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

knightnday's page

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 958 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 958 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Cat-thulhu wrote:


Wow, that's an incredibly offensive attitude to take to someone you don't even know anything about. Perhaps he genuinely like the changes? Maybe he's actually tried them out and finds they work fine for him. Maybe he wants to counter the barrage of unconstructive, negative comments that appear in those same threads. You don't like the new monk, don't use it.

hahaha wow

"Countering" criticism solely for the sake of providing a dissenting opinion is basically just trolling.

"Don't like, don't use" is just another way of saying "F$~# you and your opinion, only praise may be uttered here".

Negative comments have a right to exist. Paizo is not above criticism. FAR from it.

No, calling people sock puppets is trolling.

No one is asking for or Gods knows expecting nothing but praise. But out and out attacking other posters and the devs rather than suggesting that you don't like the class for whatever reason isn't negative comments. It isn't criticism. It's being a d#$# to be a d#$*.

Flag it and move on.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
To be honest I'm stunned *beat* that it's 2015 and Pathfinder people [be they Paizo staff or forumposters] are still concerned about the dippability of a class.

Some people are concerned about dipping. Some people are concerned about poor Will saves. It's 2015 and I'm stunned that you can still be stunned that someone won't like or will be concerned about *something*, no matter how small it might seem to someone else.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jacob Saltband wrote:

What I should have said was that characters with these drawbacks would never be as good as someone with no noticeable drawback and though would mostly likely not progress further since no one would higher them over someone obviously better.

See I believe that the game should have some grounding in reality. Its my impression from post I've read in the past, on this thread a others, that some people like a feel good super special snowflack game.

At least again this is the impression I get.

Except in reality, if we want to ground things in reality, people who aren't as smart or fast or whatever do manage to succeed and get hired. There are many many people that manage to get along quite well even with drawbacks or deficiencies.

No, someone with a lower score might not ever be as good as someone born with all the advantages (higher scores.) But the world is full of stories of people who have managed to excel despite not being the best of the best of the best. One can substitute great effort (skill levels) to make up for some deficiency (lower stats).

What you do in your own game is your business. What your players like is theirs. But telling people that they are playing a super special snowflake game is just being insulting for no reason. Your way is not the only way, or the only opinion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Morzadian wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Morzadin wrote:
Maybe its time we need to have a Pathfinder iconic who suffers from a disability who is destined for great things.
Isn't the oracle blind or something?

She is. Also, a LG atheist.

She's fun. :)

Yeah okay I didn't know. That's really cool.

I had a quick check there are no rules for making a blind character, apart from giving your character the blind condition, the line of thinking is that disadvantaged or disabled characters should be at an advantage too.

If you were going to get into a fight with a blind character, or a one armed character you would most likely underestimate them, have your guard down.

Players don't intentionally explore characters with disabilities because there is only penalties, especially in relation to a blind character. And please no one bring up illusions, hopefully you understand what I am getting at.

Edit: I suggested to a fellow player (who is playing a Dwarven druid), that they have a missing eye, and an eye patch, an injury form a past battle, provides exposition- tough and hardened character, and replied 'cool idea, but what penalty will I get, yeah no thanks.'

Moreover, many players are loathe to have a disadvantage at all because they worry that they won't be able to put forth the numbers we often see on the boards. It is easy to get lost in the efficiency of the character and what they can do rather than what makes up the whole of the character, the good and the bad.

This often comes up when we have these threads about high and low stats and if someone should or is being penalized "enough" by what what is in the book. Many are quick to point out workarounds so that they can get a mechanical advantage or otherwise not be at a disadvantage by dumping a stat. This is where some GMs and other players, right or wrong, take offense.

I've had this happen a few times over the years, with instances like someone wanting to have a great strength but look "sexy", full of feminine curves and very unmuscular. Then down the road they wanted to flex their muscles and intimidate an NPC "like the Hulk" (in their words.) The other players were less than amused and had a long talk at the table about accurately painting a picture of your character.

What we came up with in the end was this: we don't care how you describe your stats, be they high or low. We do want consistency. If you drop Intelligence to 7 or 4, be able to explain how your character interacts with the world. We expect no less explanation of your 16 or 20. Are your quick witted? Book smart? Highly perceptive? All the good and the bad make up your character and how they are portrayed to the rest of the table. Deciding that you want to drop your charisma into the gutter but then not wanting to have any sort of character reason why it is that low is, at least at our table, considered poor form.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Forever Slayer wrote:


I would recommend you do a little research then.

On what, Hasbro? Oh no doubt they are "evil" in a way that all corporations are: they want money. That doesn't change much in the grand scheme of things. Little corporations want money. Big corporations want money. Downsizing the size of the company putting the game out doesn't guarantee anything.

What does sabotaging their own product get them, exactly? That is assuming that making a movie, t shirts, cups or other products is sabotaging the brand, of course.

Being able to concentrate on multiple projects doesn't mean they are somehow neglecting the game, nor does a light production schedule.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:
knightnday wrote:
I haven't seen any statements about them wanting a D&D movie (although I don't follow their every word.)

But... they're actively waging a lawsuit re: the rights to make new films with Warner Brothers (who is banging down SweetPea's door in order to make Chainmail, it seems) v. Universal (who seems to be backing Hasbro's claim).

That's... a pretty solid statement without words.

Hm, interesting. Still, it's a long way from fighting this out in court and making a movie that isn't an embarrassment to movies and the brand in general. They need to do better than staple the name D&D to something and hope the money comes in.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Forever Slayer wrote:

Hasbro is going to do what makes them the most money, even if it's not whats best for the actual game and that is the problem. They see less product as less money they have to spend. They have a tiny design team because it's less money they have to pay people.

Their minds are on other things besides the TTRPG but they have a bog problem with tunnel vision. They have their hearts set on making a blockbuster movie and I bet you here and now that it won't happen. They seem to believe they can repeat what Marvel has done and that idea is dead in the water I'm afraid.

Instead of focusing on everything, they tend to focus on one thing and it ain't RPGs.

I haven't seen any statements about them wanting a D&D movie (although I don't follow their every word.) And yes, they and everyone else on the planet would like to replicate Marvel's success with movies right now. That isn't much of a surprise; that said, without the clout of Disney they will probably find it as hard as everyone else.

I'm not sure I buy that Hasbro or a large corporation is the bane of RPG games. Hasbro certainly gives D&D a little more push into certain markets like Toys R Us for example (at least around here). I think that the worry that a megacorporation (is this Shadowrunesque fear of the megas here?) is going to somehow ruin the game is unfounded. I lived through all the TSR years and the WOTC years and those small companies were able to do well and do poorly by the brand over that time.

If Hasbro somehow, someway, utterly destroyed D&D as a brand tomorrow there is enough material out there to play any of the previous editions for decades if not longer.

Worry less about the evils of Hasbro and worry more about playing and having fun.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:
knightnday wrote:
pay more attention to the properties about to blow up for a movie
* ahem* :D

hah! No, no, I meant real movies that people will want to see. Those were .. not good. I'd almost say they would make people NOT want to buy things related with D&D. Now I'm going to have to get these images out of my head ... :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't think Hasbro will be the downfall of D&D nor do they want to. If the brand started ailing for whatever reason, they could shelve it for a few years before bringing back a retooled edition on an anniversary date to appeal to the nostalgia crowd. They seem to do this sort of thing all the time .. look at Operation, for example. It probably has ok sales, maybe around Christmas but nothing special. Then every once in a while they will release a "new" version with Doc McStuffins or Planes and it pops the sales numbers again.

I have doubts that Hasbro is twirling a mustache and demanding that D&D make material come out slowly just to stymie players. Their edicts are probably more along the lines of "Go make money and try not to screw up. Have some new products for X time period if you could." Then they go back to swimming in gold doubloons.

I would expect that their minds are on things making a little more money for them, like GI Joe, Jurassic Park (new movie coming out, get your toys now!), Star Wars (same), and so forth. I don't have any insider knowledge of this, mind you. I just know that I'd certainly pay more attention to the properties about to blow up for a movie than one of the dozens of others that are trudging along doing fine. They have people (WOTC) to worry about the day to day.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bellona wrote:

Did anyone else get a Ring of Wishes (card) along with their print copy of Giantslayer 2? :)

I'm wondering if a deck got scattered in the warehouse, or if it's part of some sort of advertising campaign ...

I got one with my hard copy of Unchained. It was a nice surprise and my kids wanted a whole set of them now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Norgrim Malgus wrote:

Just out of curiosity, is anyone posting here that has issues with the Fighter's lack of 'oomph' tried writing up a small list of unique abilities, Supernatural or otherwise, and testing these changes to see if it works for your games?

If so, what was the end result, both for in-game balance and players being on board with the ideas? Hell, I'd love to see some Fighter's hit an enemy so hard he goes all Wheel of Time on the targets ass and literally erases that creature from the time stream, never existed type of bad-assery.

I've played in games where the fighter/magician problem was addressed, although I do not sadly have those notes any longer (been 30 years). In more recent years I've limited wizards and other spell casters in interesting ways -- and people still take them. I've had rules tested like "you take HP damage equal to the level of the spell cast, unable to be healed by magical means." People still wanted to play wizards.

That is how good magic is: no matter how much you limit spell casters, there are players that will weigh the power versus the inconvenience and still choose casters. We've allowed martial classes chances to dispel spells and disrupt magic as well, and that worked as well.

Basically tables I've played with as well as myself have played with all sorts of rule changes, whether stolen from other games or made up and tried out. I certainly am not waiting for Paizo or anyone else to create them for me -- I mean, it's my game (or my players and mine) and I do not have to worry about satisfying the masses in PFS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Seranov wrote:
knightnday wrote:
More stuff.

I'm just saying that if the options for the supposed "cheesy" stuff were part of the baseline rules, and people could decide whether they wanted to use it or not (for example, to choose not to use it because they feel it's "cheesy"!) that would be better for the system as a whole.

More options that you can choose to not use is better than fewer options and the hamfisted NUH UH NOT REALISTIC CHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE nonsense that is so common among people right now. In the first option, everyone can get what they want with a bit of discussion, but in the second, one party is told "No, what you want is unimportant to us."

Arachnofiend and Chengar Qordath wrote:
Other stuff.
See, these guys get it.

Cool. Who gets to decide what is cheesy and what isn't for inclusion into the baseline rules? The devs? A vote on the boards? Do we have them ask the weirdest person at work, defined by some nebulous criteria?

Whether or not Paizo puts the ideas in the Core book, a 3PP presents them or they fall from the sky on stone tablets means exactly nothing if your table decides to use them or not to use them. This is what I've said repeatedly about talking and communicating.

If everyone at your table wants the "Cheese" dial turned to 11, then go for it. You don't need some "official" source to tell you that is OK; that's the creative part of the hobby.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:

Thing is, if you're good at casters you don't even have to be an a#&&&#& to ruin the fun for everyone else. Had a PFS game a while back where we fought a boss-type creature; classic PFS scenario, one big enemy with lots of HP and very little in the means of other protections. Our Conjuration Wizard had Acid Pit prepared and dropped it in the pit. The monster was dead before the pit ran out.

I can't blame him for what he did; it was the best play he could have made with the spells available, and he did beat the encounter. The blame is squarely on the shoulders of whoever decided it was a good idea to make a spell that can destroy anything that can't fly and locks all of your party members out of the encounter.

Yup. And this is one of the things I look out for when I GM and remove from play. PFS doesn't do this, which is something they should look into as an aside. But yeah, if there are easy one shot kills like that people are going to take them if they can.

There is some broken and problematic stuff, mostly spells, that goes on in the game. I don't deny that. I'd like it if they took care of it, but they haven't. That's where I come in as a GM. I'd like to say as a player I wouldn't take the spell knowing how broken it is, but I might if push came to shove. But I try pretty hard not to use that sort of thing, so that the other people at the table are not staring at me trying to get my head to explode.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Seranov wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Stuff.

In a game with levels, the levels should mean that they are roughly equivalent options in both flavor, mechanics and fun. If they ain't, then there's no damn point to them. And that's not okay.

This is why I play mostly Path of War and Psionics stuff nowadays: they go out of their way to lower this disparity AND give me fun and interesting options for my characters to play with. This is good. Is the Warder just a Wizard with a coat of paint? Hell no, he's a martial class that can do lots of really effective and fun things that the Fighter would have to spend all of his ability points and feats on, and he does them baseline. Also he doesn't have 2+Int skill points per level, a terrible skill list, and assorted other quality of life things that make him fun.

Drawing the line in the sand that says NO SPELLS, ENJOY WAVING A STICK AROUND BECAUSE HAHA REALISM! in the same world where there are dragons and demons and people who can easily survive plummets from orbit and various other stuff that is completely NOT realistic is pretty much the definition of unfair to me. I'm not saying that every game needs to have people cutting mountains in half or jumping 70 ft in a single bound and stuff, but if the martial classes are incapable of doing ANYTHING but whacking stuff with their weapon (which is pretty much the paradigm right now) then that's not a good place for the system to be. Especially when most attempts to change this unreasonably lopsided disparity is met with OMG CHEESY NO YOUR FUN BUT NOT MAGIC OPTION IS BANNED.

Give the option to be silly and unrealistic, and let groups decide if they want to use it. The problem is that line drawn in the sand that people throw a fit if you toe it, while being completely obtuse about what kind of game PF really is.

I believe I said people should talk and decide it. But having half the people wanting to be silly and the other half wanting to be serious makes for an unfun game for everyone. I've had a player that, without telling any of us, decided her chaotic neutral cleric would just do random things all the time. The player thought it was hilarious fun just like the movies; no one else was impressed by her talking to a door knob in the middle of a fight and trying to grow a flower instead of healing someone.

It still boils down to what people like and dislike. There are a lot of people who LOVE anime (since it got drug into this), for example. There are others that despise its existence. A lot of what people consider exaggerated or 'cheesy' comes from this dislike; I've see it with comic book art or gaming art, as an example, where the art is attacked not because it is not good but because it is 'too anime.'

What do they mean by that? They'd have a hard time explaining it to you, but they hate it just the same. Gamers as a community tend to have some very passionate feelings about things (look at any thread on these boards). This is the sort of thing that I feel should be hammered out when you get started. Things like "Anyone care if my sword is like, huge? Anyone had little tiny goth girls? How about dinosaurs? Vampires that sparkle? <put your hated thing in this slot>"

People fall out over fluff as much as rules. I've left games because someone wouldn't stop playing a clown. I've asked people to stop "being weird" because it is messing with the other players. One person's likes and tolerances can make others very unhappy.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
knightnday wrote:

People dislike hearing this, but just because the wizard can rewrite reality on a whim is not an excuse or rationale for everything to be thrown out the window. It's on the same level as "there are dragons, so therefore there should be X."

Yes, it is utterly unfair that wizards can rewrite reality and you have a half a brick. It's unfair that Superman (or Gods forbid Martian Manhunter) gets all the powers and Green Arrow gets a bow.

The difference is that a Pathfinder game is a collaborative story. It's okay for Green Arrow to not be as powerful and relevant as Superman because Green Arrow doesn't have a controlling player who has to sit and twiddle his thumbs while Superman gets to do everything.

D&D is not supposed to be about the wizard and his three sidekicks. It's about a team of equal individuals striving to do something greater than what they could accomplish on their own; the fact that this isn't really true thanks to mechanics means that there is a problem that should be resolved.

Unless you are playing a DC Heroes RPG. Then you have the same problem.

And yes, it is supposed to be a collaborative story, which is why I hope and pray that all the stories I see on these and other boards are just internet braggadocio and people aren't actually trying to actively ruin the other players fun and then claiming "Sorry bro, I'm a wizard and I gotta do this or it isn't fun for me."

As far as it being true or not, that is a correctable problem at the table. Games have had this problem since forever, and people have managed to either live with it, not have it be a problem for them, or correct it at their own tables. People complain a lot about it, but either the complaints are too soft for companies to hear or their are not enough of them to influence what the other people want: highly powerful spell casters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Laiho Vanallo wrote:

New stuff is often labelled as cheese by one of my GMs.

The reason is kind of sad, the poor dude love to create his own little world. Anything that does not fit his world is awful, thus most of the time he ban any new books that does not fit his world. It's really sad because he label everything that does not fit his narrative as cheesy.

Mutation Warrior fighter archetype? Cheesy!
Bomb focused Alchemist build? Cheesy!
Using adamantine arrows heads to cut a steel wire? Cheesy!
Gunslingers? Cheesy!
Archer paladin build? Cheesy!
Summoner using summons? CHEESY!

Being a total s+!$ty GM with 0 creativity and copying over and over stuff from final fantasy into his games: Not cheesy
Refusing to play any other game and to be a player every now and then to leave anyone else the chance to be a GM: Totally not cheesy
Creating about 60 pages worth of house-rules but refusing any other stuff besides from core at the table: Not cheesy

Usually people that call everything cheesy are close minded control freak that want to impose their vision on everything. If you want so much control on a interactive storytelling combat sim table top game. Maybe you should just write a book and let people that wanna play play.

Ah, the old "should write a book if they are going to blah" train. That one is never late.

It is just opinions, nothing more. No more than people liking giant swords or little scantily dressed female characters or tentacled mutations or hyper-prepared anti-heroes or whatever. Just options and choices.

Everyone should be discussing this stuff together, and if the person who is GMing doesn't want to bend, they may want to consider not GMing for a round so that people can get their freak on (for lack of a better term.) If you are the player and no one at the table wants your half-fox half-dragon drunken master with a flaming tail who speaks in iambic pentameter while doing whatever, you should probably consider other choices.

Or maybe everyone would be better off writing their own story and not playing?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Seranov wrote:

I have read and enjoyed both the Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings, and I am not implying that Tolkien's world didn't have some of the same kinds of feats of power. They were mostly done by demigods, though, while PF puts that kind of power squarely into the hands of "normal" adventuring folk.

What I mean is that there should be plenty of options for interesting and unrealistic feats of strength and dexterity. Because in any world where the guy in a robe can start rewriting reality at a whim, why can't the guy who has honed his fighting skill do stuff that is beyond what our real-life humans can do?

TL;DR version: If your verisimilitude is broken by the strong guy being capable of doing stuff that real people couldn't do, that's fine. But that's not a restriction that needs to (or should) be imposed on the game as a whole.

People mislike hearing this, but just because the wizard can rewrite reality on a whim is not an excuse or rationale for everything to be thrown out the window. It's on the same level as "there are dragons, so therefore there should be X."

Yes, it is utterly unfair that wizards can rewrite reality and you have a half a brick. It's unfair that Superman (or Gods forbid Martian Manhunter) gets all the powers and Green Arrow gets a bow.

I've run across this in any number of games, be it D&D or Pathfinder or Shadowrun or Rolemaster or etc. Yes, wizards and clerics and psionics and people that manipulate reality are more powerful than a guy with a stick. Because they rewrite reality! If everyone was on the same power level, it wouldn't seem fantastic.

This does not mean that mundanes shouldn't get interesting and/or more abilities. But basically giving mundanes magical powers and calling them "fighter tricks" and allowing them to jumo great distances (flying but they have to land) or whatever is just making them wizards.

The sort of cleaving a mountain in twain with their swords shouldn't be an every other fighter sort of thing. But then, I'm a fan of limiting wizards too --- which tends to decrease the amount of complaints that they are taking the spotlight or can do anything.

Some people like tiny girls with two giant swords leaping 75 feet and destroying a host of enemies. Others prefer something a little less super heroic or anime-style in their games, and neither is right or wrong.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Triune wrote:

So after reading a thread in which monkey grip was called cheese, it occurred to me that people seem to have lost the idea of what that word means. For those unfamiliar, monkey grip is a 3.x feat that allows you to use two handed weapons one handed, at a -2 penalty to accuracy. This reults in almost all cases in a dps loss, even before figuring in the feat opportunity cost, and is pretty much solely for flavor. Even in the face of that, it was called cheese.

It seems like any time there is an option that lets you do something you couldn't before, it's called cheesy. Guns, for example, hit touch ac, but a well built gunslinger is no match for a well built archer in terms of dpr, yet they're constantly banned and called cheese. Why is a new ability always cheese? Doesn't cheese mean game breaking, not game expanding?

Because people love to throw around pejoratives against that which they don't like till they lose meaning -- see also minimaxing, power gamer, optimizer, munchkin and so on. Ask 10 gamers and you will likely get 12 definitions for any of them. Best advice is to take anything said after those terms with a grain of salt and a large dose of your own experience.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I give Fighters 4 skill points per level (as well as Perception and Knowledge - Local on their list) and Good Will Saves. This is a simple, easy, fix for their non-combat capabilities and rep for poor Saves that I highly recommend. It's worked out so far for my group, including not notably overpowering a Lore Warden (as compared to the other PCs).

I'm not sure I agree that they need too much of an in-combat boost though. They rely on full attacks...but so does everyone. So, before actually reading Unchained I'm leaning towards either not using Stamina or letting anyone Feat into it (though in the latter case, I'd give Fighters the Feat free of charge).

EDIT: More 'great minds think alike' than 'ninja'd' there...

I've done something similar in my own games.

I think ideas like this are the whole idea of the Unchained book and concept -- that you are not hidebound to RAW. You are encouraged to take from the book or your own house rules to personalize the game, in effect giving you "permission" to change things.

To echo off TOZ and Jiggy and others to an extent, there is nothing wrong with these people. There is no One True Way; if someone thinks fighters didn't get enough love and want to change it, then that is where they are coming from. Tastes in gaming are wide and varied.

Unchained is a wonderful tool for the home gamer, but they are not going to scratch every itch nor appeal to everyone's view of a good fix. They may go too far for some, not far enough for others. There will be concerns about PFS (as we have seen) and how they will interact with these rules. To that I say "And?"

It helps me to look at PFS like this: they are a big set of house rules. The price for admission in that game, or any game you go to play, is to abide by the house rules there or not play in the game. Given that people here play (or have played) any number of games, often at the same time, I believe that people have enough room in their heads to have fighters get Perception on their list at home and not at PFS.

Would it be nice if Paizo made changes to X that satisfied every single person's desire or worry or irritation? Sure. But their ideas of design may not always correspond with mine, or yours, or even other people in the same building.

Adjust the game to your liking for your table, and if you go to another bite your tongue and play the game happily. Playing is more important than any of the other issues in the end, or at least it should be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Unchained looks pretty good in my opinion. I have seen very little in the way of jarring errors like, say, the front of the Special Edition Adventure Path version of the ACG that I got. I expect and overlook minor errors like the Campaign/Combat flip flop cited above.

I'm happy with the book itself; that said, my "faith" in Paizo was never shaken in the first place. I think they beat themselves up about the ACG and have done a good job making sure that the sins of the past aren't being repeated here. Hopefully the lack of errors as well as the material will convince people that the ACG problems were a fluke and folks will be more positive.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Imbicatus wrote:

I can't tell you the future of the pathfinder game, but I can tell you the future of the pathfinder boards.

In two months, there will be a thread that decries the rules bloat of pathfinder after unchained and will proclaim the game is declining and will be done in 2-3 years.

Two months after that, there will be a thread that decries the rules bloat of pathfinder after Occult Adventures and will proclaim the game is declining and will be done in 2-3 years.

Two Months after that, there will be rage about the stealth errata x and will proclaim the game is declining and will be done in 2-3 years.

And so on.

Pretty much this. Threads like this tend to pop up every three to four weeks and burn brightly then fade away. The general conversation is that a few people believe that a second edition is on its way or the game is over and we should pack our things, with voices on another side showing that sales are fine and people are happy, and a goodly number of people in the middle commenting "Oh, is it that time again already?"

The future of the game seems to be to add more options and continue with adventure paths. From James Jacob's thread he mentioned something about working on the ones we have not even heard about yet after those that we have, so they seem to be planning several years in advance and do not seem to be overly concerned.

Even on the off chance that there is nothing left to explore rules-wise -- something I don't believe -- they still have a myriad of ideas for adventures and world-building for decades to come.

There is no "end" for the game unless the company goes under, and even then people will likely still play; a new version is not the end either. There are people still playing all the various versions of Dungeons and Dragons, Champions, Shadowrun, WoD and so on.

The sky is not falling. Nothing is over, nothing has even been hinted as being close to knowing someone that heard something about being over.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
deuxhero wrote:

Broken Wing Gambit is pretty neat, though the other two are pretty meh (one of the strongest parts of those feats is they work on an AoO).

What's the Stamina ability of Shadow Strike (the feat tax to be able to shank someone in a dark ally)?

Spoiler:

Shadow Strike -- Spend 5 stamina points when you hit someone in total concealment to deal precision damage to them.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
deuxhero wrote:
What are Dazing Assault and Stunning Assault's stamina? Does Broken Wing Gambit have one?

Spoiler:

Dazing Assault -- After hitting with a melee attack, may spend 5 stamina points to attempt to daze opponent as if using this feat.

Stunning Assault -- Spend 2 stamina points to end effects of feat at the end of your turn instead of start of next turn.

Broken Wing Gambit -- When opponent with the +2 on attack rolls from this feat attacks you, you may spend 5 stamina points to have the attack provoke an AoO from you as well.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Secret Wizard wrote:

Please someone kindly relate to me the Stamina Powers of:

Monkey Style
Dodge
Mobility
Spring Attack
Combat Expertise
Horse Master
Stunning Fist

Because curiosity.

Sorry so slow

Spoiler:

Monkey Style – Use 2 stamina points when using this style to stand up as a Swift without having to make Acrobatics check.

Dodge – When you move up to your speed, you can spend stamina pts up to your dex bonus; gain an increase to the dodge bonus of half the stamina points you spent.

Mobility – Dodge bonus to AC from Dodge feat combat trick is doubled against AoO provoked by movement; if you don’t have Dodge you can still use the combat trick.

Spring Attack – Spend 5 stamina points to use this as a standard instead of full-round action.

Combat Expertise – Don’t have to meet the intelligence prereq, but only gain benefits as long as you have 1 point in stamina pool. If you spend points to up your attack roll with Combat Stamina benefit you can ignore the CE penalty equal to the number of points you spent.

Horse Master – Spent 5 stamina points to give mount HP equal to your level for one minute.

Stunning Fist – Spend 5 stamina points and you can declare you used Stunning Fist after you’ve hit with unarmed strike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dragon78 wrote:
There is a heck a lot more stuff worth it in this book other then a single class:)

Agreed. A two star review based off a few pages is akin to giving the book a poor score because you didn't like the cover or a few pieces of art.

One can be concerned or even upset about some of the changes, but giving the book as a whole a poor review over one area is misleading. For those who haven't seen the book and are just getting bits and pieces in the thread, wait until you have it in your hands or it goes up in the PRD/SRD/Archives before discounting the whole.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kevin Mack wrote:
How is the art in this one? lot of new art in it?

The art is all very nice, with a good mix of the iconics throughout the book as well as other beings (I especially liked the flumph!). The art all appears to be new as far as I can tell, though in my initial flip-through I may have missed a repeat from somewhere.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
By the way everyone, I want to advise/caution that while the posters who have their book here are being very gracious in answering all of your questions, they have had little time with the book as of yet, and they may not have answered correctly. In my own skimming, I have noticed two incorrect answers so far. So I guess what I'm saying is: take the answers with a grain of salt.

This is very true. Just flipping through the book, there are all sorts of changes that I'm going back over, looking for the Core book to compare and then rereading again. There is so much on every page that you'll want to pour over and consider. donato is very right with his comment about the number of options; you may not want all of them at the same time and/or they will clash. Still, amazing so far!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kennesty wrote:
Dredcor wrote:
Ugh, I just go the email notification, but I don't have the PDF. I am perturbed.
I would fall out of my chair. Hoping I get mine soon though, the wait is painful.

They are coming fast, my PDF has fallen into my hands!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Seranov wrote:
If 1d6 extra damage or the chance to TWF with a pair of Earth Breakers sounds like it's overpowered to you, I would hope you are making your Wizards count their material components and various other fun-reducing minutia, because that's pretty much what you're trying to do to T&F.

Wait, it is fun reducing to have wizards or others keep track of items? As a player I love to keep up with all the various bits and pieces of my character and usually keep up with the inventory for the party. And as a GM, I do ask that my players keep up with encumbrance and things they use. No, none of this is said with sarcasm. What one person finds disdainful others find appealing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
knightnday wrote:

I think where people are getting riled up or confused is that BigDTBone, if I am reading correctly, strays from FAW (Fluff as Written). He believes the fluff and mechanics are separate.

For many others, they stay close to the fluff (be it theirs or that put out by Paizo or another source). That puts BigDTBone on one side of the reskinning arc and the other camp on various points to the other side.

I would only clarify (because it was a confused point earlier in this thread) that I believe published flavor to be only a suggested use of published mechanics.

In my home game flavor and mechanics are VERY closely related. Indeed, I find that in my games flavor and mechanics are MORE closely related than if I didn't allow reskinning.

So, I'm not sure what you mean by that puts me on "one side of the arc." I think you are saying that I don't care if flavor and mechanics match; to which I would vehemently disagree.

Ah, no, that wasn't what I was meaning. I meant on a scale of say 1 to 10 with 10 being "This is an elf according to Paizo" and 1 being "#%@$ Paizo's definition of an elf", you would be closer to 1 than a number of games.

Which is fine! There is no One True Way and all that stuff; I was trying to clarify positions because, aside from some of the sarcastic stuff that I am trying to ignore, people seem all over the place on what is meant by reskinning/reflavoring and how far they'd go. From your posts, you seem more willing than many to go further than, say reskinning a tiny house cat as a small yippy dog minus the claw attack.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think where people are getting riled up or confused is that BigDTBone, if I am reading correctly, strays from FAW (Fluff as Written). He believes the fluff and mechanics are separate.

For many others, they stay close to the fluff (be it theirs or that put out by Paizo or another source). That puts BigDTBone on one side of the reskinning arc and the other camp on various points to the other side.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I see: Player comes to DM, "I want my concept to fit your campaign. Let's work together to find how we can do it, with maybe a bit of reflavoring."

Some others see: THE FLOODGATES HAVE OPENED!! CATS SLEEPING WITH DOGS, BLOOD IN THE STREETS, PIGS WITH ELF MOUNTS, AND TOTAL CHAOS!!!!

At least, this is the impression I get.

I think that might be a mischaracterization of many of the posters, or at least what I think they are trying to say which is more "There is a line, and some people cross it."

It'd be like saying that everyone who likes reflavoring is "Wheee!!! Do anything you want and the sky is the limit!!!"

It's just exaggerating for effect, and not indicative of what is being said.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

For the Elf/Orc thing:

He could have just gone Half-Elf, and taken the Ancestral Arms alternate racial trait. If he wanted darkvision as well, he could just take the Drow-Blooded alternate racial trait as well.

If he wanted a more powerful Wolf, there is the Dire Wolf.

Right. There are ways to reflavor and change the character already provided with alternate racial traits and other less drastic means than the player was suggesting. I'd be far more open to those sorts of considerations and compromises than those suggested by DocShock's example player.

Reskinning by itself is a tool, like a hammer or anything else. If you use it right, sweet. When someone starts using it incorrectly is when we see disagreements.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hey, it's a step and for some of us, the most exciting part of our day :)

That may say something about how boring my day is, however ..


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
So I feel that the variant multiclassing and the change in how skills work will greatly help the fighter. The fighter gets so many feats that it's kinda easy to do the variant multiclassing, which can be taken for unique out of combat tools. And then the skills will either make his points go further or he'll get creative in is flavor skills.
You've picked up on a subtle underlying principle: Giving everyone more skill points helps the fighter most because it has fewer, and gaining a flat amount is comparatively better for the one with fewest. Similarly, spending feats for awesome stuff helps the fighter most because he has most and thus loses the least. So while the stamina system may have been the one everyone knew about before the blog, there are many different ways to give cool things for fighters ;)

Now people won't be able to say that the martial classes can't have nice things. :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To respond to BigDTBone's comment, for me at least it isn't a matter of feeling obligated to Paizo or whichever company's flavor, but of internal consistency in my/our table's game. If Bob the elf/orc guy's wolf uses the dinosaur's stats, do all the wolves in the game use it? Why or why not?

I've found that many players are very happy to have something along the lines of what DocShock's example player has; they are far less happy when the game starts moving away from what they expect as a baseline norm. This leads to posts like we see on the boards of the GM "cheating", when they are reinventing or reskinning existing creatures.

No, it doesn't always make everyone unhappy. But for some players it can be jarring and takes away from what they expect from their game. Any sort of reskinning on either side of the screen probably should be ironed out well ahead of time, with warnings that not everything you run across will be exactly what you think, and where the lines are between "Yeah, you can call a samurai a knight or Sue if it makes you happy" and "No, Bob, you cannot have a freakin' T-Rex reskinned as a house cat."


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
What negatives exactly? Are you suggesting that the game mechanics are balanced by fluff drawbacks?

I'd go past suggesting and outright say that there are positives and negatives to the fluff. A dinosaur tends to draw different or more attention than a wolf/dog. An elf versus a half-orc. A great sword versus a dagger.

The game, at least for me, isn't Stat Block X with Item Y and Perk Z drawn from anywhere and bludgeoned together to sort of fit the game. The fluff is there for a reason. It helps drive the story and if you can just get around all that by reskinning every element, what's the point?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DocShock wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


I find the 2nd one to be a particularly GOOD example of not letting rollplay and roleplay step on each other's toes. He wants to play a powerful character with the mechanics just so, he shouldn't have to sacrifice an immersive and satisfying roleplay experience to achieve that. Nor vise versa, he shouldn't have to give up on strong mechanics just to achieve the roleplay experience he is seeking. Or, even more pointedly, he shouldn't have to give up on strong mechanics to achieve the roleplay experience YOU are seeking.

I read the player's intent very differently. To me it comes off as "I wanna min/max like nuts and pretend like that's not what I'm doing". Believe me, this guy isn't into immersive roleplay experiences, he's into min/maxing as hard as he possibly can.

And you're right, I find it obnoxious because it's not the roleplay experience that I'M seeking, but it's also not the roleplay experience that that the OTHER 4 GUYS in our group are seeking. The rest of us just want to hang out and play an elf that's really an elf with a wolf that's really a wolf. We make character decisions that aren't based 100% on mechanical strength. As such, we find reflavoring, when used as a tool to ensure 100% mechanical strength, to be irritating.

But this goes back to my original point. If you don't find that example obnoxious, great, then that application of a neutral tool will work at your table. At my table, we don't like it when people use reskinning for that purpose, so we avoid it. That doesn't make reskinning objectively good or bad.

I'd have to agree. Reskinning a dinosaur into a wolf because the wolf isn't as strong isn't something I'd be in favor of; I wouldn't allow someone to reskin a great sword into a dagger either. Individual parts of what the player wanted could be worked with, but taken as a whole seems like the player's goal isn't to try to work within the framework of the campaign to make a character fit with reskinning, but to gather every mechanical advantage they can while shucking as many negatives as possible.

I'm all for compromise. This isn't it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

21 days before street date? That's pretty bold of them.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Doomed Hero wrote:

If I can reflavor a paladin as an extremely noble samurai in a game set in Kamigawa, then why the heck can't a samurai be reflavored as an extremely loyal knight in a western-fantasy setting?

I played a Duergar Samurai a while ago. Not because he was in any way asian themed, but because he was extremely devoted to his clan and his lord.

The name of a class doesn't have anything to do with how that class fits into the setting material. There is no japan in most fantasy worlds. The entire idea of what a samurai is has to be adapted. The idea that they can only come from an asian-themed culture is pretty stupid. Any caste-based or hierarchical culture that values loyalty and honor would work.

Are there really people out there who don't get this concept?

I don't think it is a matter of not getting it. It is a matter of not wanting it.

There are people -- be they GMs or Players -- who dislike certain material. The 'eastern classes and weapons' are one of the big dislikes, along with science fiction stuff, guns, furry races and so on.

For some people, even the idea of it, even if hidden or veiled with a reskin, just irritates them. They see what you want to do but their dislike for the material really makes it hard for them to want to allow it.

This isn't for every case, and certainly isn't an excuse. But it might explain their point of view. This particular POV understands and doesn't care, they don't want it in their game.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Some players really really really want them and aren't happy if they cannot have exactly what they want.
? Reskinning to fit the setting is a compromise designed to cater towards the GM's vision while still allowing the player to play what they want mechanics-wise. I don't really see any rigidity on the player's side in this debate (as someone who spends quite a bit of time on both sides of the screen).

In many cases, sure. In some cases (and as seen in the other exciting threads on this topic (drow, furry races, etc)) it is a way to get around restrictions. "Well, it isn't a dwarf, really, it's just a human that lives underground and has all the characteristics of a dwarf, but is still a human."

It still comes down as less of a compromise at times and more of an end run. If the player is trying to reskin in good faith, then cool and I'd be all for it. If they are doing it because they were told no and they are going to get their way no matter what, then that is a problem.

Do you feel that is the case in the OP?

What has tempers a bit high in this thread right now is the fact that someone was talking about a good-faith reflavor to play BOTH the mechanics and style they wanted. It would be an acceptable compromise at every table I've ever played at.

Then, someone came into the thread based on only reading the title, didn't read the OP, didn't read any of the other posts, and then called the OP and everyone who agrees with him in the slightest, "entitled cry-baby prima donnas." Then later that person scolded us for behaving like 5 year-old children.

You may also be unaware, but that person was challenged for their statements (not personally) and those posts were removed by moderators while the original insult-laden personal-attack posts remain.

So, that being said, asking people in favor of reskinning to take a time-out and calm down is both (1) hilarious, as those people have shown incredible patience in the face of abusive posts that recurve tacit endorsement from the moderators, and (2) very much preaching to the choir.

The OPs suggestion seems to be in good faith, although the picture of the cranky baby doesn't exactly endear, even in jest, the OP to those that would be opposed to the idea. But that's neither here nor there.

And yes, I've aware of the back and forth battle taking place and although I missed some of the posts that were removed I can gather the remainder of what was said -- it's pretty much the same as the other threads on the topic.

As far as the time out suggestion -- and note it went for both sides -- that was for people that are unable to move past the problem on either side. Sometimes the GM isn't going to work with you and that sucks. Sometimes the player isn't going to let go and that sucks. Is the fight worth the time it is taking away from having fun and playing?

Tho as a second thought people calming down could work for the boards too. We get a lot of (as Chris says) grar in these threads, as if someone else's decision for a game threatens ours in some way. Tempers flare over little nothings. Then again, I had a heart attack a few months ago and I tend to look at things a little more mellowly these days.

I'm happy to preach to the choir; you never know who else might be listening as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Some players really really really want them and aren't happy if they cannot have exactly what they want.
? Reskinning to fit the setting is a compromise designed to cater towards the GM's vision while still allowing the player to play what they want mechanics-wise. I don't really see any rigidity on the player's side in this debate (as someone who spends quite a bit of time on both sides of the screen).

In many cases, sure. In some cases (and as seen in the other exciting threads on this topic (drow, furry races, etc)) it is a way to get around restrictions. "Well, it isn't a dwarf, really, it's just a human that lives underground and has all the characteristics of a dwarf, but is still a human."

It still comes down as less of a compromise at times and more of an end run. If the player is trying to reskin in good faith, then cool and I'd be all for it. If they are doing it because they were told no and they are going to get their way no matter what, then that is a problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Lamontius wrote:

so wait

what if the players and gm discuss the theme of their collective game

then work together to make both thematic characters and a setting that will embrace creative character concepts

is that ok or should I just pick a side

been burned on both sides of this so I think I will just dance on the head of a pin right here in the middle

The answer is that drama doesn't have to happen, unless someone insists that it does. A gaming group that's over the mental age of 5 should be able to get past these issues, by acting like the adults they are presumed to be.
Right, by digging in on your positions, complaining about being the "beast of burden," who bares all the weight and responcibility of a campaign, and calling everyone who even hints as disagreeing "entitled prima donnas." That's the adult way to handle it!

Well, there is a bit of heels being dug in on a number of sides. Everyone should be working together to try to have a fun game. That said, if you know the GM said "None of that kung fu stuff" or "no elves" and as a player your immediate response is "Yeah, but what if I ..", I'd imagine that you'd get some issues with the GM.

We've beaten this particular dead horse in a number of threads now. Some GMs don't like things and don't want to GM if they have to include them. Some players really really really want them and aren't happy if they cannot have exactly what they want. And some of it is just stubbornness or an unwillingness to see the other's point of view.

And yeah, some of it is childishness -- if you cannot GM if someone has a dinosaur animal companion or plays a samurai then maybe you should play for a while and remind yourself what it is like or sit out till you can calm down and watch others have fun. Similarly, if your life is over because you cannot play a drow or samurai or catperson or whatever, maybe you should GM for a while to get your ideas in play or sit out until you can calm down and watch others have fun.

Reskinning is a band aid; it helps part of the issue, but not all of it. If people cannot communicate or don't trust the player/GM, then why play with them at all?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:

A few prerequisites for being a grognard:

1. A beard
2. Fingers stained orange from Cheetos
3. You are never without a Mtn Dew
4. At least 50 years of age.

Ah, then I definitely don't make the grade.

1. Stubble at times, but usually clean shaven.
2. That is just gross.
3. Mountain Dew tastes like where dreams go to die.
4. Missed it by 4 years.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
I started playing in '79, both Moldvay basic and AD&D, and the only guys I consider "grognards" are the dudes with the painted minis, tape measures, and a sand box. Seriously, only the old school war gamers that were around before the three brown books probably actually merit the honor. Everyone else is a n00b, frankly. ;-)

Ah. So "grognard" is "Someone who started playing before me."

Possibly, for some including "Me".
That actually seems to fit the usage pretty well. :)

I can go along with this. I started in the late 70s and there were people with all sorts of minis and stories of things Before Me. But I don't identify with the term nor does most of the list someone posted above really click with how I play or what I believe about gaming.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I use a screen but I also tend to pace around the room, rolling wherever I happen to be. I keep notes, minis that aren't in play yet and so forth behind the screen but otherwise I try to move around. It gives me a better look at the board when we're playing, to accept notes from those that want to be sneaky with them, snag communal snacks and so on.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm pre-ordering and have no problem being a guinea pig for everyone else. I want the book today if I could get it. Plus, I was lucky enough to get one of the special covers on the Advanced Class Guide when it came out, and it makes me smile every time I see it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I got my copy of the book Saturday and spent the week going over it, as well as showing it to my children to get their take on it.

All in all I find that it does the job admirably. It isn't made for someone with tons of experience at character building and the rules in general -- although it makes a good companion to the Core Book for those people -- but instead is good for someone new to the game or unsure of themselves when it comes to building characters.

It doesn't cover everything -- archetypes, the ACG and so on -- and I wager that this leaves ample room for an Advanced Strategy Guide, Even More Strategy and so on. I do not regret purchasing this book. It will come in handy for my sons this summer when we start a new campaign as well as any new players that come in. Good job!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Grindgrrind. "I'm leaving forever and ever" posts followed by a wall of text of why everyone will be sorry and was wrong.

Edited to add: The sad thing is this isn't even the first instance I ran across this morning. It is common across on-line games and other boards I frequent, or even in offline games (although I have been lucky enough not to have it happen recently).

Someone decides they are leaving and cannot just leave quietly; they have to make a POINT. Even if that point will be taken down by mods, there seems to be some need to let it all out. At an online game this morning that resulted in a huge post about why each of the administrators of the game and several of the players were just wrong, wrong, wrong.

The offline versions usually require slamming doors, squealing tires and a general sense that the individual wants someone to come out after them saying "no! not you! come back!"

If you are going to leave the forums, any forums, just go. Quietly, with some of your dignity intact. Railing at the Powers That Be or those sorry %$^#$^# won't get much more than some deleted posts and confusion for those that come in later. Rarely is anyone, offline or on, going to chase you down.

Drama for drama's sake just makes people tired.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

neat!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm ready for this book right now.

1 to 50 of 958 << 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.