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. 6,307 posts (6,308 including aliases). 18 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,307 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

One thing that you may want to look out for: If the centaur leader challenges the dwarf to a duel, be SURE that the dwarf is reasonably overmatched by that centaur. The player will learn exactly the wrong lesson if he wins that duel or if he loses it strictly because of GM fiat.

No, the dwarf player will only learn that being rude gets him exactly what he wants- more attention, more time in the spotlight.
then you just have to teach them that getting attention is not always a good idea

You cannot solve a OOC problem IC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

One thing that you may want to look out for: If the centaur leader challenges the dwarf to a duel, be SURE that the dwarf is reasonably overmatched by that centaur. The player will learn exactly the wrong lesson if he wins that duel or if he loses it strictly because of GM fiat.

No, the dwarf player will only learn that being rude gets him exactly what he wants- more attention, more time in the spotlight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andre Roy wrote:
Kileanna wrote:
DebugAMP wrote:
Worsen the NPC's attitude one step. If that reduces them to unfriendly or worse, have them withold whatever (possibly meager) reward was initially offered with the comment "Your reward is to leave here with your tongue intact." If this reduces them to hostile... well... it may not be a good day for that NPC.
That might colaterally affect other party members so I don't like it too much as a solution.

Actually, that could be the best thing to happen to the group...especially if they've been breezing through social encounters where the dwarf (not the player) was being a jerk with no consequences.

If the whole party suffers because of the dwarf ill manners, they will learn the very important lesson that the action of each and everyone of them has an impact on all of them, especially outside of combat. That way, they'll start to keep the dwarf on a short leash or bluntly tell him to shut up if get acts up, them do their best to apologize/molify the insulted party.

Look, I have been in parties where one guy always mouths off. Short of keeping the Player muzzled, you can't stop him by giving the PARTY consequences, since he is fine with that, all he wants is attention.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Was Narsil even an artifact? I never saw any indication it was more than a really well-made and important sword.

According to the books, when wielded in battled it was bathed in white flame, and could tear through shields and armor with incredible ease. (They took that out in the films)

"But even as the orc flung down the truncheon and swept out his scimitar, Andúril came down upon his helm. There was a flash like flame and the helm burst asunder. "

Not to mention it took out Sauron.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Actually, TL, DrDeth mentioned the light elsewhere, so it's not that.

The thing is, those weren't really "artifacts" in our understanding of the term. The thing is, in LOTR, any magic item is some sort of "artifact", because magic items are not common. That you guys are treating a glorified everburning torch like an artifact is a testament to how well Tolkien kept up their mysticism. Even something as minor as that was a big f!$%ing deal.

Also, it's unfair to include the DMPC when you discuss the party's magic level in LOTR. :P

Phial of Galadriel was at least a gem of Brightness, with added Morale bonuses.

And since the Elves did trade in lembas at times and used to sell their wares before they shut themselves in, yes, you could buy "magic items" in Middle earth. The Dwarves would also make items on command.

According to MERP, other items, like Gimlis Ax, chainmail, etc were also "magic" but so low power they were unremarkable.

I mean, Aragorn (Or Bombadil) didnt make a big deal of the bane daggers handed out to all the hobbits, "but but feared to keep the, knowing them for what they are: work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor" " and only blades with special spells could harm him". so forth. Pretty strong stuff to hand out like party favors. And there were four of them. Not one of the Fellowship mentioned how powerful and old they were, they were not remarkable, despite their obvious age and power.

Sting was considered totally unremarkable by Gandalf and Elrond, but it detected orcs and was thrust into a solid oak beam like a knife into butter. And was well over 6000 years old. But of no real note.

So, just like adventurers might note they had a Vorpal sword or a Staff of Power, no one talks about their +1 sword.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


And 3 artifacts? 2 rings. What else? Or are you counting one of the swords?

Narsil/Anduril.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
andygal wrote:

If this is a reoccurring issue that is annoying you (rather than just the NPCs) it might be an idea to talk to the player(s) outside the game and ask them to dial it back a bit.

Yeah, sit them down and talk to them like adults. Tell them that this makes the game less fun for us, as the DM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
I think there are two conflicting goals being considered here. The more fantastical we make the world, the less fantasical any given aspect of the world will be.
Not necessarily. Middle-Earth is a highly magical world, but the magic as used by the characters is still something extraordinary.

Well, maybe.

The Fellowship had three artifacts, several powerful named weapons, a chain shirt that was unique and more or less the Invulnerable Coat of Arnt (another artifact), elven cloaks all around, a staff of power of some sort, some sort of Gem of Light Holy item, 4 bane weapons, a magic horn, ropes,The walking sticks Faramir gave to Sam and Frodo, Aragorns sheath, ...
not to mention several things like Aragorns Ring and Amulet that werent spelled out.


Terquem wrote:

Of course there was Chivalry and Sorcery, a difficult set of rules to read, but fun in its own way. Stated from the beginning to be set in a medieval setting with some elements of magic along the lines of people like merlin and Morgana

I actually played that......


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Razcar wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

In Pathfinder, at least according to JJ, your party is the only group of adventurers. Adventuring is not only rare but unique.

He did? That sounds mighty strange, seeing as I just ran an "ex-adventurer" NPC from Hell's Rebels, and I've seen plenty others in other APs. Do you have a link please? Or are you referring to this, perhaps?

James Jacobs wrote:
Adventures aren't that common actually. Don't confuse the fact that there are many many many thousands of gamers playing campaigns and adventures set in Golarion for a direct corollary to an equal number of adventurers being in Golarion. Adventurers aren't so much not surprised to meet other adventurers not because they're common, but because they generally congregate in the same regions.

Thanks, Razcar, for posting this. I see adventurers as sort of like celebrities—inexplicably wealthy, inexplicably important, and fairly uncommon (but not so uncommon you won't have heard of them).

I'm not too interested in the second quote DrDeth alludes to. As Mr. Jacobs has said himself, he's not a rules source. His own personal rulings while GMing are about as significant as my own. :P

No, he's not a RULES source. He's *THE* setting source. That is a setting question. As long as he is talking about Golarion, he is THE Source.

1. He's not. He is the original source of the setting, but how he chooses to run his games is not the end-all-be-all. Especially when it's just from an off-the-cuff answer in an informal forum AMA.

2. He has repeatedly asked that people stop using his casual answers in the Ask thread as ammo for their own arguments. S&&% like this is why he closed down the thread before.

Well, it's how he sets up and does Golarion, not just his own games.

Only for rules questions. I mean if asked about some bit of history of background on Golarion, he is the Source. And, since no one else is, since the rules guys only officially answer rules FAQ, what your saying is that no one has the say of what Golarion is like.

Of course, you can play there are hundreds of thousands of adventurers on Golarion if you like. No one will tell you "thats against the rules". Because it isnt.

But Golarion and the APs were set up more or less as if your party were it. If you fail, Elminister or the Circle of Eight or whoever wont ride in and save the village/kingdom/world. At best you can bring in another party.

So what were talking about is the general campaign setting guidelines for Golarion.

Which you are free to ignore.

But still for many of us, it's nice to read and hear from the Creative Director what their assumptions are in writing APs, etc.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Razcar wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

In Pathfinder, at least according to JJ, your party is the only group of adventurers. Adventuring is not only rare but unique.

He did? That sounds mighty strange, seeing as I just ran an "ex-adventurer" NPC from Hell's Rebels, and I've seen plenty others in other APs. Do you have a link please? Or are you referring to this, perhaps?

James Jacobs wrote:
Adventures aren't that common actually. Don't confuse the fact that there are many many many thousands of gamers playing campaigns and adventures set in Golarion for a direct corollary to an equal number of adventurers being in Golarion. Adventurers aren't so much not surprised to meet other adventurers not because they're common, but because they generally congregate in the same regions.

Thanks, Razcar, for posting this. I see adventurers as sort of like celebrities—inexplicably wealthy, inexplicably important, and fairly uncommon (but not so uncommon you won't have heard of them).

I'm not too interested in the second quote DrDeth alludes to. As Mr. Jacobs has said himself, he's not a rules source. His own personal rulings while GMing are about as significant as my own. :P

No, he's not a RULES source. He's *THE* setting source. That is a setting question. As long as he is talking about Golarion, he is THE Source.


master_marshmallow wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

I really dont like the idea that you must make your Fighter a drooling moron or uncouth loser.

if the only way a guide will work is by dumping, then IMHO the guide doesnt work.

Maybe you can not recommend dumping but just suggest it as a alternative?

Also "As far as Pathfinder RPG is concerned, the only real way to tank is with a silly feat called Antagonize" is incorrect. Yes, in MMO, there is a role called "tank". the role is not the same as in D&D where the Tank role (which existed before there were MMO games) is a heavily armored high HP guy who can block corridors, and being in front in combat, often get the less tactical foes to hit him first.

You are writing this guide for PF, not for MMOs. The term "tank" doesnt mean the same. What you call "power turtle" is in fact the D&D/PF "tank".

Keep reading, I've covered attribute versatility in the roles section and in the end of my arrays I suggest using racial modifiers in such a way.

I'm not sure what games you're playing in where the impossible to hit guy is the one the enemies always go after with no way of coercion, but we must play a very different game. The difference the roles is in their description.

If you don't like the guide, use a different one. The arrays are recommendations, you aren't forced to play this way.

I saw that.

Where did I say "always go after with no way of coercion"? In a narrow dungeon corridor, they have to get past him. Enemies who arent so smart will hit the front guy first. And with a tiny bit of smarts on the part of your spellcasters* and party, no one will know that they are casters until they start casting. And arguably, with some spells, you need the Spellcraft skill, which few foes have.

In any case, the term "tanking",in D&D doesnt mean 'aggro making the foe attack". It means what you called "Power turtle". And D&D came first, before MMOs.

You asked for advice, not just for validation.

Either take it or dont.

* spells and armor that make you look like armor but arrn't or armour that looks like clothes. Spellcasters can certainly carry weapons- not to mention, there's little to pick from a Cleric of Iodemae and a Paladin of same.

Yes, we know Rincewind wore a pointy hat that said "WIZZARD" on it, but it's not really a such a good idea.


I really dont like the idea that you must make your Fighter a drooling moron or uncouth loser.

if the only way a guide will work is by dumping, then IMHO the guide doesnt work.

Maybe you can not recommend dumping but just suggest it as a alternative?

Also "As far as Pathfinder RPG is concerned, the only real way to tank is with a silly feat called Antagonize" is incorrect. Yes, in MMO, there is a role called "tank". the role is not the same as in D&D where the Tank role (which existed before there were MMO games) is a heavily armored high HP guy who can block corridors, and being in front in combat, often get the less tactical foes to hit him first.

You are writing this guide for PF, not for MMOs. The term "tank" doesnt mean the same. What you call "power turtle" is in fact the D&D/PF "tank".


Razcar wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

In Pathfinder, at least according to JJ, your party is the only group of adventurers. Adventuring is not only rare but unique.

He did? That sounds mighty strange, seeing as I just ran an "ex-adventurer" NPC from Hell's Rebels, and I've seen plenty others in other APs. Do you have a link please? Or are you referring to this, perhaps?

James Jacobs wrote:
Adventures aren't that common actually. Don't confuse the fact that there are many many many thousands of gamers playing campaigns and adventures set in Golarion for a direct corollary to an equal number of adventurers being in Golarion. Adventurers aren't so much not surprised to meet other adventurers not because they're common, but because they generally congregate in the same regions.

Well, sure. "ex".

No it was a response to a question i asked him a year or so ago, about whether or not the standard 4 PC party of wizard, cleric, rogue, Fighter was common enough that bandits etc would KNOW to hit the wizard first. The answer was no, they wouldnt not without knowledge ranks, since adventurers are so rare your party is the only one they have ever encountered.

So, the answers dont really contradict one another. Adventurers, as in a party of heavily armed multiracial people, all with class levels- is very rare or unique.

Adventurers= a party of heavily armed often multiracial people, all with class levels, willing to do quests for glory and loot. Not usually on a payroll.Usually fairly independent. Usually mostly Good aligned.

It's just not common for a elf wizard, a dwarf fighter, a halfling rogue and a human cleric to join together for this sort of stuff.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Klorox wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
So, what is an adventurer to you? Because if it precludes scholars and archaeologists...
It doesn't. But it does require more than just being one of those groups.
So, again, what is an adventurer? :P
A murderhobo with PC class levels?

Murderhoboes are not adventurers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
HolmesandWatson wrote:


[I]The CMT conversions also adhere to the original adventure module's content, in the spirit of Old School Roleplaying. For those unfamiliar with the core concepts of Old School Roleplaying, here are the most important points.

1

3. The OSR games were based on sword and sorcery literature. In these stories, happy endings were uncommon, strange and vicious creatures flourished, weird magic was the norm, and protagonists were less hero and more mercenary in bent.

4. The mortality rate of characters in OSR games was much higher than it is in modern RPGs. Characters were better than normal folk, but not super heroic. They were expected to hire additional people to accompany them on dungeon forays due to the danger level. .

Well, do they have any real Old School writers? because some of this is wrong.

Happy endings were quite common.

High Mortality rate? Not so much. I mean yes, some DM and Dungeons were killers. But my very first character didnt die until 9th level, and he went into a solo just to die and become a martyr.

You did have hirelings if the party wasnt big enuf, yes. That's how the Thief was born.

But PF has more "hirelings" in a way with animal companions, Leadership feats and what not.

So, I am not sure if WotC knows what they are talking about.

I think they don't know what old school roleplaying IS nor do they know how it was done or what even made people love AD&D in the first place.

Personal opinion, of course.

Part of that, is if what they said was true, there would be no Robilar, nor any Mordekainan, nor any Tenser, nor any Otiluke.

Gygax was FAR more forgiving in his personal campaigns and dungeons than what it appeared or occurred during tournaments with the tournament modules...which is where you saw the high death rate.

Yes, the Infamous Tomb of Horrors was designed as a challenge game, not really as a killer dungeon.


thejeff wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, in a world in which teams of people regularly delve into ancient ruins and similar, take everything even remotely valuable that's not nailed down too hard, and return to town looking to hock half the stuff, there would be quite a lot of money to be made in catering to whatever they're looking to buy, since they're taking money out of the ground/a dragon's horde/whatever and putting it into the local economy.

I mean, if you're the guy who mass produces haversacks, that's a lot more lucrative (and safer) than actually going into the dungeon yourself.

In a world in which adventurers are common, and making magic items isn't hard, magic marts are plausible (and more or less inevitable.)

Mind you, I prefer a world in which "adventuring" isn't a common profession and rarely involves just going into ruins for loot.

In Pathfinder, at least according to JJ, your party is the only group of adventurers. Adventuring is not only rare but unique.


HolmesandWatson wrote:


[I]The CMT conversions also adhere to the original adventure module's content, in the spirit of Old School Roleplaying. For those unfamiliar with the core concepts of Old School Roleplaying, here are the most important points.

1

3. The OSR games were based on sword and sorcery literature. In these stories, happy endings were uncommon, strange and vicious creatures flourished, weird magic was the norm, and protagonists were less hero and more mercenary in bent.

4. The mortality rate of characters in OSR games was much higher than it is in modern RPGs. Characters were better than normal folk, but not super heroic. They were expected to hire additional people to accompany them on dungeon forays due to the danger level. .

Well, do they have any real Old School writers? because some of this is wrong.

Happy endings were quite common.

High Mortality rate? Not so much. I mean yes, some DM and Dungeons were killers. But my very first character didnt die until 9th level, and he went into a solo just to die and become a martyr.

You did have hirelings if the party wasnt big enuf, yes. That's how the Thief was born.

But PF has more "hirelings" in a way with animal companions, Leadership feats and what not.

So, I am not sure if WotC knows what they are talking about.


Shadowdancers get a Shadow. Very handy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
stormcrow27 wrote:

1. I hate playing normal race characters. I will go out of my way to avoid playing the big six since I have been almost every iteration of each of them at some point from 1982 on. It's gotten to the point I even suggest to other players that we should all play non big six characters in extended or adopted families. This probably says something about I how I see myself and others.

2. I hate RAW. Really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really hate it, and those who use it for everything. That attitude grinds every time I read it on the forums or the Facebook Pathfinder RPG group.

4.I have now begun to question whether buying all of the 1st and 2nd Ed D&D books and then ogling the illustrations when I was much younger was a really good idea....

I will play a weird race when everyone is playing the basic six, and i will play a human when everyone is playing a weird race.

why do you hate me? :-(

well, it hasnt effected me any. They even let me use the computers here at The Home. Nothing sharp, tho....;-)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
CoolSkeleton95 wrote:
Alni wrote:
I pick a theme song and a font that matches the characters handwritting.
WOWIE! THAT SOUNDS FUN! TELL ME, HUMAN: WHAT FONT WOULD YOU PICK FOR ME, THE GREAT PAPYRUS?

Wingdings.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Oh, of course, of course!

*Scribble scribble*

Gets out Flitgun, sprays for kobolds....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady Ladile wrote:

Still not sure if it's 'embarrassing' but it's more serious than my last one and it relates to my experiences doing Play-by-Post here. I have a hard time relating when people tell me that they've legitimately cried over PC deaths (whether theirs or someone else's) or have gotten emotional writing a post or have actually experienced sleeplessness or other out-of-game distress relating to the game.

This is absolutely not an attempt to pass judgement on anyone; if anything my own lack of responses puzzle me a little because I've certainly had emotional responses to reading a good book or seeing a good movie. But I think I've gotten emotional writing a post exactly once and while I think PC death stinks and try my best to avoid it happening, my attitude is always more along the lines of, "Bummer...guess I'd better be thinking of a new character now." The closest I've come is feeling guilty after a character of mine made a bad call in a game and nearly got herself and half the party killed, but to be honest? I didn't want to admit it at the time but I actually felt a little resentful that I felt guilty.

Does that make sense to anyone?

Yes, it does.

I got emotional once that I remember. It was a campaign game with lots of politics. You had to have a very detailed character backstory. We were lvl 8 with that set.

The DM announced some new critical rules he was trying. First combat, some low level mook fires a arrow. 20. Confirm 20, confirm another 20! Auto kill. two weeks of work wasted in 5 minutes due to a stupid new rule.


Torbyne wrote:


Ok, like some kind ring mail? Its too bad no ring armors have ever been found, the descriptions of them sound weird and i'd love to have a visual of what they were.

Well, it's cheap end armor. You save best stuff for show and bury warriors in their best.


Goblin_Priest wrote:


Take the standard orc: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/humanoids/orcs/orc

Melee falchion +5 (2d4+4/18–20)

At level 1, the party's AC will average what, in a 20 PB? 14? 15? 16? That's a 50% chance to hit, give or take. For 2d4+4 damage, so minimum of 6 damage, and maximum of 12 damage. How much hit points does a lvl 1 PC have? Take a d8 class, he'll probably have 6-10 HP, depending on if he rolls or you give max or average. So on the minimum scale, the orc has about 50% chance of one-shotting him on the lowest dice roll, and on the max HP scale, he can still, again, one-shot him on the roll.

A CR 1/3 will basically kill a PC every second or third round, depending on who they target and how generous you were to your PCs. For an "average" encounter, you'll have 3, if I understand the CR rules correctly? So if you've got the Tanks up front and he gets focused fired, odds are very high he will be downed on round 1, otherwise on round 2.

So, let us take your orc vs a 1st lvl fighter. 10 HP, +2 con +1 favored class= 13. Ac 10+ 4 +2 =16. +6/+5 to hit, with greatsword.

The orc hits 45% of the time, doing 8 pts.

Let's assume they both hit first round.

The fighter hits 60% of the time, doing 14pts, the orc would drop , except it gets a second chance with ferocity.

Let's assume they both miss round 2.

Orc dead, fighter wounded.

The wizard drops two with color spray or sleep. (will -1, right?)

Leaving one more orc to fight the cleric and the rogue.

Hits the rogue, doing 8 pts of 11. Rogue hits doing 7pts. the orc would drop , except it gets a second chance with ferocity.

Cleric heals rogue, doing 6 pts*. Even if orc hits round 2, rogue is still not dead.

Orc misses. Dead orc.

Rogue CdG two colorsprayed orcs.

No PC dead.

*Or channels, healing fighter and rogue each 4pts. If so, then even if orc #1 hits Fighter round 2 for another 8 pts, fighter is still up, but hurting.

Note also the fighters 15% higher chance to hit and 6 more damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

In addition, the entire weight of chain mail rests on your shoulders, making it feel heavier than some heavier armors whose weights are better distributed.

Nope. Your belt supports it too. Chain is by far the most comfy armor to move around in, even better than leather.

The PRD still lists four mirror as 45.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateEquipment/armsAndArmor/armor.htm l

Actually the worst item on the list is scale mail, which stopped being worn around Roman time- in fact the Romans only used it ceremonially.

Perhaps they meant Brigandine?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:

Our most egregiously "wrong" way to play is that we use the critical hit and critical fumble decks from Paizo. Why? Cause they are so cool! and they lead to often memorable battles.

Some object to critical fumbles on the pretext that the higher level you are, the more often you will make attack rolls, and the more often you will fumble.....

Others object that critical fumbles unfairly penalize martial characters compared to spell users, since many spells don't require attack rolls at all. ....

I object to critical fumbles as 1: they are not realistic and

2. I wanna play a hero not one of the Three Stooges.

We have also all gone to leveling up, not XP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Elf wrote:
Pan wrote:
I spend a lot of time making characters, reading RPG news, and prepping for my upcoming game as GM on my work PC while at work.
I don't GM, but I have a habit of making new characters that I'll probably never get to play - and I do far too much of that while at work.

Same here.


TOZ wrote:

So honest appraisals of the system are attacks?

If you dont play the game, how can you give honest appraisals?

And if the point of giving honest appraisals is to improve the game, then why not post in that games MB? Why would you not want to improve the game you actually play?


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
JonathonWilder wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jader7777 wrote:
D&D was originally a survival horror.
Not really. It was a wargame.
I have never treated AD&D, D&D, and Pathfinder as wargames.

If you've never spent a good deal amount of time playing other than D20 based games, you can be excused for thinking of the style they impose as the norm of roleplaying.

But play in a story driven system like White Wolf Storyteller, Cubicle 7, or Amber Diceless, and you'll see why d20 roleplaying looks so straitjacketed in comparison.

I have played so many games in so many systems over so many decades it gets hazy. But I do know this- it's not the system. A great DM and good players will make ANY system into a fun game. I have had lots of fun playing T&T.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
buying multiple +10 weapons costs a martial 200-600k gold while buying multiple spell books costs like 20-60k the price difference is massive

Never owned a +10 weapon, never saw one even. Sure, I played only up til lvl 16 in RotRL, but I dont think they are very common.

My Fighter did spend extra $$ on a +5 weapon in a 12th level game, yes.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Can we not do the C/M debate in every thread? There is already one currently. All i'm trying to say is most classes have a blaring weakness to exploit for a lot of them its making them nude.

Yes, that argument is tiresome and overdone.

Can we stick to the OP, please?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I like how the fact martial need a weapon is still being thrown down as a huge downside when we already concluded all but like 4 classes need gear just as much.

And some natural weapon martials do just fine, thankyouverymuch.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'd rather play in a higher point game where I can play a Dwarf Paladin, or something less-than-optimal.

I had lots of fun with my dwarf paladin. Not so much with the dwarf sorc, unfortunately. Ah well.....


Jiggy wrote:
What does your comparison to other editions have to do with my post that you quoted?

To quote your post with added bolding :" It's a fundamental pillar of how Pathfinder is structured. ......

Cutting out wealth-as-progression from Pathfinder isn't like banning a feat,......"

So, you are completely wrong. It's not in any way shape or form limited to Pathfinder. It's part of D&D.

I know you dont like Pathfinder, you dont play Pathfinder, but perhaps maybe you could scale down your constant attacks on the Pathfinder game in the Pathfinder forums?


Terquem wrote:
I don't know, but I think a key element to grognardism is stating, repeatedly, that things that were done in the past, by folks like you, were in some way more poignant, rewarding, meaningful, than similar things done by similar people today.

Not quite. Not that they were BETTER, it's just that D&D was just as much fun with the Three Volume set as with all the myriad complexities of 3.5, 4th and PF.

(To a extent of course, Gygax and co did do stuff more meaningful, as we all have built on their foundation)

And of course, that by and large Players are about the same today. So when some "Richard" plays a CN and steals from the party and ruins the set ups, you know it has nothing to do with them putting "CN" on their sheet (even those they claim "I was just playing my alignment)and everything to do with the fact they they are a immature jerk. And that you cant solve OOC issues like that IC.

That sitting down and talking about it, in a non confrontational way, like adults, is what works.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
BUT it does give one a unique set of experiences to draw on when talking about PLAYER behavior.

Don't get me wrong it's not that I want to argue against you being more experienced than, let's say, me. Though I'm not sure if those ten years you have over me, as far as the game of roleplaying is concerned, really make a difference when talking about player behavior.

Still I think that your contribution to the game (in form of the thief) is much more worthy of a badge of honor than "having survived".

So if you're just saying: "I'm a grognard." as in: "I was there when it all began." I actally might envy you a bit for that. But if you mean it as in: "I was there before you, so I know more, am more and you better keep your mouth shut when I'm talking." I call this arrogant and condescendent. And unluckily, this set of mind is no rarity, neither in the roleplaying community, neither elsewhere.

Ten years? No. But if someone has forty years moire, then perhaps he or shee might have seen more tables and odd behaviour, no?

Thanks.

Well, yes, you're right, which is why even the Gronardiest of us should never say anything like : "I was there before you, so I know more, am more and you better keep your mouth shut when I'm talking."

But saying that perhaps, maybe you should CONSIDER our advice in light of our experience, that's not being arrogant. I can be wrong, James Jacobs can be wrong, the newest newb can be right.

However, you also have to remember that posts on a MB are hard to read. You cant read a tone of voice, the grin, the twinkle in a eye, etc, so it's far too easy to assume a post which is posted with all those things is arrogant and condescending.


Lady-J wrote:
if you don't have a 18 in your primary before racials and a 16/ two 14 in your secondarys with out crippling the entire rest of your character attributes that character is basically a commoner and would be better off staying at home

I disagree. I think a 17 after racials and a couple of 14's is fine- with little or no dumping.

So, 15, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10 is a great built to me, that's about 20 pts. Maybe make that 10 a 9 to come out even.


Rednal wrote:
Well, I probably wouldn't want to gestalt at a low point buy - I feel like that would push someone towards the kind of min-maxed specializing I try to avoid. XD I like to build broad, making a character reasonably competent in several areas instead of epic in just one. (As a rule of thumb, I try to avoid gestalting classes with the same BAB or spellcasting level.)

IIRC, it was something like we got a 15pt buy and they got a 25 pt buy. So, no, not super low.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

[

I mean, the main topic of the thread is magic items. "Magic items as character progression" is not a quick-and-easy ban, or a subsystem to be discarded without consequence. It's a fundamental pillar of how Pathfinder is structured. Using your "just don't use it" suggestion (which in this case translates to the same "just don't give out as much loot" advice others have given) isn't like banning a class or leaving out Retraining; it's more like cutting everyone's good saves down to bad saves, bad saves down to zero, full BAB down to 3/4 BAB, and 3/4 BAB down to half BAB; and then expecting there to be no consequences.

Cutting out wealth-as-progression from Pathfinder isn't like banning a feat, it's like banning the entire mechanic of having feats at all. There's a big difference between what you're apparently talking about and what Chess Pwn was commenting on.

Wealth as progression has been part of the game since the three volume set. It was critical in 3.5, 4th and to quite and extent, even earlier editions. If you didnt have a magic weapon, you were screwed past a certain level- it was assumed you'd have one.

Magic items are also critical in 5th Ed also.

The difference is that the Pathfinder Devs have been nice enough, open enough and forth coming enough to actually spell out what the expectations are. (And to some extent this also occurred in 4th Ed, too)

But they were always there. (and some AD&D modules even said what kind of magic items the party shoudl have to survive the module).

However the expectations are just guidelines, we played thru RotRL without the strict WBL and it worked fine. Sometime we had more, sometime less, not much chance to "Christmas tree", but a few super items, too.

My campaigns where there were no Ye Olde Magic Shoppes as expected, but really nice customized loot drops also worked fine.

Sure, if you wanna play super low magic then play Iron Heroes, magic is a integral part of D&D.


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


Appendix N, relevantly, includes Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and Grey Mouser stories. If you want to emulate stories of that type, I'm not sure recent versions of D&D would be good choices (outside parts of the OSR).

Leiber played D&D with those two characters, so indeed, they do work.

Edition wars are silly, any edition of D&D can be a great fun game with the right DM and a good bunch of players. Conversely, with the wrong DM and a bad bunch of players, it is gonna suck no matter which Edition you play.

I have played them all, they all have good and bad points.

He played those characters, with a version of AD%D that was not nearly as crunch laden as 3.X and it's successors... First Edition. It makes a major difference

Plenty of Crunch, trust me. Especially with added houserules and everyone had added houserules- that's how Fafhrd lost his hand.


Brain in a Jar wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
Imagine you're the experienced player with a bunch of newbies. Would you rather be told: "You're more experienced so I'm choosing your Race & Class for you" or "You're more experienced so you have less points & you can't play a full caster, but otherwise go nuts". Both of these serve to balance the party, but the lower point buy lets the player be more creative (It also lets the experienced player show off a bit, which they'll like & will help the newer players see what can be achieved).

I can't imagine that. The moment a GM tries to tell me that I in particular will be more limited than other players i simply don't play.

I'd laugh at a GM that told me that.

My GM had a interesting twist on that. The 2 experienced players got to play Gestalt, while the two newbies got super point buy and max HP.

It worked.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jader7777 wrote:
D&D was originally a survival horror.
Not really. It was a wargame.

No, Chainmail was a Wargame*, and yes D&D has it's roots in Chainmail but D&D was not a wargame.

* and a rather bad one.


Jader7777 wrote:


D&D was originally a survival horror.

Not generally no. My First character, Father Kirkman made it to Lvl 9 before he died and he died on purpose trying to become a saint. (But became a martyr instead)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:


Appendix N, relevantly, includes Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and Grey Mouser stories. If you want to emulate stories of that type, I'm not sure recent versions of D&D would be good choices (outside parts of the OSR).

Leiber played D&D with those two characters, so indeed, they do work.

Edition wars are silly, any edition of D&D can be a great fun game with the right DM and a good bunch of players. Conversely, with the wrong DM and a bad bunch of players, it is gonna suck no matter which Edition you play.

I have played them all, they all have good and bad points.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:

You have to move 10' before attacking to get the scout archetype's SA, so you're still in melee range unless using a ranged weapon.

You have to move more than 10'. Not 10'.

So, you move 15' in and then 15' out. If the foe takes a 5' step, you're out of range (for their full attack, with 5' reach)

Even with a 10' move back, If the foe takes a 5' step, you're out of range (for their full attack, with 5' reach).

Scout best uses a big nasty two handed weapon, not two smaller weapons.

And of course with shadowdancer, you Hide in plain sight then.


Leandro Garvel wrote:

I would suggest an Arcanist or another Wizard. This AP really rewards spellbook using casters.

Yep, and full casters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
thejeff wrote:
If you're one of them and of a certain mindset, it's a badge of honor, distinguished them from the whippersnappers of today.

Guess it's exactly this definition which directly leads to the term being used by others in a pejorative way.

Because it's actually quite arrogant to think that just being old makes you deserving of an badge of honor. And it's this arrogance which gets reflected also on those who didn't mean to be when describing themselves as a grognard.

just being old DOES make you deserving of an badge of honor. You have survived. Hardly arrogance.

Also, playing for a long time is a honor too. Of course, as I have said, just because I was playing D&D back in Year 1 doesnt make me any more of a expert on the PF rules than someone who has been playing just a couple of years.

BUT it does give one a unique set of experiences to draw on when talking about PLAYER behavior.


Derklord wrote:
666bender wrote:

scout archtype , after level 8 offer 100% sneaks .

move 10' with spring attack and get a sneak.
For a single attack per round. Which means your damage will be absolutely abysmal.

Rogues just miss with their iterative attacks anyway. I suppose at lvl 20 or so you are missing out, but since games dont go much beyond 12 in most cases, I dont see you losing much.

and it usually stops your foe from doing a Full attack on you, which is very nice.


pH unbalanced wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
John Napier 698 wrote:
We must really be Grognards if we have trouble remembering where a specific table came from. :)

All I remember is that Avalon Hill's Swords and Sorcery was so confusing as to be unplayable. I took it off the shelf recently to see if I was just to young to get it.

I wasn't, it was still unplayable.

Swords & Sorcery is an SPI boardgame, and it remains my favorite chit-based game of all time. I spent weeks and weeks playing solo games of it. I wrote bad fan-fiction about the world. I freaking love that game.

I don't deny that the rules are impenetrable, though.

I thought he was talking about AH's Powers & Perils*, which sucked. So did Lords of Creation .

* wiki "Powers & Perils was an unfortunate failure for Avalon Hill, despite their reputation for their high-quality productions; this failure was indicative of the company's lack of experience in the roleplaying field.[1] Powers & Perils included stolen art traced from fantasy artist Frank Frazetta.[1] Avalon Hill had no previous experience with role-playing games, being primarily a producer of strategy and war games such as Tactics II, Blitzkrieg and Squad Leader, and Powers & Perils died before its time. Overpricing and strong competition from first edition Dungeons & Dragons saw P&P on store shelves at two to three times the price being asked for its contemporaries."

1 to 50 of 6,307 << 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.