Seoni

Kalindlara's page

Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 9 Season Marathon Voter. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 9,244 posts (10,906 including aliases). 6 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 19 Organized Play characters. 25 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 9,244 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I like replay option 3 the best.

As for boons... I'm not a fan of the proposed system, personally, because of what I value about boons. My favorite boons were always those that offered a new character option or design choice. Turning something that let me create a character I couldn't otherwise create, into a boring power-boosting numbers benefit, isn't especially valuable to me.

That said, assuming option 2 doesn't get too much support, I can just save them for PFS1. I have so much left to do in this system. ^_^

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Also, fun fact pretty much nobody remembers about when talking about how companies should conduct their business: warehouses aren't bags of holding. They're one of the biggest limitations and headaches of any production business and you can't just print a zillion books "just in case", because they'll clog your warehouse shelf space and if they don't move, you just blew quite a lot of money which you'll barely claw back. Which means that in print business, you need to be VERY careful about your estimations.

On top of that, they're all still technically inventory, which can be burdensome for accounting and tax purposes. This is almost certainly why old 3.5 materials are sold at such a massive discount - at this point, they're probably costing Paizo more than they're worth vis-a-vis actual sales figures.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Asgetrion wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I mean, the paint jobs on PFB minis blow most Harbinger or Dragoneye minis out of the water. Later DDM sets got a bit better, but DDM never aimed for paint detail as ambitious as PFB does.
Yeah, the very first DDM sets were not very ambitious with their sculpts or use of colors, but I still think there are many "gems" among Dragoneye minis that I still use a lot. And highlighting techniques were used on surprisingly many figures back then, which makes them seem more alive and offsets dull colors quite a bit. Just compare almost any scaled or armored DDM figure (apart from the 4E era sets) to contempotary PF Battles miniatures, and the contrast is (at least to me) quite evident.

Oh, the sculpts and such were fine, and I love those minis dearly. But look at something like the Arcane Archer... it's basically just patches of color. Light flesh tone for face, with no eyes or anything; uniform brown for armor and bow; yellowish for hair; a basic wash to make it look less Crayola. (That last step is where 4e DDM really cut corners. See: Elf Archer.)

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I mean, the paint jobs on PFB minis blow most Harbinger or Dragoneye minis out of the water. Later DDM sets got a bit better, but DDM never aimed for paint detail as ambitious as PFB does.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Feros wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
The render for the dweomercat looks gorgeous. ^_^
Sadly, the paint job is not up to the render...but the render does make it clear that a modification with some appropriate paint would be fairly easy for those of us who still paint minis on occasion.

Oh, I know about the paint job. T-T Just trying to keep my post positive.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

The render for the dweomercat looks gorgeous. ^_^

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

PM sent.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
DeathQuaker wrote:
A mild point of order--there was the 4e Game System License, but Paizo found it legally too draconian to adhere to it. IIRC there was a clause in the GSL that basically said WotC could declare your system-compatible product invalid at any time or for any reason they chose--even if you were technically compliant with the license--and force you to stop publishing, which they felt was too risky to comply with.

I seem to recall the 4e license also including some sort of draconian fine print about having to liquidate any remaining 3.x OGL material in stock, and not being able to produce more. If you went 4e, you had to go all in. But that could just be a rumor of the time, or a faulty memory. It's been a long time, after all, and I mainly use my memory for games rules. ^_^

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

The Elf Ghosts are also from Book 6, if I recall, somewhere in Nyrissa's house.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
MageHunter wrote:

Is there any monster with both bite and gore?

I thought you could only get one natural attack per appendage. Like you can have slam OR claw, not both.

Gargoyles have both. ^_^

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I finished opening my case earlier tonight. And the paint quality was definitely noticeably not up to par. I don't think there were more than five or ten acceptably-painted minis in the whole case. :(

I love the Pathfinder Battles line. But I really hope this isn't the quality we can expect going forward.

Sovereign Court

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Starting contentious threads, I can forgive. But insulting Serpent Kingdoms? Sir, you forget yourself.

Sovereign Court

21 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Regarding the idea that "characters (primarily archers) are more viable in PF2 because of less feat taxes"... couldn't PF2 have just fixed that and similar feat-tax issues without throwing the rest of the system out in the process? It seems rather myopic to hold that one example up as proof that PF2 is a superior system.

I dunno. Just me?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I should probably go open my case at some point.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Like the other Huge elementals, these miniatures are based on the elemental art from Mythic Adventures. And trust me, we were just as confused about the water elemental then.

I'm really not pleased about it either. It makes a hopefully-threatening foe just seem silly, and is likely to cause comments unrelated to the in-game situation.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Yup! Time to get creative! ^_^

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Easivra originates from (and plays an extremely minor, indirect role in) Council of Thieves; a tiny amount of information can be found in Pathfinder Adventure Path #27: What Lies In Dust. Slightly more background lies in [I]Pathfinder Adventure Path #40: Vaults of Madness[I], in the sabosan Bestiary entry. ^_^

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

It may be available as part of a special boon reward, rather than being always available - improved familiar options are relatively common for this purpose.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Skeld wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Due to what is happening on this forum, I can understand why; something very strange and upsetting is going on.
Am I missing out on some drama?
Not drama, per se.

What "strange and upsetting" thing is going on?

EDIT: Ah.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Which is how we get to "I'd rather not play in an organized play group with players who are arguing in favor of slavery, torture, and rape", I guess.
Personally, that is kinda my stance, I don't think playing with those characters is entertaining, so I avoid those tables.

I wasn't talking about the characters, at that point. If I'm at a table where the players themselves, out of game, are talking about how those things are morally justified - even if it's only to justify their characters' actions - I'm probably not going to be there for long.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Marco Massoudi wrote:

@Kalindlara

Do you wish for more shapely versions of Air, Earth & Water elements?
I am sure Icons of the Realms will make huge elementals soon, maybe as soon as february 2019...

Not specifically. Just having enough minis would be nice. ^_^

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Yeah, I'm definitely glad to have access to both (especially with three DDM Elementals). If only I could say the same for the other elements...

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
It feels like "if you want to be a Drow PC for non-power-gamey reasons" then Cavern Elf + Backstory should be sufficient.

It's somewhat insulting to conflate "caring about statistical function" and "power gaming".

It would significantly disrupt my immersion, and (in my opinion) significantly disrupt verisimilitude, to play a character that looks like one thing and functions like another. It's like saying "well, just play a dwarf and call it a halfling" or "instead of playing a wizard, play an archer and pretend your arrows are magic missiles". The game functions are important for more reasons than just "powergaming".

Beyond that, drow are hardly a power boost in Pathfinder. Spell resistance is an extremely double-edged sword, their spell-like abilities are situational at best. Meanwhile, elves get the extremely potent elven magic racial trait (and a wide variety of options for nonspellcasters to replace it with). Ability modifiers are marginally better for certain specific classes at best and a useless downgrade for many characters.

As for PF2 drow, while we haven't seen anything on them yet, the ancestries we've seen so far show no sign that they'll really be a factor in terms of power. In fact, before this latest patch (which I haven't seen yet), elves have some of the best ancestry feats around. So, if anything, I'd probably be downgrading by playing the actual ancestry I want to play.

In short: please let me play drow, Design Team. And also, I guess, don't insult me for wanting to play the actual thing I want to play.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I like the new fire elemental much better than the original - she has a shape, rather than just being a fiery blob. But, personal taste. ^_^

Also, for pedantry's sake, the DDM Huge Fire Elemental wasn't Giants of Legend. I wanna say... War of the Dragon Queen? I think? Its skirmish stats were too far from regular D&D, and it had an Epic color stat card.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Cyouni wrote:
Reminder that as rules entries, you need names that are clear that people won't struggle to remember. For example, if I had a heritage which said "Zirnakaynin elf", how many people would be able to tell me what kind of elf that is from the name?

I mean, I would. But I'm probably the outlier here.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

That's what I get for posting without access to my books. ^_^

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
The placeholder art is from whichever volume of Legacy of Fire introduced the leucrotta to Pathfinder - either the first or second, I imagine. ^_^
So who is the warrior pictured there? She does not appear to be one of the iconics.

She doesn't appear in any other art that I know of, so... leucrotta food, presumably.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

The placeholder art is from whichever volume of Legacy of Fire introduced the leucrotta to Pathfinder - either the first or second, I imagine. ^_^

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Which is how we get to "I'd rather not play in an organized play group with players who are arguing in favor of slavery, torture, and rape", I guess.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Stepping a bit aside, respecting one's fellow players and in the process figuring out a way to make such things *work* without *destroying immersion* or *building a legal case* is an amazing challenge and those who make it *work* are to be lauded for the accomplishment.

All that said, lest I be too negative, this is a very solid statement. My only comment is that this has to be a two-way street for things to work well - whether it's a zero-compromise-whatsoever do-gooder or an evildoer out to thumb their nose at the helpless nonevil party members, if either side is refusing to play nice, things won't go well.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


Well, if we want to dive down the rabbit hole, we could posit that following a 'good' deity is on some level 'evil' to those who are on the other side of the fence, or vice versa.

But instead of doing that, instead let us consider the poor Devourer.

It's one big thing in existence was eating things.

And then it got told it had to go on a *diet*.

Friend, I don't know if you've ever been on a diet, but let me tell you, 'hangry' is a thing.

If but for a simple twist of Fate, we could have a drunken frat-boy deity of the most evil sort, or a most tyrannical Inheritor.

Stepping a bit aside, respecting one's fellow players and in the process figuring out a way to make such things *work* without *destroying immersion* or *building a legal case* is an amazing challenge and those who make it *work* are to be lauded for the accomplishment.

I don't quite follow many of these points, I'm afraid.

"Well, if you like brutally enslaving* people, torturing** people, or committing violent sexual acts on unwilling victims***, then aren't people who want to stop you from doing those things exactly as bad as you are?" is... certainly a position one could argue. I suppose. That is some pretty vigorous -
and literal, in some cases - devil's advocacy.

*Asmodeus
**Zon-Kuthon
***Socothbenoth

Maybe the Devourer didn't choose to be a cosmic force of destruction. So... I guess everyone who willingly chooses to follow the Cult of the Devourer gets a complete moral pass by extension?

"But what if Iomedae or Cayden Cailean were evil?" I dunno. What if barbarians were 1/2 BAB arcane spellcasters? Since they aren't, I'm honestly not quite grasping how it's relevant.

I'm honestly not trying to make trouble here. This post is just confusing to me personally (and, in some cases, kinda squicky).

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Well... as of the playtest, and final version notwithstanding, we don't need to worry about lawful neutral clerics of Asmodeus anymore.

Sovereign Court

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Piccolo wrote:
And on top of that, PF2 seems to be intended for the LGBT crowd far more than the gamers that kept PF1 in business for so very long.

I've been playing roleplaying games for over twenty years, starting with Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. We were always here, thank you. And we've done our part "keeping Paizo in business" for as long as Pathfinder has been around.

Melkiador wrote:
Every thread about “that” gets censored away pretty quickly. Let’s not make this thread about “that”.

I'm with the toothy bag. What's "that"? Am I "that"? I'm not sure if "that" is better or worse than "those people".

Though I will admit, I chuckled at "I don't want this thread to get "censored". So don't talk about these topics. You wouldn't want to get "censored", would you?"

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Anorak wrote:

Possible Spoiler...

** spoiler omitted **

That was revealed in Second Darkness. ^_^

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Player: "I have completely reasonable objections regarding secret rolls, I'm more than capable of separating player knowledge and character knowledge."

GM: "Thanks for approaching me with your concerns. But Player B is terrible at separating player/character knowledge, and in order to keep that not very good player in line and protect their fragile ego and maintain the integrity of a four person party because frankly there are not that many people who want to play this game, I have to use Secret Rolls universally."

Player: "But what about my completely reasonable concerns?"

What a fair representation of both sides of the situation. I suppose it wasn't worth trying to have a reasoned conversation.

So... is the GM allowed to have an opinion at all? Or does not capitulating to a player's every request immediately mark them as a poor GM?

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I don't see how it matters which was which. You could just say "I've seen characters of any faith done well, or done poorly". All good characters shouldn't be held accountable for the bad actors any more than evil characters should.

I'm probably just biased after my good-aligned characters were forced to stand by while the chaotic "neutral" characters mutilated prisoners, though, so I can't say I'd do any better on this subject.

Explore, Report, Cooperate, Let The Totally-Not-Evil People Do Whatever They Want is the rule more often than not, in my experience. :(

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Again, if Secret Rolls were “opt in” for players rather than “opt out” by GM Fiat, I wouldn’t have a problem here.

The issue is that the GM decides whether or not a group can be “trusted” with metagame knowledge.

Genuinely curious, isn't that the person who should be making that call? If you've got 4 great players but one of them has a really bad habit of spoiling things with metagame knowledge, should the weight of the rules be in favor of the GM deciding to let the players roll because they trust their players not to spoil it, or should it be behind the players so that one person inclined to "spoil" the experience with metagame knowledge can choose not to opt in and "spoil" it for everyone? What if it's a brand new group of players and the GM isn't experienced enough to recognize whether their group can be responsible with that information? Should they have to wait until after the game has been "spoiled" to start looking for solutions, or should the game naturally provide the option that's best proofed against that kind of behavior as the default and then let the GM relax that standard as they get more comfortable with their group?

This is a really good set of thoughts, in my opinion.

As for the rather charged phrase "GM fiat"... if you and/or other players have an issue with how the GM decides to run the game, I recommend approaching them and talking to them about it. A GM who won't even consider players' concerns probably isn't going to be a very fun GM to play with in general. ^_^

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I certainly don't need any more Human Skeleton/Human Zombie minis at this point, for the record. ^_^

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I have a complete collection of Pathfinder Battles miniatures, less maybe a couple of this year's convention exclusives (for now). Personally, I don't see myself skipping a case just because I don't know what some of the minis are. I stuck around for the onslaught of giant minis, after all. ^_^

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I believe the Human Arcanist is based on this art, which looks like it's from Inner Sea Races. It also looks a lot like Old-Mage Jatembe in particular, though the Pathfinder Battles line usually isn't shy about explicitly naming historical characters.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

Archery, I'll grant. But two-weapon fighting in the PF1 sense (making additional attacks with off-hand weapons) no longer exists. Instead we have "attack once with your main hand's weapon, then attack with your second hand's weapon at your normal penalty". Which you could do in PF1 without any feats at all. So I suppose you are technically correct*: those penalties no longer exist, because you just can't do the thing at all, even with a penalty.

*The best kind of correct, I'm told.

Honestly, I'm pretty glad that "combine all these things correctly and you can make more attacks" is a thing of the past, whether it's rapid shot of 3.x style two-weapon fighting, etc. It's pretty hard to balance around "this person can roll more d20s" and it could easily get pretty out of hand if you stacked good options.

I wouldn't want PF1 style two-weapon fighting as an option in this system.

That's certainly a valid perspective - I might even agree. I just think it kind of undermines the statement that "you don't need feats for two-weapon fighting anymore".

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Just about, yeah. When an ally deals damage, you get the buff. When an ally dies (which won't happen often by RAW, unless your allies die really easy when brought below zero - maybe use animate dead?), you get the round of haste.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Which ones are derghodaemons again? The ones with the skittering legs and the feeblemind noise?

I think my list is the same as yours, except I'd like any one of the Misbegotten Troll, the rock troll, the four-armed frost giant, or the chimera in place of the crocodile.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Data Lore wrote:
How many of those PF1 combat feats are no longer necessary since archery and twf penalties are no longer a thing?

Archery, I'll grant. But two-weapon fighting in the PF1 sense (making additional attacks with off-hand weapons) no longer exists. Instead we have "attack once with your main hand's weapon, then attack with your second hand's weapon at your normal penalty". Which you could do in PF1 without any feats at all. So I suppose you are technically correct*: those penalties no longer exist, because you just can't do the thing at all, even with a penalty.

*The best kind of correct, I'm told.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Ah, fair enough. It's okay ^_^

I just prefer the visual design of many of the D&D dragons. Especially the red and blue dragons.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Ooh! Really excited for all of these! ^_^

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I can't access videos on this device. Is this Gargantuan Red Dragon from the Dungeons and Dragons line? I'd love another big red dragon from them...

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Wait, there was a Gargantuan Black Dragon in Pathfinder Battles? Remind me what set that was.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I personally quite like Colossal size. If I could, I'd bring back the somewhat-forgotten Awesome size (from Polyhedron Magazine's brief attempt to recreate the Spelljammer setting) for kaiju and such. But I do agree that it's rather inconvenient for miniatures combat (even if I do bust out the Colossal Red Dragon).

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Tectorman wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
The other one? The Vindictive Bastard? It is specifically a fallen Paladin and not a Paladin.
No, what the Vindictive Bastard was was a Paladin that put into practice what this Paladin said about enforced good sullying the very good it enforced.

But also, by the nature of the archetype in the context of the book it was printed in, very much a fallen paladin.

1 to 50 of 9,244 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>