|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
It's really weird to me this whole "RPGs are for girls too" argument.
Yes, I find it weird too, but it doesn't make the fact that RGPs are mostly associated with boys less true.
Especially at this age, girls are more likely to miss on an opportunity to learn about RPGs because this is a boy's club activity (and at this age, boys often play apart for girls and vice versa). The fact that most RPGs are "publicized" around killing monsters and stealing their treasure in order to become better at killing monsters may not attract your typical per-adolescent girl, despite the fact that RPGs have the potential to be much more than that that and equally please girls' interest (which I recognise as different from that of boys, if only as a construct of our society)
I don't want to go into gender stereotypes and whatnot, but it is unfortunate how girls and boys will miss on opportunities to discover new things that could define them as adult individual, simply based on how we presented to them.
Companies are making effort to make RPGs less repulsive to girls, but there is still lots to be done to capture their interest.
Sounds like unbelievable fun! I've come to the realization that there are a lot of these small-publisher games that I can't understand the appeal of in the least.
People around here like to make fum of Rolemaster for some reason, with stories that have more to do with stupid GM than stupid rules. Iron Crown Enterprise wasn't exactly a small publisher either, not until the 90s anyways.
As for the rules of Rolemaster, people have no idea how d20 is the love-child of AD&D and Rolemaster combined. Monte Cook's influence perhaps, who used to work at ICE before going all Planescape at TSR and eventually (co)developing 3rd ed for WotC...
Looks to me that Pathfinder's strength is to give players a whole lot of options, and it seems to me that this is what many Pathfinder players find attractive. There's a certain beauty in systems that are kept clean, streamlined and simple, but Pathfinder's main attractiveness is in the complete toolbox that it provides, like a large collection of LEGO. Not all the parts need to be used in one creation, but they are there and available for further constructions.
As long as Pathfinder's new edition keep this philosophy, and I don't see why it wouldn't, I'm not afraid for their market niche and survival as a thriving RPG publishing company.
That being said, I do believe that some consolidation of rules, streamlining of the "core engine" and elimination of some redundant rules/concept are required at this point, maybe not as much as 5th ed D&D did, and perhaps not in the same direction but some nonetheless. I wouldn't expect a huge leap between what is essentially D&D 3.75 and Pathfinder 2nd ed, but A fresh start would be welcome from my part.
1) The gods actually can't/aren't allowed to due to rules that are above them.
2) The gods ARE meddling and interfering; that's why there are clerics. For whatever reason, that's the best and most efficient way they found to influence the world.
3) The gods are less powerful that they'd like us to believe, and can't split their focus that much. Manifesting would mean thousands of clerics without power and that's would be really bad rep for business...
4) There are no such things as gods; only powerful individual (clerics), the believes and constructs of societies (religions) and a few benevolent/malevolent spirits than answer to divination spells. TIt's just a big mascarade and everyone powerful enough to know that agrees that it's better that way.
yes, I meant transparent, my mistake, which is why I said psionics ought to be transparent as well.
The "serious blow into a less serious one" relates to the massive damage rule. If you have 101 or less total HP, massive damage applies if you take 50+ damage in a single attack; if you take 50+ damage from any single attack, you must pass a fort save-or-die.
Like thejeff, I too believe that it relates to the fact that a hit dealing 20 hit points is a killing blow for a low level character, but only a good scratch for a high level adventurer. The fact that it has more hit points doesn't mean its skull got thicker or that its body contains a higher volume of blood, but that he has learn to turn a lethal blow in a less serious one (i.e. more hit points)
from a purely campaign setting perspective, I think that in a world where arcane/divine magics are perfectly opaque with each other and with all spell-like abilities and most (all?) supernatural abilities across all known planes of existence, psionics ought to be opaque as well.
I think that if the game was less reliant on constant use of magic; it would work. Otherwise, a setting's believability relies so much on its inhabitant's ability to shield themselves from magic, protect their home with magic and dispel magic with magic that the prospect of having powerful psions wrecking havoc in the antimagic zones and whatnot frightens me. I guess i could make an interesting settings where psions double-up the mages and priests for protection against rogue psions, or where psions "traps" are set here and there create a climate of paranoia from the population etc. It would have to be a central theme to the game, but the ramifications of such a setting are daunting...
I am curious - what are the reasons a player has for wanting to play a low magic campaign?
there can be a few
1) Player is tired of the impression of magic-wins-all.
d20/3e/Pathfinder is magic-heavy. In order to function as intended, magic occupies a huge amount of the game. Magic isn't just a useful tool; not having magic is a huge handicap.
Please see this comment as an observation rather than a negative criticism. For most players, magic-heavy is fun. For others, the default level of reliance on magic is just too much. Yet d20 is very strong and flexible RPG engine, and one that most players know, so people want to "fix" it to fit their preferred style of play.
There are two issues at hand here:1) player plays with themes not accepted around the table (sexuality, regardless of gender or sexual orientation)
2) player makes a ungrateful parody of cultural group (in this case gay/lesbian community)
The player's sexuality level is not the only problem; there's also a matter of respect for groups/genders/cultures that are different (although I agree that both are form of lack of respect).
A jerk will be a jerk, but it's worse when its animosity is targeted toward what's different than toward what the jerk really is. Blatant disrespect aside, I can tolerate better those who make a parody of themselves.
my prefered method is every player (even the DM) rolls 4d6, drop lowest. reroll stats under 7, write all arrays on a sheet of paper.
every player is then free to use any of the stats array rolled around the table and asign the stats in order they like. given a typical table of 4 players (+1 DM), there's usually one excellent array, one more spreaded out array for MAD classes, one array with one good stat and one terrible one etc. NPCs created by the DM uses these arays for that campaign too.
this way, players get the thrill or rolling, that player than can't roll a character to save his life still get a decent array, fairness among players is preserved and limited degrees of choice and control is allowed.
Maybe I am old and cynical, but it seemed like we used to play a greater variety of games....
...until 3rd edition and the OGL, which was very successful as a universal system, to the point of almost obliterating everything else.
The last few years saw kind of a game system revival however, and good quality stuff too. I have hopes that people will start diversifying a bit more again.
 however, people had more time to dedicate to games before. I don't care what people say, web 2.0 and wide, reliable mobile connections changed a lot in how/what people do with their free time.
[post-edit] Correction, people have just as much time for games, but entertainment being immediately available, less time is given to social games. AS everything must be optimised these days, specialisation is often preferable to generalisation.
Really, isn't a male witch called a Warlock? Does that not apply in pathfinder?
Sorcerer, hedge wizard, enchanter, warlock... all these are acceptable terms for a male witch. But in Pathfinder, all of these terms actually refer to a class except for warlock, which is why many have adopted "warlock" as the male appellation for witch. But since the name of a class is simply a packaging label for a set of abilities, the only name we need for the witch is "witch" IMO.
Does anyone else find it odd to refer to a character as a gender specific class title?
Your character is not bound to call himself after his/her class. I played barbarians that weren't barbarians and monks that weren't monks but used the classes as building frames for characters concept.
I don't see any issue with your character calling himself a warlock, even if it says "witch" (or druid, or wizard, or sorcerer) under the class entry on the character sheet.
Otherwise I don't find it odd as "witch" perfectly describes the archetype represented by the class.
as far as I'm concerned, it's a feature, not a bug.
I like the fact that discussions can be picked up, and history of threads is preserved.
I do think some kind of warning sign could enhance the forum experience and prevent accidentally replying to a comment written 15 months ago however.
Personally, I kind of like the 240 copper to 20 silver to 1 gold rate. I find it "exotically immersing". Kind of like the "league" and the "yard", or the "mile" and the "foot" (no offense to my American friends, but money is pretty much the only metric system you've adopted. Imperial weight, volume and distance measures are just as arcane as the old imperial pound money system).
I do find it a bit sad that copper and silver exist in the game universe with so few actual use in game play. Adopting the 12 copper to 1 silver, 20 silver to 1 gold could - assuming that market prices are adjusted appropriately - increase the value of silver.
On the other, other hand, the relatively low value of gold allows for treasures with astonishingly large quantities of gold pieces, which is more satisfying than "this little pouch of gold coins is worth more than all your magic items combined!"
He's (yoda) supposed to be a badass with the lightsaber...
Said who? All we knew about him was of a wheezed old master using a cane to walk.
I know it's all about the old kung-fu sensei showing he's still capable of punching you silly, but it was taken way to far for my suspension of disbelief (which is quite big when it comes to star wars). I wish I had seen advanced techniques of economy of movement, precision striking, absolute calm and control in the most stressful situation, force mastery... You know, old master stuff.
Instead he was all over the place like a bouncing ball; showy youngster stuff.
I *liked* the Star Trek reboot.
I understand how movies taken too far away from their source material can be a let down (gods know how I dislike P.J. Lord of the Rings trilogy), but J.J. Abraham's are good movies in their own right.
Star Wars episode I-III are bad all around, even for (the rare) people who are not familiar with the source material. So much ruined potential; it makes me weeps.
This featurette showed us a Star Wars alien who looks like he coming right out of Jim Benson's studio, as opposed to a CGIed clown. For me this is a win.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Agreed on both accounts, but still preferred the rhythm and flow of Tangled. Personally, I found Olaf a bit too much Jar-Jar-ey, but I know he made the movie for boy.
poker chips, glass beads, and/or regular gaming (or tarot) cards usually find their ways in my games.
gummy bears make good goblin miniatures replacement, and players get to eat what they kill...
A gutted out computer and other electronic devices make good combat-grid/map accessories for futuristic games.
Pace has also changed a lot. For homebrewed games anyhow; never played published adventure back then (expect for a bit of the WFRP imperial campaign), so I'm not sure about that.
In my parent's basement, with the same small circle of friends and few contacts with other gamers, games tended to drag a lot more (now combats drags with higher complexity, but that's a different type of drag).
Entire sessions were dedicated to shopping, making plans, exploring wilderness, combing trough ruins (not too fast because of traps), grinding through random encounters etc, without achieving much. Yet we found it fun. I wonder if could go back.
Characters in AD&D took years to level-up. REAL years, not in-game years. Not something I would go back to but it did bring a sense of achievement that newer games don't quite equal.
Ditto with wealth and magic items. Any regular and legit WBL character would have been called "Monty Hall!" foul.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
The 21.2 miles calculation assumes you're looking at something on the horizon. Hills and mountains rising far above the horizon will be visible from further away.
A mountain in the 6000 - 7000 feet range could be seen 100 miles+ away from sea level, and more from 300 feet above.
500 miles seems a bit much 'tough
Refreshing a houserule I posted before, so here it is in point form because long posts are too long.
“These blast points... too accurate for Sand People. Only Imperial stormtroopers are so precise" -Obi-Wan Kenobi, Star Wars Episode IV
So why do they keep missing the heroes then? Because heroes have plot immunity off course; they won’t get hurt unless the story calls for it, regardless how good their enemies are. This houserule attempts to re-fluff hit points as a finite resource of plot immunity rather than a measure of how physically tough character and monsters are.
This houserule has two main goals:
First: “humanize” high level characters who can otherwise withstand superhuman levels of damage, sometimes to the point of breaking suspension of disbelief.
Second: remove the reliance on magical healing in a typical D&D/Pathfinder game.
enough presentation: Plot-Immunity Points
Never read much of the comics, but I've grown fond of the Marvel movies Captain America, and would probably model him if I had to play a paladin.
Personally, I find that the essence of the paladin is more about honour and ethics than about religious devotion.
So I stand diametrically from Umbriere: I'd keep the LG + code thing and toss the whole "pray to a god" thing. Make the paladin's association to a church as mechanically loose and fluff-related as the monk.
But they were right. Languages do change. They always will.
That's true, and English is an easy language to adapt and play with.
But semantics are being tested every day in every domain. It's often resisted at first, and time tell us if it becomes accepted or not.
I'm curious to see whether toon will become universally accepted in TTRPG in general, or in some circles, or about one type of game/system, or about a certain type of players, or rejected altogether.
For me it comes with too much baggage, and it seems to be true with a majority of forum users here. Many will see 'toon' with a rather negative connotation or too strong a connection with MMORPGs, which is only reinforced by what you can read on sites like Urban Dictionary or TV tropes. So until users manage to clear 'toon' of that baggage and connotation, I don't believe it's going to make it beyond " a term that some people used in the early twenty-teens".
Hey, bbt, if I came up to a group and asked them if they could help me flesh out a concept for my latest "toon," then proceeded to make it clear that I was talking about a PC, and a member of that group said, "Gee, I was going to help you until you used the term 'toon,'" how should I interpret their reaction?
I'd interpret it as a mixture of...
1) they're being rude and/or snob; find some friendlier gamers.
2) the term offends them and they think you're being rude to them - for legitimate or imagined reasons - enough to turn you down as a fellow gamer.
Dialogues intelligently written...
There may still be hope for Hollywood productions yet.
(but as a proud Quebecois, I'm sad to affirm that George St-Pierre hasn't exactly the most convincing acting skills...)
I actually like the Summoner class a lot.
1- Eilodon rules require that you master the rules rather well. Most abusive eilodon builds I see on these boards happen because of extrapolated or misread rules. As a DM I must know my stuff, but it annoys me to play the administrative lawyer.
2- Summoner is bit of a spotlight hogger. That is also true with most summoning-oriented or pet characters like the druid or conjurer, but that's especially problematic with the summoner because he has few tools to do anything else.
3- Summoner has a lot of disposable/expandable resources, meaning that it can take a lot more risks than most without real repercussions.
With the right player, the summoner can be a lot of fun but it suffers from the "but imagine if it falls in the wrong hands!" syndrome, and that turns many players/DMs off.
True, but failing to take origins into account may end-up insulting people. Toon make sense as an animated, colorful MMO character, 'casue that's what a toon is.
I don't think people would have such a problem with "toon" if it didn't refer to something goofy, often clown-ish and cartoonesque; Not all players take their hobby with the same level of "aloofness".
As far as I'm concerned, "Toon" has a pejorative baggage when applied to Table Top RPG. It ain't that insulting nor discriminating, nor do I buy into the "tabletop RPG is superior to MMO or computer RPG"; it just isn't a term I deem appropriate, and one that doesn't sound very "serious" (as serious a hobby can be).
Let's just say I would quickly loose interest in a conversation using Toon instead of character, or PC. Don't have much argument other than "please use the right lingo for the right context".
For the records, while I dislike Toon, I find Murderhobo much more insulting and revolting. What people do with their characters ain't my business, but it doesn't need become the definition of what my character is (or any character must be).
Matt Thomason wrote:
I want a game supporting a world (including its inhabitants) with which I can relate to a minimum. I'm not all for realism but I refute the "but dragons!" and "PCs are gods amongs men" arguments as default and sole assuption, without being told "shut-up and play E6!" (although I'm willing to let go of level 16-20). I'm grateful that the game can do mundane easlily and that most magic/supernatural is more or less equivalent to good tech, so that pruning is realatively easy when necesary.
Matt Thomason wrote:
I think if we take Stormwind at it's spirit, that the ability to RP/Optimize doesn't affect your ability to do the other, then there's no issues with it.
That I can agree with
It's mostly the assesment that one has absolutely no impact on the other that I refute (unless you get a very felxible definition of either RP or optimisation)
RP also includes character development. This include, among other things, choice of skills, feats etc.
The Stormwind Fallacy is true insofar as one (RP vs. Optimisation) does not necesarily prevent the other, but they can also conflict with each other. The only way around this is to allow optimisation to consider the chosen concept, and work with those basic premices.
So the character is sickly and has 6 CON; take that as initial concept and optimise that 6 CON character.
Still, optimisation usually involves planning ahead, sometimes several levels in advance. RP may take your character places you wouldn't have guess at character creation. Therfore for the Stormwind Fallacy to be true, optimisation must accept that charater can evolve in non-linear ways. Again, there's a way to optimise that, even if the charcter isn't overall optimal.
TL;DR: The Stormind Fallacy is true or false depending on your definition of optimisation.
True, which means it wouldn't hurt archers much then. Regardless of who it wouldn't hurt, the question remains: "who would it help?"
Versimilitude to real-life experience perhaps, or to closer simulation of historical combat... I agree that it wouldn't add much to the game.
(but I still think it would give something to the crossbow, which atm is just an inferior choice)
Protective gear usually is a handicap at pretty much everything you do, except for not-bleeding. Can't speak about modern military, but I know that Hockey players are better/faster/stronger without all their equipment. Off course they wouldn't last one good check...
I know for sure I'm better at everything I do without my suppostedly top-of-line harness when working in heights, but I guess I'll be thankful for all those lost minutes worth of lost efficiency when I do fall and live to tell the tale.
But beyond the penalties it already gives, I doubt that making armours even more restrictive would add anything to the game.
Ash ketchum is a bum. Having finaly gone home to pallet town (which amounts to a cluster of five small farms and professor oaks lab) he hands his mother a bag of dirty laundry, Stays overnight, and is now off to a new region...
No worse than most college students I knew...
 Did he also ask for money and ready-made food for the weekend? Because if not, then he's actually better than most college students I knew...
Second viewing, in English Original Version this time...
A few fun observations, spoilered for ending scene...
The Think Tank where Lord Business keep the master builders prisoners, can be seen in the Real Life basement as father's minifig collection on the wall (each on its little shelf, neatly organized in rows and columns). This somewhat explains why all the master-builders featured in the movie (with the exception of Wyldstyle and Vitruvius) is a recognizable character (such as the green ninja, wonder woman or Shakespeare) instead of generic Lego minifigs.
The wreckage of Cuckoo cloud island is briefly seen in the boy's own Lego collection (the small bucket next to the family's Christmas decoration).
I'm sure there are many more I didn't catch.
Any other fun "catch" you've seen?
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
I loved the Rocketman master builder. Guy was a kick.
spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP!!!!
After a few weeks of reviews, it looks like Spaceship Benny and Unikitty are the two most acclaimed characters of the movie.
about Unikitty, not much of a movie spoiler:
I mean a cute unicorn-kitten with anger management issues living in a wacky land of mismatched constructions like what we build when we're 5 years old? I call it a weapon of mass seduction.
For my girl, this was love at first sight. I got her the Cookooland Palace Lego kit for her birthday and she's been playing with, dismantling, re-building her Unikitty figurine ever since.
As I understand Ross's OP, the revolutionary can be of any alignment, and all alignment makes him/her just as likely a revolutionary.
Only, the Lawful revolutionary will make use of planning, strategies involving cohesive units, use rigorous tactics, might impose discipline withing his revolutionary troops etc. His goal will more likely be to build/install another regime rather than simply overthrow the previous one, and his motivations to do so will be more a result of his Good/Evil axis than Law/Chaos.
I'm interpreting the OP here, but "Law is not Legal" means that being lawful is not about your relationship with who is in charge, not about obedience or refusal. Obedience might be a lawful trait, but it doesn't make lawful = obedience.
 ninja'd by Ross
Hmmm. They're not selling me on it. (...) Why should I care about any of these people: an egotistical petty con-man and thief, a psycho, an assassin, a car thief and his muscle? Right now, I'm on the side of the cops. Keep these guys locked up.
Interesting, the trailer works for me because I can't see why I should care for these guys, and I certainly hope (even though I know I shouldn't) that further previews will not spoil more of the currently delectably obscure purpose of this movie.
But I know it's marvel. I know it's produced by Disney. I know it's an American film. I can thrust the good guys to be the good guys, and I'm certainly happy not to know why for once.
 ...and because raccoon with an assault riffle...