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

5,440 posts. 18 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,440 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Frank C wrote:
The player in question had never played a tabletop before beginning this game back in august. I had the half-orc ranger already made up, because I like to have a couple random characters on standby. He wanted to play, so he picked that one, and since then he has done nothing but study the CRB. He finally decided he was ready to take it more seriously and make his own character from scratch, and he chose to make a sorcerer. I can't say I blame him.

Ok, that's a fair deal.


OK. But it's a little cheesy to play thru level 8 as a martial then switch to a full spellcaster, as then you get to skip over playing on "hard mode" as a spellcaster.


Imbicatus wrote:
I say the lack of Gygaxian death traps is a good thing. Instant death is bad for any kind of story and isn't fun to play. Tomb of horrors is a terrible module.

Not always "death traps". Just that they did more than a few points of damage. Perhaps you lost items. Or were teleported. Or cursed.


Frank C wrote:
Out of game, one of the players wants his character killed off to make room for a new one, so I set up this scenario to accomplish that

Why should the other players risk death for him? Just have his PC ride off into the sunset.


I do want to point out that Jails or Prisons for common criminals was not a medieval thing. Whipping, hands cut off, branding, banishment, work service or large fines were.

Prisons are expensive.


My very first D&D character was Father Kirkman. Famous.


Secret Wizard wrote:

Fun facts: I think Paizo just discovered how to make good Rogue archetypes.

The turning point was the Sczarni Swindler on the Harrow Handbook, perhaps the Scroll Scoundrel before that.

The newly released Vexing Dodger is sweet as duck. They realised, around the release of the ACG, that removing rogue talents for archetype features was the way to sneak in some power to the base rogue.

Plus, the Vexing Dodger has the ability to pick up the Uncanny Dodge it trades through Rogue Talents.

Yes, and the Ninja, the Scout and the Sapmaster are good combat archetypes.


Zhangar wrote:

Well, it's also a matter of degrees.

While there may be a general consensus that fighter and rogue are underpowered compared to other classes (I'll certainly agree to that), there's a toxic minority that insists that the classes are completely unplayable and that anyone who would ever want to play one must be some sort of mouth-breathing simpleton.

I.e., a stance that's actually insulting to everyone who's ever played a fighter or a rogue and enjoyed doing so, as the stance implies that if a person is able to enjoy playing a fighter or rogue, there must be something wrong with that person.

And there's the people who clearly look down on those who have, in fact, played the fighter or rogue in their current state and enjoyed doing so.

Right. Certainly many people agree that the Rogue can use some cool new talents. And it looks like Unchained will fix some stuff.

And yes, any pure martial class will have issues once the campaign gets to the point where the casters can do 9th level spells. But those are rare. (This is why the devs 'dont seem to care about martial/caster disparity"- it just is not a major problem in many games at the levels where most playing is done and the APs are played).

OTOH, many DM's come here and post that their Rogue is breaking their game- and yes, the rogue has a nice "sweet spot" at about 5th level.

So, there's a difference between saying "Hey the Rogue could use a few improvements' vs saying it's the worst class in the game and should be dumped.

(I also have pointed out that the lack of diabolic Gygaxian traps in most AP's has caused the rogue to fall from favor. That's not a issue with the class, it's a issue with the APs, IMHO)


Give him a free, slotless Phylactery of Faithfulness. Then there's no issue of surprise fallings.


AndIMustMask wrote:
and to the paizo devs can go "oh hey there's TWELVE THOUSAND POSTS in one particular thread saying a class needs help--maybe we should get off our asses and finally address that."

Well, except that that it's the same posters saying the same thing over and over.


chbgraphicarts wrote:

Well, "faster casting times" itself is kinda misleading.

It used to be that casting spells affected initiative, since codified Actions didn't exist, nor did Attacks of Opportunity.

Basically, if you were a Wizard and wanted to cast a spell, say Web, you began casting the spell on your Initiative (let's say Init 18), and finished it when the spell was denoted (2 clicks of the Initiative later, or Init 16). If a Fighter that was within attacking distance of you had Init 17, he could charge up and attack you before your spell was completed, and ruin your spellcasting.

AoO's actually, in theory, make interrupting casting more common, though with the Concentration check a thing now, it should be about the same success rate of fizzling a spell as in 1st and 2nd ed.

Well, except that weapons had speeds, and I think movement also cost you clicks. It was very very hard to interrupt a short spell.


This depends heavily on how detail oriented your players are, and what level the PCs are.

Do they enjoy a "hand carved ivory statue of a faun, made by the elves worth 67pgs" more that "67gps of art objects"?

One fun thing about Overland travel is that you can pull the old 'six or more cheap encounters, then a real one" trick on the spellcasters.

After they use up all their spells on the 4-6 goblin raiding parties, dump a 20+ shaman + leader type on them.

Have a few encounters that aren't combat.


kestral287 wrote:
If the Grasp whiffs due to SR, then by the RAW yes. If it whiffs due to missing, no, but you still have the Grasp on your sword.

I think you're right.


chbgraphicarts wrote:

The issue with Wizards being able to do everything ever, and better than everyone else, including other Wizards, is pretty much as old as the game - back in OD&D, Wizards were basically powerless for the first few levels, but then became powerhouses thereafter, up to the point that the made all other classes useless. This carried over to 1st and 2nd Ed AD&D, and therefore was basically a core issue even in 3rd edition. Lots of 7th-9th Level magic just trumps Martials because of how much those spells warp reality.

So, whenever I hear people complaining about Wizards making everything obsolete in Pathfinder, like Paizo somehow is responsible for this inequity of power, I just imagine all those "Thanks, Obama" memes.

This was true, but only at the highest levels. I saw in 3.5 it continues at say level 18, where casters get 9th level spells.

I have not seen it in PF yet, but we only got up to level 15 so far.


There are pants that add to your intelligence.


TheAtlasDomain wrote:
justaworm wrote:


Why kill a companion under the influence of an evil artifact?

Other options

Spells:
Charm, Hold, Suggestion, Command, Dominate, Calm Emotions, ...

Skills:
Diplomacy, Sleight of Hand

Combat:
Non-lethal damage, grapple/pin

Well, we hate each other anyway and most of those options aren't available to us or won't work :/

This last is why I am slightly suspicious. I suggest strongly sitting down with the whole table (including DM) and discussing this OOC first.


Nicos wrote:

Contrary to what some people would say, the ninja is not a rogue.

Ninja is a rogue archetype. James Jacobs has said so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
rungok wrote:
I was wondering why people are complaining about rogues. I thought as 3/4 BAB classes are concerned, they seem to have a few things going for them. So does anyone have any other reasons behind 'they suck' for them to, well, suck?

Because, those that obsess over damage insist they don't do enough damage (I've out-damaged everyone else in the party with a rogue, but I love them). Two-handed weapon rogues are a joy to play.

...In games without skyrocket ACs, or against average to low AC opponents (yes they still exist) rogues are good value. In beginner dm games where not everything is ultra-powered, the rogue won't seem so weak in combat and they have all of that out of combat versatility. So choose your games wisely rogue player.

Many DM's have come to these boards complaining that their Rogue is breaking the game with it's Sneak Attack. Around level 5, the Rogue can really be a killer.

Mind you- it doesnt last. But many campaigns and a lot of APs are played in the low levels. The weakness of the rogue isnt really apparent until higher levels.


Carl Hanson wrote:
I have a hard time allowing the opportunity for a snarky comment or joke to pass without capitalizing on it. This often makes if hard for me to stay in character, makes it difficult for others to tell when I am speaking in character or out of character, or (most frequently) leads to all of my charcters have a smart-ass personality whether I want them to or not.

Yep, same here. I also get side-tracked too much.


TriOmegaZero wrote:


When that word is defined as a descriptor, and the definition of descriptor does not state that such things are aligned acts? Yes.

You should know by now that nothing short of having 'Spells with the [Evil] descriptor are Evil acts' written in the rules will convince me of your stance.

If they had a list of "evil acts" and that was left off, I'd agree with you. But they dont. They have a rather vague paragraph or two of guidelines.

So, altho you have posted quite a few good arguments here, "it's not listed as such, thus it's not" is a weak one.

Mind you, I dont want a list, I prefer "a rather vague paragraph or two of guidelines".

The issue actually here is with one spell- one spell that is too effective and rather broken, and that the main downside is "Evil".

Arguments about alignments always end up poorly. The simple thing is to get rid of that spell.


AndIMustMask wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


So there's the following issues:

The devs didnt realize how weak many of the talents were.
The devs dont care for diabolical Gygaxian traps and have mostly excluded them from the APs. APs are mostly very combat heavy.

true. though apparently they still havent realized how weak many of the talents are, since they keep cranking more out that are just as bad.

i agree on he traps though--deadlier (or at least more challenging) traps should definitely be a thing.

Actually several of the talents would be really nice if they were (3X+stat mod) like Sorc bloodline, Wizard, cleric, etc.

Resiliency, Defensive Roll, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oly wrote:

I won't go too far into this, but:

1) It's rogue "love" much more than "hate." People (correctly) want to see the class improved.

2) Anything a rogue can do other classes with more abilities can do as well or better, and get some additional goodies as well. The clearest example is with the alternate ninja class, which can do all that rogues can do but also a few added things. Not that ninjas are all that powerful, but they come closer to the power curve than rogues.

Well, Ninjas are a rogue archetype so...

But anyway, Sorc & witch can do as well as wizards, oracles as well as Clerics etc, so this is not a big deal. PF has about 30 classes, so sure the four basic niche roles will be filled by more than one class.

Now yes, the basic rogue has a couple of issues: it was a early redesign. The Devs likely didnt realize how weak some of the talents were and how useless the "once a day' talent were.

Next the basic rogue is optimized for skills and trap-finding, not combat. But Paizo APs have few of the diabolical Gygaxian traps that occurred in the OD&D and AD&D days. That's what the Thief was designed for, and believe me friend- you needed a Thief in a old-school dungeon crawl. That why we invented it.

But more AP's are set up for combat,and the basic rogue is not best at that. Mind you, some of the rogue archetypes- ninja, scout, sapmaster- are decent.

So there's the following issues:

The devs didnt realize how weak many of the talents were.
The devs dont care for diabolical Gygaxian traps and have mostly excluded them from the APs. APs are mostly very combat heavy.


Ok, guys, why not try and give him a straight answer along the lines of what he wants. That would be the nice thing to do.


Tarrintino wrote:


Those of you who are old enough to remember earlier editions of D&D (1st and 2nd editions primarily), will recall that the character classes for the game were VERY STATIC. If you had two fighters of the same level (even if they were of different races), the pretty much were the EXACT SAME CHARACTERS with very small differences in regards to attributes and minor racial abilities. At higher levels, these minor differences became even less apparent where your Elven Fighter was almost identical to your Dwarven Fighter.

If a paladin slaughters an orc village of women and children after fighting all the male warriors, then you need to have the character’s god withdraw all vested powers until they atone for their actions (and, no, just having a cleric cast an atonement spell should not be sufficient). Losing all the powers he worked so hard to gain and then having to work to restore himself in the eyes of his god without the benefit of these powers should drive the point home that he needs to shape up or start rolling up a new character that better suits the player.

If a chaotic neutral fighter has been going into the woods and making a point to kill one bear once a day just “to get XP to help me level up faster”,

Well, I have been playing and DMing since 1974, and I strongly disagree with the first point.

Since stats were rolled and not assigned, PC's tended to be quite different. And a elf archer with a high dex would be a lot different that a dwarf with a greataxe and platemail. We even had a game with five Paladins in 2nd Ed and they were VERY different. (OK, one was a CG Paladin, but...)

The Paladin falling point has been argued endlessly. What should happen is that the Player and DM sit down and discuss Paladin code expectations- and every Paladin should be given a Phylactery.

The next one is simple- there should be no EXP for that, and in fact the DM can always say "You encounter nothing". This also solves the "splitting the party or lone wolf" issues which are a pet Peeve of mine.

In general splitting the party means twice the work for the DM and half the fun for the players.

In general you make good points however- I have been appalled at the lack of good roleplaying in favor of rollplaying nowadays. Stormwind or no, too many players are optimizing their characters a lot and neglecting roleplaying.

My pet peeves are dudes who steal from the party. Dudes who claim "but that's what my character would do!" as a excuse to act up, even tho THEY were the ones who decided their characters (very limited) personality.

Core Only is fine to start or for new DMs. Certainly "allowing everything" can be a mistake.

"Anything goes" can be too easy- in a PF AP, the encounters are designed for Core 15pt PC's. Make that optimized 25 pt "allow everything" and you cake walk thru too many encounters.

I would hate the "murderhobo" style of play, but since in 40 years I have never played with any group that uses it, I am then just shocked that many posters on this board simply assume that how EVERYONE PLAYS.


Senko wrote:
I know its foolish but I hope one day people will just answer the question given

I did.


3catcircus wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

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?

Games can be fun even when character death occurs. In fact, some of the most fun games I've played in involved character death as a central theme - Paranoia, for example, doesn't work without the idea of seeing whether or not you make it to the end of the adventure before all of your clones comically die.

Sure. But when PC death occurs the only real choice is Raise Dead or bring in another character. Agreed? You dont make someone stop playing do you?

so- like I said "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."

I mean, if a PC dies every level, and you get to level 10 with everyone bringing in a new PC, you have a "The ship of Theseus" paradox, as likely no one has the same PC the campaign started with.

This does hurt continuity.


pickin_grinnin wrote:
Quote:

Think about this. Why does everyone want to play PATHFINDER? Not Iron Heroes?

Magic is a integral part of PF.

In my experience they want to play Pathfinder because they don't want to have to learn another system. That seems to be a daunting thing for a lot of people, for some reason. They are happy to play in low magic (or even no magic) campaigns, as long as they use the Pathfinder system.

Except that people went from 3.5 to PF- learning a "new system" (to a minor extent). And Iron Heroes is D20. If you can handle the rather small system differences between 3.5 and PF, then you can handle IH.


Aelryinth wrote:

I personally believe the defining point of low magic is access to healing.

As you slide the scale from no healing magic to frequent healing magic, you move from low to high fantasy. Nothing else is as important.

If you've another 'break point', please say so. But I believe healing is the magic that, if removed, has the greatest effect on the low/high feel of a fantasy setting.

Healing is a Critical point, yes- maybe even the most critical point if you include condition removal, etc.

But Transportation magic, esp Teleport etc is another Critical point.

Magic damage, oddly, is not.


Having been both a security professional and SCA heavy weapons fighter, I would gear up as a light Fighter/rogue. Find a decent polearm, a small shield, chain byrnie over leather or padded. Heavy boots that go over the knee or knee guards. Get a couple back up weapons. Heavy glove on left hand. Light glove on right. Helmet, hopefully with a light.

I can actually pick simple locks, etc.

I'd gather some holy symbols, holy water and what not, since I know a few phrases, etc, and was once made a Lay Priest.

So- triple threat.

Mind you, I am no longer agile, so no climbing walls, jumping etc, but I can wield a weapon, pick a lock, mutter a blessing.


Braxon wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Toons?

Sorry,

Toons = characters. I really don't know where I got that from. =)

Perhaps from the RPG "Toon"? Anyway, altho it does mean PC, it connotates a PC who is disposable, with little background or RP as in "Yeah, so Knuckles the XXI is dead, I got the new & improved Knuckles XXII right here, and then Knuckles XXIII and so forth."


kestral287 wrote:


And the player wants to be a melee monster. His entire issue-- the reason for the complaints in the title-- is that he doesn't want to be a caster or a channeler.

Has he ever even tried being a caster?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

I think most people are happier on a "sandpath" adventure than in either a sandbox or on a railroad.

Right, Give them quests. Give them several quests, and let them pick and choose. They can even ignore one.

This way they are on a path, but not a railroad.

Dont punish them. Talk to them like adults.


mplindustries wrote:

Well, there's his problem. Druid is a bad choice for those stats. Honestly, everything is except maybe a Theologian casting-focused cleric or possibly a Sensei.

He got shafted. If you wanted them to do something different why not just ask them to do something different instead of giving them horrible stats?

Wow, FORTY FOUR (4) points, and you call that horrible stats? Those are great.

This would make a great Cleric or a decent Oracle or even a Druid. Any Divine caster.

Clerics dont need to be melee monsters at low level. Pick the right domains and they can be casters. I'd make this a caster/channeling cleric.


Albion, The Eye wrote:
DrDeth: Haven't discussed it yet to be honest. But wouldn't you say that even depending on table, you would have room to zap yourself with that single useful spell - even if you are hasted and blessed, or good hope'd, and you have a dancing shield, and you are flying, etc, there would still be room for, say... Lead Blades? Or Weapon of Awe? Or Blur? Or...? Right?

Few will niggle about a single buff spell. But if you took a couple of party buff spells too, that would always be nice.


Mickey as Sorcerers apprentice has also been touted.

Robin Hood as the ranger- of course!


Albion, The Eye wrote:


@DrDeth: I get it, and that is why I insist on that single buff, depending on situation - I know I cannot zap a wand as a swift action (or is there a way?), and that alone puts me at a disadvantage vs. a Warpriest and others. Do you think my attempt is simply not worth it at all?

I think it is an interesting idea, worth trying. But as has been said, it depends on your table. Have you discussed this?


There are a few issues with the "self-buffer". In many groups, it is considered rather selfish.

There are other issues: How many rounds before you are "ready"? Standing there casting for 2-3 rounds before you can contribute is not much of a team player. I know you said "one" but even one round of self-buffing before you contribute can be a lot.

Next- how useless will you feel if not buffed? We have a guy who does this, and as soon as Dispel Magic is cast or his buffs run out he is whining about retreating and how "useless" he is.

The best melee PCs for self-buffing are the Paladin and the Inquisitor as many of their buffs are swift actions. And the Magus too, depending.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Don't those involved killing others?
Do you have a link to a list of "evil acts" on the PRD?
Are you saying killing others isn't an evil act?

Where is the list of Evil Acts?

If the point is that casting a spell with the Evil descriptor isn;t a Evil act as the rules dont spell it out as such, then that argument is only valid if the rules *DO* spell out such "Evil Acts". And in fact they dont.

" Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

And in fact "killing others" isnt on that list- destroying innocent life is.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Don't those involved killing others?

Do you have a link to a list of "evil acts" on the PRD?


Dread Knight wrote:
You'd have a point except that casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor isn't an Evil act under the rules.

Neither is burning down a orphanage full of orphans. Or genocide.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:

I have never once in all my 29 years of gaming seen anyone get into a screaming match table pounding, wall hitting, or table flipping. I've seen disagreements and people get a bit heated over something, but stories about the former just boggle my mind.

I saw one board flip, maybe 40 years ago.

Mostly, it helps to play with adults- no matter how old they are.


Ashiel wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:
when people complain that using evil spells and items and creatures can cause them to take an 'alignment hit' it seems to me that they feel they are being punished and want to be able to use these things without suffering any mechanical or alignment effects.

It's mostly because we find it dissatisfying. I for one don't need "good" written on my character sheet to play a good character. I have in several games played a more righteous character than other members of the group though our individual alignments said Neutral and Good respectively.

If you changed my alignment to Neutral Evil, I'd still go on playing the character as a good character. I would just know not to play certain classes with you. It would be somewhat awkward having to play a blackguard to continue being a good guy though.

EDIT: To be more specific, we find it dissatisfying because some of us like good and evil to mean something rather than just being red vs blue.

Except that's not what this thread and the OP is about.

"SHOULD THE USE OF EVIL ALIGNED SPELLS AFFECT YOUR ALIGNMENT AS A PC?"

Not "Why I dont like alignment in my RPG".

Mind you- that's a valid point- and there are quite a few fun RPGs that dont have alignment.

But whatever one thinks about alignment in RPGs in general and PF in particular has nothing to do with "SHOULD THE USE OF EVIL ALIGNED SPELLS AFFECT YOUR ALIGNMENT AS A PC?"

Why does every thread about alignment have to devolve into two hijacks:
1. A discussion of real world morality.
2. A discussion of having alignments in a RPG.


gamer-printer wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Magic is a integral part of PF.

Magic is integral to low magic.

Nobody in the entire thread is considering no magic, though it seems like that's what you're insinuating.

Since no one will define "low magic" in a way folks will agree and some have implied that cantrips are too powerful and game breaking, it's hard to tell where "low magic" ends and "for all intents and purposes no magic" starts.

Can you define "low magic" in such a way you get consensus?


The Indescribable wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Build the classic four member party. Heroes only, this time.

Fighter: Hercules, Mulan, Prince Philip?
Rogue: Aladdin, Flynn Rider?
Cleric: Mama Odie, Blue Fairy?
Wizard: Yesnid, Elsa, Merlin?

elsa, mama odie just no. Elsa is clearly a sorcerer. Her powers are natural, not studied, and mama odie would most likely be an Oracle.

It's not the class name- it's the role.

So yes, Elsa is a sorcerer of some sort, but fills the Wizard or arcane caster role.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
3catcircus wrote:
Low-magic is desirable because it brings a different kind of resource management. What it does is force players to think more strategically in the long-term and more tactically in the short-term. Perhaps it'd be better to sneak past the guards rather than carry on a frontal assault? Gee, I'm still in the process of recovering from that fight with that orc and I'm not back up to 100% - I think we'll need to plan on attacking from a distance and then running to a new spot, picking off these goblins when their patrol ranges away from their lair.

You could get this effect simply by denying resurrection or making it cost prohibitive. That would be easier and not have unplanned side effects across the 3.PF system.

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

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

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

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

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
3catcircus wrote:

I don't know if it has been expressed how I'm going to say it:

Pathfinder is a game about killing things and taking their stuff,

See, that's the problem. D&D has never been about "killing things and taking their stuff". If people run/play it like that, sure, you'll have issues.

Have more encounters, fewer combats.


pickin_grinnin wrote:

I am prepping a low magic campaign right now. The particular setting calls for it.

Why low magic with Pathfinder? Because it's hard to find people in my area who will play in another system. I would just as soon run it as a Savage Worlds campaign, but I would have trouble locating players if I did.

Think about this. Why does everyone want to play PATHFINDER? Not Iron Heroes?

Magic is a integral part of PF.


Aranna wrote:


I may be late to the thread but... I can answer why. Why go with low magic? Simple; to tell the stories that are impossible with a high magic setting. Survival against the elements or mother nature, murder mysteries, crime dramas, or any other sort of tale that can be solved by casting one spell. Some people miss that part of fantasy and want it back. So they take their favorite fantasy system and tweek it till it can allow such stories.

Well, actually none of them go all that well with the fantasy genre. In any case there are dozens of games (Iron Heroes comes to mind) where you can do that easily.


TOZ wrote:
Qakisst Vishtani wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Christopher Dudley wrote:
He didn't burn your house down?
What kind of murderhobo has a house to burn down?
I do.
Then you are no true murderhobo.

Well, since no one I know ever plays a "Murderhobo" it's not a issue, is it?


Build the classic four member party. Heroes only, this time.

Fighter: Hercules, Mulan, Prince Philip?
Rogue: Aladdin, Flynn Rider?
Cleric: Mama Odie, Blue Fairy?
Wizard: Yesnid, Elsa, Merlin?

Th

1 to 50 of 5,440 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.