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.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,071 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Looks great


As I have been thinking of porting my homebrew world over to this system it strikes me I have not good idea for how to do a Van-Helsing style drum fed crossbow. Any suggestions?


My current grievance it's 2 weeks till I have vacation but FFXV is sitting at my house wanting me to play.


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.


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.


I assume by sexy we are actually meaning scantily clad lots of skin showing armor not actually protecting the body properly.


Kazaan wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

No, it doesn't make sense at all. If it gave you adrenaline, you wouldn't still be staggered.

And what about immunity to sleep spells?

Does it make any more sense that Diehard and Ferocity don't work at all? That they were added into the rule book, taking up precious page space, just as a joke? The fact of the matter is that Ferocity explicitly states, "you don't fall unconscious even from negative HP." It doesn't say, "you don't fall unconscious from negative HP," it gives a blanket immunity and additionally clarifies that this even applies to unconsciousness from having negative HP. That means, without a doubt, that it protects you from unconsciousness from any and all sources. Diehard requires a little bit more mental agility to understand it, but it ends up in the same place; you don't suffer a condition that is defined by being stable and unconscious (dying) and, instead, you suffer from a pair of states that both are defined by being stable and conscious (disabled and staggered).

You mean like the original prone shooter?


Agreed thank you all for all you gave to keep this country safe.


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Answer:
Christmas tree?


It's as much hyperbole as the doomsday cries about Obama the last 2 cycles and Bush the 2 before that.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Democrats: lets fund this healthcare thing out of the general fund.

Republicans: no, lets fund people that don't have health insurance by making people who do have it pay more

Democrats: well if thats the best deal we can get then it's the bes

Republicans: YOUR RATES ARE GOING UP! YOU"RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY MORE! GET THEM! STOP THEM!

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.


I would say go battle sorcerer and pick Elemental bloodline.


nosig wrote:

Rant Alert. Proceed at risk...

I have been thinking about games where I have encountered a Jerk at the table. Thankfully, in PFS they tend to be very very few - but there are some.

Normally, if it's a player, I try to "play around" the Socially Challenged Player (SCP). If it's the judge, I try to get thru the game and move on. I don't like to spend my game time fighting with people. I like to play WITH people, not AGAINST them. I really avoid conflict with my friends - and I like to think everyone at the table is a friend.

I remember the first (and only) time I played at a table with someone called a "griefer" - who just wanted to spoil the game for everyone. At the time, we didn't realize what he was. (It was only afterwards that we were able to figure it out). He was a first time visitor (visiting in town for the day he said) to a local hobby shop, dropping into a game in which I was one of the players. Claimed to know nothing about how to play - but in reflecting later several of us realized that he knew the rules well enough to incite rules issues, arguments, to pick out major points of YMMV and encourage different people at the table to disagree. He was very good at setting one player on another, or on the judge. I really don't need to catalog the issues/problems he caused at the table, but he was able to "brake the game session". We ran over more than an hour and a half, and didn't finish the game. In fact, we failed to even finish enough encounters to get chronicles. Two players left angry enough not to return for weeks. (and they were regulars). The judge was very upset, and didn't judge again for a several months. The next session failed to have enough players to even get a game.

And he was able to do this with the Generic Ninja. And then disappeared into the night, never to be seen at that venue again. (and never bothering to register his "new" player number we provided him).

My thoughts:

A Jerk is a Jerk whatever build he uses.

A great player is a great player...

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.


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.


2 people 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.


Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
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?
I think this is where how I have defined the term and you are different, ie my roll-player are those who ignore fluff ( example:ignore fluff in traits and just go by benefits it gives you)

Fluff was made to be ignored.

Some of the best role-players out there create THEIR OWN fluff to align with their mechanics, crafting a unique story via their character.

IMHO, this is why it is important to define some type of play style as I know many groups in which if you ignored fluff you would not be allowed to play in the game.

I also know many games that...

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.


Alzrius wrote:

I hate the term "dead levels."

I first heard about this in an old WotC article which set out to "fix" this problem.

For those who don't want to read through that page, "dead levels" are levels in a class progression where you don't gain a new class ability (or an improvement of an existing ability). Note that spellcasting classes gaining new spells (or even spell levels) are still considered to be "dead levels" if there isn't a separate class ability given as well.

I absolutely can't stand this, since even aside from the sense of entitlement (e.g. the idea that there "should" be some new class ability at every single level), I hate how it reinforces the meta-game involved in D&D/Pathfinder. I much prefer to have the focus be kept on what the characters accomplish, not what abilities they have.

The problem for a lot of classes what they can accomplish is tied to what abilities they have.


Kitty Catoblepas wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Good thing there's no such thing as "RAW".

Likewise, there is no such thing as "RAI (Rules As Intended)".

There is only "RaI (Rules as Interpreted)."

Or RAMVORD (Rules as my version of reality dictates)


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.


Matrix Dragon wrote:

Wow, after parsing the rules a bit, I think that a transformation focused kitsune with sneak attack is really good now. The build just takes a while to come together because of the BAB requirement on Vulpine Pounce.

Technically, you can feint an opponent at long range, it usually just doesn't accomplish anything since feint only works for melee attacks. However, a kitsune with the transformation feats can shapeshift as a swift action, get a free feint, and then pounce the opponent for a full round attack of sneak attacks. Unless I am mistaken, you can get both the feint *and* the pounce off of a single swift action shapeshift. That's... really deadly.

Too bad only a slayer can meet the BAB requirements at a reasonable level though, and they don't have high sneak attack. Also, there is always a chance that there is something that keeps this from working that I haven't seen in the actual book yet.

Don't know if the feint would apply to all the attacks.


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?


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.
2. It assumes that simply because one side is more vocal that the more vocal side is right. IE if 10 guys say x and 2 guys say y then the consensus is x even if Y is actually the only side with evidence.
3. It completely ignores evidence.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:
If the forum hasn't reached a ckear consenus then its DEFINITELY weird

Come on, half the rules forum will argue that RAW means weapon focus longsword means that it's that one longsword and no other, so you can't get the benefit when duel wielding them. half of THOSE will argue that you can't take weapon focus twice to make up for that...

Hell the rules forum would probably argue over 10 Silver equaling 1 gold


The heck did I miss


Okay I was looking all over an thought I missed it.


Can you quote where it says being dead your Con is zero?


Could also now be part of the sloped sides of the spell. That floor is moving somewhere and if the argument is your attached to the floor then your going with it.


Actually it's not Jengada nothing in PWK would lead you to believe it sets a creatures con to 0. It kills it outright not through any other means.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

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.

Note that the with the original wording with a successful save you started your turn on empty air and move away from there.

How?

People that are so disturbed by the idea that a successful save move you out of the area of the pit should consider what it allowed whit the original wording:
- you started your turn on empty air
- you didn't immediately fall but where able to move away from the square in which you started your turn.

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.


Rysky wrote:
I just read the thread in question XD

I wanna read it lol


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?


So anytime the players do something you personally don't like you threaten to amp it up to 11 and use it against them?


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.


Ah had it wrong then no worries at all about that for some reason remembered it at start of turn. Thanks for the multiple clarifications.


bbangerter wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Why is the target only moving 5' and not to a safe space or are we assuming that everyone who makes their save ends up needing to save again next turn?

Context. Move to a safe space being safe from what? Answer: safe from immediately falling into the pit.

Anything that may or may not happen afterwords is not part of the save. e.g, Making the save does not mean I cannot later fall into the pit.

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.


3AM wake up call from a guy in a bathtub?


Why is the target only moving 5' and not to a safe space or are we assuming that everyone who makes their save ends up needing to save again next turn?


Awesome news man. Love what you have done so far with it.


It't won't be Christmas till I have it.


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 to 50 of 5,071 << 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.