cast an enlarged fireball using a lesser quicken rod. In the area of effect is a wizard who has lesser Globe of Invulnerability up. How do we apply the FAQ?

1. It is more disadvantageous to cast as a swift action so the spell can't be used with the rod but still over comes the Globe. (Use higher level)

2. It is more disadvantageous to overcome the Globe so we can use the rod but its still a 3rd level spell and the wizard is save. (Use lower level)

3. Apply each circumstance on its own and treat this as a 4th level spell for the rod and a 3rd level spell for the Globe. (Use whatever is most disadvantageous for each spell level check)

Just gonna post my question and point of contention from the other thread. If it is as people are suggesting and 3 it really bothers me that spells can have 2 effective levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
prd wrote:
Thrown Weapons: Daggers, clubs, shortspears, spears, darts, javelins, throwing axes, light hammers, tridents, shuriken, and nets are thrown weapons. The wielder applies his Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown weapons (except for splash weapons). It is possible to throw a weapon that isn't designed to be thrown (that is, a melee weapon that doesn't have a numeric entry in the Range column on Table: Weapons), and a character who does so takes a –4 penalty on the attack roll. Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action. Regardless of the type of weapon, such an attack scores a threat only on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. Such a weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

Based on the bold text I have I would allow it. The feat has no mention of melee but expect some variation since finesse is a prereq.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

It really bugs me that so much gaming material is disseminated via video posts nowadays, rather than in good, old fashioned text.

(Or that smart people haven't worked out how to easily pass such a thing through some software to get a transcript).

Also just a general grievance with facebook, youtube, twitter, etcetera... Grrr.

Do the goblins need to get off your lawn with their newfangled music?:P

My grievance still not getting to play more than once every month or two.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bastard Sword wrote:
A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
Sawtooth Saber wrote:
Description: A sawtoothed sabre may be used as a Martial Weapon (in which case it functions as a longsword), but if you have the feat Exotic Weapon Proficiency (sawtoothed sabre), you treat the weapon as if it were a light weapon for the purpose of two-weapon fighting—the sabre remains classified as a one-handed melee weapon for all other purposes.

Just to show a text difference between the bastard sword and a weapon that is similar but not exactly the same in having differing levels of proficiency.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So hope to get my hands on this before our next game starts. My wife (GM) will probably kill me though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Did you drink the milk?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just looking back at the op's example does the converse apply? IF having a -2 in a stat causes people to shun you like a leper then conversely does having a +2 or better mean everyone treats you like prince?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A few more odd examples if this was always the way it was.

Rogue: Add +1 to the number of times per day the rogue can cast a cantrip or 1st-level spell gained from the minor magic or major magic talent. The number of times this bonus is selected for the major magic talent cannot exceed the number of times it is selected for the minor magic talent. The rogue must possess the associated rogue talent to select these options. Here we see the Rogue as specifically being called out to need to feature in question as opposed to the other options presented.

Monk: Add +1 to the monk's Acrobatics check bonus gained by spending a point from his ki pool. A monk must be at least 5th level to select this benefit. Gnome monks had to wait to get high jump before improving it once again unlike every other listing on the page.

These are the only 2 out of the core races section to have specific call outs to when they can be taken or that they need the class feature to be taken. This is in the rules text which show an intent that it wasn't always meant to be this way.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Like vehemently insisting that nothing was changed even though something was clearly changed. What does it matter? Everyone knows how it works now, so why this weird insistence that history be rewritten?

It's more nuanced than that. All those that think "nothing has changed" always interpreted the rule the way it is written in OA. Those that didn't see OA as a change. So for you, you need to understand that not everyone thought the rules worked how you did.

If you consider this as a possible fact, their insistence of "there is no change" is the truth, and their clarification is simply that.

So I do have to ask for the 2 years prior to John Compton's post when the exact text from the Advanced Race Guide specifically showed a boost to a class feature not gained till level 3 being taken 20 times why would you assume you couldn't do it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:

I just would not call racist somebody for refusing to see a new anime based on their previous dislikement of other animes. And do note that we all do that kind of thinking in our lives.

I will refuse to see any Adam sandler movie based on my dislikement of his other movies, and I doubt that that would make me an antisemitic.

Might be apparently not wanting to go see the new Ghostbusters makes me misogynistic even though the reason I'm not seeing it is I have yet to watch a movie from those actors and director I found funny. Same reasoning different results simply based on the target and not the actual reasons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
NenkotaMoon wrote:
This thread is the work of an enemy Stand user.

DIIOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
If Akira Toryama was named Roberto Silva and was born and raised in Brazil when he created DBZ, would that mean DBZ is not "anime"?
That's actually part of my point.

But in which direction?

Since you were bashing people who think of Avatar as anime, I'd guess you'd say it wasn't. Anime being technically Japanese animation, you'd be correct.

OTOH, someone who doesn't like anime isn't likely to like a show heavily influenced by the style of anime even if it's made somewhere else and thus not actually anime. So it makes sense to not be interested in Avatar because you're not into anime.

Or on the other side people may hate it so much they will insist a show that has been brought over to the US after being Anime isn't anime. I saw this a lot in college with shows like Transformers or Voltron.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like it comes down to a few minor things
1. Are you being watched? If no one is watching the character then it doesn't how masterfully they mess up.

2. Does the person watching know enough to know your throwing the attempt? If so decide on a way to determine that the character was trying to fail.

3. Would you be expected to answer questions about why you failed? Not super likely but if so then some type of check most likely bluff will be needed.
4. What is the judging criteria? If the person deciding is only worried about the final project then it doesn't matter how you got there but if the whole performance is being judged then you need to make a decision about how to make that look bad as well.

Basically look at those things and decide the best way to go about it. If the only thing being used to determine if it was a pass or fail is the final result and there won't be a interview about it just let them fail. If they are being watched by someone who know what they should be doing or have to explain why they failed you might need checks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:

Don't forget the demands of, oh, writing books, which is what the design team actually gets paid to do.

So, they have to schedule a meeting, have that meeting, agree to Jason's satisfaction that they have a consensus on a rule, agree on how to word it, and post. If they don't agree, or can't find a solution that they feel is suitable, it doesn't happen. That's for FAQs.

Errata is even worse. Design team have to identify problem to errata, reword the rule, then it has to be developed, edited, and copy fit to the page (remember that Paizo rule that words on a page must always go to the bottom of the page, 'cause it's a doozy).

All while actually writing books.

There's no such thing as a quick FAQ/errata at Paizo, and I, personally, like it that way.

Not to mention explain it out once they rule it because someone will continue to argue its wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That could work I was thinking of using Min Numen in my games basically if the spell calls for less than that then your assumed to be able to cast it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
GM_Beernorg wrote:

Mostly sure that Drow don't have a word for solidarity ;)

I think i found one....

Running now

Can't see it or is that intended?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
This entire thread is a catastrophic case of people talking past one another. Note to self: Alignment threads BAD.

Things that never seem to make good threads

1. Alignment
2. Paladin codes
3. Druid codes
4. Adamantine
5. "Hands"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
mmmmmm chocolate chip shurikens.....

NNNOOOMMMMMNNNOOOOMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Slight tangent, I've never been clear where this attitude of "Writers have no responsibility or obligations to anyone or anything" comes from. As if it's somehow different from every other profession, where doing a competent job is expected, and rightly so.

Uh...no.

Self-employed people who personally make things for other people to buy have no obligations of any sort in regards to the nature of their product. They just aren't gonna make any money if people don't like what they make. So...they have a huge incentive to provide a quality product, but no obligation.

And writers generally fall somewhat into that category, though they're far from the only ones to do so.

Those employed to write a specific thing (like most freelancers in the RPG industry), not so much, but most novelists without an ongoing contract? No obligations at all, just a strong incentive.

I'm not sure I really see the distinction, at least from a practical perspective.

Being "incentivized" to provide a good work and being "obligated" to end up at the same result, really. You provide something good, that peopke want, or you're out of a job.

Here is a good distinction at work I share my position with the owner's son. If I want to keep my job I am obligated to show up be at my desk and answer the phone among other things. His son has incentive to do so, by that I mean his dad has flat out told my supervisor that he won't relocate or fire his son he can come and go as he pleases deal with it. But if he does manage to show up for at least 3 days a week he gets he truck payment made.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

Ha! You're old people.

Isn't it Bingo night. Or is Matlock on.

You know, they have these things called DVDs, so you can watch Murder, She Wrote whenever you want. :-D

Hey there a problem with Matlock and Murder She Wrote? ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

May I interest you in a pamphlet about his wonderful magnificence Lord Wraithstrike?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
...shrinking even faster than reasons to believe in a God.

Whatever your own beliefs may be, taking pot-shots at people for their religion as part of your speech about discrimination and equality is pretty hypocritical.

Sex, gender, orientation, race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, abortion stance, marital status, economic class, pizza topping preferences... How about we don't weaponize any of it, okay?

But anchovies!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Aww, shucks. That thread had gone so far past ludicrous that I was starting to have fun with it. :]

It almost went to Plaid!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Golem wrote:
With the soft hands of an angel.

OH CRAP IT FOLLOWED ME!!!!! Quick everyone just ignore it and it will go away and maybe this thread will survive the curse. Just don't make eye contact.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Seems like we have once again proven that Adamantine is the Special Material version of an Alignment thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
thejeff wrote:

OTOH, people are more likely to be a++&@!*s online, especially anonymously. OTGH, it's also easier to pass as male on the internets and I know many women do that, in at least some circumstances.

Most, I suspect, feel even more at-ease trying out a new activity with someone (or better yet some group) they already know and trust, rather than the random grab bag of a convention or game store.
Personal experience and anecdotal evidence suggests that women make up a larger percentage of home games than of other face-to-face environments.

I also strongly doubt most people, male or female, get their start gaming online with strangers.

True story:

I'm a Guy In Real Life.

Playing a particular MMO, I've had some exceptionally bad experiences due to individuals assuming because I was playing a female character that I as a player was interested in their 'advances', in part because *I didn't make a big deal about it*, so *must be legit*.

We won't go into the details of some of the truly creepy things, thankfully there was an 'ignore' and a 'report' function available...

This doesn't diminish the 'gamer wall' that women have to fight through, but I have a bit more empathy for the situation than some do as a result.

The tables I've been at with women in my games has been positive, though I always worry that I come off too 'over the top' and scare them away playing in-character (no advances or unwanted behaviour because at the table, all are brothers and sisters and that is be a very HUGE turn-off for me.)

And that is why one never goes to Goldshire on Moonguard. Also why my wife tends to avoid large player gatherings on most online games unless she has other guildies present.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:



  • There's a good chance that an Aboleth can't tell a human from a Pit Fiend... or an Aboleth.

    Ehh the DC to recognize common things like humans and orcs are 5. The int modifier is enough to get that. DC 10 or less can be untrained.

Ehh the DC to recognize common things like humans and orcs are 5. The int modifier is enough to get that. DC 10 or less can be untrained.

Depends on whether the human/orc is under level 7 and/or a common creature from where the skill checker comes.

Also, your average Orc gets a -2 to his knowledge roll, identifying your average Orc on a roll of 7 or higher. Of course, this is consistent with how Orcs are usually portrayed.

Well, high CRs due to levels aren't really handled properly.

<Rolls 9 on Knowledge(local): "Well, the militiamen are human and their sergeants are too, but I've got no idea what race the lieutenants and captains are, even though they look just the same."

Let us not forget that the CR thing means that long lived big bads who have risen in power are less likely to be remembered.

Commoner's can remember the orc captain who raided their village last fall. However the evil lich who shows up each winter to take a sacrifice.......... who are you again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Just look at what amazing work Samuel Jackson did as Nick Fury (a white part played by a black actor).

Just have to note here Ultimate Universe Fury is a black guy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And that's my disconnect here. I don't typically get up in arms over casting choices in movies or TV. But when I see an uproar over a casting choice because the source character is x and the casting choice is y. But then when the character is Y and the casting isn't its fine and all kinds of reasons are listed as acceptable. I just look for consistency in people and it bugs me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How the Idris as James Bond run of things that came up during the Sony hack then? That was viewed as completely acceptable and tended to get calls of racism against those who felt that changing his race wasn't in keeping with the character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SCPRedMage wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I remember getting disintegrated. A lot.
Stop sticking your hands in the mouths of random statues, then.

Hey that statue should be glad its just a hand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'd love to see myself represented in such media, the happy go lucky GM that encourages player ideas and is apologetic but firm when he has to veto them.

Only if it includes good segments of messageboard snark when needed TOZ


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:

I have a "core" group of three who make nearly every game. The others have a 2+ hour drive to get here, and another two have young kids they are very involved with on the weekends with their own activities. So if anyone but the core three makes it all it's a good thing. If they can't, I always try to have either a side adventure for those three or I tone down the one I had prepared for a larger group. Turns out I'm also the only one in the group who ever GMs that can do this, it seems. We've had our Call of Cthulhu game cancelled numerous times by another GM in our group because one person couldn't make it. We play that particular campaign maybe 4 times a year at the most, and if it gets cancelled because one player can't make it it's very frustrating. And again, THIS guy can miss a a game or two and I can run w/out him.

Maybe this is my superpower - running successful games with an inconsistent number of players.

My life in early college, wrangling 7 guys who worked odd rotating shifts and homework to boot. My rule was if we get 3 we are pushing through


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah i have some friends in Conway that cool but yeah not close.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cal Define Central Arkansas I'm in Monticello.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:
I wish they would leave relevant factual posts even if they are alleged to be "off topic".....

Keep in mind while one off-topic may not be an issue and might even be relevant it may lead to a spiral that ends up causing a lock.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I apologize for not properly spreading the message of His Most Red-Eyed Cloaked One Lord Wraithstrike. I shall accept punishment accordingly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's fairly clear cut but with Channeled revival already having Channel Energy's range I would consider allowing it in a home game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
MichaelCullen wrote:


Components V, S, M (the original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created)

You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship.

Out of curiosity... what do you imagine the cost of the raw materials to "craft" a 10,000 gp diamond to be? And what Craft skill do you think would be "appropriate" for such a procedure?

Basically... fabricate allows you to use magic to instantly perform normal crafting. It does not allow you to create things which would be impossible to craft.

Well technically a gems worth would be based on crafting measures getting the right cut and such. So in fact a raw uncut diamond does require skill to be worth its full value. Though whether or not that is applicable to fabricate is the real question. Though maybe you could use 5k gold worth of coal for the fabricate check?

1 to 50 of 408 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 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.