Flamewar's page

39 posts. Alias of Tin Foil Yamakah.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NH wrote:
Ah, I see. This is an experiment in, "I am going to take every post and interpret in the most negative possible manner."

Welcome to the Paizo Boards

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh no not here

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rambles on about how great 5E is compared to pathfinder all the while continuing to post on the Paizo website

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Starts out post with "I know this can be touchy subject"...

Long rant about caster/martial disparity

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Moe hate, moe hate

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Everyone knows batman wins! goes off on a tangent about how DM's should never fudge dice rolls.

lorenlord wrote:

I knwo I'll probably get flamed for this, but here goes anyway. Maybe i may be stating the obvious, but it seems to me that there is a power creep that goes on when new books are introduced, and, IMHO, that directly affects game balance.

I realize Paizo is a business, and therefore needs to put out more resources to make money. But it seems that after 30 years of gaming, more books= less balance.
I can remember going through this with the past iterations of D&D, except for 1st ed. 2nd edition came out, was good, then the 'Complete" series came out. 3.5 I enjoyed, until there were a ton of books to look through.
I enjoyed 4th edition when only the Core rulebook was out, and I remember thinking "Jeez I really think this is good, I hope they don't ruin it with more books". Flush.
I enjoy PF, mostly because my group hadnt been using any of the other books until recently, and I'm noticing the power creep.
I just got the D&D 5e PH, and I realy, really like the setup of it, and I'm hoping they just add archtypes and backgrounds with each book, because hoping that they're not going to make more books is a pipe dream.
Don't get me wrong, I think resource books are great for Campaigns and fluff/ background. but I think when they start introducing new feats that are used by classes that maybe they didnt intend or think about when coming up with said feat(s), and it made some class builds rediculous.

Again, just my opinion. Go easy and leave the torches and pitchforks where they are. :)

Too Late

Orthos wrote:
The problem with "everything must be archetypes or alternate classes" is that locks you into a basic framework that restricts the ability to introduce new concepts. I guess - if you really, really stretch it - I can see an excuse for Alchemist as a Rogue archetype, especially since they have the Investigator and the Vivisectionist both going back and stealing Rogue's stuff. But what class should Inquisitor be an archetype of? Or Magus? Both are too different from any Core class to truly be pulled off with an archetype or alternate class.


Pyromaniac wrote:
Rawr! wrote:

So I read that quickly, and, at first, I thought it said, "I have got to stop setting fire to the school."

... go on....

I Concur

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kajehase wrote:
Flamewar wrote:
I see some of your worshipers are up tonight. *le sigh*

Yeah paladin threads with a healhty side of alignment brings em out in droves

2 people marked this as a favorite.


Smarmy reply to above n00b's posts real Real wacky Races

Starts ranting about how broken simulacrum is, demands that the Dev's fix this problem immediately. Tries to FAQ/like his post multiple times using different aliases.

Purposely mispronounces Morains name.

Claims his real last name IS grognard


2 people marked this as a favorite.


Oh I always wanted my own thread!

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
so I said "Seriously, saying **** you to the GM is a serious thing..."

Why is that? The way you phrase that, you make it seem as though you think saying f*** you to the GM is more serious than saying it to another player. That's a bad approach to take as a GM; you shouldn't think that your authority over the game means you deserve some special respect.

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
That was when he said "You know what? **** you. I asked if I could be a Black-Blooded Oracle and you said no."
This is a rather reasonable response, though it was clearly stated in anger. Telling a player he cannot take a certain archetype and then giving it to an NPC is just bad GMing.

This sounds perfectly rational


Stick Doing the Beating wrote:
I'll just sit here and wait for the other two, you, know, 'cause

Yeah Yeah

It seems like you have acquired a worshipper.

Demands worship from all fire creatures

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I apologize for appearing in every political/alignment/rules/monk/rogue/.... thread

stuart haffenden wrote:

Ok, can I change my original post to...

How many beans make five?

Like you did know this was going to happen

Banned for starting a pointless and evil thread, next time just start an alignment thread...jeez.

Banned for jumping to conclusions about my thought processes

And you know you want to be on FYAH!

Methinks this going down a road I do not wish to follow

Banned for having a monobrow

Involving at least 2 people in a thread arguing usually oversuch things as rule/alignment interpretations, rogues, monks and summoners. These threads have the unique ability to summon Chris Lambertz.

Banned for half arsed ban

You are welcome

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Banned for not knowing midnight oil..beds are burning come on man

Banned for not appreciating a good pouty lipped sneer

You don't want a piece of me

Oh This sounds like a wonderful idea!

*Looks in to thread*

"This thread is proceeding as expected"

1 person marked this as a favorite.


Nefreet wrote:

Hmm, indeed.

Then, how to you roll seven-and-a-half d6?

Yeah man, How do you not know that. Don't show your face on these boards again!