|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Walk away from the group... At least 'til the other players reach their 16th birthday. :P
Alternatively, if you really, really don't want to leave... Do the suggested advice of calling them silly/embarassing nicknames and kill anyone who has a problem with it. Not a very mature solution, but when in Rome...
There are two things that while completely meaningless from a mechanical PoV, would do wonders to encourage players and designers to see Fighters as the mighty warriors they are supposed to be instead of "random dude with a pointy stick".
1- Give them "Fighter Talents" instead of feats. Include an option that allows them to gain a bonus combat feat and can be selected multiple times.
The character concept for Fighters is really awesome! "The Badass Normal"! The guy who just through training, discipline and will can stand equal to supernatural powers. He's the guy who embodies the "Charles Atlas Superpower". Awesome!
The real problem is the class' design concept... i.e.: "This guy hits hards and has high AC, therefore he'll suck at everything else". The Fighter is meant to be extremely limited and narrow-minded... And so it is... Which makes it a really bad class in a game as open-ended as table top RPGs, where literally anything can happen and there's no real limits to what can be attempted or achieved.
I once compared Fighters to grapplers in fighting games... Grapplers usually have high damage output and high health, but they are very often at the bottom of the tier list. Why? Because even in a fighting game, where there's nothing but combat, options are your most valuable resource... Not numbers. It doesn't matter how high your damage is when enemies can easily outmaneuver you, keep you away or downright neutralize your best tricks.
This becomes even more explicitly true the greater the variety of different situations the game has... And what game has greater variety of challenges than tabletop RPGs?
For as long as Fighters are designed to hit hard and do nothing else, they will never be good at adventuring... And they'll only be decent in combat as well. Amazing at standing still and full attacking, but mediocre at actually fighting, since combat will often be about much more than stantionary crestures trading blows.
Mostly, it means the Race Builder is busted.
It means "to type"... As in... "I'm about to use my keyboard to type this text". So... Yes (although the word would still apply even if I decided to type with my nose).
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
He's posting under the "Sarcasm Dragon" alias... His point is to make funny sarcastic posts.
Lemmy, not trying to being a dingus here, but was "haud" a typo or something?
I have no idea. I don't speak Latin... But I do have access to the internet, google translator and a few sentences in Latin. I don't have any intention to proofread them, though. XD
I speak fluent Portuguese, though... That's originated from Latin, so it has to count something. :P
Optimizeverb (used with object), optimized, optimizing.
to make as effective, perfect, or useful as possible.
to make the best of.
- - -
Again: Optimization (or lack there of) has no impact on my ability to role play... So why would I choose to make a less effective character?
If I'm too powerful for the campaign, I can just hold back... But if I'm too weak, I can't suddenly get stronger.
So again... Why wouldn't I try yo make my character as competent and effective as possible at whatever it is that I want him to be competent and effective?
Freehold DM wrote:
True... But to be fair... There's a lot of material to cover in a Watchmen adaptation. And I mean a lot. It'd be really difficult not to rush it without making it at least 2 movies.
This doesn't make the movie's pacing any better, of course, but in this particular case... It's understandable.
Are you saying that a movie named "Batman vs Superman" is not a cash grab?
Experience taught me that the people most interested in role playing their characters are very, very often the ones that like the game enough to research more about it and how to improve...
Yes, IME, optimizers are usually the best role players as well.
OTOH, the ones who call others "rollplayers" and/or "powergamers" are usually the most unimaginitive role players... Often unable or unwilling to portray their characters as anything other than their class description. "Want to be an sneaky scoundrel! You have to be Rogue, otherwise you're doing it wrong."
I know it looks like shameless self promotion when I recommend my Custom Weapon Generation System, but I really do think it's a damn good solution for this issue.
Not only it allows players and GMs to make weapons that are unique, balanced and effective... It's also fully compatible with the published weapons... Can't build an old favorite? Just bring it over from RAW! It also includes feats for specialized weaponsmasters and blacksmiths.
Again... I know this sounds like I'm bragging, but I honestly think this particular homebrew is worth checking out and at least considering adding it to your game, assuming you want more weapon variety.
Believe it or not, most players will prefer something cool and stylish over something crazy powerful, if the stylish choice is good enough for them not to feel like they are gimping themselves by taking it.
Sure... I'm not saying that "good tactics = good roleplaying", what I'm saying that making an stupid decision just because it's different isn't good roleplaying either. And if it puts your party's life at risk, it's selfish.
But if a character is consistently incompetent, then it'd be good roleplay from the party to kick him out. For the safety of both the party and the character.
- Making a decision that goes against the character's personality, motivations and objectives (such as making an awful tactical decision in a life-or-death situations just because it's different) is poor role playing.
- Risking your friends' lives just because you want to try something new is selfish.
You don't have to be an impossibly prepared full caster to make tactically sound decision and try to actually be creative, instead of overcomplicating simple problems.
If the BBEG is invisible, being blinded for a round or two isn't a bad trade, anyway. The caster could also center the effect somewhere where it affects the enemy but not the charging martial.
Either answer is better than hoping to clothsline an invisible opponent.
There's creativity and then there's needlessly overcomplicated solutions.
If you're in a fight for your life you'll use whatever tools.you have to win. Trying to "clothesline the villain in an spectacularly lucky fashion" when you have glitterdust available is not only a poor tactical decision, but also poor roleplay. It's also selfish, since your character is most likely not the only one whose life is on the line.
The "no extra X feats" policy wouldn't be so bad (and disingenuous) if the quality of feats were higher...
However, this is a game where 80% of feats are garbage that serve little or no purpose other than page filler... And for some reason, the designers always use the weakest ones as their baseline for "what a feat is worth".
A feat can also give you Craft Wondrous Items, Quicken Spell, Leadership or Dazing Assault... All of which are considerably stronger than most "collectable" class features... But designers still insist on comparing those class features to stuff like Dodge or Cleave.
Give us feats that are worth taking and don't lock them behind a wall of awful prerequisites... Then players will value their feats. For as long as feats are there just so Paizo can add "A 100 new feats!" to the backcover of their books, players will rightfully ignore most feats.
This is not just about power either... Feats tend to be underpowered and boring. Don't blame players for taking Extra Rage Power when the alternative is... Weapon Focus. Playing the "Game of Inches" is just not fun.
OTOH, every time you hit a Mirror Image, that miss chance gets lower. If you just close your eyes you don't get that benefit... And you're flat-footed. And freaking blinded!
Sure, this feat chain (which takes a minimum of 2 feats) reduces the penalties for being blinded... But that's the whole point of that feat! What are we going to complain about next? That Power Attack allows the character to deal more damage?
A single spell slot (or even a spell known) is a far cheaper investment than a feat. Much less 2 feats... Or a whole feat chain! The caster can always cast a different spell... The martial can't change his feat!
If a creature has no offensive option other than its gaze attack, that creature is a pushover and undeserving of its CR.
You know... It's this kind of argument that creates and perpetuates the stereotype of the "control-freak GM with no empathy for his players".
Pretty much all of this.
Or maybe designed just fine, and players and GMs are just supposed to exhibit common sense.
Yeah... No. GMs could already use a lycanthrope template for the same effect. Or just roleplay the character as having multiple personalities or whatever. Even if it's just for NPCs, that's still no reason to make the archetype this bad.
There's no reason to make excuses for the designer's mistakes. One of them did a bad job. It happens. This archetype is obviously meant to allow players to play "The Hulk"... So either they failed to make it effective (which means it's poorly designed) or they made it weak on purpose but decided to present it as just as effective as all other classes and archetypes (which means they are bad designers).
To me, it's pretty clear that someone simply made a mistake and accidentally made this archetype really crappy.
Then why there's nothing indicating that to be the case and is, in fact, side by side with other options meant for PCs?
Just because it's a crappy option, doesn't mean it wasn't supposed to be good and used by PCs, but poorly designed.
It's obviously intended to be a viable and (supposedly) balanced PC option... But it's really bad, so it's poorly designed.
Your argument is Like saying the Warrior would be a good PC class because it technically does what's meant to do (wield swords and wear heavy armor).
Guys, frenzied rages that force you to attack everything standing (even your allies) are not a drawback, they are a feature. :)
Meh... Intentionally poorly designed rules are still poorly designed.
And that may be interesting once in a while... But it's not fun to have to deal with it every other fight. It's likely to not even be fun even once.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I honestly don't think RPG demand that much intelligence. All it requires is basic math... And even people who are not good with math learn how to add up modifiers and whatnot rather quickly with some game experience.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Eh... Not really. It really depends on what course you're making and its difficulty.
And I really, really doubt people are that rational, fair and unbiased when it comes to judging their own intelligence... Pretty much everyone thinks they are smarter than average.
Who knows? Maybe everyone is being fair and accurate in their judgment... But I really doubt it.
I'm not saying I think everyone is stupid or dishonest... Only that humans have a tendency to overrate their own mental capacities.
I never disputed any of that.
What I'm saying is that armor penalties should not exist... Most of it should be covered by encumbrance penalties. If you're strong enough that the armor's weight isn't an issue, why would the mere fact that it's armor suddenly make it a problem? I have literally seen people swim while donning armor.
Not to mention how unfair ACP is from a gameplay point-of-view. Most classes are given no real alternative to donning armor, but are still penalized for doing it.
Alex Martin wrote:
Your original link seems to be generating errors, but I am guessing you are referring the upcoming The Killing Joke - which I will agree I am really looking forward.
Ugh... Sorry... Here's the link.
It's The Killing Joke... Approved to be R-Rated by Warner... Directed by Bruce Timm... And starring the cast of Batman TAS.
I never dreamed this could actually happen... Why won't DC release this on theaters instead of BvS. :P
- - -
BTW I really like the Assault on Arkham film as well... And I expect the live action movie to be good, but not as good. I'm hoping to be proven wrong. :P