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

Laurefindel's page

2,996 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 197 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
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".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Toon Fallacy:

That someone who uses MMO terms in or for a TTRPG must not or by nature can not be interested in nor capable of "good" roleplay.

that is true.

But semantics is important. The choice of words we use has an impact.

One cannot start to replace words in one sector and expect to port their new definition in related fields without issues, resistance or reconsideration.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shake Spear wrote:
Yes, but the spotlight should focus on the drama, but the drama shouldn't focus on the spotlight.

Which tends to work best when the drama is scripted and directed. RPG is a strange beast when compared to theatre on the stage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Manimal wrote:
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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Dialogues intelligently written...
Coherent plot not contradicting nor invalidating the previous movie(s) of the same franchise...
Action scenes not overdone nor totaling for 80% of the movie...
Impressive amount of destruction without leveling yet another city of the US...
Humour without ridicule comic relief character...

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...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually like the Summoner class a lot.
But as a DM, a summoner in the group means I'm gonna have to be extra careful about certain things - more than with any other character class - and that can be tiresome.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

TTRPGs are not the only kind of RPG.

Just because it hasn't fully penetrated the bubble yet doesn't mean it's not a usable term.

It's not a "style of play" issue in the slightest, it is merely a different term for PC.

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".


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Manimal wrote:

If I used the term "Toon" rather than PC, what would you say? What arguments would you use for or against it?

(snip)

Thoughts?

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).

'findel


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:

For me, it's a case of wanting a world that's "like ours, plus extra stuff". (snip)

My preferred reality is "cinematic realism" - people can get away with edge cases more often than they really ought to be able to due to uncanny luck "because that outcome makes a better story."

Same here.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
blue_the_wolf wrote:

The fact that a guy in full armor can fire a bow with all of the speed and accuracy of some one in light or no armor.

New home rule for the next game I GM. some form of penalty to shooting bows while wearing medium or heavy armor.

Why? Who does that help?
Justify the existence of crossbowmen?
I doubt it. It's not like you really need a ton of AC as an archer anyway.

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)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
No matter how well balanced or crafted, 40 pounds of steel is going to slow you down quite a bit.
Not if you've been training for it.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
yellowdingo wrote:
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...

[edit] 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...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dazylar wrote:
Right, back to the Lego Movie: if they decide to put the sequel in specific parts of the Lego franchise (which I think they should)...

The Lego Movie 2 was announced a few days before the Lego Movie 1 opening weekend.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Second viewing, in English Original Version this time...

A few fun observations, spoilered for ending scene...

Spoiler:

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?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

"movies made for little kids" are, IMO, some of the best movies all-around in many aspects.

On my top 20 of all movies ever, I'm sure 50% would be "movies made for little kids".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Crusader wrote:
"Freedom" always enters the discussion at some point. Chaotic characters value freedom, for themselves, for others, for everyone.

Agreed, free-form might be a better word than freedom


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeven wrote:

What alignment is a revolutionary who leads an insurrection to overthrow an existing Lawful government to replace it with an even more ordered, but different type of authoritarian government?

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.

[edit] ninja'd by Ross


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
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.

[edit] ...and because raccoon with an assault riffle...

'findel


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Detect Magic wrote:
I guess I should practice drawing on the hex side; eliminating wacky diagonal movement is a huge improvement.

My trick is; don't worry too much about the hexes (unless we're talking witches' hexes, but that's another story).

Free-hand draw your space. If necessary, use a regular tape-measure (or a seamstress line) to get the initial measurements, and work from there. The grid is there to regulate movement within your space; not the other way around (i.e. don't let the grid impose what you draw). Since you're there, let go of the otherwise omnipresent 90-degree angle and create round structures, passage at angles etc.

This means you'll have more half 5-foot spaces than on a regular published map; it's ok, you have the same issue when drawing round towers on a square grid. It also mean that you get the occasional "unwanted" bottleneck allowing a single 5-foot creature to defend a whole 10ft wide corridor and such, but you can roll with it and call it rubble, archways or other architectural/natural features that you wouldn't have included otherwise but spices-up your encounter (if you're mean, have the bad guys take advantage of the terrain they assumingly know better than the PCs, or traps etc).

For me, the hex-map was a liberating experience. Eliminating the wacky diagonal movement rate was just a bonus feature.

hexes are fun! (witches will agree)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:

...to clear up what appears to be a common misconception (in my opinion) about Good and Evil.

Good is Hard.

Excellent post

now if you could please-oh-so-very-please post about what is Law in equally eloquent manner, you'd be my hero for the year.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Didn't know what to expect, but I was pleasantly surprised.

For you adult fans of Lego out there; this movie is made for you by other adult fans of Lego (and one could even say about lego fans). Kids will enjoy it too, but "Benny the 80-something spaceman" and his awesome neo-classic blue-themed spaceship is there for those who grew-up with the LL-928.

[edit] Just saw that this ship will be released as a set this summer, sporting LL-929 markings![/edit]

Much more Lego elements than in the various Lego computer/console games (which is what I expected); landscape, floor, clouds, smoke, water, laser shots, gun flash etc, everything is "brick built". Facial expressions change and head/arms/legs rotate a bit more out of their sockets than they should, but from what I remember, parts that don't flex in real life don't in the movie either (horses don't "gallop", minifigs don't flex their "knees", hands don't close etc). Bricks show enough level of wear and tear, dirt in the cracks etc to remind of the real thing. You can even feel the thickness and the slight not-quite-straightness of stickers.

If you like to build mocs, there are some really nice things in there. Lots of play with different scales to portray distance. Can't wait to actually own the movie to press pause and appreciate the actual builds. The pirate ship looks awesome at first sight.

If you are a Lego enthusiast and still hesitate to go see it; don't. Everything is awesome...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
(...)To me, a paladin is a religious solider(...)

To me, the paladin is, as it always was, a champion of good. That religion thing takes second seat...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:
It gets tiresome playing a dwarf or orc and receiving strange looks from the NPCs EVERYWHERE I go because I am not human.

Humanocentricity and segregation/racism are two different things. You can have humanocentric yet racially diverse and accepting settings (Star Wars does a OK job at that). Similarly, you could experience racism in a setting were humans are non-existent (typical elf-dwarf rivalry, or orc in either elven or dwarven land).

I bet that even in a human-only setting, your character will receive strange looks from NPCs EVERYWHERE you go because you are not [insert setting-related dominant culture].

I agree that humanocentric settings have been done... a lot. I cannot comment on your preferences as they are personal, but I don't think that humans are the source of social conflicts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
I don't get it. What is the problem of humans being the dominant or most widespread race in the setting?

Don't have any problem with that. Being a big Star Wars and LotR fan, it's actually my preferred type of fantasy setting.

I also like settings were humans are the underdog, but only when the accent is put on humans as PCs ironically. I also like settings were humans are not present altogether; but one of the races usually acts as the "default-two-arms-two-legs-adaptable-creative-likes-war" race taking the same role that humans take in other settings.

I think its natural to relate to the race that resemble us the most, even if I too have observed a disdain for humanocentric settings on these forums.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:

This is the real problem: You're trying to railroad your players somewhere they don't want to go. (snip)

Stop trying to drag in tropes that don't work in your medium.

Snarky tone aside, the players must remain masters of their own choices off course. Even if their choice is to ride the train.

But the game is full of thing that players don't like, like being killed, charmed/dominated, held, grappled, paralyzed, level drained etc. The point is to make clear rules with clear conditions and clear consequences.

Unlike in a movie, I wouldn't expect the players to make it to the jail, or bad guy's lair or whatever. There will always be opportunities to rebel, and I can trust my players to jump on any of these. The point of this rule (well hypothetical rule since I've already said I wouldn't make any) was to give the DM another storytelling tools, not locks on doors of the passenger's wagon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
...I actually like Tolkien?
Yeah, I never know whether it's cool to like Tolkien or to dislike him nowadays...
To be brutally honest, if you give a f@&! whether other people think you're cool, then you're not cool.

appearing cool never was the intention...

but regardless of my opinion (which are not about to change due to the "cool kids"), I am fascinated by what is considered cool and what isn't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Bell wrote:
...I actually like Tolkien?

Yeah, I never know whether it's cool to like Tolkien or to dislike him nowadays...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a DM, my PCs are specials because they are the main characters of my story.

From a narrative standpoint, they are not different from any other person of their race (they don't see better, they aren't smarter or tougher etc) but mechanically speaking, I'm willing to go into further levels of details about what they can do and what they can withstand.

In RPG terms, they are allowed hero points or similar privileges, while the majority of other characters do not.

TL;DR: Yes they are special because they are the "actors" on which the camera is on all the time, not because they are intrinsically more powerful, privileged by gods or whatever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Slightly More Complex Variant

This variant uses a condition track instead of a wounded? yes/no question. It also includes damage penalties; badly affected characters are encourage to adopt a different strategy.

As with the previous variant, character recover 100% of their hit point after a night of rest, and 50% after a quick rest and refit period in a calm and non-threatening environment.

Instead of one "Wounded" box, make fours.

One "Lightly Wounded" box, one "Moderately Wounded" box, one "Seriously Wounded" box and one "Critically Wounded" box

Inscribe a penalty next to each box, raging from -1 to -8, as such:

[] Lightly Wounded (-1)
[] Moderately Wounded (-2)
[] Seriously Wounded (-4)
[] Critically Wounded (-8)

These act as a condition track. Whenever the character receives a critical hit, fails a saving throw (from an effect causing damage) or is dropped below 0 hp, check the topmost box. Further critical hits and failed saves (or passing out below 0 hp) worsen the character's condition by one step. Once a character is critically wounded, its condition cannot worsen regardless of the number critical hits or failed saves it receives. At this point, the character is probably close to death anyways...

Every condition implies a penalty. Penalties apply to all d20 rolls (attack rolls, skill checks, saves etc), spell save DCs, and it also affect the character's hit points maximum. The character's hit points maximum is reduced by the associated penalty for each level the character has attained. To not adjust the character hit points to this new maximum; this merely indicates the new hp maximum the character can have after a night of rest or a rest and refit period.

cure spells improve a character's health condition. A cure light wounds spell completely heals a lightly wounded character, or else improves its condition by one step. A cure moderate wounds spell improves the character's condition by two steps, and so forth... Cure spells can be use consecutively to clear a character's condition track completely. A heal spell instantly clears a character's health condition in addition to the spells benefits.

Since the hit point maximum is only relevant after rest, apply the appropriate amount of hp gained for cure spells regardless of the character's new hit point maximum.

Similarly, a wounded character's condition improves by one step for each day spend under the care of the healer with a successful Heal check (see long term care).

'findel


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mostly a though exercise; not in use or in playtest at the moment.

These are a variation on Evil Lincoln's Strain-Injury rules. If you are not familiar with them, here they are. Otherwise, these rules work under the same postulate: most damage should be seen as tiresome parries, dodges, degrading equipment, luck etc. Therefore, hp could regenerate quickly without the need of magic. From times to times, characters get actually injured, which takes time, skill and magic to heal. This variant also aims at the same goals of removing the reliance on magical healing with the least impact of the Rules as Written.

Very Very Simple Variant:

Make a "Wounded" box at the top of your character sheet. Calculate the 50% threshold (rounded down) of the character's hp. Mark it beside your hp total.

Characters recuperate all their hp after a full night of sleep. After a quick rests and refit, all characters recover 50% of their hp. This replaces the normal rules on natural regeneration of hp.

When your character receives a critical hit, fails a saving throw causing damage or is dropped below 0 hp, check the "Wounded" box on your character sheet.

As long as the "Wounded" box is checked, a character may not regenerate hp above the 50% threshold. Do not drop a character to 50% hp when wounded; that character simply cannot recover more hp than this threshold.

If a wounded character receive a successful Heal (long-term care) check, or receive a cure, heal, regeneration and similar spell, un-check the "Wounded" box and immediately apply the effect of the spell (if applicable).

Otherwise, stat blocks and damage remains the same as seen in the Bestiary and RaW. Poisons, bleed effects and other secondary damage effects are unaffected. Nonlethal damage is RaW, except that sources of nonlethal damage never cause the "wounded" box to be checked.

Stay tuned for the slightly more elaborated variation.

'findel


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
You can't treat it like it's all physical health
Why not?

You probably can. In my case I prefer not to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Laurefindel, I second what 3catcircus originally suggested - Vitality & Wound System. Vitality represents your ability to deflect attacks or turn deadly strikes into glancing blows.

I'm currently using Evil Lincoln's variant hit point rules, and I must say they work beautifully for the purpose of differentiating between connecting blows and near misses (or luck, or dink in armour etc). My own system uses a variation of the Vitality-Wounds. The Vitality-Wounds as written is a bit too complex for me, or I should say, adds another layer of complexity that makes the game too complex overall; but I love the idea of differentiating lost hp as plot immunity from those lost to actual injuries.

At the moment, all of that is crystallizing around a central point: there are situations were the normal rules for damage don't work in order to recreate the cinematic feel that I'm going for. Theses are mainly situations where a character is at the mercy of another (the en-joue crossbow trope), situations of stealthy insta-kill (the Steven Seagal trope) and situations that no normal being should consider without special powers/magic (jumping down 40ft, wading through lava etc).

I think that I need to identify these threats, state how they differentiate from regular action scenes and how players can easily recognize them.

Then I will have to decide what happens if a character ignores those threats, such as damage going straight to Wounds (bypassing vitality if such a system is used) or another consequence to be determined, possibly involving a saving throw of some sort.

Then integrate that into a fantasy settings were characters can actually survive a dragon breath, a stab in the back and (accidental) immersion into lava, and with the rest of the rules as written (easier said then done).

hum...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Joex The Pale wrote:
Yes, that is correct. Mechanically, they aren't a threat. And that is the problem we are trying to solve.

I don't think you get my point. It's not about ethics, it's about power.

Just like it makes sense that a bunch of guys with ordinary firearms are not a threat to Superman.

It has nothing to do about ethics.

The point of leveling up is indeed to be more powerful and survive tougher encounter.

But narratively speaking, I do make a difference between falling (or being thrown) down a cliff and casually jumping down one, although the damage is the same. Similarly, I do make a difference between dodging/withstanding 15 crossbow bolts in a fight and being shot point blank while whistling as if nothing ever happened, even though the damage is the same.

My point is that PCs, even at high levels, are not Superman. They are not invulnerable, even if they have many resources and magic that allow them to survive against impossible odds. Their hit points is a limited, measurable amount of plot immunity, a la Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones or an unarmoured Tony Stark. Regular firearms work just fine against them, it's just that bullets (or laser blasts) somehow never get to hit them (ie. they lost an abstract amount of hp) in a firefight. But if their head is under the guillotine, I shouldn't have to reset the instrument 4 times before their head get chopped off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
VM mercenario wrote:
I'm not sure why you think a bunch of superheroes should be afraid of a few crossbows.

Because they are not superheroes; they are a bunch of adventurers. If I wanted to play super heroes, I'd play a X-men game or something of the sort.

I know about the Alexandrian article. 10th level characters can withstand more than ordinary people. And I know; dragons...

Instead, I want to play cinematic hero. One that can dodge 15 crossbow bolts in a fight (read: they have enough hp not to be killed by 15 hits), but not one that says "sure shoot me, I can take 15 like that!". I want to play the hero that will survive the 40ft fall after being tackled by an orc, but not one that that looks down a 40ft cliff thinking "I'll just jump down; easier than stairs".

It's a matter of style not matching mechanics (or rather mechanics not representing a style). Sometimes I wish I could create a threat without pulling out the nukes...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It may sound silly, but I dislike when players are munching on snacks so loud that I have to raise my voice, or that are so messy that they need to wipe their hands every time they need to reach for a die/pen/book.

I dislike when players make a comedy out of a scene I had imagined to be serious/dramatic.

I dislike when a player looks behind my screen to verify my dice result, or worse, touch my dice!

I dislike having to explain something for the fifth time. Event if they didn't think it was important at first, they should have clued-in by the third time...

I dislike when players make no effort of remembering the names of my NPCs, or worse, give them silly nicknames and stick to them.

These are my main pet peeves, but I dislike blatant disrespect in any form (in which I include invasive usage of technological devices).

'findel


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Druids (and rangers) who are not tree-huggers nor "live in harmony with animals and nature" activists.

Also, necromancers (and death clerics) who are "pro living" and "live in harmony with dead and spirits" activists.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
I've never in years of table top gaming had a player say that a PC was killed or a TPK occurred because one of the players didn't create a powerful enough character.

I haven't either, but I've seen groups of players being upset at (to the point of ridiculing) a particular player because his player wasn't as optimized as theirs (and in their mind was more of a liability than help).

I've also seen a players having a hard time surviving because the baddies used by the DM (necessary to challenge his better-optimized fellow PCs) were well beyond his league.

While it basically boils down to "play with a group with which you are compatible", hyper-optimization (or lack thereof) can be an issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaisoku wrote:
Personally, I was surprised there wasn't a Divine/Arcane Mystic Theurge from level one hybrid in this book. Considering how many folks have wanted to play this concept, and tried so very hard to make it work.

That was my first reaction too.

Magus allows the "fighter/mage" concept, but the "mage/thief"* and "cleric/mage" were popular concepts in previous editions and I"m surprised that no base/hybrid classes attempted to recreate them.

* one could say that Investigator does "mage/thief", but not in the magic-backstabber sense. Also, the ninja from Ultimate Combat Guide does the invisible + sneak attack, but it's a ninja, not a mage/thief...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Coyote_Ragtime wrote:
A houserule we use is to re-roll all your Hit Die at the start of a new day, adding bonuses or penalties for things like where you slept, how well you ate last, sleeping in armor, that kind of thing.

A bit heavy on the rest/sleep routine, but this is an interesting way to use hit dice as, well, hit dice.

I like the fact that this can bring a point to good sleep, food and a bit of luxury while adventuring (ye use of profession-cook skill!).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
I guess my point is: I don't ask a 5 year old to cook dinner and then get mad when I get peanut butter and spaghetti.

You got spaghetti from a 5-year-old cook!!??!?!

All I got was a slice of bread (with rest of loaf spilled over the kitchen floor) with what looks like a 1/4-pound chunk of butter on it, and a bowl-full of cheese crackers...

@ OP: you're right to be upset. Your DM is probably upset too. Take a breather, talk with your DM, reconsider playing something more "predictable" if that means more fun for everyone, but otherwise roll with it.

Making stuff-up as you go isn't an illegitimate DM-ing technique, but being that blatantly unaware of the basic abilities of your players is bad form, especially since it implies that you (as a DM) are not considering your players in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
... And of course, Ron Perlman in gold plated shoes.

I watched it to the end of credits the other day when I rented it for the kids. On first viewing, I had missed...

Spoiler:

Ron Perlman's character re-emerging from the baby kaiju saying "where's my g!+ d!~ned shoe!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
Part of it probably is my sleep schedule - I seem to be utterly incapable of falling asleep before midnight unless I'm sick. Any attempt to go to bed earlier, unless aided by illness, just ends up with me tossing and turning until the normal 12.30/1-AM-ish time that I always normally drift off.

Was like that until 35-ish. Then it started to be rougher going on 6 hours or less per night, so i had to change my sleep pattern a bit. Still if I'm not careful, I end-up with a week like this (mornings start at 6h30 because of kids/school/work etc):

Monday: Ok, let's be reasonable today. bed at 10 pm
Tuesday: Hey, that was a good movie! bed at 11h30 pm
Wednesday: Worked late today. bed at 1 am
Thursday: Stupid addictive computer games! bed at 2h30 am
Friday: It was nice to see Mathieu again! bed at 4 am
Saturday: Bah, tomorrow's Sunday; I can sleep-in a bit. bed at 5h30 am
Sunday: Oh, god, I'm so tired! Crash on the couch at 8h30 pm
Monday: Ok, let's be reasonable today. bed at 10 pm...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:

...please change the name of Taint of Shame...

That word has some, ahhhh, unsavory connotations.

right,

What i meant by that is that the Knight-Errant isn't just black or white. More nuanced. So how about 50 Shades of Grey then?

:)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wreck-a-ball trap.

When combat drags on, throw a ping-pong ball on the table.

Every figurine it knocks is defeated, no save.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Bah, I feel self-important today, so I'll dust off some of my older houserules.

I had a campaign with two players; a ranger and a druid (a third player playing a wizard tagged along at one point). The game was big on traveling and exploring the wilderness (figures!). They started level 1 and the campaign finished at level 11th or 12th, so we mainly played low levels: no teleport/wind walk for the most part of the game.

They used a herb lore ruleset for finding and using plants with magical properties which can be found here

and a houserule about daily "action economy" ruleset dividing activities like actions in a round. It was called the Overland Round.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Which stat did you remove, Laure?

Spoiler:

Constitution is out and merged with Strength, But Intelligence and Wisdom are redefined as well. so it goes...

BRAWN for hp, attack/damage bonus and strength-related skill. FORTITUDE is its derivative save for resiting everything physical you cannot avoid (typically with reflex), from poisons to physical spells to grappling.

AGILITY for AC, attack/damage bonus with finesse weapons and dexterity-related skills. REFLEX is its derivative save for avoiding things by moving away/catching yourself.

ACUMEN for understanding, learning and perceiving things, and typically intelligence-related skills. AWARENESS is its derivative save for perceiving incoming dangers.

INTUITION for empathy, connecting with the wild and the divine, and typically wisdom-related skills (except perception). INSIGHT is its derivative save for "not being fooled" by skills, illusions or deception spells.

PRESENCE for personality, force of will and social skills. WILLPOWER is its derivative save for resisting fear and most mind-affecting spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
If the issue is that Perception is so much better than all the other skills that everyone feels like they have to max it out, maybe the solution is to make other skills equally valuable, rather than to make Perception free?

In an ideal game, all skills have the same level of "usefulness" for the genre that the game is catering to. But D&D/Pathfinder already "automates" certain progressions that are central to the game, such as HPs, BAB, saving throws etc.

Actually, most tests that are called for by the DM (or else "something" goes bad) usually take the form of a saving throw. I believe Perception as reactive "skill" could make sense as a saving throw, which can be complemented by a "search" skill for when the players make their own call.

In my home-brewed system (my own findelfinder, so to speak), there are five saving throws - one for each stat (yes I removed a stat) - serving for situations you can avoid by being strong/though enough, quick/agile enough, acute/insightful enough, alert/perceptive enough or strong-willed/self-controlled enough.

Some skills can be used to substitute a save in certain situation. High Perception skill? Substitute your Alertness save with your Perception skill against enemies sneaking being you.

1 to 50 of 197 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.