Tarik Blackhands's page

1,885 posts. Alias of ItsTheName.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,885 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

I know this is going against the grain of the thread here but - I really don't understand their appeal or grok why they are so insanely popular.

Is there something I've missed culture-wise that caused the massive influx of Kit PCs?

Besides the enchanter optimizers I'd figure there's a venn diagram of Not-Japan, cute girls with animal ears/tails, and anthros with Kitsunes sitting in the middle of the diagram.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
Again, a level 10 champion has murdered 200+ people.
A level 10 champion, perhaps, but not every level 10 champion.

More likely none of them at all. I'm giving an ole Cole Phelps to the general idea that the local paragons of good went and unlawfully killed 200 people (particularly in APs where virtually everything falls under self defense [x attacks on sight] or some stripe of protecting others [goblins are raiding the village! The mayor is summoning pit fiends!] and kept his class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Dead condition doesn't prevent anyone from acting. Now Dead people usually trip Unconscious and other such conditions but given things like Ferocity that let you ignore those things, you can technically carry on Dead without issue*.

*Not counting the GM making you walk over a carpet of d4s on your way out of the place of gaming


Bloodrealm wrote:


I find Lamashtu to be very interesting because of this type of outlook. She's a fertility deity and also seems to encourage taking in and sheltering orphans and those who are different and outcast. A deity of madness, power, thieving, corruption, and literally being demonic, but also of social acceptance and (especially parental) care. Her Antipaladin Code reads more like an inspirational speech than a doctrine of abomination. I've been wanting to plan out a Chaotic Neutral follower of Lamashtu for a while.

Barring that bit about bringing madness and blood to the cities and the fact it doesn't take much stretching to figure that Lammy doesn't really care about that seed/womb stuff being consensual anyway.


That's something only you can really answer and depends how hands on the divinity ultimately is. If petitioning Lamashtu routinely results in demons and other things raising a ruckus then virtually everyone's going to outlaw their worship with it getting more acceptable (if still frowned on) the more subtle (or even nonexistent) their influence appears.

Naturally culture also counts a ton with a place populated by Machiavellian nobles will be more open to any advantage compared to a noble-bright nation.


Appeasement is the classic way to do it. No one actually likes Rovagug (among the normal members of society anyway) but giving them the odd prayer or sacrifice might keep them from destroying your farm/city or sending you to hell or to send the goblins raiding your farm somewhere else.

Otherwise its mostly about the dark gods having some portfolio not covered by someone else. You can't go to Sarenrae to help you get a leg up on the latest political intrigue but that's easily in Norgorber's wheelhouse.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Real talk: "I have been called [whatever] for not liking [work of fiction]" is not a winning argument ever. If you don't like a movie, book, video game, album, or whatever a valid option is always "keep your opinion to yourself" since most people do not care what random strangers think about movies, books, video games, albums, etc.

If you're trying to "rally the troops" by leading a hate-on for whatever it is you dislike, there's a strong chance you just shouldn't do that.

*blinks* So there's no room for a dissenting opinion with works of fiction? I mean, "X is a load of donkey butts" isn't productive or worth noting sure, but people are allowed to not like stuff and say as much. Sometimes a cigar's a cigar and a guy just didn't like something for xyz and isn't trying to start a flamewar, score political points, or lead the next great crusade...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
(does Golarion have fantasy Australia?).

Considering how much local flora and fauna is out to kill you in Golarion (and fantasy settings in general), you wouldn't be wrong saying everywhere is fantasy Australia.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Setting does matter, and we had explicitly been talking about Pathfinde where orcs and goblins are people and are not innately evil (unlike say Goblin Slayer, where goblins are very much...

I can scroll up a bit (and back a page) and find mentions of Tolkein, Lovecraft, Final Fantasy, other DnD settings, and a hypothetical set up forming the mother of all strawmen. This topic hasn't been restricted to Golarion since somewhere around the halfway point of page 2 and there's been more than a few universal claims that it's a problem someone might enjoy playing a game where there are bad things that are just bad because that's how they are without being demons or whatever.

And that's my main problem with this discussion. You can say setting matters and take things from there (I have no problem with that, even if I personally don't think there's automatically a judgement call about the person if he makes a dwarf that hates elves or whatever) but you're not the only voice here.

(And to carry on the digression of fungal orcs in WHFB, greenskins are "born" by clawing their way out of the dirt inside mushroom filled caves. No one may have dissected them to see if they're fungal, but that's heavy implications there in addition to the possible origin as spores from godlike space aliens)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:

The biggest thing that's rubbing me the wrong way in this thread is the blanket judgement call that anyone who enjoys playing a setting where there's acceptable KOS races/creatures they're some hand kneading racist just looking to burn some imaginative crosses.

Like it feels in extreme poor taste to say someone playing War of the Ring and ambushing a bunch of Orcs who were off marching somewhere is a problem or Tolkein's a problem for making the Lord of the Rings a setting that allows it. You can insert other such settings besides LotR if you want (Warhammer comes readily to mind which has four(!) common KOS races without dipping into the undead/daemonic side of things), same general principle.

Can a bunch of racists co-opt that and cackle as he slakes his thirst to slaughter british soccer hooligans and be thanked for it? Sure, I guess, but for most of us we're just fighting a bunch of green mushroom people because it's fun.

I don’t care for Warhammer, but then we’re not talking about it or its setting.

We’re talking about Golarion, where goblins and orcs are not innately evil. They’re also not sentient fungi.

I don't particularly care if the topic of the day is Golarion when we have such wonderful nuggets of wisdom such as

"I want to be able to kill [race] on sight” is pretty self explanatory."

Setting doesn't matter with that nonsense, that's saying anyone who enjoys KOSing a some fantasy race (say goblins), whether those goblins in question are from Golorion, Tolkein, or Warhammer, and calling that person a racist. That attitude can frankly bog off.

And for the record, WHFB Orcs and Goblins are indeed suspected of originating from spores left by the Old Ones while over in 40k they are explicitly fungal.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The biggest thing that's rubbing me the wrong way in this thread is the blanket judgement call that anyone who enjoys playing a setting where there's acceptable KOS races/creatures they're some hand kneading racist just looking to burn some imaginative crosses.

Like it feels in extreme poor taste to say someone playing War of the Ring and ambushing a bunch of Orcs who were off marching somewhere is a problem or Tolkein's a problem for making the Lord of the Rings a setting that allows it. You can insert other such settings besides LotR if you want (Warhammer comes readily to mind which has four(!) common KOS races without dipping into the undead/daemonic side of things), same general principle.

Can a bunch of racists co-opt that and cackle as he slakes his thirst to slaughter british soccer hooligans and be thanked for it? Sure, I guess, but for most of us we're just fighting a bunch of green mushroom people because it's fun.


Regarding Falls anyway, your table is your table, but about the best way I can sum up Paladins as PF intends is that the ends absolutely do not justify the means. That's why you (the paladin) fight with honor, don't use poison, etc, etc because you are to achieve a capital G Good end while acting in a capital G Good manner. While I also don't particularly care for the turbo granola "give everyone a chance to reform and sing kumbaya" interpretation of paladins either, I also don't believe that a good goal justifies any and all methods, especially purposefully causing large losses of life among your comrades to do so (regarding PF paladins anyway). In other words I'd give leeway to logic along the lines of "The choices you have made have led you to this place, now suffer the consequences of such" *summary execution of insert evil-doer here* I'd be less tolerant of freeing ancient demons to prove that they were better off dead all along.

That aside, the rest of the context is appreciated, but at the end of the day, it's hard to see the bbeg as offering a real decision for any table I'd imagine. On paper the general premise of "these things we imprison could cause mass chaos and destruction if they get free so they're better off dead" is a stance that makes some sense, but when you actually release those things you're going to lose pretty much all sympathy and just cross the plane into "deranged lunatic" and virtually anyone not looking to be contrarian is going to put a mad dog like that down.

At least in my mind, if you actually do want to drop a choice at the players, don't have the guy let the lunatics run the asylum. The wards just mysteriously fail, a crazy lich manages to find a loophole, or something else along those lines. The party battles up to the top and are given the choice to either reseal everything or activate the Rite of Annulment failsafe that will purge everything using the master prison control macguffin. Let them decide if the chance to reform as per the prisoner or if the paladin's argument for absolute security by killing them all wins out. Natch the paladin can still try to stop them if they choose otherwise but then its an actual choice in my mind that doesn't necessarily have to be a difficult one (add enough backup casters to provide buffs/control effects as desired).

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the manner, the actual encounter mechanics generally are easier if you have a prebuffed caster than a paladin and having backup certainly makes things better than being alone, but as said above, enough backup can make anything intimidating, even if they're effectively just a dude with a greatsword.


My big question for all this is why the Warden/BBEG is going through the extra step of freeing the prisoners to kill off the moderates so he can kill them in turn rather than just invoking the Rite of Annulment equiv and just executing them en masse. Just feels like there's a missing piece of context there.

That aside, a high level paladin would more than likely be a poor challenge overall vs a non-evil party being mostly a martial with good saves and a self heal barring significant overleveling or templates galore. Of course that's presuming he even had his class abilities at all which I'd well say he wouldn't. Wanting to purge the worst scum of the world? Sure, fine. Having a convoluted plan that involves them killing your (also probably Good) compatriots as a pretext to do so? Fall.

Course not every bbeg needs to be a challenge narratively, although if you have a more hackmaster style group, I'd settle for either a load of minions or templates (or just not making him a paladin) to keep them engaged in the very likely event they decide to give him an involuntary walk through the nearest window.


Derklord wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
What? Even a silent still eschewed spell would not go unnoticed? Where in the Core Rulebook can I find the relevant explanation? And is it still true in Second Edition as well?
FAQ

Plus its kind of implicit with spellcraft rules in general which lets you try to ID any spell you see being cast, no concerns given about how it is being cast.

Plus it means you can actually notice SLAs being cast since those are by default still, silent, and eschewed.


QuidEst wrote:

PF1 Golarion would have been overrun by wendigos turning commoners into CR17 monsters. There's a certain amount of handwaving going on.

It basically applies to anything that makes spawn. My personal favorite x-apocalypse (in 1e anyway) is the Shadow one caused by an Ancient+ Umbral Dragon that spent some time amassing an arbitrary amount of controllable Shadows by just breath-weaponing bags of rats (or Greater Shadows if he took the time to hunt some 8+ HD critters or even set up a breeding program of em).


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:


I foresee a lot of broken hearts when the Summoner makes a reappearance, second only to the Shifter. This time, though, it will be deliberate malice rather than incompetence.
Broken hearts? How so? In that the Eidolon will be no way near as powerful as hoped ?
Yes. Plenty of Summoner fans were already mad about the unchained eidolon. It's not going to get better. Quite the opposite.

Pardon me as I play a small song on the saddest violin for them if this comes to pass. They can join the wizards in the "my class no longer invalidates x and that's a bad thing" room.


Claxon wrote:
Warped Savant wrote:

Hell's Rebels and Hell's Vengeance don't contradict each other, Claxon, that's not what Tom Marlow is worried about.

The concern is trying to run Hell's Vengeance with 16 paladins that have each completed an AP that all want to go to Cheliax and join the Glorious Reclamation.
How would a GM run Hell's Vengeance and have the PCs realistically win while having 16 very high level paladins running around?

If that's the issue then Tarik covered it. The same various reasons why PCs don't all get destroyed in the beginning of an Adventure Path and eventually win. "Plot Armor", mostly.

And I do feel like Hell's Rebels and Hell's Vengeance have to contradict each other, because at least in the play through I did of Hell's Vegence it involved killing literally every member of the Glorious Reclamation we could get our hands on and gruesomely and publicly torturing them to death as a display of power. In my groups version of that AP there was basically nothing left but shambles, though they were not completely eliminated as we did not chase them beyond Cheliax.

That campaign definitely ended with my group torturing to death the Lord Marshal Alexeara Cansellarion. I don't see how you can say that the two APs "don't contradict" one another. I mean, no you don't have to decimate the Glorious Reclamation. But honestly I can't see the sorts of characters that are appropriate to Hell's Vengeance getting all soft and the end and deciding not to.

Near as I recall from HR anyway (haven't looked at HV) the two APs are more or less concurrent since the big thing in HR as to why Cheliax proper doesn't flatten Kintargo is generally summed up as "they're busy with the Glorious Reclamation." Basically means you can just screw around with the timing so that HR and HV "end" roughly the same time. Glorious Reclamation gets fragged by local evildoers at roughly the same time Kintargo+friends break the yoke. No contradiction needed (or fenagling with the PCs from either AP since they're all busy doing their own AP)


Warped Savant wrote:

Hell's Rebels and Hell's Vengeance don't contradict each other, Claxon, that's not what Tom Marlow is worried about.

The concern is trying to run Hell's Vengeance with 16 paladins that have each completed an AP that all want to go to Cheliax and join the Glorious Reclamation.
How would a GM run Hell's Vengeance and have the PCs realistically win while having 16 very high level paladins running around?

Same way they tend to run most APs with the L/CR 16+ bozos finding a convenient reason for waiting their turn so the local callow hobos can get to higher levels I'd imagine.

I mean, it's kind of like asking why Barz in HR doesn't just open up and obliterate the Silver Ravens while they're a bunch of L1-4 losers with his various big guns.


sherlock1701 wrote:

I like Dark Heresy's Fate Point system. You have a pool (usually 2-4 points) that refills each session. Very rarely, you may increase the size of that pool, perhaps for meeting a secret campaign objective.

You can spend one point to reroll any check, heal a little, or shake off a Stun effect.

Alternatively, you can burn one permanently (reducing the pool size by 1) to cheat death in most cases. Usually with some long lasting penalty attached, like limb loss or permanent stat reduction.

Funny thing, burning fate points explicitly say you don't suffer any critical (and presumably any other negative) results from the killing blow. Took me by surprise when I reread the rules, I used to think you just got a non-lethal version of the crit result. Guess its a good thing, no sense kicking your poor failcolyte when's he down.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

They keep him from invading Absalom and becoming a God, so that's good. They also 'kill' him, but only as much as you can kill any lich if you've never seen their phylactery (though since he's being reluctant to leave his island, it's possible he was more damaged than normal).

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
Thing is, it's a fact of Pathfinder in general that you need something as ridiculous as "your soul got obliterated, do not pass go, do not collect $200" to make a noble sacrifice actually stick. Otherwise you just have some grateful NPC with money (of which there are many) throw a bunch of diamonds in the general direction of your characters' blast shadows and all is good.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Hopkins wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
I think her outfit is fine though. It definitely feels bulkier than her PF1 outfit, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing and I think it's a little silly to call anything about her outfit puritanical.
Of course her outfit itself is far from puritanical. However, the general movement towards covering up more naked skin in fantasy and towards making the fantasy genre more PG has been noticeable over the last decade. It's the general trend I oppose. As I said, I am just as opposed to Sayan not showing off his sick abs. ^^
A part of the reason for this trend is that more young girls and women are openly participating, so it's moving away from a male fantasy space and into a shared space. I like this. I have 3 little girls that I'm introducing to the hobby. I would like to discourage them from running into combat with their vital areas and arteries exposed.

Just saying, there's no difference between a sorc running into combat in a bikini and a full robe (replace bikini with banana hammock if you're feeling more male instead). Unarmored is unarmored.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nothing beyond the typical caveat for any other joke character (and make no mistake, this premise is a joke character) which is that it rarely takes a very long for the joke part to wear thin.

Other than that it's a typical Evil in Name Only character only instead of "does good things as part of the longest of long cons (the fruition of which is never seen in game)" you have "is too dumb to realize he's not doing bad stuff" and as much as I always roll my eyes when I see EINO characters, they do tend to play nice with the party which is my bare minimum threshold for acceptability. Just make sure everyone else is fine with having a clown in the party.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty sure there's implicit common sense in play for suicidal/stupid/cheeky PCs (No, trying to jump the mile long chasm only results in you falling to your death Steve...).


Reminds me of a Dragon Age game I was in a while ago that consisted of a Dalish supremist, a City Elf mage, and a Tevinter solider. Party was about as dead on arrival as it gets.

Anyway, these days when I GM I say out front party members need to know each other in some manner and get along at their core. Just easier to keep the game flowing than trying to get the above DA party to work together rather than a) kill each other or b) immediately disband at first chance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Near as I can presume, failing forward can be loosely interpretted as railroading since whether you pass/fail the check to open the locked door, the door will open (difference being one might have an alarm raised) which you can squint and interpret as your character being along on the for the ride of the story.


You seem awfully confident that a GM who already denied you rerolling your character via fiat is going to just roll over and okay a new one just because your character decided to cut his own throat as an intermediate step rather than the far more likely result of you getting told to either get serious or pack up your dice and go home.


Ascalaphus wrote:


The classic Shadowrun mission is corporate espionage/heist: steal a prototype, perform industrial espionage, abduct a scientist, assassinate a pesky environmentalist. The PCs are rarely planning to permanently occupy any corporate building because eventually reinforcements will come. They need to get in, do the thing that needs doing, and get out before it gets too hot. There is no concept of "level appropriate challenge".

Technically there isn't such a thing as a level appropriate challenge is due to the way the game's designed more so than theme. An Ares Predator is an Ares Predator whether you're a 0 karma chump or a massive karma chump and that same Predator will (generally anyway) serve a runner as a fine weapon for their entire career barring bolting on more attachments and whatnot since weapons will generally get their targets dead no matter when in your career you meet them.

That said, not all challenges are made equal even in that context (IE you send a squad of Red Samurai with L3 Wired Reflexes against a squad of fresh runners and the latter will be a pile of meat faster than you can say 'chunky salsa') but it's still a far cry from Starfinder where levels are hardcoded into the system and your Level 1 Predator will be a useless paperweight in 3 odd levels since that's how the system and monsters are designed.


Problem with Insinuator is that ultimately you're still beholden to your temporary patron. Doom Slayer, while he may work with more sketchy folks like Hayden (presuming the general goal is kill demons) is absolutely not beholden to them. That's the whole bit with destroying the Argent Tower rather than just shutting it down after all.


Matthew Downie wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
You could make a Goblin with +100 to all stats and use it as a high(ish) level boss.

...but you probably shouldn't.

Player 1: "58 to hit."
GM: "You miss."
Player 2: "That goblin's AC is off the charts! I'll try something else. Hold Person! Give me a Will save."
GM: "Does a 68 pass?"

Sometimes you just aren't in the mood for falling rocks and desire something with a bit more panache.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Just for the sake of reference, wiki has this to say about what the science-fantasy genre is:

"Science fantasy is a mixed genre within the umbrella of speculative fiction which simultaneously draws upon or combines tropes and elements from both science fiction and fantasy."

And then it goes along to explain that when you cross the line into fantasy is when you include elements that violate scientific laws, even if you couch them in scientific talk/technobabble.

So yeah, Shadowrun is almost by definition in the umbrella of science-fantasy (having literal magic and all) although it certainly isn't the first instance of it since the term's existed since the early 1900s when pulp magazines were the main pushers of science fiction/fantasy.

To clarify, I meant first science-fantasy RPG.

Mm. That might take some more digging to verify. I personally believe that someone would have adapted a golden age sci-fi type game before the local cyberpunk one but I have no examples off the top of my head (and suck with dates anyway).

Well, first thing that popped into my mind for Science Fantasy was Spelljammer which was published in 1989 coincidentally the same year as SR. Might dig more later.


Just for the sake of reference, wiki has this to say about what the science-fantasy genre is:

"Science fantasy is a mixed genre within the umbrella of speculative fiction which simultaneously draws upon or combines tropes and elements from both science fiction and fantasy."

And then it goes along to explain that when you cross the line into fantasy is when you include elements that violate scientific laws, even if you couch them in scientific talk/technobabble.

So yeah, Shadowrun is almost by definition in the umbrella of science-fantasy (having literal magic and all) although it certainly isn't the first instance of it since the term's existed since the early 1900s when pulp magazines were the main pushers of science fiction/fantasy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

23. [Party size] individuals meet in the tavern and answer a call for adventure.


Slyme wrote:

I love morality debates about a world where you run around murdering sentient beings and stealing their belongings, then leave their bodies to rot where they fell the vast majority of the time.

Always remember, every villain is the hero in their side of the tale.

Thing about that is that its generally a pretty rare occurrence the party just massacres a local gaggle of orcs because they were there. Usually it's because they were raiding villages, forming the local dark lord's army, stole a macguffin, etc. Or they tried to jump you first natch.


David knott 242 wrote:

Most hags have higher charisma scores than Amiri, the iconic barbarian. That in itself should tell you that charisma and beauty do not correlate with each other.

Don't beauty shame hags. Next you'll tell me Krakens aren't sexy sexy beasts themselves.


Yqatuba wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Considering 99% of the spawn are just very big monsters, standard protocol of stabbing them in the shins till they stop moving works fine. If you happen to be against the 1% (Read: Tarrasque) stabbing it till it stops moving and throwing the regenerating carcass into the bottom of the ocean/positive/negative energy plane/similiar inhospitable location works fine.
actually all of them have the super regeneration not just the tarrasque. So ya in order to beat them you have to imprison/banish etc them.

Or just use a death effect. So fine, minor extra step of getting the local wizard to Power Word Kill the not-Tarrasque (or other death effect of choice).


Quieting Needles are more just an extended inconvenience than anything permanent. Basically you just set the folks back the cost of one rez spell when they grumble and get a sawbones to root out the needles and then recast the spell.

Disintigrates, zombification, or just bagging the corpse and running are more semi-permanent solutions if the assassins don't have a handy Sphere of Annihilation nearby.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Considering 99% of the spawn are just very big monsters, standard protocol of stabbing them in the shins till they stop moving works fine. If you happen to be against the 1% (Read: Tarrasque) stabbing it till it stops moving and throwing the regenerating carcass into the bottom of the ocean/positive/negative energy plane/similiar inhospitable location works fine.


blahpers wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Agénor wrote:
blahpers wrote:
in my experience most players want a bit more agency than that.

Players need to feel they have agency. Whether they indeed have it is another question.

A good way for players to feel they have agency is indeed for them to have it but is definitely not the only way.

Also, in most games, the scenario is already written and then prepared by game master before the game session begins. It is by no means an improvisation of the moment by the game master who would have almost perfect knowledge of the in-game universe and could make it react in real time to the actions of the P.C.s. Hence there is already a level of railroading that everyone accepts and enjoys.

I feel like you discard this and place the baseline zero of railroading at the beginning of the first game session of a scenario. I say the game begins when the game master starts preparing.

Further, even if we go into the zany world of pure improvisation, at the end of the day GM's the guy doing majority of the work. A player can say he wants to open a shop on the frontier and that's all well and good but he doesn't get to say the shopkeeper he hired is really a cultist of Rovagug or that bulettes will invade in three days. That's stuff the GM's writing.

Okay, I guess the player could say that, but its not like he has any real power to make that happen beyond the GM humoring him or he's really a L18+ caster mashing miracles/wishes and is playing a character that is some stripe of completely insane.

Sorry, it's been a long week and I'm pretty dense at this point, but where is this going? I don't think I said that the players have Cosmic Powers of Fate and decide what happens in the game world. The levers the players are given are pretty well-defined; they act through their player characters and have commensurate influence on the world around them.

(That being said, if my players decided that they really wanted a secret cultist shopkeeper and...

What I'm getting at is you said the GM isn't the guy writing the story which...I really don't know how else to interpret besides the players having weird cosmic fate powers where they can just say the local macguffin is in the Underdark rather than Atlantis. Players can pull all the levers they like, but the guy determining/writing the effects that go with those pulls is the GM hence the general point the GM is basically the primary 'writer' of the game as far as responsibility/workload goes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Let's face it. Desna herself is probably just a colossal 7-dimensional mass of tentacles and insect wings.
Yes, but a beautiful one, or Shelyn wouldn't be her lover.

Shelyn confirmed Japanese?


Agénor wrote:
blahpers wrote:
in my experience most players want a bit more agency than that.

Players need to feel they have agency. Whether they indeed have it is another question.

A good way for players to feel they have agency is indeed for them to have it but is definitely not the only way.

Also, in most games, the scenario is already written and then prepared by game master before the game session begins. It is by no means an improvisation of the moment by the game master who would have almost perfect knowledge of the in-game universe and could make it react in real time to the actions of the P.C.s. Hence there is already a level of railroading that everyone accepts and enjoys.

I feel like you discard this and place the baseline zero of railroading at the beginning of the first game session of a scenario. I say the game begins when the game master starts preparing.

Further, even if we go into the zany world of pure improvisation, at the end of the day GM's the guy doing majority of the work. A player can say he wants to open a shop on the frontier and that's all well and good but he doesn't get to say the shopkeeper he hired is really a cultist of Rovagug or that bulettes will invade in three days. That's stuff the GM's writing.

Okay, I guess the player could say that, but its not like he has any real power to make that happen beyond the GM humoring him or he's really a L18+ caster mashing miracles/wishes and is playing a character that is some stripe of completely insane.


Matthew Downie wrote:
When I do it, it's fudging. When you do it, it's cheating.

Perks of being the guy behind the screen.


Hey, Asmodeus is supposed to be quite the handsome devil you know (Although he's also a fallen empyreal lord...)


Couple of things for me:

The cosmology is one of those things that basically can only be viewed at a glance lest you dig in and find out it barely makes any sense due to having 10+ years of baggage being added onto an already rickety framework to begin with.

The other thing is that Golarion's just a place that never clicked into an actual place for me and is basically stuck in the purgatory of fantasy disney world (aka a bunch of unconnected themed attractions). Can't exactly explain why really since I buy in to Star Wars just fine. Might be some of the attractions (like Alkensor and Nidal) are just bridges too far/too tight a gimmick and break the illusion.


rdknight wrote:


One thing I'm curious about is how do you handle undead? They seem to be very much outside anything found in Star Wars.

Just saying Force Ghosts and that whole zombie stormtrooper thing are/were things that happened in Star Wars. That said, refluffing basic zombies as derelict/insane droids is possible and worst to worst just keep them the same and say there's some Sith/Dark Side malark reanimating them. The Dark Side has many powers that people would call unnatural after all .


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's an unhelpful answer, but basically know your group. I've a friend who more or less despises the rng be with ye wild magic/miscast tables and the like while I cut my teeth on Warhammer Fantasy RP/Dark Heresy which have far more punishing tables than PF and I wouldn't have it any other way (At least in those games).

Being perfectly honest, PF's Wild Magic is pretty tame and is supremely unlikely to dramatically affect anyone other than the caster or hostiles meaning there doesn't need to be a table wide buy in if some guy wants to take a wild magic archtype or the like. Universal wild magic on whatever condition you probably should ask about and something that only happens in certain zones I'd just treat as any other hazard.


Yes

and

Within 30 feet and while the target is denied their dex bonus (barring other rules to the contrary) respectively.


Java Man wrote:

The broader question is when the benevolant overlord, who makes the decisions for everyone because he is smarter, wiser, and more virtous, crosses the line to be another tyrant.

Isn't that any given king of any given land only without potentially the smarter/wiser/virtue bit?

Say what you will about Mengk, at least he very likely is smarter and wiser than virtually everyone not packing PC stats around by a fairly massive margin.


Derklord wrote:
*Historical stuff*

Trust me dude, I'm well aware of the historical usages, drawbacks, and operations of bows both long and cross. I'm also aware that an autocross (or crossbolter or whatever you want to call it) is absurdly unrealistic just about as much so as a longbowman notching and firing two arrows at once and having that actually be effective to say nothing of the standard machinegun routine PF makes the norm for them. My preferences are just that; preferences, including the visual one.


Goblin_Priest wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Derklord wrote:


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Speak for yourself. Crossbows are a classic if you're going for a vampire hunter/van helsing vibe or a more traditional sniper type.
Depends on your preference and background, I guess. For people into anything real-life medieval, or classical medieval fantasy, a crossbow is usually more of a common soldier's weapon, not something for a PC to focus on. If you're more interested in, say a movie that's set in 1888, rather than the time periods Pathfinder emulates, you might prefer crossbow.
I wouldn't say you need to go to 1888 to get the time period where crossbows were fashionable, late medieval/renaissance works perfectly well for when crossbows were in vogue. I'll also add that the only reason I'd ever not be using a crossbow with a dwarf character would be because there's firearms I want him using instead. Probably can boost that to any small character in general. Hate the mental image of small races and longbows while dwarfs are that in combination with my inner Warhammer fan.
In my setting gunpowder is extremely limited, its secrets only known by an isolationist gnome island nation. Crossbows targetting touch AC at half-increment helps fill the void the lack of firearms creates.

Like I implied, my bit about gunpowder mostly stems from me being into Warhammer before DnD and there Dwarves used crossbows and firearms, bows are the stuff of the filthy elves and whatnot. I'm aware that in PF proper crossbows are basically trash and gunpowder has setting issues in ADDITION to largely being trash (outside of those gunslinging goons) but if you simplified the system to where there was only a profile for "ranged weapon" and the blackpowder proliferation wasn't a thing, you bet your rear my dwarf would be rocking his crossbow or handgun.


I mean, I don't play at your table but is AC 30-33 at level 5 really a common occurrence for you? That's going to be crippling vs any martial character that isn't near bleeding edge optimized and thus not a huge concern unless your GM really doesn't like you.

1 to 50 of 1,885 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>