Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Kyra

Chengar Qordath's page

2,930 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,930 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

They gave us numbers, someone used them, and got results. When someone says 'a planet's worth of something rare' and the math says $10,000 worth, we have problems. Math tends to narrow things down nicely that way. It's why we invented whole professions that do nothing but math and make it real.

==Aelryinth

Math is great, but when that math is based on assumptions and interpretations it really isn't any more or less valuable than anything else.

Additionally, I rather doubt that whoever wrote up the original entry for the Adamantine Golem did all that number crunching. Most likely they just pulled out a number that they thought seemed semi-reasonable for the material costs.


Envall wrote:
Armor as DR is always an option, but hated by many (??)

To be fair, the Armor as DR system is hated because it's a tacked on set of optional rules that really don't work well within the system. It leads to a lot of wonky results that make it very clear Pathfinder was never designed to played that way.

Plenty of other game systems make an Armor as DR system work, but those games are all designed from the ground up to work that way. I think it would be very hard to make any rules for converting a game from AC to Armor as DR, because the underlying system math just doesn't support that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:
The two FAQs establish that "wield in one hand" and "wield one-handed" are two entirely separate concepts within the framework of the rules.

Which is one of those rules calls I really don't like, since outside of rules lawyering nobody would ever think those two terms have a different meaning.


HyperMissingno wrote:
AC vs BAB. AC doesn't scale fast enough compared to BAB and in the mid to high levels and any attack at full BAB is an auto-hit unless you pour EVERYTHING into AC. We need more stacking ways to raise that, especially touch AC. It shouldn't be this f#!#ing hard to be defensive!

Yeah, I think there's a reason a lot of other games based on the d20 system add scaling AC modifiers to class progression. It would be nice to have characters get naturally better at defense as they level, instead of it being almost entirely gear-dependent.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
As for charming, even if you the Angel's best friend, why would they commit a crime at your request?

Indeed. A charmed Angel would try to persuade you to find a better way to accomplish your goals that didn't require doing anything evil. He might be your best friend, but he's still lawful good incarnate.


phantom1592 wrote:
Vincent Briggs wrote:

The assassin mentioned at the beginning has a code he follows, his own personal one. He sounded far more Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil than an agent of chaos. Likewise the Punisher strikes me as a Lawful Neutral. He breaks the law, takes it into his own hands and murders and tortures. But he'll never endanger the innocent. Hell, he wouldn't even fight back against Captain America in Civil War despite getting a beat down. He has rules, and he won't bend them. His target is only evil.

I'd definitely put Punisher at Evil. He's too into 'results'. His first target was spider-man after all because Daily Bugle claimed he was a criminal. No research, no evidence... just pull the trigger. Not to mention the way he just blasts his way through gangs and organization... with zero knowledge who they are or if there are any undercover cops in there...

I'll give him credit that he doesn't WANT to hurt any innocents... but he's pretty lax on 'checking for sure.'

To be fair, how much he checks (and a lot of other parts of his character) are one of those things that varies a lot depending on the writer. Sometimes he's very careful to only kill people who deserve it and are 100% guilty, and sometimes he's gunning down jaywalkers.


HyperMissingno wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Envall wrote:

I said paladins are very powerful.

And then Diffan objected with "full casters". Which is the kind of stick you easily get tired of being swung around in the forums, but I digress.

And then it fell apart from there. Maybe I should had not said "tall above other classes" as flower text, maybe it was taken too literally, fine.

Put them against neutral opponents and it's another story. Or put them in a situation where they have a lot more enemies than smites available.
They can still hold their own in those situations. Sure they can't smite everything but they still get some of the best defenses in the game. As long as thy don't build themselves poorly with bad feats or take an archetype that gets rid of divine grace or lay on hands they should be able to stand up against those enemies without too much trouble.

Indeed. Smite is nice, but it's just one of several abilities the Paladin has. A Paladin without smiting still has swift-action self healing/condition removal, some of the best saves in the game and several immunities, plus an animal companion or weapon buffing power.

At the end of the day, Smite's not even all that unique. It's just another weapon damage boosting power. I'd certainly give due consideration to an archetype that replaced Smite with Fighter Weapon Training, Barbarian Rage, Studied Target, etc.


James Risner wrote:
swoosh wrote:
That's a lot of maybes to just write something off wholesale.
I don't like rebuilding due to a change. So I avoid things that I think could change.

Given Paizo's fondness for issuing sweeping errata with little to no warning, that makes it rather hard to build anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blake's Tiger wrote:
Devilkiller's point is a good one. If you're ALWAYS encountering near death fights, there is no tension. You will be just wondering about what replace your character with when they ultimately die because you know it's going to happen sooner or later, maybe through the next door you open.

Yeah, if I'm playing in a "you could die any instant" sort of game I don't get tense, I just make sure I have a good backup character ready to go.

I think Jiggy nicely covered the importance of story in creating tension. Tension is a matter of buildup, stakes, and story arcs all coming to a head. "Uh-oh, I'm low on HP for the third this session" isn't enough to do it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The sad thing is, I really liked the idea behind the Words of Power system, it's just that the implementation was lacking. A good round of cleanup could've made it into a very solid alternate casting method.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I've personally found that losing all of a character's current plot hooks, unique little perks, and all the RP benefits of being an established figure in the story/group is punishment enough. When I GM most of my PCs get lots of little side benefits that aren't the kind of thing that can be quantified on an XP or WBL table.

Plus, as lots of folks have already said, being stuck behind the rest of the party can ruin the fun for a lot of players. Not everyone minds it, but enough people do that I wouldn't want it to be my default policy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Why not bind a good outsider anyway? Generally they're way better than their CR suggests.

Is the main thing. Yeah, you could bind a demon and make him rescue a bunch of orphans, but generally speaking a good-aligned outsider would be able to do the same task just as well if not better.

Now, if it's a situation where (for whatever reason) only a bound demon can save those orphans, then that's a different matter. Making the best of a bad situation should never have repercussions on alignment (though it can certainly lead to plenty of in-character moral issues).


GM 1990 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
There's not really an ironclad rule, so I'd just go with the general guideline of asking yourself "If you were playing instead of GMing, would you want to know this ahead of time?"

This would be a good errata for CRB or DMG. kind of the golden rule applied to RPGs.

To be honest, everyone who decides to try their hand at GMing is going to have good and bad ideas, even after years of experience you can still make some bad calls. Its both easy and hard at the same time, and when we're players we can project some high expectations on them too.

"my story" vs "our story"; ability to improv and say "yes, and" or "yes, but"; roll with the punches, etc all come with experience, and it takes time for most people to get to the level where players just cant wait for game night.

Yeah, I'm sure a lot of the time a GM pulls out a no-warning houserule/deviation from accepted norms, it's because they think what they're doing would make the game better for the group and haven't anticipated the problems it might cause. The GM's cool little change to make the game more interesting can be the player's game-ruining surprise rule, or have unanticipated knock-on effects that cause problems down the line.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Sissyl wrote:


What is the issue is that, by your comments about whims above, you still seem to think changing things makes for a worse game. I see it as variety.

Since I seem to be the Ashiel Whisper today-->There is no bone to pick with variety, but as was stated before unnanounced major changes, and things that deviate too far outside the norm are an issue.

As an example of things outside the norm and that may be "whimsey:

A GM may want to make magic a mysterious and dangerous thing so the GM may have a rule that says "Every time you cast a spell there is a 2% chance you suffer a side effect. Roll a d20 to determine what bad thing happens". One of these bad things could be you aging 20 years.

I am going to take a guess here, but in the example in the above paragraph Ashiel would like for the GM to mention this variant magic to the group vs just saying, "this is how it will be for this game".

That is likely part of the "whimsey" factor.

PS: As an aside since Ashiel had admittedly run a game well outside of the norms <---Part of the reason I don't think Ashiel has a problem with variety.

Yeah, surprise houserules that seem to be born purely from the whims of the GM are a thing. I recall being supremely pissed when I wrote up a bard for a 3.5 campaign, only to be told mid-session that I would still be taking Arcane Spell Failure from my light armor because the GM thought "it would make things more interesting."

It seems like the main point of contention here is where one crosses the line between normal campaign flavor and things you ought to run by the party beforehand. There's not really an ironclad rule, so I'd just go with the general guideline of asking yourself "If you were playing instead of GMing, would you want to know this ahead of time?"


Bill Dunn wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Sooooo, if I played a campaign where the communities were nomadic bands on a huge plain... With no other settlements available... WITHOUT surprising anyone with this... Could I possibly be playing Pathfinder anyway? Or am I playing some other game? More generally, what could be removed from the game before I was not playing PF? Bags of holding? Orcs? Elves? Wayang? Dorn-dergar? Falcatas? Or would removing the possibility of having bags of holding make it impossible to play PF, even if everything else remains? Would it change anything if the campaign played out in a massive extradimensional space, meaning bags of holding do not work by the rules?

If you're using the Pathfinder rules, even a subset of the rules because of campaign-based environments, you're playing Pathfinder. Full stop.

Humans only campaign using the PF mechanics? Pathfinder game.
Dwarven wizard only campaign using the PF mechanics? Pathfinder game.
Roman Legion-inspired game with extremely limited magic using the PF mechanics? Pathfinder game.

I think most people actually agree with this, there's just the caveat that any major changes to the game's core assumptions need to called out as such and explained well ahead of time.

If someone invites me to join a game of Pathfinder, then by default I'm going to assume it's a game that follows the core rules and baseline assumptions of Pathfinder. If it's a human-only no-spellcasting classes game using PF mechanics, the players ought to be informed of that when they get the invitation for the campaign, because it's a big change from default Pathfinder.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:

The rules for creating wondrous items say: "To create a wondrous item, a character usually needs some sort of equipment or tools to work on the item. She also needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being the item itself or the pieces of the item to be assembled."

If the character has never even heard of a particular item, how would they know what "sort of equipment or tools" they would need?

Since you missed it last time it was posted...

Core Rulebook wrote:
Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting a magic item comes into question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
Even things like Craft feats - When someone takes Craft Wondrous Item - do you assume that their character is knowledgable of all wondrous items? As in, they can just scan through the items and decide to create any of the ones that they meet the prereqs for?
It's no assumption. The rules tell you everything you need to create items. As there are nothing mentioned about any special knowledge to make certain items, there isn't any needed. So sans house-rules, it is indeed as simple as scanning through the book and picking put something you can make. [assuming you can cover the prereq's of course.]

Yeah, I always assumed that part of the Spellcraft check involved in craftng a magic item is knowing how to make it. The skill itself says:

CRB wrote:
Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting a magic item comes into question.

Seems fairly clear-cut to me. If you beat the spellcraft DC, you know how to make the item and have the skill needed to do so. I suppose you could make it two separate rolls, but since it's the same skill with the same target that seems a bit pointless. Especially since crafters almost always aim to be able to take 10 on their crafting rolls.

If we move into restricting crafting by GM fiat of knowing how to make items, we're pretty much in "The GM will only allow you to craft if you buy pizza for the group first" territory.


Icehawk wrote:
The only way this will actually work out is if they are ignorant to what being effective is, or simply doesn't care if they can pull their own weight or not.

And if either of those were the case, then showing them the numbers wouldn't make a difference anyway. Most folks who can't tell if they're effective or not barely understand the game's math anyway. Those who don't care if they're effective likewise don't care about the numbers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

This hasn't ever happened in the way you describe in my experience. Being blind to the math helps nothing, and hurts if anything.

And I've run games where I did all the math and the PCs thus didn't know their stats in any meaningful sense (I mean, they technically saw their character sheets, but they didn't really know what most stuff signified). Indeed, the game I'm currently running for some 13 year-olds where I do most of the math (I did it all to begin with) is very much a 'math blind' game in many senses.

And I've run and played in LARPs, where people saw their own character sheet, but not ever anyone else's and thus only knew other people's when they came up. So a similar situation in many ways.

And you know what? The players still get deeply frustrated very rapidly when their character isn't as mechanically effective as others. It doesn't take long to notice that you're only killing one enemy while your comrade is killing two, and so on. Within a handful of sessions people generally figure such things out (barring weird runs of luck, anyway).

In fact, without math to back things up, people often (in my experience) become frustrated even when it's the dice or circumstances rather than their character's actual statistics that are at fault for the low effectiveness. If they look at the math they usually at least don't get frustrated at how bad their character is when they aren't actually worse than other characters.

Without the math? A run of bad luck can lead to someone thinking their character is terrible and the desire for a new one.

Just going to second all of this. People are going to notice whether they succeed or fail even if they don't have access to any of the numbers. Even if they player doesn't know that they're rolling a +7 attack bonus vs AC 26, they're going to notice that they almost never hit.

Not to mention that hiding the numbers makes a whole lot of the game's tactical decision-making a lot more difficult. It's a lot harder to make meaningful tactical choices when you have no idea how effective any given option is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Truth. I rather doubt the Caster Martial Edition would be addressed by a Pathfinder 1.5 edition when Paizo's position on the disparity is "It's a myth propagated by people with an agenda."
As far as I'm aware, James Jacobs was the person who said that, not any individual on the design team and James Jacobs is superceeded by the design team in regards to mechanics (if this weren't true CRB clerics wouldn't be able to get power from concepts).

The quote may be Jacobs, but between the design choices we've seen in Pathfinder and everything SKR revealed after leaving the company, the sentiment seems to apply to at least some of the people in the design team as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Keep the same basic engine but fix up what's wrong.
Ah, but then comes the inevitable issue of the dev's having different views on what's wrong and what needs rebalancing to the community.

Truth. I rather doubt the Caster Martial Edition would be addressed by a Pathfinder 1.5 edition when Paizo's position on the disparity is "It's a myth propagated by people with an agenda." One can also look at all the various rebalancing errata that've been released over the last few years. People who were annoyed by the Slashing Grace & Fencing Grace nerfs aren't likely to finder Pathfinder 1.5 doing anything they like with regards to Dex-to-Damage.

What I would hope to see out of a Pathfinder 1.5 isn't so much better game balance as cleaner rules. Paizo's general dislike of changing rules text has lead to way too many cases of really tortured interpretations in order to get the "right" outcome. Interpretations that often lead to lots of messy knock-on effects like the metaphorical hands of effort debacle.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Saldiven wrote:
I think people often mistakenly use "realism" when "internal consistency" would be a more appropriate term. This is especially true when the discussion revolves around how individuals or populations would be expected to behave in a given circumstance. There should be a reason for things to be the way they are, and "because fantasy" isn't sufficient reason for at least some of the gamers out there.

Yeah, part of the problem with all the "realism" debates is that everyone has a different of what qualifies as realistic for their setting. Some folks think realism means the setting should look exactly like medieval England aside from the presence of the PCs and monsters, while others think it's more realistic to have a setting where society sees magic and exotic races as mundane parts of everyday life.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Dice rolls over point-buy do not generally make things fairer unless you cheat to make sure that the weaker characters get better rolls....

Exactly this.

Rolling also doesn't do anything to really get rid of dump stats compared to point buy. Instead of buying up their most important stat and dumping their least important one, players just put the highest roll in their most important stat, and the lowest roll in the least important. The only real difference is that the RNG might give you a more even distribution of stats than point buy. I've seen plenty of roll sets that produced an incredibly unbalanced statline.


I don't see any issues with mixing Inquisitor judgements and rage. Nothing about the description sounds like it requires patience or concentration. After all, it's just a swift action to basically say "I will kick ass in *Deity*'s name!" Heck, fluff-wise I could easily see merging the judgement and the rage into a single thing. I can totally see a Barb-quisitor charging into battle screaming "Blood for the Blood God!"

Studied Target is ... trickier. Personally, I'd think that once it's a swift action, it shouldn't be a problem for a barbarian. After all, at that point it's not really taking much in the way of patience or concentration; it's more like just being really good at sizing people up and spotting weak points.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Raynulf wrote:
The question is not "Would it be balanced for martials to be able to reliably full attack" so much as "Would it be balanced for all martials to reliably full-attack" as some already can. (And that's not mentioning the Magus Spell Combat + bladed dash or anyone casting monstrous physique to gain pounce, or eidolons/etc).

This is the real issue. Right now, mobile full attacking is just a matter of having enough system mastery to know the right tools. Really, it's not so much about changing the game balance as it is making things more accessible/transparent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
I let the player control it, I have enough things to occupy me with.

Likewise, so long as the player doesn't have them doing anything too crazy.Though I might toss out the occasional complication, like needing a handle animal check to keep your wolf well-behaved if you walk through a meat market.


Jiggy wrote:
Or, on a more "macro" level, when a player makes a PC for one campaign who is good at X but not at Y, then makes a PC for another of that GM's campaigns that is the reverse, but has about the same success rate at any given task with both characters.

Reminds me of one of the worst GMs I ever had to play with. Along with the railroading and terrible encounter design, he tended to just flat-out ignore everything but the dice roll. Made it so there was pretty much no point in having any stats other than hit points, since all your d20 rolls were "Succeed on a roll of 11+, fail on 10 or lower" (with the scale shifted depending on how hard the GM thought it should be).

Ultimately, fudging is another one of those GM tools where a lot depends on how you use it. I've fudged when the random number god was in an especially cruel mood, because I didn't think it would make the game more fun to roll so many crits against the fighter that he would die before his first turn in initiative even came up.

Honestly, that's the most important rule of fudging (or any aspect of GMing, really). Only fudge rolls when it'd make the game more fun for everyone at the table. There's a huge difference between the GM who tweaks a roll or two to make the combat more exciting, and the GM who fudges to make sure their pet NPC gets to be the star of the show or because they're power-tripping.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:

After having some particularly bad DMs who decided that my character didn't work the way the rules said they did (before someone says it was some cheese build, it was a Fighter built for Trip and disarm) I believe the rules exist to protect the players.

Class features and feats exist to say "this is what you can do" not "if the GM feels like it you have no class features."

When I DM I never change a rule, feature, or feat during the session. I always wait until after the session to discuss stuff like that and give them the option of a partial rebuild if necessary.

The main purpose of the rules is to keep things consistent. I've found that most GMs who make lots of on-the-fly house rules tend to create a system that's full of contradictions and unexpected knock-on effects, and often can't even remember half of their own rulings later on. Which results in a game where the players have no idea what their characters can and can't do, since the rules are changing all the time.

That's the main reason I like the base game to be as balanced as possible; the more houserules it needs, the messier things get. Even if the GM does a good job writing all the house rules down and thinking everything through, that means every player in the group needs to read through and remember another set of rules. And that can lead to all kinds of confusion if you change groups/are in multiple games. I'm sure we all have stories about mixing house-rules and official rules up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
I think somebody needs to start a thread on argumentation. All this arguing from bad faith is a serious problem. It really undermines the benefits of the forums.
I think issues like this get heated quick because they tread and retread many of the same points, and that causes frustration and grumpiness for many people. Also, many of these issues make people feel like their favorite class, playstyle, or experiences are under attack.

Pretty much this. I imagine a lot of people find debating disparity deniers gets about as frustrating as trying to have a rational discussion with a member of the Flat Earth Society or a conspiracy theory nut.

For their part, a lot of deniers seem to read any criticism of the game as "Pathfinder is a horrible game which is so unbalanced that nobody could ever have fun playing it!" and thus respond with the usual "No! Pathfinder perfect system! Paizo Devs perfect gods!" that turns these threads into a complete mess.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

The Umonk gets more attacks that will actually hit. Plus.

The loss of will was a pointless nerf, I'll agree. Lose.
Archetype lose sucks too. Lose.
Full BAB + the new flurry has batter to hit numbers and means they can take things with BAB prerequisites much quicker than the base monk. Plus
Style strikes: Plus
1.5 damage on two handed weapons in flurry. Plus
Proficiency in all monk weapons. Plus.

So overall more pro's than con's.

Inclined to agree. However, even if the positives outweigh the negatives overall, the negatives are still really irksome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avaricious wrote:

Could you elaborate?

As in: is the Player not good in roleplaying a social encounter, or is the player disruptive?

I would assume the former.

There are plenty of gamers out there who want to play a smooth-talking charmer or the big bad intimidator despite (or more likely, because) they don't have those skills in real life. The problem is, nobody expects you to be good at swinging a sword if you play a fighter, or casting spells if you're a wizard. With the social skills, a lot of tables will expect the player to do some roleplaying to back up their words. This can be hard when the party's huge, muscular barbarian needs to intimidate, and the short, skinny guy playing him has to do the acting to pull it off.

Fuzzy got the solution; you pretty much have to focus more on the dice rolls, while trying to gently nudge the player to open up and develop their RP skills a bit. I find that a lot of players will get better at the roleplaying side of the game with time, experience, and confidence.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
They really want to force Dex Magi to use scimitars, don't they?
Actually, looks to me like the Slashing Grace FAQ would potentially also apply to Dervish Dance ("You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand") -- when performing Spell Combat or a Flurry, you are considered to be doing a form of Two-Weapon Fighting, even though technically you don't have anything in your off hand.

No, the Slashing Grace FAQ doesn't apply to anything other than Slashing Grace. Different feats with different wording work differently.


lemeres wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
SheepishEidolon wrote:
Alliances need trust.
Of course they don't. Alliances need mutual advantage, and trust be d---ned, in this case, perhaps literally.

Well, 'trust' can have a broader sense, I suppose.

As in "I trust that I can backstab you at any moment, stealing all that you own for my own gain". Basically, trust can have lower requirements when betrayal, or at least a hasty get away, seems like a viable plan B.

So the trust can be the confidence that the other side would be unable to get at everything you invested (your self, manpower, wealth, intel, good position, etc.) before you can withdraw and get into a nice defensible position both physically and politically. Or at least the belief that they can do all this. Y'know...confidence and over confidence.

Rakshasas seem like they would readily get into that kind of alliance, what with their mind reading and such, allowing them to THINK they can read the other side like a book.

Trust is about whether you have reasonable assurance that you can predict the other side's actions. This is usually about 'trusting' a partner not to betray your interest... but you can certainly do it in other ways. You can 'trust' a violent, hot headed idiot to do something rash. So you simply need to keep your relationship with such a person restricted to times when you need such an idiot. To find a fall guy that walks into a political trap. You just need to arrange things so that the parties' personalities and interest align in the right way to give you benefit.

This does raise an interesting point as far the importance of Law vs. Chaos in alliances. Lawful powers, regardless of where they sit on the moral spectrum, are generally going to be a lot more reliable, predictable, and rational than Chaotic ones. Which probably makes them better allies, from a certain perspective.

Sure, those lawful evil guys will break the alliance if they think they gain more by betraying you, but it's not too hard to look at facts and come up with a reasonable idea of the risks and rewards. As long as LE gains more by being loyal than they would by backstabbing, they'll stick with the alliance.

Chaotics, by definition, are a lot less predictable. I could easily see a Chaotic Good power breaking an alliance despite the fact that doing so is not in their rational best interest, just because an envoy offended their leadership or some similar faux pas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just gonna echo the other posts. They could certainly work together towards a common goal, but their generally nasty nature would make any form of long-term cooperation difficult. Essentially, any alliance would only last as long as they see more benefit to honoring it than they do to backstabbing their current allies.

The Nazi-Soviet Pact is a pretty good example of what happens when two evil powers align with each other. As beneficial as the cooperation is, both sides know from the start that the alliance is only going to last until they're ready to backstab their current partners. Even while working together, they're both constantly maneuvering to split up the spoils in a way that leaves them in a good position when the inevitable betrayal happens.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calth wrote:
Here's some fuel for the fire. In my experience, anti-optimizers (which is distinct from non-optimizers, those that actively oppose the process rather than those that lack system mastery) are, as a whole, worse at roleplaying than most of the non-munchkin (aka the bad optimizer) optimizers I've played with. Its typified by the refusal to accept alterations to Paizo's fluff and pigeonholing everything into identical boxes, for example throwing a fit if every Barbarian isn't a frothing mad savage. Basically a lot of effectively calling things badwrongfun if it doesn't conform with their one true vision (i.e. Paizo's fluff) of how things must be roleplayed.

Sometimes it's not even the Paizo fluff that they get so ridiculously attached to. There are plenty of folks who are just as attached to some other random source of inspiration; I've had run-ins with Tolkein, Warcraft, and Elder Scrolls purists. Not to mention all the folks we get even on the board who insist on maintaining their "Traditional Western Fantasy" that eschews any possible influence from non-whites.

I suppose it's not a surprise there's a fair amount of overlap between the two groups. After all, they both start with the idea that there's One True Way to play the game, and doing it any other way is wrong and deserves to be punished.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Except the only people here saying there's only one right way to do things are you and the others in the "anti-optimizer" crowd...

actually, I never said anything about their being a right or wrong way to do things.

Just that optimizers were no fun to play with. And that people who built their own PCs(save one) were a~$&*!#s. Or more likely to be. Along with optimizers.

Massive generalizations about whole groups of people is the problem. You can't say any of the things you're saying without being objectively incorrect about some proportion of those same people, where some proportion is between one and one hundred percent.

Look, it's an objective fact that there are only two types of people in the world. Those who agree with everything Freehold DM (Peace Be Upon Him) says about how to have GoodRightFun, and evil kitten-punching optimizers.

Why do you want to punch kittens?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
I'm saying that anyone who uses it as such is being over-aggressive. "Stop liking what I don't like" has never been the war-cry of someone reasonable.

Perhaps, but there is more than meets the eye to this. Companies make products that are going to sell. When some people start playing the game in a different way, and that way grows in popularity, then the products that come out tend to cater to that new way.

So "stop liking what I don't like" is the frustration-laden version of "Don't change the game I love."

So, anyone who has the sheer gall to dare to play the game in a way you don't approve of is trying to ruin Pathfinder for everyone? Out of curiosity, who made you supreme arbiter of the one true way to play Pathfinder?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Knott C. Rious wrote:
Foolish Athaleon! If you don't enjoy the game exactly the way I'm Hiding In Your Closet does, you're a minmaxing rollplayer having badwrong fun!

Badwrong fun is the best kind of fun.

But in this thread, I think IHIYC is just pointing out most optimized characters are not overpowered, but just aggressively specialized and actually quite weak in many situations. So it is well-possible to have lots of fun with any character you want to play, and you might be pleasently surprised that it holds its own quite well against all us minmaxers.

But if that's the case, then they aren't optimized...

I wonder how much of IHIYC opinions is based on ignorance about what optimization actually means and how much is based on condescending attitude.

It does seem like whenever some people read the word optimization, they see it as "an intense love of brutally murdering puppies and kittens."

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Which is kind of the problem. That's an arbitrary definition many people don't follow. When half the boards believe "optimizer" to be a general term for someone who optimizes their character and half the boards believe it to be a specific term for a type of problem player, is it really smart to try to use the word at all?

I will point out, though, that our definition is a bit more intuitive. You guys already have "powergamer". You don't need to make every "rulesmastery" word inherently negative. :P

The thing is, most of the prior "good at rules" terms have undergone a similar transformation. "Powergamer" and "Min-maxer" used to be pretty positive terms back when they were first coined. There's been a pretty consistent trend to try and demonize any term that's used to describe folks who like the mechanical side of the game.

As for the main topic, I'll just echo what everyone else has already said. Nothing trumps fun; that's the whole point of playing the game.

That said, often a degree of optimizing is often necessary for the game to be fun. Unless someone's character concept is "incompetent guy who contributes nothing to the group" the character needs to have some things they're good at. In a game with rules, optimizing is how you make a character who's good at doing things.


LuniasM wrote:
DR absolutely hits TWF hard. You can say "Well we'll have Weapon Versatility, Weapon Blanche's, spells, magic items, etc to bypass it" but that simply doesn't always apply. I'm totally not just mad that elementals are immune to flanks and crits and have typless DR. Weapon Blanch only takes effect after applying it to your Weapon and holding it over a hot fire for a full round, meaning it isn't as easily-accessible as one might believe, especially if you get caught off-guard or can't scout ahead. It is also rather rare to see someone preparing spells specifically to beat DR rather than the more commonly-accepted "good" spells, though I suppose that's a bit anecdotal.

Not to mention that with Two Weapon Fighting, you usually have to double up on your spells/items to deal with DR, since a lot of them only apply to one weapon at a time.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

All these people talking about how they've supposedly "run the numbers" and proved themselves right need to take some advice I got from my 6th-grade math teacher:

Show Your Work.


Some folks just really like building and trying out new characters, rather than sticking with one established one. There's nothing wrong with that. I'd say maybe work a bit with that preference, and find a way to incorporate it into the campaign. Basically, if the player is an alt-oholic, have them run guest star characters instead of full members of the party.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I keep hearing these claims about how Dex-to-damage breaks the game, but nobody has posted the requested proof. Just a whole lot of "It just happens, okay?!" That, and tossing out random insults and attacks at anyone who dares to doubt the total lack of presented evidence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When it comes to houseruled archetypes, isn't the usual assumption that the GM will come down hard on the player if they try to pull some sneaky rules loophole shenanigans with whatever they got? I think most GMs would slap down a player who tried to exploit houseruled content that way.


Squiggit wrote:
Lemmy wrote:


Didn't stop Paizo from pulling their classic "nerf the stuff in the book you already bought to make the stuff in book they want you to buy look better".

Isn't it great when the company decides to nerf your old options just so you have an extra incentive to buy their new book? Completely fair to us, the customers to support the game, isn't it?

If that was Paizo's goal then why is new stuff always so terrible?

Like, I dunno, if my goal was to nerf things in old books to help promote new books, the kineticist being utterly awful would seem kind of counterintuitive to that.

I think that's more a matter of competence than non-evil-ness.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Azten wrote:
Trading more spells for more health? Not better, sorry. But hey, let's kill off the thematic options so the new classes that do similar things get played, huh? ;)

Always a good sign when your company is borrowing business practices from Electronic Arts. I wonder how long we have before PFS requires everyone own the latest printing of all their books in order to play?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
So, how about making martials better?

I think some of the best ways of doing that have already been suggested-

1) Strengthening and broadening skill unlocks or a similar enhancement of the skill system for primarily martial / non-spellcasting characters, and nerfing or removing many skill replacement spells to make it more difficult for spellcasters to replace their martial counterparts.

2) Adding narrative tools to martial classes, such as access to guild networks for Rogues or military resources for Fighters. I think Marcus Wesker from "The Coin and the Dagger" books could be a great archetype for this; he spends a lot of time as the muscle and tactical leader of a small group, but his reputation has grown to the point that he can literally walk into a bar, announce he's raising an army, and have enough men to effectively combat a kingdom in short order as men flock to him for a chance to bask in his reflected glory.

Yeah, I'd say those are definitely good talking points. Skill unlocks would really help spell-less classes with non-spell utility. Though it does create some potential complications with the fact that a lot of the best skill classes are also partial casters (rangers, bards, inquisitors, investigators).

Narrative tools are also a good idea, but the big problem with them is finding ways that line up nicely with different character concepts. After all, not every fighter wants to be a general and leader of armies, and not every rogue would want their own thieves guild. To keep it flexible enough for different concepts, you'd probably need to make one of those "Pick a narrative tool every X levels" types of lists. Granted, I like those types of mechanics so that's not a huge downside.


Bluenose wrote:
In practice I doubt anyone can identify ten feats that would be worth giving up a fifth level spell slot to obtain, let alone a ninth level one.

It's kinda telling that when I was trying to decide what feats might be worth giving up a fifth level spell, the only ones that sprang to mind were metamagic feats.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Even if you don't carbon copy your characters, making resurrection too painful does encourage people to make new characters. I'm one of those players who always seems to have at least one backup concept I wouldn't mind running if my current character gets killed off.

With the profusion of classes/builds, it's not too hard to make a nicely different character even if you need to fill the same overall party role. Bob the fighter gets replaced with Joe the Barbarian, who is then supplanted by Ted the Paladin, and so on.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Trimalchio wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Why did it even matter? It mattered enough to argue with your GM apparently.

In particular, it was a permanent spell, i.e. one he'd paid to acquire with permanency. If it "ends" (is effectively dispelled) by his death, than he's wasted a large amount of gold.

My go-to solution for such things is to get continuous magical items, but many GMs don't like those. My guess (though it's only a guess, as I really don't know the guy) is that this GM doesn't like the permanent magical access - something many GMs find frustrating for various reasons -, and so ruled against it persisting beyond death.

That said, it could also just be his genuine impression of how it's "supposed" to work - what makes sense to him.

Either way, there are other methods of getting stuff, and I recommend those, in general. :)

EDIT: To be clear, I recognize that you understood (and addressed) the issue of permanency, but that, I think, is the core of the reason the question mattered in the first place.

Permanency is significantly cheaper than a continuous magic item, and multiple permanency effects can be done a day as opposed to multiple days of crafting for one item (yes an item might be purchased, even a custom item if the a GM is generous, but sourcing these items is more difficult than expending spell slots and tossing diamond dust to the gods).

My guess is the player just wants a favorable ruling and doesn't care about rules, world building, balance, etc etc

That's actually not my guess, just an exercise in countering one silly argument with another silly one.

For everyone saying there are no rules for this or that, please look in the mirror and realize there are no rules for the opposite conclusion, certainly nothing explicit.

Yes, whenever rules are unclear, it's always best to assume that anyone who dares to disagree with your position is only doing so because they are wantonly stupid and evil.


Arbane the Terrible wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:


The d10 system (Vampire, Werewolf, etc.) has a Soak system, which might more accurately represent real life injuries.

I dunno if I'd go THAT far. Storyteller system has its own problems.

To be fair to both systems, it's probably impossible to make a game system for simulating injuries that's both highly accurate/realistic and simple enough to make for easy gameplay. At some point you have to accept that some aspects of it are going to be handled abstractly.

1 to 50 of 2,930 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.