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. 5,569 posts. 17 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,569 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Mark Seifter wrote:


There isn't, tangentially because of Paizocon (I'm out sick with con crud, and before that, Stephen and Jason were both out sick, and may still be, so no discussion possible).

Take a few hints from an old grognard here, my friend. Bring along some Emergen C or better yet "Wellness Formula". Take it every day along with B12 and potassium. Hydrate like crazy, your urine should be clear and copious. Spread out the caffeine. Ice tea, not espresso.

Bring along more healthy snaks- we all know you're not gonna eat carrot sticks, but grapes, peanuts, bananas, beef jerky, dark chocolate. Get some fiber too.

Get some sleep, in a dark cool room. Take melatonin and some ocean noises or rain or streams or white noise. No more than one drink before bed.

Get some Ricola drops and suck them during games to keep the throat moist.

ConCrud is just exhaustion and not treating your body right. Oh and take the day off after you get back, get 12 hours sleep. Tell Lisa I said so.

Mind you- this is all taking medical advice from a dude named DrDeth, so....


Terquem wrote:


rule #1

When I ask you, "What does your character do next?"

You should not respond with, "Where are the Cheetos?"

Unless of course, you are REALLY hungry. ;-)


Pray at the temple. See if your deity offers you guidance (thru the DM). Get a Phylactery of Faithfulness.

Finally sit down with your DM and discuss this issue and how he views Paladins and their oaths. Some bad DMs would do this as a Paladin Trap. Some good DMs will give this as a interesting problem to solve.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Muad'Dib wrote:
Gendif wrote:


1) They are not the heroes of the story.
They are never recognized as such. They assistants, guides and support for the players.

Almost all your GMPC rules were broken in this classic comic strip.

That strip has always been pure comic gold, and every DM should read it- and then never, ever do that stuff. ;-)

Thanks for sharing!

Folks, we're getting a little bit too serious and personal here, so let's turn down the GRRR a bit? Please? Do this old grognard a solid, eh?


Kalindlara wrote:
This thread makes me wonder how anyone runs cohorts. ^_^

The player runs their own cohorts, how else? I guess the DM can step in if the player has the cohort do something crazy suicidal and of course the DM can have the cohort make a comment once in a while, but the cohort is part of the PC.


Rysky wrote:
Please don't go! I may know next to nothing about LGBT topics and events but your posts (as well as almost everyone else on here) are always insightful and I enjoy reading them because they give me understanding and also keep me from making faux pas' when dealing with people so that they're comfortable instead of on edge or insulted or hurt.

Yes, it's nice to get more info on this, so thanks!


Tinkergoth wrote:
Not D&D based, but from a current World of Darkness game I'm playing in that features a game within a game (we're playing mortal characters who get together on Friday nights to play RPGs).

Love it!


Mathius wrote:

This is a place to post a moment when you as GM through the rules out of the window or as player your GM let you do something totally outside the rules.

P.

Great thread idea and great post!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadowkire wrote:
9. "Before we proceed further into the enemy lair, which is sure to be guarded by a small army, we will take 10 minutes strip-searching the corpses of those we have already killed."

Actually, that's pretty realistic. That's what happened during war.


knightnday wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

So, those DM's here who say they run DMPCs (not counting solo and rotating games)- have you asked your players about your DMPCs?

If not- why?

That's all that I am asking.

knightnday wrote:

As far as feedback goes: ask. Speak with the players after each session or set of sessions. I've gone as far as passing around questionnaires or holding informal rap sessions at the end of the game, taking a few minutes out of the end of the game to say "Hey, what did you like? What did you not like? What could we do differently?"

If you don't come across defensively or aggressively people are willing, usually, to talk to you about the game. This has worked with relative strangers as well as people as close as my wife. If you don't ask, you may never find out. Keep in mind that if you do ask, however, that you may get feedback that you may not like or face problems you were previously unaware existed.

Then you have to decide how to act on them, whether the players are tired of the same old same old game, GMPCs, not enough or too much of an element and so on.

Great!


So, those DM's here who say they run DMPCs (not counting solo and rotating games)- have you asked your players about your DMPCs?

If not- why?

That's all that I am asking.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

I've seen a horrible GMPC used in action, it was bad.

But until we talked to the guy he had no idea it was a problem. He attempted to change his ways for the rest of that adventure and checked with us afterwards to get our opinions. Having failed to succeed, he removed the GMPC from the group and the game got significantly better.

Now, see that's the way to do it. Yes, bad DMPC running DMs will have no idea they are annoying the snot out of their players. In fact often they will think they are GREAT DMs. Now- you sat down and talked with your DM like adults, he worked on the issue, tried to fix, and they rectified the problem. That's a good DM.

An even better DM would sit down with their players and ask before they had to summon up the nerve to confront him/her about it. Try it!

And if your players say "Heck no problemo, Bob/Barbara, you run your DMPC pretty well, but thanks for asking, we have had some pretty bad ones in the past"- then you're still the better person and wiser, too. What can it hurt to ask?


Aranna wrote:


Actually there are more than two sides arguing here.

Side 1: "GMPC can never work"
Side 2: "GMPC can work, but almost never do so it is best to avoid them"
Side 3: "GMPC work wonderfully, If they don't your a bad GM."
Side 4: "GMPC are the best, everyone should use them."
Did I miss any?

Count me in Side 2.

Side 2, for me also.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Alkenstarian wrote:
....And don't even get started on the incredible awkwardness of watching an actual NPC and a GMPC leading a conversation with the same person making up both sides of the talking. That's one way to instantly reduce the players to spectators. And when the GM actively tries not to ask the "right" questions to avoid abusing his story-related knowledge, it gets even weirder, with players either wondering why the GMPC is not asking the obvious questions, or they can deduce what the obvious questions would be, based on the sheer awkwardness of the conversation going on...

Yes, any real person would wonder "Why is B'ob* so clever, witty and perceptive when talking to us, but useless and tongue-tied when talking to anyone else?"

Simply redefining the term "DMPC" does not help the issue.

I do disagree however- there can be good DMPCs- the less they do, the better, however.

* because all fantasy characters have to have gratuitous ' in their names, no?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vincent Takeda wrote:

The best gm's run nothing but DMPCs... Every character is a well thought out well developed, thoughtfully motivated and played actor upon the player's stage with at least a hair of common sense or a sense of self preservation, or at worst, if fighting to the death, a believable thing worth dying for at stake at the relevant moments. They should not be conveniently scaled to be 'a balanced fight' for the party because that's not how life works.

Sometimes versimilitude means dealing with people as they are, not as you want them to be.

Yes, and this is very nice. But that's not what people mean by DMPCs.

They mean a fully fledged PC, done with the same or better stat build as the PCs (instead of the standard array or even elite array) with full PC (not NPC) magic, and adventuring with the party as a full member.

In fact, the party almost never 'fights' a DMPC so that there's rarely any issues with 'a balanced fight'.

But es, your thoughts on NPCs and opponents are well done, thank you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Green Tea Gamer wrote:

In science, a traditional study is more valid than a case study.

Similarly, the opinions of 40 people who played 1 year are more valid than the opinion of 1 person who played 40 years.

That doesn't mean your opinion is invalid, but you can't disregard dozens of people saying stuff contrary to your opinion just because they haven't played as long as you have.

Sure. As long as they have played both as DMPC running DMs and as Players in several campaigns with DMPCs.

I can disregard those who have only run DMPCs and have never seen it from the other side.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

If you praise empirical evidence so strongly, how do you respond to the empirical evidence of the other side?

If there is a whole other course and a series of observable events from multiple people with experiences entirely different to your own, that you claim cannot happen because they didn't happen to you, how do you respond to that empirical observed evidence?

Well, since in most cases it's DMs who say "I run DMPC's and my players love them!" I respond with "I have personally observed, thru forty years of playing and DMing, that in the cases where the DMPC was a bad idea, that the DM was always clueless and had no idea it was annoying the heck out of his players, or that was why so many were leaving.".

So, I get to dismiss the biased evidence of DMs praising their own use of DMPCs, since I did it , and I found out I was deluded myself.

But again, like I said: I have also seen a few times where they were no big deal, and added to the DM's fun- which means they made the game more fun for everyone.

So, by no means are DMPCs always bad. Just dont think that just because your players aren't complaining TO YOU about your DMPC that they love it.

It costs nothing to discuss the issue with your players. Also, think about games where you were a player and the DM ran a DMPC- did you like it?

As I once posted:

"Confessions of a repentant DMPC running DM.

Hi, I have been DMing since around 1975 or so. And, like many of you, I used to run DMPCs. Funny, most of the time, when other DM’s did it, I didn’t much care for it, or even actively hated it. But I never said anything about it to my DM. I did complain to my fellow players and once I even stopped showing up for the games.

Then, I got into a conversation with one of my players, and we’d both been playing in another DM’s game, where he ran a DMPC. The other player & I were complaining about this. Then, I thought smugly to myself- “But of course, everyone likes it when *I* run a DMPC…” …then it hit me. No, they didn’t. It was just that I wasn’t obnoxious about it like the guy most of us walked out on.

Then I thought, well, maybe sometimes the party needs another PC (Usually a healer)- then I thought about seeing others introduce a NPC, which was roleplayed by the DM during the introduction, then handed over to the players to run- with the DM stepping in if the players got silly or stupid.

I then thought back about the ONE DM I had where we all loved her DMPCs- then realized her DMPCs never did anything- well maybe healed us after battle or said things like “Hmm, I wonder what the Elvish word for “friend” is?”. Sure, she roleplayed, but the party was always her protector, not the other way around, and during combat or adventuring she did almost nothing. In fact many times we had no idea of what class she was- and of course, it didn’t matter. Her DMPC was just a Macguffin.

I then swore off the bad habit forever. Now, if the party needs another PC, I give them a real NPC- as above, one they run."

Again- by no means are DMPCs always bad. Just think about it, talk about it with your players. Dont assume.


Ed Reppert wrote:

Using Prestidigitation as a light spell won't work. From the spell description: "prestidigitation lacks the power to duplicate any other spell effects."

Thus, Prestidigitation can do nothing since Wish can duplicate or do just about anything (up to a certain level of power).

Since Light= "This spell causes a touched object to glow like a torch...", I'd certainly allow prestidigitation to glow as a candle. Thereby it doesnt DUPLICATE the Light spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

This entire thread is full of personal bias being represented as empirical data. Which is what I was mocking.

"Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation." wiki.

I have personally observed, thru forty years of playing and DMing, in dozens of groups, with dozens and dozens of DMs- that DMPCs are usually a bad idea. This includes the times when I ran the DMPC, and found out later- it wasn't a good idea.

I have personally observed, thru forty years of playing and DMing, that in the cases where the DMPC was a bad idea, that the DM was always clueless and had no idea it was annoying the heck out of his players, or that was why so many were leaving.

I have also seen a few times where they were no big deal, and added to the DM's fun- which means they made the game more fun for everyone.

So there's "empirical data" for you.


bookrat wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:
I expected the "cheat sheet" to be more dramatic and include some really awesome abilities. It appears to just be a handmade sheet created by a guy who makes a lot of spelling errors, doesn't edit things carefully, and might not fully understand stacking. Something like Hero Lab might be a good idea for such a player. I've seen some problems with Hero Lab created sheets too, but at least with those you might not have to worry so much about whether the player is making intentional "mistakes".
That's a good point. I may request to the group that he use Hero Lab or ScoreForge.

Yeah, and considering that many of these errors were against him, I think accusations of 'cheating" are unfair. He just made some mistakes and he didnt care about them- as the DM didnt seem care about them.

Why do these mistakes make such a bid deal to you? I mean, I didnt see anything that makes his character game breaking to the point where it'd reduce the fun for the other players.

Are you sure there's nothing personal between the two of you?


Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
bookrat wrote:

After announcing every little thing wrong with the character to the entire group the player got mad at me for doing something that was the job of the GM. He didn't like that another player would look at his character sheet.

Yeah, he was right, you were wrong. First, you should have discussed it with him. Then the DM. Once the DM did nothing- that's exactly what you should have done. Or- walked.

Diametrically opposing this. I'd be happy for any and anyone to

A: Check my sheet AND
B: Announce any errors to the table.

Why wouldn't I? Because it may prove me fallible? I'm up for that. No ego here. Sure it could be annoying if it happens all the time, but someone doing it all the time only proves there are errors to find, and there isn't enough others for sufficient oversight - if your group is even interested in this kind of thing.

It's not invigilation, or prying. It's helpful. Up to a point. ;)

Sure, and that's great. But the other player didnt like it.


kestral287 wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
bookrat wrote:

After announcing every little thing wrong with the character to the entire group the player got mad at me for doing something that was the job of the GM. He didn't like that another player would look at his character sheet.

Yeah, he was right, you were wrong. First, you should have discussed it with him. Then the DM. Once the DM did nothing- that's exactly what you should have done. Or- walked.

That's actually what Bookrat did.

Quote:
When I brought it up to the GM, he tried to do something about it, but this GM is really bad at confrontation and the player just kind of ignored the GM. So I stepped in.

No, like it sez "So I stepped in.". A Player doesn't "step in", Player to Player. Ever. Either the DM handles it, or the players as a group discuss it.

At that point in time, Bookrat should have brought up the issue to the group, in a non-confrontational way. "Hey one of us has some major mistakes on his sheet- what does the group wanna do about something like that?" If the other players go "Meh", then sit down and shut up or walk out of the game.

If the other players say "Yeah, lets put everyones sheets out in the open and audit all of them", then great!

The point here is that it's never a one player decision to accuse another of "cheating". If the other two players are OK with it and just wanna get back to rolling dice and having fun, then being confrontational is disruptive.


LazarX wrote:


Against this, there have been hundreds of tables that I've played and judged, where everyone involved simply acted like the adults they were presumed to be.

So is conflict inevitable? Obviously not, unless someone comes to the table with that thought in mind.

Sure, and in forty years+ of gaming, I have seen *ONE* table flip and it was a board game.


wraithstrike wrote:

If it is an accident I dont consider it cheating. I know the rules pretty well, and I had 2 or 3 mistakes after doing a self-audit last week.

Yeah, I often do my Character sheets by hand, and there's often errors*. No one really cares. No wait, we have one guy who obnoxiously points out what everyone has done wrong, and we had to make a rule no one can critique another persons character anyone, especially as at least two "BIG GLARING CHEATING ERRORS" were special secret DM boons, part of their society.

About 60% in my favor I found, my subconscious seems to like me, but yeah, a lot of errors were not in my favor at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:

After announcing every little thing wrong with the character to the entire group the player got mad at me for doing something that was the job of the GM. He didn't like that another player would look at his character sheet.

Yeah, he was right, you were wrong. First, you should have discussed it with him. Then the DM. Once the DM did nothing- that's exactly what you should have done. Or- walked.


Aranna wrote:
Anytime a group of people get together for long stretches of time their personalities will grate on each other. Why do you think selecting a crew for the Mars mission is such a huge undertaking. This isn't just gamers that have these issues it's every group. HOW we handle such issues varies wildly from person to person.

Yep, I have seen similar behavior even at Chess games.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

These weren't rotating GMs in the way rotating GMs are normally thought of. They Co-GMd and pretty much rotated session by session running the same campaign.

EDIT: that being said, may I inquire the specific details of why they're an exception? Is it assumed the other GM will keep them in check or something?

Yep. And in many cases, everyone is taking a turn, but not in yours.


kyrt-ryder wrote:


Regardless, I'll quote a few posts I made upthread to answer your question about having positive experiences with someone else's GMPC
Quote:

First campaign I ever played, for example had two GMPCs from two co-GMs. Each of them were mutual party members and neither of them pulled any of the horrible GMPC stunts you see discussed in these threads.

One was a debuff evil cleric and the other a Neutral Good THW Fighter.

Quote:
Tons of fun and the GMPCs really contributed to the party's dynamic, while being 'just another party member' in combat.

In short, these two characters were no different from my own, the Rogue or the Druid. They were just a Personal Character of a player at the table.

EDIT: just to be clear, although the Co-DMs did rotate 'primary DMship' between sessions, both played their character in every session they were able to get to, including while they were the primary DM.

Rotating DMs- much like Jaelithe and her solo campaign- are exceptions.


Jaelithe wrote:


On the other hand ... no DM running DMPCs is going to be aware that he or she should cease and desist if no one's called him or her on the issue, assuming one exists. Players who don't speak up don't effect change ... and that's the likely consequence of their reticence.

Pro-DMPC DMs in this thread have conceded that they've seen it done wrong, that they themselves have done it wrong in the past, and that it's not something that players who don't like it should subject themselves to after a reasonable attempt at accommodation.

Which is why the DM needs to bring up the issue and ask the players. And if they seem hesitant, get a secret ballot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:

Related to my exchange with the good doctor above ...

Here's something else to consider, one and all: What if one player has an issue with it, while the other players think the DMPC is great and that the complaining player has brain damage and/or an axe to grind?

I do think some players would never complain out of friendship, loyalty, or the fact that they don't want to blow the only game in town, either literally or figuratively.

But I also think there are players, some of whom have posted in this very thread, who'd complain about a DMPC with whom they'd not had an issue just because they have a bug up their ass about the very idea of it the size of a scarab beetle.

Good Doctor? "GOOD"!?! I didn't put myself thru eight years of Evil Dark Lord Necromancer School to be called "Good".

;-)

The thing to do- in that case or in any case with a DMPC running DM (you're exempt Jaelithe, since you run a solo campaign, so that's special) is to discuss the issue with all the players, sit down like adults and talk it out. The objecting player can explain he has had bad experience in the past, the DM can explain why, the other players can say they dont really mind, etc.

I actually have no huge objections to a DMPC if the DM in question just admits he/she is doing it to add to his/her enjoyment- since of course the DM gets to have fun also. AND they don't abuse it and make it a Mary Sue or the spotlight PC. (and we all agree on that, yes?)

In fact one of our DMs, a rather famous Game writer, did run DMPCs almost always. But they were just macguffins or roleplaying guides they didnt participate in Combat, they cast no significant spells, they didnt take a share of loot, in fact often they didnt even really have a set of stats. When combat came they'd just go into a corner and be defensive, maybe stabilizing a PC if it came to that. She often had her DMPCs have relationship with another PC or be the "Princess in need of escort" or something like that. Not a full fledged PC, a walking, talking plot point.

But anyway- just sit down and discuss it like adults. The DM should bring it up. That's all I am asking- ask yourself "WHY" and discuss it with your players.


thegreenteagamer wrote:

Wow. I almost expected one, but two people? That's unheard of, and pleasantly surprising!

So we have two posters who are generally Anti-DMPC agreeing that they perhaps can be done right...but no DMPC running DM's that have conceded that perhaps they shouldn't be running them?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

I have yet to actually encounter a real life impartial GM...

Ashiel wrote:
Hi there. :D

I have never been impartial. ;-)


Rub-Eta wrote:
Fourleaf wrote:
Also, would you let your players do this to their party? (I corrected this for you)

I would. I'm not going to tell a player "No, you can't do this" when it's totaly legal, rules wise. [

So when a player sez his pC murders all the other PC's in their sleep and takes their stuff- and keep doing this time after time, so that no one but him gets to play more than a day- - well, that's "totaly legal, rules wise

"? And it's not by the way.

Of course it's very easy to tell a player not to do this since you are the DM and you can say "Hey, this is a No Evils campaign, that was evil, that PC is now my NPC."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok there's two reasons not to do this:

1. You are violating & taking advantage of a meta-rule. Honestly, if the other PC's saw your PC doing stuff liek that (even just hanging back in combat) they'd ask you to leave the group. The meta-rule is that we dont do that except in extreme cases as we want everyone to play.

2. Even if the Pc's might not notice, the players might, and you might lose friends and lose a game over acting like that.

It's a jerk move.


Well, something that helps is assigning one player to keep track of init, saying who is up and who is next. And if you're "up" but you're not ready as you are texting, you delay.


LazarX wrote:


You do that and you take away one of the major advantages fighters still have, armor training to reduce these penalties.

Make it a flat plus to AC instead.


Aaron Whitley wrote:

Don't expect a whole lot of reality/historicity from D&D/Pathfinder weapons and armor. Their pretty bad.

You know what never existed historically (as far as we know): studded leather and banded mail.

Scale mail had also gone out of style about the time of the Romans. It was replaced by brigandine.


lemeres wrote:

We are working with a grandfathered system, which is more heavily influenced by pre 70's films than anything with real life. While it can be nice to adopt this rediscovered information, people originally came to pathfinder because they liked how the 3.5 system worked.

It is not in that much of a need for a major overhaul since it works well enough from a game balance perspective.

Except that in AD&D the better armor you had- the better. In other words, the penalties for wearing Full Plate didnt outweigh the advantages.

And, what's so Game balancing" about it? Wouldnt making heavy armor better make the martials better?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:


So... all the grognards

You rang?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:


Unfortunately, before heal comes online status removal doesn't happen much in combat.

Also, some of that stuff (restoration, break enchantment) is out of combat casting. Out of combat stuff is usually best handled by just leaving slots open. There is little reason to prepare it before hand.

Most PCs that would describe their role as "healers" cast cure X wounds in combat and little else.

Well, sure- it can be done after the battle, but it has to be done, unless your party always Tports back to the Temple and pays the price.

Not mine. First two rounds they buff or fight. Only when a PC has been hit to the point where another hit will down them do they heal- in which case, you're gonna need something better than a CLW wand. Of course, sometimes in combat a perfectly placed Channel can do a lot of good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Healing is not just damage repair.

Restoration, remove curse, break enchantment, dispel magic, remove fear (panicking and cowering suck), remove sickness (nauseated f***s up teams), and the rest are way more important to me than a measly cure spell.

No tot mention, Bless, Aid, Remove paralysis, Magic vestment, Prayer, Divination, Planar ally, Commune.....


Watch these guys run around in Full plate, and you can see the -6 penalty is rarely correct (except for he stealth part, sure).

http://www.openculture.com/2015/05/whats-it-like-to-fight-in-15th-century-a rmor.html


Jaelithe wrote:
Aranna wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
You can also have them roll a die, low roll has to play the healer.
This is STILL forcing someone to play a character they don't want to play...

Precisely.

If it comes down to something like this, well ... a GMPC/allied NPC is self-evidently a better solution.

Nope, just let them not have a healer then.


Aranna wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
pres man wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
2. No Cleric*? Let them play without one and LEARN. You gotta take the training wheels off the bike someday.
And the lesson they will learn is bend the arm of the most passive player until they give in and play a character they don't want to. I don't value lessons like that.

Ok, but he has to learn to stand up for himself someday.

You can also have them roll a die, low roll has to play the healer.

This is STILL forcing someone to play a character they don't want to play it doesn't matter if it's the players forcing you or a die you will still have no fun and the game should remain fun for everyone. They can be big boys and buy a silly wand if they NEED healing...

Like I said, no one should be forced to play an class they dont want to. But *IF* the group has decided someone has to play a healer, and they are pressuring the newb or the low key guy into it, then have them roll a die instead.


pres man wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
2. No Cleric*? Let them play without one and LEARN. You gotta take the training wheels off the bike someday.
And the lesson they will learn is bend the arm of the most passive player until they give in and play a character they don't want to. I don't value lessons like that.

Ok, but he has to learn to stand up for himself someday.

You can also have them roll a die, low roll has to play the healer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ooh, ooh, Mark has indicated this MAY just be the topic of the new FAQ!
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r7kg&page=44?Ask-Mark-Seifter-All-Your-Que stions-Here#2169

Let's hope!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:


Will simulacrum get an answer next week?

ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohp leaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplea seohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseo hpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpl easeohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleas eohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseoh pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohple aseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohp leaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplea seohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseo hpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpl easeohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleas eohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseoh pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohple aseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohp leaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplea seohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseo hpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpl easeohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleas eohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseoh pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohple aseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohp leaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplea seohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseo hpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpl easeohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleas eohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseoh pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohple aseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohp leaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplea seohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseo hpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpl easeohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleas eohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseoh pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohple aseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohp leaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplea seohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseo hpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpl easeohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleas eohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseoh pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohple aseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohp leaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplea seohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseo hpleaseohplease.....


Strategytiger wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Tacticslion is one of the voices* of reason and reasonableness one this board. He helps keep it on track.

TL- don't favorite this post.

* but I am surprised he isn't hoarse. ;-)

...And that's what a Vice President is for: So I can favorite it, and he can favorite this thread where I pointed out that I already favorited that thread, especially considering it has that thread in this thread's quote.

But, but... you didn't. ;-(


Goth Guru wrote:

If nobody wants to be the cleric or rogue, there is no choice.

Sure there is a choice.

1. No Rogue is easy. Many classes can now sub for the rogue, and the APs are not full of the fiendish Gygaxian traps we used to have.

2. No Cleric*? Let them play without one and LEARN. You gotta take the training wheels off the bike someday.

* or similar buffer/healer.

( I consider the niche of a cleric/divine caster to be more than healing- buffing & condition removal are just as important, if not more so.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Nobody appreciates the healer. My group votes MVP for extra exp every week, I have breath of life'd a guy 2x in one fight and removed feeblemind from the sorcerer and hit remove fear on cowering players all in the same session...

Nope, sorcerer gets it every f***ing week. Or the meat shield. All they care about is the deathblow.

Hmm, I was in a 3.5 Age of Worms campaign, went all the way to Epic. After a nigh TPK at around 4th level, I then started playing a Healer- yes, from the Miniatures' Handbook, a class widely regarded as the weakest in the game.

We had a larger party, sometimes as much as eight players. I healed & buffed like crazy- and was almost always voted MVP after each game.

They party also handed me the best protective items. They knew I kept them alive.

So- groups differ.

1 to 50 of 5,569 << 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.