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. 5,735 posts. 18 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,735 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Krensky wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Krensky wrote:
In my experience vaping leads people to stop smoking and usually stop using nicotine at all eventually.

I am not happy with vaping but I have had two friends stop smoking by doing vaping so I can't condemn it. Bad as vaping is, cig smoking is a hundred times worse.

Just so long as vapers only vape where smoking would be OK.

Facts not in evidence.

But that never stopped the morality police.

what facts? That I two friends stop smoking by doing vaping ? Cig smoking is worse?


Krensky wrote:
In my experience vaping leads people to stop smoking and usually stop using nicotine at all eventually.

I am not happy with vaping but I have had two friends stop smoking by doing vaping so I can't condemn it. Bad as vaping is, cig smoking is a hundred times worse.

Just so long as vapers only vape where smoking would be OK.


Lord Snow wrote:

Regarding Magic the Gathering:

All those who stopped playing many years ago should seriously considering checking out the game again. It changed dramatically, and for the better.

So, that's $14- per game. How much do you need to play PF? $0.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Bacon grease is great for curing cast iron skillets.

"Cure Iron Wounds" Material component: bacon grease.


As the senior Grognard around here, I hereby grant you full absolution on your proposed idea. ;-)

No, seriously, we used to do this all the time. It's fine. We dumped the City State of the Invincible Overlord right in the middle of Oerth. Go for it, have fun!


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.


Rynjin wrote:


The Warriest is using Cleave, and deals roughly 20-36 damage per round to any given target (At level 12...with all of the enemies they fight having 80-150 HP).

I dont think so. "He does about in the 20-36 points on his first hit if he doesn't critical." Not "per round"- per hit. And he crits half the rounds= " critical hitting every other round" so he does more then. He also gets several hits per round, I think I read the Op as saying he is getting both Iterative and Cleave. That would be wrong but make sense. He'd then yes- crit every second round, and yes, do about 75 pts a round. Which can one-round-drop a foe at that level.

He's also apparently Level 10, not 12? "Bloodrager 2/warpriest 8". Not sure how that gives him a BAB of 11 for Strike back?

So, we need to see his complete build, not just have the OP deal out a stat once in a while.


Grey Lensman wrote:
I played under a guy who loved having giants grapple people and use them as bludgeons and missile weapons based on their high bonuses (this was before Pathfinder. Once my warrior got a feat that gave him an attack of opportunity against such things (even bypassing improved grab and similar effects, and as an added bonus adding all damage dealt to the check) he was never again targeted by such an attack (never used the feat even once). The group still comments on it.

I loved that feat. All my warriors took it.


Gars DarkLover wrote:

It's not even one year, I have necro'd much older stuff.

"That's what she said!" (old joke)


Rynjin wrote:


We know for a fact that the character isn't overpowered...it's not an assumption we're making. It literally does not meet the benchmarks of "average" for his level even with the misused rules.

Since the OP hasnt posted the build, we really aren't sure. "Overpowered" is a relative term. But we have fixed a couple of errors about how feats, etc work, which should help. I do agree, after fixing those, it doesn't look like he's "Overpowered' anymore.


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."


kyrt-ryder wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
pH unbalanced 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

Vancian magic is traditional D&D magic where you memorize spells and the act of casting them removes the spell from your mind.

It's based on the magic used in the stories of Jack Vance, though I'm blanking on story titles at the moment.

Vancian Magic is also used by:

Roger Zelazny, Sir Terry Pratchett, by one sort of magic user in Lawrence Watt-Evan's wonderful Ethshar series, Diane Duane, Patricia C. Wrede,The Obsidian Trilogy by Mercedes Lackey and James Mallory, and Glen Cook.

It's likely the second most used magic in Fantasy Literature, after magic that actually drains you physically and/or makes you tired. "Spell points" or Mana where you have so many points a day and use them like a battery (but dont make you tired) is quite rare in Fantasy Literature.

I believe Sword of Truth uses this sort of spell resource, where the use of the magic doesn't physically fatigue you but does burn up your reserves of magical strength.

That system uses a more freeform magic though, where the magic can be woven into just about anything. A few common webs are used frequently [Wizard's Fire, Lightning and Cutting Wind for example] but their described as being options people like rather than as a pre-packaged spell like D&D style Mana Casting and Psionics.

Sure, that's a good example, but like you said it's very freeform.

Still Spell points/Man just isnt used much in Fantasy Literature.


pH unbalanced 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

Vancian magic is traditional D&D magic where you memorize spells and the act of casting them removes the spell from your mind.

It's based on the magic used in the stories of Jack Vance, though I'm blanking on story titles at the moment.

Vancian Magic is also used by:

Roger Zelazny, Sir Terry Pratchett, by one sort of magic user in Lawrence Watt-Evan's wonderful Ethshar series, Diane Duane, Patricia C. Wrede,The Obsidian Trilogy by Mercedes Lackey and James Mallory, and Glen Cook.

It's likely the second most used magic in Fantasy Literature, after magic that actually drains you physically and/or makes you tired. "Spell points" or Mana where you have so many points a day and use them like a battery (but dont make you tired) is quite rare in Fantasy Literature.


Leonhart Steelmane wrote:


also, maybe you're fighting a flying creature so this would be another place for the ranged members of the party to shine. having to take out the wings before they become grounded and the war priest gets his chance.

or maybe you can have a situation which the acrobats in your party are the heroes of the day. maybe in the big ballroom ambush the best way to take out the thugs is to drop a chandelier on them and only the rouge is dexy enough to make the jump to the ledge and cut the rope.

and perhaps you can overwhelm the party with grunts, and have to make use of

These are all good. But really the best idea is just to add a couple mooks to each combat. You have a large and powerful party, adding a couple CR-2 mooks wont change much but it will allow the others to contribute in combat.

That, and fixing how he uses his feats etc, will do the trick.


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.


No, it's gonna be Simulacrum this time!

or Scry & Fry!


Mark Seifter wrote:
Lou Diamond wrote:

Mark, I would like to purpose a new class ability for All Martial classes

Combat Mobility: As a full round action you can make a full move and attack [this attack would include all irrative attacks]at the end move the move. If you have the spring attack feat tree you may combine spring attack with combat mobility and make any of your attacks at any time during your movement. Combat mobility may not be combined with the charge action or vital strike.

a martial character would gain Combat Mobility at the level they gain their first irrrative attack.

This would be balanced with casters by giving casters an additional Metamagic feat or a feat from the spell Profection feat tree or spell penetration or spell mastery feat trees.

You can certainly feel free to add whatever extra benefits you like to all sorts of different classes; myself, this looks like it would increase rocket tag for all classes involved while also leading to potentially irritating tactics for archers involving cover.

I just gave the Fighter the Vital strike chain of feats for free, one per five levels.


Rynjin wrote:
Terquem wrote:
I would like to run one game, just one game, where I do not get embroiled in a discussion of the nuances of stealth, concealment, and sneak attack

Run a game where Rogues are banned

No tears will be shed

Problem solved

And Ninjas, and Slayers, and Vivisectionists,and Arcane tricksters, and Sandmen, and Master spies, and Bushwhackers, and....


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.


Riuk wrote:
I have never read Lovecraft ether I love the mythos but I just cant get into the books...

Try The Dream Quest.


Simon Legrande wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
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.
Yeah, I understand that old folks usually go into nap mode when confronted with things that take a little energy to grasp. :p

Get off my lawn, you young whippersnapper!


KestrelZ wrote:
31. Everyone receives 1 additional skill point at creation to place in craft, profession, or performance (for non-bards) to represent a background occupation or hobby.

I let them have 3 points, but they had to have a background any nothing combat related.

89. Part of your background is that you start with a "free" level of NPC class. (Not Adept). This gives martials and skill monkeys a little boost over spellcasters, and even gives the spellcasters a few more HP and skills.


6. Cheating.

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


The Alkenstarian wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
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.
Get out of my brain, DrDeth. You're not paying rent, as far as I know!

Sorry, it's being this whole Evil Dark Lord thing, you just can't stop reading peoples minds, they're like peanuts... in many ways....

;-)


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.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
As has been stated, IQ follows the same standard bell curve as 3d6,

It may have been stated, but it's not in the rules. Actually, on a random encounter* you wont find a human with less than a 8 int in all of Golarion. You dont normally roll, the normal array is 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. It's true the 3d6 system sorta a little follows the human bell curve, but since they are both bell curves, nothing surprising there.

* certainly the DM can assign a Int of anything he chooses.

Don't get me wrong the DM should not tell a PC what he sez. But "Hey Bob, is that in character, you have a pretty low INT & CHA?" is a reasonable thing to ask.

But I think those numbers are guidelines for how you run your PC, not strict rules.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Except Charisma isn't appearance, it's Force of Personality.

Low cha = dull, boring and non-impactful, like you don't exist.

Being repulsive is actually one means of representing High Charisma, take a look at some of the monsters in the book.

"Charisma (Cha)

Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."

While it's true that some monsters are so frightening they go back around the other side, it's rare.


Aranna wrote:
Cornnuts the Cha 14 barbarian and Silverlisp the Cha 6 Bard are both trying to get a date with the single barmaid... Since this involves improving her disposition toward them from indifferent to friendly it needs a Diplomacy check. Cornnuts the barbarian feels she should automatically swoon for him because of the fluff text on their respective charisma scores and has no ranks in diplomacy. Silverlisp on the other hand recognizes the real number that is needed here IS the diplomacy check result and since he pumped a bunch of his otherwise unspent points into diplomacy he has a +9 modifier even after the penalty. They both make checks against diplomacy after much arguing from Cornnuts and guess what assuming the target number they need is a 20, Cornnuts has a 15% chance of success while Silverlisp has a 50% chance to win her heart. Even if they both succeed Silverlisp has a much better chance of landing that date. The game mechanics CLEARLY show Silverlisp as being FAR MORE eloquent a speaker than Cornnuts. Clearly the 3.5e monster comparison chart is totally useless in comparing PCs.

If indeed, Silverlisp gets a chance to sweet-talk her for a whole minute. Have you ever tried to chat up a pretty girl? If you're a drooling ugly dude, you wont get past "Hey babe....." ;-)

Whereas Cornnuts will get her initial attention, but may fail his attempt as he bungles his conversation.


Thanks!


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."


OK, Designers and Dragons just published their Platinum appendix, and the Aurania gang is a major part of it, including how we invented the Thief class, published the first 3PP D&D supplement, and more.

Hugh K. Singh​
Larry Stehle​ Dale, Aimee Milan​, Troy Locker Palmer​ and more are mentioned.

.http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/151568/Designers--Dragons-The-Platinum -Appendix


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........

;-)


Rynjin wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Somebody wrote:
.i don't really like minmax as when a player puts 3 stats to 7 just so they can max the others, and still want to rp like they have a 18 int /cha.
Then stop using point-buy.
Better yet, give them 5 more points, but say you dont get back points for dumping.

I prefer this method myself.

Generally speaking I don't dump as long as I have a 25 PB unless I'm going for something ludicrously MAD (like, absolutely needs 5 stats at 14+ to function MAD).

It feels nice, since I hate having to dump Cha just to get a decent Int and Wis. I hate not having at least a 12 Int on most characters.

I've noticed my players are much the same way, they're less inclined to dump (even though I don't forbid it!) with a 25 PB rather than 20. That extra little bit of wiggle room counts for a lot.

Look, Rynjin and i agree yet again! A sure sign of the apocalypse! ;-)


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."


Quiche Lisp wrote:

I think there's a special layer in the Abyss dedicated to game designers who implement "trap options" in 3.x D&D and PFRPG.

I regularly fall for trap options, which might explain the above sentence.

There are no "trap options". (well maybe some errors like "Prone shooter"). As long as you understand them and they fit your character concept, then they are not a trap.


GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Confession, I dislike having to build characters and spend hours typing up their sheet just for a maybe. I'd rather concepts be submitted and accepted and let the crunch work be done only if accepted. I have many characters that never got accepted and rarely would they qualify for another game because each GM has their own character gen.

Huh? Why would a DM do that? A good DM sets parameters, and then lets you play whatever you want within them.

"25 pt buy (no points back from dumping), no Evils, all Core Rulebooks, game starts in Sandpoint, so you should work with that."


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Somebody wrote:
.i don't really like minmax as when a player puts 3 stats to 7 just so they can max the others, and still want to rp like they have a 18 int /cha.
Then stop using point-buy.

Better yet, give them 5 more points, but say you dont get back points for dumping.


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!....."


glass wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
I feel like a lot of these changes would mean you're no longer playing Pathfinder.

Well of course. That is kinda the point of the thread.

I dont think so. Look, if you dont want to play PF, there are dozens of FRPGs moldering away, dusty on the 30% off shelf at your FLGS. Many are classless, level-less, use spellpoints, etc.

If you dont want to play Pathfinder, why not just play one of those? (and some of them are quite good.)

Why would you want a game called Pathfinder but is classless, level-less, has spellpoints and so forth?

Nothing wrong with classless, level-less, spellpoints etc. But they arent D&D. PF is a D&D variant, specifically a 3.5 variant.


LazarX wrote:
Owly wrote:
I would change Pathfinder back to a roleplaying game from the battle-game it's become.
The whole thing STARTED as a battle minatures war-game. We've been spending the better part of the last half century bolting role-playing onto it.

Not really. Yes, there was Chainmail (a rather bad miniatures war game) but D&D was a completely new game. And OD&D and AD&D had almost no tactics or war-game like movement at all.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Owly wrote:
I would change Pathfinder back to a roleplaying game from the battle-game it's become.
That's more of a personal game issue rather than a system issue. You can do as much or as little roleplaying as you want to when playing Pathfinder.

You can, but it's harder. The combat rules from 3rd Ed require much more tactics and "chess-like" maneuvers. Combat requires more optimizing. Most of us have only so much time and brain power.

Thus, while though it is certainly possible to have scads of RP in a 3rd Ed variant (which PF is) and all combat dungeon hacks used to occur in AD&D, generally there was more time to do RPing.

This is a very general rule of thumb mind you and your mileage may very.

But I see Owly's point.

I'd get rid of many combat maneuvers and AoO. I'd pit movement back on a hexboard.


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.


Jaelithe wrote:
Does any DM simply refuse to allow dumping stats, at least past a certain point?

Never seen that. But we used 25pt buy, but no extra points from dumping. So if you REALLY wanted that 8 CHA for Roleplaying purposes, you could have it. Oddly no-one did.


Experiment 626 wrote:


DrDeth, I've read a lot of your posts, and am still flummoxed about your take on minmaxing. Do you want, say, your auto mechanic to be able to schmooze royalty and make his knowledge arcana checks, or do you want him to be able to fix your damn car? If its the latter, he needs to allocate his points appropriately and the occasional spare point can go towards...whatever.

What you're espousing seems to mean that everyone should roll with 3/4 BAB, 6 skill pt/ level, 6th level casters with 13s in every stat.

Nope. Some Min/Maxing and some specializing is a good thing. I have said this over and over. It's only when it's taken to an extreme that it's a bad thing. A fighter that can do NOTHING other than hit things with a sword is not very useful outside of that. He's only useful in combat, and even then, only vs things that can be hurt by or reached with a sword.

I hardly expect a Fighter to be a well rounded guy. But he does have 2 SkP and it's cheap to put a 12 in Int or Wis or CHA.

But a fighter is extreme. A ranger should be quite skillful.

A wizard that has dumped every point into INT and every feat and trait and loot into Burning hands is not as useful as a well rounded batman utility or battlefield control wizard.

By all means, since you are part of a team make sure you are very good with your part of the team. This will require some Min/maxing, and thats fine.

Even a Fighter can take a CHA of 12 and a trait that gives him a + to Diplomacy and makes it a class skill. Should every fight do this? Probably not. But I dont think PC's should wander around with stats lower than 10, usually.


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.


thejeff wrote:

If this goes much longer we should take it elsewhere but for a little bit longer: ...

Edit: Confession that'll get me shunned. I like talking politics and related things on these boards.

Yes, you guys need to take this elsewhere, there is a forum for politics and this aint it. Sorry.

Not gonna shun you as I do too, but let's takes this out of Gamer Talk!

1 to 50 of 5,735 << 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.