|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Twoflower wants his Luggage back.
Not a "fine detail" nor is he attempting a stealth roll, thus no check is required. Read the rules.
Just inexcusably augmentative.
As I have said many times- you can NOT solve a OOC problem IC.
This is one kinds of issue I'll actually claim "grognard cred' on. Really, after 40 years of playing with many many players and group and systems- this is one Truth I have learned. A jerk is a jerk. You have to get the player to stop being a jerk first.
Sitting down and talking with him like an adult is the best first step. Having your Pc's refuse to adventure with him is about the only thing that works IC.
"Killing him" will reward his jerk behavior. Now, his new PC is justified in being even a bigger jerk.
Umm, not only did I read Jame’s post, his post was responding to my question.
It depends- what are we talking about when “we are ‘talking about rogues’? It’s important to compare apple to apples and oranges to oranges. For example- what class is the best archer? point can be made for either ranger or fighter. The Monk base class is a incredibly bad archer. But the Zen archer is fantastic, considered by many to be better than base Fighter or Ranger. Of course then we need to bring in Fighter or Ranger archetypes too then, right? (Still the Zen archer does well, however)
The point has been made that rogue fails as trapfinding can be done as well by two other class archetypes. NOT CLASSES. The archeologist bard and Trapper ranger. But so? That’s comparing apples to oranges.
There are several very good rogue archetypes than in many ways are better than the base class- scout and of course ninja. If we are comparing how base classes are, we compare base classes. If we add in archetypes- then we add in archetypes for both sides of the debate, not just one. But of course the rogue-haters don;t want a level playing field, they don't want a fair comparo- they can only prove their point by saying "This apple isn't orange enough and it's skin is too thin & hard to peel, and there's no sections...".
In this case, of course, the Ninja archetype would not suit what the OP’s player seems to want.
The rogue is a fine class. Yes, often, just like with any other class, a rogue archetype will suit the role better than the base class would. When we're talking blaster Sorcs, certain bloodlines are WAY better than others- that doesn't mean the sorc sux at blasting just because a couple bloodlines do poorly at blasting.
The Crusader wrote:
You can just inform his PC (IC)he's no longer part of the party. In form the player why OOC. Then refuse to adventure with him.
Do not kill his PC. That's exactly what he wants.
Yeah, I played it. The actual history was that some of Gygax's players were bragging about how unstoppable their PC's were. Hubris. It was designed to show that Hubris was a bad trait in Pc's, then later used for a con game, then etc. Not as a real dungeon.
Mind you, I use the term "Gygaxian trap" around here to indicate the kind of fiendish traps that simply "taking the hit" won't work with. Traps were a much bigger threat. But no, things weren't all that more lethal...mostly.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Hey, I resemble that remark! ;-)
Yes, you have to dump Attacks of Opportunity. This gets rid of the 'chess-move" like issues with new-school.
Skills are Old School.
My intent was to try and find understanding in the thought processes behind some of those threads. Like the aforementioned new players, I'm just confused is all.
No. No you're not. You have started many threads which left many of us scratching out heads over the OP's "thought processes". And you know that damn well . Stop being disingenuous.
You're smart, you're imaginative, so stop being cute & coy.
It seems to me like people are getting to a point where they are complaining just for the sheer sake of complaining, and about things that don't make sense what's more.
I have heard of the pot calling the kettle black, but this takes the cake. Ravingdork, you're complaining about "people complaining just for the sheer sake of complaining"? ;-)
This would be like me telling people that grognard cred is meaningless.
As far as a "code" goes: "Well, you see- those of us who have a certain level of skill mastery only optimize our characters to be a notch above the newer players. Thus- fun for all.
Yes, it does take even more system mastery that the optimizers use here on these boards to do it, but it's worth it.
You design a PC who is fun, optimized just enough, and survivable. No need to be the biggest bad-$$$ at the table- the game is not a competition, there are no "winners".
Help the newbs avoid the more crippling mistakes without railroading them. if they want to play a rogue, do tell them about Bards or that super archetype the Ninja- but then if they don't like that idea, just make a few suggestions. Don't say "Oh Noes, rouges are teh suxxor, you CAN'T play one of those, it's badwrongfun."
I find I enjoy the game way, WAY more when the whole table is having fun."
"responsible for two other player's characters"= doing what?
Dude, it's simple. Sit down and talk it out like adults.
As one of the boards grognards, I need to remind the OP that adventures set outside the standard adventuring world into weird stuff have been part of D&D since it's inception.
Expedition to the Barrier Peaks - 1980 , takes place on alien spaceship. One of the highest rated D&D adventures of all time.
In a very early Dragon magazine there is a adventure pitting the party vs nazis in tanks & such.
There's also the Gygax adventure Dungeonland, set in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.
Obviously, D&D, which requires a rich and fertile imagination, is not for the OP. May I suggest a nice game of checkers? Normally I suggest Candyland, but since that does require a suspension of disbelief, it may be too much for his stunted and feeble imagination.
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?
And see, even tho I have been called (not entirely without justification) a “Paizo fanboy” here on the boards, I think JJ is wrong. Yes, this is an issue which any experienced & sane DM will say “NO” on. But, I’ll point out that several of our more “popular” posters here talk about such things as they are everyday happenings.
However, not every DM is ‘experienced”. What’s a newb DM to do when shown a poorly written rule and a lot of posts on the Official Paizo website saying that yeah, it’s OK? It’s not just a “bad DM” James. It could be new DMs . Don’t fix this for the bad DM, fix it for the new DMs.
I suspect this is why this hasn't been fixed. But- they should anyway.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
.and none of the published materials mention the entire world being covered in lead, and don't deal with the effects of lead-based paint being so prevalent (given its toxicity), and don't explain why it's still so cheap if it's in such high demand. Your solution isn't a good one for a campaign with any internal consistency.
Right. Not to mention that afaik, none of the APs are set up that way.
Or...or..or. But BBEG in AP do none of these. So, either it's not necessary in Golarion, all the BBEG are really stupid or DM's have to change the AP.
I think it's A.
Certainly. Nothing stops someone wanting to make a simulacrum of an efreet expecting access to wish either. The only thing stopping it is the GM. The thing differentiating the two is that planar binding prescribes many ways a bound creature can potentially escape or have other ramifications. Simulacrum has no such provisions and even the higher binding spells don't modify how the process works at all except for the HD of the outsider you bind. Simulacrum is simply "do this, get this" with no buts or clauses. Thus, when comparing the two, it deserves a set of guidelines for various scenarios.
Right. But even Planar Binding has issues.
And in order to force open a door, you make the player do chin-ups? In order to walk across a gorge, you have set up a plank over some bricks, right and if the player fall off so does the PC?
Look, it's called a ROLEplaying game. Thus players who arent strong should be able to play Thog the Mighty, clumsy players should be able to play Fineous Fingers, and the guy in a wheelchair huffing on his inhaler must be able to play Halfdan the unkillable.
Some PLAYERS are naturally more glib and silver tongued than others. if they have dumped CHA down to 5 and have no ranks in social skills, why should they be able to out-talk Senofen Silvertounge who has a +50 in diplomacy?
I'd hate to see combat at your table, I can see it now "OH, there's some bandits. (Dumps pile of swords & axes on the table)- OK, Bobby you play the bandits, Dave....
of course he fell... into the deepest darkest pits of hellfire and damnation!
We already know now by the posts on the board that every Paladin not only has to measure up to what his Code is, and his deity wants, but the modern day morality and ethics of every poster on this board.
Thus, they have all fallen. Golarion is inhabited by roving tribes of anti-paladins.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
To quote that great 1985 film "Clue": "Too late!"
Liam Warner wrote:
You never saw that SF great "Amazon Women on the Moon"?!?
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I have seen nothing like that in the moderation. Some few posts by the staff are quite liberal and modern, yes.
Yes, and no. My group, being all very experienced and mature players, can rely upon Common Sense. But we have to remember PF is played by younger folk, and people new not only to PF but to RPG's in general. So, for them, we need to get these issues fixed .
So, I think both sides can agree. Yes, our experienced tables can rely upon houserules and common sense. But not every group has the same level of expertise and maturity.
Trust me, I know about earlier editions, I was a Dev back then. ;-) A rather bad one too.
But yes, of course- no sane DM allows these. However, many newbs read these boards. These kinds of weird loopholes are CONSTANTLY used as examples- as to why spellcasters are overpowered, or why the designers of PF don't know what they are doing or whatever crazy point that needs to be proved.
So, all I ask is for the Design team to take a few hours and clean these up. It won;t stop the munchkin hordes- nothing but firm DMing can, you're right- but it will cut back some of their posts.
As many have discussed the old "sno-cone wish machine" is a way to mis-use the simulacrum spell to have (for example) a half HD Efreet, who then casts three wishes a day for you. This appears to be rather a strained reading of RAW, and is likely not RAI, but the actual wording of the Simulacrum spell is ambiguous.
Can we get a clarification on this spell?
1. Can you get Wish from a Simulacrum?
2. What is meant by "appropriate special abilities" and "a creature of that level or HD" in "It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)."
What does he do for the party? I build an awesome high AC monk with snake style to get AoOs every time someone misses. I then realized nobody was going to miss, because they weren't going to attack me.
Not every monster has Skill Focus in Metagaming. ;-)
He tanks, and could be a decent scout.
So, you believe you have a better idea of how the game works than the Design Team does? Am I understanding you correctly?
Not at all, in fact I said the opposite. Even the Design Team has admitted that some things from some new products don't mesh as well at they should with other products. They can't anticipate all combos, sometimes mistakes are made.
I just don't think they saw this combo coming. It's really easy to do when you have a lot of products, not all of which are written by the same person or team.
The Design Team also admitted making some errors in accidentally leaving in outdated wording from a previous edition. I think Planar binding, Simulacrum and Scry vs Teleport are in this category. James Jacobs has made it clear that you can't 'scry & fry" but so far they have not changed the wording of Teleport.
Is James Jacobs then saying the Design team is in error? Not at all, they just haven't gotten around so that the RAW matches with the RAI yet. Part of the idea of this thread is to get the Design team to fix some of these.
And Jiggy, I am not understanding why you have been so hostile to my posts in this thread.
Fabius Maximus wrote:
He's been attacked pretty savagely by the usual bunch of Pathfinder "haters", so I have sympathy.
Knowing Rynjin's posting history, I am pretty sure he didn't mean it in a derogatory fashion or as a slur. Mind you, tempers got pretty heated in that thread.