The Mad Priest

Morain's page

Organized Play Member. 523 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 523 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Egersund in Norway

I have played a few. It is definitely both fun and worth it.

That was one awesome season finale. I love GoT, but I think this show tops it.

Scythia wrote:


It's the time when the character has reached their true potential, and can stand tall while shaking the pillars.

I Agree.

Everybody wants different things from a new edition. The most likely outcome is most people would be disappointed, because if you like Pathfinder there is no guarantee any thanges made would be the ones you want.

I could stand to se a few things changed, but I much prefer to keep the current version well into the future.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of the greats has left us. R.I.P.

James Jacobs wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
Can a half-elf and a half-orc have a child together?
I suppose. The result would be either a half-elf or a half-orc though. Not something new.

Could it also be a slightly wierd looking human?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This coming wekend we will play at level 20 and going after Demogorgon in a VERY long running Savage Tide campaign.

Level 20 is my preferred level, or at least 15+.

I keep all my old characters in binders. Also whenever I play computer games I sometimes try to recreate my most favourite ones.

My top 3 or so favourite characters become forum personaes and usernames for various websites and other things like "Morain" has.

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

So, in your opinion, the other classes are there to... what, basically be the 9-level caster's henchmen after about level 6? That strikes you as entertaining?

It sure doesn't to me.

No they are there to be played by people who don't necessarily need to be the best at combat to have fun. Like me. Mind you though, I think all classes are viable in combat as is, maybe a bit too much so.

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
Morain wrote:
It is not just a matter of sameness. I really don't want the classes to be equally powerful either.
In all seriousness, why?

Saying why is very difficult. Why do we like different foods, movies and books? I guess the short answer is because it's fun.

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Why are the only people that can assume almost total control over the narrative of the story, and possibly the entire game world, spellcasters?

Because they are, and should be imo the most powerful.

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

How is that remotely fair to the other people at the table, and, if you take it at face value, why is there a single kingdom anywhere in any gaming world you run that isn't run by a 9-level caster?

I don't see why it should be fair. I have fun when I play rogues, fighters, barbarians, rangers, wizards, sorcerors and clerics. Learn to work together and accept that not everyone is equal in power. And as for why is not every country run by a wizards the answers are many, but one I guess is that not many are intelligent enough to be a wizard, and even fewer have had the training to become one.

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Equally powerful doesn't mean Fighter Fred is going to be tossing Fireballs or flying, but it does mean that he has counters to those, or abilities that allow him to operate on his own, without having to need a caster strapped to his belt, or ten thousand wands.

I's fine the way it is. His counter to fireballs is hitpoints, and his counter to fly is a bow.

It is not just a matter of sameness. I really don't want the classes to be equally powerful either.

I care about balance in the sense that I wish there was less of it.

Trying to hard to balance the classes leads to blandness imo, because it calls for removing some really cool over the top abilities.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nothing in Pathfinder is too good.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


Yeah I had to do it. I cancelled my AP subscription.

I don't mind that this AP exists, but I don't have to buy it.

The next two ones looks a lot better though.

In no particular order.

*Good customer service.
*Easy to get in touch with/active on the forums.
*Has no plans for a second edition of their game (that I'm aware of).
*Makes a great game, with great adventures and other books.

The two best adventure paths I have played don't stop at level 17.

Age of Worms and Savage Tide both go to level 20. Granted they predate Pathfinder, so some conversion is needed :p

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't know if it matters to anyone, but last week I had yet another character reach level 20 having played it from level 1. A Ranger this time. I have played both clerics, and wizards to level 20 before and can honestly say there is nothing broken about level 15-20. That is the sweet spot where the game is most fun. Now we're looking forward to using our capstone abilities and continue our campaign for a long time still. Level 20 is where the real game begins imo.

theStormWeaver wrote:

All great points, but all missing the crux of the matter.

The OGL (which Pathfinder is licensed under, as part of the d20 system) gives WotC exclusive rights to use the d20 rules in electronic gaming.

PfO can't use the Pathfinder rules.

As I said. Very disappointing, and I would say this makes PFO kinda pointless.

I for one am disappointed it won't use Pathfinder rules. If it was based on the rules of the game, and would let you explore the different regions of Avistan I would have been very excited about it. Alas pretty much everything I read about this game lessens my expectations :-/

I might take a look at it and consider it if Paizo try to make a new version of Pathfinder. For right now though Pathfinder is near as makes no difference to the perfect rpg, so I don't see the point yet.

I agree with everything the OP said. I like pretty much every aspect of Pathfinder they way it is. Of course some things could be improved and made even better, but I don't trust that a revision of the rules would make anything better, so I hope that never happens.

Great work. I like this.

I currently play in 3 defferent campaigns with 3 different GMs, so my 3 current characters are:

Human Fighter, Chaotic Neutral (Homebrew campaign)
Human Urban Ranger, Chaotic Good (Savage Tide AP)
Human Rogue, Neutral Evil (Way of the Wicked AP)

Dwarves FTW!

James Jacobs wrote:
Guang wrote:
Are draconic creatures reptiles? Synapsids? What?
Neither. They're dragons.

What about the Nimbus Bow from STAP that has this text line "Against reptilian monsters (including dragons), it deals an dextra 1d6 of electricity damage"?

I don't think even reptiles have "reptile" written in their stat block in the bestiaries, they are listed as animals. So I would think any scaled creature that even remotely can be assosiated with reptiles should count as one.

Awesome show. Great first season!

Timothy Dalton kicks ass as Sir Malcom, and Eva Green is fantastic. I also like Josh Hartnett`s character more and more. I could list all the other ones as well, because they are all good.

Pluss it deals with subject matter I like, and also manages to be scary at times.

N. Jolly wrote:
Morain wrote:
The classes should not be balanced imo. They are already a bit too balanced for my taste.

I really have to question this.

So you're saying you'd like more of an imbalance? Where? What should be stronger and what should be weaker?

Because right now there's at least two classes that are nearly at NPC level to those who check the math and capabilities of these classes. Yeah, math isn't everything, but in a game based in math for a lot of things (attack rolls, saves, skills, etc), it's a pretty good benchmark on finding out how powerful certain things are and how well they're able to participate in given situations (unless rules are ignored, at which point it's hard to compare it as the same game).

I have made a few threads about this in the past, but yeah I would ideally like more of an imbalance. They way the classes are now is fine though, as long as they are not further balanced :-)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The classes should not be balanced imo. They are already a bit too balanced for my taste.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, I have played all the so called underpowered classes, and found that none of them are really underpowered at all.

The oposite is also true, from experience I can honestly say there are no overpowered classes either.

Bad idea imo. You can do this yourself in the topic of the thread.

Anyways everybody can be a GM, and all GMs can be players, so why try to force an artificial boundary on the forum?

Just state what kind of perspectives and input you want in the OP.

I only play straight white male humans, dwarves or elves. I just can't connect with a character and identify with it if it is too different from myself.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Necromancy can be used for good!

My WotW character is a a cold blooded psychotic serial killer, and an alchoholic. Also a bit of a coward according to my groupmates.

5-10 years ago I also used to play only good characters, but in later years it has been about a 50% mix. Evil characters can be a lot of fun.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ipslore the Red wrote:

Bonus feats, free +1s to hit and damage, fricking LEADERSHIP for free, +4 to initiative DR, Diehard, and cure critical wounds as a swift action on yourself?

Am I overreacting or should this book never have been written and its authors terminated posthaste?

Not a problem.

Yes. You seem to be quite literally overreacting.

I DO tend to play CN a lot because I don't want to bother with playing an alignment, and this alignment has the least restrictions.

With many of my characters I would rather play that characters personality than try to fit into an alignment.

I've had exceptions though where I have really enjoyed a LG charater.

James Jacobs wrote:

Fair enough. Where would the internet be without polite disagreement? :-)

People favor low magic because it keeps magic, well, "magical" rather than mundane.

This I agree with and understand.

In fact this week I'm goig to play a game where I hear there are no magic items. Conan. I'm totally fine with that and look forward to trying it, but I think magic should remain as strong as possible in Pathfinder. No need to water it down when there are other games to try for your low magic fix.

Just my opinion.

Sorry if this comes out as more of a discussion than questions. I'll stop ranting now :-)

Allright I'll put a question in at the end. Would you say Pathfinder is the most "High magic" rpg out there you know of?

If yes, wouldn't it be cool to keep it that way so that option will always exist for people who want that experience? It certainly seems to have worked so far.

James Jacobs wrote:
Tels wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Note: Scrying allows you to observe a creature... NOT a location or an object, so in my interpretation, scrying a person doesn't help you teleport to them since you have to see the location, not the person. May be pedantic... but the "scry and fry" tactic needs to die anyway!

What about this line from the teleport spell?

Teleport wrote:
Familiarity: “Very familiar” is a place where you have been very often and where you feel at home. “Studied carefully” is a place you know well, either because you can currently physically see it or you've been there often. “Seen casually” is a place that you have seen more than once but with which you are not very familiar. “Viewed once” is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying.

Or this entry from the Skull and Shackles Player's Guide?

Skull and Shackles Player's Guide wrote:
Dimension Door, Greater Teleport, Teleport, Teleportation Circle: Because ships are constantly in motion, the caster of spells of the teleportation subschool must have line of sight to teleport onto a ship. Otherwise, a caster must scry upon a particular ship first, then immediately teleport to the scryed destination. Any delay in casting means the ship has moved from its scryed location and the spell fails.
It seems to me that you would be able to teleport to a location if you've scryed on someone there, but it's treated as 'viewed once' so there is a 34% chance you don't make it the location scryed.

What about it? Ignore it, I say, and the game will be better for it. It is, in my opinion, a fragment left over from 3rd edition anyway.

Folks asked me how it works in games I run, and I answered. I've established (perhaps not well enough) that this isn't the place to get Rules-As-Written rulings, but I do hope to inspire at least a few GMs to be confident and comfortable in changing rules that make their game less fun.

I very much disagree with you on this JJ. This is also one of the reasons why I'm very much against there ever being a new version of Pathfinder.

I want a game where magic can do as much fantastic stuff as I can imagine, not for it to be ever more limited.

Why do so many people tend to favor a more low magic setting do you think?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
zergtitan wrote:
Wait wasn't this thread once about reasons to unsubscribe for iron gods?

I don't mind. This is good stuff.

This tread obviously belongs in the "Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew" forum.

Most of them ar too short since they end before Level 20 :-(

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Jumps into the flamewar without reading anything but the topic of the thread and calls everyone insulting names for even discussing this.

you kids and your delicate sensibilities....

Gorbacz wrote:


Iron Gods is a smash it.
A few years down the line, Distant Worlds AP is announced.
Mikaze faints, Drejk and I get drunk.
The OP dons his 'dwarvish' utilikilt, grabs his trusty axe and drives toward Seattle to explain some things.
Gets pulled over near Albaquerqe for speedin and yelling 'elven pansies' at officers.

Hahaha! No, I wouldn't do that. :)

It really isn't a big annoyance to me that this AP is coming out, because I won't have time to play them all anyway. And there are always interesting aricles in them that would still make it worth my while to buy them. I just worry that if everyone who prefer more traditional fantasy stories keep their subscriptions this AP will seem too big a success and generate more spin-offs than I'm comfortable with... That's all

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure how else to get the message across that I'm not interested in seeing more AP's with a big influence of technology/sci-fi.

So I guess the only way is voting with my wallet. I hope others do the same so we get as little as possible of this sort of thing in the future. It will be interesting to see how popular something like this is going to be.

To everyone looking forward to this, please don't take offense. I hope you have fun with it.

Just 3 to the end.

Age of Worms as a player, took a couple of years.
Kingmaker as a player was a lot faster, maybe 1 year.
Rise of the Runelords as a GM. Not really sure about the time it took.
Council of Thieves as a player, but The GM didn't like it and ended it around book 2 or 3.

We play several campaigns in parallel, and traditionally more homebrew adventures. More AP's in recent years though

Currently we're in the middle of Savage Tide and Way of The Wicked. Also in the middle of a homebrew campaign. I am also GM'ing Jade Regent. Currently on book 5.

I play 1-2 nights a week.

Do you agree with this list: top 10 Godzilla movies?

This thread is a fail. There are two false statements in the OP.

It is funny and awesome to see his thread started in 2007 still be active. My answer is: The gods, and mainly how to kill them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


Take a break, or modify the campaign to accomodate two players.

This is my advice.

1 to 50 of 523 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>