|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Patrick Curtin wrote:
As a hater of tuna at all temperatures, I'm so thankful I've never run into these. I like most casseroles (and make a pretty good Green Bean Casserole myself) but apparently I live in the wrong place for the abundance of tuna foundation to be something I need fear.
Everyone else -- cool, I was just wondering. Since that is the one Pathfinder Computer Game (well, and the ACG for tablets) that was supposed to be, I was wondering what had happened to it. Thanks.
There was some mention of a CRPG more in the vein of something like Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights about the same time they announced the ACG, but I haven't heard anything at all about it since.
Pretty much this.
I backed the KSs exclusively for the PDFs that came with them; after speaking with some of the people really invested in the game as well as some of the Goblinworks folks, I could tell I would have absolutely no interest in the game whatsoever.
Long story short, they wanted to build EVE Online: Fantasy edition. With all the organization/group/guild focus and high level of competitive PvP interaction that comes with it. Which might be great for EVE fans who were looking for a new thing, but is probably not the main desire of 99% of Pathfinder or Golarion fans.
Celestial Healer wrote:
I thought that name looked familiar. He's the guy that there was a goofy rumor/hoax floating around the internet back in the early 2000s saying the character Gogo from FF6 was based on him.
From a one-shot the other night: we'd gotten two artifact scrolls. My warlord's was associated with Creation and Healing, while her Warmage partner's was associated with Destruction and Chaos.
Predictably, this party had no other way but the Destruction scroll to deal with swarms. So when the warpriest got attacked by an army ant swarm, her immediate response was to tell the scroll, "I really need to be on fire right now!"
It complied. She survived. Barely.
Wolves are highly protected within the kingdom by law. Blame having a Worg on the council.
Beyond that, most of the things my players enforce are due to social custom and expectation rather than stated law. Things like having no allowance for kill-on-sight for nearly any species or creature short of undead and evil outsiders; any other creature can and has been allowed to make itself at home as long as it doesn't make trouble.
Freehold DM wrote:
... I think you misread my post. My Atlanta airport experience was very POSITIVE.
And litter box liners. Hoo, boy! Who ever thought of THIS product? "I'm going to take a garbage bag and stick it in the litter box... 'cause... ???"
From my limited understanding, the "cause" is "so that I can simply lift out the liner and now it's a bag that is easy to throw away".
Also, Orthos, at least, I think, likes GA, too (and maybe Atlanta?). So, you know: it's at least three of us. :D
I haven't been to Atlanta except to use the airport, but both times I did so it was a very pleasant experience (minus my own plane-phobic stress). Otherwise I don't have anything against it that I don't have against any other large city (in that, I don't like large cities and find them too claustrophobic, too crowded, and too ideologically dissimilar from myself).
Northern Georgia where I live and have traveled regularly is very pleasant countryside and wonderful spring/summer/autumn driving-with-the-windows-down territory.
Seconded. My players never touched crafting and would essentially lock their familiars in boxes never to be seen again after level 3 in 3.5. PF has allowed them to make use of both without feeling like they'll be ganked in the XP at any moment.
My players hated that thing, but since I didn't have Pavetta in on Hannis's plot (in my game, it was revised that Lady Maray was the one scheming with him, as well as having an affair, and Pavetta was obviously aware of the latter but not of the former) and the players, while considering her shrewish, wanted to work with her to help take down Drelev, they had to tolerate it being an annoying yappy pest.
I think they might have killed me if I'd made it sentient.
The problem is you're going to the exact opposite extreme, and making it so that the skills invested simply don't matter, it comes down to what the PLAYER is good at, not the CHARACTER.
Which isn't PLAYING THE ROLE at all.
At the very least I would like my players to at least give me an idea of what they're doing with the social/performance skill, if not necessarily pull out all the stops personally.
I'll accept "My bard performs an inspiring war chant." I do not require the player to actually sing March of Cambreadth.
If a trapspringer's player comes up with some clever or unique way of assisting in disabling a trap, I might give them a +2 circumstance bonus or something, but it's still coming down to the roll as to whether they can disable it.
Not all of my players are social speakers, I certainly don't expect them to come up with a persuasive diplomatic argument on the spot. But I'll definitely accept "I point out X flaw in his argument" along with the diplomacy check, I don't need nor expect the players to dissect the words piece by piece in realtime.
Which, as it has a million times before, begs the question of why have the skills be an in-game thing at all if all the results are based on the PLAYER'S personal ability rather than the CHARACTER'S.
Or, in shorter terms, why do Charisma-based/social tests have to be successfully performed by the PLAYER, but Strength/Dexterity-based tests and challenges can be answered without complaint by a simple roll? Why does the Bard's player have to come up with a song, but the Fighter's player can just sit there and roll his attacks/strength checks to move boulders/shove doors/etc.?
EDIT: Huh. That's... not shorter at all, actually.
This is about what I expected, on almost all counts.
I'm a bit surprised to see Wrath in Tier 3, given all the controversy and hostility it got on the forums and the general air of dislike for Mythic, but quiet support is often a lot less noticeable than vocal outrage, and the opposite extremely uncommon.
I'll provide a fairly recent example, since it was asked.
A few months back, my second PnP group was playing Age of Worms. Anyone who's played that campaign knows it can be a meat grinder and expects top-notch performance of all participants. All of us going into the game were aware of that - most of us had played through the first chapter and a tad into the second once before, before that game fell apart, and the one person who hadn't had heard all the horror stories. So we went in with a party designed to be able to handle things quickly and efficiently. I brought a Zen Archer monk, one player brought a Paladin, one brought a tricked-out Warmage adapted up from 3.5, and one brought a Psion.
The fifth guy, though, brought a Thug Rogue. The concept was more experimental than anything - the player wanted to prove that he, personally, was good enough to make a Rogue work in a campaign as brutal and unforgiving as Age of Worms. But by two or three sessions in, it became obvious that it wasn't going to work. He couldn't hold his own in combat, he became more of a liability for the party to keep alive than a contributing member of the party, and he constantly made demands of the other players/characters to do things like buy specialized equipment (pheromone arrows for my archer were the most common request/demand, but there were others for everyone in the group, except the psion who'd had to leave the game two sessions in) exclusively for the purpose of making his character effective.
Finally, at the end of chapter two, the rest of us approached the player and pointed out the problems that had been caused, and went back to the beginning of the game and how we'd all agreed how brutal AoW is and that we'd need to be all in top shape if we were going to pull through the campaign in one piece. To his credit, the guy took it all very graciously and understandingly, and retired the rogue (via getting hauled off by a monster that awoke at the end of Chapter Two and got carried away into the sunset) and replaced him with a Vitalist instead.
In the end it all worked out well for everyone involved. It comes down to what the group wants and expects out of each participant, which can vary not only from group to group but also from game to game, campaign to campaign. My Legacy of Fire campaign that started up in place of AoW when that GM had to step down due to work schedule conflicts, for example, is far less stressing of group efficiency and a lot more lenient, especially due to having a brand new player in the mix, but it's also a much more lighthearted, much less brutal campaign and can allow for more mistakes than the notoriously-meatgrindery AoW.
TBH though I really don't want them to, I like the system as-is. But my suspension of disbelief is pretty accepting of things like that.
I think it's less an issue of surviving the stab and more an issue of being able to survive the stab and move/act/fight at full capacity until you hit the HP threshold of unconsciousness.
Which in and of itself is an issue of where one's personal threshold of "suspension of disbelief" starts and stops.
I sympathize... I had one last night as well. Spent the night in the hospital because I thought I was having a heart attack and called 911.
Today saw the doctor, got put on antidepressants, and then promptly passed out for seven hours after being up all night. I only just woke up a couple hours ago and rushed around to get the errands done I was planning to do this afternoon.
Because the class descriptions aren't meant to be gender-neutral. They're meant to match the gender of their associated iconic.
They are indeed! Hence why I wanted them as major players in my world and available as a PC race.
Off-topic spider discussion:
Basically what I did was made them one race, with the drider-like creature - Arachnes, as they're called in-world parlance - a more mature form of Araneas. The race as a whole is called "The Children of Arachne", who in turn is one of the deities in my world's pantheon.
Basically the creature is born a Medium spider, grows and cocoons and emerges an Aranea, complete with shapeshifting ability. (I removed the racial hit die and innate casting to make them PC'able.) Then after a few centuries they mature further, cocoon again, and emerge as the fully-mature Large-size drider-like Arachne, with shapeshifting intact allowing them now to assume Medium-sized Humanoid or Large-sized Spider forms in addition to their hybrid shape.
It really doesn't matter to me what the motivation was; the end result is the same - nullifying an unwanted game construct effect. Unless he had some kind of ability on-paper that allowed him that kind of option following a roll, I as GM wouldn't allow it. My response would be somewhere along the lines of "you're not in control anyway, so the domination spell puppets your body. Now roll to attack the rogue."
It comes down to wanting different things out of our fantasy, really.
I'm not interested in pursuing racial conflicts or fictional equivalents of real-world sociopolitical dilemmas in my fantasy games. Mostly because I don't enjoy being on either side of it. I don't enjoy being the one constantly struggling to prove "I'm not like all the others" because of various things - among them that such blanket views of things are uncomfortable to me and because I think there are better, more interesting things to struggle against and build a character concept off of - and I REALLY don't enjoy being the aggressor and constantly having to keep in mind with my actions "rawr every _________ is bad, evil, etc. I hate them so much". It's just not fun for me, and it's not fun to have to live in a world where that's an accepted norm. It's bad enough in real life.
What I AM interested in heroic characters of bizarre species (I am and have long been of the very strong opinion that the "standard seven" races of D&D/PF/etc. are too normal, too mundane, and their omnipresence makes most fantasy worlds themselves too mundane for my taste) and with otherworldly abilities going up against vast evils such as powerful megalomaniacal archmages, evil doomsday cults, dark gods and darker secrets, corrupt monarchs, and sinister prophecies.
So when I created my homebrew setting, I toned racial strifes way, way down. A great many traditional "monstrous" races - most prominent examples being kobolds, orcs, hobgoblins, araneas/driders (I kinda rolled them together), and gnolls - now are part of cultures and societies that don't place them constantly at odds with the "PC races"/"Civilized races". There are parts of my world where even the most bizarre entity can be allowed to live in peace as long as they allow others to do the same.
When I play tieflings and similar races, I'm personally more interested in the internal struggle - how the character deals with the part of them that is Wrong or Evil - than I am with the struggles they'll have to deal with externally with NPCs and other party members.
To make up for it, I make sure the world is more strongly focused on other conflicts: conflicts of culture, of religion (especially involving evil churches and so forth), of personal egos, and so forth. The world is built around the idea that these many races populate it and get along well enough to function, most of the time, and conflict is caused by other sources.
Orthos: just out of curiosity, if a player liked the mechanics of a specific class but agreed that it was underpowered, would you be willing to work with them to use homebrewed improvements?
Absolutely. I've done similar things in bringing 3.5 classes up to Pathfinder - with a few exceptions (cough Archivist cough) most 3.5 classes lag a bit behind their PF counterparts, so tweaking them up usually is required, or at least advised. I wouldn't be against doing similar for a class that's a bit on the weaker side.
However, the usual whipping-boys for this sort of thing - Rogue, Fighter, and Monk (barring certain archetypes) - are just generally easier done by suggesting "play this other class instead", since any attempt of mine to homebrew up an improvement would probably just come from practically stealing everything from another class anyway.
Yep, I replied (again) in the comments to explain what my Youtube username means =) Though I don't think anybody noticed that. I got a good laugh out of their reaction, regardless.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Therefore, "complaining about tiers" doesn't automatically make someone a poor team player, but it does if the campaign itself is geared to allow people to ignore them. On the other hand, if the game requires powerful combinations, refusing to reference them might actually be a sign of someone not being a team player.
Putting it bluntly: I, as GM, have a certain level of capability I expect of my PCs. I don't expect them all to be Schrodinger's Wizard, capable of solving every problem at the drop of a hat every day, but I do expect everyone to be able to contribute meaningly to the situation at hand at all levels.
There are some classes that will never be able to do that, without the assistance of GM fiat that I won't provide. So I strongly encourage my players to not use those classes.
If they really, really want to - some of them are just stubborn, others take my suggestions as a challenge - I generally allow it, but I don't ease up my intended challenges or offer them any propping-up to make up for their mistake. I leave it to them to come up with creative ways to meet the challenges that I may not have been aware of or thought of myself, or for them to take my offer of using mechanics that are more competent.
Other days I don't want to deal with it. I get enough of that in my real life, I don't need it in my hobby. Depends on my mood.
This is me every day. It's why my homebrew setting has a larger variance of playable races and 99% of racial conflicts are rewritten or replaced with cultural, location-based, or religious ones.
The one area of the world that has notable, institutionalized racism is blatantly written to be the bad guys.
Goth Guru wrote:
I would never get away with this at a convention, but in a home game I had a character just,"My character passes out from the stress of the attempted mind control." If he failed the save he would be doing something he wouldn't do. He just had a nervous breakdown.
Yeah, I'm rather surprised your GM allowed that. I certainly wouldn't have.