137ben's page

RPG Superstar 7 Season Dedicated Voter, 8 Season Star Voter, 9 Season Dedicated Voter. 3,665 posts (8,245 including aliases). 25 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 42 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,665 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Jason Nelson wrote:
137ben wrote:
Sweet! And, I'll go with a Pathfinder product.
Sounds good. Send me your mailing address to makeyourgamelegendary@gmail.com and PREPARE TO BE AMAZED! :)

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sweet! And, I'll go with a Pathfinder product.


137ben wrote:
Do you have any plans to convert this product to Starfinder?

Ah, right, I should probably have read the thread before asking. Or at least one post above mine.


Do you have any plans to convert this product to Starfinder?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

May as well put me on the list.


Here's a link to the PRD, but I don't know if there is still an easily-visible button that leads there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Have readers forgotten about Xykon's fortress?


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.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Why this doesn't happen to all vampires.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sigdi's line about burying is a callback to strip 84, 14 real-life years ago.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1126: Battle Cry


At the end of each session, the players vote as to whether they should level up. If a majority say they should level, then everyone goes up a level. A tie means staying the same level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1125: Throwing Shade


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1124: Dominate Tricks


2 people marked this as a favorite.

OH SNAP
ping bow string.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1121: Protection Racket


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, you can now pre-order the next prequel book, Volume 1/2, in both softcover and DRM-free PDF.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1119: The Fighting’s So Bright


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain collateral damage wrote:

Noooooo not the poor giraffes :(

It looks like V isn’t chaotic, based on the gritted teeth in the chaos hammer.

V is True Neutral.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1118: Negatively Affected


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly I'm glad to see this thread bumped. I've seen a lot of "Pathfinder 2e" threads over the five years I've been on Paizo.com, but this thread was one of my favorite incarnations.


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:
1)Do I want to play this particular system?
2)If the answer to the previous question was "no," can I easily use mythic products intended for this system in another system that I do want to play?

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.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Though my opinion may change in subsequent rereadings, I think that last panel is my new favorite Elan quote of all time.

Spectacular.

MageHunter wrote:

Does this mean Kudzu is non-lawful?

It seems like he takes after his father in his passion for turn Undead.

We already know Kudzu's alignment: Kudzu's alignment is TBD.

We also know all of Kudzu's other stats:

The Giant wrote:

Here are the stats you actually need for a hatchling dragon:

Movement: Gets away if you let it.
Saving Throws: Miraculously survives all accidents.
Armor Class: You hit.
Hit Points: Congratulations, Baby-Killer.
Special Qualities: I hope you can live with yourself.

Coincidentally, these are the same exact stats for every other species of baby.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
taig wrote:
137ben wrote:
Looks like I got the only 2, and there were no 1s. Does that mean I win something?
Unfortunately, Ivory Songbird also got a 2.

Whoopsies, I didn't see that:P


Looks like I got the only 2, and there were no 1s. Does that mean I win something?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Add me to the list too.


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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

That dwarf appears to be the same one that Hurak is talking to on page 19 of OtOotPCs. I guess he's about to tell the Order about the prophecy that we found out about 12 years ago (finally!)


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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1089: Scents and Cents

Nice callback to the first page of book six.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Mad Comrade wrote:
Wultram wrote:
Sneak attack most certainly isn't something special.

That so?

Given that sneak attack immune targets are far less common in PF than they were in 3.5, I disagree.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

More specifically:

--All vampires that aren't currently thralls have free will.
--Malack's primary purpose in the story was to kill Durkon. If Malack weren't Evil, he probably wouldn't have killed Durkon and so wouldn't have been in the story. Hence, you only saw Malack because he was evil.

--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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

Isn't the female vampire that did not immediately get onboard with the Great Leader narrative and shows more independent thought than the other spawns the same one who seemed to heed self-preservation more than bloodlust in the fight with Roy and the representatives ?

Is it possible for a spawn to actually be created free, and maybe even non-Evil ?

How Vampires Work in OOTS.

Thanks to Jaxzan Proditor (for the quotes, not just the votes.)


Haven't gotten a chance to try it yet, so I just have a question:
Is it still tied to Paizo's firearm mechanics, or have you reworked those?


And a special thanks to Mark Gedak and Purple Duck Games for making products that people want to buy!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Java Man wrote:

So what?

Is the kind of sniping in this thread helping anyone have a more enjoyable or richer gaming experience?

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
, real paladins aren't lawful good,
*tilts head*

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Redcloak is an average leader. Zykon is the awesome leader. :)

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.


Dotting (I’ll hopefully comment later).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weirdo wrote:


You are correct that "setting neutral" is not quite accurate. In fact, I'd argue that it's not possible to make a truly setting neutral fantasy game system because there is no universal standard for how magic works.

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.


Trinam wrote:
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.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

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).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For people who forgot, the stone crumbling to dust was introduced a chapter or two ago in strip 1024.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1083: You Bet

1 to 50 of 3,665 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>