Arssanguinus's page

1,449 posts (4,339 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,449 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Once you’ve tried to stab me in my back, you don’t get to say oops my bad.


First rule of OGL-cide : do not miss.

Don’t pick a fight with someone who buys dice by the barrel.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Once you’ve tried to stab me in my back, you don’t get to say oops my bad.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Apparently the forces of Saruman saw the riders of Rohan coming down the hill at them …

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think they were caught off guard by the unified response, flanked, and sneak attacked.

Xenagog wrote:

In a thread on, there's considerable skepticism as to whether the leak about the $30/month charge and the AI DMs is genuine—while the people who provided that information claimed to have sources, neither specified what their sources were or has proved reliable enough in the past to be fully trusted without evidence of their claims, and some people in the thread think the claims in the leak are suspiciously similar to those in a "leak" five months ago that was proved to be a fake.

But if it is genuine, and if Wizards of the Coast genuinely plans to have an AI DM, yeah, that's something I have absolutely zero interest in. I can see an AI being good at running combats, sure, but to me combat is one of the least interesting parts of the game. I much more enjoy creative problem-solving and interaction with NPCs, and those are things that AI would be terrible at. Chatbots have come a very long way since Eliza, but they're still nowhere near good enough to substitute for a real GM. I suspect a game with an AI GM would be heavily focused on combat, and that's exactly the type of game I'm least interested in playing.

There's also the fact that I'm a GM a lot more often than I'm a player, and generally I enjoy GMing more than I enjoy playing. So that makes me even less interested in an AI DM. (Though AI players... hm. ;) ) But even setting that aside, as a player I would not want to play in a campaign with an AI GM. Maybe players who mostly enjoy combat and don't care so much about other aspects of role-playing games might feel differently.

If it isn’t… if there wasn’t at least a kernel of truth - why wouldn’t they just release a statement denying it?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
12Seal wrote:

I mean, yes, but that's honestly just business. For all that diehard free market proponents love to talk about the merits of competition, the reality is that competitions always have winners. Everyone works towards that monopoly in whatever way they can because it's the most efficient way to make money, and therefore the ultimate goal of any serious competitor. That's miserable for everyone else, ofc, hence anti-trust laws, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still the goal.

Especially for a publicly traded company that's beholden to shareholders who are themselves usually more interested in getting fat returns on their investments than on what the company stands for or its consumers. That's how we end up with the adversarial relationship between the management of Hasbro/WotC and the audience; the shareholders, and by extension upper management, want to separate the audience from as much money as they possibly can, whether the audience wants to part with it or not, in order to boost profit margins. That means killing competition, changing the business model from "ownership" to "rent-seeking," and forcing brand loyalty going forward by quashing 3pp and taking the majority of income on 3pp products by virtue of its licensing rules and larger economic scale.

It's actually a sensible move through that lens. However, to everyone but the corpo suits, it's utterly vile.

They aren’t trying to win by competing but by outlawing their competitors.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I don't like the idea of any governing body having the right to decide who is or is not a bad actor. That's what the power of our wallets is for :P
And I’m not sure I like the idea of the power of wallets deciding who is or isn’t a bad actor. Sure, the cancellation pf DnD Beyond subscriptions could be seem as a “wallet-powered” exploit, but similarly I see bank-rolled bad actors are legion. It feels like “let the market decide” all over again. And over and over again, the market has decided in favor of investors, slavers, polluters and other assorted captains of industry.

And just as or more often those same things are pushed or bankrolled by governing bodies. If you give them the upper hand you lose control over where they put it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leon Aquilla wrote:
Without posting the new license, any press release is just hot air.

“Mea culpa. Now will you please just look away for a moment…”

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aotrscommander wrote:

Tangenital Response to Tangential Rant: I mean, me, I looked at 3.5, I looked at Pathfinder 1 (with Rolemaster leaning over from the one-in-forp'nnies) and said "that's not complicated enough! I'mma make my own edition, with Brimoraks and Hook Horrors! Let's add it all together and steal some bits from 4E and 5E (since I saw the latter on Unexpectables!) Huzzah!"


I do not think I am anyone's target market anymore.

Oooh. I still have my role master for when I get a real desire for numbers

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I get it, but I'd like ORC to be more focused on who we are and what we can create than what we want to happen to our enemies.

What will happen for our allies rather than to our enemies?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kittyburger wrote:
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
*I'm not sure I buy the "teen boys" theory in particular. Maybe if they have no understanding of the current demographics? But that seems unlikely. It's not being marketed as a boys-only game anymore. There's still gender bias, not nearly as centered as it once was.
I'm going by where I see the boxes placed at Target. They're placed toward the area of the endcap game shelves that corresponds with the "war" and "action" toys - your action figures, Nerf guns, licensed Lego sets, and Matchbox cars. The stuff that's classified as "boy toys" by the industry. They're not at the end of the game shelves that corresponds with the more domestic play styles, things like dolls and accessories (classified as "girl toys").

I’d have to say the judgment of stores like target of what the audience that buys it is not necessarily what I would go on

Il see if I can assemble that in a legible format.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
I actually have adopted many of the deities.
Well, if you used mine, I'd love to hear how they fit into your campaign. I will probably enjoy hearing how you created your pantheon in any event, and how your players liked/used them, and I bet many contributors to this thread would.

Gotta look up which ones are you. I started as a core with the ones I made that I liked because I made them, then started working out, taking those connected by other people to those ones, then started filling niches, then started inserting ‘just plain cool’

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually have adopted many of the deities.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is there any such thing as a possible negative trait for a race/species to have that has not at some time been attached to some real world race or ethnic group? Seems like it’s a rabbit hole it’s really easy to go way too deep down.

Cavall wrote:

I wont disagree that for some of these it's pretty common knowledge. Let people roll DC 10 untrained.

I've never met a kangaroo but I know it's got a pouch to carry kids. And that's something on the other side of the planet that isnt a localized unstoppable killing machine with a weakness to fire that should be pretty much talk of the town.

You also have access to the modern education system and the internet, which means the normal person’s ‘common knowledge’ base is vastly more expansive than it would be for those people.

VoodistMonk wrote:

Fair enough. It just seemed unnecessary to me. I can completely understand linking in supporting evidence and siting sources and such, but dragging someone through the mud just to prove your point doesn't sit right with me.

Also, I apologize for appearing insensitive or dismissive about doxing. I am sure it's a serious issue, but all I see is that Nazis can't hide anymore and I think that's pretty awesome.

Would you think it was awesome if it happened to you? No? Then don’t go wishing it on other people, even if you disagree with them.

Ventnor wrote:
If you want a better example of this kind of anachronism, the rapier was invented in the 1500s, several centuries after gunpowder weapons had become widespread in Europe. So any campaign that throws out guns in the name of historical accuracy should also throw out rapiers.

Usually it’s not “historical accuracy“ it’s thematic feel. False argument. There is nothing about the rapier that would have been off despite not existing yet. It isn’t remotely the same as adding firearms.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, a different type of bow is quite different from a different mechanism of damage entirely. Even if it was the same type of bow, it wouldn’t be the gotcha you seem to try to imply.

If you had a modern game and you allowed an Anachronistic firearm it wouldn’t also follow that you were unfair if you didn’t allow lasers too.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:

Well yes. Taking feats that change the rules will in fact change the rules.

And even then the phrase for you must be added so that +5 vorpal cookie sheets arent created.

Now you have me wanting a +5 vorpal cookie sheet…

Sir Ol'Guy wrote:

oh, I don't know. I've done a lot of things in my gaming days, but then I have been doing this for... goodness... My current players recently pointed out how old their parents were when I started running RPGs... only one of them got into double digits. And one had to switch to how old his grand parents were...


Yes, I have run campaigns with Evil parties. and with a mix of both. From a balance perspective, I've often found having an undead PC in the party to be no more unbalancing than having a high-powered customized PC... I know I have said this many times, but it really is mostly on the player. Give a "Evil Monster" to a good player, someone fun to have at the table and a joy to play with? and you have a good game. Give a Paladin to a "Richard" player, and you begin to see why Pallys are one of the most controversial classes at the table. It's not the PC, it's the Player. In this case, it's not the Alignment, it's the Player.

Just as/even more often the ‘problem’ with a paladin at the table lies with the behavior of the OTHER players.

Yeah. Similarly most of my characters at least have a core aspect of my personality somewhere in them. They may be quite different in a myriad of other ways, but:some part of their core will be me. Rime, my halfling witch, has at her core a complete non tolerance of harm to children and despises ‘bullies’ in al forms. Harishan my Vanara Druid believes in honoring all of his commitments, in family and has a burning dislike of involuntary servitude. Elsa my halfling bard was probably closes to my actual personality. But all of them at least in part are people I could “work with” even if I didn’t agree on everything.

avr wrote:
Yqatuba wrote:

How about:

Dumbledore: CG level 20 wizard

Voldemort CE level 18 wizard lich

Pathfinder's system implies rather more personal magic power, and often less power at manipulating the world generally than fiction including the Harry Potter series. See: 'Gandalf was a 5th level wizard' for another example.

Gandalf was holding back from what he could almost certainly actually do.

I’d imagine with the heavy travel involved and ‘planets’ one could do something with reign of winter. I’d have to think on it.

Joey Cote wrote:

Eh, backpacks are listed as 2gp and I just have never been able to get past the idea that anyone in anything resembling a medieval/renaissance society would pay gold for a simple backpack. Which makes trying to convert Pathfinder values into anything resembling real money just unworkable.

I think the best you could do is figure out what it cost to have a basic standard of living of some sort in both societies compare those two numbers and use that as the conversion rate other than that I don’t think you can get much more granular

I think the differences in economic priorities and values renders the comparison next to impossible. Items that were carefully hand crafted before are now cheaply mass produced. Items that never existed then are now commonplace and relatively cheap. The economies would be rather difficult to compare directly.

Yup. Have all the fun you want. It’s just not based on the rules set. Acting indignant is disingenuous.

Not one of those allows the homunculus to deliver a hex in substitution to the witch.

A magic item is not a class feature, so that is somewhat meaningless.

Granting evolutions is just that: granting evolutions. It’s a specific class ability with the specific effect of granting specific things to a specific creature, and as such as no further implications that exactly what it says it does.

And just speaking in a similar voice could be accomplished by ventriloquism. It still doesn’t give them the ability to use class features which don’t specifically say they can be used that way.

Zotpox wrote:

A familiar is an animal chosen by a spellcaster to aid him in his study of magic.

A homunculus is a miniature servant created by a spellcaster from his own blood. They are extensions of their creators.

The use of a single Audible Hex through an extension of your witch which has been given a voice, is not unreasonable. Nor is the use of command word triggered items.

Is it, however, actually supported by the rules whether you happen you believe it ‘reasonable’ or not? Signs say ‘not’.

The GM side of me leans towards “no, homunculus cant do ‘that’ unless it’s a familiar and a familiar could do that.

Of course, you could also use ‘create greater Demi plane’ and put a portal to it aboard the ISS or a long range spacecraft. Make it bountiful and permenant.

Loren Pechtel wrote:
Claxon wrote:

Tangentially related, but I've always thought that if I had to choose just one super power to have, it would totally be teleportation.

Like, I'm not going to try fighting anything.

But teleportation magic would let me live anywhere while working anywhere. I could visit any place in the world and experience anything I want, at any time.

If I found myself without scruples, I could rob a bank. Otherwise I could employ myself in the transport of small volume but valuable objects that needed to avoid detection or notice. Or even just things that required very fast delivery.

I don't think that it would necessarily make me the wealthiest person in the world, but I think it would make me wealthy enough that I could live very comfortably.

Teleportation only:

I can think of a way to use it that would pay quite well, though: Teleportation to orbit. The current cheapest to orbit is the Falcon Heavy at $1000/kg, and most payloads aren't that big so they pay more.

Obviously, most satellites are too big to teleport up and since you can't put velocity in your teleport you're going to have to teleport to something--realistically, that means the ISS.

However, there's a lot of stuff that's useful even in smaller packages. Not only are there the ISS resupply missions, but you could port up tanks of fuel and oxidizer which could then be used to refuel rockets heading farther out. The Falcon 9 can't carry nearly as much to GTO as it can to low orbit--but what if it went to the ISS, took on more fuel then headed on up? It runs on kerolox, nothing too nasty to handle.

Actually,these days there are quite a few ‘small satellites ’ which easily fit in teleport capabilities.

I like ioun stones but at this level budget their price is a tad on the high end. You usually start picking those up as fillers at a bit higher level.

Careful use of a fortune hex in Vegas could work.

avr wrote:
Winter witches are something of an exception Zotpox. They tend to be wannabe blasters who can just do damage.

In no way am I prevented from debuff or other spells or hexes, and even many cold magic spells have saving throws.

Ryan Freire wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:

Sniper fetishism
A mythic level 20 character can survive falling from orbit and being submerged in lava. A Diviner wizard can't be surprised and automatically goes first. You can dual path for DR10/epic. Wall of Force has 30 hardness and 400 hp. Steel has a hardness of 10 and 30 hp per inch of thickness. An antimaterial rifle is not even going to dent magic. It has trouble punching through more than 2 inches of steel. Comparing the real world to magic pretty much never works out in it's favor.
Right, a simple protection from arrows turns your skin into steel as far as a sniper rifle is concerned.

You could add extended stoneskin.

A tier ten mythic diviner with access to mythic wall of force would really ruin a sniper’s day.

Ryan Freire wrote:
Zepheri wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
VoodistMonk wrote:

I certainly wouldn't ever assume that I am the only one with this power.

Leave world domination up to Pinky and the Brain...

I just want to be left alone.

If I woke up super powerful magic and $#!+, I would move back to Montana and only see people when I want to.

the problem with that is that if it ever got out you had that power no one would leave you alone. Specifically our govt.
True also they will ask you to be patriotic and let them analyze you, see if you can teach others and help the with some mission
thats assuming that they dont just outright view you as a threat and use your friends and loved ones as leverage against you.

Couldn’t you just teleport and remove them from their control?

As I said: Divination, your own Demi plane you can enter from a closet. Use divination to know things and set yourself up as wealthy. You do it right you can get rich without too much issue.

If you are psychic, start each day with “Akashaic form’

Snipers have a problem then.

Zepheri wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:

Is a spell I’m looking at.

Are you going to sacrifice and spell slot when you can get items that do the same?

Depends on the costs.

Is a spell I’m looking at.

So, a caveat to start: Not looking for advice on the build, or "Why did you take x y or Z?" or the like.

That being said. Have a fifth level winter witch about to go into the appropriate prestige class.

Hexes of Evil eye, Frostfoot, slumber.

Due to feats and traits a very good will save, especially against Hexes, curses or fey magic. Also due to traits has a pretty decent intimidate(+13) keyed off of intelligence and usable against larger humanoids(Creepy doll).

Due to 'build' unlikely to engage in any melee.

Have already taken favored prestige class for WInter witch in anticipation of getting to Prestigious caster at the next feat after that, so in two levels will have the full caster level and spells. Just because, the Favored prestige class skill bonus will apply to Intimidate again, so that will jump to 16. My buffed up intimidate is an RP preference thingy. Has a sage familiar and multiple buffed up knowledges herself.

She currently has an icicle wand, and there is a team collection of potions and scrolls that we dole out as needed.

So right now, she is likely to have something around 6,000 or slightly over gold to spend on items when the next opportunity arises(At least. Possible there could be more depending on what comes up. Just estimating) As a note, I highly suspect another party member is taking up crafting shortly

So possible shopping list:

There is the cackling hag's blouse, which is nice but would blow my entire wad to acquire. Could do a Intelligence headband which would only take four thou of my wad.

There are the usual cloaks of resistance, I have fair saves already but more is always good.

Just looking perhaps for ideas for the shopping list.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Load up on divination spells. Knowledge is power,

Meirril wrote:

If you are going to be the only magical act in town, you want to be a cleric. Once you can cast Cure Disease you're set for life, assuming you can keep yourself from being kidnapped and enslaved by every powerful organization on Earth.

Also Miracle is hands down better than Wish. You don't need a 25k diamond just to ask for a lower level spell.

If you were a twentieth level cleric with ten mythic ranks who the heck is going to manage to kidnap and enslave you????

SheepishEidolon wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
A chaotic neutral could have a desire to free others of all bonds regardless of the moral and ethical consequences.

Well, if it's an occasional desire instead of a reliable one, it could still be within CN. It shouldn't be a persistent streak of their personality, because:

CRB wrote:
Chaotic Neutral: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom.

It assuredly can be. A person is a composite of a large number of different beliefs and behaviors. Your alignment is what quadrant the average of that composite puts you in, not a list of things all of which must be accounted for and none of which can be from outside that box.

SheepishEidolon wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Even an evil person can have some consistent behaviors which can be called good. No reason a neutral one cannot.
They can, but it undermines their official alignment. To make the official alignment believable again, the character would have to show a lot of aligment typical behavior to compensate.

There is no reason disliking slavery has to sit on the good evil axis. You can be disliking slavery for moral reasons. But you could also dislike it for ethical reasons. For practical reasons. For personal reasons because you were once enslaved and you hate the institution, you don’t necessarily care at all about the slaves themselves, but you sure want to knock down the thing that tormented you wherever you can. Motivations matter.

SheepishEidolon wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
A chaotic neutral could have a desire to free others of all bonds regardless of the moral and ethical consequences.

Well, if it's an occasional desire instead of a reliable one, it could still be within CN. It shouldn't be a persistent streak of their personality, because:

CRB wrote:
Chaotic Neutral: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom.

Even an evil person can have some consistent behaviors which can be called good. No reason a neutral one cannot.

Derklord wrote:
Skaterfoever wrote:
He said I could not do that because slave trade is an evil act and I’m not an evil character.

Did the Wizard say that, or did the Wizard's player say that? I presume it's the latter - in which case this is 100% wrong. The Wizard player just has an utterly f+**ed up understanding of what alignment is. Alignment doesn't dictate how you (can) act, how you act dictates alignment! It doesn't matter if that's a good, neutral, or evil act, and it doesn't matter if your character is good, evil, lawful, chaotic, or neutral. Under no circumstances does a character's alignment dictate what they can or can't do, period.

"Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character." CRB pg. 166

Chaotic neutral is explicitly about doing whatever you want:
"A chaotic neutral character follows his whims." CRB pg. 167

There's also some more stuff on the matter regarding handling alignment (directed at GMs, because it's not for other players to decide):
"it’s generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment."
"It’s best to let players play their characters as they want. If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn’t fit his alignment, let him know that he’s acting out of alignment and tell him why—but do so in a friendly manner."
CRB pg. 168

TLDR version: Tell the Wizard player to shut the f@+~ up and play their own character! No one likes a backseat driver.


For the record, the CRB actually uses "a desire to liberate others" to describe what a chaotic neutral character shouldn't by driven by, as that would make for a chaotic good character, so if anything that act would make your character lean more towards CG. So basically, the Wizard player got even that utterly wrong.

I don’t see why not. A chaotic neutral could have a desire to free others of all bonds regardless of the moral and ethical consequences.everybody should be free of all bonds, hey, if that means people suffer, so be it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
They aren't exactly normal and do tend to attract glances.
Or vice versa, in the case of Riven and our most recently completed encounter.

I can imagine the gaping open mouth and the look like a landed fish still.


Well, THe current group I'm in(ANd the GM did some gyrations to make sure all of these options woudl be equivalent and gradually come into abilities et al, but:
A winter Witch Creepy doll halfling who casts no shadow, A yeti Bloodrager, the Yeti's sister(Yes, I said sister. Its a complicated family) The Yeti has two sisters, a Halfling and a 'human', a human changeling Psychic marauder, a FOrlaaren Kineticist, A human ROgue and a HUman Hunter with a dinosaur companion. They aren't exactly normal and do tend to attract glances.

1 to 50 of 1,449 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>