|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
You mean the arrow that can cast mass hold person on all the guys with guns when you're surrounded, so that you can pick them off one by one without having to worry about the rest of them returning fire?
Yep, pretty cool arrow. ;)
Sometimes, yes. Other times, the fact that they believe it's from Japan has come up as a factor.
Then there's the two-step version, where they (1) see eastern looking cartoon characters and think "anime", then (2) think "anime" means "DBZ". And that's a whole 'nother thing itself.
If they'd be perfectly happy with the anime-style as long as the characters didn't look eastern? I don't even think that happens. People perfectly happy with anime as long as the characters don't look asian? It's possible I guess.
Often the reasoning starts with "the show looks Asian", which (depending on the context of what brought up the conversation) might mean they're talking about the art style or it might mean they're talking about the Asian-inspired architecture/clothing of the setting, or both. Then, from whichever of those things made them think "this is Asian", they then conclude that it must be "anime" (because Asian animation is inherently anime, I guess?), and if it's "anime", then it must be DBZ-style craziness.
And when someone goes from "this cartoon looks Asian" to "must be like [one specific subgenre particularly from Japan]", I find that to be offensive. "Racist" might not be the right word, but it's a pretty nasty way of thinking about the world and its diversity.
Well, beating up the setting's mid power casters anyway. Without massively favorable circumstances I don't see them taking Bumi or the firelord. They'd seriously struggle against Azula.
Plus, referring to the "casters" on a Pathfinder forum, or even on the heels of a reference to DBZ, seriously overstates their power, and by extension the power of those who can nonmagically stand against them. Not only are the "martials" not leveling mountains, but neither are the "casters". Avatar's most powerful "casters" are still lagging behind many of the "martials" of the type of anime people tend to lump it in with.
So... yeah. The kinds of situations I've been talking about, where someone sees an Asian-style cartoon and assumes DBZ-style stuff... they're pretty damn far off. And even if we ended the conversation about what causes someone to make assumptions about things like Avatar, there's still the conversation about people who have seen a little bit of DBZ, Sailor Moon, and Digimon and think they have a general grasp of the entire animation industry of the eastern hemisphere.
It's not clear to me why you think the rejection is linked to race of the characters. Or why the other data contradicts the impression given by the style.
It's not that I think that's what's going on with any particular person, it's that if that's what's going on with someone's rejection, then they're doing what I'm talking about. All other scenarios are outside the scope of my comments. It's not like every rejection of an Asian-styled work is bad. It's just that I'm only talking about the rejections that happen for certain reasons.
Given that the characters look eastern and are drawn in an anime style, I still don't see why it's unreasonable to think the whole work might be anime (or a western imitation). (And honestly, "look eastern" is by far the less significant of those to me.)
I don't object to someone seeing anime-style art and thinking it might be anime; note that I haven't even really been using the term "anime" lately. I'm talking about when they see anime-style art and assume "flying ki-wizards who scream their attacks and hadoken mountains into next week DBZ-style". Again, that's like the difference between the viewer of a "photographed Americans" movie cover concluding "probably Hollywood" versus concluding "probably a John Wayne cowboy movie". The latter is the only part I take issue with.
If it looks like anime, sure, go ahead and assume it's anime. Just don't assume it's DBZ unless it looks like DBZ.
But maybe I'm still just to dumb to figure out what you're saying. Or maybe it's not as clear as you think it is.
You had legitimate questions that I was happy to try to clarify, so I guess it must have been the latter.
Side note: I really prefer to stick to discreet actions (such as "not listening" rather than extrapolating character judgments (such as "too dumb". I think the conflating of the two (whether by the speaker or the listener) is the source of a lot of this community's problems. So let's just stick the assertion and denial of individual actions, and leave the whole-person labels out of it, okay?
Here's another thing that I'm not saying: "Choosing not to watch a movie because it's the same style/genre as other movies you don't like".
I'm talking about making assumptions about the content based on things that don't actually indicate those things about the content.
It's okay to see an eastern art style on the box and assume that the movie is animated in that style. (It's even okay to pass it up if the art style itself is something you dislike.)
It's okay to see Asians on the box and assume there will be elements of eastern culture involved in some way.
It's okay to see photographic images on the box and assume the movie will be a live-action film.
It's okay to see Americans on the box and assume there will be elements of western culture involved in some way.
It's not okay to see Asians in an eastern drawing style on the box and conclude that it must be DBZ-style over-the-top ki-magic action even when the box art depicts something vastly different than that, just like it wouldn't be okay to see photographed Americans on the box art and conclude that it must be a John Wayne-style cowboy movie even when the box art depicts something else entirely.
I'm not talking about looking at everything the box art tells you and drawing reasonable conclusions based on the whole dataset you have available. I'm talking about disregarding a large part of what the box art tells you and drawing completely unreasonable conclusions based on the single element that you can't seem to see past.
Maybe the people currently reading don't do that, but I'm not saying they do. I'm just saying that there are plenty in this community who do, and that's what I'm talking about.
You're absolutely right. That's why I go back and re-read my posts after someone misunderstands me (and why I often quote myself verbatim in subsequent posts). And sometimes my next post explains how I communicated poorly. Or sometimes the other person explains how something I said could be taken a different way, and I acknowledge that.
But other times, I read what I wrote and what they say I wrote, and there's no reconciling the two. Like the time I said "Roleplaying is when your stats and your portrayal match" and the person I accused of not listening said "Of course I'm listening; you said you need to have high stats in order to roleplay!" Or when I've said "The best way to be a team player is to do something other than healing in combat" and they say "Stop making it all about yourself and think of the team!"
I fully agree that the first place to look after multiple misunderstandings is at one's own words. Sometimes the investigation finds that not to be the source. :/
I just think it's hilarious that I even got you on the name. ;)
Would you please pay attention to what I actually write? It was like this the first time around with this thread as well; I'd assert N, then had to go through multiple iterations of "No, I don't mean X, I said N; no, I don't mean Y, I said N; no, I don't mean Z, I said N" before one or two people finally recognized that I was saying something different than all the XYZs that they're used to hearing. You're starting that process all over again, and it's getting old.
Now, pay attention. You seem to be under the impression that I think the art style should be ignored, and if you draw any conclusions from it then you're racist/bad/whatever.
I did not say that.
Go back and re-read what I actually wrote. Here, I'll even re-post part of it for your convenience:
Here are some key differences between what I actually said and what you somehow managed to absorb:
In short, I'm talking about when "hand-drawn Asians" is basically all they can see on the cover.
Now, can you rephrase back to me what my point is? Because I'm not going to invest in you any further unless you can demonstrate that you really read and absorbed what I wrote. I'm not asking you to agree with me, just to demonstrate that whatever you might be about to disagree with is what I actually said.
PK the Dragon wrote:
The hell? Your CHA score reflects your place of residence now? So the cleaner parts of town go to the smiley folks instead of being based on price? Do you even hear yourself?
What exactly are you disagreeing with here?
Are you disagreeing with the claim that the Pathfinder basic stat array is 13/12/11/10/9/8? Because I can show you that in the books.
Are you disagreeing with the claim that dwarves get a -2 CHA penalty that's described as them being "a bit gruff"? I can show you that one in the books as well.
Are you disagreeing that 8-2=6? I'm pretty sure I can find proof of that one as well.
So what is it that you're saying you disagree with?
If that gruffness affects their score to the point that it is a 6, that commoner has effectively dumped CHA
We're talking about one sixth of the dwarven population here. See above.
...and that will be obvious in SOME WAY.
In a way that's believable to be true for one sixth of the entire dwarven population, yes. Your assertions thus far seem a bit far-fetched for that requirement, though.
The problem is that you're doubling up: the situation of the "face" being the only one with a CHA higher than 7 is already accounted for by the fact that his allies have lower chances of succeeding at Aid Another, making the face's own potential for low rolls more risky compared to the face of a more socially adept group.
It's already built into the system, and then you're talking about adding that drawback again by adding a circumstance penalty.
If you had an entire group of 14 INT researchers, then yeah actually I could make an argument for that, if they were trying to think of something that was generally common enough that a collective effort could help each other.
Again, the Aid Another mechanic already covers this, and having the whole team have positive modifiers is already rewarded. Again, you're double-dipping.
Labeling one of your two instances of the negative CHA mod as a "circumstance penalty" doesn't mean you're not double-dipping anymore.
PK the Dragon wrote:
If the bugs in the hair are the same lice everyone else has, then why is it affecting anything?
...And how does having a higher CHA keep them away, for that matter?
You're starting to implode a bit, I'm afraid.
I was under the impression that fantasy baths were kind of a rich-people thing, not an everybody-but-the-low-CHA-folks thing.
Finally, -2 CHA for 8 CHA is a bit gruff. A dwarf that does the full dive is going to be more than "a bit gruff"
No, the description the CRB gives for the racial penalty does not only apply to a single score.
Remember which game we're talking about: the random commoners don't have 11/11/11/10/10/10, they have 13/12/11/10/9/8. So where a non-dwarf's CHA will be somewhere in the 8-13 range, dwarves' CHA will be 6-11. The difference of that whole range is what's called "a bit gruff".
The difference between a human and a dwarf with the same pre-racial CHA is that the dwarf is like the human except "a bit gruff". That's the caliber of impact that Pathfinder ascribes to a score two points lower.
Yes, to reflect circumstances. Circumstance modifiers come from circumstances, not ability scores. Those have their own modifiers. Does a 7 STR attacker get a -2 "circumstance" penalty on their attack roll? Does the 14 INT researcher get a +2 "circumstance" bonus on his Knowledge check?
PK the Dragon wrote:
Okay, so in your campaigns, one third of dwarves have bugs crawling out of their hair, or some other flaw of the same caliber. Got it.
But again, PF is kinda vague when it comes to exactly what bad CHA is. My argument is just that it's BAD, it should mean more than just a few relatively minor features of appearance.
The Pathfinder Core Rulebook calls the dwarven CHA penalty "a bit gruff". That doesn't really sound like it's in the same league as your ideas.
And that's not even really my central point- just that mechanically low CHA should have a significant effect on the circumstances in social dealings (with, I should add, characters that care about such things).
Social dealings are covered by skills. Trying to alter someone's attitude toward you? Explicitly Diplomacy. Same with making a request. It's Diplomacy, regardless of which stat you managed to use.
EDIT: Not trying to be a dwarf racist here, so I'll elaborate. It's a trope that Dwarves do things that are offputting to normal Humans (and other races with normal CHA).
It's interesting to watch you vacillate between "off-putting" and "bugs in hair" depending on your conversational needs.
They're also much less interested in nice things like taking showers.
*tries to remember a story/setting that included both dwarves and showers**fails*
So... they smell like everyone else?
It's a different cultural standard. But to your standard Human, it's going to be more than a tad offputting to meet a Dwarf that has done the full CHA dump. That's why we get the trope of awkward culture clashes between Dwarves and other races.
Again, that's what Pathfinder calls "a bit gruff".
"Swapping" is FAR from being that 3pp baby.
I had given you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that the 3PP mechanic you were referencing actually made things muddy enough to support your point. Apparently I was wrong, judging by the rest of your post:
Paizo has been doing it forever. Feel free to look up the X to Y thread which probably isn't even fully updated.
If I recall, the bulk of that is "getting a different stat to a given skill". If you're going to argue that things like that make "maybe the explicit Spellcraft check isn't really a skill check" a valid assertion, I wish you'd just say so flat-out where everyone can see it and quote you forever.
Most pertinent being the CL+ cast mod instead of CMB. Is it a combat roll or is a caster level check?
Did you try reading the actual ability in question? My guess is no, based on what you've not-read thus far. What examples are you talking about? Pilfering hand simply uses different stats for the combat maneuver check; it never says it becomes a different kind of check. Same with hydraulic push. If (hypothetically) a spell instead said something like "make a caster level check, and if it exceeds the target's CMD then do X", then it's explicitly a caster level check and not a combat maneuver check.
Did you have any actual examples (from Paizo) that are legitimately ambiguous?
It is a combat roll that uses two different stats, which in turn makes my point and why it would be not as cut and dry as you made it out to be.
Only if you can actually provide an example. I have yet to see any situation where it's not 100% clear exactly what kind of check you're making.
Again, "swapping" stats is nothing new or restricted to 3pp. Despite my example not being core, the concept is fully realized in core.
Again, need an example. Something from Paizo's core RPG line that doesn't already answer the question on its own just by reading it.
PK the Dragon wrote:
And once you get into the 5-7 CHA range I'd argue you are , uh, "peasant level", meaning more than just greasy hair and pimples.
Remember that you're referencing a full one-third of the entire population of dwarves in all of Golarion with that description.
I suspect you might need to recalibrate your understanding of what those numbers mean.
1) Some actions are not "skill checks" but do hinge on the result of a roll involving a skill. Most prevalent would be 3pp Path of War where certain combat maneuvers can instead use skills associated with the school of combat. But I imagine there are some core abilities that swap rolls too. This means there is a distinction between "skill check" and "skill roll". The difference being you are doing something detailed under the skill (skill check) or you are doing something that references a skill (skill roll), Learning a spell could be considered the later quite easily.
A third-party product inventing new mechanics that move stuff around in unconventional ways is not grounds for reimagining what the Core rules mean. And no, there's no such thing in Core as a "skill roll", only "skill checks". Look it up. Any references to a "skill roll" in other products is either a new invention or an error.
Even if there WERE such a distinction, you've clearly not read the ability in question, as it explicitly references a "Spellcraft check".
2) Distraction is a HUGE umbrella and the fear of losing the scroll could easily be considered "distracting". Fear of failure is a thing.
Not if you've actually read the take 10 rules:"In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10)."
When the mechanic explicitly offers itself as a solution for when you fear failure, the fear of failure can't keep you from using it.
And even if it didn't have that line, there's still the fact that if the possibility of failure prevented taking 10, then you could never take 10 on anything unless you were going to succeed on a 1 anyway. Then the mechanic literally does nothing, which makes it pretty obvious that that's not how it works.
Just playing devil's advocate.
No, you're not. When the issues you bring up were already covered in the first place, that's not playing devil's advocate. Playing devil's advocate is when you bring up issues that haven't been addressed yet.
I didn't mean they're adventurers because they went on an adventure, I mean they fit the "band of adventurers" trope in the sense that they're a group of mixed skillsets doing a job that they're not exactly specialized for. The council of Elrond didn't hire a professional courier and a team of career bodyguards who specialize in protecting a VIP during overland travel; they sent a grab-bag of available people.
Fair point on the "not serially/professionally" thing, though. Still, there are plenty of other examples. Firefly, which I mentioned, is about an adventuring company that makes their living as such, in a universe where that lifestyle is not exactly uncommon. Much the same for One Piece, and there are other examples as well.
Having a setting in which such a lifestyle/career is common enough that it would make sense to have a word for it is pretty easy.
Can a witch take 10 when adding new spells to their familiar?
The take 10 rules are an umbrella mechanic; if you're under its area (skill checks) then you're automatically covered unless there's a specific exception.
Does anyone have a rules reference
That'd be the take 10 rules themselves; they're not particularly ambiguous.Here, from the Skills chapter of the Core Rulebook:
"When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. .... Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10."
There you go. Unless you've got some other rule saying that the check in question is a special exception, you use the normal take 10 rules.
I am the GM in this situation.
What's that got to do with anything?
The crew of Serenity in the Firefly series isn't too far off from "adventurers", and the show heavily implies that they're far from uncommon.
The so-called "pirates" in One Piece are a fixture of both daily life and world news, yet many (most?) of them are less like "pirates" and more like "adventurers". (In fact, the only reason I became aware of the show was because a friend was telling me about how it feels like it's basically somebody's D&D campaign. My wife once pondered this very issue of why it seems like so many random civilians are combat-capable, and resolved the dilemma by saying "Well, I guess if I just assume Pathfinder is like One Piece where you never know when someone will pop out and try to beat you up...")
The fellowship of the Ring is basically a band of adventurers, just not serially/professionally.
The protagonists in The Mummy are basically an adventuring group: first they're planning to delve a ruin for treasure, then they end up facing off against an undead BBEG for the fate of the world. Because THAT's never happened in D&D, amirite?
The concept of adventurers has quite a pedigree.
Do you mean officially empowered, or empowered by the leadership culture?
Officially, you're correct: GMs have the power to make calls on ambiguities and corner cases, and that's it.
EDIT: Removed some salt. Let's just say that the folks near the top endorse a different take on what the GM can do in PFS than what's theoretically permitted.
Fortunately for the OP, it sounds less like a run-in with that crowd and more of a case of the GM not being familiar with the concept and trying to play it safe; hopefully things will go more smoothly next time. :)
That's true of an awful lot of fantasy RPG staples, not just the word "adventurer". Special inks for spellbooks/scrolls, divine miracles that mirror mortal magic in scope/availability/relationship to general experience, most of the 3.X magic item paradigm, and plenty else. The fact that the word "adventurer" gets called out from among them is a bit silly, IMO.
I'm actually working on a setting in which "adventurers" are a thing in-universe, so no, it's not (inherently) a meta-game construct. It's only a meta-game construct if the setting doesn't include it. Which was kind of my point.
Hence why so many adventures have some kind of non-professional plot hook, such as being thrust randomly into a dangerous situation or being called in for a favor by an old acquaintance.
Seems a lot of folks want well-developed settings (like Golarion), which isn't always very conducive to stories based on being an "adventurer", so there's always some other way to get the PCs involved in the plot.
All I'm saying is that doesn't mean there's something inherently meaningless about "adventurer" as a term; the lack of such a profession is a product of the setting.
True, but plenty have looked at their character sheet and thought "Man, I wish I'd known that I'd be wanting this feat back when I still had a chance to meet the prerequisites and start the chain".
Which leaves me really curious why Piccolo thinks picking all your feats on the fly and never planning ahead for feat chains is going to consistently provide the most fun. Either he seriously misunderstands the Pathfinder system, or he's really generous with letting his players rebuild (or skip prereqs). I'm really hoping the latter; that probably would improve the game a great deal. :)
Note: Link is blocked at work, but I get what you're saying.
Your analogy is fundamentally flawed (perhaps due to misunderstanding my earlier statements?), so let me see if I can straighten this out.
You're talking about people making assumptions about the content based on the deliberate message of the cover. I'm talking about people not even getting that far because the character on the front is a cartoon Asian instead of a painted American (or whatever), regardless of what the cover is actually saying about the content.
You're talking about the publisher deliberately trying to communicate something about the content (such as "it's a romance" or "it's sci-fi" or "it's action-packed") and somebody correctly identifying that deliberate message. You're talking about a publisher making a major blunder and communicating the wrong message, and the viewer failing to mind-read past the error.
That's not at all what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about when the viewer completely ignores the message that the publisher is trying to communicate with the cover. The exact opposite of what you're talking about. I'm talking about when they don't buy into the cover's message because the characters were hand-drawn Asians instead of photographed Americans (or whatever else).
For example, take this DVD box cover: three teenagers stand in battle-ready poses in the foreground, while the background includes a battleship and a looming, angry face.
What you are talking about is if people absorbed the intended message that this is going to be about three young protagonists an a militaristic antagonist with probably some amount of action/combat; but then they missed out because the content is actually about something else.
What I'm talking about is if the viewer would actually like a story about young protagonists against a militaristic antagonist with a bit of action/combat, and probably would have picked it up based on that, except they noticed that the youths look "eastern" and are drawn in a particular style, causing the viewer to completely disregard the obvious message of the art and instead assume that it's going to be hadokens and sonic sword-slices and over-the-top craziness.
You and I are talking about completely different things. You're talking about correctly assessing the message of the cover/box art when it might be wrong; I'm talking about ignoring that message because it looks eastern.
Stop building characters to fulfill a string of feats. Instead, build characters in response to what happens in the game. Your PC will live longer and you'll have more fun. For example, if your GM likes to run in the horror genre, you will probably need Iron Will instead of that feat chain you've been eyeing.
Or maybe the next campaign you switch GMs and discover they like pitting you against large numbers of weak enemies, so you'll want Whirlwind Attack instead of Iron Will. Too bad you weren't eyeing the feat chain four levels ago when you needed to get started in order to be able to get Whirlwind Attack any time soon.
Oops. Maybe Toughness?
Neal Litherland wrote:
You can say, "adventurer," or "troubleshooter," but those words don't mean anything.
Sounds to me like a function of your setting, not of the term.
If your setting is well-civilized and has countries, jurisdictions, regulated law enforcement, and sufficiently-developed populations such that you can hire whichever set of specialists (explorers, bounty hunters, artifact analysts, etc) you need for this particular job and still have some selection available among the candidates; then sure, "adventurers" might not be a common thing.
If your setting is more wilderness-dominated with smaller population centers that don't have formalized defense organizations or specialized career training, where someone who wants to make a living exploring, fighting, investigating or relic-hunting is going to need to be capable of all of those things instead of just their preferred specialty (or at least be on a team that can handle them all), and where folks who need such jobs done likewise don't have a pool of specialized experts to choose from for just the type of job they need done and instead have to hire one of these "generalist" teams; then "adventurers" might well be the best term for the teams in question.
The hobby is bigger than your own narrow set of habits.
Lemmy Z wrote:
Maybe you misread some part of my post, Jiggy. I specifically said having all 18s wouldn't harm anyone's roleplay.
I don't recall suggesting otherwise. Perhaps you misread some part of my post?
I mean, if I can play the same character with "All 18s" or with lower attribute scores... Why not go for the "All 18s"? It doesn't stop me from building or roleplaying the character I want, so why the hell not?
[Answered a couple segments down.]
My only point is that it removes a important piece of decision-making from the game.
No, it doesn't. I explained how the process you described (letting the character's stats naturally "lead" them to a career) works just as well for all 18s as it does for a more typical array (I even included an example). Somehow this gave you the impression that I thought you said all 18s hindered roleplay...?
Consolidated from the other posts wrote:
After all, there's nothing saying how your Int score affects your character personality and decisions. That's up to the player.
Yes, the player gets to decide how a different INT score affects their personality and decisions. But that's very different from deciding whether a different INT score affects their personality and decisions. The way you were talking about your "I can still roleplay the same concept so why not take the 18" dilemma, your post reads like there would be no difference at all. At that point, you can't really call it "roleplaying" anymore. Not everybody has to portray high or low INT scores in the same way, but anybody who doesn't portray any difference at all is not roleplaying.
Which is probably why I've never seen anybody pick excessive stat arrays even when they could.
Lemmy Z wrote:
I just think it takes away from character building to simply have all 18 in all attributes, no matter what class you have.
How do you know anyone would even want an all-18s character? In every campaign I've run with free-form stat selection, not a single person has ever picked all 18s, or even remotely close to it. In fact, the only time I ever asked anyone to alter their stat selections was because I wasn't willing to bend over backwards to keep their commoner-esque stat array alive. :/
Or if someone does pick 18 for every stat...
I really like the idea that characters' attributes naturally lead them into certain "careers" where said attributes would be more useful.
...so what? A character with all 18s doesn't conflict with this idea at all. Being marvelously talented will have just as much influence on the direction of your life as being talented in one or two areas. I once rolled a very impressive stat array (not quite all 18s, but still above the curve). And I developed the character in exactly the way you describe: the character's attributes naturally led him into his career. (Specifically, he was a strong, nimble, hardy, smart, charming young noble for whom everything from swordplay to sorcery came as easily as walking. In his backstory, this led to overconfidence, which (since he was still only 1st level, stats be damned) resulted in an early "off-screen" adventure failing miserably and getting some people killed. Now his confidence is badly shaken, and he seeks to prove (mostly to himself) that he can master adventuring as well.)
Nothing about having lots of high stats limits narrative-oriented, personality-driven character development. The only thing that does is lack of player imagination.
Lemmy Z wrote:
I've run campaigns where people could literally just pick whatever stats they wanted. Nothing broke.
Despite what certain GMing subcultures I could point to around here would have you believe, players are not a bunch of errant children who can't understand why eating everything in the cookie jar would be bad for them and need their hand slapped away after you turn your back for even a minute. Players who actually want to make a good-at-everything character are extremely rare; as a population, they just want to be good at their thing and are fine with being bad at other things.
The idea that a natural part of a GM's job is to rein in the players is a self-perpetuating myth, as the GM (expecting shenanigans) gets too conservative and overreacts to their own fears, which pushes the players to chafe at the restrictions, which convinces the GM they need to squeeze even tighter.
GMing gets a lot more fun if you (generic "you") unclench a bit and learn to enjoy watching the players running around having fun. That's why you're there, after all.
I think the handling of replacement PCs is one of those things that's best dealt with not by a codified procedure but on a case-by-case basis. (Well, unless your campaigns are such meatgrinders that deaths are happening all the time.) You've got to take into account how gear-reliant (or not) the new PC's class is, the circumstances of the death (was he swallowed whole along with his gear?), the circumstances of the new PC's introduction to the campaign (seeking employment with an established adventuring group is different from being found as a prisoner somewhere, for instance), and the current phase of the story (out in the wilds, mid-dungeon, downtime in a city, etc). These and other factors should shape the method of PC replacement, and the best solution might be different every time. A quick "level X, gear Y" rule isn't likely to cut the mustard in all (or even most) situations.
jeremiah dodson 812 wrote:
Honestly, I could name more concepts I'm tired of than "builds".
• The grumpy, Klingon-minded, beer-swilling dwarf who is either a fighter or cleric, generally dislikes elves, and has a last name which references some mix of hammers, shields, and/or stone.
• The greasy-palmed thief who sits in the darkest corner of the tavern with his cloak and hood pulled up at lunchtime expecting nobody to think that's suspicious and call the guards. Typically has a name like "Vic" or "Lefty" and probably a surname/nickname involving fingers or hands.
• Brooding loners or anyone else with a mysterious past.
The list goes on. Interestingly, I've never encountered any Drizz't clones.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Schrodinger's "God" wizards. Admittedly more of a problem here on the boards than irl. I've never seen a campaign with enough downtime or at high enough levels to abuse things like gate, simulacrum, wish, or the various iterations of create demiplane.
That's actually not what the term "Schrodinger's Wizard" refers to, nor what the term "God Wizard" refers to.
The term "God Wizard" comes from a building guide in which it was the title of particular style of wizard. The name "God Wizard" is a reference to the God of Biblical stories, in which God would very rarely intervene directly into affairs, and instead lead and empower his followers. The "God Wizard" is one who operates in a similar style, focusing most of his spells and abilities on enabling his partymates rather than attacking the opposition directly. In short, "God Wizard" refers to a wizard who focuses on party buffs and other indirect contributions to success.
The term "Shrodinger's Wizard" refers to a hypothetical or theoretical wizard being used to demonstrate the ability to overcome various obstacles. To call this wizard a "Schrodinger's Wizard" is to claim that the only reason the wizard is able to overcome so many different obstacles is because his author is always assuming he has just the right spell prepared rather than accounting for the possibility of having allocated his spell slots elsewhere. The use of the term "Schrodinger's Wizard" typically indicates a certain level of system ignorance on the part of the accuser, including (but not limited to) a failure to realize how many obstacles can be overcome by the same handful of spells (which the wizard would simply prepare every day) and how many of the truly "too situational to prepare all of them" spells can be put in scrolls via class feature at trivial cost and still remain effective.
So, you'll need a new term for the "wizard who relies on abusing the highest-level spells". Sorry.
Another question: Given that this is 5E rather than Pathfinder, what exactly do you mean when you mention "minmaxing"? You brought it up more than once, so it must be important. But usually when I hear someone talking about "minmaxing", they seem to mean stats that go both below and above the range of the heroic NPC array, and/or assembling a stack of bonuses on something that's larger than the speaker would like.
But you can't really do either of those in 5E: you can't dump/buy a stat lower/higher than the standard array, and everybody's using the same proficiency bonus. (That's one of the things I like about 5E, personally.)
So what is it exactly that you're trying to discourage people from doing? Should we not put our highest score in our most-used stat or something? That would be a weird definition of "min-maxing" considering that each class writeup includes quick-build advice that tells you to do exactly that. So surely that's not what you mean.
So... I guess I don't really know what I'm supposed to not do. Can you clarify? Thanks.
Question: Does the answer to the painting-theft scenario have to refer to how the character we're submitting would do it, or can it be independent of our character submission? That'll probably have an impact on what types of characters people make.
Another question: How reliant on maps will this campaign be? Is it an issue if maps can't be viewed regularly/consistently?
Yet another question: What are our potential motivations for delving into this dungeon? Treasure? Knowledge? Saving lives? What should we do (or not do) in order to make sure we produce characters would actually go on this adventure?
Loup Blanc wrote:
I will add to my earlier submission post with Kjell's relation to Aleanor Pathsteader, as I realized I forgot to mention that.
Whoops, I forgot that too.
The well-intentioned half-elf "cleric" would likely have been strongly drawn to Pathsteader, as a fellow enthusiast for pursuing righteous adventures. Probably annoyed her a bit, even, and might even see her as a role model.
Sorry, I forgot while thinking of shows that you had specified Netflix/Hulu. Dunno if either of them have any of what I've mentioned so far. I watched all those shows on Crunchyroll.com. Much like Hulu, it's free if you don't mind commercials, or you can go premium for ad-free content. (That's still how Hulu works, right? Haven't used it in a while...)
In that case, I could recommend a couple I've already finished.
Yona of the Dawn is a refreshingly original fantasy story about a princess who is chased from her castle when she sees the man she loved murder her father for the throne. It's very character-growth-oriented, especially with the title character learning what the real world is like and having to reexamine her understanding of reality. Sadly, it was inexplicably cancelled after only one season, kind of leaving you hanging (much like Firefly).
Erased is about a boringly ordinary guy who, for unexplained reasons, occasionally flashes back a few minutes in time to right before something bad happens (such as a truck hitting a pedestrian) and feels compelled to help. But then one day his mother is murdered and he flashes back 18 years, to his own childhood. Caution: This one's high on suspense and deals heavily with child abuse and child murder. That might be a deal-breaker for some folks, so be aware.
One-Week Friends is about a schoolboy trying to befriend a girl he likes, who seems determined to not have any friends. For reasons explained later in the series, every Monday morning this girl loses all memory relating anyone she considers a friend, so she's decided to just not make friends. The show is mostly about them trying to find ways to be friends anyway. Very sweet and occasionally heart-wrenching.
Does it count as "binge" if the show is still producing new episodes and you're all caught up and watch the new episodes as they come out? Because it's been a while since I've found an already-finished series to plow through.
Currently, I'm keeping up with RE:Zero, Orange, and Sweetness and Lightning.
RE:Zero is about a boy who is inexplicably transported to a fantasy world, gets brutally murdered (as in, disemboweled), then "resets" to a point shortly after he arrived in the world. It's sort of like if Groundhog Day was bloodier and darker. Gets pretty gruesome and heavy at times.
Orange is about a high school girl who one day discovers a letter addressed to her, allegedly written by her future 30-something-year-old self, asking her to do some things differently to avoid some regrets. Lotta feels in this show.
Sweetness and Lightning is about a recently-widowed father taking care of his kindergarten-aged daughter, specifically in his attempts to learn to cook good meals for her. A really sweet show, and the kid is friggin' adorable. No idea what that title's supposed to mean, though.