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

DrDeth's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 5,898 posts (5,899 including aliases). 18 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,009 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cerberus Seven wrote:

Currently, a lot of things about the combat maneuver system bug the hell out of me.

"Say, GM, I wanna grapple that guy!"

"Okay. You don't have Improved Grapple, so he gets an attack of opportunity aaaaand rolls a 1." *curses*

"Oh, right, I forgot. Well, do his buddies next to him miss me too?"

"No, they don't get to AO you."

"But...I'm not trained in this technique and it's happening right next to them. I'm not focusing on them with my sloppy maneuver attempt, I'm focusing on this one guy. Why does the guy I'm actually attacking get to AO me, but his bodyguards within arms reach don't?"

"Oh look, the wizard cast dominate person, fight's over! Moving on."

T

The whole system is just bonkers on close inspection.

And yet- the PF system is so much better than the 3.5 system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
hiiamtom wrote:


I think most Vancian magic hates comes from spell slots. Vancian casting (as I understand it in fiction) operates more like a 5e Warlock who knows a certain number of spells and can use that pool of spells, like RQ6 theism where a priest prepares their spells with a holy sumbol and then can relearn them after casting them.

Nope. A Mage would literally force the words and symbols into his brain(usually by reading a spellbook), then once he uttered the spell, they were gone. He'd prepare his spells, just like a Wizard does.

The Jack Vance Dying Earth novels are quite good, everyone should read them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dkonen wrote:


I hear "grognard" and I think grumpy edition defender (not necessarily an aggressive sort but will defend his favorite to the pain)

Not grumpy and not really an edition defender. ;-) Actually, I enjoyed all editions of D&D, from OD&D thru PF and even 5th. Even 4th. (We had a great DM).

Yes, I like PF, and defend it, but a nice old school AD&D game is a lot of classic RP fun too.

Heck, with the right group and DM, Tunnels & Trolls is a blast.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:

[

I thought that old school was the meat grinder sort of play, where PCs dropped every session from unspeakably horrific deaths, Wizards died from a stiff breeze and had to track their bat poop on stone tablets, traps had none of this silly "take X damage" frivolity but just "save or die, b****". The sort of game where you didn't bother naming your PC for their first three levels, because it is a bad idea to form attachments to dead characters walking. The sort of play where looking into a statue's mouth puts your head into a sphere of annihilation, no save, and where getting off the cart at the tavern results in several broken bones because you need to stop the cart first, dumb***. You know, the way Gyngax intended*. None of this nonsense about "choice" or "point buys" or "Role-Playing". That gets in the way of the players learning the meaning of suffering and loss and getting crushed in hilariously unfair ways.

I guess that just goes to show that "Old School" means whatever the hell the person saying it wants it to mean, either as a pejorative or as a badge of supposed superiority.

*Yes, I know exactly how factually valid this statement is. The question is though, how many of this particular flavor of "old school" think that competitive tomb of horrors play is the way Gyngax wanted DMs to run their games in general.

Yep, there were a few of those. Thankfully rare, unless it was for a one shot competition, where the idea was to survive. Those can be fun too- saying you "beat" Tomb of Horrors was real cred.

Roleplaying over tactics. Not necessarily roleplaying over powergaming or optimizers, plenty of those in the Old School days, but tactics were rare. Battlemats were uncommon, and the main use for figures was to show party order in a dungeon crawl. More dungeon crawls, too.

Traps werent always that deadly but they were far more imaginative than today. The idea of just "walking ahead and taking the damage- who needs a Rogue?" was unthinkable. Traps didnt just do damage. And there were lots of them , so the idea of "just summoning something would make you run out real soon. Not to mention it wouldnt work at all on half the types of traps.

A Thief was necessary. I should know!

Oh and yes- you mapped. Always.

Buying magics items was pretty much impossible, other than potions, scrolls and magic arrows. Thinking your character would have a flaming scimitar by level 7 was the definition of "hubris". Heck, you might have a small pile of +1 and even +2 weapons. But you used what you found.

Rolled, and often rolled in order. "Ooh, this would make a good wizard! " Not- "I will do up a wizard, he'll start with a 18 Int". Ha!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

At the end of the day, if the player refuses, but I don't want to lose the player, I abuse the feature the player refuses to lose until everyone at the table agrees that it is bullcrap. At this point the player either cedes the point under the pressure of the GM and the other players or I target the PC for assassination. One way or another, the feature is not going to be used sooner or later.

If the PCs refuse the hard ban, then anyone who chooses something from the ban list is targeted for assassination. They have a permanent AOE (unlimited range) taunt that is always on.

The point is: if your GM says, "Don't use this," then you shouldn't use it. Full stop.

Yeah, we had a DM who did this. We hated it.

You cant solve a OOC issue IC. Killing the PC for the Players issues is a Bad Idea.

Just say NO!. Dont be passive-aggressive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rory wrote:

Make the gaming table an "electronics free zone" except for potentially looking up rules, etc. Make them bring printed out copies of their character, take notes using pencil and paper, and make sure to roll actual dice.

Yep, but also speed up combat. let everyone know not only who is up, but who is next up, and that person has to be ready, with that page open for their spell or the monster they summon, etc.

Cut down on cohorts, summons, etc. No more than two combat ready things per player.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Castilonium wrote:

For the people who ban rez spells, I have a question. How does banning rez spells make the game more fun and immersive in the scope of a campaign's story? How about punishing?

I mean, you've got two options. 1) Dock the player 7000 gp (raise dead + 2 restorations) and let them back to playing the character they want to play, or 2) have them lose that character forever, and make a new one.

So with option 2, there's suddenly a stranger that's exactly as strong as the character that died, with thousands upon thousands of gold he just happens to be carrying around (WBL). And the party has to justify bringing this stranger into their group, trusting their lives to him, and he to them. I.E. the party has to use metagame knowledge to realize that this stranger is controlled by a PC, and not simply treat him like any other NPC. The stranger has to quickly find reasons to care about all the problems and plot points that the rest of the party has experienced from the beginning of the campaign, and the player has to find reasons to become emotionally invested in their new character after the loss of their old one, the one they wanted to play to begin with. In terms of punishment, the character didn't get punished at all, because they didn't lose 7000 gp like the old character would have if they'd been allowed to get rezzed. In addition, the new character could be built more optimally for the level they're starting at, compared to a character that had been in the game since level 1. The only punishment happening here is that the player doesn't get to have fun with their original character.

So with that in mind, I'd love it if someone could explain to me why option 2 makes the game more fun, immersive, and punishing of death.

Exactly.

As I posted before:

For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.
Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”

Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."

The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.

The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElterAgo wrote:


A) GM complains the players won't role play, but he always skips right to the next fight if there is even the slightest delay.

C) Player is upset that his PC's constantly fails will saves, his builds always dump wisdom, 2-3 classes with poor will saves, and never spends the money for anything to protect his mind.

Have you been gaming with me? We had a really good DM for RotRL, but he was always hurrying us, to the point he'd time us between combats and take that off spell duration. Obviously then, you dont do RPing. But then he complained all we wanted ot do was Kill, kill, kill.

Yep, that's one of our Players all right. Never took a defensive feat, dumped stats. Complained bitterly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vrischika111 wrote:
while I totally agree, they ask for an official reply, as they don't allow it.

Mark doesn't give "official replies' here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

It annoys me when someone manages to misspell my alias even when they are making a QUOTE.

I mean, for f&*#'s sake, the quote system automatically puts my name there. You have to actually make the effort to go change it to something incorrect. How the F@*& does that happen?

I hear you are going around abusing my name, foolish little mortal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:

It's funny, but most times I mention for people making these claims to actually prove it through game play, they tell me they don't need to.....

<sigh> It's the same arguments repeated by the same people. And the same defence by the same people ironically. All I need is DrDeth to chime in with me and it will be like all the discussions over last two years again :)

You Rang? Chime!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:


I want to play just one game where NOBODY (except the GM) knows what class or race any one is, and has to figure it out based upon physical description and actions taken.

Hasn't happened yet.

No one even knows what race they are themselves????? You're hardcore dude!
Are you absolutely certain everyone you meet is human, for instance?

I am a Carpathian, one rather popular writer thinks we're not human....<g>


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:


I want to play just one game where NOBODY (except the GM) knows what class or race any one is, and has to figure it out based upon physical description and actions taken.

Hasn't happened yet.

No one even knows what race they are themselves????? You're hardcore dude!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

I really want to houserule resurrection right out of my campaign, or at least make it mindbogglingly rare, so rare that you can't expect to resurrect dead players when you get to the next town.

Death is supposed to be special dammit!

Actually ontopic, dime-a-dozen resurrection doesn't happen in the games I play in with my group. I don't know if it's because we don't think about it or because the other GMs in our group grant full hit die and so we have a lot of hp and are seldom at risk of death.

Yesbut- As I posted before:

For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.

Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”

Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."

The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.

The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
My mom was born in 1973 and I was born in 1993. That makes my mom 42 and me 22.

So what you're saying is that I'm not just older than you, but I'm also older than your mom.

That's not making me feel any better.

It's worse. I am just possibly maybe old enuf to be Aniuś the Talewise*'s grandfather. Thanks, kid for making me feel...not old...but ancient.

;-)

and I didn't even get more dice with my breath weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
My mom was born in 1973 and I was born in 1993. That makes my mom 42 and me 22.
I started playing D&D a year after your Mom was born. sigh.

Didn't you design the original Thief class (among other things)?

Totally rusty on my gaming history >_>

Yep.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

So a few days ago I was researching the history of the formative days of fantasy rpg gaming, and came across the medieval miniatures rules that would eventually become the rules of Chainmail, which itself was the direct predecessor of DnD.

So extremely important piece of gaming history.

My immediate first reaction to this important historical document was, "Vikings didn't f%%*ing wear plate"

I can't see where it sez "Vikings wear plate"? It does class them as "heavy Foot" with dismounted knights as 'armored foot" with presumable heavier armor.

BtW, pretty much everyone in wargaming thought Chainmail was pretty bad. Wargames Research was the gold standard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

I am so jealous.

The fact that you continue to wear your gambeson in your sleep makes you a role model for aspiring early middle ages infantry everywhere.

I have to add "used to" since I am a little old for that now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

Confession: I imagine that armor comes with an unstated gambeson, because wearing armor without a gambeson is an extremely terrible idea, especially if you're wearing mail.

#AlwaysWearYourGambeson

EDIT: Also, if you depict a warrior in mail but with no gambeson underneath, I will slap you on the wrist.

Not only do I know what one is, I used to wear one under my hauberk.

To show what a "must" it is, I had a 1" gap between my gambeson and my elbow guards, and got hit there in SCA heavy combat. Hurt like %$#@! and drove links into my skin. Cool bruise tho.

I have argued this very thing with DMs, that when my PC sleep and take off their armor they still wear padded armor under it. I got to buying a set of padded just to sleep in. It is kinda nice to sleep in, until is gets really gross and sweaty.

You could wear leather under the chain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
Ooh, I have something confession-y. I started playing RPGs with D&D 4e and I still have a fondness for that system.

I played in a 4E campaign, and I kinda liked it. Mind you, the fact that the DM had a full subscription so we could do our PC's on the system and it would print out those cool multi-colored character sheets, with all the spells, etc details, made it nicer. Good DM too.

This sorta goes to show my axiom is that it's not the system- it's the DM and your co-players that make the game fun.

I even had a little fun trying Chivalry & Sorcery.

I guess I am too easy......


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:

My confession:

I like the "bikini armour" style of fantasy female character art because I wish I was pretty and comfortable/confident enough with my body to be able to dress like that, sometimes.

Even still, Rob Liefeld needs to go away.

I agree- as long as there's plenty of beefcake served with that cheesecake. Fair is fair.

But I had no idea who the heck Rob L was until I looked him up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, I still like AD&D. But as far as variations on D20 goes, PF is far and away the best. It's also better than any other current D&D variant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:

[

I probably should have said "every charisma based class who was willing to invest one level of an appropiate class to qualify for it", but the point is the same.

One level? How do you get 2nd level spells from one level?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

6. Double Damage.
7. Triple Damage.
8 and of course- quadruple damage!

;-)

Sorry, someone had to do it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Liz Courts wrote:
A reminder—do not reply to spam threads. It just makes extra work for us to clear it up. Flag it and move on.

Your untiring hard work on this Sisyphean task is incredible. Thank you so much.

Kudos and thanks!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
I could list off more stories of real, actual gameplay, but what's the point? Everyone who says that a caster/martial disparity exists has played and/or GM'd Pathfinder. We're not talking about a group of people who read the CRB but haven't played, and declared that they know what's up better than the actual players. Those who acknowledge the disparity ARE actual players, whether others can accept it or not.

And those who have NOT seen the disparity in their games are also actual players.

Let us not attack the other side, nor even take sides. What we are seeing here is that some players see a disparity and others don't. I am trying to see why. Both sides have a lot of experience.

This is why I'd like to keep this to actual game play, instead of theorycrafting. We have quite a few threads about that already, we don't need to continue the same debate here.

One reason I have seen is that those who dont think there's much of a disparity look upon PF/D&D as a TEAM game, and if the martial is super at dealing DPR- and the player playing that PC is happy doing that- then there's no disparity. The TEAM is strong, all the players are happy.

In other cases, the disparity doesnt happen much as the players are friends, and try to get along and "play happy".

Many seem to say the disparity only shows up at higher levels, levels beyond most AP;s and beyond where most games are played. This seems to be my experience as well.

Car we keep the discussion on a friendly level, please, less antagonistic posts? More helpful discussion. Please.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

ElyasRavenwood's interesting thread go me thinking. Many people here talk about the Martial/Caster disparity as if it is a obvious thing, and ask 'why can't martial have nice things?"

But I have played in three PF campaigns now, going to 7th, 11th and 15th level. No sign of the Martial/Caster disparity- except at the very lowest levels where martials win out. Hmm. Also playing in a number of PFS games. Not there either (but all rather low level, 7th is highest).

True, I did play in a 3.5 campaign where once we hit the point where the two casters could toss around 9th level spells (Shapechange!) my martial did feel rather useless. So, I saw it myself, but at a very high level.

Reading what the devs say, they also say that in their games there is little or no Martial/Caster disparity.

Hmm.

But clearly some others have experienced it, commonly.

So, I'd like to know that at your actual IRL gaming table, in a real Pathfinder campaign- did you actually experience Martial/Caster disparity, and if so (or if NOT) why? Not theorycrafting, please. Nothing wrong with theorycrafting but let us stick to actual played games for this, please.

Now, we didn't experience it, and once reason might be is that we always had at least one PC that was a Buffer. At a certain level, Bardsong and/or Haste was a given. Both boost martials more. Could that be the reason? Teamwork?

We did have two dedicated optimizers, but one ALWAYS played spellcasters, the other ALWAYS martials (for this I am counting a Magus as a martial, but yes, they can cast spells, but other big killer PC was a straight fighter).

So, if you have or have not experienced Martial/Caster disparity at your table, let us hear why (or why not).

Real Life. Not Theory. Please.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tl, my friend, where have you been?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

I was thinking he might also be a Mesmerist or Sorcerer.

Have you seen the awesome stage Phantom and not just the crappy 2004 movie? That's the important part. :)

I've seen the Lon Chaney version and the Claude Rains version.

Classics!

Have we thanked you recently for all your hark work and this thread?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cap. Darling wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:


I am unsure what your position is on this. You seem to be on both sides?
I believe that in normal combats, vs normal AP type foes, Healing can & does keep up with damage dealt by the monsters.
but do you belive it is a good use of actions to keep one guy in the game instead og being in the game your self?

Yes, absolutely.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, in a 3.5 game, once we got to the point where the casters could toss 9th level spells around (Like Shapechange) yes, we found that more or less made martials useless.

My martial actually dominated the table until about level 13, when he got lost in a plane shift gate (he got back safely, but couldnt rejoin the party so I had to bring in another).

In our RotRL game, the Fighter dominated until we ended the campaign around lvl 15. If someone tells me that commonly in 20th level games, Martials have a issue due to 9th level spells, I will accept that.

In Combat healing was a must.

The rogue player wasn't around half the time and half the time didnt update his PC, so i can't really say how well a rogue would do in RotRL. In other games, played only until level 7, the rogue was just fine. I am willing to accept a Core only rogue might lag in higher levels.

I have never seen a PF game that allowed 3.5 stuff willy-nilly, only by special request and DM Ok.

We only had one guy that dumped stats.

We tried a Master Summoner- the issue was spotlight hog, not really that OP. he was running 2-3 monsters plus himself every combat, it got old fast. We banned it. Regular Summoner was fine, but the DM had to check and recheck the math.

No 15 minute days.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cap. Darling wrote:


I am unsure what your position is on this. You seem to be on both sides?

I believe that in normal combats, vs normal AP type foes, Healing can & does keep up with damage dealt by the monsters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:

There in lies the rub eh?

If you don't submit and subject your research to peer review it isn't Science, it's trained tricks. Independent peer review followed by independent replication of results via the same methods is how you get to make a definitive statement.

Yeah. My Ex was a ASL interpreter, and she watched Koko "talking" to her friends, who then interpreted what Koko "said". My Ex than said their interpretations were extremely generous, Koko never seemed to form a sentence, just said several words. Now, while it's true then that Koko knew some words, it's seems doubtful she could actually form sentences. Her 'friends" were forming the sentences for her.

We would need to see outside peer reviewed testing, which afaik, never happened.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

1) I've learned to optimize, mostly because the guys in my group do so, and do so well. So, in order to feel helpful, I do so as well. I can go with the flow, no big. Luckily, most of them are also good DMs, so there's plenty of story to be had as well.

2) We often ask the question "Why would these characters ask your character to join them?" to ill thought out characters.
Adventuring is no joke, so why would people take obvious liabilities with them into danger, if there were no story reason (like being paid to escort someone, etc.) to do so?

I have never seen a PC character that was "an obvious liability". So what if my PC isn't DPR maximized?

And parties all the time get stuck with dudes that steal or lay back or hide or spotlight hog......


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

You know the whole shopping thing is a topic unto itself. I don't remember anyone going "shopping" in the Hobbit, or in The Sword of Shanarra (two books I read when I was young) and in my first campaign, shopping was a very small part of the game, and no magic shopping of any kind was ever available.

Well, in the Hobbit they ran into a nice cache with two or three relic swords, then looted Smaugs hordes for more good stuff.

In LotR, they were given gifts and boons.

And, in OD&D and AD&D "Ye Olde Magik Shoppe" was hard to find and had limited selection. Sure, you might start with cheap armor and upgrade into really good NM armor- which is fairly realistic (if we can use that term) but the idea of building a PC around getting certainly magic items at certain points would be laughable. I mean sure, the bog standard +1 stuff would be found, or even bought. But assuming you'd have a +4 stat item for your "Prime Requisite" was hubris.

I think that was a mistake that 3.0 made and PF hasnt bothered to undo it. And it may not be undoable. I

try to just have really cool, semi-personalized loot drops, but when AP's assume you'll have the "Christmas tree" by such and such a level, it gets hard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
This is a reminder, that my first home computer was a Cromemco C-10SP

Mine had colored beads, red for one, blues for tens, etc..... ;-)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Manwolf wrote:
Confession: So far I really haven't gotten into archetypes. I still like base classes better.

Archetypes replaced those incredibly broken PrC's, which was a great way to go. I knew high level PC's in 3.5 with six PrCs, mostly dips.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neurophage wrote:
I think Exalted 3e is a better-designed game than Pathfinder in every possible way. Even the crafting rules, which are generally understood to be terrible.

So, why arent you playing that game??

I am not being snarky, just curious. I dont play systems I dont like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:
The thing about 'cis' is that it fills a needed language niche. I remember when the term was first coming into use and the only real competition it had was non-trans, which IMO is worse. (It's bad form to describe people by what they *aren't*.) 'Cis' being a term from organic chemistry was a short, elegant word that didn't have any baggage associated with it. It really was about as good as you were going to get.

All those things are true, but especially the words "*WAS*. "Cis" has now been hijacked by haters and bigots, it's become a pejorative that should not be used on these message boards or in polite conversation.

I know, it was a good term, but it's no longer usable in polite society.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessica Price wrote:

Quote:
If you (any you) want support and compassion for whatever your plight is

If you only support equality when marginalized people are nice to you, you don't support equality.

Straight people, white people, men, neurotypical people, etc. -- all of us who enjoy privilege in some fashion -- get the fair shake that privilege represents regardless of whether we're nice people, good people, pleasant people, well-behaved people, etc. And marginalized people deserve that fair shake, too, regardless of whether they talk in ways you like or are offended by.

If you're only supporting marginalized people when they behave in ways you like, you're abusing the privilege you have, because you're essentially using your supposed allyship as a carrot/stick to compel certain behavior from them: "Sure, I'll treat you like an equal--as long as you only speak in these ways."

It's not about individual people and their behavior. It's about rights that a class of people are being denied.

That doesn't mean that you're not within your rights to set boundaries for how you'll interact with people. if you feel that someone's being abusive, you have the right to ask them to stop or not to interact with them, even if it happened in the context of a discussion about marginalization/rights. That doesn't...

Good points.

Well, if Jessica is here, perhaps we're not headed for immediate lock-down city, but let's be nice folks, please. This has been fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Brontosaurus is once again recognized as an official genus. I dig that.

So did Othniel Charles Marsh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

[

1. Meat in the USA is far from optimally raised. They're pumped with hormones and antibiotics and often contaminated with feces and other stuff when slaughtered. Not to mentioned pumped with carbon monoxide to prevent color change, and so on, and so forth. I'm cool without that tiny amount that isn't at all necessary to live.

2. The "partial protein" stuff is old science. Meat is not necessary to live, period. Mix pretty much any two veggies and you have a complete set of amino acids, and they don't...

Biggest source of E. coli outbreaks is lettuce. Veggies also have pesticides and other chemicals and are often GMOed.

But you are right about Ovo-Lacto veg, you can get a full spectrum of nutrients there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
but I have seen broken classes on the weak end, like the rogue. Every single one of my players who has played one ended up hating how useless their character was for the majority of the game (we play APs). In the Iron Gods game I'm running right now, our rogue player ditched his character at 5th level so he could play something that actually contributed to the party. He had such high hopes for his character, and he was very disappointed with how it worked out. Nearly useless, always going unconscious, barely do enough damage, couldn't find traps, and more.

Couldnt find traps? Then he built his character wrong. Sure, early rogues had issues with DPR and staying up, but they could find traps better than any, even after they allowed Trapfinding to other builds. Unless you had Perception as a Class skill, enuf skP to max it, Trapfinding and the ability to get the talent "Trap Spotter " then you couldnt equal a rogue for trapfinding. Mind you, yes, many AP's simply do not feature the kind of devious Gygaxian traps from earlier editions. In many you could just take the damage and heal, with hardly a slow down. (Try that in ToH!). This is the fault of the AP, not of the class.

And I also blame the devs there in not telling us upfront on a AP that a specialized trapfinder wasnt required. This was expected int he past, so to see it almost never really important was a paradigm shift.

So yeah, it's true- a bog standard Rogue from the Core RB was inferior in everything BUT finding traps. Still, if he couldnt do that- that's his fault, not the class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Of course but sometimes talking about it privately still does not work. Or gets ignored. It would be great if people would always be reasonable. Sometimes they are not and one has to be blunt.

In that case you ask them to leave- politely. Being rude is never the right option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:

I expect a person who talks about a rpg or any topic for that matter to have actually done their own research. Your opinion on say 4E or PF means nothing to me if your are basing it off second hand information. Or worse trying to play "I have been in the hobby for X number of years I don't need to inform myself on rpg xyz". You can have been playing 100 years in the hobby and I'm still going to ignore anything one has to say on the topic.

You are right and wrong here. I do that a lot, having been around as long as anyone in the business. But having played dozens and dozens of systems with hundreds and hundreds of players, I can tell you that certain things carry over from any system- things that are just universal to RPGs.

So, for example, if I tell you to "Never try to solve a OOC problem IC" - it will work even if I have never heard of that RPG, let along played it.

However, if I tell you that "xxx class is overpowered and needs nerfing" then yes, I needs must have played that class and played WITH that class- in a couple of games. Simply reading it once doesn't really cut it. Watching one guy cream everyone in one session is not proof either.

So, I really dont know more about PF than any of the other experienced posters here. Despite my deep experience, as far as PF game mechanics go, my opinion is worth no more than anyone else's- and less than quite a few. But if you tell me you have a certain problem player- then yes- my 40 years of experience will likely be of value. *

* and if you compare PF to other legacy systems, then I have dropped several ranks in that skill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I have no idea what the f+@* Vancian means, and if anyone links to Wikipedia rather than explain it I will burn this thread to the ground:-D

Refers to the works of Jack Vance, where magic worked similarly to how it does in D&D/Pathfinder. Except wizards tended to know VERY few spells. If you knew three spells, you were an archmage of unparalleled power.

No, even Cugel knew that many.

Iucounu the Laughing Magician knew dozens and dozens.

The fourth chapter of a "basic book" of magic contains a dozen spells, per Rhialto the Marvellous.

Turjan knew exactly 100 spells. He was not counted the most powerful.

wiki: "The most powerful wizards of the 21st Aeon of the Dying Earth are banded together in an association, and mostly reside in the territories of Ascolais and Almery. Unlike other wizards of the Dying Earth, such as Turjan and Mazirian, these wizards possess nearly godlike power. With little effort, they can travel to the distant past or the furthest reaches of the universe, freeze time (a popular dirty trick), prolong their lives for eons, change their shape and appearance, summon useful objects, and call forth numerous spells of protection, destruction, investigation, or simple amusement and experimentation. Much of their power comes from their ability to bind and control potent genie-like beings called sandestins, while they also derive power from their large stores of magical relics. The most highly prized are IOUN stones, mystical stones which they take as the spoils of their battles with the archveults. Their conduct toward one another is governed by a set of rules called the Blue Principles, because they are inscribed upon a blue stone which displays them through a sort of projector."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Randarak wrote:
I don't like kitsune. I just don't. Nothing you can say or do will change my mind about this.
I'm right there with ya. And Tengu.

Now you're just ravin' dude, and are gonna have to eat crow.

1 to 50 of 1,009 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.