|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I always used to get oil and vinegar on my sandwiches there, but since they introduced the Subway Vinegarette I've been getting that instead.
Tin Foil Yamakah wrote:
Paizo's the only forum I've ever spent any appreciable amount of time on where political and/or religious discussions/debates were not either swiftly locked or shuttled off into their own private forum ASAP.
I wish Paizo would do the same.
Which comes back full circle to what was said two pages ago - our playstyles and GMing styles are completely and utterly opposed to each other.
Wow, yeah, those are spells my players use all the time. While it's only a small segment of the available spells at that level, it's easily four of the most-frequently used.
And amusingly the two you've perma-banned are the two that still retain usefulness at high levels and give players something worthwhile to do with their low-level slots past level 10 or so.
Kind of like foods that you'd never think you'd like, sometimes something that sounds horrible isn't so bad. Of course, sometimes it IS horrible. :)
I have to admit I am extremely non-adventurous when it comes to food =) So I'm not surprised to find my gaming preferences and willingness to try unfamiliar things equally unlikely.
What Kryzbyn said.
That said, being on these forums and seeing all the myriad other playstyles that people apparently enjoy (even if for the life of me I can never understand why) does make me all the more thankful for my own group, who are all very strongly on the same wavelength as to what we want out of the game. I think one of the reasons I'm more comfortable saying "I wouldn't play in a group that does X" is because I know I have my group to stick with where I don't have to worry about those sorts of things becoming a problem.
If I didn't have a play group at all, I either would quit playing entirely if I couldn't find one that shared my mindset, or just deal with a group whose style doesn't quite jive with my own and probably end up bottling up my frustrations save occasional rants to non-group friends about the things I don't like.
I've just neither ever understood nor desired to experience the love some GMs seem to have for reducing options, be it spell selection, feat choices, class availability, or otherwise. I'm too much of a fan of a wide-open, all-options-in game.
Furthermore, those choices are the only mechanical method a PC has of affecting the world. A PC's ability to interact with the game on a mechanical level is limited to their class choices, their feat choices, their spell selection, their equipment, and so forth. Thus, limiting those options limits the PC's ability to affect the world.
Yes, and I was speaking from the perspective of a player having that potential option taken away from me.
You're free to consider it that. I simply don't care for the idea that I might want to take an option, and for a reason that doesn't involve it being an unbalanced or mechanically unfair option having the option removed.
I don't restrict my players' abilities to choose freely from the options - hells, more often than not I'm trying to encourage them to use stuff more, pointing out 3rd-party options and suggestions and encouraging my players to go through d20PFSRD for more obscure options rather than just sticking to the same three or four selections every time.
My project this autumn is to go through 3.5's Spell Compendium and add every spell in the book to Pathfinder class lists such as Alchemist, Inquisitor, Witch, etc.
I think our mindsets on the subject are simply too opposed. I'm the kind of player and GM that is constantly trying to bring more and more options, more and more resources, more and more new things into my games. GMs who go for the other approach, super-specifying their games down to a select group of options - usually under the umbrella of "limiting options to support a theme" - are generally running games I don't have much interest in.
The fun of playing spellcasters, at least on the mechanical side, lies almost completely in their spell selection. Losing that freedom of choice of what kind of spells I can select, getting to play with some of the more obscure, or unfamiliar, or new spells that strike my attention, or old favorites that I know work well and are reliable standbys, greatly reduces the enjoyment I get out of playing them.
Going through the books looking for cool new spells that strike my attention is one of the biggest fun parts of playing a spellcaster. A system that restricts the ability to do that restricts my ability to have fun with the class, and regardless of whether it's "to encourage roleplaying more" (IMO a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, at least in my groups), anything that reduces fun is usually a bad idea.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
What a rich opportunity for roleplaying!
One person's "rich opportunity" is another's "impending headache and frustration".
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
This implies that divine magic is somehow limited and only certain amounts of certain spells can be given out. Not what I'm interested in, in any way, shape, or form. I don't like the idea of my deities being limited in power like that. Not in my world, no thank you.
Frankly though I'm against any attempt by a GM to limit the spells their players have access to unless the spell is considered to be too powerful or otherwise problematic. I always cringe a bit when I see posts about things like that. Especially with things like sorcerers' spells known - I don't like the idea of the GM saying "this is the spell you learn at this level, I decide how your magic develops not you". No thank you sir/ma'am.
VII is the absolute least of the disc based games. While its not bad, but all the others are far better.
How far does "disc based games" extend exactly? Just PS1 and PS2 titles? Or up through the most recent where digital download is also an option but you can still buy a physical disc set of the game if you so desire?
Its not the industry that changed over the last 10 to 15 years, it's you.
I'm curious what leads you to that conclusion. If someone accused me of living in nostalgia I'd probably agree with them, preferring an older style to where the industry has moved on to in recent years, but I'm curious how you believe the opposite.
If you have Drive yourself, go to your main page and select either "shared with me" or "all items" and it should show up, with the username or name of the owner to the right. Granted, if they don't go by their real name or Google username on Paizo, doesn't help much, admittedly. You could send them a message over Google, though.
Unfortunately it seems they've disabled comments in the doc, so that option is out.
It was the best one, for sure. Pinnacle of the series, just before the unfortunate downfall. I'd almost consider a PS4 now. Almost.
This is pretty much the opinion of most fans, yes, that it was the best of the series and everything or most things after it were in constant decline.
It's really a love it or meh game, I personally fall on the meh side, as I said in the thread on the subject over in Video Games, I still haven't managed to get past the starting sequence. Just not the one for me really. But if you liked it on PS1 then you'll probably love the rerelease.
Looks just about ready for prime time, although I would like to see an Improved Spellshot and Greater Spellshot that allow spells to do critical damage and eventually allow full use of spells that grant multiple attacks (have these replace the extra Bonus Feats).
You'll need to track down the person who made it to suggest those, or leave them as comments in the doc; it's not my work. It was linked here in Homebrew along with several other similar "prestige archetype" ideas, but I don't remember by who.
The Alkenstarian wrote:
No major software company ever made a game for the benefit of the players. Not once. Small, indie-companies may do that, but the large, traded companies do not.
This is probably the main reason I don't tend to play games made by large traded companies in recent years. There are a few exceptions - off the top of my head, I've been playing the two latest Pokemon games, Bravely Default, Zelda Link Between Worlds, and some of the Mario & Luigi games - but lately, most large-company-created games are lacking something that they had back in the 90s and early 2000s, when I first got into video gaming.
Those listed games are more the exceptions than the rule. Most of what I play are old games from the NES/SNES/Sega/N64/PS1/early PS2 eras, indie or low-budget company Steam games, Kickstarter projects, and player-made hacks and RPG Maker-style homemade games. The stuff that IS made for the players, with the players in mind, with less (or no) attention paid to the potential profits and priority on making something more as a work of art than as a moneymaker.
There has been a definite shift in mindset and/or practices in most large companies in the past 10-15 years, and it's strongly reflected in the product they make. Now it's more like an accident when something turns out really good by a large company, unless they happen to have someone on staff for whom the project is a major labor of love, or something else that makes the difference.
Yeah, I will never apologize for loving IX. It's second only to VI in my book. It's also the one I happen to be replaying at the moment.
So. VII remake. I vaguely recall reading somewhere that Square said, way back when, that VII wouldn't get remade until another FF game outsold it. Has that finally happened or did they just change their minds?
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I am extremely unhappy with the absurd limits in the race builder. I have a setting with intelligent octopi and intelligent quadrupeds (with wings but no arms) and a race with a snake body with arms but no legs, none of which is buildable due to tbe requirement of all races to have a minimum of two arms, two hands, a head, and two legs, and all the magic item slots.
I have PC harpies (the armless variety, rather than the six-limbed one PF has) and nagas (the human-torso-snake-legs variety, not the human-head-snake-body one D&D/PF seems to love) in my homebrew world and haven't noticed much trouble with getting them built; granted I'm also pretty happy to toss the race builder aside after using it to get a basic framework or mine ideas from.
That said when it comes to magic item slots I'm usually up for re-skinning something to fit the creature's body type as needed, doubly so since most magic items are specified to reshape to fit the wearer. So nagas wear their boot-slot items as rings or legwarmer-type wraps around their tails, harpies wear gloves as sheaths or tassels or similar things on their wings, etc.
I'm an admitted cynic and that's WHY I want happy endings in my fiction. BECAUSE it's antithetical to the way things work in real life. I've had a lot of opportunities in my Kingmaker campaign to be significantly bastardly that I've deliberately avoided because I don't want to make my group's campaign setting into a world that's as bitter, cynical, and soul-crushing as real-life Earth.
That's why I hate the SoIaF books. They're TOO realistic, despite all the magic, dragons, zombies, and everything else fantastical about them. That and the excessive sex and violence.
I'm curious, Alk... does this carry over to your PF/D&D/etc. games as well? Is the best your PCs can expect, most of the time, to just scrape by barely alive and simply be happy that they survived and maybe, only just maybe, beat the villain? Cause I can see enjoying that from time to time, but if every campaign I played in was like that, I'd be looking for a new GM pretty soonish. But if your players are on that same wavelength, more power to 'em I suppose.
VII is one of the FF games, along with VIII, the MMO ones, and XIII, that I simply couldn't get interested in, despite knowing a LOT of people who swear it's one of if not the best game ever. I have the Steam re-release and I still haven't managed to get through the starting cutscene. The remake is unlikely to change that.
Likewise I've heard good things about the Shenmue series but never managed to get anywhere toward trying it out.
I like the idea of multicolored bases so I can tell them apart. I'll have to talk to them about possibly using something like MapTools. Guess I should at least download the program to see how hard it would be to use the basic functions of simply tokens + battleboard or something.
That's all we use, and it's fairly simple to manage. There's the macros and other more complicated stuff but I've never bothered to learn how to use it as it's never been necessary.
MapTool + Skype is how my group plays. It works out really well for us.
I HATE the fact that Tieflings take a -2 Charisma, yet Aasimar have no negatives. (They're two sides of the same coin, why is the other side of the coin taking penalties?)
I just drop the negatives in my games. Doesn't affect their balance in any way and is easier (and less prone to cause complaints from players) than attempting to ascertain which stat each Aasimar bloodline should receive a penalty to.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
You said you haunted the "Let's Make Some New Vestiges" thread back on the old Wizards of the Coast Forums with me, right? Good times and great stuff.
Yep, I went by Edge of Oblivion over there. Off the top of my head some of the Vestiges I made were Valefor, Sitri, Lavos, Schala, Blaine, and a handful of others.
I am a lonely diehard standard-bearer of the "psionics ought to be different from magic" camp. I do not like how Wilders and Divine Minds and such made it "parallel magic" even more than it already was. I do understand the complications that that poses, so what I really want is a totally revised psionics system that was patterned less after spellcasting progression and more after the 2nd Edition psionics system (particularly the way DARK SUN improved on...
My 2nd-edition experience is pretty much limited to Planescape: Torment so I sadly had no personal involvement with 2E psionics. But if someone pointed me toward it or a conversion of it to 3e/PF mechanics I'd certainly give it a shot.
Otherwise I'm all in favor of having psionic options that are clearly different from magic; I just like also having the "pseudo-magic" psionics available, primarily because I just prefer psionic point-cost systems over spellslots.
I admit, there's some severe dissonance between the 3.5 binder and the PF occultist, and I likewise greatly prefer the former, mechanically and thematically. (The vestiges are also, for the grand majority, far more interesting than the spirits of Secrets of Pact Magic, and their mechanics far more conductive and favorable to adding fan-made content in the form of homebrewed vestiges; trying to cook up homebrew occultist spirits, or even converting vestiges into spirits, seems to take quite a lot more time.)
All that said, I can't see enough difference between 3.5 psionics and Dreamscarred's to dislike one in favor of the other, save for some classes one has that the other doesn't (Ardent, Lurk, Divine Mind on the 3.5 side; Marksman, Vitalist, Cryptic, Dread, Aegis on the PF side). So I'm rather curious what the downside is to Dreamscarred's work in comparison.