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

Pixel Cube's page

327 posts (1,008 including aliases). 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 26 aliases.



2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elondor wrote:
watch deadliest warrior

Yeah, about that, I'd rather don't, especially if I want a realistic approach to the issue.

Anyway, Pathfinder and D&D are made almost entirely made by unrealistic rules, so I don't see why these ones make you scratch your head, and the rest of the game doesn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

None, because RAW does not actually exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
and the Monk/Druid got the unarmed damage bonus to all natural attacks (I lost the rules argument over that one).

Say what now?

Ok, let's cut to the chase: your problem isn't class dipping, or overpowered stuff, or akward personal relationship. The problem is that your players are munchkins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
I did find a new group. The problem is, all the bad stuff is happening again. Personally, I'm starting to think this is probably with me, not them, because it's happening with multiple groups.

Rule of thumb: when entering a new group, never be the first to GM. You need some time to adjust yourself to the group's favoured playstyle. I bet a lot of the problems you are facing right now would have been expected if you saw someone else DM before you.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Though I must ask: why don't you want them to level dip?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just be honest and ban all multiclassing at the start of your campaign. You have the right to do so as a GM. With all the archetypes available now, it's not like it will be missed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't want realism, I want believability. If something breaks immersion, then it's not fun to me anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I honestly tought that this was a thread about gunslingers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know, with "balance" being the thing this board seems to argue about the most ("Is X balanced?" "Why is this archetype unbalanced?" "Paizo please fix the balance") I'm honestly surprised by all the support that random stat generation gets. While I find every other complain about the "balance" completely subjective, the fact that people don't start with the same attributes right at level 1, regardless of the class they choose, is unbalancing. End of the story.

As for contrived methods of fudging with the stat dice once you rolled (roll 5d7 +1 reroll 2s then solve a quadratic equation, and if you don't like it ask for doing it again), what's the bloody point? I thought you wanted random stats, not ALMOST random ones.
And I stand by what Cheapy said about rolling stats in order then come up with your character: may it die in a fire (the method, not Cheapy).

Now quick! Choose one of the following answers:

1- I like to roll for stats
2- I like to complain about randomness of stats
3- I like to complain about balance
4- I play the cheesiest build available at the moment

If you answered with "all four of them", congratulations! You are one of the guys from my former gaming group. May he die in a fire also.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

But Golarion was never Medieval Fantasy, Golarion is, technologically and socially wise, more like Reneissance Fantasy, and is so vast and diverse to booth, that you can find pretty much everything from Aztech jungles to Pirate islands to large metropolis to Eastern empires to barbaric wastelands to even freaking revolutionary USA. Everything has their place there, and I don't see many people complaining that having all this things "disrupt my idea of Medieval Fantasy". I can see that you may find guns out of place IN YOUR OWN SETTING, but Golarion is not your setting, is a fantasy kitchensink where nothing is too out of place to not have its niche. Guns can, and probably will, become commonplace in the future of Golarion, followed by technological advancements of similar kind.
If something is complicated and works wonders, why does it have to be magical? Why can't it be pure engineering? Golarion is full of people that can perform a similar task, and apply it to warfare, trade, and so forth... A setting that is stuck in the same technological and social state forever and ever is something even more absurd that dragons and fairies. Especially if there's so much going on like there is in Golarion: what are the chances that a technological (or magical, for that matter) advancement of any kind won't become common in a very short time?

This is why I find all the complaining about Gunslingers quite baffling, especially when somebody says that "guns that target touch AC break suspension of disbelief" in a setting where CREATING ENDLESS WATER FROM NOTHING (not to mention all the 0° level spells) is something even the crappiest caster can pull off, and nobody ever mentions the enormous implications that this would have in a believable setting.

Why the double standard?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

...threads?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jen the GM wrote:
Question: During the gaze, how many "rounds" of time are you actually gazing at the person?

As many as dramatic tension requires.

Duels, as I see them, should happen outside regular Initiative, and take whatever time it's necessary: they could last 1 round or 50 rounds, during which other people not in the duel stand around and watch the outcome. Outsiders may influence it in some way, but if a third party attacks during a duel between two opponents, it's not a duel anymore, it's regular combat.

As far as I am concerned, the duelists could move, talk and taut during each phase. They could even have flashbacks, during which a character may remember how his opponent killed his family or something similar. Actually, I think I'm going to include a sort of REVENGE bonus to the final roll for a character that roleplays a nice little flashback of that kind.

The Duel rules, by all means, need to be tested and fleshed out, hopefully with the help of all the people willing to try them. So every question, feedback and suggestion is well accepted.

By the way, I'm going to post some more info about Hangman's Noose in a while, complete with locations and relevant NPCs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As my grampa told me a long time ago, "be wary of anyone who starts a thread over the Paizo forum with the phrase 'why would anyone', for he is usually looking for trouble".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jonathon Vining wrote:
Pixel Cube wrote:
MME wrote:

Pathfinder

Story Obstacle: A torturous labyrinth, a deadly dungeon, or a trackless wilderness stands between the characters and their hidden destination.
Property: This item reveals an invisible path through or past the obstacle. It could constantly reveal the path to its bearer, or it could show the way once per hour or once per day.
Form: Amulet, goggles, helm, lantern.
From the text, it actually looks like they praised Pathfinder instead.
Alternatively, the idea of a "pathfinder" that, perhaps, "finds paths", as they say, could be a natural construct of the English language, and unrelated to any other use of the term.

Alternatively alternatively, sometimes it's just nice to wear your tinfoil hat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pardon my unannounced intromission into this certainly fascinating and rather educational debate, but I was pointed in the general direction of the thread in question by a fellow reference librarian whom I believe uses to partake in similar discussions on a regular basis. Since the aforementioned argument is, without the shadow of a doubt, associated with the interesting and multi-faced profession of the individuals who are known in the colloquial language as "bards", and since I would undoubtfully be included in this category, even tough the same category would be difficult to define precisely, I figured out I could have come here and present my case for the other participants to decide.

Consider the following: as you can clearly extrapolate from my personal character sheet, which can be easily reached by moving your mouse cursor over my own name tag and the clicking over the same name once with the left button, I can hardly be considered a person whose role is to enhance, or "buff", if you will, the preexistent abilities of an assorted team of daring adventurers. My "job", so to speak, is to search for intriguing and most of the time obscure pieces of information about the creatures, objects and locations the adventurer group mentioned above might encounter during their surely eventful journeys, and to provide this information to ears willing to ear. If they find the information produced in such way useful for them, then I would be glad to have been of some help, but that's not usually something I should be concerned about. Therefore, I find the whole issue debated here perplexing and preposterous, but quite interesting nonetheless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


Well, they'd still die quick if you sent them into something trap-infested like Tomb of Horrors (at least the old version of it). I don't believe there's a trap-finding archetype for monk.

EVERYTHING dies quickly in the Tomb of Horrors. That's kinda the point of the Tomb of Horrors.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

To get the best out of the game, a strict division and balance of the party roles is absolutely necessary. It usually goes like this:

- The powergamer/munchkin
- The TRUE roleplayer
- The guy who kills all the NPCs because lol Chaotic Neutral
- The guy who steals all the treasure
- The guy who is carrying 4 metric tons of equipment and has Str 11
- The wallflower who only rolls attack and damage
- The rules lawyer
- The guy who cheats at dice
- The guy with constant bad luck that isn't allowed to touch the other's dice for fear of catching "the fumbles"
- The guy who murders and steals and sometime rapes but insists he's Lawful Good
- The guy who complains about the balance problem and then plays the cheesiest build available
- The guy who pesters the other about the fact that he'd rather play 3.5.

Of course you can also assign double roles, like the rules lawyer/mass murderer or the powergamer/balance advocate with the Evasive Cheater prestige class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
Except we explained why they are mechanically inferior to other options that give the same flavor? And you outright rejected them? Some of the people here are very proficient in the mechanics they speak of and some of those to the point where people pay them to write said mechanics. If they could not look at something like a feat or an archetype and say "this is bad" without having to roll up a character and play in a physical game then we'd never get any work done.

I will shamlessly copypaste my views of the subject from my a post of my own in a thread that was exactly like this one. I'll just edit something to add more points. Hopefully this will explain why I keep refusing "legitimate" claims of suckiness as unfounded.

Maxximilius wrote:
Blurg wrote:
By this logic, I'm not allowed to point out that a table only has three legs because I'm not a carpenter.
Also, how could I dare say a movie is terrible if I'm not Steven Spielberg ? How is it even possible -or allowed !- to say a book is bad if you're not able to write something better ? Preposterous !

I'll try to explain why it's not the same thing, and the examples cited are inappropriate. What follows is obviously my opinion, I hope you realize I'm not telling you how you should play the game, but how I would play it.

You see, unlike a table (which is already built) and a book/movie (which is already finished) you HAVE the power to reshape the game you play. Let's consider the following.

X option is overpowered/underpowered/unbalanced!

Are you basing this on first impressions only, or have you actually tried the option?

First impressions! But I am somehow capable of making an objective judgment.

Ok, I guess everybody has their own special abilities. And your conclusion was?

It's crap!

Then don't take it.

But I want to take it anyway!

Then take it.

But it's too overpowered/underpowered/unbalanced!

Then houserule it.

But I don't want to! The developers should have playtested it better to make it balanced with the rest.

But the developers don't playtest everything and don't balance everything, since they have other things to do and since they kinda expect you to do it yourself anyway, adjusting the game as you like.

But I think they should have! This reflects bad on the game system.

If you are not happy with how you spent your money, there are loads and loads and loads of other roleplaying systems to try. You should do it anyway because it's good to try lots of different things.

But I want to stick with this system!

Then houserule it.

But Oberoni Fallacy...

Oberoni Fallacy is the crappiest excuse ever to not get your hands a little dirty. If you encounter something that you don't like in a game and you decide to whine about it and call the whole system badly designed instead that just wind it and houserule the bloody thing already, that's not "enforcing the Oberoni Fallacy", it's "being lazy". This is ESPECIALLY true if you are actually proficient in the mechanics to determine they are flawed in the first place. If it's broken and you realize that, then fix it already.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Maxximilius wrote:
Blurg wrote:
By this logic, I'm not allowed to point out that a table only has three legs because I'm not a carpenter.
Also, how could I dare say a movie is terrible if I'm not Steven Spielberg ? How is it even possible -or allowed !- to say a book is bad if you're not able to write something better ? Preposterous !

I'll try to explain why it's not the same thing, and the examples cited are inappropriate. What follows is obviously my opinion, I hope you realize I'm not telling you how you should play the game, but how I would play it.

You see, unlike a table (which is already built) and a book/movie (which is already finished) you HAVE the power to reshape the game you play. Let's consider the following.

X option is overpowered/underpowered/unbalanced!

Then don't take it.

But I want to take it anyway!

Then take it.

But it's too overpowered/underpowered/unbalanced!

Then houserule it.

But I don't want to! The developers should have playtested it better to make it balanced with the rest.

But the developers don't playtest everything and don't balance everything, since they have other things to do and since they kinda expect you to do it yourself anyway, adjusting the game as you like.

But I think they should have! This reflects bad on the game system.

If you are not happy with how you spent your money, there are loads and loads and loads of other roleplaying systems to try. You should do it anyway because it's good to try lots of different things.

But I want to stick with this system!

Then houserule it.

But Oberoni Fallacy...

Oberoni Fallacy is the crappiest excuse ever to not get your hands a little dirty. If you encounter something that you don't like in a game and you decide to whine about it and call the whole system badly designed instead that just wind it and houserule the bloody thing already, that's not "enforcing the Oberoni Fallacy", it's "being lazy".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Richard GM wrote:

*Crack!*

There, I've broken your pointy stick now. Whatcha gonna do about it?

I go to complain about the balance issue over the Paizo forums.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheShadowShackleton wrote:
This thread is filled with comedy gold. Thank you to everyone who contributed. Except the OP, who came across as a bit of a Richard.

The hell are you talking about, his name is clearly Tim.

CAN'T YOU BLOODY READ?

P.S.: Anyone else wants to play the Tomb of Horrors with the OP limitations and just blunt sticks? Maybe Tim could be the DM. Will you step up to the challenge Tim?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fozbek wrote:
So is your stance that you cannot have fun with a character who is mechanically sound? Or that it is more difficult to have fun with a character who is mechanically sound?

No, he's not saying that.

Fozbek wrote:
I'm saying you should not have to sacrifice effectiveness for fun.

Why the hell not? I see no problems with that. As Sean K himself said in another thread very similar to this one, "If you want every choice to have the exact same balance, you need to play a different game". There are plenty of games out there that are addressing the issue you are talking about (for example, 4th edition). Pathfinder isn't, so why are you asking it to be something that it isn't?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Pixel Cube wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Second, there is an optimizer and a min-maxer[...] The problem you have is that while your are a respected optimizer, you are sometimes lumped in with the dirty min-maxer.
I don't think they are so different. They are both trying to mathematically achieve what they are looking for. And I don't find one dirty and the other one to be respected, they are both legitimate way to play.

And I could not disagree with you more.

Min/Maxers and rules lawyers try to find loopholes. It's like playing a video game in god mode or using a cheese glitch.

Except instead of only cheating in your own personal video game, you are at a table with a group of people, being "that guy".

And nobody likes "That Guy".

"That Guy" is why it is hard to get new people to play. "That Guy" is where all of the negative stereotypes for role players start. "That Guy" is why Devs have to say "Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check."

Because "That Guy" is a selfish jerk who thinks that by "winning" the game they will somehow not be "That guy" in real life, when the reality is that they are "That guy" precisely because of this behavior.

And those of us who actually like to play the game within the framework of the rules, understanding the limit set by the rules produce the challenge that makes the game enjoyable hate the fact that we can't sit down at a generic table in your FLGS without having to worry "That Guy" will show up and ruin it for all of us.

Which is why most of us home game, with people we know aren't "That Guy".

To be clear, I'm not saying you are "That guy". I don't know you. But if you min/max and don't want to deal with the min...I'm just sayin...

But you can be a ''That Guy'' (do you by any chance browse /tg/ ?) if you optimize, if you minmax, heck,even if you are a good roleplayer. That is a IRL issue that has nothing to do with how you build your character. And to answer your question: no I don't minmax not because it's detrimental, but because it's boring.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My two coppers.

I don't personally find optimizing to be mutually exclusive with roleplaying. I find it, however, to be mind-bogglingly boring and ultimately pointless. In my experience, optimizers play "builds", rather than characters, because they start to build their PCs stat first, adding the concept later. I find this to be backwards and I'd never do that, but they seem to have fun nonetheless (and a good roleplayer will play an interesting character even if it was conceived as a bunch of numbers) and who am I to say that their fun is "wrong".

Nevertheless, the idea of going through all the manuals, picking only the options that are meant to be powerful, and leaving all the non-powerful ones (even if they fit your character concept perfectly) and then do a lot of math doesn't appeal to me. I'm fine if someone else in my group does it, but it really gets on my nerves if the same person then starts to whine that "your character isn't effective enough, you are holding us down". This is very, very, very annoying.

Also, I disagree with your opinion that in fantasy fiction most of the interesting characters are the ones that are good at everything. To me, it's the exact opposite of that: a character that is always effective and without flaws (optimized) is very boring and there is no sense of threat when he's faced with danger. A character that is good at one thing only and crappy in the rest (minmaxed) suffers from similar issues: it'a one trick pony. I wouldn't call these sort of character interesting if I saw them in a work of fiction. Even Superman has his kriptonite.

Then there's the fact that, in my opinion at least, it's not even worth to optimize. Optimizing presumes that you know every possible choice you can make, you know how everything is going to play out during a session, and you can foresee everything the DM is going to throw at you. All of this is not possible in most sistuation, at it boils down to statistics, damage prevision and other boring calculation. No amount of math is going to save you from a Nat 1 on a critical situation. And I found that if you are somehow able to easily overcome every challenge the DM throws at you, this leads to an escalation of power, effectively putting the DM against the player to see who's going to make the life harded to the other. I've seen this happen and it's not pleasant, especially if you actually don't give a hoot the whole issue.

My point is: you can be an optimizer and a good roleplayer. I don't think it's worth the trouble, and it could potentially lead to problems, but it's your game and you should do whatever you find the most fun. But fortunately you can be a good roleplayer and a bad optimizer and still play an interesting character. Roleplaying without optimizing is possible. Without roleplaying, not so much.

PS: what moustaches have to do with this issue?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fozbek wrote:
Apparently, the point of this thread is for you to say we're having badwrongfun for wanting our archetypes to be both useful and flavorful. Sorry for treading on your sacred ground.

So making a thread about something over the internet is perfectly fine, just as long you don't expect people to actually comment giving their opinions. Those party poopers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fozbek wrote:
You're saying that it's impossible (or undesirable, which is even worse) to have archetypes that are both mechanically useful and flavorful.

Where did I ever said that. What is this, 4chan, were we like to put into each other's mouth words that were never said?

Yes, I do realize that you can have the same flavour with the regular class. To this, I reply: then what is the bloody point of the thread. You want a Sacred Sheriff without "gimping" yourself? Use the regular class. You want a gun at level 1? Use the archetype. You want to do something else entirely? Suit yourself, it's your game.

Complaying if an archetype is not as powerful "as it should have been" it's, in my opinion, a made up issue, as it is every argument about overpowered/underpowered options/classes/whathaveyou. It presumes that somehow you have played everything ever and have an extensive knowledge about how everything is going to go during a game, which is frankly impossible (90% of these threads are made by someone that HASN'T played the class/option in question, but he is somehow magically capable to know if it's "umbalanced" by just looking at the numbers). And it ultimately boils down to "my character kicks your character's ass".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that they are a fine way to introduce a mechanical significance to a background element. People who like to come up with character concept first like these, and minmaxer are gonna minmaxing anyway, it's not like a low +1 skill or ST is going to throw the game off balance. If your players come up with contrived reasons to justify why they have that trait just because they like the bonus, it's usually a sign that they will do that for feats, spells and whathaveyou, regardless of the fact that traits are available or not.

Besides, they are optional, so I don't really see the issue.

Removing the mechanical bonuses? Well that's just "describe your character picking from this limited list of features", which is actually worse than not having traits in the first place.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi, new on the forum here. I made this picture of the Pathfinder Iconics in pixel version, and someone suggested in another thread to use them as avatars, and that this is the right thread to ask for this.

Pixelated Iconics

Feedback on the pic appreciated.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Sup everyone, first time poster, long time PF player.
I made this pixel version of the Iconics of all the base classes, and I tought I'd share them with this messageboard.

Pixelated Iconics

What do you think?

To mods: if not the right board please move to the appropriate one.


©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.