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

Tequila Sunrise's page

3,385 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 to 50 of 269 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just finished Fate/Stay Night, and I think it's allowed me to finally put some of my anime-thoughts into words:

I often get the sense that I'm missing a lot of philosophical themes when I watch anime. I don't know how much of it is my tendency to miss dramatic subtleties in general, how much is due to the themes being lost in translation, and how much of it is culture clash. Or maybe I'm just overthinking things, and not missing anything.

Anyhow, an example from Fate/Stay Night: Shirou is an idealist who wants 'a world where nobody cries.' During the course of the show's two dozen episodes, several characters ridicule his idealism, calling him a 'hypocrite' for caring more about others than he does about himself. And I don't know what to make of that. It sounds a lot like the 'Nobody is selfless because everyone who helps others gets something out of it, even if it's just a warm bubbly feeling' nonsense. But maybe 'hypocrite' is the closest translation of a Japanese word that we don't have; or maybe it's just a bad translation.

Anyhow again, Night has proven to be as visually spectacular as Zero. The dialogue was a bit slow at times for my taste, and some of the characters' actions made me facepalm. (You just got done telling Shirou how much easier it is to kill masters than why are you ignoring the enemy master?!) But overall a fun watch.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I think it's interesting how very progressive this company and much of its fanbase can be, while at the same time being so conservative when it comes to game rules.

I suppose it just goes to show how compartmentalized we humans can be.

Well, part of it comes from years of getting burned by massive rules overhauls.


So when the idea of a "2nd Edition" pops up, a large amount of the fanbase starts getting PTSD flashbacks to the 2nd-3rd, 3.5/4E changeover nightmares and worry that they're going to relive it all over again, having to shell out lots of money just to buy the same basic material they had before all over again JUST to keep up-to-date with the basic game rules.

Thanks for your insight, chbgraphicarts. I'm not sure what a war vet would say about 'edition changeover PTSD,' but it does explain some of the reactions we see in these threads. And why so many 'game conservatives' feel the need to chime into these threads to say the same things that they said last time -- to avoid more PTSD, they have to make sure that Paizo knows they don't want a new edition!

chbgraphicarts wrote:
And now 4E-lovers are feeling the same sting with 5th Edition, since 5th Ed has much more in common with 3rd Edition than it does with 4E, leaving those mountains and mountains of hardbound 4E books basically orphaned.

I don't think that the 4e fan reaction is coming from where you think it is though. Well, there probably are a couple of fans whose first ttrpg game was 4e whose reaction to 5e matches your description. But those of us who came to 4e from earlier editions are either able to convert whatever they want, or they don't care much about backwards compatibility. After all, we made the jump from 3.5 to 4e!

Like thejeff mentioned, for some of us it's about the rules themselves. For example, converting older stuff to whatever edition I'm playing is almost a non-issue for me. I've never carried a campaign over to a new edition, never felt the desire to port a character over to a new edition, and Planescape is the only setting setting from prior editions that I feel really strongly about. So I don't much care that my 2e and 3.x books are 'obsoleted' -- because hey, I can still mine them for ideas.

What I want is to play with the rules which best match my sensibilities and make it easiest for me to DM my game. Currently, those rules are contained in the 4e books rather than the 5e books, which is why I'm still playing 4e. If 6e is a better game by my standards, I'll happily buy into it. If PF ever changes enough to become a better game by my standards, I'll happily buy into it -- though that's probably never going to happen.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's interesting how very progressive this company and much of its fanbase can be, while at the same time being so conservative when it comes to game rules.

I suppose it just goes to show how compartmentalized we humans can be.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

All characters -- even bookworm NPC wizards who never use their dagger for anything more than cutting a rare steak -- automatically get better at stabbing things as they gain experience, at a gradual linear rate. (BAB)

But aside from the rare exception -- like the monk -- anyone who wants to learn how to dodge has to spend special resources to do so. (AC) Additionally, the most worthwhile dodge options create sudden dramatic improvements in a character's skill at dodging.

Meanwhile, non-combat skills advance at a gradual linear rate, but require intentional investment.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like PF enough to play occasionally when a friend is running it, because it's fundamentally the same as my last favorite game. But I don't like it enough to buy or GM it. It's got enough minor changes to basically require relearning the game, but nothing's changed fundamentally enough to be worth the effort. Core PF is about as extensive as my 3.5 house rules became...except that PF doesn't address many of the things that my house rules did.

On the whole martial/caster issue: I've never met a new player at all concerned with 'realistic' fighters. Just D&D vets who have very specific and selective expectations about 'realism' based on the rules they learned to game with. I have however met new and old players who hate playing the chargen minigame, exemplified by stuff like feats and skill points.

So from my experience, there is value for some players in classes that just attack, attack, attack...but the 3e game engine defeats the very purpose of these classes by requiring them to play the chargen minigame. Also by implementing high-level attack, attack, attack as 'must not move more than 5 feet, then roll dice in order so that staggered ABs can be properly applied...'

2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
I find people that b#~$# about everything tiresome, I don't understand why it's so hard for some people to see the positive side of things :-)

I don't understand why it's so hard for some to see both.

(Not necessarily referencing current discussion, here.)

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Blayde MacRonan wrote:
July 3rd... Season 2 of Knights of Sidonia comes to Netflix.
Blayde MacRonan wrote:
They announced last week that season 3 has entered production.

*Squeals like a nine year old girl*

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So to summarize the trigger warning issue: Some magazines use content-warnings as a favor to their readers, some people use 'TW' as a part of obvious jokes, and some law students are requesting TWs to maybe avoid genuine issues and maybe skip class.

Yeah, I can see how that last one could be a problem; but overall, color me unimpressed with all the gnashing of teeth over TWs. I wasn't even aware of this TW thing until someone on the internet complained about it -- and I've been through college twice -- so from where I sit all of the noise is coming from people being triggered by trigger warnings themselves. Maybe the internet needs a new TW...

Trigger Warning: The following text contains the words 'trigger warning.'

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

I don't like Harry Potter, i think Rowling should've killed Ron off, he was a D-Bag.

Also i've never made it past chapter one of book one, so my opinion of Ron is based entirely on the 5 movies i've seen (i haven't seen the last 3)

One of the nice things about the Harry Potter series is that you could actually see JK Rowling becoming a better writer in each book. The first one was (IMO) not very good -- but by book 3 they were well worth reading. There are a lot of things I think went wrong with the last book -- but last books are hard, especially when everyone in the world is reading over your shoulder.

I mean, she's no Ursula K LeGuin (whose Earthsea books remain my favorite YA), but she's no Stephanie Meyer either.

I can understand this I was not into HP when I was a kid but when I began to date my now wife she convinced me to read the books and yes the first one is mhee but you have to realize the first to the third books are more of kids books and the last four are YA she did get better as they continued but the final battle I the movie was WAY better then the book

HP has the unusual distinction of being a series that very noticeably changes tone as the series progresses. In #1, the protagonists are innocent kids, and the tone and conclusion are 100% rated-G. A few books later, the climax of the book is a good kid dying right before teenage-Harry's eyes. And of course #7 ends with beloved characters being killed in the very first chapter, and things don't get any softer for the protagonists as they're forced to grow up all too quickly.

And at the risk of triggering Kryzbyn...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Monte Cook specifically called out the "Timmy Cards" as being completely intentional. Given that so many of them exist in Pathfinder, I have to assume they are following that (horrible) design paradigm.

I'm not a Magic player, but my understanding of the reference is that "Timmy Cards" aren't traps -- they are just big, flashy, and hard to set up. Not just situationally useful, but situationally awesome. So if you use them, it is just incumbent upon you to understand how to make sure you can get in those situations.

As opposed to a "trap" which would be useless in all conceivable circumstances. There may be some of those in 3.x/PF, but they are not intentional.

DrDeth copy-pasted some of it, but I have the whole passage saved on Wordpress. 'Timmy' cards are explained here, and then discussed in more detail here. From the first article:

Mark Rosewater wrote:
Each set, R&D makes sure to design a certain number of cards for Timmy. Timmy cards, as we call them, tend to be big creatures or spells with big effects. In general, Timmy cards are exciting but not too economical.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Quiche Lisp wrote:

I think there's a special layer in the Abyss dedicated to game designers who implement "trap options" in 3.x D&D and PFRPG.

I regularly fall for trap options, which might explain the above sentence.

There are no "trap options". (well maybe some errors like "Prone shooter"). As long as you understand them and they fit your character concept, then they are not a trap.

There are no 'mysteries,' so long as you understand everything.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I once heard Fareed Zakaria comment that "The U.S. political spectrum fits comfortably within the center-to-center-right part of Europe's spectrum." If we ever manage to let go of the electoral college, that just might change.

In any case, I'm proud to be a left-wing wacko! Shun away.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trekkie90909 wrote:
I confess that ever since I discovered Sriracha I've failed to see the point of Ketchup. It seems like such a bland way to waste tomatoes...

I consider ketchup to be a sad, pale imitation of BBQ sauce. Sriracha is part of a whole different class of delicious.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Quiche Lisp wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
I never saw The Avengers (or the recent sequel). If Spider-Man had been in it, I would have been sufficiently motivated (yes, I'm aware he was never an Avenger).
But he is ! An Avenger, I mean... in the comics books... you know, the real thing !
It's Marvel dude. Somewhere in some alternate universe, everyone is a Avenger. (and has changed gender)

I've never read comic books, but I of course heard about superheroes from a young age. For a long time, I assumed that each superhero existed in his or her own universe -- even within the Marvel and DC franchises -- because with the exception of the mutant phenomenon which handily explains a bunch of mutant superheroes running around together, the thought of so many people having or acquiring so many different super powers within such a short span of human history is just too implausible, even within the context of a fictional universe that allows for one superhero. Right...?

Wrong, I am! I guess it's not a problem for most readers/viewers.

I enjoyed both Avengers movies, but I did so despite the added implausibility of all those characters existing within the same universe. Let alone all speaking the same language.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shifty wrote:
I think that the more feats we have, the more people believe they need a specific feat to be able to do anything.

I wonder if a little extra text would remove this perception, in the case of feats which cover actions which would normally require a DM call. For example, if someone at Paizo (or whatever company) writes a Trick Shot feat which allows a character to ricochet arrows off of objects at a -1 to hit per object, how would fans' perceptions change if the feat text included the entry "Normal: Without this feat, ricocheting arrows off of objects imposes a -5 to hit per object." Would this make fans happy, or would they then start complaining that "Ugh, this is camouflaged game errata! Now I need to buy new splatbooks to have all the game rules! This is a travesty!!!"?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
The auto-immune response to 3.5. material in the hobby. Everything is overpowered or broken in 3.5. While I agree sometimes their are better options and vice-versa. It's one thing if they actually read the material. More often than not they heard from a guy that it's broken. So it's broken. If that same guy told you it's okay to burn down your house would you still listen to him.

These are probably the same people who insist that 4e sucks, because "Everybody says so."

memorax wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

We had this problem DURING 3.5 as well.

See Psionics and Martial Initiators.
Most definately. I just wish those who ban 3.5. material actually read it. Instead of taking second hand information as gospel truth. Then again it's the same thing with 3PP PF compitable material as well.

Sometimes the phenomenon is excusable, in the case of new players who don't know any better. But ugh, yes, people really ought to at least read something before passing judgment on it.

I recently started online DMing, and invited an old friend to play who hadn't gamed since I was DMing 3.5 ~10 years ago. One of his first questions was "Are we playing 3e or 5e?" because some guy in a game store had told him that 4e sucks. So I told him how 4e is the edition that fans either love or hate, and about the nerdrage that it's generated. So I also blame the gamers who make unqualified generalizations as if they were speaking gospel truth.

(The guy also told my friend that 5e is great because humans are good. To which I told my friend, "Ah, humans have been awesome since 3e. This guy is clearly an edition warrior.")

2 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Orthos wrote:

Otherwise I'm all in favor of having psionic options that are clearly different from magic; I just like also having the "pseudo-magic" psionics available, primarily because I just prefer psionic point-cost systems over spellslots.

Tell me about it; my ultimate home turf is the Might & Magic computer games, which of course use spell points, so I was never happy with Vancian magic.

I remember when 3.0 psionics came out, and a semi-friend of mine at the time mentioned that he hated the Psion. His reasoning? "It's what the Sorcerer should have been."

Was your response, as mine is right now, a blank stare eventually followed by "...So why do you hate the psion?"

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I make my own character sheets. I really dislike the official ones.

I don't use layout-based character sheets.

Simple notebook [or .txt if it's an online campaign] sheets for me.

I've been writing my characters on looseleaf paper and notebooks since 2e.

*Pencil & Paper Solidarity!*

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

I prefer drakes to dragons.

*Burned to death while also being bombarded with spells*

Wyverns are also far cooler than dragons. Especially if you up their size and upgrade their capabilities.

I'm still a fan of the Council of Wyrms setting, and I SHUN THEE!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Lee Teague wrote:
I hate level dips. I generally dislike multiclassing, prestige classes, and archetypes. Just pick your class and play it fool.
I hate that I can't create the character I want without multiclassing and level dipping, and I see it as a flaw with the very concept of classes.

I think that 3.x-style multiclassing has the potential to be the perfect marriage of class-based and point-based character creation. Assuming it's balanced, it gives DMs an immediate and accurate measure of character capability and allows players like Lee Teague to write "[class x] [level y]" on their character sheet, fill in a few pertinents, and be done with it; while also allowing players like DarkLightHitomi a degree of freedom to play the organic character which a game world ideally allows.

You may say that I'm a dreamer,
But I'm not the only one


I think the current system is definitely headed in the right direction. I think that there are A BUNCH of archetypes that really should have been PrC's and vise versa. I also think the system needs a better way to stack class features (spell casting in particular) and a better way to express fractional spellcasting (the bard should get its full casting progression when it takes dragon disciple for example.)

If at some point someone takes another crack at the 3.0 ogl framework then I think they could get a bunch closer.

Agreed 100%! I'm not familiar with any particular archetypes, but PrCs, ACFs, feats, and class abilities have been a mess since 3.0. As I'm sure you're aware. (Oh, Spellthief, you were the perfect candidate for being a PrC!) By the end of my 3.5 career, I had started telling players who wanted to take most PrCs "What particular abilities do you want from this PrC? I think we can convert it into a feat..."

So, yeah, someone should get on this multiclassing problem with a new game/clone...*whistles off-key*

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Lee Teague wrote:
I hate level dips. I generally dislike multiclassing, prestige classes, and archetypes. Just pick your class and play it fool.
I hate that I can't create the character I want without multiclassing and level dipping, and I see it as a flaw with the very concept of classes.

I think that 3.x-style multiclassing has the potential to be the perfect marriage of class-based and point-based character creation. Assuming it's balanced, it gives DMs an immediate and accurate measure of character capability and allows players like Lee Teague to write "[class x] [level y]" on their character sheet, fill in a few pertinents, and be done with it; while also allowing players like DarkLightHitomi a degree of freedom to play the organic character which a game world ideally allows.

You may say that I'm a dreamer,
But I'm not the only one


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:
Edit: For a contribution to the thread - I loathe Magic: the Gathering. Despite numerous attempts (most of my gaming group is big on Magic), I've never played a round of Magic that I've actually enjoyed.

I have a love-hate relationship with MtG. It truly is a novel and creative game, and I can have a lot of fun playing it, but it'll always be chained by its roots. In some ways -- if you play the Standard format exclusively, at least -- it becomes a new game every 2(?) years; but there are certain assumptions and legacy quirks that never go away. Somewhat like D&D.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
To defuse the political aspects, maybe people aren't "offended" by any particular message, but just don't like that touchy-feely hippy dippy crap?

Hm, possibly, but that might be a touchy subject too.

Just last month I was griping to a couple of guys about a paper I had to write, and how the professor wasn't being overly helpful -- it was an advanced course, to be fair -- when one of them exclaimed "Oh yeah, I hate professor whatshisname, and his hippy dippy crap!" And my thought was "Whoa, dude, you just took this from first gear straight into fifth!" I didn't question the guy, but the following questions did cross my mind:

1. What do demanding professors have to do with hippy dippy crap?
2. What's crappy about hippy dippy stuff?
3. And what's to hate about hippy dippy stuff, even if you think it's naive? The goodwill to all mankind? The 'live the change you want to see' idealism? Not having a simple moralistic answer firmly rooted in traditionalism to all of life's issues? Or maybe it's the fear of bell-bottoms making a comeback?

I'm sure there are answers, but I'm somewhat of a second-generation hippy myself, so this attitude is always bizarre to me when it crops up.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Orthos wrote:
It's not the tune because I've heard/read filks of the song using the melody and had no problems, so it's got to be something in the lyrics.
You aren't perchance an escapee from a totalitarian communist regime, are you? Or a libertarian? ;)
If I absolutely had to apply some kind of political label to myself, libertarian would probably be the closest I know of. Mostly I'm apolitical - I can't stand either of the parties, I don't vote, and I avoid the majority of political discussions and news like a particularly virulent plague.

If you're of the libertarian bent, this might be what you don't like:

John Lennon wrote:

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

Of course, now that I'm rereading the full lyrics, there are other themes that I'm sure plenty of folks object to. There's the anti-religious theme to offend religious folks, and the 'no countries' theme to offend extreme patriots and racists who want to 'Keep those people out of our country!'

Anyhow, this is running the risk of straying deep into the political, so I think I'll stop here.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Hm, why not?
Variety of reasons ranging from "I doubt Paizo would change it how I like" to "I really don't need another system I won't use". But I still prefer change.

Ah, gotcha. Same here. :)

The Indescribable wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I actually might be interested in a radically changed PF. But to be honest, I'm looking for pretty particular things,
What's the list?

Top of the list is adding some kind of level-related bonus to AC instead of the traditional suite of AC-booster items, and relatively balanced MCing that doesn't require patch-on rules like xp penalties or favored class bonuses. That second one is somewhat of a holy grail for me, and would almost be enough of a draw for me to buy any game even if the rest of it were garbage.

There's also like a thousand pet peeves I have with the D&D traditionalisms that are still holding out. I'd like point buy to be standard, and to replace the 3-18 stat range with a simple range of modifiers. (Also eliminate other random elements in chargen, as you might guess.) I'd like to see all alignment restrictions dropped, except cleric-like restrictions for divine classes, if the game wanted to retain a hint of traditionalism. (Paladins would look something like this.)

And spells...well, spells are the primary reason that casters are so crazy. So I'd like to see the spell chapter gone through with a fine-tooth comb. For example, I'd like to stop beating around the bush with spells like rope trick; instead of adding cute provisos like "the rope can't be removed or hidden," just say that spell slots can't be regained in extra-dimensional spaces! 'Extra-dimensional spaces are filled with discordant energy that prevents gainful rest,' whatever. If invisibility can have an obviously metagame proviso like "ends if you attack," it's perfectly reasonable to add fluff-justified provisos to other spells in the interest of balance.

Oh, and move healing spells back into Necormancy!

Really though, I could go on and on, and still forget some of the things I'd like to see. The bottom line is that I need to finish the fantasy heartbreaker I've been working on, and then play it. ;)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
That... that looks exactly like what I was saying, though, which is why I'm surprised; I thought you were talking about hit points?

I'd rather that defensive skill be represented by some sort of by-level bonus[es], but yes, without house rules hit points are [sadly] the only candidate for representing get-better-just-for-surviving defensive skill.

Tacticslion wrote:
I think I'm missing something that you're saying... but okay.

Yeah, there's something I've been missing from every one of your posts on this topic. It's like, I understand what each of your words mean individually, but we're on different wavelengths so I can't put them together in a completely coherent message.

Tacticslion wrote:
I really do giving Blue Rose and Star Wars d20 a look, though, if only to get an idea of what they're like.

I've played the latter, but not the former. Not likely to unless I stumble upon a Blue Rose fan.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
@OP: I don't know what thread you came from, so I'm just going with what you said in the OP of this one.

Thank you, Jiggy, this post is everything I was asking for. :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

1, 2, 3 Miyazaki: Castle in the Sky, Spirited Away, and Howl’s Moving Castle are my big three. I still occasionally have dreams about the scene where Sheeta and Pazu say the magic word together...*shiver* Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, Kiki’s Delivery Service, and Princess Mononoke get honorable mentions.

4 Psycho Pass: Takes place in a futuristic Japan, where crime has been virtually eliminated by an omniscient system that monitors the 'psycho pass' of each citizen to prevent violent impulses. I can't express how dark, compelling, but ultimately hopeful this show is. Can't wait for season 2 to appear on Netflix!

5 Darker Than Black: Another futuristic anime in which mysterious and 'soulless' people known as contractors cause terror and death. Dark and action-packed, this one is on my list to catch up on once I have more of a disposable income. (The first season appeared on Netflix a while back, then disappeared.)

6 Death Note: Hey, I mentioned that I'm into dark animes right?

7 Sword Art Online: A young gamer gets trapped in a new virtual reality MMORPG along with many others in this heroic drama. The premise sounds ridiculous so I neglected watching it for a long time, but I was sooo happy when I finally did!

8 Knights of Sidonia: A young man becomes the rising star and great hope of possibly the last remnant of humanity drifting through space, many years after Earth was annihilated by incomprehensible aliens. Can't wait for season 2!

9 and 10 Ghost in the Shell: A classic anime film. Ghost in the Shell: Arise is great too.

11 East of Eden: Outside of Miyazaki films, this is the only 'sweet' anime that I've ever fallen in love with. Romance and mystery conspire to create an amazing story in this more-or-less modern world drama.

12 Arpeggio of Blue Steel: A young sea captain and his crew struggle to give humanity a fighting chance against the mysterious 'fleet of fog' which obliterated all human sea-power more than a decade ago. Somewhat surprisingly, the most defined and dramatic characters are the human-like avatars of the Fleet of Fog's ships, who help and hinder the young captain. Action-packed and fast paced, the first season is very promising.

13 Angel Beats!: Dead teens live and adventure together in an afterlife with explicitly video-game physics. Again, it's an absurd-sounding plot, but it's strangely compelling; and unlike many drama-focused animes, it has a very satisfying conclusion!

14 Fate/Zero: Summoned heroes from various mythologies duke it out to win the Holy Grail, a relic capable of granting the victor's master any one wish.

15 High School of the Dead: A group of high schoolers fight to survive a zombie apocalypse and its aftermath. There's a ridiculous amount of fanservice, but if you can get past that, it's a really fun show.

16 Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood: Much better than the other FMA: the Painfully Slow One. I probably just POed every fan of the original comic, but hey, I need action! Netflix has season 1 and 2, but not the others for some reason. This is another one to catch up on later.

17 Ninja Scroll: Sooo did not expect this to be rated R, given its title! Good stuff though, and a classic.

18 Moribito: A heroic tale of adventure and redemption in a land of swords and magic. Beautiful animation, a strong heroine, a bit of action, and a satisfying ending make this one an instant recommendation for pretty much anyone.

19 Cowboy Bebop: I liked the film, though I don't remember much about it.

20 Blood: the Last Vampire: A short and bloody film involving a high school Halloween party, vampires, and a girl with a sword. And that's pretty much all ya need to know. :) Not to be confused with the series of similar title and same protagonist, which is much more drama-oriented and slow-paced.

21 RWBY: I'm still not quite sure why I like this one became an instant favorite of mine -- it's not my usual fare. Teenage drama with monster-hunters-in-training at a magical school doesn't sound very appealing, but it's an amazing show all the same. It's got gonzo action scenes, great characterization, a compelling plot, and a solid pace that makes the second-rate cgi come vibrantly alive. I'm sooooo bummed that the creator died after season 2!

22 Berserk: Blood and action, yes please!

Honorable Mention: Mushi-Shi: Not a riveting series, IMO, but this one is uniquely beautiful. It follows the wanderings of Ginko, a man who can see the mushi; spirit-things that abound in nature, and can sometimes cause problems. The very best soundtrack of any anime I've ever heard, bar none. Also, it's the only anime I've ever impressed a date by knowing. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How old are A and T, btw?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Saw Berserk 1, and wow! Was not expecting a feature-length experience, and I was not expecting rated R material.

I'm not complaining though, and I hope Netflix gets more episodes soon!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey James,

Do you have an opinion on healing spells as conjurations vs. as necromancies? It's one of the 3.0 changes that still has me scratching my head, not least of all because 3.5, PF, and 5e have all stuck with it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I learned to play rpgs with 2e during the 90s, but there're only three things that I miss from that era:

1. Tony DiTerlizzi's artwork, which I didn't begin appreciating until Planescape.
2. All of the amazing campaign settings, particularly Planescape.
3. Healing magic being part of the necromancy school, where it belongs!

Pretty much every other change has been a positive in my book, or at worst neutral, although I do now have a better understanding of why a lot of old school stuff is the way it is, and why many older D&Ders have stuck with pre-2000 editions or switched to retroclones.

I was a 'mayfly' until last year, but am now a happy 4e grognard. ;)

Vincent Takeda wrote:
I prefer the old older more narrow saving throws of 2e as well though.

Out of curiosity, why do you prefer 2e saves?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alynthar42 wrote:
Thank you, Divinitus. You seem to see what I'm getting at. I'm not talking about the RAW so much as whether the RAW is actually right. I feel like animating a body is no different than animating a mud golem. There's no soul in the body anymore, and it may as well be used to kill some bad guys, rather than just sit there.

Hi, Divinitus! You're absolutely right that there's no philosophical reason that raising the dead is automatically Evil; it's just one of those legacies that's been inherited from 3e D&D. A lot of DMs either invent a good reason for undead and undead creation to be Evil, or rule this legacy away.

(The smarmy reactions you're getting are because this is a perennial hot-button topic that invariably ends in flame-wars.)

deusvult wrote:
I still say writers got it wrong to change them to "conjuration".

Yep, this is one of the things that TSR got 100% right.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

On Cuss Words


"There are no bad words; only bad thoughts and bad intentions."

-- George Carlin

On Topic


"I drank your milkshake. I drank it up!!!

--Daniel Plainview, There Will Be Blood

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
But don't try to stop others from doing it if they want. And yes, censorship is exactly what some people are advocating here.

Citation needed. And let's keep our goalposts firmly in place; 'censorship' is a wider term than 'ban,' and might cover sentiments beyond the supposed ban-desires that you and others are reacting against.

Keep in mind that this whole sub-topic began with cmastah recommending a show, mentioning that it has no fanservice, and then Freehold replying with 'Sounds cool, but no fanservice = no Freehold.'


Afterward, Aranna said that she often finds that fanservice detracts from an anime, and that social awareness can and has led to improved entertainment. Before Alzrius badgered him into leaving the thread, Tels said that he doesn't mind fanservice in general but doesn't like watermelon boobs. And I followed up with my opinion that the world will be a better place when anime learns the meaning of 'everything in moderation.' No mention of bannings that I remember.

And then the thread exploded with a lot of overreactions* and [intentional?] misreading of posts. But hey, I could have missed these pro-ban comments, so feel free to link them. Because for the record, I do not support fanservice bans; what I do support is a bit of human empathy and social awareness.

*If you're not convinced of the general overreaction, take a look at Sissyl's comment about these supposed pro-ban fans getting orgasms from taking fun away from others. Lol, talk about throwing stones from glass houses! I might as well speculate that fanservice lovers want fanservice to be mandatory, because they get their jollies from knowing that their softcore [often child-]porn actively undercuts self-respect and cultural improvement.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
Moreover, you have yet to demonstrate why this is at all worthy of moral outrage.
I can see why Aranna pegged you for a troll.
The irony is that, without expounding on that, your statement here is trolling in and of itself.

And the tragedy is that a role player such as yourself needs more expound-ment to see a problem with fanservice. Maybe the next time you watch a fanservice-heavy anime, role play an impressionable teenage girl with low self-esteem. And then imagine that you always have been and always will be that female anime fan until the day you die.

That'll be much more enlightening than spending hours and hours throwing every conceivable argument at some anonymous internet posters you feel compelled to argue with.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grimmy wrote:

Do you guys prefers subs or dubs for anime?

I greatly prefer subs unless I'm so tired I can barely read.

Subs, dude.

I get an inordinately large kick out of hearing words that got ripped right out of English, spoken with a Japanese accent. ("Japan doesn't have a word for that?!") Also, if I generally like an anime but not its voices/sounds, I can mute it and still know what's going on.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm surprised how difficult it seems for some anime fans to see why fanservice might be really objectionable to women. Does sex sell? Absolutely. Will fanservice ever totally disappear? No more than racism, homophobia, or boy bands will completely disappear.

But that doesn't mean we throw up our hands, and say "Oh f~!& it, bring back the Backstreet Boys!" Because here's the thing: fanservice creates a very subtle but very real effect on women and especially girls. You can say 'Well if a girl doesn't like fanservice, there are other things to watch,' but the fact is that girls will end up watching some of it anyway. Aranna watches fanservice because some fanservicey shows have other redeeming qualities; other girls and women get peer pressured or 'I want to watch what my male friends, bf, husband, big brother, or daddy are watching!' into watching animes with fanservice. (As has been pointed out, an R rating is no real obstacle for a determined child or teen.)

And what's the effect of a girl and even a woman watching fanservice? A small but insistent voice in the back of her head telling her 'You only have small-to-regular boobs, you ain't nothing!' 'Your ankles are bigger than your wrists, you ain't nothing!' 'Your waist is too big for a man to wrap his hands completely around, you ain't nothing!' And so on. It's like how stereotypes like 'black people are stupid' and 'gay people are sex-obsessed perverts' create a kind of background mental chatter. Consciously, a person knows that it's absurd and irrational; but people aren't rational. That mental chatter is enough to undercut or even crush many people's self-respect, which results in all sorts of issues.

I'm not saying that fanservice is the worst thing since Hitler, or that it's not a byproduct of human nature. I'm saying that the world will be a better place when more anime (and other entertainment) learns what 'everything in moderation' means.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
I think it's really more of an attempt by the 3.x crowd to marginalize 4e than anything else.
I believe the MMO comments are more because the game has a severe (one might even say crippling) lack of creativity in regards to abilities. Everything is square this, status that, [x]W, xd6. Made a floating hand? Guess what? It can move in any direction but up. Up is forbidden, because allowing Up movement would unbalance things. There is 0 creativity allowed in the rules and anything that *could* unbalance things is errata'd to the point of needing a video-game like patch log.

This is an excellent example of the lies that edition warriors like to spread, and the double standards they live by. Powers absolutely work in three dimensions, and out of combat by the way. Unlike conjuring spells in PF, which can't summon creatures to a space in the air. (SO MMO GAMEY!) And like invisibility, which ends when the subject performs an arbitrary action. (NO CREATIVITY TOO MUCH BALANCE!)

Anzyr wrote:
Again, the above is not a criticism of 4E. It is merely a statement of how it is designed. That kind of inflexible design would be fantastic for say a board game. It may be wonderful for some gaming groups. I, however, happen to like the direction up.

PF has zero consistency in errata; the devs let casters get away with murder but anything nice that martials discover get nerfed into the ground. But hey, that's not a criticism of PF; it's merely a statement of how it is designed. That sort of haphazard design would be fantastic for say a collectible card game all about magic, and it may be wonderful for some game groups. I however happen to like devs who care about their product, and for consistent balance.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
sacklunch wrote:

...he always said he "doesn't do point buy."

...told by him that "he doesn't do crafting"...

"Well then, you don't play."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

He's deluding himself.

Casting IH is making an evil choice. He's a hypocrite. He can continue to think he's making good choices, but where it really matters, i.e. wanting healing, he stoops to using Evil because it's better and more convenient.

He could say whatever he wanted...his actions would speak for him, and soon enough he'd start popping the paladin's detect-o-meter, which has been a kind of 'oh s+&&' moment for some people when it happens. Of course there's the one guy who tried to make it seem like I was singling him out personally, but he's the same guy who thought he could stay CG while using Evil magic to good ends. I warned him, he learned otherwise. And since I don't allow Evil PC's when I GM, he had a choice of taking drastic action to reclaim his destiny, or becoming an NPC. I ended up with his character sheet, and he started someone new.

What happened to the new NPC after that was interesting, but that's a separate story.


Aelryinth wrote:

This would fall under tolerating a lesser Evil to fight a greater Evil. It's still Evil, in the end. Your example is different because the character is going into it with eyes open.

he's Evil with a Code. that doesn't mean he's not Evil, nor does it mean he can't have noble qualities. But he is indeed making his choices and choosing to be Damned rather then making other choices. it IS his choice.


I'm really starting to see why so many gamers are fundamentally uncomfortable with the idea of objective alignment.

Thanks for your thoughts.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
However, I could see with some players where I would just instantly make the character an NPC, because I would know the player, and thus know that he would not play the character any differently than before the change, thus perpetuating the problem (thankfully, as I said, I have not encountered such a player personally).

Yeah, this is what I've been imagining; a character who's willing to damn his own soul for the betterment of others. A tragic hero doomed to a terrible afterlife because a capricious universe deems his choices noble but his tools wicked. I.e., a player who knows that his character is technically Evil, but no less a good guy for it.

...I apologize. No doubt that would involve quite a bit of cognitive dissonance for you, but it sounds rather interesting to me. :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:

Probably wrong here but this feels like it is coming to a roleplay vs rollplay issue. One side uses alignment for story and character development and world immersment, and the other just sees it as a resource to be monitored through a profit/loss system.


If you are on the rollplay side, just cut out alignment if you only look at it like something on a balance sheet. It serves no purpose for you. It's a story builder.

I really like the morals-made-reality aspect of alignment too, but yes, trying to reframe the debate as a 'rollplay vs roleplay' issue is absolutely wrong. And seeing how alignment was in part inspired by the red army vs. blue army rules of miniature war games, it's rather revisionist as well as insulting to other role players.

At best, alignment is completely orthogonal to character development. At worst, alignment is antagonistic to character development when there are alignment restrictions or other rules threatening to punish players for role playing their characters outside of whatever narrow role the game casts them in.

That's why there are so many role playing games completely devoid of alignment, including those of the fantasy genre; many many gamers role play without alignment better without than with. In fact I'm kind of amazed that this very fact didn't have you rethinking your whole premise before posting it on a public message board.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
I dunno, I always thought the pally was much more powerful than the other martials, but his drawback was that power could only be directed at evil, and he had to behave himself.

Sounds like you're a child of pre-WotC D&D too. :)

Anyhow, the "extra power balanced out by role play restrictions" philosophy fell out of favor in 2000, 'cause it works...well, inconsistently at best. And because the fighter got his own toys starting with 3e.

The paladin's alignment restriction and code are just legacy quirks at this point.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
LazarX wrote:
These arguments ignore one critical fact. Infernal Healing was not created as a world-independent core spell. It was created as part of Inner Sea magic which means it's a Golarion native spell. And in that spell what makes it evil is that Asmodeus created it and released it as a means of corruption. THAT is what makes it evil. You can't discuss the spell without the setting that creates it. If you use this spell in a different setting that's not Golarion, it needs another justification for it's very existence.

"A wizard did it."

It's simple, it follows the precedent set by virtually every other wizard spell, and it creates the perfect justification for renaming the spell, dropping the specific components, and removing the [evil] tag.

You're welcome.

Then what you have is an unbalanced spell that violates some core tenets of the game, a spell I would not allow in any campaign I'm running. Infernal Healing is balanced by the problems it brings into the game. A person healed by this spell will ping on Paladin or other Detect Evil radars as will anyone carrying wands/scrolls/potions of said spell

*Marked Return To Sender*

For someone so concerned with reading into context, you sure seem to have missed an important detail. I would have thought that the bolded part of my post would imply simpler spell text, but since you missed it I'll give you a hand:

Asmodeus did it wrote:

You anoint a wounded creature with devil’s blood or unholy water, giving it fast healing 1. This ability cannot repair damage caused by silver weapons, good-aligned weapons, or spells or effects with the good descriptor. The target detects as an evil creature for the duration of the spell and can sense the evil of the magic, though this has no long-term effect on the target’s alignment.


A wizard did it wrote:

You give the touched creature fast healing 1.


You pointed out an easily, easily solved problem -- the lack of justification for Infernal Healing in other settings -- and I solved it for you. I couldn't care less what you would or wouldn't do in your games, but from personal experience I can tell you that letting go of the unwritten 'arcane magic shall not heal' rule is nothing but good clean fun. And besides, as Voadam mentions, that rule by now has more exceptions than the English language.

As to concerns for imbalance, I posit that a spell is either balanced or it's not, regardless of alignment tags. Just like the ranger's unique ability to fight with two weapons at once and other amazing class abilities aren't balanced out by his requirement to be Good.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaberlunzie wrote:
The game never fully explains it's reasoning for why a rule is the way it is. We are assumed to figure out a reason on our own.

Or to change the rule to suit our tastes.

Just saying.

(Unless we're talking about organized play, of course.)

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Usual Suspect wrote:

I had a DM that let the party gang rape my character's cohort. The idiot couldn't quite understand why I quit after that. Kept pushing to know why I quit coming to the game (I had made a polite excuse as to why I wouldn't be back). He was terribly upset when I explained what a douchbag move it was for the DM to ignore evil actions in a game where he had specifically outlawed evil characters. Most of his players thought it was hillarious. Honestly, 3 twenty-something guys couldn't figure out why rape isn't fin or funny.

Pretty much ruined gaming for a year as I wasn't even interested in role-playing because of that.

Wow, that's an asinine group. The DM wouldn't have had to push me to know why I left...

Rape is something that the heroes kill villainous NPCs for doing, not something that PCs do because lolz the evulz!

The Indescribable wrote:
Triphoppenskip wrote:
I'm always happy to have someone give me advice as a player or as a GM but I hate people like that guy who feel they have to be an a$$ about it.
While I obviously wasn't there, it sounds less like he was trying to be ass (to the rogue) And more like honestly trying to help and f!@@ing it up. And honestly, I'm probably guilty of that same infraction.

Yeah, few asses realize that they're being asses; they think they're being helpful, and just don't recognize subtle social cues like crossed arms and monosyllabic mutters.


ngc7293 wrote:
Later at 3rd level, I decided to use spellstrike again and this time with shocking grasp. I hit. I followed the rules as I was told. Then he jumped like a cat (the other guy playing a magus) "NO THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS" (yes, he yelled). He claimed the spell strike worked with both of my attacks not with just the one. I tried to argue with the guy but he has this method where he gets louder with his argument. And then the GM was agreeing with him. I KNEW I was right but I was getting so frustrated and I didn't want to deal with these two and I blew up. I told them I had enough of the character and I didn't want to play the Magus anymore. (I was good enough to at least finish the session)

"I'm sorry, could you repeat that? I couldn't hear you over all the shouting."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Krisam wrote:

{. . .}

Many years ago, I read all these pages about alignment by James Beach, and they have proven formative to my perception of the nature and use of alignments.
Hmmm . . . somehow missed this article the first time through this thread. Some of this is an improvement on the standard implementation of the D&D alignment system, but definitely not all of it.


I've been skipping around this article, and Beach obviously put a lot of thought into it, and was ahead of the times when he wrote it. Like when he recognizes that the 2e description of the Good-Evil axis is contradictory by wanting to be both objective and subjective:

2e PHB wrote:
"Remember, however, that goodness has no absolute values. Although many things are commonly accepted as good (helping those in need, protecting the weak), different cultures impose their own interpretations on what is good and what is evil."
My Final Word on Alignments wrote:
Yet they never felt compelled to tell us how such a thing like Detect Good or Detect Evil or Know Alignment made such value judgments in such absolute terms. It was almost as if they clearly intended such things to have absolute definitions at first, but then backed away from that position when they realized the relativity of many moral concerns - i.e. it was as if they had intended for alignments to be absolute universal truths, but had to later back away from that position since it was obviously wrong.

But later, after completing his lengthy criticism of alignment, and how frustratingly framed it is by a strictly Lawful Good perspective:

My Final Word on Alignments wrote:
Unfortunately, to use any other standard or absolute other than the Lawful Good one already in use would doom it to failure since too much of the system is already written and in place. Only TSR itself could pull off such a major revision and expect it to gain acceptance through the new printing of their next edition. But I am not TSR and this is only one little paper, despite its length. So I am more or less forced to use much of their standard, or forced to forget the whole thing. But I did not write this paper to forget it, and you didn't read it this far to be let down. And so, using the Lawful Good standard, but modified to exclude the abstract, universal, cosmic notions of balance, we proceed.

Beach steps back from writing the alignment revamp that he'd presumably rather write, and decides to try to hammer the existing model into shape -- with mixed results, as you say, UnArcaneElection.

If I went to the trouble to write such a lengthy article on a game thing that I felt was so fundamentally flawed, I'd go the whole nine yards with it -- tear down the old, and start from scratch! But maybe I'm unusually Chaotic like that. ;)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kajehase wrote:
Sméagol lied.

The facial expression and intonation make this one funny as well as nasty. :)


Gollum wrote:

"Pretty little fly, why does it cry?

Caught in a web, soon he'll be...dead.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I went to the trouble of finding and transcribing these quotes after recognizing some other quotes here, but for some reason never posted them. Oh well, better late than never...

Preceded by a sadistic explanation of black mamba venom:

A Blonde Villain wrote:
“Now, in these last agonizing minutes of life you have left, let me answer that question you asked earlier more thoroughly. Right at this moment, the biggest ‘R’ I feel is regret. Regret that maybe the greatest warrior I have ever met met her end at the hands of a bush wackin’ scrub elkie piece of s&&! like you! That woman deserved better.”


Preceded by much blood and death:

An Old Villain wrote:

“When you never came back, I naturally assumed Lisa Wong or somebody else had killed you. I mourned you for three months, and in the third month of mourning you, I tracked you down. I wasn’t trying to track you down; I was trying to track down the f$$+ing a~#!@#&s I thought had killed you. So I find you; and what do I find? Not only are you not dead; you’re getting married to some f*~$ing jerk, and you’re pregnant. I…overreacted."


"I didn’t say I was going to explain myself; I told you I was going to tell you the truth. But if that’s too cryptic, let’s get literal. I’m a killer, a murdering bastard; you know that. And there are consequences to breaking the heart of a murdering bastard.”


And I'm surprised neither of these has appeared in this thread:

A Very Unfunny Villain wrote:

“My father was a drinker, and a fiend. So one night he goes off crazier than usual; mommy gets the kitchen knife to defend herself. He doesn’t like that. Not. One. Bit. So, me watching, he takes the knife to her, laughing while he does it. Then he turns to me, and he says ‘Why so serious?’ He comes at me with the knife…’Why so serious?!’ He sticks the blade in my mouth…’Let’s put a smile on that face!’

Aaand…why so serious?”


A Very Unfunny Villain wrote:

“I had a wife once, beautiful, like you, who tells me I worry too much; who tells me I oughtta smile more; who gambles, and gets in deep with the sharks. One day they carve her face. We have no money for surgeries, and she can’t take it. I just want to see her smile again; I just want her to know that I don’t care about the scars. So I stick a razor in my mouth, and do this…*swishes cheeks* myself. And you know what? She can’t stand the sight of me! She leaves.

But now I see the funny side; now I’m always smiling."

I love how both of these stories are told with complete sincerity; so much so that I didn't immediately realize that they contradicted each other the first time I saw this film.

1 to 50 of 269 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.