Skull

Kthulhu's page

Goblin Squad Member. Organized Play Member. 10,465 posts (10,539 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 10,465 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Gotta love Freehold DM.
"Whedon wrote the pilot three years ago! I MUST HATE THIS SHOW FOREVER!!!"

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Brother Fen wrote:
"Old School", to me, recalls memories of long running campaigns with the same characters built from the ground up. Characters were rarely planned out from day one, but instead evolved through adventure after adventure until there were no corners of the realm left to explore.

That was also in a system where there were very few choices to be made during character progression, it was incredibly difficult to 'screw up' a character.

I'd like to see that ease-of-play returned, without removing player choice from the equation.

I'm not sure that's a reasonable request.

I think player choice in character building mechanics requires it to be possible to both screw up or min-max a character. If the choices are meaningful, they're going to allow that.

That said, it's possible to have less traps and sneaky broken combinations than 3.x has without reducing choice too much. But you're not going to get back down to AD&D levels of ease.

5e does a pretty good job of simplifying the character creation / leveling up process, while still allowing customization, and making unlikely to screw yourself over. It has less choices than Pathfinder, that's true, but the playing field is a LOT more even when you eliminate Pathfinders trap options and the choices that don't have to be made in 5e (such as Dex to damage) becaues they're just an option that eveyrone has by default..

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The teaser is very....purple. ;)

Shadow Lodge

I'd wager that teaser is a lot what the opening credits look like. Didn't Daredevil have an early teaser that resembled it's opening credits?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arakhor wrote:
I would ask, though, why you would study Greek mythology and then refer to those heroes as Ulysees and Hercules, rather than as Odysseus and Heracles?

Among the Greek / Roman characters that have variants of their names, quite often one of those variants has become the one that is more commonly used.

Hercules is seen far more often than Heracles. But Zeus is seen more often than Jupiter.

Shadow Lodge

Brother Fen wrote:
Characters were rarely planned out from day one

That's kind of a necessary evil in 3.x, given the fact that so many prerequisites exist, as well as so many trap options.

It's kind of a wonder that 3.x sparked an upswing in the RPG market, given that the system is purposely designed to be unfriendly towards beginners.

Shadow Lodge

I'm all for climate change. We have to combat the upcoming ice age somehow.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
don't like Dwarves unless they are drunken, bearded, axe-wielding, impulsive, and inferior in every aspect to another player's elf character.

And orc-killing.

Of course, Peter Jackson let his raging hardon for Orlando Bloom / Legolas ruin that in the movies, where Gimli became absolutely nothing more than comic relief. F!%%in' Pippen was more useful than Gimli.

Shadow Lodge

Marvel's giving me a birthday present. 5 days late, but still. :D

Shadow Lodge

SKR was at times a massive jerk. I presume you will be selling off all your D&D and Pathfinder products?

Shadow Lodge

It's also worth pointing out that many times the "people" that he describes as being "sub-human" or with similar slurs turn out to be exactly that...NOT FULLY HUMAN.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:
stuff

I have a question for you....do you do your best to avoid any type of entertainment where you object to any of the views held by any of it's creators? Because if you do, you will very rapidly be left with absolutely no entertainment remaining.

Shadow Lodge

1) Adamantine is not adamantium. Adamantine is NOT indestructible.

2) For those of you referencing the fact that Wolverine seems to be able to slice through virtually anything like a white-hot razor through half-melted butter...adamantine is not adamantium. Also, about 99% of the time a comic/cartoon shows that, Wolverine wouldn't be anywhere near strong enough to actually do it, despite the indestructibility and sharpness of his claws.

Shadow Lodge

Turin the Mad wrote:
Kept the Bleaching for Gnomes (immortal unless the die by violence, from afflictions or boredom).

Was Bleaching eliminated from Golarion canon?

Shadow Lodge

David knott 242 wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
I don't quite understand the "staying away from Tiamat" thing. Isn't she open content by virtue of being a mythological being?
The name Tiamat is open content. The five-headed dragon with heads corresponding to the five evil chromatic dragon races is not.

Yup. Same situation with Demogorgon (who also was name-dropped in a Paizo publication as a demon lord, but never mentioned again).

They COULD do stuff with Orcus, as he was made open content by the Tome of Horrors, but they seem content to let WotC and Frog God Games / Necromancer Games handle Orcus-related material.

Shadow Lodge

CorvusMask wrote:
Anyway, I'm kinda wondering why does D&D have to restrict what things you can do with Pathfinder :/ Its not like people don't use their own version of canon instead of official canon anyway when they want to

Because that would be Paizo directly making money off of WotC's intellectual property.

Paizo wouldn't let WotC publish anything with Golarion in it, either.

Shadow Lodge

Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

I would like to point out that Wizards are also know for doing stuff for the dumbest reasons...

Heck in Golarian there is a level 15 wizard who literally put his tower on the sun... why? Because he can... and because politics suck...

Now he's trapped there because his spellbooks were made of paper.

Shadow Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
TomG wrote:
If I may be a bit impertinent, it's likely that those suggesting tunneling with a dagger have never, for example, dug a hole or ditch (or grave), hewn stone with a pickaxe, or even trenched a sprinkler system, or any other digging/mining work, using hand tools.
I participated in plenty of sandbag details, and have grounded my share of generators in hard ground. And foxholes don't dig themselves either.

Little known fact: every trench in WWI was instantly dug by one Army man as he touched his adamantium shovel to the ground. The earth was cleaved mightily! We're just lucky that the westernmost bits of Europe didn't completely split off from the rest of the continent and float off into the ocean.

Shadow Lodge

Matthew Downie wrote:
I think it's more a question of differences in how people think of adamantine working. Imagine if substances effectively become soft as warm butter when under pressure from an adamantine blade.

Some people do seem to think that touching any adamantium item to a wall creates the instantaneous effect of a passwall spell.

:P

Steel is harder than dirt, but digging a hole is a lot more work that simply touching a shovel to the earth and watching fissures appear.

Shadow Lodge

Metal Sonic wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

Often end the day with 1/2 spells left, we do have a tradition of ACTUALLY ROLLING for random encounters at night. :D

Nobody casts Rope Trick or anything like that? :p

Rope Trick is not a cure-all. And if the dungeon's inhabitants are intelligent, then rope trick is a big sign saying "build bonfire HERE".

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Myrryr wrote:
That... just begs the question of what a half-genie is then.

Shantae

Shadow Lodge

Alric Rahl wrote:
James, comparing Pathfinder and it's story to Lost is a terrible thing to do. Lost was a terrible idea to begin with. The writers themselves didnt know what was going on and the answers they finally gave were such a kick to the junk that no one wanted to remember Lost after they finished watching it.

Am I alone in both:

1) enjoying Lost, and
2) not predicating my enjoyment thereof upon the ending. Lost was a journey, not a destination.

I sometimes feel that this has become the downside of the fact that television shows have become much more focused on having an series-spanning plot....some people become so absolutely focused on the "endgame" that they seem unable to enjoy anything that isn't directly linked to advancing the overall plot-line.

Lost was 7 years of great television...if you let the fact that the final episode didn't answer all the questions that you wanted answered, or answered them in ways you didn't like, ruin that for you, then you were unable to see the forest for the trees.

Shadow Lodge

OBS = OneBookShelf = DriveThruRPG, RPGNow, DriveThruComics, DriveThruFiction, DriveThruCards, Wargame Vault, and D&D Classics.

Shadow Lodge

Several months back, on teh Interwebs.

Shadow Lodge

Caineach wrote:
Valiant they were wrote:

So no love for a Mystara Setting D&D film?

Dungeons & Dragons: Nightfall
An Immortal Nightdragon drains off the Radiance from the Nucleus of the spheres causing a cataclysm cutting everyone off from magic and gods and destroying much of the known world. When the sun rises on the day without magic, no one knows its very bad. They think tomorrow will be back to normal...but it wont be.

Granted I haven't been following d&d settings, but has there even been any Mystara campaign support since 2nd ed?

There were a lot of settings that haven't seen any official support since 2E.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a full 9th level caster class where the spells are it's SECONDARY class feature.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

1-800-AM-BARBARIAN

Shadow Lodge

Milo v3 wrote:
You guys realise that admantine daggers treat stone as hard as paper right?

You realize that paper that's actually as thick as a stone wall would be SUBSTANTIALLY tougher than a single sheet, right?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
There is one other thing to consider. If Paizo doesn't do this, third party publishers will.

There are already publishers that put out "adventure paths" for high levels.

Just from Frog God Games alone:

Rappath Athuk - supports 1-20
Slumbering Tsar - supports 7-20
Splinters of Faith - supports 1-14
Sword of Air - supports 1-20
Northlands Saga - supports 1-20

Shadow Lodge

Anguish wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
As someone who has had two groups organically reach level 15+ Gorbacz's argument has the right of it.
The plural of "anecdote" isn't "evidence".

And that applies every bit as much to James' experience as to Dudemeister's. And the number of people who have "anecdotes" about high-level 3.x/PF not working seems to vastly ountnumbers those who have anecdotes that say it does. Hell, even the bag with teeth, who's an unrepentant Paizo apologist, is here saying that 15+ level Pathfinder just plain doesn't work.

The only place that anecdotes about it working seem to be coming from is the offices of Paizo.

ryric wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

Gorbacz's Short Yet Exhaustive Guide to Playing at lvl 15+:

Don't. It's a chore. Combats take hours. Math requires Excel. Magic gets out of hand. Casual gamers get irritated. Accept the fact that underlying foundations of 3ed don't work with high lvl play and move on.

This is basically 100% wrong as advice. Some gamers don't enjoy high level play, and that's fine.

Just because some people enjoy something, that doesn't mean it works well, or is balances. It's quite clear from many posts on these boards that a decent percentage of Pathfinder players don't want there to be anything resembling a challenge...they want to ROFLstomp their way through every adventure. To them, talking their 20th level characters with 10 mythic ranks and smashing through villages of kobold commoners is great fun. Just because they find it to be great fun, that doesn't make it good game / adventure desingn.

Shadow Lodge

Jiggy wrote:
Can you direct me to the posts that suggested anything remotely like that? Maybe link, say, five of them? I hope I wasn't just blind to miss the posts made by "most people", but I'll give you the chance to show me before I rule out the possibility.
Azraiel wrote:
it'll still cut through stone like a knife through butter.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I find it amusing how this thread seems to be filled with people who think that when a substance makes contact with another substance that is less hard than it, the less hard substance is instantly annihilated.

If I had a spear made out of diamond, and I threw it at a skyscraper, judging from the comments here, most people would expect it to sail through the skyscraper with barely a loss in momentum.

Shadow Lodge

chaoseffect wrote:
It is the difference between knowing that you can do something because there are rules that explicitly allow it and having to ask the DM (DM may I...) about your intended action.

It's mean to be a game where imagination and creativity are encouraged. Ifyou limit all choices to options that have been explicitly spelled out, then why bother playing a tabletop RPG? You can just play a computer RPG instead.

The straight jacket might be very attractive, and maybe even comfortable; but you still can't move your arms while you're wearing it.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Silent Saturn wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Lovecraft is rolling in his grave.
Lovecraft was rolling in his grave since the day he was born.

That is not dead which can eternal lie...

I would agree that despite the large volume of correspondence he had with Lovecraft, Derleth evidently never "got" the Mythos.

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:
"middle school" may be an unfortunate choice of words. :)

or perhaps purposeful :D

The whole "I don't like it, so nobody else ACTUALLY likes it either" does seem rather pre-pubescent, wouldn't you agree?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
However, I'm lucky enough to have never experienced a DM out to "get" the PCs.

If the GM is out to "get" the PCs, no game system in the world will protect them, no matter how overly-codified it is.

I don't even really think that what we've been referring to as "new school" is new school. It's "middle school"...most publishers throughout the industry have been moving towards simpler, less codified system. Savage Worlds, Fate, Dungeon World...hell, even D&D itself has gone to a more fluid, less codified edition.

Shadow Lodge

Entryhazard wrote:
Alignments are intrinsic to the structure of the multiverse

Alignments are intrinsic to the Outer Planes. That ridiculous nonsense has no place on the Material Plane, and those rare pockets where it does exist will go away in the aeons to come.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Do people still excitedly talk about "Lost" now that they know the answers? Nope.

Ironically, one of the reasons that some people give for hating the end of Lost is that there still were many unanswered questions.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Neongelion wrote:

Kinda off topic and I know this is a subject that's sensitive for obvious reasons. But now I'm curious about the religions of Earth in the context of Pathfinder's universe. Are we to assume that the current active religions of 1918 Earth are all true to some extent?

There's no traffic between 1918 Earth and Golarion, so it's really a moot, and more likely unanswerable question. I'm more than happy to go with the idea that the only dieties that exist on Earth are the beings of the Cthulu Mythos. i.e. the unfathomable powers of the Dark Tapestry. It would explain much of the differences between the two worlds such as the total lack of divine and arcane magic.
Have you read Rasputin Must Die? Its author assumed that many of the religious stories of old were legitimate accounts... unless, in your suggested canon, these Dark Tapestry powers were behind events such as the biblical Exodus. That doesn't really seem like their style. ^_^

Nyarlathotep is a tricky guy. :D

Maybe one of his avatars about 1918 years ago was a carpenter.

Shadow Lodge

Don't tell them, but do NOT end the session with their deaths. Kill them, and then immediately have them resurrected into the post-apocalyptic world.

Shadow Lodge

Zwordsman wrote:
Scythia wrote:


On the other hand, there's nothing quite as cool as winning the un-winnable boss fight, although Chrono Trigger and Cross are the only games I know of that allow it.

Breath of Fire games too. Lufia I think has one.. you win get a ton of exp and items but the story plays as if you lost.

Uhm. A lot of Atlus games (in particularly Megumi Tensei games.. Digital Devil Saga comes to mind)

So really just the old "greats" do

Most new games don't.

Oh Tales of Symphonia has a fight you can win that is near impossible. Like I was under leveled but great a t dodging and spent like an hour in the fight haha. But I know peeps who leveled crazy well and just beat him (and then the rest of the game was insane easy until near the end--where they're suppose to be that level)
but that fight is pretty much made so you have to lose.

Dark Souls has the (first encounter) with the Asylum Demon. Not really impossible (and decently easy if you have the right starting item), but the default is to run away from it, and fight it a bit later with the advantage of a bit better equipment, the ability to heal yourself a few times, and an initial plunging first attack that does massive damage.

Shadow Lodge

Set wrote:

Love mind flayers. Never liked beholders or those gith races. Good riddance to those modrons! Giant space hamsters were less silly!

The only loss from 3.X monster IP I still mourn is the displacer beast. I have a weird love for those guys.

Between The Illithiad and Unveiled Masters: The Essential Guide to Mind Flayers, illithid has some of the best flavor material of any of the monsters in D&D.

I also like the displacer beass.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
deinol wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

Mythic Rocket Tag.

Otherwise known as the ability to one-shot Cthulhu from full hit points with a critical hit with the right array of Mythic Feats.

Ah, that's just a problem with single boss entities in high level pathfinder in general.

That's why when R'lyeh rises, a horde of star-spawn come out alongside Cthulhu.

Shadow Lodge

Kthulhu wrote:
Trekkie90909 wrote:
if I play a character with 8 int, I play them as incredibly stupid
8 really shouldn't be incredibly stupid. A bit slow, yes, but not incredibly so.

If 8 is incredibly stupid, then 12 is incredibly brilliant.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trekkie90909 wrote:
if I play a character with 8 int, I play them as incredibly stupid

8 really shouldn't be incredibly stupid. A bit slow, yes, but not incredibly so.

Shadow Lodge

DrDeth wrote:
Randarak wrote:
I don't care for the point buy system. I find it limiting for development of character attributes. I'm not saying this to invite debate. I don't like it, and never will. :-P

i agree, but it aids in a couple things: Being able to pre-design a PC well in advance, and also not having two PC's widely disparate.

That would be true if all classes were SAD or MAD to the same degree. But they are not.

Shadow Lodge

Milo v3 wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
I don't believe anyone actually allowes simulacrum in their game
I do. For both NPC's and PC's. One of my players actually had a "Copy in every material city" at one stage, cool campaign.

The 20th time the PCs kill the BBEG clone it begins to get a bit stale.

Shadow Lodge

Eh, i did say -ish

I like tier 3-4.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
M1k31 wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
I've often considered just gestalting fighter and rogue. That, as a class, looks pretty playable to me.
I did this a while back, with a few extra bonuses. (Although I did it before the Unchained Rogue.) I think it's a much more balanced class than either of the two alone (and it hits some of the literary archetypes more, like Conan).
Warrior-Rogue
that just seems down-right OP in the extreme... gestalting both together and giving better skills than the rogue(12+Int), while maintaining feat and armor progression and sneak attack seems OP enough, but then adding more of the rogue abilities... that just seems ridiculous.

Yeah, it's ridiculously underpowered compared to full casters.

But I think it's pretty well in the "fun" range of tier 3-ish or so.

Shadow Lodge

Kthulhu wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
I've often considered just gestalting fighter and rogue. That, as a class, looks pretty playable to me.
I did this a while back, with a few extra bonuses. (Although I did it before the Unchained Rogue.) I think it's a much more balanced class than either of the two alone (and it hits some of the literary archetypes more, like Conan).

Warrior-Rogue

1 to 50 of 10,465 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>