Thomas Seitz wrote:
I don't get it but then again it's pretty weird stuff anyway...
Durkon and his mother had dinner parties with the same five people for most of the time he lived in dwarven lands. We are just now being told that those five people are the people Sigdi had raised from the dead.
Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
And now with Pathfinder 2 there will be even MORE edition bloat! That makes it more important than ever for Paizo to release a new edition to reduce the edition bloat!
There will never be a Pathfinder 3.0. Remember, everyone who plays Pathfinder 2.0 is doing so because they hate switching editions. That's why all of them switched from 3.5 to Pathfinder 1, and then from Pathfinder 1 to Pathfinder 2. As we all know, past action is never an indicator of future action. That's why if someone switched from 3.5 to Pathfinder 1, you know they will never switch to Pathfinder 2, because they hate switching so much! Similarly, if anyone switches to Pathfinder 2, you know that those same people would be unwilling ever to switch systems again. Paizo knows this too, which is why they will never release a Pathfinder 3.
Though my opinion may change in subsequent rereadings, I think that last panel is my new favorite Elan quote of all time.
We already know Kudzu's alignment: Kudzu's alignment is TBD.
The Giant wrote:
The recent Nintendo Switch would be my recommendation, but that's due to my taste in games. It has the benefit of being somewhat portable, though, which none of the other major consoles (save the 3DS, which is really in a different category) have.
It really comes down to what sort of games you like. If you want Halo, then Xbox One is the only place to go. If you want Mario or Pokemon or Legend of Zelda or Metroid, Switch is the place for you. If you want any of Sony's exclusive games, go with PS4. I think Sony may be the best for multiplayer games, while Nintendo does better single-player games. But that's a very broad oversimplification.
I'd have a hard time recommending Xbox One to anyone, to do the dearth of exclusive titles and the fact that almost every XBO game is also on PS4. But if there's one in particular you really truly want, then go for it.
The Mad Comrade wrote:
Okay, back up a minute. Tell me, what does Sneak Attack actually do?The answer is that it deals hit-point damage. You can argue about how frequently it will be used, but the fact is that even if you get Sneak Attack on every attack, the only thing it ever does is hit-point damage.
Dealing hit-point damage in Pathfinder is not something special. Every single class in the game can do hit-point damage. Even the commoner. Sneak Attack is a class feature that allows a rogue to do more damage than a commoner. You know who else has that feature? Every other class in the game except commoners. They aren't all called "Sneak Attack," but they all do the same thing: increase hit-point damage.
For the Fighter, it's called Weapon Training. It boosts damage, just like Sneak Attack. For the Paladin, it's called Smite Evil. For the Barbarian, it's called Rage. For the Wizard, it's called either Magic Missile or Bull's Strength. They all do the same thing, and that thing is hit-point damage. There is nothing special about Sneak Attack, no matter how frequently you can use it.
If you want to see what an actually special class feature in Pathfinder looks like, look at the Barbarian's ability to shrug off mind-affecting effects with the appropriate rage power. Or the Paladin's Mercy. Or the Wizard's ability to fly. Those are all special because not every class can do them. Unlike dealing damage, which literally everyone in Pathfinder does.
--All vampires that aren't currently thralls have free will.
--HPoH's primary role in the story appears to be as the main antagonist of book six, so he also had to be evil for that role.
--The Giant hasn't decided how many death gods there are in the OOTS world. If there's a Good-aligned death god out there, they are probably more likely to be making Good-aligned vampire spirits, and if there is a Neutral-aligned death god out there, they are probably more likely to be making Neutral-aligned vampire spirits. But the only ones that matter are the ones shown in the comic.
Speaking from my personal perspective, I'd be very surprised if any of the vampires in HPoH's retinue were non-evil. Hel created all of them for the same purpose as HPoH, and they all very clearly want Hel's plan to succeed, which means they all want Hel to get more power. Then again, Eugene also didn't seem to mind the idea of Hel succeeding, since it would mean he personally could get into the afterlife and he's too self-centered to care about what happens on the ground.
The Raven Black wrote:
Commoners are only week if you view the game as a competition to see who can do the most damage like an MMO. In a REAL LIFE Pathfinder game, the GM can just arrange things so that the commoner can shine. If you are finding commoners are overshadowed then you're just a bad GM.
Besides, I was playing a commoner the other day and I rolled TWO critical hits in a row! Seriously, that's how awesome commoners are. No one else was that powerful.
Java Man wrote:
If you don't want to take part in a discussion on alignment, you don't have to post on this thread. Evidently, some people do enjoy posting on these threads, since they keep doing it.
The only real paladins were the Roman officials. They were not Good, they were legal officials whose loyalty was to the emperor of Rome.
You are probably thinking of fictional paladins, which are distinctly not real. The most famous fictional paladins are the Charlemagne peers--the paladins who regularly butcher and torture anyone they perceive as being a different religion. They are also not Lawful Good, and would be closest to Chaotic Evil if you insisted on using alignments for them.
The Lawful Good 'Paladin' is a very recent invention, introduced in the late 20th century. And it's basically spewing a big pile of vomit over everything the paladin has traditionally stood for for thousands of years.
But hey, if that's your preference, go ahead and use it! If you what to call your character a Lawful Good Paladin, you can do that. No real paladin will be offended by your insult to their profession, since all the real paladins are long dead. No fictional paladin will be offended either, since they are fictional. And while I personally will always prefer a traditional paladin over the modern Good 'Paladin' you seam enamored with, I'm not going to stop you from playing what you want. Unlike some people here, my enjoyment of a game isn't contingent on being able to tell other people what they are or aren't allowed to enjoy themselves. So go ahead and play your Lawful Good 'Paladin.' Just don't be surprised when other people prefer a different conception of a paladin.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Check again, [url="http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0917.html"]it's "Zyklon," with an 'l'. I always thought that T used divination to try and figure out who Xykon was, but couldn't due to Cloister. He then ended up finding out about an unrelated villain Zyklon, who was much weaker and hence concluded that the villain Elan is worried about isn't really a threat.
Ah, I see you've never played Word Mill's Mythic Role playing. It is a truly universal setting, and it is designed so that the setting can be generated on the fly during play if you want to (although you can also play with a pre-determined setting).
It's amazing how many of the Paizo.com arguments go away once that book is available.
I have no doubt that, had barbarians originally been printed with a "Lawful only" restriction, and had monks originally been printed with a "chaotic only" restriction, then the same people who are now demanding Lawful Only Monks and Chaotic Only Barbarians would instead be demanding Chaotic Only Monks and Lawful Only Barbarians.
After all, Barbarians are all about living the traditional hunter-gatherer lifestyle of their ancestors. There's no way you can be a barbarian like that without being lawful.
Meanwhile, Monks outright reject the authority of the lawful secular government of their region, instead putting their faith in an extrajudicial quasi-religious order of martial artists. Hence, Monks cannot be lawful.
Heck, the same goes for pretty much any other class. If the Core Rulebook said that Fighters had to be a particular alignment, the same people defending the monk's alignment restriction would be making the same argument in defense of the fighter's alignment restriction, regardless of what it was. Fighters need a lot of discipline and patience to learn their martial art, so they have to be Lawful. Fighters resolve conflicts with violence instead of diplomacy, so they are inherently Chaotic. The only reason you don't see the same choir of people arguing in favor of either of those alignment restrictions is because they aren't already printed in the books.
The fact is, you can come up with a quick "justification" for any class to be restricted to any alignment. Not all such restrictions can actually be in the rules (for starters, you can't restrict a class to be both Chaotic-only and Lawful-only).
Really had me scared with the title, there!
I'd stopped buying anything from the Paizo.com store for a handful of reasons, but as long as PDG continues to put out products on OBS and/or the open gaming store, I'll keep buying them. I'd hazard a guess that customers like me contributed to whatever reasons PDG had for deciding to leave the Paizo.com store.
Now you're just being silly. All Wizards are absolutely required to wear big pointy hats, and Jiggy explains why
Speeding up the disease just for this purpose might or might not violate the Domain Agreement.
Being ninja'd is not allowed. Ninjas must follow a code of honor, and hence must be lawful.
I love the Paladin, and have since 1988. I will not play a 5e Paladin as it's not a Paladin.
I love the Palatina. I have since circa 20 CE. I will not play the AD&D "Paladin" and it's not a paladin. The new-age anime producer who wrote the AD&D so-called "paladin" had no conception as to what a paladin really is. A real paladin is a government official, who swears allegiance to the Emperor of Rome, in connection with Palatine Hill. The AD&D "paladin" is none of those things, so it isn't a paladin. It's an insult to everything paladins have stood for for the previous 1900 years. Full Stop. End of discussion. And don't you dare tell me that the meanings of words change: all words are required to mean exactly the same thing that they meant in ancient times, and modern writers are not allowed to use ancient words like "Paladin" to describe fictional character archetypes that hadn't been invented when the word originated.
Interesting. I already have most of those games for (non-mini) SNES. I'm missing Super Punch Out, but I don't think it's my kind of game.
I feel very differently about this one than I do about the mini-NES. See, even though I have a (non-mini) NES, and even though it still works, NES cartridges are really freaking unreliable. NES games which have save features are even worse--I remember giving up on the original Final Fantasy after the 10th time my save file spontaneously disappeared (I eventually completed the game on Wii Virtual Console once that became a thing. I also played the Dawn of Souls remake, but that's really not the same as the original due to the massively decreased difficulty).
On the other hand, my Super NES still works, and works more reliably that most modern consoles, so I don't have much of an incentive to get the mini SNES except as a possible collector's item. That said, I'm not necessarily the target audience: tracking down a used SNES and all of those games in their original form would be quite expensive for someone who doesn't have them, and this looks like it includes a lot of classics that are well worth playing.
I hope they release Star Fox 2 in some other form, though.