|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Revive a dead friend/relative/lover.
Put a stop to what he believes is the world's greatest problem (but has either misidentified the true nature of the problem and/or overestimated its significance due to a personal history) despite an unacceptably high cost or collateral damage.
Prevent/confront a cosmic threat that he thinks is coming but nobody believes him. (Could be crazy and there's no threat, or he could be right and now the heroes have to face a new threat and they just offed the only guy prepared to deal with it.)
A bit late to the party, so I haven't gone through and read everything after the OP, but...
In this situation, as in many situations in life, Step One is to check oneself. If you unknowingly have poorly-calibrated expectations of what "normal" is in a given area of life/gaming, then you'll inevitably misjudge the nature of that which differs from yourself.
For example, I quite commonly encounter people (especially those who have played multiple versions of D&D) who don't realize that in 3.X/PF, wealth/magic item progression and the accumulation of miscellaneous bonuses is a built-in feature of the system. They think that your starting stats and class bonuses (i.e., BAB and base save bonuses) are the only "givens", and that magic items and such are "extras" that you shouldn't count on. As a result of this misunderstanding, such folks will encounter players who are actually quite moderate in their playstyles, but see their assumptions of relevant magical gear as "powergaming" or "player entitlement". Both of those concepts are real things that exist, but the player/GM who misunderstands how Pathfinder is structured misidentifies other players as fitting those molds when they truly don't.
Now, a wise person will respond to such differences—especially if they encounter the same thing repeatedly—by first looking for ways to verify if their own preconceptions could be off the mark, and only seek out "how to handle" the dissenting views once they've verified the proper calibration of their own understanding of the situation. Unfortunately, too many folks neglect to take that step and instead (to go back to my above example) just continuously label one person after another as a powergamer/min-maxer. Some even go so far as to draw the conclusion that they must be witnessing an entire generation of entitled munchkins, rather than ever consider that they themselves might have a simple misunderstanding about one game.
The same goes for your other areas of concern, such as the respective roles of the GM and the rules. In each aspect of the game in which you consider this player to be deviating from the default assumptions of the game, have you put in the work to verify that you actually know what the default assumptions of the game truly are?
Only once you have done that can you truly assess which of you is acting in accordance with "the norm" and which of you is desiring something different (though it's also possible that you're both looking for deviations). Once it's clear which of whose desires are actually requests for houserules/variations, each such idea can be discussed among the group, with all of you working together to craft a mutually-enjoyable experience.
Honesty with each other, built upon honesty with oneself. Anything else is a train wreck waiting to happen. Best of luck! :)
It's cheese and should be changed immediately so there's good reason not to take the variant. A feat is easily worth every other racial bonus humans get COMBINED.
It's not that the variant human is cheese, it's that the "standard" human is pathetic.
The variant human gets +1/+1, a skill, and a feat.
When you compare the variant human to the other races, that feat is filling in for a second increase in your main stat and an assortment of powerful abilities.
If you were building a monk and there were a feat that gave you +1 DEX, darkvision, immunity to magic sleep effects, advantage on saves against charm effects, the ability to get a long rest in half the time, a free racial language, +5ft move speed, and the ability to use Stealth when only lightly obscured; would you consider taking it with your variant human? If so, then you just built an elf, and the variant human is not cheese.
Good suggestion Jiggy, torn between Undertale and Salt & Sanctuary as my new "buying this game, don't care if I should or not" myself currently.
Don't know anything about Salt & Sanctuary, but I recommend Undertale if:• You like learning the original lore of a new world
• You enjoy a strong narrative in your gaming
• You like a game with memorable, interesting characters
• You like the general JRPG format, but could do with less grinding and more engaging combat gameplay
• You can appreciate old-school pixel-art graphics, ala the NES and SNES eras
• You want a game that will affect you forever without you having to devote hundreds of hours to it
If that list seems mostly positive to you, then you should play Undertale ASAP (and try really hard not to run into any spoilers). If instead that list seems mostly negative (hate old-school graphics, looking for something you can play regularly for years to come, prefer grinding over narrative, etc), then Undertale might not be a priority right now.
But if you don't play Undertale, then there will eventually come a point where you can't really call yourself an RPG gamer anymore. Just sayin'. ;)
Dustin Ashe wrote:
Perhaps the greatest surprise of all to me was that, after new feats, respondents most wanted new character classes. Here I was thinking that 5e class archetypes could fill out any concept niches not already covered. Aren't people worried about bloat and power creep?
The class archetypes definitely cover a lot of bases, but there are still some notable gaps. One classic example is anything alchemy-based, and my own "pet" example would be an arcane half-caster martial (something with the same casting progression and combat chassis as the ranger and paladin, but arcane and differently-themed).
Also, I suspect that a large proportion of the clamor for new classes is for psionics in particular, rather than just more classes in general.
As for power creep, I don't think 5E is nearly as vulnerable to it as a system like Pathfinder is.
Crystal Frasier wrote:
I also love games with tons of exploration and quirky characters... Never got much into the Final Fantasy series, sadly; something about the grinding always made them feel more like work than fun.
Played Undertale yet? If not, you should. It's an indie RPG on Steam with rich (and original!) lore, memorable characters, and no requirement for grinding. Not to mention a soundtrack that's to die for.
I can 99% guarantee you will fall completely in love with it.
My meatspace group is playing Curse of Strahd (a Ravenloft 5E adventure), and player absence is explained by the mists coming and taking the PC and doing something weird, then when you come back your PC rejoins the group with some kind of minor, random psychosis. My rogue spent my absence surrounded by mist, with wolves jumping out and attacking him at random times. Came out with a constant fear that at any moment, wolves would jump out and attack.
There is now a haunted house containing multiple pieces of wolf-shaped décor that have my arrows in them, despite the local merchant charging 10x the book price for everything. And when we finally had a combat against wolves, I threw myself against them first with daggers, then with my bare hands, then finally with my face, in a blind rage.
Not very effective, but seemed appropriate to the narrative.
I didn't insult you. All I did was point out a factual incorrectness. It's not like I said (or implied) that you were stupid or illiterate or anything. My statement was completely confined to the identification of an objective error. (And yes, it was an objective error, not a matter of how each of us feels about the use of the word "earned".)
I have no intention of insulting you. That does not mean I'm not allowed to point out factual incorrectness.
Just like how, if there were an obscure alternate definition of "earn" that made your original usage correct and you pointed it out to me just like I pointed out your error to you, that also wouldn't be an insult.
It is not childish or insulting to correct factual errors.
Didn't you know? For any given conclusion, there's only one thought path that leads there, so that's all anyone ever needs to reply to. ;)
captain yesterday wrote:
Yes, that's the type of thing I was worried about. I "built" the term in my head while I was typing, just to mean someone whose focus is on fun and engaging gameplay, then afterwards I was like "Wait, I think I've heard that term used before, and I think it might have been something bad." So I removed it.
Meh, it's all just a matter of playstyle preferences.
Rolling in order shifts character creation from "preparation" to "gameplay" by offering a challenge in the form of a "puzzle" to be solved by figuring out what you can make with the stats you get. Thus, folks who prioritize engaging gameplay will have lots of fun rolling up a set of stats and trying to work with it.
By contrast, point-buy allows you the chance to invent any type of character you want and faithfully represent it in the game, which is something that rolled stats work against (for example, you can't play the "feeble wizard" trope if you roll a 15 STR). Thus, folks who prioritize roleplay will have lots of fun using point-buy (or in my games, simply picking whatever stats they want) as a means of faithfully realizing their character concepts.
So basically, rolling stats (particularly in order) is the more gaming-oriented approach, while point-buy/selection is the more roleplay-oriented approach. Of course, some players could have fun either way, and thus might jump at the chance to do whichever one they haven't done in a while.
All in all, I don't really find the OP surprising in the least.
Although combat is important to games like DnD and Pathfinder many people find that It takes too much time.
If you're lumping D&D and Pathfinder together into the "combat takes too long" thing, you've clearly not played 5E.
I switched to D&D.
This. I, for one, was thinking of "enforcement" as including social enforcement, not merely the ability to banish someone from the premises.
"Well, you've been busy. Let me ask you something: do you think even the worst person can change? That anyone can be a good person, if they just try...? Heh. Okay. Here's a better question: do you wanna have a bad time? Because if you take one more step forward, you are not gonna like what happens next."
Jessica Price wrote:
I didn't say "all Christians like to..."
I have a hard time believing you would accept that same distinction if I were to talk about what "women" do and then pointed out I didn't say "all".
Look, I'm philosophically opposed to the entire notion of "acceptable targets", but apparently you're not, and it seems we've found (one of?) yours, so I guess there's not much more point in discussing this side topic with you. Maybe we can get back to the main topic now. Or if not, maybe I'll just hide the thread. :/
Jessica Price wrote:
Well, who's the "they" that failed to condemn the actions? I'm pretty sure an awful lot of members of the group in question would absolutely condemn the actions you described. How would you ever find out? I mean sure, if the group's leadership or public-facing representatives fail to condemn fellow group members' actions, then the group's leadership absolutely bears responsibility, just as you say.
Of course, that's assuming that the leadership even knows about it. Meanwhile, there's the other umpteen million members of the group who may or may not even know the actions in question were ever performed, and if they do, may well condemn those actions quite thoroughly, even if the group's leadership does not.
So once again, you're generalizing about a massive group based only on what you personally have or have not heard about its handful of public figures doing. That's massively unfair.
Jessica Price wrote:
to criticize a group of people who are defined as a group because they believe the same thing
The group you criticized is not defined as a group by the thing you ascribed to them.
The group you cited ("Christians") is defined as a group by all believing in the "Christ-ness" of the Jesus in the Bible. Very little else is part of the definition of being a "Christian".
The thing you ascribed to the entire group was "they like to throw Judaism under the bus". That is not part of their definition as a group.
If you wanted to critique the belief that Jesus was the Christ, then it would be valid to refer to "Christians"; just like if you wanted to critique the belief that there is no god at all, it would be valid to refer to "Atheists". But as soon as you want to critique an activity/position that is not part of what it means to belong to group X, then it is no longer okay to refer to the group as categorically embracing that activity/position.
I agree with you that there is a big difference between being in a group due to a choice of beliefs and being in a group because of genetic chance. I just disagree that acceptability of condemning the entire group for the actions of a subset of its members is part of that difference. How a person got into a group—inborn genetics, cosmic perspective, voting history, romantic decisions, whatever—has no bearing on whether or not it's okay to condemn them for the actions of others.
Now can we please get back to a productive discussion on sexism, without having to kick anyone on our way past?
EDIT: Wait, hang on, this is "misandrists in the setting;" what should we be getting back to? Dang, this thread has really wandered.
Jessica Price wrote:
Christians like to...
...be a monolith?
Most of your post was reasonable and fair (regardless of whether anyone might agree or disagree with the actual points you made), but here you've slipped into the exact same type of "Here's what this whole group is like" talk that I've so often seen you caution others not to do in regard to women. (And to be clear, I agree that we mustn't talk about "women" as though they were a homogeneous whole; I'm just saying that applies to all large groups, including those of a religious nature.)
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
By all means, discuss those specific things that have been done wrong. Those are very valid points of contention.
They're also not what I replied to.
I replied to a backhand against an entire category of people, not a citation of specific grievances.
Folks who believe in some form of god are no more a monolith than women are. Discuss individual wrongs (religious or otherwise) that have been committed, rather than taking cheap swipes at entire categories of people. You know, just like how you'd like men to handle this discussion. Hypocrisy is bad.
I understand; I've been there too. It's not easy to embrace diversity; you can't just simply mentally acknowledge that it's good to treat others as equals and leave it at that. You've got to proactively alter yourself, because your actualized beliefs don't automatically align with your declared beliefs with the flip of a switch. It takes ongoing work. It's a process. And the moment you think you're done, you've failed. You must constantly work toward greater acceptance in practice, not just in declaration.
Even in regard to anchovy-lovers.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
...shrinking even faster than reasons to believe in a God.
Whatever your own beliefs may be, taking pot-shots at people for their religion as part of your speech about discrimination and equality is pretty hypocritical.
Sex, gender, orientation, race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, abortion stance, marital status, economic class, pizza topping preferences... How about we don't weaponize any of it, okay?
Who's responsibility is it to enforce the non-harrassmemt aspect of the campaign?
Everyone's. Until things are physically or legally risky enough that police need to be involved, anyone who decides that intervening against harassment is someone else's responsibility is as guilty as the perpetrator.
Well, to "optimize (a thing)" is to make that thing as "effective" as possible.
And what does "effective" mean? "Successful in producing a desired or intended result".
So, the two things you're wanting to make sure we all know aren't synonyms are
So, "optimized" is not 100% interchangeable with "effective"; rather, "optimized" is simply the fullest degree of "effective".
Now, you say that something can be non-optimal but still be effective. Well, if we fill in our definitions for those terms, that means you're saying that something which is NOT
I suppose, depending on what your "desired result" is, you may well be right. If your desired result has a gradient of outcomes for which two results can both be considered successful while simultaneously one of those two results is more successful than the other, then you do indeed have a situation where that which is non-optimal can still be considered effective.
However, if (for a given desired result) either of those elements is not the case—that is, if there is only one result that's considered successful, or if all successful results are of equal value with none being superior to any other—then it becomes impossible for something to be less successful than something else and still be considered successful, which in turn leaves no room for a differentiation between "successful" and "most successful". Therefore, in such a situation, "optimal" and "effective" have indeed become synonyms.
Alternatively, we could all just unclench a little, treat each other like real people, and stop devoting all our focus to revealing the mustache-twirling villainy of anyone who voices an opinion contrary to our own.
Incorrect. You didn't finish reading the Iron Golem's entry.Look:
Iron Golem wrote:
Therefore, mechanically the Iron Golem is not made of iron, as the fluff text related to the monster is irrelevant. See also an earlier thread that concluded that an adamantine golem's fists aren't adamantine.
...this conclusion is flawed.
Paizo doesn't italicize feat descriptions and such. They reserve italics for spell names and magic item names, so you don't get them confused with other rules elements (like feats, class features, or normal uses of similar words).
For example, if the rules refer to "darkness", they're talking about a specific spell; if they refer to "darkness", they're talking about the simple absence of light.
Open up your Core Rulebook. Look at the feats chapter. You won't see italicized descriptions like what you're asking about. Those are added by sites like d20pfsrd.com, specifically to make the italicized text look like it's separate from the rest. That is, the contributor at d20pfsrd.com already believes the line to be "flavor text", and so they italicize it so that it'll look that way to the reader as well.
Be careful. Sometimes they go beyond just italicizing things that they want to label as flavor text. I remember looking up something once and discovering that they'd chopped up a couple of sentences, rearranged the pieces, added a line of space between the resulting parts, and then italicized one of them. Somebody had an idea of how they thought that rules element worked, and edited it to demote the part they didn't like into "flavor text".
Any time you EVER have a rules question, Step One is to look at something other than d20pfsrd.com. Your question about the italicized text wouldn't even have come up if not for the way they re-format things.
EDIT: One exception: Paizo does actually italicize the opening one-liner on monster stat blocks. But they also have more (non-italic) descriptive text after the stat block that covers the same stuff and more anyway, so no big deal there.
First, I feel like maybe I remember "text trumps table" being a thing.
Second, the table heading which reads "Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivalent" could be meaning "The weapon enhancement bonus that is considered equivalent to the property in the first column".
I'm not aware of any clarifications, but those two elements make me think you need actual enhancement bonuses.
Though you're correct that Tower Shield Guy is playing a different game from the rest of us, you've got his relationship to optimization backwards.
Just a little aside on the topic of GM metagaming: I want to point out that it IS something that can happen; being the GM doesn't mean that there's no such thing as metagaming.
One classic example is when the campaign has multiple NPCs who are capable of mind-control effects, and they all just happen to have a listed alignment of true neutral, no matter how many babies they eat, because that way protection from [alignment] won't work.
Another example was often cited by a PFS member whose characters included a high-AC guy with full plate and a tower shield. This character owned two hats of disguise (back before the ruling that it only lasts a couple of minutes) and would loan one to whoever was the most visibly squishy PC at the table. They would basically swap appearances, so the tanky guy would look squishy and vice-versa. They would even switch minis on the map to represent it. But an appalling number of times, the GM would have the enemies ignore the squishy-looking tank in favor of attacking the tanky-looking squishy. Even on round 1, with no reason to think anything was up.
The GM is absolutely capable of metagaming. I'm not commenting on whether any of the examples other folks have been talking about would qualify, but in a general sense, the GM is not immune to that particular gaming foible, and it's no less bad when the GM does it than when the players do it.
Part of it is how you fill in "X playstyle preference". There's a difference between identifying a group by an actual behavior/characteristic and identifying a group by using a stereotyping label that already has a history.
Another part of it is how you express the potential clash of playstyles. There's a difference between stating what playstyle the GM has or is looking for, and stating that another playstyle "is not welcome here".
Acceptable: "I'm looking to run a narrative-focused game where the mechanics are changed on the fly to suit the story. If that doesn't sound fun, this probably isn't the game for you."
Unacceptable: "Rollplayers are not welcome."
Acceptable: "I'm looking to run a game for a group of interesting characters who act like real people. If you're more into established stereotypes (like the growly, drunk dwarf) and a 'kill monsters and take their stuff' type of game, this isn't what you're looking for."
Unacceptable: "Grognards are not welcome."
Are you starting to see the distinction now?
You seem to be under the impression that as long as your concept is sound, it makes no difference how you express it.
I'm sorry, but there's a big difference between "I like X and I'm interested in gaming with like-minded people" and "Non-X people are not welcome."
And every time someone tries to point out a difference like that, you somehow get it in your head that they're challenging whether it's okay for people to like different things.
Just because it's followed up by something bad, doesn't mean the first part wasn't bad. Both sides can be bad.
So when I saw a multi-star PFS GM say "Your AC is ##? That's not a character, that's a spreadsheet that you're trying to pass off as a character, and I would boot you from any table I was running," his guilt is unchanged by how people responded to him. The respondents might ALSO be guilty if they reacted poorly, but that doesn't take away his own guilt.
So pointing out that "You're a bad RPer" is often met with snark and cries of fallacy doesn't change the moral nature of the original "You're a bad RPer" statement, whatever that moral nature may be.
How people respond to an action has no bearing on the moral quality of the action to which they're responding.
How people respond to your actions never makes those actions more or less okay than they already were.
IME, the vocal Paizo forums community members tilt pro-optimization, so I don't see how a person describing their character's mechanics could be ostracized - There simply aren't enough people for that.
I won't claim to know which group has the most people. I just know how easily I was able to rattle off a list of things I've personally seen others cite as reasons why Person B is bad roleplayer and doesn't know what this game is all about. None of them were hypothetical.
You're probably right about rollplayer and munchkin, but I've actually seen powergamer used by people referring to themselves.
And I've seen black people use the n-word to refer to themselves and their friends. That doesn't make it okay for someone else to use that term toward them.
As I eluded to previously, I don't think it is up to poster A to determine that poster B is label x.
That's kind of my point. It's not up to Poster A to determine that Poster B is a rollplayer/munchkin/whatever, but they keep doing it over and over, to the point that it made it into the Community Guidelines.
I think the labels can be helpful in describing preferences for game ads though. If a GM recruiting for a game says "Powergamers are not welcome," that is helpful info.
I think it's worth pausing to reflect on how a person could come to think that "[GROUP] are not welcome here" is helpful info rather than divisive toxicity.
Fun side note: Auto-correct likes to turn you into Jiffy.
An upgrade from the usual "Jiggly".
There was also a time when your character's awareness of the world around them depended on the player's ability to expertly grill the GM for unambiguous information.
And I believe those times were one and the same. So I'm not sure I see your point.
I did something like this once. I was playing the designated trap-search guy, and had asked ahead of time how the GM understood T20 to work (since I know folks have varied opinions and understandings of it, and I hadn't played under this GM before). There was something weird (can't remember what) about how he saw T20 working that made it not actually work.
So when I wanted to search for traps, I picked up all ten of the d20s I owned, announced "I'll spend ten move actions searching for traps at this door" and dumped the dice across my character sheet. Scanned for the highest roll, did the math, and said "My highest check is XX".
I'm not sure he ever caught on.