|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
But does it have a smaller fan base than the Hunger Games book (pre-movie)?
World-wide not sure but here in America I would say probably. If I wasn't enough of an anime fan to watch Toonami and Adult Swim then I wouldn't have really ever heard of GitS but I heard lots of people talk about the Hunger Games books. Era might also have been a feature early 90's vs mid 2000's so less internet and more of what was right in my face on TV.
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.
You mean like the original prone shooter?
My 2cp on the caster question and I'll be borrowing some terminology form Kirth and TOZ.
Prepared casters wake up and requisition a set number of rounds for their gun each day in exact quantities, so if they want to fireballs they have to ask for them. Clerics and druids can ask for almost anything in their armories while Wizards and the arcane guys have a list of their choosing to choose from.
Spontaneous casters are give a set number of rounds but their guns can modify the rounds as needed into whatever types of rounds the guns has schematics for.
Paizo values the second option as being more powerful since you can use whatever round you know on the fly. In practice and especially with the type of plan before attack Kirthfinder leans towards the second ability is only useful if you know the right types of spells. Whereas a Prepared caster has a much larger selection to have the right types of spells given even 1 day of forewarning. Since without a class feature or a feat numen is needed to have more spells in your book then it stands to reason that allowing too cheap of a spells known list would swap that balance around.
And either way I'm screwed since I couldn't afford it at old prices and now get taxed for not being able to afford it.
If I were to guess the rule change aims to prevent any post chronicle assigning and to attach the same threat of death to anyone playing. Even if it means someone skipping a session because they want the reward but don't wanna risk their low level character on a pre-gen.
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.
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.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
So you claim the argument is never made and then make the exact argument in the exact same post?
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.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
He is saying that the fluff is the paint job on the car it can be changed, redone, worked over, or non-exsient and everything still works. But if you take the engine(the rules and mechanics) out you can have the most amazing paint job and nothing will do anything.
The problem for a lot of classes what they can accomplish is tied to what abilities they have.
Marc Radle wrote:
[sarcasm] Wouldn't that be statistics block, not stat block then if we want to use actual terms?
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.
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Don't know if the feint would apply to all the attacks.
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"
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
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?
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Eh. I think Paul got it already.
The with that breakdown is
1. In my time of being on the forums its rare.
Hell the rules forum would probably argue over 10 Silver equaling 1 gold
Diego Rossi wrote:
Exactly but it worked out just fine even if you were paralyzed. No movement, no "jump" no nothing just save and then fall. When the re-wrote it then the paralyzed guy making his save became weirdish.
Or understand that the spell grants a save that you haven't lost, coupled with the fact that they re-wrote the spell so people weren't hanging in the air until their turn, creating the move caveat. Prior to the wording change the paralyzed guy made sense but everyone just floated till they had their next turn.
As for rules making sense that's not a road you really want to go down and keep playing Pathfinder or you will quickly find nothing seems to match your standards of sense.
Based on bolding I would say you should be good if you can fire through the hole aiming through should be no problem.
So its a double save spell? For everyone? My unparalyzed rogue makes his save and still starts his turn having to save again because the clearly sloped sides are "safe"? Landing in a safe spot should mean safe.
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)