Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Tar-Baphon's Ogre

EntrerisShadow's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 695 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 695 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

sunshadow21 wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:
The fact that casters can't go in and out of combat with impunity is not a bad thing IMO even if it changes the paradigm a bit.
It hurts the robustness of the overall system if you limit it too much. 3.x/PF probably went a bit far, but casters still need some ability to do so, as combat is going to be where the party spends a lot of time, and returning to AD&D levels is to me too far of a step back. Maybe 5E pulls it off in play without having to have the perfect group, but on paper, it seems like it has most, if not quite all, of the difficulties that AD&D had, which makes me less likely to actually try the game because I like to play casters and I need them to be not entirely reliant on teammates or DM fiat to be both fun and useful. 5E just doesn't seem to have that from what I've seen so far.

Well, our level 1 sorcerer did single-handedly end an encounter with 5 goblins last session.... so I can say with certainty it's not unheard of for a caster to hold up by themselves. (Like I said - Sleep is still a great equalizer. Probably moreso now that that there's no save.)

Dark Archive

David Bowles wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

It sounds to me like your biggest problem with the system is that it doesn't give spellcasters a "win" button.

And yes, a party that has serious different roles filled is definitively stronger than a party that over-specializes. That ain't rocket science.

It seems to me that a party of all martials is the way to go in 5th.

Not necessarily. You're screwed in the healing department, you're all (pretty much) facing the same bad saves, and since proficiency replaced BAB you're not really getting a lot more out of being a martial class attack wise until the mid-levels, when spells take a jump in power.

I think it's quite possible to go all caster or all martial in 5E. I will say that in modules, considering their emphasis on straight P v E combat over ingenuity or role-playing, martials will have a much easier time of it. But a caster party isn't without merit. (A well-timed sleep spell still ends nearly every encounter faster and cleaner than Greatsword swinging fighter.)

sunshadow21 wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
A spellcaster shouldn't be able to ignore the enemy that's standing right next to him when he's trying to cast. Whether that enemy be a martial or a spellcaster.
Ignore, no. But not being able to get away from them so that the caster could do something the next round seems a bit much.

You can still disengage (certain tank builds notwithstanding). And that again is where I say it encourages party support. And it makes Sentinel feats and the Defense fighting style viable.

Dark Archive

They're still limited by action economy. A party of casters could remain viable, although it's probably stronger to have a variety.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
I disagree with your last statement. I think there is a VERY real chance of getting crushed by a martial, because once they are adjacent, you can't get away. And cranking down spell slots seems to me to be cranking down choice. Maybe I'm just looking at it very differently.

I actually like that quite a bit. Essentially, D&D is a party based system, meaning that no class should be a one man show. You need every member of a party to effectively do different things.

So casters really shouldn't be able to get away from martials. In a party, the martials should be killing opposing casters or trying to prevent the other beat sticks from killing their caster.

The caster, depending on the type, should either be killing scores of smaller enemies, buffing their allies and debuffing opponents, or shaping the battlefield so it is more advantageous toward their group.

Casters should cast and martials should . . . uh, martial. I could see a two-adventurer party with a Battle Master Fighter and Diviner Wizard being more dangerous than the standard group of 4.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
The point is that they have taken away a lot of caster choice and enhanced martials tremendously. I see no reason to play a caster at all in 5th ed. Because some martial is going to come pound me like railroad tie.

Let's pretend for a moment that 5e actually was weighted in the favor or martial.

Is that so g@*!~%n bad? And if it is, then the bad news for Pathfinder is that it's way WAY more unbalanced, just in the opposite direction.

Perhaps. I find that high level DPR must be performed by martials in Pathfinder, because all the attack spells just bounce off the opponents. In Pathfinder, caster strength is diversity of effects. That's why I dislike sorcerers in homebrew games.

The whole full attack after full move combined with how disengaging from an opponent in combat works means that a caster can never get away from a martial in combat. The can't even mitigate the incoming damage. Combine this with gimped casting, no channeling, no meta magic and it adds up to a bunch of classes I would never play.

That is helpful in recommendations, at least.

If you think martials got shafted in 3.5/Pathfinder, you'll probably see 5E as a godsend.

If you think PF is balanced already, you'll probably find 5E completely unfair.

Dark Archive

David Bowles wrote:
I have seen them. And casters are eviscerated in 5th. No channel. No summons.

You can still summon as a Caster. (Conjure X spells exist) And they do have channel?

Summoning is powerful, but I wouldn't even say it's the most powerful thing you can do as a conjurer. (Black Tentacles, Pit spells, Glitterdust, and so on.)

I guess it is a pointless argument - different strokes, and all that - but I've found casters to still be incredibly powerful.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
Eben TheQuiet wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I dislike the lack of dynamic range of 5th edition greatly. Getting rid of all the "+1's" makes 5th ed combat pretty boring to me.

I agree with this. I've only played a few pick up games (and all at level 1 & 2, so keep that in mind), but there really didn't seem like much difference between someone invested in a particular area and someone who wasn't.

I can appreciate a simplified system, and I can appreciate the flexibility it gives DM's to improvise and keep things moving narratively, but I want my character build choices and conceptual areas-of-focus to make the character mechanically stand out.

I improvise just fine in Pathfinder. But I've been templating since 2000. The first 3.0 game I ran had templated NPCs in it.

One more point about 5th: I hate it that martials can take a move and then get all thier attacks. 5th, from what I have seen, is balanced very heavily in favor of martials. I would, for example, never play a cleric in 5th. I'd make someone else do that job.

Wait, what?!

Dude, have you seen the cantrips in this edition? Unlimited Xd6-Xd12/day at range with several feats and class features that allow you to add your casting stat to it?

I'm playing a Cleric with the War domain right now who currently has more attacks than our fighter and does more damage per swing. (Though that'll change around 5th level, as it should.) Plus spells get stupid powerful in the higher levels.

The only real difference I can see is it lets martial characters actually do their schtick instead of forcing everyone go into archery so they can get their full attack routine reliably.

Dark Archive

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Yours wasn't the only review of 5e I've read which suggested dex builds being OP, but it's certainly possible that it's only a first blush thing.

Nonetheless - if it is balanced in 5e - it goes to show that such a balance - from a pure mechanical perspective - needs to go futher than just giving dex to damage with certain weapons.

I'm inclined to agree. I feel like a big part of the reason that it works in 5E is because they ditched touch AC and tied a save to every single stat instead of the Big 3.

Dex-to-Damage could work in PF, but there needs to be some balancing against str. And something still needs to be done about archery.

Dark Archive

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Actually - I've heard in many of the 5th ed reviews that one negative is that they have to come up with fluff reasons to actually use strength instead of dexterity.

And if you don't care about realism - why do you even want dex to damage? Just pretend that strength is dex.

Sorry, if someone has already done this (there's 150 posts between this and mine) but I wanted to respond.

I actually was one of those people who decried Dex-to-Damage in 5th Ed. But with a little digging you see reasons why it actually isn't too overpowered:


  • Armor is much more balanced between heavy and light.
  • The "Thrown" weapon property that uses Str for Attack rather than Dex.
  • There are STR saves in addition to the typical REF/WILL/FORT.
  • STR-based heavy weapon fighters are the only ones that qualify for power attack.
  • A lot of bonuses to damage are now extra dice, which benefits weapons with larger damage dice more.

At first blush, it seems like dex-to-damage is overpowered . . . and truthfully, archery still is, but it is in Pathfinder, too . . . but it works out.

Dark Archive

Ssalarn wrote:

Here's a little anecdotal theory of my own: the less a GM knows about the game, the stronger a Rogue seems. I can think of at least 3 instances where I joined a group who thought Rogues were just the most OP thing ever, only to discover the Rogue was being given insane advantages:

Rogue player:"My Rogue is going to use acrobatics to roll into flanking. Success!"

This mirrors my experience perfectly. In my group, the other GM's nerfed rogues hard due to some misunderstandings about how a lot of things work. One broken rogue played completely ignoring rules for moving through threatened squares, concealment/cover, and sneak attack not multiplying on a critical hit and they were convinced this was the most powerful class ever.

The funny thing is, all of those broken rules just let him stay on par with the Two-Handed Fighter damage wise - and it required a critical hit to do so.

Dark Archive

Beast Rider Archer Cavalier.

You lose out on Heavy Armor (pfft - who needs it?) for an AWESOME mount. Go with an archer build - I like the halfling sling staff, but since you're probably dumping STR, a bow works just as well.

Choose a T-rex mount and you're playing a prehistoric pigmy. If that doesn't go against the typical Halfling, I don't know what does.

Dark Archive

ElementalXX wrote:
You know i have no problem with Str to AC, actually it makes much more sense than charisma to ac

I actually get that. I sort of equated it with being supernaturally lucky.

Wisdom - You listen to the secrets of the aether and understand them.

Charisma - The aether listens to your whims and understands you.

Wisdom to AC - You "hear" what everything is telling you and see the blow incoming in time to dodge out of the way.

Cha to AC - Suddenly everything is just slightly out of place to the aggressor; the target isn't where he thought it was, or something shifted his balance ever so slightly, knocking his trajectory off course.

Dark Archive

Better:

-Stopped prepping so much. I used to have enormous stories that I wanted to tell; grand-sweeping sagas that put the fate of the universe in the players' hands. I had booklets filled with information, world building, special rules --- and campaigns that fell apart after a few sessions. Now I've learned to go with the flow and let the story occur naturally. Start with a very simple setup and see what they want to do with it.

-Not letting people split the party and hog the spotlight. Party splits are inevitable, but when it happens I spend no more than 10 minutes with each and find excuses to get them back together ASAP.

Still needs improvement:

-Coddling players. I let too many things slide. I finally put the kibosh on god-stats and epic rolling. (2d6+6) But I'm still hesitant to let characters die. I think it's important to find the balance between feeling empowered and being challenged at alternate times in a campaign, but I've yet to find that balance.

(Am glad to say that in my last 5E session, the boss did take two characters to 0 HP and it was only a judicious use of Inspiration that saved them. Very proud moment for me as a GM.)

-Not describing things as well as I think I am. Obviously I have a very clear picture of what things look like, but communication is a tricky thing.

Worse:

-Flip side of that going with the flow is I too often try to let players dictate what happens next. My other great fear as a GM is railroading, so I try to leave things open ended enough that they always have choices. Unfortunately, those threads aren't always as visible as I think they are, and I end up having to push one way or the other.

Dark Archive

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Stealing horses because you'd rather not pay even though you could: CE.

I think you could still argue the last one is CN, depending on the circumstances. In the circumstances he described, yes, I'd say so. But what if the person you're stealing from is an enormous jerk? Stealing because someone mistreated you seems more along the L/C axis than G/E to me. And what if it was someone who could afford it? I probably wouldn't cause anyone to rewrite "E" on their sheet because they stole a bunch of horses from a stuffy nobleman. It's not good per se, but it creates an inconvenience rather than doing lasting harm. I might make a Paladin answer for it, but the CN Rogue would be safe.

Dark Archive

The Human Diversion wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
I'm confused about what you're saying is untrue here?
I think he was pointing out that rogues gain sneak attack dice faster than slayers.

I get that. I just don't get how that's a counter to my argument that nothing really separates them conceptually?

EDIT: OK, I think that's a response to when I said "aside from being better at everything" about the Slayer.

While Rogues do get a better SA progression, that's balanced by losing out on full-BAB and the Slayer also gets the Studied Target for +x to hit and damage. I'd say the ST + SA is still overall better than a full SA progression.

Dark Archive

So let's look at the facts:

1) You're in a 10-point buy. Every MAD class is out.

2) Your GM is always looking to destroy companions.

Synthesist Summoner. Dump everything but CHA (keep CON at 10 for level up) and make your GM cry. 2nd level go Lore Oracle so you can add CHA to AC and eventually qualify for that feat that lets Divine casters add their CHA to all saves.

Pretty much everything but your to-hit/damage is going to be covered by CHA, and that won't be too shabby thanks to your merged form. The GM can focus on attacking the "companion" still, but that means having to go toe-to-toe with you, and you can buff yourself out the wazoo and litter the battlefield with critters at the same time.

Sadly, this will suck for the other party members, but if it comes down to that or dying every other session, I say this might make him reconsider 10-point buy. All it does is lock players into boxes without actually making things more challenging.

Dark Archive

Starbuck_II wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:

There's no fixing the Rogue.

Well, let me clarify - it's been fixed. Any fixes now will just make it more like a Slayer. (Best combat rogue) or more like an Investigator (Best skill monkey rogue) Now, yes, I understand people are like, "But that's a Slayer now! We need to fix the Rogue!"

Why bother? It's a waste of intellectual time and, if it were implemented, a waste of print space. You have two very good classes that fill your Rogue role. Three if you count the Bard, but for flavor's sake, the Slayer and Investigator ARE closer. Besides the name and being better at everything, what REALLY differentiates a Slayer from a Rogue? A few things technically. Nothing conceptually.

And really, other fixes are just going to make it do (more) things other classes do better, anyway.

Combat feats? That's a fighter.
Debuffs? That's a Bard, and a Witch.
Take out Dex-to-Damage for other classes and make it specific to the rogue? Admission the only fix is to gimp other classes.

There are a lot of sacred cows that need to be slaughtered for every new iteration of the 3.PF rules, and the Rogue is chief among them. Rip every wasted paragraph that deals with the Rogue out. Or rip out the Slayer and put that statblock over the old Rogue. Or take Arcane Trickster out of PrC, make it a 1-20 base class, and boom - new "rogue".

Untrue, Full BAB Rogue is better than Slayer in Sneak attack (full progression).

I'm confused about what you're saying is untrue here?

Dark Archive

Additional thoughts after playing a few more 5E sessions. Some of these are just observations, rather than a judgment on whether it's superior to PF:

Rangers suck

Wow, do they suck. After years of getting used to Fighters being such a disappointment that I'd just play a Ranger, I'm finding the reverse to be true. There's nothing a Ranger gets that a Fighter won't do better. And the new Favored Enemy bonuses are so situational that they'll almost never be used at most tables. The Beast Master archetype is the lamest thing I've ever seen. You sacrifice your attack to make your companion take a (much weaker) attack. Perhaps someone here sees something I don't, since I'm still new to it obviously, but I can't find much redeemable about them. Seems like Rangers are the Rogue/Monk of 5E. Speaking of which -

Fighters, Rogues, and Monks are kind of spectacular

Part of that, of course, is the new feat system. But also considering the bonded accuracy and the Monks Dex-to-Attack/Damage option being built into the class, you have a pretty amazing build from Level 1. A TWF Fighter is probably the best damage option at early levels, with a Dueling fighter coming in close behind. Rogues are at the top of the skills again, providing something very different from Bards. (Excellent mods in a couple of important skills for the Rogue versus good mods in all of them for the Bard.) And with the way crits work now, more damage dice is actually better than a flat modifier.

Magic is broken, still

I think I see where they were going with this. The idea is that, even with bonded accuracy, a Fighter will put more points into Dex/Str than a Wizard, and have more weapon options, so he'll come out ahead. Which he does, kinda --- but really, a Sorc/Wiz will probably use a finesse weapon and pump Dex, so it's all the same. Spells (especially Cantrips) should've been weakened or their accuracy dropped.

Magic is improved, kinda

A lot of 1st-Level spells are actually weaker now, but they also work in a better way. QED, I'm playing a Cleric with the War Domain in a friend's game. One of my 1st level spells is Divine Favor, which lets me add 1d4 Radiant(Holy) damage to each of my attacks for 1-minute. Not really that much, but it also lets me cast as a bonus action - so I get to cast and attack. I love this. It's not system-breakingly powerful, but it lets me buff at the beginning of combat and do damage in a way that highlights how my battle cleric is different from a strict martial.

The difference is very GM/Player dependent

I know, that seems obvious. But the two biggest mechanics in the game - Advantage and Inspiration - require the GM to remember and use them. They aren't built into stat blocks or attacks the way most PF bonuses are. Last game we played our GM didn't remember either and it played very similar to a Pathfinder session, but with smaller total numbers. I forgot during an encounter with some Worgs and found my players stomping over it like they often do with PF characters. (Those pack tactics probably would've ripped the group to shreds, in retrospect.) When I remembered to use Inspiration, I saw a profound change in the behavior of my players. You will always have the different gaming types, but my combat-lovers were thinking through ways to fight *in-character*, rather than just trying to find the "best" options. 5E is a lot easier to learn to play than PF, but I think it requires much more advanced GMing --- you need to be at a level where you're comfortable taking a lot of initiative yourself. Even a module will require you to think on your feet and be on the lookout for opportunities to foster role-play or play up smart tactics so your baddies can have Advantage/negate Disadvantage to provide a real challenge.

Dark Archive

Asphere wrote:
I think you misunderstood what modularity means. It doesn't mean that you will be able to make 5E look like 4E, 3E, or 2E (that would be impossible).

Do not try to bend the finished editions--- that would be impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth. There are no finished editions.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Usual Suspect wrote:

I had a DM that let the party gang rape my character's cohort. The idiot couldn't quite understand why I quit after that. Kept pushing to know why I quit coming to the game (I had made a polite excuse as to why I wouldn't be back). He was terribly upset when I explained what a douchbag move it was for the DM to ignore evil actions in a game where he had specifically outlawed evil characters. Most of his players thought it was hillarious. Honestly, 3 twenty-something guys couldn't figure out why rape isn't fin or funny.

Pretty much ruined gaming for a year as I wasn't even interested in role-playing because of that.

Wow, that's an asinine group. The DM wouldn't have had to push me to know why I left...

Rape is something that the heroes kill villainous NPCs for doing, not something that PCs do because lolz the evulz!

I feel like even THAT has to be handled with tact, shouldn't be introduced until you've properly gotten to know the vibe at the table, and still should be used very, very sparingly. (Aside from any other offense it may cause, rape to establish that this is a 'dark' campaign is cliche.)

But what Tequila Sunrise described is just sick. Even if they were evil characters, even if the DM enforced that and made them rewrite all of their character sheets --- some things are just so beyond the pale of human decency I couldn't imagine how anyone would want to play it out in a board game in the first place.

Dark Archive

Orfamay Quest wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Xunal wrote:

The words "Lawful" and "Chaotic" probably weren't the best choice for something like RPGs, since English words tend to have very narrow definitions.

"Subservient" would more in the spirit of "Lawful", and "Self-Centred" better for "Chaotic". There are no English word (as yet) that would encompass 'subservient'and 'lawful' as well as another that captures the essence of both 'self-centred' and 'chaos'.

I like that, but I'd say it would probably require less pejorative names. Maybe Communal and Independent?

Law is not necessarily social. The classic example of that would be a theocracy; it doesn't matter what you and everyone else in the congregation wants; it's what GOD wants.

I kind of see the point there . . . but typically "god's" wants line up very nicely with the rest of the community's. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse - but typically the iconoclasts of theocracies often still see themselves as on god's side; they just have a different interpretation of the rules than the leaders and most worshipers do.

Dark Archive

There's no fixing the Rogue.

Well, let me clarify - it's been fixed. Any fixes now will just make it more like a Slayer. (Best combat rogue) or more like an Investigator (Best skill monkey rogue) Now, yes, I understand people are like, "But that's a Slayer now! We need to fix the Rogue!"

Why bother? It's a waste of intellectual time and, if it were implemented, a waste of print space. You have two very good classes that fill your Rogue role. Three if you count the Bard, but for flavor's sake, the Slayer and Investigator ARE closer. Besides the name and being better at everything, what REALLY differentiates a Slayer from a Rogue? A few things technically. Nothing conceptually.

And really, other fixes are just going to make it do (more) things other classes do better, anyway.

Combat feats? That's a fighter.
Debuffs? That's a Bard, and a Witch.
Take out Dex-to-Damage for other classes and make it specific to the rogue? Admission the only fix is to gimp other classes.

There are a lot of sacred cows that need to be slaughtered for every new iteration of the 3.PF rules, and the Rogue is chief among them. Rip every wasted paragraph that deals with the Rogue out. Or rip out the Slayer and put that statblock over the old Rogue. Or take Arcane Trickster out of PrC, make it a 1-20 base class, and boom - new "rogue".

Dark Archive

Xunal wrote:

The words "Lawful" and "Chaotic" probably weren't the best choice for something like RPGs, since English words tend to have very narrow definitions.

"Subservient" would more in the spirit of "Lawful", and "Self-Centred" better for "Chaotic". There are no English word (as yet) that would encompass 'subservient'and 'lawful' as well as another that captures the essence of both 'self-centred' and 'chaos'.

I like that, but I'd say it would probably require less pejorative names. Maybe Communal and Independent? Social and Libertarian? (Capitalized for alignments, but in the small 'l' Dictionary definition sense of the word.) Societal and Individual?

Dark Archive

The Lion Cleric wrote:

I also slightly dislike the fact that Dex is a really, really good stat in 5e. If I can provide some suggestions, if you're DMing 5e, please enforce the (much, much improved) carrying capacity rules *dodges rotten vegetables*, because people who made the choice to be Str-based are, honestly, kind of screwed.

This actually is the one thing that really bothers me in 5E. Dex is a god stat, for certain. The only real way STR has an advantage is from the Great Weapon Master feat, and that's STILL pathetic compared to the ranged-equivalent Sharpshooter feat.

I'll probably still go STR when I feel it fits the character concept, but I don't like feeling gimped for it.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
I like to play good looking, human height, non humans. I find that sooo many GMs are rigid and conservative, so I often wind up playing elves and half-elves. But I'd love to explore Aasmimar, Tieflings, Dhampir, Catfolk, but again, many GMs have a stick up their @$$ with this stuff.

In fairness, after a lot of the Aasimars/Tieflings (ESPECIALLY Tieflings) I've seen played, I understand GM's not wanting them around. Too much of the same wangsty, special snowflake BS over and over and over. And anthros? Well, I could share some links about what turns people off to anthros, but I'd be banned from the forums.

Dark Archive

I ditch "Lawful" and "Chaos" referring to anything except the law of the land. It's stupid - everyone has a personal code. Even 'Do what feels good' is a code. An experienced mercenary is no less 'disciplined' than a Monk. (If she weren't disciplined, she'd be dead!) Personality like that is too nuanced to capture with a single descriptor.

So, the difference as I see it, using Civil War era America to compare (using modern day would just invite way too many flame wars, and spoilered to avoid Wall 'o Text):

Spoiler:

LG - Obey the just the laws, and work to overturn the unjust ones. Say you're living in a slave state. You do not ferret slaves away in the night, but you work within the system to change the law so that holding to the letter also means doing the right thing. You try to influence without forcing. Harriet Beecher Stowe is the LG.

NG - You might try to change the laws like LG, but you'll also break them easily for the Greater Good. Frederick Douglas and Sojourner Truth (really, anyone involved with the Underground Railroad) are the NG actors during the Civil War.

CG - Upheaval is the name of the game. The system is broken and has to be eradicated rather than changed from within. The attitude of revolutionaries, one can easily swing from Lawful to Chaotic depending on how broken they think the system is. John Brown is the obvious example.

LN - I don't like the "letter of the law" interpretation. That's LE to me. LN probably doesn't like everything about the law, but they think the sacrifices to change it won't be worth the overall gains. So they try to maintain the status quo. Abraham Lincoln, who did everything he could to preserve the Union, while largely ignoring the issue of slavery until he couldn't any longer, is the LN.

TN - Most everybody in the world, then and now. TN officially comes in two varieties: The "balance in all things", over-the-top pre-3.5 D&D Druids, but that type doesn't really exist (not often enough to consider) - and the people who are just more concerned with their own goings-on to consider larger implications. We're all this to some degree. Admit it or not, without a sincere effort, we all participate in a global economy whose foundation exploits the most vulnerable to keep us comfortable. (Sound familiar?) Most of us either don't know or don't care enough about the status quo that we preserve it by just existing, though we're not really trying the way a LN person would.

CN - Upsets things for the sake of upsetting things. Doesn't care whether the system is broken or not; they just want to see it go. They don't like order or boredom. Like TN but with a more universal motivation. (Alternatively: Too broken and/or mad to understand their own motivations, but not really malicious.)

LE - If LG wants to redefine what the law is to be more in line with good, LE wants to redefine what "good" is to more in line with the law. LE says keeping slaves is okay, so slavery is now good - and good is worth fighting for. Obviously, the Secessionists fill this role.

NE - Like TN with a sadistic streak. They're not the ones trying to change the laws, but they'll probably root for the LE side. That's where they'll thrive, obviously. But even if the LE side loses, NE will find other ways to engage its sadism. They try to push the Law in line with what they want, but they'll break the hell out of it in the interim. Nathaniel Bedford Forrest is the NE.

CE - Upset the system by dint of their existence. Unlike other Lawful/Chaotic alignments, may not even know or care one way or the other about the system, because whatever society's rules or expectations are, they will violate them in the most flagrantly inhuman way possible. The violation is the message. Not necessarily Civil War specific, but Marie Delphine LaLaurie is a great example.

Dark Archive

Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:

I feel that the most important balance is balance between the players. You can always make the environment or enemies more challenging.

But it's no fun if the other characters are overshadowing you.

This - and also, it's no fun for the DM. I have run alternately for a party of only Fighters and only Monks. I very quickly made things appropriate. (Not even necessarily reducing CR - but the Fighter party found themselves facing a lot of bruisers and fewer mind-affecting creatures, while the Monks were just the opposite.)

But when I have to run for a Conjurer, a Barbarian, an Elemental Sorcerer, and a hardily unoptimized Rogue (Rapier and Crossbow. Just, really?) - well, things goes to hell real quickly. You're left with either A) Unchallenged players, B) A player sitting on the sidelines, or C) The rest of the party having to spend most of their turns reviving the rogue. It added a new level of difficulty for everybody for all of the wrong reasons.

Dark Archive

MMCJawa wrote:
really? I thought that episode did an excellent job of tying together and balancing all the themes from this season. Clara as doctor, Is the Doctor a good man? Clara and Danny's relationship, The doctor having soldiers that do his dirty work for him, etc.

It did try to tie a lot of things together, but here's why I still say it fell flat: (spoilered for brevity)

Spoiler:
I feel like the Dr's reconciliation with whether he was a good man was anticlimactic. I mean, we've already done this bit. The "Am I good man?", darkest hour motif was done to death for the past 2 seasons, and reached its conclusion. (Seems like even the writers knew it - there's a joke where he nonchalantly mentions it in passing.) If Season 1-4 were the Doctor coming to terms with what he did to Gallifrey, then season 5-7 are about the Doctor coming to terms with whether he is moral enough for the power he wields. (Sometimes asked by him, sometimes by other people.) By the end of S7, the question is answered definitively.

But my problem with the tying together of the soldier theme was that it made no sense in the first place. You realize he developed this particular character quirk of the Doctor in the incarnation for whom it makes the least sense specifically to make it happen. It doesn't emotionally resonate because he broke a cardinal sin of writing by starting with the end and making everything fit into that.

(Also, the bit about the Dr using others so he doesn't get his hands dirty was also explored much better in S4. But that was a while ago, so I won't knock points off for it.)

For the Clara and Danny Pink relationship, I almost buy the "love is a promise" thing (It's hokey to me - but whatever. Obviously if I hated hokey things, I would never have watched Doctor Who.) but Danny Pink very clearly continues to show emotion right after that scene. Why do emotionless Cyberman need an inspiring speech? They don't. Why would he feel the need to give it? He wouldn't. Sure, okay, we'll stay on board with love keeping him loyal to Clara over The Master (Mistress my @#%. There's no reason to change the name.) but the rest of it is mind-bogglingly stupid. It's a microcosm of why Clara has been such a terrible companion - there's no "why" to anything she does. She just does whatever the writer (usually Moffat) thinks would be cool for her to do.

It doesn't really make sense for emotionless Danny Pink to do what he did. But Moffat wanted a big rousing speech --- so there it is.

But the WORST, WORST part was the resolution between him and The Master, for two reasons:

1. Here are two characters that are supposed to have a complex love-hate relationship, unsure of what to do without the other. The last time the Doctor met the master, he begged him to give it up and come with him. He cried in agony when he watched him die. This time? Meh. Complete indifference.

2. The Doctor doesn't kill. Discounting the old series here - look at Who since the revival in 2005. For nearly a decade, we've been sold on a character who will choose mercy over justice every single time. Who understands there will always be more justifications and more justifications. Yet all of that goes out the window, and no more is said of it. The Doctor gets to keep his 'pacifist' cred on a technicality because the former director of Unit killed The Master first. The end of the episode sets up the next big conflict being the fact he and Clara lied to one another when they promised not to.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
2097 wrote:
Oh, and I forgot to say, I really don't like adventure paths and I was disappointed that Tyranny of Dragons was one, instead of a more sandboxy campaign.

I actually love the AP style. I mean, has enough really changed that we need new Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dragonlance, and/or Greyhawk source books? It probably wouldn't be too difficult to translate the previous edition's sourcebooks to make it fit, either way.

I can do sandbox-y just fine. But sometimes trying to make a coherent story come together over a period of weeks can be a little difficult if I'm on a downswing. The AP's provide a nice break from hardcore DMing to let me play on "Easy" mode for a while.

EDIT: And oh yeah, lorenlord, I'm quite pleased to see how this is going, too! Was a little worried it might devolve into a flame war, but this has been really interesting so far.

Dark Archive

Well if I didn't think Moffat was a terrible writer before, THAT incoherent mess of bad CGI and out-of-character writing cemented it. Why do people praise this guy?!

Dark Archive

I'm pretty varied when it comes to classes - I think my last five were like Slayer, Sorcerer, Bard, Witch, Paladin.

But I play human way too often. They're just too damn good. I'm not an immense power game - I'll sacrifice optimization for theme, especially when it comes to casters (I love enchanters, even though I know they're one of the weaker choices) - but too often humans are the only way I can do what I want my character to do without sacrificing too much. Bonus feat means I get to be effective at my schtick from level 1, extra skill points makes playing a 2+INT class hurt a lot less, floating +2 with no negatives is ultimately better than +2 to something I probably won't care too much about. And they have all of the BEST feat options, outside of Paragon Surge.

Dark Archive

Kthulhu wrote:
I find kinky Mary Poppins Master to be far superior to chicken-gulping Electro Master.

If every S1-S4 male villain was chicken-gulping Electro Master, I would be inclined to agree.

Actually, at the time "Electro Master" wasn't really my favorite. Especially the last appearance, which felt like a letdown after the preceding two episodes. But at least I immediately recognized him as his own thing. I seriously thought the first time I saw her that they just brought Madame Kovarian back.

Dark Archive

MMCJawa wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:

I think somebody else already summed up how I felt about the beginning of this finale, so I'll just quote them (saw it as a post on my FB feed and couldn't find it again, so not trying to deny credit - just can't remember exactly who it was). The quote and my reaction are in spoiler tags for obvious reasons):

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
I don't hold it against him that he brought The Master back. I mean, Daleks, Cybermen, and The Master will ALWAYS be a part of Who. I hold it against him that he did it poorly.

1. Why is it "The Mistress"? Master is a perfectly acceptable, gender neutral term. I would let that slide, but seeing Moffat's obsession with dominatrix types, I think there's an 'ick 'factor involved here.

2. I don't mind The Master/The Doctor having that romantic tension. But she just out-and-out jumped him, referred to him as her "boyfriend", etc. etc. Either keep the subtext similar to how it was (which was very, very sub) or don't touch it at all. I could complain all day about it being sexist and homophobic, but at the end of the day it just really bothers me because this is the most obnoxious power-fantasy, wish fulfillment cliche crap that is the worst aspect of Moffat's writing. He does it on Sherlock, too. Gender swaps a major bad guy and then makes them in love with the main character. As if to shove it in the audience's face, "Gee, look how great my protagonist is! Even the villain can't help herself!"

3. The Master is supposed to be this dark mirror image of the Doctor. If you remember him in S3 and S4 he had that same sort of giddiness, that sort of boyish enthusiasm that marked the 10th Doctor. But it turned to something sinister in John Simms' hands. This incarnation is indistinguishable from Madame Kovarian, Tasha Lem, Ms. Delphox - really every other female villain Moffat has ever written, right into Irene Adler in Sherlock. Why on earth do I care that it's The Master if she's just the same damn villain from the past two seasons with a new name?

Dark Archive

I think somebody else already summed up how I felt about the beginning of this finale, so I'll just quote them (saw it as a post on my FB feed and couldn't find it again, so not trying to deny credit - just can't remember exactly who it was). The quote and my reaction are in spoiler tags for obvious reasons):

Spoiler:

Quote:

Things Moffat Can't Write:

1. Women

2. The Master

Things Moffat Wrote Anyway:

1. A female Master.

So The Master got reduced to just another dominatrix-archetype that Moffat is obsessed with. And she's romantically interested in the Doctor now because of-!@#%ing-course she is. Sure, they always had some sort of romantic tension, but I guess she was just waiting until she generated a vagina to capitalize on it. Makes perfect sense for a race Moffat himself described as not really caring about gender when it came to sexuality.

And oh yeah, remember that great moment at the end of Season 4 that wrapped up the Master story arc with him heroically sacrificing himself for The Doctor? Well, screw that, because we have to literally reset or discount everything that happened in previous eras because nothing before Matt Smith was worth keeping. I mean, obviously, right?!

Ugh, I was starting to feel hopeful for Season Eight. From Kill the Moon on it seemed to be getting better, but here we are, back to the same old Moffat crap.

I really hope he's done after season 9.

Dark Archive

Kryzbyn wrote:

Deep meaning doesn't trump good story.

Like how Powder ends by running out into a field...and exploding.
Ruined the entire film for me.

It kind of ruined it for me when I learned the movie is meant to be an allegory for the ostracism Victor Salva felt after being convicted of child molestation in the 1980's.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

Well, the roleplaying stuff is only a facet of it. Generally speaking people apply the label "weaboo" to any non-native fan of Japanese culture and ESPECIALLY media and entertainment.

Extremism on the part of the fan may or may not be present. I've seen the term used to shut down discussions and dismiss a fan's opinions immediately in the vein of "Shut up, I don't watch weaboo crap," or "3.5's Book of Nine Swords is WEABOO FIGHTAN MAGICKE!"

Generally, when someone says it, it seems in my mind to carry a subtle racism to it, implying that the media in question is inherently bad because it's Japanese in origin, or at the very least enjoying it is not something "normal" geeks (i.e. straight, white, cisgendered American men between the ages of 13 and older) should be doing.

If I can offer a defense, I think this cuts both ways.

I enjoy anime, and I do get irritated by a lot of the stereotypes of what it is. I know a lot of people who won't give it a chance because they believe every stereotype they've heard about it. (Perverted, childish, inscrutable - take your pick.) That's sad and offensive, and they're missing out on some really great things. I would even go so far as to say that a childhood devoid of Miyazaki is as incomplete as one devoid of Pixar.

But there's the racism of "Anything non-European is innately inferior", and there's the racism of "Anything (whatever culture) is automatically the best!", especially when it's not really that culture but some bowdlerized version that has more in common with Western misinformation than the actual society. The version that misuses casual Japanese terms in every day conversation - sometimes in offensive or culturally inappropriate ways, regards major parts of Japanese history as their most stereotypical and "most honourable" stereotype (see: Samurai), at the extreme end one who has an obsession with Japanese women, in particular getting a Japanese girlfriend as a prop for his hobby. (Yes, I've met this guy, and yes, he's exactly as greasy as you are picturing him right now.)

It's like the white people who dress up in (what they think is) traditional Native American garb and co-opt it for ridiculous 'ceremonies'. So basically this but with Japan.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:

I dislike people who post in threads just to let us all know how above it all they are.

You're taking this way too seriously.

Yeah...that is totally what I was doing...way to go pointing it out internet tough guy...

I see you've decided to double down on this "taking it way too seriously", thing. Look - if you can't take that (rather mild) criticism without resorting to a nonsensical ad-hom (Look up "internet tough guy"; what I said wasn't anywhere near that) you've already lost. And really, there's no good defense for posting in threads you don't like just to say you're better than the people who do. If you have one, I'm all ears, but to me it's just obnoxious sanctimony parading as enlightened reason.

thejeff wrote:
Usual Suspect wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:

...

But nothing kills the fun faster for me than characters which are grimdark, amoral antiheroes who kill without a second thought and remain completely detached from any sort of emotion whatsoever.

I think because as long as you understand it's evil and dastardly, you can enjoy a villainous character the way you enjoy Loki or The Joker - with an understanding that what they've done is wrong and taking satisfaction in their eventual downfall.

The second variety, though, is just so off-putting. It's like you don't even understand the difference between right and wrong.

I have played in so many games over the years with that one (or more) player just like that. The typical murder hobo player who enjoys acting the antihero trope too much; and actually seems to get excited about being an emotionless and murderous bastard. I start to wonder what's in their closet as I'm moving on to a new game group.

I've lampshaded that one a few times. The character who believes he has to be the emotionless murderous bastard because the stakes are so high, but can't quite pull it off.

It only works when the stakes really are that high, of course.

I would be interested to actually see a deconstruction of the antihero trope. I mean, we deconstructed the hero to get the modern day ubiquitous antihero - so I wonder what a major deconstruction of THAT would yield for future media?

Dark Archive

Jiggy, I'm smelling the set-up for a "Dinner for Shmucks" level farce here.

Dark Archive

Jiggy wrote:

...That sounds remarkably similar to all the masters of western European historical warfare over in the rules forum who totally know which medieval weapons would pierce/not pierce which armors and how fast you can shoot a bow in real life and that's why the designers clearly intended this rule to work in a way that's opposite of what they wrote.

Yeah, they annoy me too.

I find that to be kind of the opposite of my example.

I agree that it's silly to debate how real world weapons would work in a fantasy game that routinely features magic, extraplanar beings, and aberrations from distant worlds. But I don't see a lot of those comments creeping into threads/conversations that aren't at least tangentially related. If you know a guy who can take the debate over which toppings you should be getting on the pizza into an hour long lecture on why crossbows were actually preferable to traditional archery, I feel for you - I haven't met anyone like that. Yet.

And also those arguments are usually over the ridiculousness of some things. There's a huge difference between, "Well, that's not realistic because knowing what we do from the historical records and a basic understanding of what materials they had and how combat works, a polearm would have actually been a superior choice to swords." and a slavering dedication to the idea that anything Japanese is automatically superior because Japan. I don't know if some of those guys debating European weaponry are completely misinformed - maybe they are - but I do know I take it a little more seriously than "Katanas (not necessarily just katanas here, but by far the most popular example) are literally superior to every sort of of blade and armor ever invented."

Funny thing is, I do like anime. I don't even mind anime inspired characters (as long as they're still original - I feel you on the dwarves thing. I would love to see somebody play a stuffy dwarf that can't handle her liquor and speaks with a posh accent) but my gaming experience has just shown a huge overlap between people who enjoy the stuff and people who take things way too far.

Dark Archive

Cyrus007 wrote:

Hi,

Yes, if I go with a Brawler, I will be the only melee in a party of four: One will be a archer based Ranger, another will be a Witch, and the other will be a healing based Cleric.

As the only dedicated melee member in the party, my job will be to stand in the front line and to soak up damage. I really want to play this class, but I think it is a class that compliments other melee classes than being the solo melee character in a party.

I just wanted to get peoples opinion if this class can do it as written, without dipping or taking an archetype.

Thank you.

The problem with any tank build is that very few classes offer a way to effectively draw aggro, outside of being high DPR. Your Archer Ranger I imagine is going to be taking a lot of the heat, since archery is stupidly broken in Pathfinder.

If your job is as a damage soak, really Paladin and Cavalier are the only two classes that effectively "fit" this role. (Paladin's self-healing and auras, Cavaliers forcing the opponent to focus on them with their challenge.) A Brawler can be an effective melee with decent AC, but that takes a while to come online - if you're starting at 1st level, be prepared to suck for a while until you can afford an Agile AoMF and qualify for Pummeling Charge.

So, with a 2 level dip into MoMS to get Pummeling Style and Pummeling Charge, by about 6th level you can be pretty good. If you REALLY want to go the hand-to-hand route, this is the way to go. Otherwise I might suggest the Brawler Fighter Archetype instead.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's my thing: I absolutely do get annoyed with people who play the same character over and over and over. I had a friend that played a rogue that was always just him. But sometimes a halfling. I don't even remember any of their names - so we'll just call him Frank. "Frank the Rogue" for Every. Single. Game. That was irritating.

But the big difference between him and the weeaboos I've played with, however, is that although Frank the Rogue was redundant, his lack of creativity didn't also come packaged with an insistence that Frank was the best way to play a rogue ever and everyone who plays a rogue is doing it completely wrong. No, "Frank's short sword/dagger TWF style wasn't so obviously not good enough RAW because that fighting style is clearly superior to every other fighting style anyone had ever created - like, why would YOU (not you in the general sense, but you who specifically did not choose to play as a Frank clone in this game) choose anything else? Are you stupid?"

Every out-of-game conversation wasn't about Frank's culture, or why it was obviously better than anyone else's. No, "Why would you even want to think about anyone else's? Frank's people are like @#$%ing magic, man. Did you know that Frank's short sword would have killed a medieval knight just by vibrating at the right consistency? Or that even our modern military with all of its guns and drone warfare couldn't take out a force of 50 Franks because Frank's people are just that badass."

And then WotC and Paizo didn't introduce a bunch of Frank-inspired material that was mechanically superior to the core equivalents, even if that would make no freakin' sense whatsoever, just so if you had a world that didn't feature Frank's culture, you could be accused of being stingy or a bad DM when you didn't want to include the new Frank stuff.

Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I dislike people who have lists of people they dislike.
Cannot agree more strongly, this thread and the contributions to it make me very, very sad. People are to be handled on a case by case basis...interest based descimination isn't more noble than skin color,or gender or any other irrational reason to hate on people.

I dislike people who post in threads just to let us all know how above it all they are.

You're taking this way too seriously.

Dark Archive

Hama wrote:
If you get your concept shut down by every GM, maybe there is something wrong with the concept?

So I can't play a Balor?

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Laurefindel wrote:

I not a fan of players insisting on playing evil (or acting like immoral ass**** or playing "neutral-badass" just to impress other players).

I find the enjoyment of doing depraved things disturbing at best, loathsome in most cases.

I can understand (and enjoy) characters struggling against their worst nature, or going into a momentary fit of madness, but there needs to be an intent of redemption somewhere.

Oddly, as a player and a DM, I enjoy evil characters. Especially moustache-twirling, snidely-whiplash sorts that sacrifice a thousand bunnies to call forth Lord Triffaldar: Demon King of Rabbitkind.

But nothing kills the fun faster for me than characters which are grimdark, amoral antiheroes who kill without a second thought and remain completely detached from any sort of emotion whatsoever.

I think because as long as you understand it's evil and dastardly, you can enjoy a villainous character the way you enjoy Loki or The Joker - with an understanding that what they've done is wrong and taking satisfaction in their eventual downfall.

The second variety, though, is just so off-putting. It's like you don't even understand the difference between right and wrong.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I took the thread title to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I don't really "hate" any gamers, but there are annoying habits we all have to some degree or another, and it's cathartic to point them out with a bit of hyperbole. I can find myself often times going through this thread and chuckling to myself saying, "Yeah, I'm that guy". (Sorry, Earlier-Gnome-Hater-Whose-Name-Escapes-Me. Gnomes rock my world and I will always play them up as campy as I feel they're described. I humbly accept my flogging for that sin.)

T.B. wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
And I especially don't want to (in one disturbing case) even scratch the surface of your weirdo loli-fetishism.
Ugh. I almost want to ask how this happened, but... ugh.

There's no real big story about it. She was a friend's new girlfriend at the time, who he claimed was really into anime, RPG's, and cosplay. (All things I can appreciate, honestly.) He asked if she could join a game I was starting the next week. It was the day after our second session they broke up and spared me a very awkward conversation.

Terquem wrote:

what cracks me up is when anyone tries to claim that loligoth "fetishism" or interest is not treading a highly questionable path. It's as if they do not understand where the term "Lolita" in that regard comes from, and why it is a questionable path.

Or to quote the Bard Sting - "He starts to shake he starts to cough just like the man in that book by Nabokov"

I actually was going to post something similar to this, but figured I should let it go. I felt like Auren wasn't being entirely genuine when describing what loli is and why so many people are disturbed by it.

In any case, my issue with that player wasn't just the loli-character - it's that she insisted on making it intensely, disturbingly sexual. (Such as - ugh, "descriptively" - hitting on the other players while affecting a little girl voice.) But when you lay it out as a fashion that's intended to dock adult women out as prepubescent children, I think the fact it sets off a lot of people's ick factors is understandable.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:

A terrible Tolkien-esque setting where every race was incredibly more powerful than Humans who had no special abilities whatsoever (even feat and skills were removed)

And it goes from there.

^--- this, although not to the degree where everything cool for humans got stripped.

I have been plopped into this exact setting so many times I can't even point to a specific one. Just, we get it - humans suck and you obviously hated high school.

The only other terrible one I can think of is a homebrew world where the gods had come to reside on the material plane. You don't know railroading until the king you're meeting with is a literal god - good luck with any bluff check, sense motive, perception, etc.

Dark Archive

Terquem wrote:

You know, I guess I'm just odd, but I hate it when a player wants to know "everything there is to know" about the upcoming adventure in order to build a character.

I'd prefer players who wanted to build characters based upon what they thought would be fun, and then see if that can be made to happen once they begin the adventure.

As a GM, I get annoyed by that, but I also think you have to make some allowances. Because it's true that a character won't be any fun in the wrong environment.

Player: I made a scruvy sea-dog of a pirate, who wields a pistol in one hand and a rapier in the other. He's a competent sailor to boot, and I gave him a couple rogue levels to adequately represent how he fights dirty and gets the drop on people.

GM: Okay. This is a prehistoric game in a landlocked country wherein you'll be fighting almost exclusively oozes and elementals. Oh yeah, and guns haven't been invented yet, so don't plan on using that proficiency. But have fun with your character!

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

  • Occasionally fudging die rolls, and reserving the right to roll behind a screen while requiring players to roll openly

    Yes, although my fudges almost always serve the players rather than me. If the first combat has an orc crit the fighter my player spent fifteen minutes making, I'll fudge the hell out of it.

  • Employing prominent NPCs/GMPCs

    Aren't prominent NPCs what a GM is supposed to make? I've only used a GMPC once - and that was a healbot/perception monkey. (2 person gestalt game and they both took classes without perception - they each had a negative modifier.)

  • Disallowing (or even placing restrictions of any kind on) full casters

    Yes, I do this. I don't allow Summoners. It takes too long, nobody builds them right, and I don't think they fit the system. And I've considered doing an all T3 and below game.

  • Enforcing alignment in clear and definitive fashion

    Yeah. Too many players write "CN" on their sheet as excuses to go on murder sprees.

  • Imposing an objective morality on paladins, such as disallowing prevarication for selfish gain, torture, baby- (including baby monster) killing and casual sex as inherently evil and/or chaotic

    In defense of the OP, I could see casual sex as being considered "chaotic". But I don't consider it so, so no. But I actually give my Paladins a 10-point edict to follow according to which god they choose. Far fewer "Should the Paladin fall?" arguments that way.

  • Not providing the "required"/desired magical paraphernalia on schedule

    Oh yeah.

  • Believing the DM's role is benevolent autocrat rather than either gleeful tyrant or impotent fantasy tour guide

    I prefer to see it as a little of both. The important thing is I try to find a balance between the sessions where the players feel challenged and where they get to feel empowered.

  • Refusal to permit evil (or even chaotic neutral) PCs

    Not at all. If you can work within the group, and it can make sense within the framework of the story, all alignments are allowed. Just don't mindlessly backstab the other party members.

  • Disallowing classes that violate the campaign's established and specific tone

    Just did this, actually, against the advice of several other posters. So far it's working out okay, although I did almost kill the party with a swarm.

  • Laying the smack down, hard, on abusive meta-gaming

    Depends. If they're not advancing the plot due to some Platonic ideal of never metagaming, I will encourage them that maybe their character would have an idea of what to do next. But I will come down hard if that 8 int Fighter decides he knows all the strengths and weaknesses of a dragon without the appropriate ranks in knowledge or a good in-story reason.

  • Requiring immersive role-play rather than simple recitation of mechanics

    No. Not everyone can be creative off the cuff like that, and I see no reason to punish them. And I enjoy the mechanics sometimes too.

  • Taking control of PCs who refuse to role-play honestly when charmed, dominated, etc.

    You know, I've never had a problem with this in my games. We all sort of have an agreement not to use "Dominate Person" on PCs in our games - the worst you'll get is a "Hold Person".

  • Retaining control over magical weapons, cohorts, mounts, animal companions, eidolonsSUMMONERS DON'T EXIST! RRRAAGGEEEE!, etc.

    Nope, no way. Too much work on my part. Unless there's a good reason your cohort wouldn't do what you ask them to ("Say, Nodwick, would you kindly go sacrifice yourself on that altar so we can bypass this puzzle? There's a good lad!") I am fine just letting the player handle it.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Gamers who take umbrage with an established world and refuse to stretch their creative muscles rather than get to make whatever combination they feel like.

And the most common subset of that - Weeaboos.

Anime is fine. Manga is fine. Japanese culture can be pretty cool. But I really don't want to role play with your Generic Ninja Stereotype #1,542. And I especially don't want to (in one disturbing case) even scratch the surface of your weirdo loli-fetishism.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Liranys wrote:

Does no one recognize the "sneak attack with a ballista" reference? lol

It's from the same bit as "I shoot magic missile. At the darkness!" and "I steal his pants."

Name the movie!

From the same series, the most succinct description I've ever heard of a typical D&D session:

"Where did you even get a tomato?!"

(Like a boss)"I'm a Bard."

1 to 50 of 695 << 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.