|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I would point out as evidence of this countless men who killed and died on war fields in the name of imaginary beings.
Which, when you describe it that way, makes it seems very pointless and silly, doesn't it?
Now that we got that laid out let's scale down and bring it back to game level. The "fluff" is not fluff at all. It is the material with which the fabric of Golarion's reality is made.
Wait... you just lost me. People adhering maniacally to imaginary stuff leads them to pointlessly die IRL, so we should encourage and, indeed, enforce it in a game, too?
Hopefully that's not where you were headed. I'll try and develop the courage to read paragraphs 75-116 of your post and see if I'm misunderstanding.
We don't need no book learnin'! We came up by the school of hard knocks (and pretend like that ain't such a tired cliche that it should have gone into the dustbin years ago)!I reckon the only book we need is this here Good Book, and we need common sense a lot more than book sense!
Wait... is the OP really saying "The game is totally unbalanced, but any problems that causes are the players' fault for not being sufficiently unaware of the problems"?
The Dutch should never repair dikes and levees. They should just tell people that walking and swimming are the same thing, so the problem will go away. It's all just dryness envy, after all.
Forever Slayer wrote:
I know your miles may vary but I am seeing a lot of wrong reasons to like a certain type of character.
You failed the "fact or opinion" quiz in 2nd grade, didn't you?I can decide I like Commoners the best. I don't even NEED a reason for that at all -- much less the "right" reason.
Is it so hard to understand?
Disagree =/= fail to understand. Again, my quibble is with elevating "look at other stuff as sort of a list of loose guidelines that may or may not apply, then pick a number" to the status of a "rule."
That's not what I'd consider a set of rules. It's barely a rule of thumb.
In traffic, the rule is to stop at a red light. Not "compare what the other people are doing and then decide if it's OK to ignore the light, or maybe follow it, or maybe modify it." There are then additional rules to determine if it's OK to turn right on red, after having stopped; these may vary by state or even by light, but not by the driver's opinion.
Dire Elf wrote:
I realize my wizard has spent most of her life learning magic, but couldn't she have picked up a few other things along the way?
You realize that the wizard has 2 + Int bonus skill points/level, right? And that wizards can't cast spells unless their Int is high enough? So, at the end of the day, they end up with more skill points than rogues? And that you don't need to spend skill points on Concentration anymore, because in PF you get it for free?
Dire Elf wrote:
What has my elf been doing for all those years if all she can cast are 1st-level spells, and she doesn't know how to ride a horse or treat a wound?
If you want to ride a horse, take the Ride skill. If you want to treat a wound, take the Heal skill. Cross-class ranks don't even cost double anymore, so there's very little advantage to having something as a class skill. Pathfinder is pretty much set up so that wizards are more skilled at more things than anyone else. Also, starting at middle-aged in order to cheese extra Int is considered poor form, and most DMs with half a brain will nix it.
Dire Elf wrote:
Even the kids in Harry Potter learned a bit about the world they live in
At 1st level, assuming Int 17, you have 5 skills. Take Ride and Heal. Take Spellcraft if you want. Take Fly in case you find a magic broom. And you still have one left over. Harry Potter would be envious.
And all that ignores the fact that PF wizards would be fine with no skills at all, because that their low-level spells are, for the most part, 1,000x better than any skill (hint: compare Climb and spider climb).
And, despite all that, you still want MORE skill points for them?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In other words, "There are no problems in the rules because the DM should fix all the problems with the rules." Oberoni writ large.
Oh, dear Loki, no, don't fix problematic spells in the rules to make them less problematic; then beginning DMs would still be able to run a working game, and we just can't have that! There goes the neighborhood! Only a seasoned DM's so-called "common sense" can know exactly how to ameliorate problems in a consistent and predictable manner, and it's very important not to share any of that insight in the rulebook, or -- heaven help us -- incorporate it directly into the spell descriptions.
Also, we mustn't let the PCs ever learn how things work in the game world. That would ruin the funhouse-on-acid atmosphere we're trying so hard to maintain, in which there really is no cause-and-effect to anything.
...Please excuse me while I recover from a coughing fit.
Well, it wasn't for a political jab although this certainly has a feeling of the same tired "must be doing things in X way" that I've come to class together with political correctness.
That's exactly how it read to me as well, so it's not just KnD. I get tired and sad when the "enlightened" people constantly go out of their way to prove they're equally as authoritarian as the "reactionary" people.
I'm well aware that adventures like "Against the Giants" and so on are no longer universal; I just hadn't realized that they're no longer even permissible.
I'm trying to point out that, if slaughtering goblins has been abandoned in favor of some kind of Carebear kumbayah in which we're all best friends, we should be cognizant that we've left the game's foundations totally behind.
Let me be clear that there's nothing wrong with abandoning old stuff -- I sure as hell don't miss the "weapon vs. armor type" tables, either, and I'm fine with "elf" not being a class.
But as someone who grew up with The Keep on the Borderlands, it's hard to accept that not only is there no place for modules of that type anymore, but that I'm now considered to be an objectively bad person to have ever enjoyed playing it.
So, wait, I'm trying to understand something.
How does one square the "racist characters bad!" sentiment in this thread -- that goes far beyond the article the OP cited -- with "Ooh! A goblin tribe! Let's slaughter them and steal their stuff!"?
Or has the International Tribune of the One Right and True Way to Game condemned things like Keep on the Borderlands and Against the Giants? Also Tolkien, for making elves and dwarves not get along (with two notable examples)?
We should burning Gygax in effigy, the racist bastard! And Tolkien! DOWN WITH TOLKIEN! DOWN WITH GYGAX! DOWN WITH D&D!
Neal Litherland wrote:
The point I'm making, Kullen, is that more often than not we get so caught up in how unique and cool OUR idea is that we fail to look at the actual consequences to the group or game we're playing in.
I simply found the article you linked a trifle condescending. Some of us have been playing for close to 4 decades -- presumably we've learned by now that D&D/PF, in any incarnation, is a team game?
Yes, anything but admit the fact that you're wrong. Stall! Stonewall! Demand sources! Then stall some more!
Person 1: "No, elephants and mice are not the same size. Just look at them!"
I have never seen this martial / caster disparity in any game I have ever participated in. Vanilla fighters remain a popular choice in our games and we generally have one in every campaign because a straight-up fighter is a fantastic option and in 90% of our encounters ends up the MVP. You do not need magic or gimmicks to have a fun game. What you need are players that cooperate and are interested in playing a ROLE-PLAYING GAME instead of just rolling dice for damage.
I have never had AIDS. You do not need retroviral drugs to have a healthy life. What you need are people that cooperate and are interested in DENYING THE PROBLEM, because if it doesn't affect them directly, why should they care about it, amiright?
Really, if you're going to bank on the trustworthiness of paladins, you need a way to know the paladin is who he says he is. Much like the summoner and his eidolon are marked with a rune that can't be hidden. And it should be something that can't be faked.
You need an Arisian Lens! Good job, messageboards -- we finally caught up with 1950!
Casting create water might offend the elemental fire gods, causing them to send fire elementals to punish the offender. Every time you cast create water, roll 1d6. If the result is 1-3, the DM causes the fire gods to be angered, and an elemental swarm spell (fire elementals) is manifested in the area, with all of the elementals targeting the caster.
That's totally within the rules and is obviously a logical consequence of your actions. Much as casting simulacrum or summon monster automatically makes you a slaver, probably changes your alignment to evil, and summons hordes of pitchfork-wielders to do you in (I can only assume they have levels in the Angry Mobster PrC, to make them a credible threat). It has nothing to do with stealth-nerfing casters by DM fiat.
I question the objectivity of a "science writer" who produces pieces with titles like (I am not making this up) "Scientists examine why men even exist."
Queen Moragan wrote:
I also find it VERY OFFENSIVE of you, MichaelCullen, to even vaguely suggest...
oh noes! And now I say I am VERY OFFENDED by you being offended, and so on...Charlie Hebdo pretty much convinced the world that "I'm offended!" is no longer a viable argument among civilized people.
If you want to convince people, back your argument with logic, not drama.
Choosing height and weight is a symptom of rampant player entitlement. You can't let those special snowflake players choose stuff like that, or they always end up with something totally inappropriate to your campaign world, and will destroy the game that you worked so hard to create for them. Why do they need to run a tall person when tall people obviously do not exist in your setting? Not only is it totally unrealistic, it ruins the storyline you want to run about them being rejected by all the girls because of their lack of height -- this is important because the angstyness of your setting demands it.
And besides, if you let them just CHOOSE stuff like height, you have to allow them to choose everything, like race -- so allowing them to pick height and weight inevitably results in a kitchen sink campaign full of cybernetic half-dragon catgirl space marines. That might be fine for some people, but I refuse to run something like that and I value my setting far too highly to allow it.
So when I have a player who rudely shows up with something like 6'7" written on their character sheet, I calmly but firmly explain that they're free to pick any height between 5'9" and 6'1" (the campaign restriction range), and if they don't like that, they know where the door is.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
What I dont understand is why do 'you' care if some likes to play a rogue? If the group is having fun, how does that effect 'you' who are not even in the group/state/counrty?
What do 'you' care if my little cousin gets traded from his Pee Wee Little League team to your favorite major league baseball team, to pitch in the World Series? If your favorite player is the catcher, he's still catching, so it shouldn't matter at all who's pitching, right?
The fact that it's a team game is exactly why people care that the rogue is presented as being equal to a bard or investigator, but is actually worse at everything.
"...she just kicks ass!"
For real! I mean, look at that stupid "d'Artagnan" character. Got nothing going for him except being a swordsman. What does he do when Dumas the DM gives him a social encounter? He challenges the NPC to a duel. So Dumas tries again, and he does it again. And Dumas tries again and he does it again! Stupid player never got the hint! And to think the campaign went on for like five volumes!