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 2013 Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 4,524 posts (4,637 including aliases). No reviews. 3 lists. 1 wishlist. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,524 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Hear Hear!!


_Ozy_ wrote:
Yes, this has been discussed before. You can take 10 on almost all ability checks (not UMD) outside of combat.

Assuming your not otherwise distracted. This is the other restriction. Now what constitutes distraction is mostly in your GM's hands so check with them prior to T10.


Seems like they may be adapting and slipping through a bit more now. Some seem to have made it to the 2 minute mark.

Edit: Nevermind that seems to be about the limit of existence.


Yeah first morning in a while that the sidebar wasn't swamped as soon as I logged on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love 3PP and am willing to give anything brought to me by a player a chance before telling them no.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Is Chris Lambertz's presence ever not ominous?

Well considering I thought we had caused an "ask" thread to be locked kinda.


Goblin heroes we need more heroic goblins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Ironically, the clearest examples of this tend to get deleted by the mods.
But sometimes there is a visible discrepancy about when they start modding. Its usually slower when the "there is no problem" fanboys start becoming insulting.
...Who? Are we still talking in the context of the whole experience-as-credibility thing? Or did you jump tracks over onto the recent surge in caster/martial disparity discussion? Or am I just derping really hard?

Wait I'm missing c/m Disparity discussion? Quick someone link me a thead I love those.


I didn't get into D&D until 3E but I did play the old D6 starwars system a bit.....also where does Hero Quest fall in line?


Lissa Guillet wrote:
The flags help, but they aren't the only tool we have. What I really needs is a way to get dripping remains of the spammers off. I don't think a normal bath will get out the stench of their splattered remains.

Prestidigitation apply liberally after every good round of squishing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
markofbane wrote:

Hey, if the Koreans keep this up, can we get titles by our screen names. Like frequent RPG Superstar voters, only frequent Spam Flaggers?

Just kidding, of course. We definitely appreciate the time you put into keeping the boards clean for us!

I'll just take an overall survivor of the spam wars tag for every account active during this time.

I know it would be a pain but could it be set up where the first few new threads by a new account have to be checked before they go live?


Just make sure the next crew has a good 8 hours of rest to prep more flamestrike spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Lou Diamond wrote:

Has anyone heard the latest news from the Solar science community? They predict that the sun is going to experience a cooling cycle in the next 15 to 20 years that will mean the ave temp in the northern hemisphere will drop 5 to 10 degrees during the cooling cycle. Somewhat like the little ice age that happened in the middle ages.

Iron Truth would you be in favor of building more pipelines from the Bakken oil fields to Texas? Would you support building the XL pipeline
to ship oil sands oil from Canada to Texas?

No.

I'd rather see improved infrastructure in our rail system. Oil pipelines are only good for oil or other similar goods. Rail systems are good for any type of product. Our rail system is old and needs to be updated. Improving it could reduce reliance on the trucking industry, which would lower costs for highway maintenance.

Also, oil production in North America does not automatically mean lower prices.

There have been some major incidents with railway crashes that have killed nearby people. These need to be solved. As with most incidents involving large machines, the cause of most of these can be traced back to human error. The Lac-Megantic disaster from two years ago had relied on multiple errors over the course of several months.

1. The engine had been given a temporary fix 8 months prior to the explosion. They used an epoxy to make a repair, but due to heat and stress, the epoxy failed. The engine had numerous reports of excessive white and black smoke for weeks prior to the explosion.
2. The engineer tested the handbrakes but forgot to disengage the air brake at the time.
3. Not enough handbrakes were set. The rail company had been fined numerous times for this, but no fines were given.
4. When a fire broke out on the engine, local fire and police arrived. To put out the fire they had to...

As a former Safety Manager at a rail switching site I can agree with the above. Human error will screw up a rail system more often than anything. After the cited incident our company had our heads of safety and site managers checking every standing piece of equipment for proper handbrake numbers constantly to verify we weren't having an issue with compliance on them.


Dorothy Lindman wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
trollbill wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
There is. An archer spending the same number of feats will not get the rapid scaling plus to hit that the ginslinger does with touch ac
If he is slinging gin I would dare say the more he slings the less accurate he will get.
You should see uncle jesee as an alchemist...
Challenge...accepted!

Start here if you need a quick jump in the right direction.


I honestly don't know enough about these things to offer a suggestion. But persevere we must.


Have it, reading it, will review once playtested a bit.


Jiggy wrote:
Do you know how many people would click that whenever they see a new thread on a topic they don't like?

Yeah that would be bad. "Oh look another thread about x well I don't think we need that on here "


Alright so serious question time again. If you had your pick of any Adventure Path to play in which one would you choose?


Stop making books I wanna buy.........Dangit Rite Publishing. I only make so much money.


Was dating a nice girl for about 3 months when she wanted me to meet her best friend so here we go off to meet her. We get to her friends house and I meet this nice sweet young lady. Well fast forward 9 months my girlfriend is now my ex(still on good terms just wasn't working) and I get a phone call that her friend has just been dumped and is depressed. So here I go being the nice guy and start trying to cheer her up. Next thing i know I have been talking to her for 6 hours straight and the sun is coming up.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
That's fine for a musketeer or a pirate. But when a good portion of your class is based around firearms abilities, your called a gunslinger, and having a brace of pistols would be something you need to be level 4-5 to even consider its not what people expect when they look at the class.
Then they need to rewrite their expectations. The base gunslinger using Golarion defaults, isn't Roland, he's not Billy the Kid, he's a 17th century musketeer using a much more primitive weapon than a Colt Revolver.

No, he's not. He's flavored as a 17th century musketeer but he functions like billy the kid on a caffine bender. That disparity is a big chunk of the problem.

Which was the point I was making. Not to mention if you want that style of guns then your gonna need to make said gun worth using. If you decide you want a lets say 3 rnd reload weapon, thats exotic, and cost 1000g, and only does up to a 1d12 on damage, while being the only weapon in the game with more than a miss on a natural 1. I doubt you will see a lot of use. Sure its touch AC but for no extra prof. and a lot less gold one can simple use a heavy crossbow for the same effect with only a single point of damage lost on average.


That's fine for a musketeer or a pirate. But when a good portion of your class is based around firearms abilities, your called a gunslinger, and having a brace of pistols would be something you need to be level 4-5 to even consider its not what people expect when they look at the class.


Real world has struck me as well carry on and good luck.


claudekennilol wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
The developer statement on Bodyguard however indicates that in that specific case the use of "use an AoO" was intentionally used to distance the feat from the full AoO mechanic.
The developer statement?

From the guy who wrote the feat.

Jason Nelson wrote:
My intention with tying it to the AoO mechanic was simply to make it an ability you could use more than once per round, rather than wanting to tie it specifically to all the implied mechanics of AoOs. I had thought about just making it an immediate action, but that limits it to once per round and takes your im/swift action. I figured that was an appropriate mechanic for In Harm's Way, but the defensive bonus of AA was modest enough that I thought it entirely fair to not limit it that way.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
2500+ posts, wooooooooooo!

And we continue marching on.


It's okay Stockvillian SEARK isn't much better of a location. Central ARK is where is at sadly.


I like it.


Considering my typical group is all soul society its villain. But remember Ichigo was the villain as far as they were concerned in the Invasion Arc. So its subjective.


Need to make notes on this.....would make for a good villain for a Bleach game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is a link if interested with it being a probably a no go would be looking at an Alchemist.


Blindness would be dirty trick.


2d6 + 6 ⇒ (1, 5) + 6 = 12
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (5, 5) + 6 = 16
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (4, 3) + 6 = 13
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (5, 3) + 6 = 14
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (5, 1) + 6 = 12
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (1, 3) + 6 = 10

Would classes from the Path of War be allowed?

EDIT: Damn ones lol


Sounds awesome


Any specific list of sources for race and class? Or if you would rather us bring up anything not specificlly mentioned would you allow a Stalker from Path of War?


LazarX the answer to why it isn't done, in my opinion at least, is who would actually bother. A druid wouldn't he might upset the balance of nature and that's not good. Only a handful of clerics would have a deity who might even approve of such measures but doubtful as for even a small desert your having a huge number of clerics doing little else. Wizards doubtfully would find a reason. And if anyone actually did try those above mentioned druids would likely want a word with you.


Depends he might be okay in a few fringe societys (can someone get the pugwumpies to stop worshiping me.)


Major Creation at combat speed allowing you to make any Combat manuever and based off of the above make it with either high bonuses or just automatic.....true you might not be min-maxing but the word ridiculous might seem a-bit appropriate.


Terquem wrote:

Falling from orbit kills you dead?

Wait...

How in heck did you survive MAKING it into orbit?

Well afaik their aren't rules for reentry just rules for the falling damage.


Why do you have issues environmentally but not when it comes to combat? I pointed out several quick flaws in the system that I'm not sure were ever addressed past CdG and yes Headsmen didn't always get a kill on the first shot. And regardless that's the world your playing in a world where you can get your throat slit roll over and beat the guy senseless and then go back to bed.


Who called them out by name I said call their mothers


Gamerskum wrote:
Plenty of other spells on the necromancy list and most of them are more effective then Animate Dead.

My effectiveness isn't the issue. I'm playing a character with dreams of raising an army someday consequences be damned.


Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Gamerskum wrote:
Well a lot of people are saying that the inquisitor had no right to ask the necromancer to not use animate dead?
For the record, he absolutely had that right.

Yep ask away its good roleplaying. But if the other guy doesn't agree then you have an impasse where someone has to give. Someone either doesn't get to play their character they way they envision, or someone doesn't play the character they brought, or worse case someone walks away and possibly no one gets to play.


Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
Blazej wrote:

If I sat at a table, described my gunslinger, then the cleric threw up their hands and said, "No, I'm not dealing with any of this non-fantasy crap today. If you use your guns, you don't get any healing. And if anyone else does anything to help you, same goes for them. My character hate firearms and you can't force me to do something I won't do."

Your stance seems pretty clear that as the gunslinger, my options are either to walk away from the table, spend the entire session using secondary weapons, or more than likely see my character die as he racks up damage through various battles. And my character is the bully because he is using a weapon the other PC doesn't like.

Is it a cleric of Gunssuckia, God of Gun Hatred, who derives his divine power from hating guns and who would have their power stripped if they cooperate with a gun user?

Let me ask this question about both what I've quoted and what the OP in general. If a compromise can't be reached who should back down and swap characters?


I assume you realize it but I was applying the logic used to determine common sense of falling damage to other situations.


ElterAgo wrote:


The only info we have that he agreed not to animate dead, then specifically did the most offensive thing possible (to a phasmite clergy) for the purpose of pissing off the inquisitor.
That is not 'for the benefit of the party' and is not cooperating.

We don't know that we have a second hand account that felt like that was what was being done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Because earlier you flat-out stated that "anyone who suggests that common sense supports falling 5000 feet and surviving to me is being disingenuous", but now you're saying that if someone feels no need to alter the falling rules then you're NOT going to say they're doing it wrong.

Yes, and I stand by that. If you make the statement "Common sense supports someone falling 5,000 feet and surviving" you're being disingenuous.

If you ask the average person on the street, how likely is it that someone that falls 5,000 feet will survive, a vast majority of people would tell you that it is incredibly unlikely.

If you're from somewhere in the world where people routinely survive 5,000 foot falls and make that statement, then I will be the first to admit I am categorically wrong.

If you choose to follow the rule as written, it doesn't make you wrong. And you could choose to follow the RAW for many good reasons (heroes are heroes, weird things can happen, etc.)

It's just the claiming that common sense supports such a rule that I would take exception with.

Jiggy wrote:
So either you think there's a meaningful difference between "you're being disingenuous" and "you're doing it wrong", or you're contradicting yourself.

The "you're being disingenuous" line referred specifically to someone suggesting that common sense supports surviving a 5,000 foot fall.

The "I'm not going to tell them they're doing it wrong" line applied to people choosing to follow the RAW.

As an aside, "You're doing it wrong" equates to "you're playing the game wrong." It implies a One True Way mentality. I don't believe there is one correct way to play the game.

Ask the Average person on the Street how likely it is that guy can get his throat slit and live without intervention, the vast majority will think it unlikely. Do we also now change the Coup de Grace rules?

Ask the average person on the street if they think trained archers miss 5% of their shots at a target 10ft away, most will think thats unlikely. So do we now change misses on a natural 1?

Ask the average person on the street if they think a man can be in an empty room with an explosion going off and suffer no damage to him or anything he wearing most will think it's unlikely. Do we rewrite evasion?


pauljathome wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
If my party's paladin ask that Infernal healing not be used on him and I agree but come end of a battle he is down and that's the only chance of saving him , by Moradin I'm saving him.

And if you do you can expect at least some characters AND players to be very pissed.

If that happened to my paladin I'd certainly try to convince you and the GM to disallow it as a violation of the PVP/don't be a jerk rule.

At the character level I made my position VERY clear at the beginning of the session.

And if it goes to that point I'll stop. But if you ask why I'm doing it I'll point out its for the sake of the mission. I may have to pay for it down the line but I need your ass standing to wrap this up. No I wouldn't continue to force it but I'm damn well gonna try.


The Fourth Horseman wrote:


You have a Paladin of Pharasma?

It used to be a thing.


He also may have not had proper time to change spell selection. It might have been his only worth having* choice as a school spell.

*worth having denoted by what the scenario pertained to compared to his spell list.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
It seems to me the undead was raised because things went to pot and the party needed some replacement members.

Which is what I lean toward, especially since we lack specifics on anything else going on with it. We have a second hand feeling it was a dick move but nothing concrete. And its less of an issue to me that a deal was broken if it resulted from trying to finish the mission. If my party's paladin ask that Infernal healing not be used on him and I agree but come end of a battle he is down and that's the only chance of saving him , by Moradin I'm saving him.

1 to 50 of 4,524 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.