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. 5,823 posts. 18 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 983 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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?


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.


2 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 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:


And bards are still silly. Versatile, useful, even powerful at times, but silly conceptually. Maybe it's because I'm not a musician, but for all its entertainment value, I've never subscribed to the "magic in the music" school of thinking. You rarely, if ever, see that with other forms of art, even though they can be just as beautiful, nuanced, complicated, and impactful as music.

It doesnt have to be music. Henry the V's St Crispins day's speech is an example of Oratory. It can be dance. It can even be ime, but then The Patrician would have you thrown in the scorpion pits, so.....

Bards are part of Celtic and Irish myth and legend, they inspired with Song, oratory and yes, even Satire.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Riuk wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I've never been a fan of Psoinics or stuff like it, however I am genuinely interested in Occult Adventures and will most likely get it as soon as it's out :-)
see I don't know why people don't like psionics its awesome!!! mind powers!!! I know the some of it feels overpowered but its easy to make any class feel overpowered

I know I am going to be shunned when I say this, but I was so scarred by the Munchkin horror that was AD&D Psionics, I still cant get myself to want to play it. I know recent versions are much better balanced, but it's like a snake phobia, I have a terrible and unfair knee jerk reaction.

Please try to forgive an Old Grognard for this and don't shun me too much. ;-)

But if you played that version you'd understand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

6. Cheating.

7. Eating all the snacks but never bringing any (but this is something that takes a long time to build up)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I can't make it more then 5 minutes into the Matrix before I have to shut it off.
Can't really shun you for that. I've seen it precisely once, when it first came out on VHS. I wasn't impressed.
I loved all three, but I'm willing to admit that they were only slightly above average as sci-fi movies go. That being said, I'm a philosophy buff and the underlying ideas that the movies are based on elevated them for me.

Matrix I was a great special effects action film, as long as you didnt stop to think about the silly concept.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Bill, Brain Collector wrote:
If it hurts your brain let massage them for you... So deliciously tender...

such a tiny snak........

;-)

Did you just use improper grammar and a misspelled word to infer that someone else was dumb? Even as a joke, the subtext of that is pretty humorous.

Based on your previous posts I've seen, Doc, I'm going with intentional, and for that I must say bravo. *golf clap* Well played satire.

Foghorn Leghorn: "It was a joke, son, a joke."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill, Brain Collector wrote:
If it hurts your brain let massage them for you... So deliciously tender...

such a tiny snak........

;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:


Monte Cook specifically called out the "Timmy Cards" as being completely intentional. Given that so many of them exist in Pathfinder, I have to assume they are following that (horrible) design paradigm.

Not really. People take that entirely out of context. Nor does Monte design for Paizo.

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2498/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-d ay-ivory-tower-design

"It raises some very important points, but over the years I’m afraid I’ve come to find it deeply annoying because whenever somebody links to it or quotes from it, I can almost guarantee you that they’re about to completely misrepresent the essay’s entire point.

What Cook basically says in the essay is, “Instead of just giving people a big toolbox full of useful tools, we probably should have included more instructions on when those tools are useful and how they can be used to best effect.”

But the vast majority of people quoting the essay instead snip some variant of “we wanted to reward mastery of the game” out of context and then go ape-s@#@ because D&D3 deliberately included “traps” for new players.

The methods of selective quoting vary, but they all basically look something like this:

“Toughness [is] not the best choice of feat.”

OMG! WHY WOULD THEY INCLUDE A SUCKY FEAT LIKE THAT?

There are two problems with this.

First, the full quote is actually, “Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it’s not the best choice of feat.” And then the essay goes on to further clarify its meaning: “To continue to use the simplistic example above, the Toughness feat could have been written to make it clear that it was for 1st-level elf wizards (where it is likely to give them a 100 percent increase in hit points). It’s also handy when you know you’re playing a one-shot session with 1st-level characters, like at a convention (you sure don’t want to take item creation feats in such an instance, for example).”

In other words, Toughness is a special purpose tool. When used properly, it’s a useful tool. When used improperly, it’s a wasted feat slot. The designers felt like people should be smart enough to figure that out for themselves, but the point of Cook’s essay is that it probably would have been better to include more usage guidelines."


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

Fair enough.

Still doesn't eliminate the needless goggles

Goggles are totally needed.

Rainier Wolfcastle: "My eyez! The goggles do nauthing!....."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oddly I used to scoff at this, as my experience has shown the more optimized the less roleplaying. But then I remember a few noteworthy exceptions.

However, what I have noticed is that in games where there is more NEED to optimize, where combat is emphasized and tactics are critical- Roleplaying TENDS to fall by the wayside. Note this is a tendency only not a hard and fast rule.

I think this is because us mere mortals can only concentrate on a few things at once. And when you must move precisely there, and remember all your bonuses, and think of what you and or your foe is going to do next - it's hard to also act out in character.

This is why sometimes I remember my AD&D games fondly. Not that there weren't groups who said "the hell with RP, I wanna kill something", but that combat movement was rarely important, bonuses might be one or two and thinking like a chess master was largely irrelevant.

So yeah, you certainly can do both- many people dont do both.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, the Stormwind Fallacy is not a fallacy. At best it's a meme, it's one guy's opinion.

Hardly a true logical fallacy or even a informal fallacy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
I don't like cure light wound wands because they trivialize healing in an unadventurous way.
I feel the same about Resurrection.

As I have posted before: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.
Jaelithe wrote:
I find it annoying and nonsensical when players think DMs should be subject to all the same limitations they are: Rolling in front of everyone,

I have found that rolling in front of everyone works best for the DM. Then when you get a crit and kill a PC, there are no hard feelings.


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

.

With a complex game like Pathfinder, with so many books and options in all of them, players will find ways to circumvent encounters in ridiculously easy fashion. This is an inherent problem with the system, more so than many other games. The unfortunate reality is that as long as you play Pathfinder, players will be able to find "I win" buttons that can negate any amount of careful planning on the GM's part.

Adventurers are like those chimps. And, since I have been DMing since 1974 i can tell you this has nothing at all to do with Pathfinder, the chimps have been outsmarting the DM and doing the unexpected for 40 years.

Expect the unexpected. Go with it.

Oh, you've been playing for 40 years. Well then, I'll shut up, because clearly you know everything better than I do. [/sarcasm]

Nope. But I do know older systems, having been around when they were played and even helped write them. You likely know PF better than I do.

However, since I do know the older systems I can tell you that Pathfinder is in no way unique or unusual in players finding ways to circumvent encounters in a ridiculously easy fashion, they always have, ever since OD&D. This is nothing new just to Pathfinder.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:


Fox is basically the worst thing ever..

Look, Rynjin & I agree!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

.

With a complex game like Pathfinder, with so many books and options in all of them, players will find ways to circumvent encounters in ridiculously easy fashion. This is an inherent problem with the system, more so than many other games. The unfortunate reality is that as long as you play Pathfinder, players will be able to find "I win" buttons that can negate any amount of careful planning on the GM's part.

There's a story about and experiment with a chimp put into a room with a nice bunch of bananas out of reach. The scientist placed two boxes and a stick in the room.

He made the experiment so that the chimps could either stack the boxes and get the fruit, os stand on one bow with the stick. He'd then let in 1 or 2 chimps and recorded on his checklist whether the chimps did:

A. Two boxes
B. Box & Stick
C. Failure.

In every case the chimps got the reward, but in no case did they go for A or B. Sometimes they jumped with the stick. Once they threw the box at the bananas. With two chimps they often got on each others back.

Adventurers are like those chimps. And, since I have been DMing since 1974 i can tell you this has nothing at all to do with Pathfinder, the chimps have been outsmarting the DM and doing the unexpected for 40 years.

Expect the unexpected. Go with it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:


Subway's bread isn't as good tasting now that they stopped adding yoga mat plastic to it. But it probably is a whole lot healthier.

The Food babe uses totally wrong science. Try reading the Science babe, who has thrashed the Food babes ridiculous wrongheaded pseudo-science ideas .

http://gawker.com/the-food-babe-blogger-is-full-of-s##*-1694902226
"This is Hari's business. She takes innocuous ingredients and makes you afraid of them by pulling them out of context (Michelle Francl, in a review of Hari's book for Slate, expertly demonstrates the shallowness of this gimmick). This is how Hari demonized the harmless yet hard-to-pronounce azodicarbonamide, or as she deemed it, the "yoga mat chemical," which is yes, found in yoga mats and also in bread, specifically Subway sandwich bread, a discovery Hari bombastically trumpeted on her website. However, as the science-minded among us understand, a substance can be used for more than one thing perfectly safely, and it doesn't mean that your bread is made of a yoga mat if it happens to contain azodicarbonamide, which is FDA-approved as a dough-softening agent. It simply means your bread is composed of chemicals, much like everything else you eat.

Hari's rule? "If a third grader can't pronounce it, don't eat it."

My rule? Don't base your diet on the pronunciation skills of an eight-year-old."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:


Plus, no prosciutto (crudo or cotto), no prosciuttini, no sopressata, no capocollo, and their salame di Sant'Olcese (genoa) is under spiced, their provolone dolce is tasteless, no provolone piccante at all, no pepper shooters or cherries, no pepper spread...

I want to eat at that sub shop. Add in balsamic or good red wine vinegar and olive oil, and you have made me a very happy Evil Overlord.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:

Some people use the phrase "minmax" to refer to high optimization builds with minimal weaknesses, capable of contributing in all or almost all circumstances.

Other people, such as DrDeth, use the word "minmax" to refer to extremely unoptimized builds with crippling overspecialization.

Actually that's not at all how I Define the term. It means you MAXimize your Strengths while MINimizing everything else not critical to those Strengths.

I have seen no one defining the term how you do the first line:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MinMaxing
"The art, much beloved of munchkins, of optimizing a character's abilities during creation by maximizing the most important skills and attributes, while minimizing the cost. This is done by strategic decrease of stats believed to be less important in game (called "Dump Stats"), exploiting hideously overpowered but legal combinations of the Game System, obtaining the best toys and magic weapons accessible to a character, or by stacking flaws and handicaps until your character's Backstory looks like a Joss Whedon character's resume."

http://www.giantbomb.com/min-maxing/3015-128/
"Min-maxing is the character-building strategy of maximizing a specific desirable ability, skill, or other power of a character and minimizing everything else, seen as undesirable. The result is a character who is excessively powerful in one particular way, but exceedingly weak in others.

Min-maxing has a history of controversy among players and game designers. Game designers may dislike min-maxing because it discourages variety in play through extreme specialization. It can also 'break' the difficulty balance of a game--making parts of a game too easy or too hard--since games are usually tuned with the goal of providing a reasonable (and thus enjoyable) level of challenge throughout for all normal character builds. A min-maxed character build can often puncture the intended equilibrium of difficulty by being unreasonably good at one thing and unreasonable bad at many others.

Furthermore, if the one thing that a min-maxed character is good at is overall more useful (e.g. combat) than other character abilities (e.g. talking or environmental exploration), the player is likely to rely heavily on that one thing they're good at to solve all situations in the game (e.g. killing everyone instead of talking to them). Game designers often attempt to limit the success of min-maxing by including challenges in their games that cannot all be met by any one specialized character build or by incorporating limits into the rules of character building to prevent overspecialization (e.g. point costs to raise an attribute increase the higher the attribute is, or a character's highest level skill cannot be increased more than 5 levels above their lowest, etc.).

Game designers may also dislike min-maxing by players if it means the player sees their character in starkly mechanical terms rather than as a fictional person. As a result, a min-maxing player may be less likely to roleplay their character or to engage with the game's story or other characters in a way reasonable for an imagined inhabitant of the game world."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_video_game_terms
Min-Maxing
The practice of playing a role-playing game, wargame or video game with the intent of creating the "best" character by means of minimizing undesired or unimportant traits and maximizing desired ones.[33] This is usually accomplished by improving one specific trait or ability by sacrificing ability in all other fields. This is easier to accomplish in games where attributes are generated from a certain number of points rather than in ones where they are randomly generated.[34]

In fact, note that I dont even say Min/maxing is bad. Certainly some degree of it is normal, and even to be desired.

But like anything else it can be taken to extremes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Romaq wrote:

I

I started "D&D" (then went to Pathfinder) wanting to play a spell-
casting ferret. I still want to play my spell-casting ferret, and have
not yet done so.

Here's what I'd so. You, the ferret- would be the spellcaster. The human would be your familiar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I like red vinegar on my french fries.

Try malt vinegar.

kyrt-ryder try Balsamic on a sub someday. Yum!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
Soilent wrote:

I sincerely believe that every player has the right to min/max.

Just like every GM has the responsibility to punish those who do so.

Why do you feel like it is the responsibility of the GM to punish a player?

If the player is specializing in being a one trick pony then merely making a decent variety of encounters will make the downsides of being a one trick pony obvious. You don't need to go out of your way to screw over the player. You just need to not constantly cater to them.

Here's the real problem- the Min-Maxer often punishes his fellow players, and that's where the real issue lies. You love doing damage so you dump wis to 7, which mean you fail your will save, are dominated and have to/ get to kill the party. For some players, that's actually fun- they love showing that their PC is so powerful he can take out the rest of the party. It is NOT fun for the rest of the players, some of whom may be rather attached to their character and have put days of work into them, backstory, etc. Of course the Min/max tank is one of those like Soilentc mention- not even bothering with a name. Being killed by a fellow party member who wanted to do a little more DPR is annoying.

Most often it's some guy who wants to do combat and only combat. His PC has no social skills- heck, with a 7 INT no skills at all... forcing the other players to design PC's to make up for his deficiencies.

And maybe he is a decent roleplayer- who then RP's his 7 CHA to get the party INTO as many fights as possible- since that's all he wants to do anyway.

In reality, such a PC would simply be kicked out of a group. But since D&D is a game, we let him play.

So it's not Mix/maxing that's the problem- it's that a lot of jerk players use min/maxing to be bigger jerks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Why is requiring training such a horribly bad sign? I don't like it myself but I don't see the horror here...

It's another way for the control-phreak DM to control the PC's in every little way.

For example- let's say you level during a quest. Well, you know the quest is super difficult, and the fate of the world hangs on it- so getting better will help you succeed. But then the DM has a time requirement on the quest so that you cant take the time to level.

Or the training costs so much you are stuck at one level for much longer than you should be.

Adventuring *IS* training.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
I too begin playing in the 1970s (1976 to be exact), but alas I am only in my fifth decade, and I too bow to DrDeath's seniority.

You and knightnday both started in the 70's so you get Grognard cred.

(Gives secret handshake).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Based on how long everyone else has been playing, it feels like I'm the youngest person on these boards. ^_^

Get off my lawn!

I have entered my sixth decade, been playing since 1974 or so.

1 to 50 of 983 << 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.