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

thejeff's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 17,708 posts (18,508 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 17,708 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:

This is summer-action-movie levels of awesome.

Feel good super special snowflake game.

Never liked this style of play, to animie-ish-hollywood-magic character never fails at anything they attempt.

It's not necessarily "Feel good super special snowflake", nor is it "never fails at anything they attempt", however without house rules limiting the game pretty drastically, it definitely is high-power superhero action.


Hmmmm. Looks like you're going with the approach where the characters are already special before finding the Stair, rather than the one where time on the Stair/becoming a Warden boosts your abilities beyond the normal for your world.

Ok. That probably helps with my earlier question and cuts off one concept I had in mind.

Another might still be possible, but it looks like we need to have a mysterious past to tie into, which kind of kills my genetically engineered hacker/thief.

I'll start thinking more about the technomancer.


Waylorn wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Waylorn wrote:
I see this as nothing more than a money grab.

You think a small price increase on an existing product line is a money grab, instead of a reflection of the production costs of the new format, or a result of Tor and/or Paizo's new cut of the business, or an inevitable increase due to inflation or a fluctuation of the price of printing.

Heck, just Tor printing in the U.S. Instead of China can make a big difference. (I have no idea where Tor print their books.)

Thats your opinion. Glad your happy with this decision. However, you seem to be the minority. The loss of the digital product is just a money grab to make more money on the same product. I never read the physical books. Therefore it just doubled my cost for the same product. No thanks. The books are not that great in the first place.

I suspect it's a "money grab" in the sense that they expect Tor to be able to help them sell more books, even at the higher price.

It's also quite likely that with higher costs for the trade paperbacks and Tor's cut, they won't actually be making more money per book.

Obviously, if you don't want the trade paper or even the hard copy at all, that doesn't help you, but it still doesn't make it a money grab.


wraithstrike wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:

Justifying silliness doesn’t ‘meet my challenge’. This is our disagreement, I prefer my games to reflect reality at least to some degree. Otherwise you get stupid s~!& silliness like a character running around with an 8’ boomerang as a weapon.

Other things we disagree on is that skills let you disregard ability scores. Your ability scores are your ‘raw talent and prowess’ as per the CRB. Skills don’t change that you would need to spend a ability point or more and or magic to change.

Now had you said you spend a feat to give Jonathan skill focus Perform (dance) and said he was a dancing savant I would have had less of a problem with your example.

I don't think anyone is saying the ability scores do not matter at all. What is being said is that with ranks in a skill the ability scores can be low and you can still be at least decent in that area.

Of course someone with a higher ability score will be better, all things being equal, but there are ways to be good, or at least decent at a skill that has a low ability score attached to it.

I think the larger question is whether some stats have any effect at all outside of the skill bonuses (or spells or other specific effects). Ability checks are a common thing in some editions. Do the existing skills cover all uses? Or are there gaps where the raw stat matters?


R_Chance wrote:
thejeff wrote:


So the PC version will be a Windows 10 specific application? Why? There are plenty of generic ereader type formats.

No, they were looking at doing a Win PC port before the Build Conference made it obvious that porting Android apps would be about as simple as the developer clicking a button and recompiling the code. They haven't specifically mentioned which version of Windows they were considering outside of mentioning the PC. Given the free upgrade from Win 7 and 8.1 to 10 (and the good reviews on Win 10 RC / preview) I'd imagine a lot of people will upgrade in any event. I skipped win 8 myself, but am planning on upgrading to Win 10.

*edit* And apparently just as easy for ios mobile apps to be ported to Win 10. I hadn't considered that (since I don't have any ios devices) but I thought I remembered it being so for ios and it is. Nice.

I'm running Linux. And Win7 at work.

I might be able to get it to run under wine, but I probably won't bother just to check it out.

When it would have been cheaper and easier to make it in some ebook format that anything can work with.


I'm definitely interested. Amber was an old favorite and this looks like an worthy setting for a successor.

I've got a couple of character ideas and am trying to put something together.

I'm a little curious about where you see the game going though. You seem to want a lot on homeworlds and things going on there. Do you expect a lot of focus on the Gossamer worlds we come from or more of an exploring the Stair kind of game?

Particularly in the case of rivals and threats, for characters who start out as relatively mundane, such things are likely to be pretty inconsequential once you're awakened to Warden of the Grand Stair. If you're already coming from a high fantasy world, then local things can still remain threats, but if it's more like the modern world, for example, that doesn't work so well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost 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.

Ah, so she's the mentally retarded iconic as well.

Because believing there are no gods when clerics perform miracles, people have been resurrected who have actually met them, and any sufficiently adept wizard can plane shift into their lobby is like believing the moon landings were faked in a world with regular Earth-Luna passenger service.

Let's skip that argument here please. Especially if we're starting with "mentally retarded".

It's quite reasonable, even in Golarion, to believe that while such entities exist and can be interacted with as you suggest, they're really no different than other powerful entities not normally called gods, certainly not worthy of worship. That's the standard use of atheist in Golarion & Pathfinder.
Even the atheist nation only bans religion, but doesn't pretend the gods don't exist.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:

It's also possible to undercharge. Recently a judge cleared Chicago police officer Dante Servin on manslaughter charges, ruling that he should have been charged with murder.

that case made me vomit with rage.

Linky...

... if someone had written that up for cheliax I would have called them a hack. Holy.. .what the...You get drunk, use an off duty weapon to shoot at someone holding a cel phone, miss, shoot two people that you weren't even aiming at... and you're innocent because you weren't charged with first degree murder, and you're innocent of first degree murder because it wasn't planned...

what... how....

I'm starting to think there aren't nearly enough buildings on fire for the problem.

Not that you're innocent of first degree murder, but that charging you with it after the first trial would be double jeopardy and thus not allowed.


Ceaser Slaad wrote:
One comment. I understand that the police officers in the Gray case have been charged with homicide. It should be noted that a perverse way for the prosecutor to attempt to protect the officers is to overcharge them so that when the case goes to trial an acquittal results because the evidence doesn't support the charge. Given that I don't have all the information I would like I can't say for sure that is what is happening here. But it is possible that could be happening here.

The murder charge is "“second-degree depraved heart murder", which is my new favorite legal phrase.

Means that officer wasn't necessarily trying to kill him, but was acting with malice and a reckless indifference to whether he died or not. Beyond criminal negligence, since there was intent involved, but not normal second degree murder since the intent wasn't necessarily to kill.

I don't think she overcharged in this case. It's still going to have to go through a grand jury, which should be a formality if the prosecutor actually wants charges, but is often where charges against officers go to die.

It's also possible to undercharge. Recently a judge cleared Chicago police officer Dante Servin on manslaughter charges, ruling that he should have been charged with murder.


Rynjin wrote:

Make up your mind.

Should we generalize and justify all actions taken against a group of people because of the actions of some of them or not?

Yes. We should obviously judge everything based on broad simple rules ignoring any real world complexity.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Obviously we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

I think the protection of other people's property (and welfare, though as of YET nobody has been hurt) is more important than you being able to continue protesting all through the night.

I certainly think it's a better alternative than coming in with teargas and billy clubs to arrest large groups of people at once.

You disagree.

You're being disingenuous.

In all cases that I've seen, riots form from protests AFTER police are called in in riot gear. They escalate. Sure, maybe there's some excess littering or traffic is inconvenienced or even a rare car bashed up, but it doesn't warrant ESCALATING the situation with police violence.

Except there was no (reported, to cover all the bases) police violence from the riot police, before or after they showed up, that I know of.

And "they called in the police, we should riot!" sounds like a flimsy excuse to me. If the police merely showing up instigates theft and property destruction, the place was already set to blow.

No s*!# the place was already set to blow. The cops had been abusing and killing people for decades. Where's all your outrage about that? They started the violence. They're the enemy because they've made themselves the enemy. That's why, finally, after much provocation and at least a week of non-violent protests, they finally got their riots.

Quote:

Police were forcing buses to stop and unload all their passengers. Then, [Frederick Douglass High School] students, in huge herds, were trying to leave on various buses but couldn't catch any because they were all shut down. No kids were yet around except about 20, who looked like they were waiting for police to do something. The cops, on the other hand, were in full riot gear, marching toward any small social clique of students…It looked as if there were hundreds of cops.

The kids were "standing around in groups of 3-4," Harris said in a Facebook message to Mother Jones. "They weren't doing anything. No rock throwing, nothing…The cops started marching toward groups of kids who were just milling about

It started based on a b~&&%+#~ internet rumor and the cops in full gear trapping and cornering bunches of high school kids.

Like I said above, non-violence it hard. It takes training and dedication and work to stay non-violent in the face of provocation when you're already angry. And these were high school kids, not usually known for calm tempers and good judgment.


Aelryinth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

No, you could dual class to as many as you qualified for...but that meant a bunch of nat 17+'s.

Bard was actually EASIER to dual-class into, then doing it the usual way. Aye, tells you something about the dual class rules.

I'd forgotten, or never noticed that. With a 15 Dex, you could dual-class from fighter to thief if you were planning on going to bard, but you couldn't otherwise without a 17. Weirdness.

Actually, it might not really be easier, since you needed a bunch of stats - 15 Str,15 Dex, 10 Con, 12 Int, 15 Wis, 15 Cha

Some guy on the Enworlds boards did a statistical analysis of qualifying for classes, and found that your chances of rolling 3d6 6 times and qualifying for Bard were in the neighborhood of 1/10,000.

The paladin and monk were the next worse, I believe, and that was about 1% as I recall.

Technically speaking, the 15 Dex req was for multiclassing half-elves. If you dual class, you have to obey the dual class paradigm, so I'm pretty sure you still needed a 17 Dex to dual class to thief.

Except the bard requirement specifically says 15 Dex. I suppose that could be just to cover the chance your dex had been lowered since you qualified to dual-class to thief, but it's not how I took it.

More likely, the bard rules were written up without really considering how they fit with the rest of the rules. I suspect the half-elf bit is the same, since the entire class description requires you to dual class to get to bard and there isn't any hint that multiclassing qualifies, except that half-elves are allowed and half-elves can't dual class.

The requirements don't say "Must be between 5th level and 8th level fighter and 5th and 9th level thief", but "Bards begin play as fighters and they must remain exclusively fighters until they have achieved at least the 5th level of experience. <snip> they must change their class to that of thieves." Half-elves can't do that.

It's a hack job on an earlier version, probably someone's houserules, that never quite got refitted to work with the actual rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Also, breaking the curfew might be illegal, but it's still not violent. Joseph Kent was a well known and respected voice for non-violence in the movement. Keeping the non-violent leaders off the streets is not how you avoid violence.
To the uniformed authorities, such distinctions are not made. As far as the cops were concerned, Kent is one of THEM. A non-uniformed person that was breaking the law.

That's a generous interpretation.

A less generous one is that he was targeted precisely because he was a non-violent leader.

When they're targeting everyone, or to be more accurate everyone of a non-white skin color, it's hard to argue for specific targeting.

Then again to a cop, non-violent leader translates to mob rabble rouser.

Except they don't seem to have been targeting everyone. If you listen to the interview he did after getting out, IIRC he talks about being with one group of protesters and talking to a white shirt cop about how to get over to a group in another area. He was on his way when he got grabbed. Now, it's certainly possible it was just opportunistic - "lone guy, we can get one more off the street with no trouble", but they weren't just arresting everyone.

He doesn't suggest he was specifically targeted, but the first thought that came to my mind listening to it was "Set up".


Morzadian wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Morzadian wrote:

This thread is plagued by 'If-you-want-a-dump stat-prepare-to-get-penalised' with the attacks focused on the mental attributes (Int, Wis, Cha) way over the physical ones.

Having a Str 5 should be as much of a flaw as Cha 5, yet rarely this is the case.

Can you still be charming, even though you have a low charisma? Of course.

I think the focus is mostly on the mental stats (and really mostly on intelligence and charisma), because the physical ones come with significant mechanical penalties. Con is obvious. Str is mostly carrying capacity, though there are ways to alleviate that after low levels.

Can you be strong, even though you have a low Strength?
Can you be dextrous, even though you have a low Dexterity?
Can you be intelligent, even though you have a low Intelligence?
Can you be wise, even though you have a low Wisdom?
Can you be charismatic, even though you have a low charisma?

Having a Dex 7, you get a -2 to AC, Initiative, ranged weapons. For a Wizard specialising in illusions this will hardly come up in gameplay. So not much of a penalty.

So should Charisma 7 be heavily penalised, if you are playing a Fighter who doesn't really need it as they have little Cha based class skills

And Dex is the physical stat that's come up a few times in this thread with suggested extra penalties. Clumsy, tripping on things etc.


LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Also, breaking the curfew might be illegal, but it's still not violent. Joseph Kent was a well known and respected voice for non-violence in the movement. Keeping the non-violent leaders off the streets is not how you avoid violence.
To the uniformed authorities, such distinctions are not made. As far as the cops were concerned, Kent is one of THEM. A non-uniformed person that was breaking the law.

That's a generous interpretation.

A less generous one is that he was targeted precisely because he was a non-violent leader.


Morzadian wrote:

This thread is plagued by 'If-you-want-a-dump stat-prepare-to-get-penalised' with the attacks focused on the mental attributes (Int, Wis, Cha) way over the physical ones.

Having a Str 5 should be as much of a flaw as Cha 5, yet rarely this is the case.

Can you still be charming, even though you have a low charisma? Of course.

I think the focus is mostly on the mental stats (and really mostly on intelligence and charisma), because the physical ones come with significant mechanical penalties. Con is obvious. Str is mostly carrying capacity, though there are ways to alleviate that after low levels.

Can you be strong, even though you have a low Strength?
Can you be dextrous, even though you have a low Dexterity?
Can you be intelligent, even though you have a low Intelligence?
Can you be wise, even though you have a low Wisdom?
Can you be charismatic, even though you have a low charisma?


Jacob Saltband wrote:

I GUESS you could say that......I find it a bit of a stretch.

But in my book the best you could hope for using diplomacy on the waitress is to improve the quality of the service you get from her. Goes from indifferent (doesnt care if you get a clean glass/mug) to friendly (might get a free refill but definitely a clean glass/mug).

Edit:

An indifferent barmaid becomes friendly on a DC 15......not......An indifferent barmaid becomes your willing sex partner on a DC 15.

No, but you can use diplomacy to make requests of a friendly barmaid. Those requests could be job related (free drinks!), but they don't have to be. They could be for something related to an actual game plot (Gather Information or help sneak us into the back where mob bosses are meeting) or they could be seduction.

Of course, the GM sets the DCs for those, they're not straight 15s.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

Choose a stat array is better than point buy!

I disagree. My preference would be for "controlled" random rolling. The "roll multiple sets of 6 that are glued together but you can choose the best set from when you're through" technique I've seen sometimes is a good move. I've also determined that the ideal answer to "what dice to roll" is actually 1d12+6, since that means every possible score from 7 to 18 is equally probable. Finally, you have some sort of last-ditch "safety net" in case someone gets inexcusably unlucky, which is where a fixed array or humble point-buy allowance can come in (I've also seen "only keep a suite if you've managed to roll at least one 16+," but I don't like that approach as much since it would rule out, for example, an array of 6 14s, which some classes can do just peachy with).

My preference has become: Have everyone roll stats using some standard method, probably 4d6 drop one. Then everyone uses whichever set of stats they like. Somewhat higher that 4d6, but it gets rid of the outlying high and low stat characters. And it's adaptable. You could use 3d6 for a lower powered game or your d12+6 or whatever you wanted.

I like the randomness of the dice rolls in the sense of having to adapt somewhat to the rolls rather than fiddling with point values to get just right, but I don't like the disparity you usually get in power level.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fake Healer wrote:

There is such a thing as peaceful protesting but it hasn't been what is happening lately. Curfews were put into place to stop the RIOTING, not the protests. The protests just get screwed because they now have to stop protests at a certain time due to the curfew put into place because of the VIOLENT RIOTING. If the police don't enforce the curfew then everyone ignores it and houses, businesses, cars, etc. get trashed by the RIOTING.

2 main differences in the different groups: Protesters can get change enacted by demonstrating to the government (local or higher) that they aren't going to be ignored by having peaceful protests for however long is needed until they are heard. Rioters are people looking to cash in on misery by using an excuse of injustice as a means to lash out at the community, government, and police under a hopeful guise of mob anonymity to try to avoid responsibility for their actions. Rioters undermine a good peaceful protest.
I do think that what happened to the man is a horrible tragedy and really hope that those responsible are brought to justice, but violent protesting that destroyed property, injured a couple dozen police officers who probably have 0 to do with the case and are just as innocent as any peaceful protester, and undermined the way protests are viewed by the general public was a really stupid way to try to enact change.
A peaceful protest would have accomplished the same result without being hurtful to innocent people, innocent people's property, and to the view society has of protests.

Sadly that's probably not true. Practically speaking, peaceful protests get ignored. There was no real media attention until the violence started. That doesn't mean violence is justified, but the attitude that peaceful, legal protests will fix things is naive.

Also, breaking the curfew might be illegal, but it's still not violent. Joseph Kent was a well known and respected voice for non-violence in the movement. Keeping the non-violent leaders off the streets is not how you avoid violence.

Perhaps more importantly, non-violent protest is hard. Not so much if you've got a dozen people holding signs in front of the capitol while a couple bored cops look on, but when you've got thousands of angry people in the streets facing a wall of cops looking to discredit them. There's a reason long-term movements train their people how to stay non-violent, even when tensions are high and they're being provoked.

And then there's Ta-nehisi Coates' take on this. Linked before, but he's always worth reading.

Quote:
When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is "correct" or "wise," any more than a forest fire can be "correct" or "wise."

Simply put, the "rioters" didn't start the violence. The police did. Having the police here talk about non-violence is like the little kid saying "He started it. He hit me back first".


Aelryinth wrote:

No, you could dual class to as many as you qualified for...but that meant a bunch of nat 17+'s.

Bard was actually EASIER to dual-class into, then doing it the usual way. Aye, tells you something about the dual class rules.

I'd forgotten, or never noticed that. With a 15 Dex, you could dual-class from fighter to thief if you were planning on going to bard, but you couldn't otherwise without a 17. Weirdness.

Actually, it might not really be easier, since you needed a bunch of stats - 15 Str,15 Dex, 10 Con, 12 Int, 15 Wis, 15 Cha


R_Chance wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Kthulhu wrote:


R_Chance wrote:


So, you get free content and advertisement for other D&D related material that does cost.

So like any other magazine. Except free. And electronic.

You know, I'm pretty sure Dragon has always had ads. Even with that company with the golem logo was publishing it.

And, at least for the moment, only on the Iphone (or other I devices)

I can't comment on it because I can't read it.

You're giving it away for free. Put it up on the web where I can get at it.

It's up for ios now, soon for Android with PC coming later. Based on information about Win 10 it should be a simple port to it. Once you have the application it's dead simple to get the magazine. Just subscribe for free and you're good to go. There are a number of emulators that allow you to run Android apps on a Win PC for that matter (i.e. Bluestacks). I have an ASUS tablet I should update and dust off for that matter. I find phone screens too small for a good read.

So the PC version will be a Windows 10 specific application? Why? There are plenty of generic ereader type formats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd settle for Transformers quality. At least the better Transformers.

It's a D&D movie. It's not going to be great art.


Kthulhu wrote:
R_Chance wrote:
So, you get free content and advertisement for other D&D related material that does cost.

So like any other magazine. Except free. And electronic.

You know, I'm pretty sure Dragon has always had ads. Even with that company with the golem logo was publishing it.

And, at least for the moment, only on the Iphone (or other I devices)

I can't comment on it because I can't read it.

You're giving it away for free. Put it up on the web where I can get at it.


I assume with the Sorcerer version, you don't get the Arcana?


houstonderek wrote:
Make Drizz't more popular, and, therefore, more annoying.

That would be a serious drawback to a Drizz't movie.


Arakhor wrote:
If you land at the bottom in just one round, you're not taking much damage.

You fall about 500' in 6 seconds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wonder how much this gets to the root of the difference here: As Morzadian says, in Pathfinder, you either know a language or you don't. It's binary. There are no degrees of comprehension or ease of use.

More, you can go from not understanding a word of a language one day to that complete understanding the next, by going up a level and putting a point in Linguistics.

Personally, I see this as so completely unlike the way people actually learn languages or how they use them for that matter, that it's obviously an abstraction, simplified to make game play easier. We assume the character's actually been practicing in off screen. Maybe we roleplay out a few comical misunderstandings or sloppy, simple speech just to show that before we get back to the real business of that.

Others see the mechanics as the way game world really works. In PF worlds, people really do either speak languages or not, with no middle ground. And learn them completely overnight with no need for justification.

I wonder if that maps at all to the differences we have over what stats mean.


Rynjin wrote:
As he should have been, to be honest.

"Should have been" is strong. Yes, he was in violation, but given how such things are selectively enforced...

Especially when you realize he was a strong and respected voice for non-violence in the community. Keeping those off the streets is kind of counter productive.

There was certainly no need for the kind of tactics used to pick him up. If he'd been in a crowd, sure, but he was alone with a wall of officers. You hardly need to cut him off with a Hummvee and 5 or 6 officers. Who are you cutting him off from, anyway?


MAJT69 wrote:

>And it doesn't give false impressions about what characters ought to be capable of.

Yes, but in previous editions it was perfectly possible to play a no-magic world or character. Conan or the Grey Mouser could still be high level, they just didn't have armfuls of gear like a videogame character.

A 20th level fighter, say, is still pretty decent in battle, even without the +5 sword, ring, armour, cloak and everything the game assumes he'll have.

If anything, the standard load-out is what gives 'false impressions' surely, because all foes such a character faces will have their stats artificially inflated to balance these +5 items out. Earlier editions didn't assume gear, and thus ettins or giants or whatever weren't as drastically different from orcs or ogres.

I see your point, and it may just be that you can't do that kind of thing in 3.5, unless you rewrite every combat encounter, which is obviously a lot of work.

The End Boss doesn't have to have the exact stats in the printed module, he just needs to be a suitable challenge for whatever Pcs he's facing. Which is probably best done in a nother game, maybe.

Didn't assume gear, perhaps, but even if you don't assume a particular level of gear, whatever you have still affected how touch the fight was. In AD&D you had monsters immune to non-magical weapons of various bonuses. Fighting those gets much harder if you don't have them.

It's just that there were no guidelines for what you should have. Characters might just as well have been massively overequipped as not equipped at all. Monty Haul was a thing.

Also, without magical gear, things tend to shift even more in favor of casters - buffs can replace some gear, save boosters aren't available, etc. There's a drop in power for all classes, but it's not even.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Hell those arguments were heard on the forum just last year. Many posters (including I believe yourself, LazarX) were predicting that Guardians of the Galaxy was going to be a colossal bomb, since hardly anyway had ever heard of the property and so had no recognition. And then it proved to not only be a pretty well reviewed movie, but also a huge financial success.

I will absolutely own up to that prediction, as did many of the reviewers themselves. Given Marvel's past history on bringing it's marginal characters to the screen, AND the pre-release trailers that were shown, I had no expectations of quality coming in.

And I was wrong. The reasons I was wrong had nothing to do with the amount of money that was thrown into production. (remember that the first Hulk as well as Daredevil and Green Lantern movies also tanked at the box office). The movie had the right things going for it, awesome cast.. including Dr. Who's Karen Gillam, and some great character actors... especially the folks who play the Nova Corp cop and Yondu. Excellent direction and great use of material.

I will even go to say that Guardians is my absolute favorite of the entire Marvel movies lineup by far, beating out Captain America.

The previous tries at a D+D movie arguably, had none of the factors that made Guardians a success. Those are things that you can't predict from budget alone.

There's also the fact that by the time the Guardians movie came out "Marvel movie" was itself a brand name with a really good track record. People may well have given it a chance based on that.

The Hulk being the only real exception to that track record.


Caineach wrote:
meatrace wrote:
This is just so wrong it's comical.
My money is on him being charged with resisting arrest.

He's been released - faster than a lot of others, probably because of the high profile and the live on camera arrest.

He's only been charged with violating the curfew.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Adjule wrote:

To get a D&D movie that would actually work, be good, and make Hasbro their money back and then some, would require more than Hasbro is willing to give. They would need to find a director that will do D&D justice (like what Peter Jackson did with Lord of the Rings), either license it out to a decent studio (or go the Marvel route and make an in-company studio), and fork over a big enough chunk of money to where it doesn't look like either a SyFy made for TV movie or something a beginner student would make.

I honestly don't think Hasbro would dare do that. Also, they need a good story. There are plenty good ones from past adventures as well as the novels. I would love to see the War of the Lance from Dragonlance done justice (not that horrendous animated travesty), but since D&D is all about the damn Forgotten Realms, I don't see that happening.

But I don't see Hasbro actually putting in the required resources to make a good D&D movie, despite them saying they want to expand the "brand" into movies and/or TV shows.

Battleship had a budget of $220 million. I don't see budget being a crucial problem here.
Keep in mind that Battleship the Game made as much or more money in one year, than the entire history of the RPG industry combined. The reason the movie drew people in is that many many more people played Battleship than roleplaying games and it had a strong nostalgia factor going for it.

I've got to think it's got less draw per person who played it though. It's not like there's anything to it that makes you think "story".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Aeshuura wrote:

I would love it if they did sort of a Gamers-style set up, where it starts with the kids in the basement, or at some kind of Adventurers League event that sit at the table, and the DM begins running.

The guy that is the DM becomes the narrator of the movie, and then you have the movie shift into the imaginations of the characters.

I think it could work, AND could get people excited for the game itself.

Anyway, those are my thoughts...

That's a movie that you and maybe 6 other people would buy tickets for.

I wouldn't be one of them.

It could be done well. I'm thinking of the framing sequence for Princess Bride.

It worked for Princess Bride mainly because of Peter Falk's adaptable and powerful screen presence. And who could not wrap around the wholesome feeling of a lovable uncle reading stories to his sick nephew.

A bunch of neckbeards crouching in a game table in someone's basement is far less appealing.

As I said, it would be hard to pull off. You could start by not starting with the most stereotypically awful way to approach it.


houstonderek wrote:

thejefff, D&D is a fantasy game. Make a good fantasy movie with the fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric combo working as a group to overthrow evil. Throw in some recognizable D&D monsters. That's it, all you need to slap "D&D" on it and make it a D&D movie. The general non-nerd raging public doesn't care how "accurately" any movie portrays any source material, and they're the ones that make movies profitable. Let's look at some other Hasbro owned properties that made a ton of money at the movies, GI Joe and Transformers. The only people crying about those two movies (all of which made lot of money, by the way) were people upset that the movies deviated from the Hasbro licensed thirty minute commercials they produced to sell action figures like hotcakes. Complaining about the accuracy of something based on a cartoon used to sell toys. The general public doesn't CARE.

See, the ONLY issue is what's good advice for a studio, as Hasbro will make all of their money on the licensing of the brand name. Hasbro does't sell movies. They sell toys. A movie isn't going to instantly revive the gaming hobby, there is a current edition that Hasbro is selling, so I guess I don't understand your perspective.

I'm not saying "accurately follow the rules" or "will revitalize the gaming hobby" or anything like that.

I just think in order to profitably license the thing Hasbro needs more than just the name. They need something to sell. The D&D brand isn't strong enough to convince a studio that slapping it on an otherwise generic fantasy movie will bring in enough more viewers to justify paying Hasbro big bucks for it.
"You should make a really good fantasy movie, then pay us to call it a D&D movie" is not a good elevator pitch.

Which is why I suggested they'd be better off pitching Dragonlance or D'rzzt or some kind of actual content.


Aelryinth wrote:

The major advantage of the bard is it had more hit dice then any other class, as I recall, so you ended up with more hit points.

It was based more on the traditional Celtic bard, who were wanderers and lorekeepers moving from holding to holding, sharing news and entertainment between rival kingdoms, welcome everywhere and beholden only to the land. Great bards were treated like kings.

But the combo of multiple attacks, theif abilities, druid spells, charming people, lore, and tons and tons of hit points was pretty potent back in the day.

The Kalevala, the Finnish national Epic, is all about mighty bards as the heroes.

Though most of those advantages would come to any dual classed character. (Was bard the only way to get to three? I can't remember.)


LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Adjule wrote:
To get a D&D movie that would actually work, be good, and make Hasbro their money back and then some, would require more than Hasbro is willing to give.
You forget one other thing. It would require an audience that does not exist.

That's not true. There's not a big enough built in audience that will see a D&D movie just because it's a D&D movie, but that doesn't mean a good fantasy movie drawing on the D&D property won't find an audience.

Fantasy has been hot and it hasn't just been those who were already fans of the property it was based on.

Here's the question what is there about D+D that will bring a draw to a fantasy movie, as opposed to using a popular novel or big Named stars? I would submit to you that a movie with Dungeons and Dragons in it's title would do worse than a fantasy movie with a generic non-game based title, because of it's association with middle aged nerds.

Given that most of the folks here don't even PLAY D+D any more, what would draw even them?

Using a popular novel might well work better. No argument there. And there's no reason you couldn't use big name stars in a D&D movie, so that's a moot point.

And I did suggest the best approach would be working with one of their book properties.

I do suspect most of us here would be drawn, even those who don't play anymore or never did. It is the root of the hobby, even if we've moved on. Some, who have particularly strong negative reactions to WotC, would probably be turned off by it. I also think a lot of former players, dating back to the glory days, would be interested, if only for nostalgia reasons.

D&D really does have a pretty big name, far beyond active players. And as I said above, since we're talking Hasbro, it's what they have to sell - they can't sell the rights to "generic fantasy movie".


bugleyman wrote:
thejeff wrote:

The problem with a D&D movie is simple: there's no story or even characters to adapt. Therefore, for it to be recognizably a D&D movie, it's got to use the tropes attached to D&D, which are adapted to a game, participatory style, not a narrative one. And generally don't work all that well when turned into narrative form.

Probably best to base it on one of the existing narrative properties - Dragonlance could work and I'd really prefer it. D'rizzt might be more likely.

I think they should forget the "instantly recognizable as a D&D movie" bit. Just make a genuinely good fantasy movie and the rest will take care of itself.

Then there's no point in using the property.

"I think they should just make a good fantasy movie" is good advice for a movie studio, but it doesn't leave Hasbro with a product to sell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Adjule wrote:
To get a D&D movie that would actually work, be good, and make Hasbro their money back and then some, would require more than Hasbro is willing to give.
You forget one other thing. It would require an audience that does not exist.

That's not true. There's not a big enough built in audience that will see a D&D movie just because it's a D&D movie, but that doesn't mean a good fantasy movie drawing on the D&D property won't find an audience.

Fantasy has been hot and it hasn't just been those who were already fans of the property it was based on.


No. The goblin works for UPS, not the post office.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:

This tool lets you generate figures for populating low-fantasy kingdoms and settlements. ..

The article is interesting as well.

But for high fantasy - I expect populations, architecture, and services to be on par with the 19th Century. Low tech + High magic should skew the world in freakish ways.

High monster populations, Active gods, frequent destructive events, magic plagues, undead, outsiders, magic accidents, magic attacks, should keep the populations down.

It would be like living on an active fault line in a bushfire prone invasion route with the occasional tsunami and reactor meltdown. Next door to an academy for homicidal axe wielding maniacs.

You can make it that way if you want to. But it's only really necessary if you want to think that because there are lots of gamers playing adventurers in the fantasy world, there must be enough adventures going on everywhere to keep all their characters busy.

It's also possible to set your campaign in a particularly dangerous area - a frontier maybe - and assume that much of the rest of the world is more settled and civilized. That's why the adventure is here. There aren't adventures to be had in most of the land. Or if there's a major threat plotline to your campaign, it's the only one. Not just one of many threatening the world at once.

Not every little farming village needs adventure hooks and dangerous dungeons around every corner. Just the one your party is in.


The problem with a D&D movie is simple: there's no story or even characters to adapt. Therefore, for it to be recognizably a D&D movie, it's got to use the tropes attached to D&D, which are adapted to a game, participatory style, not a narrative one. And generally don't work all that well when turned into narrative form.

Probably best to base it on one of the existing narrative properties - Dragonlance could work and I'd really prefer it. D'rizzt might be more likely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Aratrok wrote:
That's really sad and disappointing to hear coming from a dev at Paizo. I guess I kind've hold them to higher standards given how close they are to the game, but that's really bad.
I love when people accuse the game's developers of playing wrong for not playing the way you think they should.

In fairness, the dev who said it was James "the Martial/Caster disparity is nothing but myth perpetrated by a shadowy cabal with a sinister agenda" Jacobs.

I respect the guy's ability to nicely flesh out the Golarion setting, but that doesn't mean he's a perfect godlike being of divine perfection who can never be wrong about anything ever.

<Looks back at my post.> <Looks at my second post>

Good. I didn't say anything remotely like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Aeshuura wrote:

I would love it if they did sort of a Gamers-style set up, where it starts with the kids in the basement, or at some kind of Adventurers League event that sit at the table, and the DM begins running.

The guy that is the DM becomes the narrator of the movie, and then you have the movie shift into the imaginations of the characters.

I think it could work, AND could get people excited for the game itself.

Anyway, those are my thoughts...

That's a movie that you and maybe 6 other people would buy tickets for.

I wouldn't be one of them.

It could be done well. I'm thinking of the framing sequence for Princess Bride.

But it would hard as hell to pull off. Much harder than just doing a good straight fantasy movie.


Eltacolibre wrote:
James Jacob often did say to not quote him and use him as ammo for arguments on forums. Which something everybody just keep on doing, as it is only his own opinion, not written in stone anywhere.

There's a difference between "It's his opinion, not a formal ruling" and "The developers play the game really badly."


Aratrok wrote:
That's really sad and disappointing to hear coming from a dev at Paizo. I guess I kind've hold them to higher standards given how close they are to the game, but that's really bad.

I love when people accuse the game's developers of playing wrong for not playing the way you think they should.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

How I respond to thay question is.

I was forced to take a negative to said ability score to make a character effective enough at their job to not be a drag on the party and not die, so why are you punishing me?

In other words "I will role play my character in the way I find most fun and if a check comes up I'll gladly role for it since I took traits to get those skills and max rank em every level."

How were you "forced" to do so? Plenty of people player characters without dump stats. If your GM has ramped the difficulty up so high that it's the only way you can survive, maybe you should talk to him about backing off a notch. Unless you enjoy that kind of game, in which case you're hardly being forced.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
lol, how did this get to "8 int/wis/cha" is retarded?

Somewhere just past the claim that there isn't anything in between "can't call them stupid" and animal intelligence - literally, that there is no reason to play a 3 Int character as any more stupid than anyone else and the next step down is animal. There's no room for stupid characters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
meatrace wrote:

To conservatives, property "rights">human rights in all cases.

Ahem. To a conservative property rights ARE "human rights". A lot of what are claimed to be "human rights" these days are not rights at all by the original definition of the term.

A "right", properly understood in its original context, was freedom of action within a certain sphere. Blackstone in his Commentaries identified the 3 most basic of these as life, liberty and .... (wait for it) ... property. Because I have a right to life, you cannot legitimately assault/kill me. Because I have a right to liberty, you cannot legitimately enslave me without my consent. Because I have a right to property, you can not legitimately steal from me. All your recognition of my rights requires is that you leave me alone to go my way in peace and vice versa. It was understood that there was no such thing as a legitimate right to a good or a service.

The fact that I have a right to life does not require you to feed me. As originally understood, if I had a "right" to demand food from you, you would effectively be my slave with your liberty and property being at least partially infringed by your duty of having to supply my food on demand. How then, do I get fed? I either grow the food myself, practice some sort of trade that will enable me to make money so I can buy food, or as a last resort depend on charity. Charity back in the day was the province of the family and the church. Government was neither seen as nor intended to be the "charity" of last resort.

There were a variety of different reasons for that. One of the more important being that while charitable contributions are voluntary on the part of the giver, paying taxes to support government expenses is most definitely NOT voluntary. Try opting out of the income tax as an example.

But what about the poor? A much wiser and more compassionate person than I am put it simply, "The poor you will always have with you." Indeed, there are many reasons why people might be...

I hope we can at least agree that, regardless of our feelings on property rights, that we do have the right not to be abused or even killed by the police - whether that's by being having your spine broken in custody under mysterious circumstances, being choked, being shot or just generally beaten up.

I'd hope further that we could agree, though I suspect we won't, that black people, young black men in particular, haven't had this right for most of US history and to a large extend still don't have it now. They certainly didn't when they were part of someone else's property rights. They certainly didn't for the following hundred years when the laws were openly stacked against them. Since then, while they theoretically have such rights, they have far too often been violated with little to no consequence to the abusers. Which means they still don't really have them.


I really don't think "dead-tree" comes out of global warming or even the environmental movement in general. As far as I can tell it comes out of hacker/computer geek jargon. Dates back to the 80s at least.

It's derogatory, not because of environmental concerns, but because suits always wanted the hardcopy, while the geeks were happier with digital.


Ashiel wrote:
thejeff wrote:

No. I'm saying the mechanics you chose don't fit the concept you describe. Low Int and no knowledge skills can be taken as sheltered and ignorant when the character first leaves the temple. Low int and no knowledge skills have exactly the same effect long after leaving the temple, except that now it doesn't come across as "sheltered", since he hasn't been sheltered since he left and someone who stays ignorant isn't just ignorant, but stupid.

You're switching in mid character from "His low chance on knowledge skills means he's ignorant" to "his low chance on knowledge skills doesn't mean he's ignorant."

Ignorant doesn't mean stupid. Likewise, I cannot agree that not learning everything you never knew immediately upon reaching maturity and embarking out on your own is indicative of stupidity in the same way that I think it's reasonable for human beings to go back to school to get their GEDs or Diplomas.

A +2 Int is effectively 2 virtual ranks in every knowledge skill in the game. This means that having grown up without a standard education puts the Paladin at a roughly a -20 deficit in terms of general education, similar to someone who skipped or ignored studies in school. He can still hit all the DCs but he's spotty and forgets some things or never learned them in the first place.

However, post 1st level, he's still getting skill points at a normal rate for most humans of his professions, which implies that he's capable of learning at the same rate from here on out, he just starting the race behind everyone else. So he has to fill in the gaps in his knowledge checks with further efforts. Just like in real life, he's not going to emerge from being sheltered and then suddenly explode with a lifetime's worth of knowledge after he steps out of the monastery or off the farm or whatever.

What I find most troubling is that you yourself said you would have a higher score and simply pretend your character didn't know these things when it's convenient for you to do so, but you are...

I could say the same things. We're coming at this from different angles.

Though I will say, as I think I did in the first post, if you neglect the skills you said you wanted him to be good in and focused on putting those 2 skill points into knowledge skills, that would reflect him learning what you'd expect a sheltered ignorant person coming out into the world to pickup over time. This is however the first time you've suggested that. Before you'd first said that his lack of knowledge skills and int penalty were his ignorance and sheltered upbringing, but that he could learn and make that ignorance go away without actually changing his int or knowledge skills - so that the same scores would mean something else.

1 to 50 of 17,708 << 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.