Feel free to start your own AMA, and even make that the theme, but we have a thread for trivia! It's called, "Did you know..." and it lives here in Off-Topic! It's pretty cool, most of the time!
I don't need to focus on useless trivia! Suddenly remembering useless facts that add nothing to the topic at hand is my super-power!
It's even in my character profile! Check it out! XD
Either way, let me, you and try omega zero, and you Nico's, should all answer the superpower/superhero/etc. question!
I can roleplay literally any alignment as a character fighting "for the greater good". From a pragmatic "big-picture-seeing" LG to a deluded CE criminal willing to commit all sorts of atrocities "for the greater good". Even an insane CN lunatic who thinks his nonsensical and meaningless actions actually have a beneficial impact on the world.
Try not to chain yourself too much. Accept the fact that you will disagree with your GM and fellow players on one aspect of morality or another. No two people on this world see every moral issue the same.
She manipulates plant biology, though... Far more likely, it's:
- Hair dye.
I'll let you know I'm delightful in parties! XD
(all that said, I do recall an episode of Batman TAS where Ivy had "children" that were actually plant golems made to look and act like humans).
EDIT: NINJA'd by Ashiel's EDIT.
As revenge, I'll point out that Harley never really left the Joker. She broke up with him a few times, but always ended up coming back (until he died at the hands of Tim Drake).
You know... I just now noticed your nametag is "Tactics Lion" written as a single word. oO
To this day I've been mentally reading if it were just a random made up word... And in my head it sounded something like "Tah-ctic-seeleeon" (Like tactic-"zillion", but with an "S" sound).
- - -
Also, did you know "AMA" coincidentally means "loves" (as in "she loves cheeseburger") in Portuguese?
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Using the Force to telekinetically wield his sword would've been cool.
...and more time for the GM to spend on the part of GMing that's actually fun and interesting, like creating NPCs and dungeons. :)
IMHO, a balanced Summoner would be the APG Summoner with the following changes:
- Unchained Summoner's spell list.
There! No need to add alignment restrictions and halve the amount of evolution points!
If you only give the players one way to do something important (e.g.: acquiring essential plot information), then it's your fault for they being helpless when that one way fails.
Knowledge checks are just one of many means PCs have to acquire information. Diplomacy and divination spells are common alternatives. And you don't have to require a check for everything. If the check is easy (or unimportant) enough, just assume they succeed. Knowledge checks should give them additional useful information. They are not supposed to be the only way to know where to go next to get the plot moving.
NEVER make plot advancement depend on a single check. Always have at least 2~3 alternatives.
And what's the difference between not rolling Diplomacy because you don't have 1 rank and not rolling Diplomacy because you don't have 3 ranks?
Either way, you're not rolling because you don't have an arbitrary number of ranks assigned to Linguistics. Again: There's no more (or less) role-playing involved... All you managd to do was discourage character variety.
But, hey... If your goal is for everyone to have ranks in thr exact same skills, you're on the right track!
And if you want to sacrifice player fun and character variety for realism... Well done!
How is investing 3 ranks instead of 1 any more role-playing? It takes longer and costs more resources... But it doesn't change anything about roleplay.
In fact, I think it has quite the opposite effect. It's just another reason for players to stick to the usual skills and never break the mold. I often invest in Linguistics because it's a fun skill... If my GM used your rules, I surely wouldn't even consider doing it.
If you want to add variety and role-play to your game, then reward it. Making it more costly and less effective will achieve the exact opposite result.
I thought that episode eighteen was incredibly powerful. The sheer humanity of that episode, as Subaru finally hit rock-bottom, and finally began to climb back up, was awe-inspiring. It really cemented what I already knew: that this show is one of the greats, at least for me.
episode 18 was definitely very powerful... My point is that it (fortunately) didn't make me feel miserable, like pretty much every episode since the "election" arc started. :P
It was an emotional episode... Only it has a more positive tone. Before episode 18, this arc was very emotionally draining. Everything backfired and every character suffers and/or dies gruesomely... It was getting quite exhausting, actually.
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
Or summons/undead minions to take the hit for them.
Wouldn't an horror-themed game benefit more from having shades of grey, though? Allowing characters to slowly, but surely grow into a different alignment?
This rule pretty much ruins that. It becomes a video-game karma system, and not even a good one. It destroys all the nuance that makes stories about corruption/redemption interesting in the first place!
In my experience, the hardest part is actually starting the exercises... Once I finally manage to get up and start, I have no problem continuing it.
But getting up is so freaking difficult... XD
Hey! My friend found my save on his Wii... My fearmeter was 12%. My sissymeter was 94%!
I don't know if I should be proud or really embarrassed. XD
PS: Outlaw Star rocks! I found it many years ago while looking for "stuff similar to Cowboy Bebop"... And while they aren't all that similar past the type of setting where the story takes place, Outlaw Star remains among my favorite anime to this day.
Then it must be porn!
You were obviously replying to my argument. And intentionally misrepresenting it.
But you know what? I don't care. I believe my argument is clear enough to anyone who doesn't intentionally misunderstand it. So I won't participate in this discussion anymore. I don't care at all about Master Craftsman, anyway. It's just another poorly designed feat for me to ignore.
My response is also ultimately the same: If you want to have a honest discussion, then just read my damn posts and stop attacking damn strawmen!
Seriously... Don't you ever tire of misrepresenting my argument? When did I say a single feat should make a non-caster capable of crafting just as well as a full-caster?
How exactly is "spending a single feat to still not be as good at crafting" or "spending twice as many feats to be (almost) as good at crafting" the same "crafting like a full caster"?
Buri Reborn wrote:
Do you not read my posts past the first two words? Or did a strawman steal your girlfriend and now you're sworn to attack them at every opportunity?
Buri Reborn wrote:
MC gives you CL without being a caster for the purposes of magic item crafting. Which, that is actually a mechanical benefit. Just because you can't roll a d20 with it right away is secondary.
It doesn't give you CL... It allows skill ranks to count as CL in one very specific way... A way from which you can't benefit. At all.
You need yet another level and yet another feat just to be able to enjoy half the benefit.
Buri Reborn wrote:
Except casters gain CL for free. They aren't spending feats or any other resource for them. And their CL has many other benefits, they don't exist merely to be used with a feat you don't have. And if/when they do get a crafting feat... They spend a single feat and gain the full benefit.
MC does it job... But it does it badly.
Buri Reborn wrote:
Because you're trying to do something that is otherwise impossible in the game without that single feat. There is a necessary trade off.
A trade off is not the same as "a tradeoff + yet another unnecessary tradeoff".
Buri Reborn wrote:
There is also a practical benefit to the Master Craftsman feat. Take a paladin. The soonest they can take Craft Magic Arms and Armor is level 9. With MC, you can grab it at level 7.
And all it cost them is a whole feat... The scarcest resource in the game... Very practical, indeed. And let's not forget they could do the same with a trait.
Buri Reborn wrote:
No it sounds like MC is a s%#$ty feat. MC does nothing. If you take that feat and nothing else... It makes no difference whatsoever for your character.
I always saw Wonder Woman as the emotionally strongest character in the trinity... The ideal balance point between Batman's obsession and paranoia and Superman's naive optimism.
She had the healthiest, most grounded and well-rounded perception of the world around her. She had hope in a better world and could inspire the same in others, but also knew that sometimes, to fight evil, one must dirty their hands... All while never going too far!
Then, DC decided everything should be grim and dark... And every character became some shade of Batman's grimness, which pretty much made Diana a weaker Superman with a magic lasso. ¬¬'
Buri Reborn wrote:
I would argue you are better at crafting. You're so good, you can start to plan out how to make magic items. That it confers no mechanical bonus is beside the point. Before, you couldn't ever hope to make magic items. After, you can. That is better.
No, it isn't. It's hoping to be better... Because at that point, you're just as good at crafting magic gear as a commoner. You don't need the feat to "start to plan how to make magic items". You could "plan" how to make magic gear before you got that feat. "planning how to make magic gear" means absolutely nothing from a mechanical perspective... That's just roleplay. And you can roleplay that without taking any feat (or even without ever succeeding on actually crafting anything).
Buri Reborn wrote:
I agree it's a steeper buy-in than needed for casters. But, it's not unreasonable. If you wanted the same benefits at the same cost as a caster then you should probably should have played one.
Here is the thing... Even assuming that there's anything wrong with non-casters having a way of crafting magic items as well as minor caster (Kinda of. Their checks will still be more difficult, since they don't know the necessary spells)... That's not what I'm saying:
The feat costs more and gives you less. Why couldn't it cost more but give the same benefit or cost the same (1 feat) for a lesser benefit?
Buri Reborn wrote:
1- It's unfairly costly and restrictive. If it gives you half the benefits, why does it cost double? Why can't it cost a single feat, then? Alternatively, if it's going to cost double, why not give the full benefit?
2- It's boring and frustrating... You get the Master Craftsman feat and. You still can't craft magic items. In fact, you're no better at cratfing than you were before.
You have to wait yet another level (or two) and take yet another feat, just to be able to benefit from your first feat. And you still won't do it nearly as well as a caster... Even a minor caster, like a Ranger or Paladin, despite spending twice as many resources.
You know... I once played an horror game for Wii. It had two measurements of fear/spookiness.
The "fearmeater" measure how often you get scared... To me it was pretty low. 15~20%, or something... But it also had a "sissymeter", which told you how intensely you moved around when you got spooked. Mine was over 90%!!!
You know what that means?
Some day... I'll german supplex someone who spooks me. XD
I've seen the disparity show its ugly head even in games with only noob players... And I've seen that happen multiple times in both 3.5 and PF.
There's just no credible way to deny the existence of C/M d or class tiers. When I started playing 3.5, it didn't take long for me to notice how my Ranger's tracking skills were completely pointless when my friend's Wizard had divination spells... Or how my Druid was better than my friend's Fighter at quite literally everything!
The gap is not as wide in PF, but it's still there.
Oh, gods... Not another condescending self-proclaimed "austistic savant" or whatever.
I really don't have the patience to debate with people like that, so... F!~& it! I'm out! Another poster already exhausted my willingness to talk to anyone who claims they are smarter than everyone else.
Congratulations! Alicornsage you're better and smarter than everyone! Whoopie-dee-doo. Now excuse me while I add another name to the "list of people I shouldn't bother replying to".
Dogs don't "sense the energy" of anyone! This is not DBZ or Rurouni Kenshin! No one is sensing each other's power level or "killing intent"! What animals do is recognize body language.
Saying humans aren't predators when we have been hunting and killing all sorts of animals for thousands of years is insane! What the hell do you even call "predatory instinct"? The impulse to hunt, kill and eat another animal? Because we do have those, as can be seen by thousands of years and billions of humans hunting, killing and eating other animals!!! Our species literally tracked and hunted animals from one continent to another!
Seriously, what the hell?!
Well... That depends on whether or not that person has any information other than "superficial looks" and how many times they gave a chance to material with said "superficial look".
e.g.: I love anime, but I'm not a fan giant robots... So every time I see a movie/anime/whatever with giant robots on the cover, I pretty much lose all interest... There are exceptions, and I'm willing to try something with giant robots if I hear good recommendations from someone I trust... But after watching many, many films and shows with giant robots, as a rule of thumb, I have no interest in watching anything with giant robots on the cover.
Similarly, I dislike hip-hop... I have no interest in listening to hip-hop to see if I finally find a song or artist I like. There might be one, somewhere... But the possibility is small enough that I simply don't bother. And I remain skeptical even when someone suggests a song/artist to me. Because for all my life, I've never seen a hip-hop artist or song I'd describe as anything better than "tolerable". I'm perfectly aware this is just a matter of taste, but it's my taste. i.e.: the only taste that matters when it comes to deciding what I enjoy.
Someone who even dares put Adam Sandler on the same level as Mel Brooks has a far worse problem... They are probably brain-dead. :P