Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Kobold

Jiggy's page

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32. RPG Superstar 2013 Marathon Voter, 2014 Dedicated Voter. FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 16,853 posts (18,188 including aliases). 16 reviews. 3 lists. 1 wishlist. 12 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,589 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
I've seen the same movie, with my girlfriend, and we both though it was a provocative film about someone in a tight spot and some of the things your mind does to cope with it.

I saw it with my wife and I thought it was Cast Away in space but a lot less interesting. I could try to examine agenda-pushing, but I'm too distracted by how they temporarily changed how space works just long enough to kill the chatty dude. :/

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
...and remind them that the opposition will be reflected in what scores they choose.

Derail:
I'm seriously considering no longer putting in the work to create full statblocks for enemies in my homebrew, instead just assigning AC, attack bonus, etc at numbers that will highlight the various party members' strengths and weaknesses regardless of whether a "real" statblock could produce those numbers.
Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Smartphone my ass.

Fun hobby: reading statements like this as though the word before "my ass" were a verb.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:
And how many INT>CON>DEX...PUNT Wizards have you played with in all that time? Just askin'.

The same number as I'd have seen if people's rolled stats included a highest number, a second-highest number, and so on.

My assertion is not that point-buyers never make soulless, cookie-cutter characters. My assertion is that the creation of those characters is not the result of point-buy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Zilfrel Findadur — I resent your erroneous and unsupported assertion that being able to summon forth extra reserves of courage and ferocity in order to preserve the life and health of oneself and one's friends could in some way be correlated with stupidity or lack of caring.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've never played a rolled-stat game. Every game I've played (whether PFS or home game) has been point-buy. (Interestingly, that means that every awesome, unique, deep, and engaging PC that I've ever played (or played alongside of) has been made with point-buy. Just sayin'.)

In the homebrew I'm currently running, PCs got the Heroic NPC stat array.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:

Deflection Bonus.

Dodge Bonus.
Intuition Bonus.
Dexterity Bonus.

Why is one specifically different from the others?

Because it starts with an "I" instead of a "D"? That's what you meant, right? ;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or we could just trade. Win-win!

*holds out frito pie*

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

...Am I the only one who would take the pizza over the frito pie?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Not if you're watching The Neverending Story.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Galnörag wrote:
thistledown wrote:
Yeah, the Technologist entry doesn't really answer the question very well. But thanks for the rest of it.

The clarification of the technologist feat requires the technologist feat to understand.

But I agree, mechanically I can't make heads or tails of the answer in the case the technologist feat is not present. Are the skill checks still possible, but the GMs job is to interpret a more vague/non-technological answer that relates the same general information. Or meta-game on a skill check that the character bloopled enough bleeps to activate the "mysterious artefact." And in either of those cases the DC is the same or different? Or run a stop watch until enough frustration time has elapsed and hand wave on wards?

Or none of the above? I don't understand why people are having trouble with this. The blog says nothing about the Technologist feat (or the rules surrounding it) being changed. So you still don't get to make those checks. The blog just points out that it's okay for Pathfinders to infer that if you can't find an opening mechanism for the door, then maybe the thing at chest height right next to it is involved. Or that something shaped like a "normal" weapon might itself be a weapon. Or a spot with an imprint shaped like a hand might do something if you put your hand in it.

Not by making skill checks, just by thinking. There is gameplay space available between "metagaming" and "making skill checks".

Silver Crusade **

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was in Trial by Machine. Even in a 7-man party, I felt like my two-hand-raging-Power-Attack and my rage-boosted 2nd-level hit points were very nearly the only reason we survived. And that's with a GM who seemed very UNinterested in PC deaths. With a sterner GM or more moderate damage output, I think we'd have all died. Possibly twice.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Acedio wrote:
Or however you might want to describe a "button."

Or maybe just call it a button, because those already exist in standard Golarion items?

Immovable Rod, Rod of Lordly Might, Rod of Balance, the CRB rules for hidden doors... the list goes on.

It's okay to say "button".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
I'm looking for an effort to put together the major points of an attempt at diplomacy, the tactics used, and all fitting with the PC's perspective and what they could and would understand of the situation.

I've never seen anyone try to get away with less. Ever. Rather, what you describe here is the group of people who are feeling (accurately or not) pointed at when certain posters talk about people who don't care about roleplaying.

For instance, Corrik describes a situation where some players are trying to have an in-character dialogue but the player of the "face" isn't, and labels the face-player as the source of the problem. Well, a player who prefers to do it in the way that you described as being acceptable would fit the villified role in Corrik's example, so they (and others on their behalf) feel attacked.

So they explain that their own flaws shouldn't affect their characters. Then certain other posters respond with things along the lines of "Pfft, well sure, if you don't care about roleplaying," effectively painting people who do the very thing you described as perfectly acceptable as instead being only interested in smashing stuff and rolling dice.

And it just goes round and round. And then some kind of rogue eidolon shows up and gets all "clear" and "communicative". ;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Corrik wrote:
let's hear your answer already.
Unless I'm thinking of the wrong question, I already answered it.

You have not, in fact you've ignored the majority of the length of my posts to try to focus in on the areas you think you actually have a leg to stand on.

The players who simply roll the dice exist. The entire point of this thread is that someone who isn't good in social situations should be able to play the party face since all they have to do is make a diplomacy check.

Now then, Players A and B are having a scene and Player C just made a diplomacy check. In detail and describe what is fair to who, go.

Okay, maybe I just wasn't clear before, so I'll try again more thoroughly.

So you're in this scene. So that means the game is underway, which means you started playing at some point, which means that character creation is done, which means at some point everyone (all the players and the GM) decided that the assortment of characters everyone was playing was A-okay, which means that (whether explicitly or implicitly) everyone agreed to let Player C lead the way in social situations.

That means that the situation you describe is the result of one of the following (but if there's a third option I missed, by all means, point it out):
1) Nobody realized there would be a clash between Player C's handling of social situations and Player A/B's preferences.
2) They *did* realize there would be a clash, but failed to have a discussion about it way back during character creation and so Player C went forward thinking everything was fine.

If the situation is #1, then the group discusses the issue and finds the resolution that's best for them. If the situation is #2, then the whole group is pretty immature and A/B have no right to hold C accountable for their own failure to point out a problem that they saw coming.

Basically, either way it's time for an OOC discussion about expectations and roles; but I'm having a hard time imagining a situation where there's fault on the part of Player C.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
let's hear your answer already.

Unless I'm thinking of the wrong question, I already answered it.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover wrote:
In respect to this thread then that means explain how, or at least why, you're using a skill. Don't just wait til someone comes up to you and go "I use diplomacy. 25; what info do I get?" That's my opinion though and others' most certainly will vary.

In my experience, the oft-discussed category of lower-CHA-than-my-PC players are doing exactly as you ask: they say "I ask him about [topic]; should I roll Diplomacy?"

The "I Diplomacy him" player seems (near as I can tell) to only exist in the minds of internet dudes who want there to be only one type of player other than the method-actors so that the method-actors can feel superior.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

JCAB, there's a difference between "certain players attempting to play certain characters could reduce other people's fun so let's address that" and "the only two possibilities are that you're fully able to act exactly like the character you're playing or else you just want to diplomacy people and punch faces and count loot".

The former seems to be what you're describing, while the latter is the very small world in which certain posters apparently live. The former is something that's just part of being a reasonable person (and is connected to every aspect of the game, not just the roleplaying), while the latter is very far from reasonable.

I was replying to the latter.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
(snipped for wall of text)

...Are you under the impression that "roleplaying" means "talking to NPCs", and vice-versa?

Because that would sure explain a lot.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
This is a game about escapism (and fun). Why would you punish people for their real life faults? It seems like you are missing the point.
Bad roleplaying breaks the immersion and takes away from the fun of the other players, to the extent that they care. I gather that not everybody cares. Some folks just want to "diplomacy people", punch faces and count loot. Every table is different.

There are people who want to play a character that they themselves are not capable of representing completely, who nevertheless care a great deal about roleplaying, immersion, and the fun of the other players; and are interested in far, far more than just "diplomacy-ing people", punching faces and counting loot.

I don't understand why it is hard for you to accept that this category of people exists.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't stop laughing at the fact that you have an avatar for that alias.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:
If you, the player, decide to "talk pretty", then you are not playing a dumb, uncharismatic brute, are you? If you decide to play an oaf and then conveniently get eloquent fishing for a bonus in social situations...eh, no. That's just schizophrenic, terrible roleplaying.
Earlier in this very thread, the secret fire wrote:
Play however you want, but I have been known to greet statements like "I use diplomacy" with -20 penalties to the roll and hand out similarly large bonuses for great roleplaying, even from otherwise socially inept characters.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Why not? What's wrong with a player saying "I want to convince him to do X" instead of acting out the exact dialogue? What does that hurt?
It can cause a lot of internal consistency problems when the rest of the group talks to a NPC for half an hour of roleplaying and the "party face" sits there quietly after rolling his check.

So a group settles on which person is going to be the face, but then keeps butting in on that person's face activities, to the point of causing internal consistency issues, and it's somehow the face-player's fault?

Maybe the standards for adult behavior vary by region, but when I'm at a table and someone else is the face, I follow their lead rather than trying to take over or ignore what they're doing. If they talk it out, I back them up (or not, depending on what I'm playing). If they say "I use Diplomacy," then I say "I assist" (with maybe an additional "Oh, and you're gonna mention X when you talk to them, right?").

Trying to do what was already agreed to be someone else's role (and for that matter, agreeing to it in the first place if you're not planning to respect it) and then blaming the resulting issues on them is just being a grade-A jerk.

Quote:
Lemmy said otherwise, I even specifically mentioned that in my post.

I may have misunderstood him (or you), then.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lamontius wrote:

so wait, just because I have muscles and like drinking whiskey and being loud and avoiding punctuation

then I am not allowed to play a bookish elf with a slight build and shy tendencies?

sorry Lamontius since you are basically just a big dumb drunken animal most of the time, you can only play barbarians with low wisdom and poor impulse control

So, most of the dwarves I've seen?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:

To me, if the roleplaying side of the game is completely abstracted to dice rolls and modifiers, it ceases to be a roleplaying game. Play however you want, but I have been known to greet statements like "I use diplomacy" with -20 penalties to the roll and hand out similarly large bonuses for great roleplaying, even from otherwise socially inept characters.

I honestly don't understand why people would want to subsume the roleplaying half of the game into the mechanics, but I gather that some people do. To each his own, I suppose.

Wait, so your players are only allowed to act the way they really are in real life, and you're accusing other people of getting rid of the roleplaying aspect of the game? You literally just labeled the imagining of being a different person as not roleplaying.

What specifically do you think the word "roleplaying" means?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover wrote:
IRL I've dealt with some truly dark stuff, family issues, death and loss of a very personal nature. I lose as many life-conflicts as I win.

:(

*pats back*

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
The person who doesn't like to talk around people or isn't very quick on their feat for dialogue probably shouldn't play the party talker.

Why not? What's wrong with a player saying "I want to convince him to do X" instead of acting out the exact dialogue? What does that hurt?

Quote:
Your roll playing should be heavily dependent on your mechanics. Mechanics aren't just numbers. They are a representation of how the world and characters function.

I don't think anyone was saying otherwise. Rather, the topic of the thread is when the player wants to play a character (both mechanically AND in how the character functions in the world) and someone else tells them they "shouldn't" for no other reason than that the player doesn't have the same level of skill/ability.

Sort of like how you said a low-CHA player "shouldn't" play a high-CHA character. Nobody's talking about claiming their low-STR character is strong or their low-INT character is smart; we're talking about a player not being allowed to be different than their character.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brf wrote:
That depends on your campaign. If you are not running an Eastern-flavored campaign you would probably want them all considered Exotic.

Right, because sticks and knives get a lot more complicated to use if you live far enough away from the manufacturer.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
My point was just that I didn't see any reason for the big debate about the morality of intentionally killing a companion when there's any number of ways to explain why you don't have the companion and what the focus represents.

Because there's a right way and a wrong way to play Pathfinder, of course!

Claxon wrote:
The reason why it is a problem is because you should be attached to an animal companion, it should be your friend. If they should die you should want to bring them back.

(Bolding mine.)

Play the way you should! /sarcasm

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Human Fighter wrote:
Whirlwind attack looks like it could be cool, but it's situational and involves combat expertise, int 13, spring attack, mobility, and dodge.. that's a real bad time.

If memory serves, a 1-level dip into Brawler (from the ACG) will give let you qualify for combat feats as though you had 13 INT. (Plus you get other goodies like save boosts, IUS, etc.)

If you then go into Lore Warden (fighter archetype), you can get Combat Expertise for free on top of your normal bonus feats. (Plus, you'll later get substantial bonuses to combat maneuvers.)
Thus, between the two of them, you could have Whirlwind Attack at 5th, with 3 other open feats. (Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec?)

If you did this, you get another bonus in that Martial Versatility combos really well with the Lore Warden's bonuses to combat maneuvers. You'll already be taking Power Attack, you'll get Combat Expertise for free, and you'll get IUS for free as well. That means you'll have the prereqs for every single Improved Maneuver feat in the game. You can decide to suddenly be a grappler, tripper, sunderer, or whatever on the fly. And be GOOD at it.

Something to consider.

Quote:

Human Two-Handed Fighter

STR: 20 (+2 human)
Dex: 16
Con: 11
Int: 7
Wis: 10
Cha: 7

Personally, I think a starting 20 in STR has crossed the line of diminishing returns. The difference in cost between a (pre-racial) 16 and 18 is nearly half your build points, all for a measley +1 to attack and damage. Taking it down a notch gets you +2HP/level. How would you like to play your last several sessions with an extra 20HP? Doesn't that sound better than +1 to hit? You'd even have points left to either un-dump INT/CHA a little or even get a little WIS to shore up your Will save a tad.

That's an awful lot to lose just for +1 to hit.

Quote:

Weapon of choice is the Nodachi

Armor of choice will be Mithral Breast Plate

If I'm not mistaken, the suggestions I made above only leave you with light armor proficiency. However, if you take the Armor Expert trait, you can still wear the armor you're planning on without penalty.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tryn wrote:
Magic items aren't that rare in Pathfinder but they should still be something special. :)

I find this to be the crux of the issue. There's a (sometimes uncomfortable) tension there.

By the book, even a 1st-level adept might have a magic scroll. A random 5th-level NPC cleric is wearing either +1 armor or a cloak of resistance or some such.

It's not so much "magic items aren't that rare" and more "everyone but the pig farmers has magic items, and anyone who's even remotely important is dripping with them". That's Pathfinder's base assumption.

On the other hand, the kinds of classic fantasy stories that folks are often trying to tell in a game of Pathfinder includes things where the hero finds the legendary magic item (Excalibur, Master Sword, Ring of Power, etc) and there's some awe and wonder to it. You can't produce that level of awe when a PC finds a level-appropriate item, especially given that (unless you find it at the very end of the campaign) it's actually going to end up outclassed and replaced.

Threads like this one seem to usually center around finding ways to reconcile these two things: a system built around "magic is common" and using that system to tell "magic is rare and awe-inspiring" types of stories.

Luckily, we've got some creative folks around who have shared several viable options: convert the role of gear into inherent level-based bonuses, let people find whatever they need and work it into the story, have a single mysterious shop that constantly changes location, etc.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:
I dislike the comments that 'magic items are required by the system'. A GM should be able to adjust encounters so that they are workable no matter what level of equipment is available.

Of course, and the speakers of those comments would agree with you. All that's meant to be pointed out by the statement "X is required by the system" is, in fact, that removing X requires the GM to (as you put it) adjust encounters so that they are workable no matter what level of X is available.

Your observation is in fact the point. See, if you're GMing a homebrew game, then you're making the encounters from scratch anyway, so it doesn't matter what's going on with the PCs - whatever they have, that's what you'll design around.

But lots of GMs use things like Adventure Paths because they don't have the time/creativity/interest for making up their own encounters. And if they have to "adjust encounters so that they are workable no matter what level of X is available", as you put it, then what was the point of buying the adventure in the first place? I sure know my Mummy's Mask GM wouldn't be interested in doing anything that forced him to adjust all the encounters.

That's what people mean when they talk about X being "required by the system". They mean "in order to play the game without having to make up all my own stuff, I need to use X". They're just saying that in order to run the game in a non-homebrew fashion, they have to give the PCs that which the adventure they're running assumes they have.

Did that make sense?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:

"You complain about them in EVERY single topic."

I feel that they don't get the attention they deserve.

Then make an awareness thread and talk about it there. Currently you're borderline-spamming.

Cheliax

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Buri wrote:
One rule for every each thing!
The d20 battle-cry.

I think this is what you meant.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What if encounters in rectangular buildings used grids while encounters in other settings used hexes?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Welcome to PFS! I won't reiterate the good thoughts others have shared, but I have one exercise to suggest:

I recommend counting up the total number of sources listed as having legal content on the Additional Resources page, then say (out loud) "PFS allows content from [number] sources." Then, after you've said it out loud, think about whether or not it's too restrictive.

;)

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I spotted the hiding bandits, but instead of attacking them, I waved to them and asked them if they needed anything because we saw some bodies earlier and a lot of blood and are you guys alright?

Ended up talking to them, learning how scared they were, reassuring them, and escorting them out of the dungeon (going the way we'd already cleared) to make sure they got out safely, then went on with our delve.

Turns out that after having run that scenario multiple times, ours was the first table that didn't just murderhobo them into paste.

"Good" is not a jersey.

...

Did I mention I'm a bloodrager?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had no idea that the mental conversion of "before making an attack roll" to "before making your first attack roll of the round" was so common of an error.

What if I use my first attack to chuck a chakram at a dude (obviously not using PA) and then my second attack to swing my sword at a guy in melee? I can never use PA on that? But if I'd started with the sword, I could've used PA?

Are we really saying this is what "before making an attack" roll means?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe Lai wrote:
The reason ppl thing grease can burn is always a result of players or GMs trying to cheese into doing more damage.

Really? I thought maybe it was because most people are neither chemists nor chefs and are therefore making assumptions based on having heard of things like "grease fires" and "oil lamps" and drawing reasonable conclusions based on their incomplete knowledge.

But no, you're probably right that it's always a result of people trying to cheese into more damage. That's a much more believable reason than "honest mistake".

/sarcasm

How about you just stick to discussing the topic instead of trying to demonize those who didn't know the answer?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
I'd allow you to mount your ape. That's exactly how young apes get around.

O_O

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
My point is that I constantly see players (usually rules lawyers) criticize other player's character build decisions what they "should" have done with their feats, equipment purchases, etc. And too many munchkins over-bearingly telling others what to do with their characters so they can min/max every single possible variable in the game.....

Huh, interesting. Maybe it's a regional thing, because it seems like every time I hear someone tell someone else what to do, it's either tactical (independent of build/rules/etc) or it's open derision for having a stat higher than X or for utilizing option Y. It's not the optimizers that I've heard say things like "Don't do X; it's stupid" (I wish I was paraphrasing) or labeling others' playstyles as something juvenile that they need to "grow out of" (again not paraphrasing). Rather, in my experience, the optimizers are the ones being targeted by the commands, name-calling, and put-downs.

In any case, you're right: folks shouldn't tell each other to play the game this way/not play the game that way. As my wife once put it, "This game is big enough for everyone."

Quote:
The idea that characters would never make a mistake (my character would know better) because their stat blocks are better than the player's real life one is ludicrous, but that is often the attitude I see. Just an observation.

Wow, you've actually encountered "would never make a mistake, because stats"? Oy. Closest I've seen is "No, I'm not going to roll randomly to see if I accidentally grab something other than my potion of remove blindness, because I never accidentally grab my wallet instead of my car keys, even with my eyes closed." (Which, obviously, is a good thing rather than a bad thing.) Just goes to show anything can get twisted to badness, eh?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.

PFS-legal obnoxiousness: The orc bloodline for sorcerers. First because... what? Orcs are a completely nonmagical race. So nonmagical that even being fully half orc doesn't give you diddly-squat as far as magic goes, yet having traces of orc in your ancestry gives you full-on sorcerer-level magical powers? What? And secondly because the only crossblooded combination I've ever seen anyone complain about is the one that requires the orc bloodline, but every time I hear such a complaint, what gets blamed is not the orc bloodline but the crossblooded archetype, despite there being no other crossblooded builds (that I've ever heard of, at least) that ever create problems. Laying blame in the wrong place is a pet peeve of mine, so this phenomenon of blaming crossblooded instead of orc for the crossblooded orc/draconic builds really irks me.

Down with the orc bloodline!

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:

The most obnoxious thing, though not PFS specific, is when players tell others how to play their character, and/or tell them, mid-turn, not to take certain actions because it will interfere with what they have planned for their next (and subsequent) turns.

"Don't move there, you're blocking my charge lane."
"You might not want to move there. I'm going to cast fireball next turn."
"No, don't use that weapon, the other one is statistically more effective."
"You should delay, because I'm going to do X on my turn"

LET PEOPLE PLAY THEIR OWN CHARACTER FOR PETE'S SAKE!

I am sorry that other people communicating with you so that THEY can play THEIR OWN character the way they want interferes with your ability to ignore everyone else around you for the sake of your own fun. Have you thought about playing a game that doesn't require you to be considerate of other people's desires?

Cut Bob some slack, everybody! Maybe his examples don't look as bad as what he was probably thinking of, but I think we can give him the benefit of the doubt here and assume he means the "bad kind" of interjections on other people's turns. Like when a local player lectured me during my turn for having my spellcaster make a tactical withdrawal instead of setting him up for a flank. Stuff like that is probably what he meant.

Grand Lodge **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Now unless the pc is looking to play peasant: the fireballing

I still say it would have worked.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Bold Strider wrote:
As to the people who aren't thrilled with character death or don't want the chance of death by a single roll, then I ask if you have ever made a Witch with Slumber or a Caster with SoD spells or a Fighter with Improved Critical and a Falchion. All of these characters can end lives in a single roll.

1) Well, all of them except the fighter, whose "save or die" impersonation actually requires two rolls, the first of which only has a 1-in-4 success rate no matter how well you build your character; and even when it works you're at the level where it's not an instant death except against mooks. But I guess that's beside the point. ;)

2) When a PC uses a SoD, the GM doesn't have to go home/twiddle his thumbs for the rest of the night. It's okay to dislike a gameplay experience that's produced by something which doesn't produce the same issue when it's pointed the other direction. This is not the hypocrisy you're painting it as to try to shame people into not complaining.

Quote:
If the enemies can't do the same, then what's the point in playing a game where you pubstomp the enemies and get the "Thingy" (TM).

Socializing? Telling a fun story? Feeling powerful? Having an experience against which That One Time I Almost Died can be contrasted and thereby carry more dramatic weight?

Quote:
Without death, the game becomes boring.

To you. But you're not the Fun Police. My wife gets stressed if it looks like someone might die. She has more fun when everybody's okay. You don't get to decide that means she likes boring games.

And besides that, for many people (such as myself), the game gets even more boring if death is a constant threat. For (I'd wager) very many people, getting creamed by Krune is a lot less awesome if you're killed or nearly killed on a regular basis. The exciting moments for many of us are when a deadly situation STANDS OUT because it was so much closer than usual.

Quote:
There are no epic saves where the rogue got creamed and needs to make his stabilization check and barely makes it to avoid death.

Waitwaitwait, a second ago you said "without death, the game becomes boring", then you describe an instance of how exciting not-death can be? Are you actually choosing to say these things or was this a speech in a can?

Quote:
Or the fighter has 2 HP left and the dragon is about to eat him and he crits his attack killing the beast.

There you go again with the not-what-you-said examples.

Quote:
If the monsters can't kill you, then what's the point?

See above.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Re: Thread title — Making a rules mistake is not stupid (not even "a little"). In fact, just by having recognized and admitted the error, you're already a step ahead of a great deal of very experienced players/GMs. Bravo to you for stepping up to take care of business even while people are looking. :)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kristen Gipson wrote:

I too, try to weasel my players out of there rerolls. There have been times I have gotten players to use them on made up skill just that it absolutely makes no difference whether they save or fail. I just constantly remind my players "are you happy with that roll." I try my very best to get my players to reroll checks they make.

My players know I do this so when it comes to a serious roll, there's a very good chance they have already spent their reroll on something else.

OP, just keep in mind, the reroll has to be used before the first result is determined. Most GMs don't care when it's used, but that is one way to get players to cash them in.

I'm imagining a player who dies/fails due to a low roll, and then finds out that the thing they used up their reroll on earlier in the scenario was something you "made up" (your words). I'm trying to envision a situation where this happens and your actions as GM aren't reprimand-worthy, but I'm coming up blank. Perhaps some clarification from you would help?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
So should I reiterate that most of the solutions are that I should just ignore the paladins code as written
No, most of the solutions are to stop ignoring the paladin's code as written.
I suppose you could see it that way. Can we at least acknowledge that the code can be interpreted in different ways?

Yes.

Quote:
And that depending on how strictly it is interpreted, it can lead to bad games?

Agreed.

Quote:
And that it is good for the society as a while to remove things that lead to bad games more often than good ones?

Here's the issue: the paladin does not qualify as something that "leads to bad games more often than good ones". Does it sometimes lead to bad games when the GM and/or player(s) are being idiots? Yes. But that's the exception, not the rule. Thus, no ban is necessary.

1 to 50 of 2,589 << 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.