Male human on stilts

Trigger Loaded's page

541 posts (2,246 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 5 aliases.


1 to 50 of 541 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hate to be the spoilsport, but that tale is an urban legend, Haladir.

Did Pepsi really own the sixth largest navy?

The deal was proposed, but Pepsi didn't agree to it. And, as well, with the listed ships, it wouldn't have even been in the top 30 navies of the world. The Soviet Union did build several freight ships for Pepsi as payment, though.

What would you do, or have done, during a game night where the dice have decreed the players will die? Every skill check they roll fails spectacularly, every attack is a miss, more '1's are rolled than any other number. Meanwhile, there's at least one critical threat per round from the opponenets, and often multiple. Damage rolls are near max, and every save they make succeeds.

Perhaps a bit dramatic, but have you had a situation, as a GM, where the players cannot succeed, and their foes are trouncing them due to bad rolls. And how do you deal with it as a GM?

James Jacobs wrote:
Trigger Loaded wrote:
Can a troll live without a head? Specifically if you cut the head off and burn it, will the body keep living and grow a new head?

As long as you don't stop its regeneration, the troll can recover unless it was slain by an effect that bypasses hit points, I suppose.

It can't multiply though. You can't get 2 trolls by cutting one in half. As a general rule, the larger portion is where the regeneration continues. So if you cut off a troll head, the head is dead but the body regrows it unless you deactivate the body's regeneration.

Followup question that depended on the answer to this one. My purpose is not to try and make two trolls out of one, but some curiosity that came to mind regarding Troll brains.

So, behead a Troll, and destroy the head. Troll grows a new head. Does he have his old memories, or is he an amnesiac? I'm wondering where a Troll's memories are stored.

(Though, on reflection, given that souls are usually shown having memories of their life as well, that could explain a workaround instead of having to explain the necessity of a brain.)

I asked this once before (Over a year ago) but overcomplicated the question with a lot of details which got me an answer to a different question. My fault, so now I'll try again, more simply.

Can a troll live without a head? Specifically if you cut the head off and burn it, will the body keep living and grow a new head?

How do extraplanar beings 'sleep' if they don't need to? Do they actually fall unconscious, or is it more just laying down and resting their eyes/meditating? If they do sleep, can they control how long they sleep for, or do they follow human norms for sleep?

You mentioned that Outsiders (And I know the term is obsolete for the new edition, but I'm assuming the general concept of powerful extraplanar beings who aren't as tied to biological needs still applies.) don't need to eat and sleep, but can do so if they wish. Two questions (Across two posts, of course.)

If an extraplanar being eats food, what happens to the food they eat? Do they still digest it? Or is it just absorbed into their mass? Is there any waste generated?

4 people marked this as a favorite.

*Looks left*
*Looks right*


Greetings and all that.

Looking for an ongoing Second Darkness campaign that may have lost a member and is looking to fill a gap in the roster, preferably at or before Chapter Four: Endless Night.

(Quick summary, was in a Second Darkness game that ended near the start of Chapter Four due to various issues. Would like to play through the rest of the Adventure Path and experience it first-hand, though.)

I know, awfully specific, but figured it was worth a shot.

James Jacobs wrote:

That's a reflection of the times, and while it's a good thing to not present humanoids as "always evil" it does erode away at certain "classic" stories. Of course, there's elements in those "classics" that's problematic, which is why we're moving away from this whole thing.

In short, presenting orcs and goblins and other humanoid races as not always evil makes them more realistic and steps away from the elements of the whole thing that these races have traditionally risen in mythology from xenophobic fears. It's a good thing to not have them always be evil, to be able to present them as sometimes good, in the same way it's important to be able to present stereotypically non-evil races (dwarves, elves, humans, gnomes, and halflings, for example) as evil at times.

I'd rather not see this as a "retcon" as much as an evolution.

It's an absolutely deliberate effort though, to present sapient races as less monolithically evil and more varied.

There's still plenty of evil out there to face, never fear. But I'd rather be in a place where something earns its evil card by its actions, not by the color of its skin, how ugly it is, or because that's the way they have been traditionally portrayed.

Oh, I agree that I prefer it this way myself. I was just trying to be impartial when asking the question, which may have come across as a bit judgemental. But anyways, this ain't a discussion topic, just a question topic.

Next question: If you recall, a recurring series of adventurers way back in Dragon magazine was the Challenge of Champions series, a collection of logic puzzles for characters of any level, using a team challenge as a basis. Would those be something the Pathfinder Society (The in-game organization, not the real world one) would organize, or would a different organization be more likely? To phrase it better, if I set up a Challenge of Champions game in Golarion, who would be the most likely organizers of the event?

(Apologies, another question that requires a bit of explanation.)

It feels like there has been a shift in the presentation of the various typically 'monstrous' humanoid races over Pathfinder's 10 years. When Pathfinder 1st edition came out, it felt that effort was made to make the various evil humanoids truly evil. Orcs were bloodthirsty savages uninterested in peace, goblins were psycopathic pyromaniacs, and ogres were inbred brutes straight out of Deliverance. Of course, things change in 10 years. Now goblins are going to be a playable race, and while orcs are still reliably a dungeon stuffing monster race, there's been greater effort to show that not every orc is a mindless murderer, and some tribes are capable of peace and diplomacy. Not that the game is retconning the earlier presentations, but greater effort is going to show that not every member of the race is irredeemable.

Assuming you agree that there has been a shift, was this shift a deliberate effort from up high in Paizo? A general reaction to expand the game for more interesting plots than 'Orcs there. Orcs bad. Kill orcs?" A reaction to fan desires that the idea of wholly evil sapient race is unsettling? Or just an unintended shift?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does your dislike of conventions apply even if you were able to go as just another attendee, and not 'on the clock' as a representative of Paizo? Not just GenCon or PaizoCon, but conventions in general?

On the topic of video games...

You're a big fan of horror films and books. Do you have any favourite horror video games?

Moving on, then...

For when you DM, and perhaps for Golarion as well, do intelligent undead think/learn/adapt differently? I'm thinking in-universe descriptively, though it can expand to addressing the rule of undead not having age categories, and thus don't gain the stat bonuses from the passage of time.

James Jacobs wrote:
Trigger Loaded wrote:
Assuming you're familiar with Ravenloft, which Golarion figure would be most likely to be pulled into the realm and given/imprisoned in a domain, and what would their curse be?

I'm VERY familiar with Ravenloft. Both as the campaign setting and as the original 1st edition D&D adventure that came years before that.

As for most likely... that's impossible to narrow down since so many of Golarion's NPCs could fit that category. Any of the bad guys from any of our Adventure Paths would work well, but since using one in this capacity would effectively remove them entirely from the settting, and thus rob our own canon of a potential villain... I'd prefer to pick an NPC whose influence and impact on the world has come and gone and who we would be very unlikely to want to do anything else with in the future.

Which makes it tough for me to pick, since if an NPC in Golarion is interesting enough to send to Ravenloft, that makes them by definition interesting enough to keep around.

I don't suppose adding 'hypothetically' would change that answer? You seem to be approaching the question from a mix of writing as well as marketing, picking who would be the least disruptive to the Golarion line. If you could ignore all that, (Tracy Hickman notably did not approve of Lord Soth being made a Darklord, and didn't consider it canon) does any Pathfinder villain stand out to you as having that mix of unrepentent evil, tragic backstory, and something they would always strive for despite never achieving it to make a good Darklord?

James Jacobs wrote:
We haven't done much with Geb, and I'm not ready to start designing more about him in public. We'll get to Geb AND Nex eventually.

Understood. Any further questions of mine about Geb will likely have the same answer as above. Just have to wait for the supplement or Adventure Path.

Different question, then:

Assuming you're familiar with Ravenloft, which Golarion figure would be most likely to be pulled into the realm and given/imprisoned in a domain, and what would their curse be?

James Jacobs wrote:
Trigger Loaded wrote:
Ignoring his desires, would putting Geb to rest only require that he be given conclusive evidence what happened to Nex? Or would it require either Geb or Nex to ultimately 'win' their battle?
As one of the most powerful ghosts in the setting, putting Geb to rest should be very very difficult, and in and of itself should constitute a significant quest and adventure. And it'd probably NOT be something tied to Nex, but something far more difficult and secret to figure out.

Well, that caught me by surprise. Everything in the (Admittedly brief) writeup with Geb sure makes it seem what ties him to this world is his rivalry with Nex that never got a conclusion. Though I suppose it never spelled it outright. But anyways, next question:

Given what you've indicated here, does that mean Geb's ritualistic suicide was actually a deliberate method of becoming a ghost? I had assumed him becoming a ghost was an unexpected effect of his rivalry and the suicide, but given his status as an incredibly powerful necromancer, now you got me curious if he had discovered a ritual to become a ghost, which would have quite a few advantages over a lich.

James Jacobs wrote:
Trigger Loaded wrote:

How aware is Geb (The necromancer ghost, not his namesake nation) of his current status? Is he even aware he's undead? Does he know he's a ghost specifically? Does he know what will put his spirit to rest?

(Hopefully that counts as 'one question.)

He knows he's a ghost, and isn't particularly interested in being put to rest.

Caught what was going to be my followup question. Interesting, so Geb is at least content, if not pleased with his undead form, and doesn't want to be dispelled.

Still got a handful of questions with Geb, but as per your request, I'll limit to one at a time:

Ignoring his desires, would putting Geb to rest only require that he be given conclusive evidence what happened to Nex? Or would it require either Geb or Nex to ultimately 'win' their battle?

How aware is Geb (The necromancer ghost, not his namesake nation) of his current status? Is he even aware he's undead? Does he know he's a ghost specifically? Does he know what will put his spirit to rest?

(Hopefully that counts as 'one question.)

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Life, The Universe, and Everything, The third book in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy six-part trilogy, was adapted from an unused Dr. Who script entitled Doctor Who and the Krikkitmen. Douglas Adams simply took out the Doctor Who characters and replaced them with the characters from THGTTG. This is why the book is notably different from the rest, in that it has a clear, self-contained storyline, rather than being a mish-mash of absurd happenings.

Adventurer: The Delving.
Heroes: The Murderhoboing.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

109) Will Dungeons and Dragons still be the game that must not be named in the core rulebook? Or will Pathfinder 1st edition be the one referred to in vague terms?

110) For balance and immersion, will we be required to track our material spell components individually?

111) Similarly, will the new spell rules include mandatory phrases that the player must say for their spells to work?

Some ideas::
Irresistable Dance: "We can dance if we want to, we can leave your friends behind..."
Banishmemt: "In the name of Lowrek, Prince of Elves, demon, begone!"

112: Will Bards have the option to Rickroll as a special attack?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea some have brought up of making a component pouch a spell focus item you can choose to use. Like a wand, holy symbol, general talisman, or otherwise. That's a neat way to work it. Assuming focii are a thing in the new system.

But the useless descriptions of costless material components for each spell? Get rid of them. A waste of precious book space that could be better spent adding more character options or clarifying rules. Most 'components' started as bad jokes back in the original days of D&D anyways, and now we're chained to them by tradition. I'd be happy to see them go the way of ThAC0.

No issue with expensive components, though. Honestly, those seem fitting, especially for rituals. (Assuming the game has ritual-style magic.) Seems like it'd take an expenditure in order to create things like a summoning circle or bring somebody back to life.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Flaming Merciful chainsaws!

First off, I do like the idea of doing a bit of a legal battle in a courtroom. I can recall playing Phoenix Wright, and pressing the button to shout "OBJECTION" at questionable portions of the testimony.

Still, this being Cheliax, I feel like the main battle is going to be happening before the characters even reach the courtroom. Now, I'm not that familiar with the inner workings of Cheliax, but I know it's a Lawful Evil facist empire that worships (Though they claim it's more of a partnership) Asmodeus. So they're more concerned with maintaining order and keeping the peace than serving justice.

So, you've described the scene as several members of the party burnt down a stage and attacked an acting troupe for disparaging Asmodeus. Certainly, they're going to be arrested and tried, to give the pretense of being an orderly, just society. But the question is how much is the crown (In this case, used as a general term for the acting representatives of Cheliax) on their side?

It seems at first glance that the judge is already hostile to the actors. If they were badmouthing Asmodeus, they probably didn't have many friends in high places. If they have a reputation for this, the case may have been decided before the game begins, and the trial is just going through the motions. Even if they didn't have a reputation, the judge is probably very eager to listen to any reasonable explanation (Bald-faced lie) about being assaulted by the actors and the players stopping subversive acts of treason.

But, of course, maybe the opposite is true. Maybe the actors have a powerful noble patron who supports them, and may even cover for them. (Why? Who knows? Likes their act. Blackmail. They're actually assassins secretly in his employ. All sorts of possibilities.) And said patron is spearheading the trial, at least behind the scenes. Now the players have a tough courtroom duel on their hands, and will have to use every trick in the book to not end up in prison. Maybe insulting Asmodeus, while certainly not culturally acceptable, isn't technically illegal, so now the players do have stern charges of assault, arson, and whatever else laying over their heads, especially if witnesses are collaborating the actors' stories.

As a final caveat, if the party is looking like they're about to lose, you could give them an out. A powerful patron overrides the court case for whatever reason, or provides a solid alibi for the party, vouching for their innocence. But he wants a favour in exchange...

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with dumping non-valuable material components. I've started to really hate the lore behind it.

I hate the idea of a wizard with an 8 dexterity somehow able to open the pouch, pull out the exact component he needs from a big, mixed-up stash of all sorts of knick-knacks, and then cast a spell, all with one hand in about 3.5 seconds.

What little bit of flavour it adds to the game is overshadowed by the questions it raises on carrying capacity, how it gets refilled, how its used, and how things stay organized within it. Not to mention how the vast majority of people really just ignore it beyond the purchase of one or two of them. Get rid of it, and strealine the game.

I'm more ambivalent of expensive material components, since those seem to be more of a balancing factor. I certainly wouldn't cry if they completely disappeared, but there's only a handful. Standardising the material components could help. (Like, all healing spells require X, all defensive spells require Y, etc...)

I do agree that power components are a neat idea, spending gold on certain reagents to give your spell just that little extra kick. That I like as a concept.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Change the lore on golems

Pathfinder has worked to establish all undead as wholly evil, even stating that the unintelligent undead, that in most editions are generally depicted as simple souless automotons animated by negative energy, steal a portion of the soul for the animating force, and default to wanton murder if undirected.

Golems have, since D&D second edition (And probably earlier) been stated as being animated by an enslaved elemental spirit bound to the body. Indeed, the berserk chance that golems have is said to be the spirit rebelling. Despite this, golems are always shown as neutral, made by good wizards as much as evil, and having no requirement of evil alingment to make, even though I'd think most good-aligned creatures would be repulsed at the idea of enslaving a spirit to power their construct.

I believe I've seen James Jacobs state that this was kept to stay consistent with 3rd edition. Something they wanted to change, but didn't want to rock the boat at the time. Well, no time like the present to change the lore and make Golems animated purely by magic, no lore of bound spirits.

I also think flesh golems need to have an inherit intelligence, since they're obviously inspired by Frankenstein. Clay golems as well, for similar classical inspiration. And adjust the berserk chance. Who'se going to spend tens of thousands of gold on something that has a significant chance of going on a rampage?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mavrickindigo wrote:

Will this game be built to not punish players for picking something. I know retraining is a core rule now, but will Paizo make it so there are inherently inferior choices for feats/class abilities that characters will be forced to retrain when they find out?

I certainly hope not.

Every option should be fun and effective. I want to avoid water balloons.

Are you assuming that there are developers and writers that deliberately make an option crappy? What do you assume, that they cackle to themselves, thinking about how this will punish those foolish players that don't take the game as seriously as they do? I'm curious as to what you think their motives are.

As everyone has said, I am quite certain that nobody sets out to make a crappy character option. (And if you have a quote that says otherwise, I'd be interested in reading it.) Every feat or character option was made with the assumption that it was a neat idea. How well it actually played out is the problem. Sometimes the feat ends up strictly inferior to a previous feat. Likely caused because not every writer is required to have encyclopediac knowledge of the game. Especially this far down the line.

I mean, the underlying sentiment is a good idea. Make every character option worthwhile. But just saying "don't make a trap option" doesn't help in that regard. Once the feat is tossed out to the sharks that is the player base is when it has its trial by fire, to see if it floats or sinks. What seemed like a neat idea can end up being a worthless waste of paper. Or, worse, an overpowered game-destroying feature.

Re: Sacred Geometry-
Again, I don't assume somebody put that feat in as a deliberate trap. Though I do have my own suspicions as to how somebody did come up with the idea for that. It involves a math major and drugs.

I've been around for a few edition wars in my time. Even in the early days of the internet, I saw massive debates on the shift to third edition. Most everyone was ecstatic, but there were certainly the old grognards who didn't apprciate the change, thinking it was a cash grab by WotC after they took over TSR. I still chuckle at those who complained about Dwarven Paladins ruining the lore, and those who hated the idea of a monk doing anything with piddly little fists to a hulking dude in plate mail.

Don't remember too much anger at the transition from 3.0 to 3.5. Most groups I was with saw it as a necessary change, fine-tuning the rules. I'm sure there were people who despised the change, but I don't remember too much outrage.

Ahh, but 3rd to 4th. That's the one people remember, since that was how Paizo conceived of Pathfinder. We owe the existence of the game we play now to WotC deciding to try and reinvent the wheel. I bought the core book, I tried it out, and decided the game wasn't for me. I'm not the sort to hurl too much shade at the game since, in a world with tabletop games such as FATAL, Racial Holy War, and HYBRID, I have a hard time condeming things as being genuinely awful, instead of just 'different tastes.'

Despite that, I still agreed with those who said it was too gamist, and got swept up in the battle, engaging in heated debates with those on the pro-4th edition side who found all the arguments silly. Now that was a battle. Artillery such as "Grognard" and "Verisimillitude" cratered the ground.

I'm on the side who think that Pathfinder needs a reboot. I have heard it said that they were afraid of changing too much from 3.5 when they first made Pathfinder. Well, now it's time to make a clean break, and a better game. Will they succeed? I fully intend to buy the core rulebook to find out (I'll likely just download the beta test PDF. Not that eager to spend.) and give it a go. Maybe it'll be what I want, and the game will go on. Maybe not, and I'll find 5th edition easier to work with. Time will tell.

But if you don't want to change, if you look at your racks of books and have no interest in starting fresh, that is perfectly all right. I raise a glass to you old guard who will not abandon a game you love. I emphathize, given my love of old Nintendo, Super Nintendo, and Sega Genesis games. Those are still classics that are just as entertaining then as they are now, so game on, whatever edition you desire.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
So does that mean that a Muscle Wizard will be weaker than both a normal wizard and a fighter at magic and fighting respectively and thus reduce a party's effectiveness?

... I mean, I hope so. Otherwise, why bother having a fighter or wizard if there's a class that can fight just as well but have spells/cast spells just as well but good in melee?

4 people marked this as a favorite.
I don't want it to be watered down. Gygax intended it to be special, I think that, since we owe pretty much this entire past time to him, it is the least we can do.

If you want to play 1st edition D&D, play 1st edition D&D. Tradition also dictates ThAC0, Elves as a class, and rolling for Hit Points at first level. I say let the game evolve.

Personally, what I don't like is the Paladin (In this case, I refer to the Lawful Good class of a million arguments) being a base class. Considering how restricted it is compared to other classes, it really should be a prestige class. (Or a specialized Archetype, if Prestige Classes are obsolete.) Along with that, I'd like a class that fills the role of a divinely charged warrior, tied to the deity instead of a particular alingment. That way, everyone gets what they want.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yep, My character did that once.

We had to navigate our ship through a Dark Elven blockade. We decided to skirt the lead ship. My character, a halfling fighter, eagerly let himself get loaded into a catapult (He was the sort to go with what was cool instead of what was practical. Or sane.) and shot at their flagship. It turned out to be deadly accurate, and I smashed into the captain's quarters/meeting room, crushing the table they were making plans with. I took a few swings, then fought my way out, smashing their mast with my adamantium maul (3.5 version of the Earth Breaker) before leaping back onto my ship when it skirted past.

One of the crazier things he's done in his adventuring career.

The current record to complete the original Super Mario Bros. is 4 minutes, 56 seconds, and 462 milliseconds. The current tool-assisted speedrun record is 4 minutes, 52 seconds, and 32 milliseconds. [Link.]

The Immovable Ladder is a ladder that has been sitting on a windowsill of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Old Jerusalem for over 250 years. Due to an agreement that nothing may be moved, rearranged, or altered without the consent of all six clerics, each representing a different division of Christianity, the ladder has remained where it is.

Apollo Robbins, a sleight-of-hand expert, once successfully pickpocketed Jimmy Carter's Secret Service agents, taking badges, watches, President Carter's itinerary, and the keys to his motorcade without the agents even noticing they were gone. He works as a performer, as well as a security consultant.

Sideburns get their name from Civil War General Burnside.

Americans spend more money on lottery tickets than on movies, sport tickets, video games, music, and books combined.

I've contemplated this question myself. It did feel somewhat arbitrary to restrict druids from metal armour but not metal weapons. Fortunately, there were some good theories in here of why that is, such as strange, arbitrary rules akin to various religious norms that may seem weird, but just are. Leastwise that makes enough sense for me.

I do feel like even these arbitrary rules should have some meaning behind them, which I suppose is what Sideromancer is looking for. But that's not something I should heap on other people. Or demand from the game designers.

I've mentioned it before, but to me, these terms fit on a scale of annoyance.

At the bottom is the optimizer, who makes effective characters, but does so with any concept. So he'll pick a concept for flavour, and then decide how to make it an effective one.

Above that is the power gamer, who defaults to the powerful options. He can still make a meaningful character in a roleplay sense, but he tends to focus on the build first.

Above him is the min-maxer. This is where the character is ignored in favour of the build, and they'll make incoherent choices without consideration of what makes sense purely to make a more powerful character. Dumping stats to bare minimums to eke out a few more points, or dipping in multiple classes without any concern for a story reason.
(Sometimes, you get the incompetent min-maxers, who focus on making these super-powerful characters, but either read character building guides without really understanding them, or think more damage>all, and so make characters that may be powerful in one way, but have so many glaring weaknesses that they're easily dealt with. Or just don't impress as much as they should.)

Then there's the Munchkin, the worst. These guys not only try to make the most powerful character they can, they do so through rules lawyering (The classic definition, where they attempt to 'argue' a vague rule in their favour.) or even cheating. And they often have a habit of deliberately wanting to ruin everyone else's fun, or at least have no concern for everyone else around the table.

Being so bored at work that you end up doing your job.

With the salad fork, the uncouth barbarian!

The paladin got a bad case of diarrhea and ended up soiling his armour in the middle of a fight.

His fellow players claim you can catch the whiff of roquefort when Goofus goes on one of his long-winded rule interpretation arguments.

Gallant raises complaints with the GM after the game in a well-composed e-mail, stating his concerns without falling to insults.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

"The reason the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis."
--> Attributed to a German general, post-WWII debriefing.

"One of the serious problems in planning against American Doctrine is that the Americans do not read their manuals nor do they feel any obligations to follow their doctrine."
--> From a Soviet document.

"If we don't know what we are doing, the enemy certainly can't anticipate our future actions."
--> Anonymous soldier.

"It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too fond of it."
- General Robert E. Lee

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I tend to see the term Optimization as part of a scale of aggrivation to deal with when character building. The scale being:

*Optimizing is the base, trying to make an effective character. Not a problem at all.
* Next up is Power Gaming, where the choices always default to the powerful choices. Slightly problematic, due to making the numbers more important than the role.*
* Next is Min-Maxing, where every choice is made purely on the basis of power, with no concern as to why a character would have such disparate and ill-fitting choices.
* At the top of the annoyance tower is Munchkining, which is where power comes from annoying rules lawyering, questionable legality, and perhaps even cheating.

Obviously, personal interpretation.

*Yes, this sounds like the Stormwind Fallacy. That, however, is the assumption that optimizing and role-playing are mutually exclusive. But to deny that some people make a powerful character to the exclusion of roleplaying is also a bit of a fallacy.

To begin, if you're confused by the terminology: Chained and Unchained is a reference to the Pathfinder book Patfinder Unchained. Along many other alternate rules, there were redesigned base classes. The Theif, the Monk, the Barbarian, and the Summoner. So if people refer to a chained class, they mean the original version. An unchained (class) refers to the version from the unchained module.

(To sum up the changes briefly: Rogue and Monk got buffs, Summoner got nerfs, and the Barbarian was a sidegrade/slight nerf?)

I'd disregard much of the advice on which classes to allow and not allow/suggest away from. System mastery and what/how everyone else is playing is more often the deciding factor in such things.

For instance, if a new player picks a fighter, he's probably not looking to do much else other than hit things with swords. And in that regard, the fighter does his job competently. Let people play what they want. If they start to seem disappointed that their character isn't able to contribute much, then suggest either rolling up a new character or retraining if they're attached to the one they have.

The main exception is the Summoner. The basic (Chained) Summoner was considered overpowered. Not just because of spell selection and useful class ability in the Eidolon, but also because it was very easy to break the game. (Mostly as you were playin a good spellcaster, while your class ability was a good melee combatant, meaning you were essentially playing two character classes at once.) While the Wizard is still considered the most powerful class, that takes good system mastery to really pull off. The Summoner could break games by accident. So I would not allow the core Summoner in that regards.

The rogue is also one you may consider suggesting away from. More that it takes a lot of patience and strategy to play one, and even then the rogue can mostly aim to be competent, at best. In short: Lots of skill points don't matter much, and many can be invalidated with low level spells, and the rogue doesn't get any actual bonuses to these skills, barring Perception and Disable Device relating to traps. As well, a rogue is poorly designed, needing to get up close to deal good damage in combat, but doesn't have the defenses needed to stay alive up close and personal. If a person wants to play a Rogue, either suggest the unchained Rogue, or suggest either a Investigator (If they want to play a skill focused Rogue) or a Slayer. (If they wanted to play an agile combatant style Rogue.)

Here's the post where James answered my question. There's a follow-up question right after.

I should reiterate that James, despite his position, is not part of the rules team, and this should be taken as his opinion on how the spell works, and not an official statement by Paizo directly.

I asked James Jacobs the latter half of this question, about if petrification holds the soul in limbo. He answered that if the statue ended up damaged to the point where Stone to Flesh would result in instant death, then the person is considered dead, and their soul heads off to the boneyard.

I'd assume that petrification preserves the person at the moment it happens. I know this was used in Eberron that there were people, so sickened of the horrors of war, that willingly preserved themselves with Flesh to Stone to wait out the war that was tearing the world apart at the time.

A high-ranking Nazi works to sabotauge and bring down the Third Reich from within, but is stopped by an American soldier who refuses to compromise or understand his point of view.

Captain America

Ah, my apologies then, Rysky. I thought you were insinuating that I must have forgotten what he did in the movie to phrase his actions in a positive light.

I will admit the humour of your original quip is still lost on me, but eh, whatever.


A man joins a cult dedicated to unmaking existence. This cult thinks nothing of murdering anyone in their way, as any who are not with them are against them. The man gains the power to battle those who defend this reality, but the use of these powers result in an even worse disaster that both the cult and the guardians must work together to defeat.

The Matrix Trilogy

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
He had it coming.

Yes, and? That's the point of the game. Describe movies in very weird ways.

Anyways, I'm having fun thinking of these:


A bunch of rednecks play The Floor is Lava and go on a hunting expedition to wipe out a very rare endangered species.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Father tearfully reunites with his long lost kidnapped son, and asks him for help. Son replies by teaming up with his kidnapper and asorted other murderers and thieves, and killing his father with stolen weaponry, destroying his father's life's work.

Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2

Going for 'badly describe a movie,' instead of describing a bad movie.

A troubled lonely man copes with his depression by creating an imaginary friend. The imaginary friend helps the man come out of his shell and become more brave and confident. The two make friends and go on wild adventures together. Eventually, the two work together with their new friends to free the world, but the young man is forced to leave behind his imaginary friend.

Fight Club

4 people marked this as a favorite.

"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur."
("Anything said in Latin seems profound.")

While item hardness and hit points are listed in the rules, those are for deliberate attempts to destroy equipment, notably through the Sunder feat. As mentioned, equipment does not take damage through normal use in combat.

I always assumed it was the same action as the hour spent studying/praying/meditating/reciting/what-have-you that any spellcaster class must do to prepare their spells in the morning. It certainly seems that was the intention.

So whatever rule you have for spellcasters preparing, you should follow the same rule for alchemists brewing their mutagen.

1 to 50 of 541 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>