|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
It's still plenty stupid but there's certainly less stupid.
The hawkpeople are gone. This both helped with the cast bloat and reduced the highest concentration of drama/idiotball. Captain Cold and Rip are also gone - the latter also being a nexus of drama.
There's still plenty of silly time travel stuff but otherwise what's left is shamelessly comicbooky in a way that works pretty well.
Paizo still has yet to create a large bear animal companion. Because of this you have to jump through some hoops into order to ride a bear as a mount.
Option #1: Undersized Mount
Option #2: Beast Rider Cavalier archetype.
Option #3: Be a small race. =(
None of those are particularly good but if you've got a theme stick to your guns!
As a GM I tend to not care. If a player wants to optimize himself out of a game the resulting disappointment is on him. If the other players are disappointed they can looked to their overly optimized comrade.
As a player I wouldn't mind something like the OP's suggestion even if it's wholly impracticle. These days I tend to heavily curate my games. If it looks like I'm going to be seated with a player/character that's likely to steamroll the scenario I'll just sit out. Opportunities to play are more plentiful than actual scenarios.
Scott Betts wrote:
There doesn't appear to be anything significant. A handful of people at the DNC had a favored candidate. Shock.
I agree the bulk of the leaked communications are fairly harmless but there's some fairly damning stuff in there.
"Let's get this around without attribution" in regards to a news article about Sander's supporters turning violent.
"It might may no difference but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."
If that isn't a targeted attempt to ruin Sander's campaign I don't know what is.
I don't consider this Bernie selling out. It's unfortunate but I think he's just making the best of a terrible situation.
I wish he'd won the democratic nomination. His plans might have all been pipe dreams but he made me believe the system could be repaired. He made me want to vote. If my choices are status quo and slightly worse status quo, I'll just be abstaining from voting altogether.
I'm not sure what you're asking OP. You created a character to break the game and you broke the game. What was the expected result?
As others have suggested, dial down the optimization - like tenfold. The game at that level is already nigh unplayable, overly effective characters certainly don't help.
If playing anything that's less than 100% optimized isn't fun for you, maybe this campaign isn't a good fit for you and you should just take a break. It sounds like these guys are your friends. Souring a friendship over one campaign doesn't seem like a great idea.
That can be super tricky, because no player is going to sit down at a table and say "I don't do giant spiders, heights, or killing horses." We are all "surprised" by what is about to be laid before us, so when something that triggers a player at the table it can be really uncomfortable and awkward for everyone. Hopefully the GM and players are understanding. If it's a scripted scenario, there really might not be an easy way around the trigger, and every reasonable accommodations should be made whenever possible. If that isn't possible then...
I don't know if PFS GMs are allowed that kind of leeway as far as reflavoring but I see what you're saying. When the player in question mentions that harming animals is his trigger, the GM says 'Oh, they're not horses after all. The stables are full of forest drakes!'.
I have a question about etiquette and triggers based on my experience at this year's Paizocon.
At Paizocon I played in a PFS scenario that brought the party to a situation where we were considering killing some stabled horses in order to disrupt operations within the enemy base that we'd infiltrated. One of the players at the table immediately got upset and vetoed the idea. He didn't cite any real argument so we were confused - is your character opposed to this plan or are you as a player opposed? The player made it clear that harming animals was one of his triggers. We had a brief discussion, mostly based around the fact that in-character killing the animals would help with our mission but the triggered player's friend jumped in - you cannot violate someone's triggers without explicit consent.
The GM was puzzled. The rest of the players were puzzled. Not interested in forcing the issue we abandoned the plan and did other things. Fortunately, killing the hostile forces' horses wasn't necessary to achieve success in the scenario.
But what if it had been? What if the scenario specifically required us to kill those stabled horses to get our second prestige or unlock some boon? What's proper etiquette when the scenario's objectives directly conflict with a player's triggers? Are GMs in PFS scenarios empowered to reflavor things to avoid triggering players? Are they empowered to hand-wave scenario-crucial things that are offensive to people when it comes up?
It depends on how far you expect this campaign to go and how badly you want to optimize. Strength is probably better overall at low level but dexterity far overshadows it at middling to high levels. If you expect the campaign to go to the end and your DM is the sort to tailor his encounters to challenge the PCs, dexterity is probably the better choice.
If you expect the campaign will peter out halfway through or the DM is only going to run the encounters from the book, a dexterity-based magus is overkill and you'll end up trouncing the whole thing by yourself.
I saw it last night. I enjoyed it enough but there was definitely parts that felt slow and other parts that felt wholly unnecessary in what was already a very busy movie.
thing that bugged me the most at the end:
I understand Magneto switching sides turned the tide and allowed the heroes to save the world but he was still responsible for casualties (I'm guessing in the millions?). Is there really no accountability for that?