Jason Nelson wrote:
Wait, we're talking about a print product?!?...Huh, you did indeed say that on the first page and I forgot about it. I do not have any room to store any more print RPG books. Please send the prize to someone else.
Here's a link to the PRD, but I don't know if there is still an easily-visible button that leads there.
When I go to the page on my profile that shows posts other people have favorited, I encounter a bug in the way the posts are displayed. Next to each post, there would normally be an indicator of how many people favorited the post. However, on the page showing my posts that other people have favorited, there are some posts which appear to not be favorited by anyone.
I noticed this phenomenon shortly before the big site-wide maintenance, and it is still there now.
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.
In Eric Morton's 101 Simple Archetypes, there is a witch archetype that changes your casting stat to wisdom (along with a couple other changes), and another witch archetype that changes your casting stat to charisma. I'd imagine that someone at some point has probably made a wizard archetype that changes your casting stat, and such an archetype is probably the best choice for someone who wants a wizard with a low intelligence score.
Also, you can now pre-order the next prequel book, Volume 1/2, in both softcover and DRM-free PDF.
Captain collateral damage wrote:
I don't think I can really tell you without more information. If I am going to play an RPG, I do want something like Mythic for whatever game system I am playing. So, if you want to know whether I am interested in mythic support for a particular system, it really comes down to two questions:
If the answer to either of those questions is "yes," then I want mythic support for that system. Otherwise, I have no interest in buying anything for the system in question.
For PF 1, the answer to question 1 for me is "no," and has been no for many years now. On the other hand, I still fairly regularly run D&D 3.5, and I have had no difficulties using your mythic supplements in 3.5. I can say with some degree of confidence that as long as I am playing 3.5, I will be happy to have mythic products aimed at PF 1.
For PF 2, though, there is still too much I don't know. Will I want to play PF 2? Until I see the actual system, I can't say. If I don't want to play PF 2, will I still be able to easily convert PF 2 rules to some other system that I do want to play? Again, until PF 2 comes out it's hard to say. Overall,I really don't think I can tell you whether I will want PF 2 mythic support until I get a chance to try the system.
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.
We also know all of Kudzu's other stats:
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.
Amazon estimates a modest increase in traffic to Paizo.com since the beginning of 2017. They don't show earlier data, since you have to pay to see long-term trends in web traffic.
Note, though, that that includes all traffic to Paizo.com, including the store and the PRD. It's entirely possible that more people are visiting the PRD and fewer are visiting the forum. Or that more people are visiting the forum, but simply aren't posting.
Also keep in mind that the total traffic to Paizo.com is still really low: it is only the 11201st most popular domain globablly, and the 3079th most popular in the U.S. That's well behind MySpace, which is the 3808th most popular website worldwide and the 1805th most popular in the U.S. Or WotC's website wizards.com (ranked 2065 in the world, 666 in the U.S.).
Google Trends also shows a noticable increase in searches related to both Pathfinder and D&D during 2017.
My Self wrote:
This is the level where you get into bizarro logic- "I don't like superman" is directly opposite "I like superman", but if you want to go all-out and reverse every part, you end up with (not) I (not) do (not) n't (not) like (not) super (not) man, which ends up somewhere in the ballpark of "You don't not like weak alien", which is a 90 degree turn and two plane shifts away from the original idea; hardly similar at all.
I was just reminded of this thread by yesterday's Dinosaur Comics.
Today, Steve Jackson Games released a bunch of GURPS PDFs on OneBookShelf/DriveThruRPG/RPGNow. It's a far cry from the much larger library of PDFs they are selling on their own store. Prior to today, Steve Jackson Games sold PDFs exclusively on their own store, making them one of only two moderate-sized RPG publishers not selling through OBS. There is now only one medium-sized RPG publisher who refuses to sell their PDFs through DrivethruRPG: Paizo.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Rogues/ninjas are weak if the GM/party doesn't let them play to their strengths. They are designed for hit-n-run tactics, or sniping, but many GMs and parties won't let them do that, which nerfs them.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Hit and run tactics are when you attack. Do as much damage as possible in a short period. Then retreat. Then do it again. Against groups, the idea is to lower their numbers. Against single targets, the idea is to either inflict a debilitating condition, or to reduce their resources (like spells per day).
What does that have to do with rogues? What makes rogues better at what you call "hit-and-run" tactics than, say, someone who can turn invisible and strike from a distance? Or an alchemist?
Nice callback to the first page of book six.
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:
Thanks to Jaxzan Proditor (for the quotes, not just the votes.)
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.
Real RPers determine sexuality by rolling d% at creation and comparing it to overall census rates to figure out where they land on the Kinsley Scale.
That's basically what I do for characters' gender. I just roll a d200 or an equivalent to decide their gender (or rather, their gender presentation most of the time). And if I forget what I rolled since I introduced the character, then I reroll and might get something different, resulting in a trans or genderfluid character.
For sexuality...I tend to make most characters aro ace. I don't really have confidence in my ability as a writer to portray anything else well.
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.
For people who forgot, the stone crumbling to dust was introduced a chapter or two ago in strip 1024.