lorenlord's page

Rick Flair

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have not seen an Imam come out and denounce any of these terrorist acts by Radical extremists of their faith, which seems to show either complicity or cowardice. I mean why else wouldnt you want to distance your faith from the extremists doing horroble acts in the supposed name of your faith, and say 'this is what it is really about', unless it's one of those two reasons?

What an absolute tragedy over there. I may not have agreed with what the paper was satiring, but loss of life for drawing cartoons is a sad commentary on the world in general. I mean, it seems that between this and the craziness that went on with The Interview movie, there are alot of entities out there trying to push their will onto freedoms (like free speech)that should be available to everyone without fear of death or terrorist acts, but sadly aren't.

And it's a good thing France has such harsh gun control laws, so no one can just get a Kalashnikov and start shooting.......oh wait....

The guy filming from his apartment had a perfect view. Now if he only actually was able and had a rifle instead of a cameraphone, there'd be 3 less Radical dirtbags on this planet, and 1 more shot but alive police officer, plus who knows how many civilians. Tragic.

I hope that the families of all the slain are brought peace in time, and are hopefully taken care of so they don't have yet another thing like financial burdens to deal with.

I definitely enjoyed the movies. I went into each movie just expecting to be entertained and see what someone else's idea of Middle Earth come to life was besides my own. I wasn't disappointed by any of the six films. I loved the battles in this one, and Dain was great! I love reading, and when they come out with a movie for a book I read, I usually go see it so that I can see the book come to life and see how close my interpretation was to the directors, and to the author's. But i just enjoy them for what they are: entertainment.

My most recent group couldnt make an important roll....ever. So the DM dubbed them the Party of No Measureable Worth.

And a group I DM'd for always screwed things up and went places they were never prepared to go and try to handle, so they called themselves the Bumble Bunch.

Sucker Punch. All of that.

Creature abilities in 4E and D&D:Next sort of replace the need for feats IMO. An Orc doesn't need Power Attack, he could simply have a line that says "-5 to Attack, add an additional +10 to the damage roll" or to illustrate Lightning Reflexes "The Orc has advantage when making Dexterity saving throws."

An endless list of feats based on HD isn't required (and good riddance).

I totally agree. I'd much rather have a built-in "effect" than have to build charamonsters.

An X-Wing, B-Wing, A-Wing, TIE Defender, TIE Bomber, TIE Interceptor, z-95 Headhunter, Slave-1, and Millennium Falcon for the X-Wing Fighter combat game. It's wayyy too much fun and addicting.

That droid is terribad. Now I know why droids arent allowed in cantinas. That dumb thing would be bouncing around spilling drinks the whole time.

I have seen CN played as a "free pass to mayhem". I have played a CN character on several occasions, and I usually play them like Mallyk the thief from the Conan series, as in: 1. Don't kill fellow players; 2. Steal as much as you can get away with, but not from players; 3. If the NPC can harm me, I don't harm it; 4. Ask what's it it from me, then refuse to go, but pull the old 'they need me!" routine and go anyways; 5. Work with the party, because they're your means to an end. Plus the more they're getting hit, the less I am. That's prtty much how I play CN, it works for my DM.

My pet peeve when DM'ing is player knowledge metagaming. I absolutely hate it when the party encounter trolls, and no sooner than I announce what they are, with no Knowledge check made or prior knowledge had by characters, suddenly everyone has a torch out or fire spells handy. It gets aggrivating.

"Lo there do I see my Father
Lo there do I see my Mother and Sisters and Brothers
Lo there do I see the line of my people, back to the beginning
Lo they do call to me; they bid me take my place among them, in the Halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live forever"

I was taught by our Cub Scout leader when I was 8. He had the D&D Red Box Set, when Elf and Dwarf were classes.

"Doesn't anybody wanna play for BLOOD?!?"

"i'm your huckleberry; that's just my game"

So the situation was I had Sacred Bond on our Mobile Melee party member, and my character was directly behind our 'Sword and Board' Fighter. The party took a decent amount of damage from an AOE, as well as both Fighters got smashed pretty hard. I'm playing a Life Oracle. So here's what I did on my turn, and just wanted to make sure it was legal, because my party members gave me looks as if I'd done something wrong:

Swift Action: Used Combat Healer mystery and 2 3rd lvl slots to Cure Serious Wounds on Mobile Melee.
Move Action: Used Quicken Channel to Channel Energy and heal group, excluding the 4 enemies we were fighting and giving the group a roll with 2d20's (Fateful Channel)
Standard Action: Cast cure Critical Wounds on the 'Sword and Board' Fighter in front of me, using safe curing mystery to avoid Large creature's possible AOO.

Does that sound correct?

Also, since I'm asking this, can someone with a wand of Curing cast it on the other person involved in the Sacred Bond spell? I was just wondering due to the fact that I couldnt see anything that would stop that. Our DM said no, and I thought it made sense, but our Rogue thought that it could be done as RAW.

Thanks for your help!

The game isn't a "complete disaster;" but it is a complete non-starter for those who REQUIRE electronic support. While you may not fall into that group, but you may want to consider the possibility that other people do (though admittedly that's not as entertaining as just mocking them instead).

Question: How does one REQUIRE electronic support? There's a whopping 2 books out (not including adventures). So do you REQUIRE it, or is it that the digital age has jaded people and you WANT it? And a follow-up: are you also saying that there's no way you physically possibly couldve played D&D 1e or 2e, because there was no electronic support? I'm just wondering, because the REQUIRE part has me vexed.

"Never shall innocent blood be shed, yet the blood of the wicked shall flow like a river. The Three shall spread their blackened wings and be the vengeful striking hammer of God."

MOAR DOTS!!!!!!!

Surprisingly, as big of a Drizzt fan I am (I have him and Guen tattooed on my arm), I've never even had the desire to make a character like him or any of the Companions. Although I would make a character of Pwent, if it were mechanically feasible.

This Rogue sounds amazingly annoying. He's in desperate need of a High DC Charm/Dominate spell. Or put an illusion of a wall behind every door/window. "Congrats you unlock the 42 locks on the door, and there's a wall" Looney Tunes his a$$

Wow, this is really a great discussion, love the feedback, no drama. A really great topic. kudos to everyone for sayign their opinions and keeping it civil and positive. Very refreshing for sure. Just had to say that. Now, onto the post:

I've been playing D&D in all of its iterations for 30 years. I must say, this is the best one so far. I really enjoy it right now (I know this will change) because there's so few books to have to try to pore over to find Feat A that fits with Feat B that makes Class C "viable.
Also, I love the fact that alot of the "Mathhammer" has been taken out and replaced by a flat number that gets added to all the things you're Proficient in.
I think they also did a great job in evening the playing field with the time-old "caster vs Martial" war. It's not totally even, but it seems to have brought the martials up a notch and the casters down a notch.
The Advantage/Disadvantage is a nice mechanic, and makes for less stringent rules, as in your character can try practically anything, and the DM can just adjudicate the penalties. There's more room for player creativity.
i'm a big fan of the background system, as it has gotten many of my players to actually flesh out their characters, and become more vested in the game role-playing-wise that normally weren't, especially with the RP rewards mechanic.

I actually really like both system's artwork, and as was stated before, PF's has become a bit iconic, and that's awesome.
I do enjoy PF for the AP's, I think they do an excellent job with them, as well as diety-specific spells and feats. I think those really add to the flavor of a divine caster.

I'm really hoping that the books that 5e comes out with in the future just expand on backgrounds and "archtypes" for each class, because my biggest turnoff (for me, though I can appreciate those folks who enjoy the multitude of options) for playing PF/3.x right now is the sheer amount of material just to make a character.

5e's nice, streamlined character creation, rules, feat vs ability bump decision, and the fact that stats won't get blazingly out of hand (yet, and hopefully never) is a big sell. But like many of you, I wish and hope that they get a bigger digital presence out there. PF has them beat by a longshot there.

you shall all kneel before me! No matter what your political affliation may be!

to quote Dr. Evil: "How about NO!" ;p

lorenlord wrote:

She's admitting she dresses provocatively. How about Durngurn and thejeff look up the freking definition of provocative so I dont have to post it YET AGAIN. She has ZERO right to QQ, due to the fact that she is getting EXACTLY the response of what the definition is of how she HERSELF admits to dressing. SO mission accomplished for her.

That she does. So her argument goes flush.

Assuming that does flush her argument, which I will accept for the sake of argument, that deals with one example from one of the videos. Since the other women were not doing so and yet got similar responses, I don't see any reason to think dressing provocatively actually has anything to do with the the larger question.

I'm just responding to her specifically saying that she's dressing provocatively obviously on purpose, and eliciting EXACTLY the responce that the precise definition of the word expresses, and then goes on to QQ about it. What I am specificaly saying is, if you go out of your way to purposely do something to elicit a specific response, and then you get that response, you pretty much lose your vilidity to complain about said response. So like I said, mission accomplished for her.

NO, I'm not shaming anyone, Knight, I'm simply stating the blatantly obvious commentary of this particular instance.

Which means precisely jack.

If someone dresses in the colors of a sports team you dislike, thereby being provocative, you have zero right to yell things at them or abuse them verbally.

What you seem to be doing is victim blaming/shaming. The way she chose to dress doesn't give you any implicit right to abuse her. Dressing like a hipster doesn't give someone the right to abuse you. Wearing an RPG shirt doesn't give someone the right to call you names.

"Her clothes made me do it, Officer" doesn't wash.

Actually, Knight, I'm simply stating the obvious. She says that she's wearing provocative clothing. By definition, she gets exactly what she's doing; the definition proves it. Here, i'll post it again, just for you

Provocative:
1.Serving or tending to elicit a strong, often negative sentiment in another person; exasperating.
2.Serving or tending to excite, stimulate or arouse sexual interest.

Sums up exactly what she's doing. I'll go further: she's provoking a response that she knows she's going to get to further a cause; anti- sexual harrassment, a good cause to promote. She knows she's gonna get catcalls dressed like that, so she tapes herself and makes a commercial furthering her cause's agenda. End of story.

And the sports team analogy is lame. I'm a Yankees fan in Red Sox nation. I know that if I wear Yankees gear, there will be consequences of ribbing and harrassing. I accept it, it don't complain about it, and I give as good as I get and have fun with it. It's wayyyyy different than the point she's so obviously trying to make.

thejeff wrote:

Caineach wrote:

lorenlord wrote:

Caineach wrote:

lorenlord wrote:

Not MEL's gf.

And the video I saw, the woman was in a skirt and heels. Mustve been a different video. Are there more than one going around?

The one linked to in the opening post is not the one you are thinking of. I did not see the original of the one you saw, but a rebuttal to it, so I know which one you are thinking of. The rebuttal was posted somewhere upthread.

Thank you, Cain, for the clarification. I knew i had seen it somewhere and read about the same girl saying that she dressed provocatively and was complaining about the catcalls.

My first impression of the outfit she was wearing in the one you are thinking of was that she was dressed like a streetwalker.

Regardless, given that we've got other examples, from personal anecdotes to the 100 catcalls video, it seems hard to blame it all on the "girl dressing provocatively".

It's amazing how you put words in people's mouths.

Thank you again, Cain. Durngurn likes to put words in my mouth and jump off of the conclusion bridge.

She's admitting she dresses provocatively. How about Durngurn and thejeff look up the freking definition of provocative so I dont have to post it YET AGAIN. She has ZERO right to QQ, due to the fact that she is getting EXACTLY the response of what the definition is of how she HERSELF admits to dressing. SO mission accomplished for her.

Just so you don't have to look:

Provocative:
1.Serving or tending to elicit a strong, often negative sentiment in another person; exasperating.
2.Serving or tending to excite, stimulate or arouse sexual interest.

That she does. So her argument goes flush.

So, I'm just going to go with what was said, but this woman herself said that she dressed provocatively(sp?), correct?

Provocative:
1.Serving or tending to elicit a strong, often negative sentiment in another person; exasperating.
2.Serving or tending to excite, stimulate or arouse sexual interest.

So it seems that she got the response that she was obviously looking for as she herself said she dressed that way, according to the definition of the word, correct? So explain to me why she is QQ'ing about it again?

Do you say hello to everyone who passes by in the street just "trying to be pleasant", or are you looking specifically for "a chance to interact and be social with said gal"?

In which case, you're part of the problem. The woman walking down the street, not making eye contact or other signs of interest, has her mind on other things and isn't interested in dealing with advances from random strangers. Bear in mind you're probably not the only one looking for that chance with her. She probably has to deal with several every time she walks down the street. Never knowing from the first...

I usually do say hello or nod my head in a greeting sort of way to anyone i pass that is looking at me, male or female. If anyone says hi, I continue on my way anyways, unless I'm in a situation where a conversation would be warranted and invited.

I wouldn't say I'm part of the problem at all. Being pleasant shouldnt make you part of the problem. If I say hello and they don't reply, oh well, move along. I just thought that you were supposed to not take past bad experiences into the next experience????? But I guess once somene says hello for what is thought of by the girl as ulterior motives, every other person possibly just being pleasant is guilty of doing the same???????

It's a seriously tough issue to navigate because the answer lies in major cultural changes that would take generations to implement if we started working full-effort on it today.

Our culture doesn't accept the idea that women should approach men to initiate a relationship, at least not as a matter of course. Guys learn from a young age that if you wait for a woman you like to come talk to you that you better get used to being lonely. It just won't happen. Guys must take the initiative in getting a woman's attention if they don't expect to be alone. Sure there are exceptions to this, but it holds true as a general rule.

So, if we really want to fix the issue with men over-pursuing women, then we need to address the cultural necessity for men to learn that behavior in the first place.

you are correct, Big. Which is exactly why I said what I said. it's seemingly a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation: you approach her, she is in mode as above, and you don't even get a chance to interact and be social with said gal. That is the sad part.

The catcalls I do find rude and rediculous. And unnecessary. But if a girl is walking down the street and I say hello just to be pleasant (unlike the catcallers in the video for the most part), and I get, what is known in today's society, as "bi$%^faced", I'm not going to be happy just for trying to be pleasant.

Wow, I feel bad for females. They're going to be awfully alone if every time someone approaches them to actually engage in social conversation, possibly because they've piqued their interest, possibly just to be pleasant, they think that said person has a nefarious ulterior motive. Maybe it's just me, but the best way you get to know someone is by actual human interaction face-to-face, and that's seemingly not going to be possible with that kind of paranoia. Sad, really.

I don't know what this would be classified as as far as magic range, but I ran a campaign where there were no Magic Item shops per se, and even then it was limited to a few items in a type of shop (a few potions at the Alchemist, etc. There were no item creation feats, and characters had to train before they went up a level (usually in town for a week, which really focused on RP in-town). I ddint restrict caster levels, and we played until around level 15. I used a reward system where their weapons got better by the person they were questing for rewarding them with a certain enhancement to their weapon/ armor/ item. The players really enjoyed it, and have been pushing for an urban-based same type of game. So i've had alot of sucess with it, and nothing got OP because the players seemed to keep themselves in check with each other. It was fun to DM as well, and I didnt change the CR's or monsters. I guess it starts with players that want somethign like that, and delivering it in a way where they don't feel underpowered or left out.

"I'm French! Why do you think I have this outrageous accent ?!?"

lorenlord wrote:

I'd have to throw my lot in with the Oracle party. With Life getting great mystery spells, they can definitely hang with Healing, and wearing Med Armor is a big plus as well. Seems like it owuld be a cool campaign as well. The Divinely Destined.

so... a blind man, a cripple, and a deaf walk into a bar...

:P

would make epic tales for the bard trailing them (and writing jokes about:P)

LOL, don't forget the guy walking around with a ghost throwing his gear everywhere ;p

"Why so serious?"

I would be too, but this 'Purple Pie Man' character keeps stealing all of my damn customers.

Next poster has the largest collection of snowglobes in Golarion.

I'm a big fan of Point-Blank Master. my Ranger had it, and flanked with our Rogue often.

245. Said small, waifish human woman seems to take offense to the Bulletin promoting Odie Bars.

Yes? It's a god?

Hama, when someone asks if you're a God, you say YES.

One of our DM's has us roll a 6 by 6 grid of 4d6,keep the best 3, and we can pick any set of diagonal, vertical, or horizontal we want. takes a little longer, but makes for interesting choices.

240. An argument ensues over whether wrestling is fake or not.

We usually have surviving PC's become leaders of various communities among our homebrew world.

Most recently, the game I was running the group rolled terribly and was killed at the last battle as they killed the final enemy. Since there was no one there to raise them, the diety of trickery, whom they had helped but screwed over in the process decided to intervene, and bacially made the group into a set of sentient items/weapons with the personality of each PC in it, and spread them around the world. So now and again a rumor will come about involving one of the items and a supposed location for a story hook.

228. it's a day during the week (I mean, is a reason really needed? :) )

I have to agree with an earlier post. I'm not a fan of people picking their race solely on the ability modifier. I don't like meta-gaming, either. Or rules-lawyers. We have a player that played a Cleric and chose it solely on what the favored weapon was, and then played the character radically different than the dogma of his diety. And when the DM told him about it, his reply was "who cares, as long as I pray every day for my spells?". He got a rude awakening when he prayed and got no spells for one day, then got mad at the DM for not being fair.

So yeah, anything else but those I can deal with/around. I think there are alot of players out there that don't realize that you can't win at RPG's. That's not their purpose.

I know this subject has been covered ad nauseum on several forums, and it's been a discussion for decades of optimized vs. story, 'useless' vs. "flavor". I can remember having discussions such as these for almost every iteration of D&D, except maybe 1st ed. I definitely do think it's perception vs. playstyle.It used to be the battle of the 'hack & slash" vs. the "storytellers", back in 1st edition, and I think that still goes on today in RPG's, just under different guises/names. I think that the stigmas have become more polarizing, with the folks who optimize and enjoy that sort of game being called min/maxers, powergamers, munchkins, etc, by the folks who engross themselves in the story, who are labeled as theatre majors, spotlight hogs, storytellers, etc,. I think that it is a balancing act for DM's to successfully satisfy both types of gamers, and especially so during organized play. Hence maybe the semi-animosity between some gamers of both types towards each other, especially during organized play? When DM'ing those, I noticed that there are the types that practically fall asleep when reading the flavor text, and only perk up when they get to to whatever they're keyed for, and then in turn there are the ones who are asking questions about the flavor text and the stage set around them. Each one seems to grate on the other, even if only a little; one get perturbed with the other for either; wasting time between fights, or not paying attention and just asking if every NPC is acting hostile. I apologize if I went a bit off-tangent here, but it's something I've noticed when the subject of optimization comes up. That and the sheer amount of splat books that are now released for games(seemingly since 3e), which is the elephant in the room IMHO, but that would be for another post.

Congrats to all of you parents and parents-to-be out there. Hope babies and mommies are healthy and happy!

Gotta give you points for ingenuity. Well played, sir, well played.

3.5: A legless Halfling Reaping Mauler that rides in the backpack of a Goliath who uses said Halfling as a living missile of grapply death. Out of combat he would just annoyingly offer suggestion on how to do stuff that he knew nothign about. And prcatice Tumbling and Balance.

I do care about balance, but if I decide to play a subpar character (which I usually do just because I seem to have more fun trying to make them interesting and work), I don't expect the game to be "lowered" to my ability. I just roll with it and if my piece of paper dies, I'll make another one, and get to use another of my character ideas.

that moon that was really a space station

claudekennilol wrote:

Neal Litherland wrote:

Building an effective character is always a challenge. For those looking for a simple guide though this 5-question character building solution will help you build a more effective character in ANY RPG.

Give it a Try!

Sorry, I stopped reading when it said roleplaying was just as important as mechanics. We obviously have different views so I doubt there's much in it for me.

Why is that? I'm not going to make an assumption, but I'd like to know where you fall on the argument.

Some players like to pick a mechanic (for instance, cracking out Aid Another or being able to always take advantage of the surprise round) and try to build a character around that mechanic. Once you know the thing that character is good at you fill in the personality and background that led to this person mastering X thing.

Alternatively you start with roleplay and back it up with numbers. You might have decided that your character is Lord Blackmoor, a commoner who has won a title through success in tourney fighting and serving in his Majesty's army. All right, what abilities are needed to back that up? Is the lord a melee fighter, preferring a mace and shield? Is he a jousting champion and horseman who's led cavalry in the field? Is he instead a cunning opportunist whose vicious fighting style leads him to victory through means others would consider dishonorable?

Both are good starting points. The process for designing the character is the same, but it starts on opposite ends of the journey.

Neal, I enjoyed your article, and i usually build my characters how they fit into my backstory. there's enough resoureces out there to build a character to your liking and fit your story very nicely as well. i'm currently playign an Oracle, and I took the Clouded vision curse, which my group wasn't a big fan of, but i felt fit my character's backstory. now we just have fun with it as a group. He's a good healbot, and his curse actually adds a ton of RP fun to the game. Min/Maxing is overrated. If I wanted to do that, i'd go play Memory, cause all you're doing is cookie cuttering this feat to that to make OP Toon. No fun in that, for DM's or other players.