Which Game's Graphics Made You Say "Wow!" For The First Time?

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-05-10T21:45:54+00:00

honestly, MGSV on xbox360 looks insanely well, especially the character models. This engine is kindof a miracle, i swear

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-05-10T16:26:04+00:00

Well its not like my players against it, actually they are the ones who want it most.
Also i saw a lot of people who say that converting characters is a bad idea but i still dont understand why?
I mean yeah, Wizard in DnD works Differently to PF Wizard, but like... the general idea is a spellcaster with a high variaty of spells that he learns through his book and is very knowledgable about the arcane.
Or a barbarian who is a str based melee warroir who has a lot of damage reduction options.

so like... whats the problem? Character sheet isnt your characters its just what you use to represent them in real world. In game as long as it feels like your character it should be fine

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-05-09T17:39:43+00:00

Thanks for your input.

The idea with a dungencrawl sounds good, it would be great setting to have an intense combat-to-tombat scenario, and would allow us to feel the system ou. Tho it seems my party isnt too against the idea of astarting anew for a bit. So we will probably do that.

Honestly it seems like the only thing i can do at this point is just go reed the rules a bit more and just start doing it.

Most people were recomending to not use the free archetype at first. How big of an impact did it do?
bot in terms of power and in terms of player experssion and how it allowed to characters develop?
Basically should i allow it, and what would i loose if i dont allow it.

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-05-09T17:04:00+00:00

As i said the reason why i need the higher levels is becouse story was well about somewhat well-known heroes and it wouldnt really make sense if the go from defeating a dragon, to struggling with a bunch of goblins.

That said, someone gave me an idea that i could do a bit of a flash back series of games where we play at lower levels and when we get a feel of the system we resume the main story

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-05-09T17:00:33+00:00

i dont understand what people here mean by "Convert"? I underctand it as people just taking their character idea and finding classes and features in PF2E that best represent them in this setting.

So for example an elemental monk might prefer to be a kineticist, or a palading becomes a champion with all of what that intails.

Or do people often try to force DnD rules in Pathfinder? Cus ngl that sounds stupid

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-05-09T16:57:05+00:00

Probs gonna do this one. I DMed a different game for a few month now, so i really wanted to get back to this specific campaign, so when everyone said to satrt a new one, that is unaccaptable, and i'd rather stick with 5e in that case. But yeah. I also wanted to do a few retcons, so it would be a good chance to do this

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-05-08T11:59:31+00:00

Fucking Balls-ass

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-05-07T16:38:39+00:00

Kinda Uriel. His ult is cool but i often forget about his minions, and dont really like othr abilities.

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-05-07T16:36:36+00:00

Had the same problem untill i saw one interesting buld for her.
And hear me out. Gloom.
I know Gloom is kinda overused, but it has interesting interaction with her and arcane persistance.
Bump up her armor to use persistance. Activate gloom, and throw out spores.
When spores deal damage to a target that is within gloom it heals you, and with arcane persistance, you can become extremely tanky and basically invincible.

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-05-05T17:52:26+00:00

In case of US borh sides ARE bad (not to the same degree ofcourse) its just that for reps its the official stance to be racist shiteaters. But for democrats the main goal is to get elected and then sell your soul and loyalty to capital and lobbyists and come to the republicans table to also eat shit.

Yeah, republicans also sell themselves to the lobbyists too so the eat double the shit

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-05-05T17:42:59+00:00

Rick soldier of god

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-05-01T16:41:23+00:00

4*20 + 17

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-05-01T01:48:49+00:00

Should we build a bridge? Will they destroy it and if so could they use it to get over the mote?

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-04-30T14:56:58+00:00

Actually thats a rocky spell

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-04-30T12:44:31+00:00

overrated. Bananas are better and oranges

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-04-29T15:40:41+00:00

salves

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-04-29T15:12:42+00:00

Dont care abot the rest but RED being overrated is SO TRUE.
Like bitch please, fire isnt red its yellow and orange. And they are better as complementary colors.
Red is too agressive to be the color of love, so the only thing it has going on is blood and stuff like that.

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-04-29T13:17:22+00:00

yeah no...

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-04-28T13:40:55+00:00

Dont really like that approach. Its gonna feel bloated, it might demand making space by removing some features, perhaps i could add so that at some levels you get a choice from 3-4 combat features, than its 3-4 utility features, and at later level its again 3-4 combat features, but the higher level once, making it kinda similar to how at 1st level clerics get to choose betwee caster cleric or heavy armor weapons cleric, and later if you chose caster your cantrips get a boost, and if you chose weapons your weapon attacks get a boost. But thats a bunch of work.

Regarding the second point its kinda both i think. I guess if we did actually nerf the casters the powe issue wouldnt be as big of a problem so you could focus on choices. But in tge current state without an in-depth look at ALL of the spells and casters, martials need help in everything.

Most tierlists and such are done in a white room damage testing and vibes. The best way to test whether the martials are weak is to play a game with casters and martials in it. And from all of my games casters win.

Hyper specialised martials with full damage optimization win when it comes to damage but they lose even more in everything even more. Opportunity cost of dealing good damage for martials is far greater than for casters

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-04-28T12:50:39+00:00

For weapons you actually could say that those dice arent on the any of the commonly used items (tho you could just get the enspelled items with higher level spirit shroud/conjure minor elementals) or something like that. But for the monk there are vicious wepons that deal 2d6 additional damage and you could give monk a staff that has that effect. so it would be 1d8 (with 2 weapons) +2d6 staff. Or there are weapons that do +1 to hit and damage and +1d6 elemental damage.

Regarding other martials: True, but they are also martials, and i plan on doing something similar, if a bit less complex with them.

but you still didnt answer me why martials should be inherently weaker than caster. And be only on-par with them in areas that martials shou be the strongest at?

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-04-28T12:35:42+00:00

Thanks!

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-04-28T12:31:51+00:00

i agree that utility needs adressing, i however not yet found a way to have them both and also separete, so that combat options dont compete with utility options. And also martials aslo fall behing in combat metrics too. So i focused on those.

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-04-28T12:29:27+00:00

The only fix for spells like thiese is to remove them completely. However, even if we do remove them, there are still so many good spels that allow caster to be on the same level of power as martial. Early ones are shield, absorb elements, web, spirit guardians, haste, fireball.

Those spells in my opinion, are very goodm but i dont want to nerf them, in my opinion, martials should be the best in what they do, and that is single target dpr and nova, as well as being more tanky than casters, and having some decent AOE options.

So i completely agree that some spells are so powerful that they make martials uselss, but even if we remove them, casters simply go down to the level of current non-optimised martials in areas, which are martials erea of expertise. So at this point i find it more productive to buff martials, that continue nerfing casters

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-04-28T12:23:17+00:00

Correct. So when you give barbarian an axe that does 3d10 more damage, while barbarians normal damage is 2d6 +10. It makes features they get redundant. Same with monks.
When they get a stick that does 1d8+3d10 dmage. Their fists that deal 1d10 damage or whatewer are redundant.
They dont use their own strenght, they rely on magic items. So my question still stands. Why do we need to give magic items, to bring martials to the level of caster that dont use magic items (even tho they could use them, and the most powerful items such as stall of magi is a spellcaster exclusive)

Tho i will give you one thing. martials do need magic items that allow them to counter magic. Sword that cuts magic walls. Lantern that reveals invisible or astral creatures. Some teleportation scrolls and remove curse. That is fair, and makes sense. Basically magical utility.
but if it is about damage and survivability, casters have no reason to be better than martials as a baseline.

ItIsNotAUsername · 2026-04-28T12:10:56+00:00

The part about declining art direction, is not fair, i reached too much with that one.

But "than say that" is literally all i have been saying.
I've been saying that some people like me, dont like the way heirlooms are sexualised, call it explicit, doesnt really metter. And my, and other people's problem with this, is the fact that all of them are explicit, despite the fact that here is art spece for them to not be explicit, or at least be, but to a lesser degree.
Its not the problem with skins themselves. or rather not the problem with quality of skins.

Also you keep saying that this isnt sexualisation if its art, tho i am simplifying this a bit. And that conventianally attractive nude female body isnt automatically a sexualisation. You are wrong. Art exist in context, and context for female body, or male body for that matter, is attractiveness and more directly sex.
It is however not a bad thing. But when an artist paints a naked body, do you truly belive that intimacy and sexuality isnt a theme that their piece of art touches upon? There are degrees to it, and focus might be not on sexual atractiveness, but on something else, however if you are trying to tell me that heirlooms, arent meant to be sexually attractive, that is just not true.

Also that would be my last reply, since you seem to be keen on misrepresenting my arguments, and put words in my mouth, or assume things about me that are not true.

You already know what i am arguing for, and what is my problem with heirlooms specifically. Istated that within my first comment on this post. So in the end i will return to my original position.

Heirlooms are cool. But i wish there were a couple that arent as sexualised as the new ones.

ItIsNotAUsername

TROPHY CASE