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

3,369 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,369 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:

Crack: The Gathering.

I never got hooked, back when it was first starting, but some of my gamer friends did.

I kicked the habit years ago, but to this day I sometimes get an itch when I see Magic cards.

*shivers*

There's nothing like that crack-laced new-card smell...


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*


captain yesterday wrote:
I have a contrary streak in me, if a bunch of people like something I won't, just because everyone else does, I'm especially resistant to peer pressure, it has the opposite effect, in the plus side tho I've never seen Titanic or Avatar, never did anything harder than weed and got the f*!# our of the s+$*ty little town I spent my teenage years trapped in :-)

I've never even done weed -- but then, asthma is a good reason to avoid inhaling anything except fresh air. I experimented with drinks for a brief period; my drink of choice was the gin and tonic. But soon enough I realized I'd rather just have the tonic, and haven't touched alcohol since.

Yes, I enjoy tonic water in and of itself. Thanks, dad!


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.'


thegreenteagamer wrote:
A sorcerer's magic comes from within. That's not "harnessing the outside without a source". It's literally in their blood.

For sorcerers, magic comes more-or-less naturally -- a lot like mutant powers come to mutants. For psions, magic is a discipline.* Wilders are the Wheel of Time channelers of D&D.

Anyhow, I'm not crazy about the sci-fi terminology either, but I'm happy to have psionic characters in my games. Precisely because I can simply treat psionics as magic by another name, much like 137ben. I'm actually kinda surprised that nobody -- pro or fan -- has ever gone through the spell chapter and converted each one to a psionic spell. Quite a few of them have already been done officially. (Example: psionic disintegrate.)

*Wild talents throw a wrench into the discipline theme, I guess, but I don't like those and pretend they don't exist.

...Oh right, this thread is about shunning. I SHUN thee, GTG!


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...

Spoiler:
OMG HAVE YOU READ HARRY POTTER YET, IT'S THE BEST SERIES EVAAAR?!


Kthulhu wrote:
Tels wrote:
The only positive aspect of the class is the modular class design, but the mechanics provided are weak at best and awful at worst.
I think that the weakest aspect of the class is that it's four largely unrelated classes awkwardly shoved onto the same framework.

Confession: I know nothing about the Vigilante, or what's shun-worthy about liking or not liking it.


Simon Legrande wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I can't make it more then 5 minutes into the Matrix before I have to shut it off.
Can't really shun you for that. I've seen it precisely once, when it first came out on VHS. I wasn't impressed.
I loved all three, but I'm willing to admit that they were only slightly above average as sci-fi movies go. That being said, I'm a philosophy buff and the underlying ideas that the movies are based on elevated them for me.
I watched the first Matrix in a religion class, because the professor loves gnosticism. I think I've also been part of philosophical Matrix conversations, but I can't remember any specific themes. What are your favorites?

It's interesting to see their treatment of the allegory of the cave. Some of the subtext regarding purpose was also interesting, though I never really bought into it.

Edit: I also liked the conversation in the train station at the beginning of the third. Talking about the difference between words and the thoughts they are meant to convey. I'm going to be picking up a book on general semantics in the near future which goes into greater depth on the subject.

...Ah yes, I can see the allegory to the allegory of the cave.

Cave = Matrix
Freed Prisoner = Neo
Reflection of Sun in Water = "Stop trying to hit me, and hit me!" (?) "I'm sorry kiddo, but you're not the One." (?)
The Sun Itself = "The spoon isn't really there." (?) Neo's death, resurrection, and Smith-dive?

Well, I can sort of see it, I guess. What's your take on it?


Simon Legrande wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I can't make it more then 5 minutes into the Matrix before I have to shut it off.
Can't really shun you for that. I've seen it precisely once, when it first came out on VHS. I wasn't impressed.
I loved all three, but I'm willing to admit that they were only slightly above average as sci-fi movies go. That being said, I'm a philosophy buff and the underlying ideas that the movies are based on elevated them for me.

I watched the first Matrix in a religion class, because the professor loves gnosticism. I think I've also been part of philosophical Matrix conversations, but I can't remember any specific themes. What are your favorites?


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.


Riuk wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Somebody wrote:
.i don't really like minmax as when a player puts 3 stats to 7 just so they can max the others, and still want to rp like they have a 18 int /cha.
Then stop using point-buy.
true but when players use the roll stats it sick when you have 2 people that rolled 16-15 in all stats and that one guy who is at 12-9 across the board. I don't like making my players feel super week compared to the others. but I do like using the roll system better, if you get bad stats think more ^_^

There's also the array.

Jaelithe wrote:
The "Deep Space Nine is by far the best series" assertion is extremely common among people who never really liked the franchise, and consider it "the most realistic" of the shows. It was once probably as common in certain circles as "Firefly is the best show evah!" is today.

You're half right, in my case. I can appreciate ST, but I'm not a card-carrying Trekkie. DS9 is my favorite ST series because it's the most morally gray of them.

...On second thought, there's a good argument to be made that morally gray situations and characters are more realistic than consistent everybody-wins situations and sparkly clean characters. So maybe you're totally right about me after all.

Rynjin wrote:
Close runner-up is The Next Generation. Starts off less than good, but improves after a while.

I don't think that TNG is nearly as compelling as fans tend to think, but there was one scene from a particular episode that's stuck with me after ~20 years. The Enterprise comes upon a planet, deserted except for an elderly human couple. There's obviously something fishy going on, and at the end of the episode Picard confronts the husband...

Spoiler:
...who turns out to be an alien entity of deific power. (Like Q, I guess, except not irritating.) The entity tells Picard his story: There was once a human colony on the planet. He came upon the colony, took human form, fell in love with one of the women, married her and then lived as a human for some time. But then the planet was invaded by some alien army, and in the mayhem his wife was killed. (What appeared to be his wife during the episode is merely an illusion.)

"In a moment of anger, I killed the aliens." The entity tells Picard. "And then out of remorse for what I'd done, I became a hermit here."

"Well you may have overreacted, but the invaders did kill your wife. Your rage and retribution are understandable." Picard replies.

"No," the entity replies. "You don't understand; I didn't just kill the invaders. I killed all of the aliens, everywhere."


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

My turn:

I thought the Star Wars prequels were okay - or at least I didn't loathe them the way some people do (then again, I'm not a devout Jedi like some people, and I can sort of relate based on what Team J. J. did to Star Trek). I never got people's killer-bee-like reaction to Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah, so his grasp of Tradespeak is severely flawed - it's better than your Gungan, isn't it?

Same here. The SW prequels, the Hobbit movies, the ST reboots -- I enjoyed them all. Not as much as the originals, mind, but I don't consider them the cinematic slop that fans often do.*

But then, I have this trick where I can compartmentalize different films. If one film is of a different quality and/or tone than another movie within the same franchise, I consider them to be alternate realities. This allows me to cleanse my palette, so to speak, so that I can enjoy what entertainment a movie can provide.

*

Spoiler:
In fact, when it comes to the Abrams reboots, I like them more than the tv series. I get why ST fans find them to be a big step down from the original spirit of the franchise, but none of that bothers me.


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.


Rynjin wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
It is not my favorite show. I quite honestly doubt it's very many people's favorite show.

Uh ... OK. It's not my favorite show, either.

I do think it the best of Whedon's work, though. I enjoy Buffy and Angel, and have never seen Dollhouse, but ... Firefly's my favorite in his stable.

What you say about "memetic quality" may be true. I have no real reason to doubt you. I've just been unaware of it until now. Perhaps I've just never paid attention enough to be sick of it.

I actually prefer Buffy and Angel, but that comparison is kinda unfair. It's easier to get attached with longer times on the air.

I will say Firefly as a first season is better than Buffy's first season.

Yup. Much like Lord Snow, I didn't even make it to the second episode of Buffy. Firefly, on the other hand, had me right from "We're too pretty to die!" (I saw the episodes in order, years after the fact.)

A few days later, I talked a reluctant friend into watching the first episode, and I saw the Fan light come on in her eyes from the very same line. I never became a Fan with a capital F, but she ended up buying the comic book that links Firefly with Serenity, as well as other paraphernalia that I've forgotten the nature of.

Oh, and I second pH unbalanced's suggestion. Dollhouse is much better than its premise sounds.


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.


Thorazeen wrote:
If the masses praise something as being super cool prior to me seeing, reading, or listenimg to it then 98% of the time I will dismiss it as dung. If someone likes something a lot then I would love to hear why they love versus "OMG, you gotta llike this because well the other sheeple do."

This kinda happened to me with Lovecraft. I read rave reviews and references to his fiction for years before reading it, and when I finally did, it was a huge letdown. I don't think I would have loved his fiction if I had never heard anything about it before, but all the talk just made me go "This is what all the hype was over?!"

(Let the shunning of TS now continue!)


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!!!"?


thejeff wrote:
No qualifiers on "the fact that people who walk around preaching their own opinion without qualifiers". :)

...I see what you did there. :D


Simon Legrande wrote:
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
So I also blame the gamers who make unqualified generalizations as if they were speaking gospel truth.
Here's the thing about that, one person's unqualified generalizations are another person's gospel truth.
Thus is born racism, gender superiority, etc. All these discriminations come from this, except applied to real people instead of a game. I therefore can't condone or accept a generalization as valid as a gospel truth under the excuse of subjectivity. If they do it in one aspect of their lives, then they are prone and vulnerable to similar thinking in other aspects of their lives.
It doesn't matter if you condone it, it is what it is. The fact you don't agree with discriminations doesn't make them go away, and everyone discriminates about something. Reality is more subjective than objective.

Yes, yes, even the gospel truth itself isn't objective truth. Doesn't change the fact that people who walk around preaching their own opinion without qualifiers share the responsibility for creating more uninformed opinions.


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.")


I just watched Madoka Magica: Rebellion, and I am so so confused. I love the artistic style and I picked up on the setting's basic concept, but I probably should have started with MM: Beginnings.


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!


Steve Geddes wrote:
xeose4 wrote:
I confess I'm always surprised when someone who says they hate Pathfinder and prefer another system posts on the Paizo boards. I mean, *I* think the boards are awesome but I enjoy the system too? I don't understand.

Perhaps they like paizo but not pathfinder? Perhaps they like Golarion or adapt paizo's adventures to another system? Perhaps they posted here before pathfinder existed and are comfortable with the forum and part of the community?

Lots of reasons to post here, even if you do hate pathfinder.

Bingo! I like Paizo, I'd like to someday play or run a Paizo AP, and I've been here since the 3.5 days.

I don't even hate PF. There are things I hate about PF -- no level-based AC bonus, wizards being incapable of the humble cure light wounds spell, along with a lot of minor thematic and mechanical inconsistencies -- but these are things I also hated about 3.0-.5. Which was my favorite rpg for eight years.

So I actually like PF; I just don't run or seek out PF campaigns.


Voadam wrote:
Lessah wrote:

The Bards have healing spells (Cure X Wounds) because Bards have always had healing spells, in every previous version of the game that exists. So legacy would be one reason.

Its been a while, weren't second edition bards using the straight mage spell list?

Yes, they were. I'm also pretty sure that 3.0 was the first edition to give bards their own spell list.


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

;)


Just watched Expelled from Paradise, a post-apocalyptic mecha sci-fi in which most of humanity exists in digital form within a refuge called Deva. Angela Balzac, the protagonist, is an agent of Deva on a mission to protect it from a hacker known as Frontier Setter. This movie is a fast-paced action drama. Other than her at-your-fan-service outfit, Angela is an engaging and believable protagonist who becomes a new character by the film's end, and avoids straying into the trite tropes that I expected at the start.

I give Expelled from Paradise four stars out of five.


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.


Nohwear wrote:
I like 4e. I am not saying that it is the best edition, just that I do enjoy it.

Heh, I do think that 4e is the best edition.


Simon Legrande wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
In regards to Imagine, it's just a matter of preference for me. I don't like John Lennon for the same reason I don't like Katy Perry, The Mamas and the Poppas, System of a Down, Beyonce, Dave Matthews Band, Chuck Berry or Cannibal Corpse. Sometimes the message has nothing to do with it.
Okay, cool. It's all about the melody/tune/whatever for me, so no judgments here. Though I have no idea what all of those artists have in common.
It's just a list of artists across the musical spectrum whose music I don't care for. I do like other artists who are similar to the ones I don't like, but preferences are weird like that.

Ah, gotcha. There are songs where I love one half but hate the other half, so...right, there's no accounting for taste.


Simon Legrande wrote:
In regards to Imagine, it's just a matter of preference for me. I don't like John Lennon for the same reason I don't like Katy Perry, The Mamas and the Poppas, System of a Down, Beyonce, Dave Matthews Band, Chuck Berry or Cannibal Corpse. Sometimes the message has nothing to do with it.

Okay, cool. It's all about the melody/tune/whatever for me, so no judgments here. Though I have no idea what all of those artists have in common.


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.


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.


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? ;)

I actually hated Imagine when I was a kid...it was something about the tune/melody/whatever. But at some point I started loving it, the way that most people go from hating to loving onions. Which I still can't stand, despite enjoying onion flavor.

*shrug*


DM waz up? wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
DM waz up? wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
tsuruki wrote:
put me in the "i like the alignment system" concentration camp
How many of us are in there now? ;)
I have a soft spot in my heart for alignment, even if I don't think it's ever been done quite right.

The alignment system is nice, but players can't get it right

Just because your chaotic evil doesn't mean you have to be a cannibal who flays people alive in the middle of a bar in front of the city guard using only your bare hands! That isn't CE(well it really is)! CE likes killing but they aren't that crazy!!!!!

That kind of CE doesn't get to live for very long ... usually. ;)
Got that right!, my group found him revolting and decided to kill him off.

Oy, yes, I remember the friend who introduced me to tabletop gaming telling me "Chaotic Neutral is basically crazy." Of course, this was back in 2e, when CN really was described as clinically insane.

WotC really improved the definitions, but I've yet to see a happy balance between 'Alignment sticking its nose in all kinds of places it doesn't belong' (2e, 3.x) and 'Alignment is 99% fluff' (4e, 5e). Ah well, c'est la vie.


Turin the Mad wrote:
tsuruki wrote:
put me in the "i like the alignment system" concentration camp
How many of us are in there now? ;)

I have a soft spot in my heart for alignment, even if I don't think it's ever been done quite right.


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. ;)


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
I wish Paizo would radically change Pathfinder despite the fact that I probably still wouldn't buy it.

Hm, why not?

I actually might be interested in a radically changed PF. But to be honest, I'm looking for pretty particular things, and the odds of seeing those things in PF is virtually zero unless I were to win the lottery, buy Paizo, and then head the PF 2.0 project myself. :p


LazarX wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Sure, that was EGG's intention, but I'm guessing back in those days Lava submersion without some kind of magical protection was an instant-kill?
It was 20d6 of fire damage per round.

Hm, that's odd. In the 2e DMG, I remember mention that some things are insta-kill, with a collapsing room trap mentioned as an example. But then TSR-era D&D was even more inconsistent than WotC D&D.


Morzadian wrote:
Smarmy? Chill out where is your sense of humour? I was joking.

Lol, I was joking too. Couldn't you tell?

Morzadian wrote:
Hit points is not a disassociative mechanic.

Which is why I called it a dissociative rule, which is a much older problem than some edition warrior's peculiarly selective term for rationalizing what he didn't like about 4e. Which is why gamers have been having issues with dissociative rules since day 1 of D&D.

Morzadian wrote:
Someone attacks you, you have less hit points, cure spells heal damage. Is it realistic? No, but its still a simulation, in the context of a heroic fantasy setting.

So is non-magical healing. But hey, feel free to tell yourself whatever you want.

Morzadian wrote:
My OP stated that there aren't any mechanics in the Pathfinder (3.75) system that implies hit points is anything other than meat points, which is in fact true.

So you're okay with meat points because the PF rulebook tells you that that's what hp are. Cool, that's all I was looking for.


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.


Morzadian wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
@Tequila Sunrise, you just need more feats for defence that are something more than a +1.
That's...terribly unsatisfactory IMO. If basic attack skill (BAB) is automatic, defensive skill should not require special opt-in choices. I'm glad it works for you, but for me it's terribly dissonant.
Terribly unsatisfactory?...someone get me a box of tissues.

Smarmy much? As I recall, this whole discussion originally began in the other thread with you not being able to handle non-magical healing because it's 'dissociative.' Well, cry me a river. This is D&D/PF we're talking about; I've been gaming with dissociative rules for ~20 years. Hit points are the poster boy of dissociative rules, but there are plenty more!

How you can imagine that fantasy physics works fantastically for the purpose of wounds (meat points), while being incapable of (or unwilling to) imagining healing without overt finger-wiggling magic is beyond me. But by all means, reach for those tissues.

Morzadian wrote:
In my D&D 3.5e days I used something called a Class Defense Bonus. We abandoned it when we crossed over to Pathfinder as it was too much work for the GM. And it changed too many other things in the game...the dreaded butterfly effect.
Morzadian wrote:

Tequila if you are not impressed by this may the gods of Golarion show mercy

Class Defense Bonus...

You tell me that the CDB variant is too much work, and then you go ahead and post it? Good thing I'm perfectly capable of writing a better house rule myself!


Tacticslion wrote:
... oooooorrrrrrrrrrr... make the AC scaling as part of the natural progression of the character growth instead of a function of magic items and feats.

If I were to run PF, this is exactly what I'd do. It'd probably look a lot like the house rule that you linked.

Tacticslion wrote:
I'm not saying your grasp is wrong, but rather the underlying premise that is "hit points is a skill, where's the related one" is flawed.

Not quite. My premise is "Characters ought to get better at martial defense just by surviving adventures, just as they get better at stabbing things just by surviving adventures. Thus, there ought to be a stat to represent that.”

I'll understand if you don't agree with this premise, as we've already established that we're coming from opposite directions on this issue.


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. :)


Tacticslion wrote:

Not really, because, again, you're approaching this from the "wrong"* angle, here.

* "Wrong" being a "wrong from how its applied within the game" not from a "you're ideas are bad and should feel bad" angle.

Wait, so your posts have been trying to explain how the game works, and what different mechanics mean? Er, thanks I guess, but I've been playing for about 20 years now and I have a pretty good grasp of the assumptions and various interpretations. My purpose in this thread is to find out how you make meat points work, notably in PF and D&D.

Tacticslion wrote:

The main disconnect, I think, is not hit points, but that your BAB is tied to leveling up. This means your skill at hitting things gets better automatically, no matter who you are.

That was always a bit of a disconnect, but it's the only place where "skill" in a specific combat-related thing automatically increases in the game.

Ah, so your issue is related to mine, but coming from the opposite direction. Brando McAwesome the 20th level martial guy being as easy to stab as a dirt farmer doesn't both you, but Bartleby the Bookworm being able to punch his way through a platoon of 1st level goons just for being a 20th level wizard does. Am I off the mark?

Tacticslion wrote:
(Point in fact, I tend to think that attacks should be skill-based, myself.)

It would certainly be more consistent, which is a big plus.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:
HP is also a reflection of stamina and fatigue... Still it's too vague... That's why I like Rolemaster broken arms and legs, bleed stacks, guts spilling out. Combatants flee and surrender a few rounds into combat.

I've never played RM or any hit-location kind of game, so I can't comment on how much I like it, but I absolutely respect game designers who have the cajones to deviate from traditional D&Disms.

1 to 50 of 3,369 << 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.