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. 6,028 posts (6,029 including aliases). 18 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,063 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Yes, the shield bonus remains, since you still have to hit him where his shield aint.

You might as well say the Goblin should lose his armor bonus as there are places not covered by his armor and you'd hit there.

That's not really how shields work. They're an active defence. You block with them.

Not in D&D.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


Were there ever printed rules to describe how thieves vs. non-thieves interacted with tasks that appear on the thief skill list, like the one you mention? 'Cause I can see DMs ruling them several different ways...I wonder how the mechanics worked for DrDeth's thief(s)?

Thieves had skills in slots like wizards had spells. They fought on the cleric chart, ie, second best.

So, a level one skill slot might be "pick locks". This would allow the Original Thief to simply do so. Period. No rolls needed, and over and over. Other characters had to break down the door or use a spell. Disarm simple trap.

Higher skills slots might be "Pick magical locks". Disarm complex trap. Even higher might be disarm magical trap- I think that was a 3rd level ability.

Now sure, the DM could ask the player to play it out or even say "This trap is so fiendishly complicated I will require a roll".

But it made opening routine doors and disarming simple traps very quick and easy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:


One (very early) experience with 3.PF - my rogue PC successfully snuck up behind a goblin, who was watching the battle elsewhere, and the GM gave the goblin his shield bonus to AC because "facing doesn't matter according to the rules". Also, because the goblin was already (technically) part of the battle, he had a slot on the initiative order and so, even though my rogue got the first attack, there was no surprise attack on the part of my rogue because (technically) the goblin wasn't surprised!

That same goblin, believing himself to be safely out of melee, is no easier to hit in total surprise from behind than if my dwarf was standing in front of him shouting a warning challenge before engaging in combat.

Really? Yep, really. The goblin even retained his shield bonus against the (theoretical) surprise attack!

That's just dumb. What's the point of the rogue's sneak and hide skills if your opponent's AC remains the same?

Well, if the goblin didnt see you, you were "invisible" thus sneak attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
So you're the guy responsible for all the underpowered rogues out there? =)

Naw, that's Paizo, pre Unchained. ;-)

The Thief was pretty powerful and very very necessary, esp in those days of diabolical Gygaxian traps. They were't just "make a reflex safe and take 5d6 damage". You could be Tported naked, or trapping in a pit with a Gelatinous Cube or lose life levels, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I had been under the impression that "grognard" was a dismissive and somewhat ageist term, and thus I try not to use it. Am I mistaken?

Yes you are mistaken, it is a badge of honor.

Hm.

Sure doesn't seem that way when used by folks who don't self-identify as such. But I'm glad to see this thread is going in a more positive direction than I first feared when I saw the thread title.

Carry on, then.

:)

Anything can be used as a pejorative by those not in the group- "New school gamer" "raised on video games", "powergamer" "roleplayer". etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
I had been under the impression that "grognard" was a dismissive and somewhat ageist term, and thus I try not to use it. Am I mistaken?

Yes you are mistaken, it is a badge of honor.

I am a Grognard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You are both Grognards! (Gives secret handshake)


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

Welp, this thread sure is a lot of dudes talking about us, and congratulating themselves for being enlightened enough to have women in their groups, rather than to us. Or better yet, asking questions and listening.

Any discussion of how to make gaming tables welcoming to women should be led by women. You shouldn't be trying to speak for us. So I'm not sure what purpose discussions talking about us as if we're some sort of exotic animals serves.

Because that's the OP, Jessica: "Quick survey... who here has a girl in their group... and is she treated with the respect she unquestionably deserves!! ;))"

So, if I answer the OP by saying yes, as I did- am I "congratulating themselves for being enlightened enough to have women in their groups" or just answering the OP's question?

The OP is not a "discussion of how to make gaming tables welcoming to women" it is a question- by a female note- as to who "has a girl in their group". She asked a reasonable polling question, and many of us are simply answering it.

This doesnt make us sexist or presumptuous or speaking for the other sex. It means simply we respect the Op and are answering her query.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You are part of a group of henchmen, hirelings, 1st level types, working for some experienced and powerful adventurers. You are left to hold the horses outside the dungeon.

Suddenly there's a cloud of rank dark smoke and four pairs of smoking boots appear- and a evil laugh....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Smarnil le couard wrote:

Greyhawk had two republics, complete with elections, representatives, etc.:

1) Perrenland (loosely based on switzerland, including export of mercenaries) ;
2) and the Yeomanry, with a government of the warrior people by the warrior people.

Not en expert on FR or Eberron, but it seems that "never any republic" in classic D&D settings isn't factually correct.

And the City of Greyhawk itself was run by the Directing Oligarchy, aka the guilds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


Keep in mind that both the Roman and Greek Republics weren't democracies as we understand them today. To be a Senator for example in Rome, you were the head of a powerful family. You weren't "elected" to the position by the plebian population.

But the Plebes did elect the Plebian assembly and most of the Officials. The Plebian Assembly and the Tribunes had a lot of power in the late Republic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:


I have an Empiricist Investigator who dips one level into Inspired Blade Swashbuckler, and I'm on a 10 point buy. What reason do I have to not go 9, 14, 14, 15, 8, 7 for my stat array (the +2 goes into dex here.)

So, if your DM gives you a 10pt maybe you dont run that combo. Wait for a 20 pt campaign.

I mean if your DM gives you a 0 point build, maybe you do dump.... that DM.....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:


Not to derail this thread, but alot of times the Inquisitor has to fill the rogue role, so Dex becomes very important. Same with Wisdom, you need it not just for spells, but Perception, Survival, Sense Motive, etc.

Any skill monkey type class has to spread their stats much thinner than a full caster or heavily armored martial. If I want to be successful doing all the things a skill monkey is expected to do, Charisma is getting dumped.

If you are making your Inquisitor fill both the tank and skill monkey riches, then sure, he's gonna need a lot of good stats.

Make your wizard a gish who will fill both the warrior and spellslinger roles and you know what...?

Clerics who have to fulfill tank and divine spellcaster/healer roles have to have good stats in many abilities.

Filling any two niches- need five decent abilities, in general.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Are you saying that the rude, ugly boor with bad breath interrupting him with 'Gives us a bargain you snot nosed creep or I'll chop you wit dis axe" will only help?

If you want people to face the consequences of what they have their characters say and do, that's fine. But you don't get to decide how other people's characters act and then expect them to face the consequences of what you invented.

Someone who tries to play other people's characters according to their own vision and then expects the other players to be penalized for it has no right to be at the table.

EDIT: As an aside, the appropriateness of double-dipping CHA penalties wasn't even my main point. It was that the act of trying to help a tablemate was being labeled "metagaming" by the person who was himself acting on knowledge of game statistics. The irony and hypocrisy there is astounding.

OK, so the rude, ugly boor with bad breath and poor speech can say whatever the players wants him to say. He is still a rude, ugly boor with bad breath and poor speech and he's not gonna "help".

The guy with the 6 str isnt gonna help the guy with 18 strenght - if that's what the DM rules. The DM can assign a + or - 2 penalty at whim, based upon circumstances. It's in the rules.

I dont see how that is ironic or hypocritical, the DM can't metagame. He is the Dm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HolmesandWatson wrote:

4d6 and drop one - totally forgot about that. I think that's actually my favorite method.

4D6 drop one, re-roll ones.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Murderhoboes

If the players or characters call themselves this, I dont want to play with them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

DrDeth: OD&D then AD&D Necromancer. Slightly undead. Grew to be archmage and Coroner of Greyhawk. very dry and black humor.

Kane. BoNS Warblade, 3.5 . Fighter with massive mobility skills, could do a lot of wushu moves.

Jack. Jack was the Jack of Diamonds from Wonderland. Totally insane. Carried *THE* Vorpal blade.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Many, many years ago, at Kennedy's Historical Models & Games, I ran what might have been the first: "you wake up naked in the dungeon and have to get out" campaign. It was very popular, had to run it two nites a week with two large groups.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cerwin wrote:


He started out as a fairly easy going or at least as much as an inquisitor of Gorum could be. But after his best friend in the party was brutally murdered in front of him he has kind of going to a dark place. And is now looking for someone strong enought to kill him. And as such he is going to fight every fight to the death. (and I have told the GM that this is his way of thinking after the last time he forced me to stop a fight before the enemy of my character were down).

So I missed the last session and I get a text from the GM that my character fought the guy to a draw and then got drunk with him to celebrate a good fight with a worthy opponent. And at level 1that might well have been what happened. But now with his only goal to die honorably in combat he would not fight to a draw and then go drinking with the guy.

That's pretty small potatoes.

and your stated goal is not very campaign friendly. Maybe you should rethink it. Just mellow it some. Good character, other than that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I know: "It's what my character would do!"- but who designed that character, gave him his alignment and his motivations?

Dont design a jerk. Dont play a jerk. Dont play with jerks.

Sit down and talk this out like adults.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Niztael wrote:
Way back in the day, the party or people seeking someone to be raised from the dead in any fashion required more than just money. From Raise Dead to Resurrection, a service was required to be performed for the church or entity using such magic. At the 3.0 and on is when it only became a matter of money.

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.

Well, , why do you need a investigatory phase? Just send them down into the sewers or dungeons and let them kill stuff.

Tell them OOC that by not having those skills, they are losing out on a lot of stuff.

When the level, they can make that choice.

Maybe they just wanna kill monsters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MichaelCullen wrote:

The Ranged Tactics Tool box brings up the topic of Scry and Teleport as a recommended tactic.

Here is what it had to say on the subject.
ranged tactics toolbox wrote:

Scry and Teleport: The combination of divination

(scrying) and conjuration (teleportation) spells can make
for a potent offensive option. Scrying can provide vital
information about a foe’s vulnerabilities and defenses
before the spellcaster teleports in to strike at the most
opportune moment—provided she carries off her plan
before the scrying sensor is noticed.

That's not errata.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

These statements are usually made just to poke fun at the rules and their flaws. There are plenty of cases where the rules either make no sense or just contradict themselves... The sun might be exaggeration, since that thing is many times bigger than Earth. But what about clouds? Chances are they are impossible to see as well, according to RAW. XD

tl/dr: It's just a hyperbolic joke being used to make a valid criticism. Humor has always been used to criticize real issues, after all. ;)

There's no valid point here, at all. The rules here do make sense and do not contradict themselves. (and in fact the rules rarely do so)

"Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment."

The sun is not a "fine detail" nor are clouds. There is no need to make a perception check in the first place.

The issue is that people just are not reading the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is there any way to get this ability without this Fighter archetype? I want a inquisitor to have it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
So, TOZ, in your games, casters dominate play? No use playing anything but a full caster? Or have you "fixed" it?
I haven't run anything but organized play in three or four years, so yes, yes, and no.

OK, then, good example.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lissa Guillet wrote:
Privilege is weird. It specifically involves many things you probably aren't aware of. Many little things; tiny little bits that on their own don't amount to much if anything but over the course of a lifetime can have a profound affect or none at all.

Sure. But all of us who live in the USA- or in any First World nation- are "privileged" beyond the fondest hope of someone in Bangladesh or Sudan can even hope for.

And, even those of us who are white, "cis', middle classed, etc have issues- like being overweight or a Senior Citizen or health issues or many other things.

Can I, a overweight "senior" with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Prostate cancer say "Check your Privilege" to a 20-something with perfect health?

"privilege" is so very relative that saying "Check your privilege' is pretty darn insulting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:


The thing about the whole "cis good or bad" debate that gets me all rustled is people like Lazar acting like turnabout is fair play there.

The term "cis scum" is fine to use because trans people have had slurs thrown at them for a long time...and somehow that makes it okay?

That kind of double standard makes communication difficult as well. I don't call black people the N-word or gay people the British word for cigarette because those are appalling words to call people, and they just help to promote racial and social tension among groups.

So deciding that, for some reason, that standard doesn't apply to the other side is baffling to me. It's still a terrible thing to do, and promotes that same social tension.

There's too much of this attitude that payback is inherently righteous in these social justice conversations. Yes, someone called you a bad word. That doesn't give you a chit you can cash in to call someone entirely unrelated a bad word for every time you've heard it.

A lot of these Tumblr blogs and whatnot seem to operate entirely on this principle.

Saying "F&%! all trans people, kill 'em all" is clearly f~#&ing horrendous.

"Die cis scum" and "Kill all men/white men" are somehow then rallying cries, not only acceptable but LAUDABLE (and as many are saying right now in regards to that second, my mere bringing up of this fact merely reinforces the idea that it is a necessary and good idea to spread.).

This is far more of a problem when it comes to these issues than "Talking past people". Talking past someone merely prolongs the discussion, sending it in circles. No progress is made.

The double standards, meanwhile, regress the discussion instead. Negative progress is made. Everyone comes out of the discussion MORE convinced for LESS REASON that their side is right and the other is insane.

Look, I agree with Rynjin! ;-) It's not so much that "cis" is horrible nasty and always a pejorative. It's that us caring and progressive people have learned that when a group tells us "Hey, please dont use that term" we now respond with "Sure, if that's what you want, Ok by me." Often with a qualifier like "Do note, we didn't mean anything pejorative by that term, we used it without meaning offense, sorry."

So then when we ask others to "please dont use that term, it offends me", we expect everyone to be on board with it- with a qualifier, sure.

So then we are shocked when the reply is "you have no right to be offended and we'll keep using that term whether you like it or not- and the fact that you're offended by it means YOU are intolerant" !!

We expect to be treated like we have tried to treat others- and if you're part of a majority group, it doesnt happen.

This just leads to more anger and intolerance.

Thanks for starting this thread, TacticsLion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover wrote:
Everyone reading this thread that is frustrated with loot remember: crafting mundane items may be slow and boring, I get it, but it's still a decent way to get loot.

Well, maybe. But if your DM is into WBL and cuts back loot as you craft, then why bother?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This article by the well known author Brynn Tannehill should finalize the debate on the use of "cisgender":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/the-new-c-word_b_5617913.html
"The use of "cis" and "cisgender" should be carefully examined. There are people who strenuously object to these words being applied to them, even if the words come from an academic background. Just as my feelings on certain subjects should be respected, so should the feelings of people who dislike these labels.

It also needs to be asked what using the words gains us....The conclusion of many organizations is that you should not use either "cisgender" or "cis" in any sort of public narrative. ...Even inside the LGBT community the words have a very negative connotation. When someone is referred to as a "cisgender lesbian" or "cis gay man" by a transgender person, it is often in a negative way. The addition of "cis" or "cisgender" is used to imply a certain level of contempt and a desire that they leave discussions on transgender issues. It also implies that they don't, can't, or won't ever understand transgender issues.

...However, using the word "cis" or "cisgender" is not necessary to do so. Just as no one ever called me "tranny" and meant it in a nice or affectionate way, many LGB people have never been called "cis" or "cisgender" in a way that wasn't accusatory. Therefore we find common ground in disliking a word because its context has always been nasty and demeaning when applied to us personally.....As a result, "cis" and "cisgender" should be used sparingly in public discourse."

I agree with the author "The conclusion of many organizations is that you should not use either "cisgender" or "cis" in any sort of public narrative." and I think it's time the Paizo boards joined this movement.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

How are you guys coming along with Simulacrum, etc FAQs?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

Old school gamers know what a kender is and thus know instinctively not to take anything I say seriously....and to hide their valuables....

New School gamers don't get it

New School gamers welcome their kender friends.
Who wouldn't?

We "welcome" them into the whirling blades of death, followed by the lava pits.

;-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
everyone wanted to play the Thief

Oh come on!

You're just saying that because you're more than a little biased... :-P

So very true.<g> Oddly, I usually played the Cleric.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


Excellent points.

And, since each class has a niche, there hardly any issue about 'class balance". Since the Thief does his job, it isn't important if he's less powerful than the Wizard, as he still pulls his share of weight.

No. They just bongoed about having to play the thief or the cleric, since somebody had to. Granted we usually had someone playing a mage/thief or fighter/thief, so they were more fun.

Clerics didn't have as many multiclass options and were stuck being healbots far too much of the time.

Might not be "class balance", but causes a lot of the same problems. But worse, since you still needed them.

Naw- everyone wanted to play the Thief, or some variation. Cleric was pretty good at hitting things and could whup on Monsters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
patriarchus wrote:

I see two big differences between 'Old School' and the current ethos:

1) In the Old School, the creativity in the game before you sat down at the table was all in the hands of the DM. ...
2) In the Old School, the 'balance' in the game was calibrated for the party as a whole versus the intended encounters in a gaming session. A DM was expected to put challenges in front of the party that the party could handle by letting each character shine in specific situations (some traps for the thief, something requiring magic for the magic-user, some brutes for the fighter, and no chance to rest/an undead challenge for the cleric). That led to party composition ALWAYS having at least one of the major four classes and exotic parties were those that had the sub-classes while parties that didn't hit the main tent posts were usually annihilated. ...

Excellent points.

And, since each class has a niche, there hardly any issue about 'class balance". Since the Thief does his job, it isn't important if he's less powerful than the Wizard, as he still pulls his share of weight.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Note the OP didnt ask about Fighters, he asked about Martials.

A Ranger is certainly a Martial and has scads of Skills and other stuff to do, besides combat. Even has spells.

A Paladin is a great healer and can remove conditions- besides being a mighty Smiting machine.

Bloodrager, Swashbuckler, Slayer, Cavalier, Brawler & Gunslinger are all certainly Martials and can do other stuff.

Magus, Warpriest, are also arguably martials, despite their spellcasting.

So, that leaves just the Fighter. Yep, he can pretty well do one thing really really well- Kill. (Sure- a human with a measly int of 12 does get 4 Skp a level, which means he's not totally left out skill wise, and there are some interesting archetypes, like the Eldrich Guardian).

And you know what? That's exactly what some players want and like. There's like three dozen classes now. Why can't just one- [b]ONE![b/] be the plain vanilla killing machine that a good number of players want to play?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Trigger Loaded wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Trigger Loaded wrote:

I confess that I think Murderhobo is taken way too seriously, and that I am quite certain that most groups are practically murderhobos anyways.

Not in my experience.

Everyone always likes to deny it.

How many campaigns feature adventurers with no place of residence?
How many campaigns feature adventurers equipped, prepared, and often called upon to solve problems with violence?

Tell me this isn't the norm, and I'll say you're idealistic at best.

Are Knights Errant's Murderhoboes? US Marshals during the Wild West? Special agents of the Crown? Monsterhunters? How about pest control? Do you call the Orkingman a "murderer"?

Muderhobo means CE characters that murder anyone and everything as long as it brings eps or gold or fun. Unlawfully.

It doesnt mean adventurers who go around saving towns from ravaging monsters.

You have to get both the "murder" and "hobo" in there.

Your definition does include adventurers, but few adventurers "murder".

Last Campaign was RotRL and the PC's live in Sandpoint. Duly authorized, too, as official "Heroes of Sandpoint". Not hobos, not murderers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trigger Loaded wrote:

I confess that I think Murderhobo is taken way too seriously, and that I am quite certain that most groups are practically murderhobos anyways.

Not in my experience.


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.


2 people 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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadow_Charlatan wrote:

Will a Ring of Inner Fortitude protect the wearer from the Con damage when filling a Blood Reservoir of Physical Prowess ?

"A reservoir has no effect if not charged with the wearer's blood, and cannot be charged .... those that cannot take Constitution damage."

1 to 50 of 1,063 << 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.