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.


RSS

1 to 50 of 327 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Dragnmoon wrote:


Edit: My brain is going in circles... is there a difference?

If your speed is 6 squares, like for most of the humanoids, there isn't one.


Balance is indeed evil and has been the source of all the problems I've had in gaming.

Spoiler:
I wish I were joking.


Quindi siamo fermi? Cos'è successo?


Gotcha.
Actually, the first problem took care of itself (the GM eliminated me from the players). This campaign, on the other hand,
http://paizo.com/campaigns/XabulbasShadowrun4Pbp
has definitely stopped: the GM said he couldn't post anymore, but never took care of marking it as inactive.


It is not late to join, but the problem is that the DM disappeared.


Greetings, I need to know if the following requests are possible:
- Getting out of a campaign in order to not receive notifications anymore;
- Switching campaigns as "inactive" for the same reason.

The reason I'm asking is because a couple of campaigns have stopped and the GMs didn't make them "inactive" in the first place, and my campaign page is becoming really clogged up.


25

I can keep posting, I there are any problems I'll let you know in advance.


As I said, rules need to be interpreted and different GMs may come to different solutions.


ProfPotts wrote:
Now, obviously the more logical approach would be to count all the squares the bullet passes through for purposes of calculating range... but that's not what the Feat is saying, as far as I can tell. So - is that an intended part of the Feat, or something in need of errata?

Nope, it just needs some good old fashioned GM fiat. I, for example, would rule that no, you shoul count all the squares for calculating the final range. RAW don't say that, but RAW don't actually exist. You always need a GM that will have to interpreter them and to fill in the blanks of uncertainty. So ask yours.

PS: if you want a "official" answer from the developer, mark your post as FAQ as I did.


meatrace wrote:
Pixel Cube wrote:
No amout of optimizing is going to save you from a Nat 1 in a critical situation. To me, it's not even worth to optimize.
I don't know if there's ever been a better example of perfectionist fallacy.

I don't know about that, but I am sure that there is no better example for "can't be arsed".


meatrace wrote:
TOZ wrote:
meatrace wrote:


This is telling though.
You're assuming he's a douchenozzle because you're assuming his character wasn't ineffective. All I'm saying is...what if he is? What if he is a complete and utter waste of space, either role play wise or build wise, do other players (or GM) have absolutely no right to ever say anything to such a player/character?
No, PC and I are assuming he's a douchenozzle from the way he's acting. And PC will not play with someone who acts that was to him/her.

*throws up hands in frustration*

As I don't know PC in real life I can't assume anything as to how effective his characters are. I only have his reaction to go on, which seemed to be one of righteous indignation that ANYONE would suggest he should not be ineffective.

But this back and forth is getting neither of us anywhere. Suffice it to say that I don't think playing whatever character you want without taking into consideration party dynamics and playstyle is acceptable. Regardless of how one interprets PC's statement.

My characters are effective if they are allowed to be. This means: if real game situations come up and test their effectiveness. This means: actual gaming sessions, not optimizing/theorycrafting debates. No amout of optimizing is going to save you from a Nat 1 in a critical situation. To me, it's not even worth to optimize.

The point is: I don't strive for "effectiveness", whatever the hell that means in terms of actual gaming situations (I don't care what that means either). I strive for having a fun game with my pals. And when some of my pals start to say things like "stop being ineffective" (which usually means: why aren't you playing your character exactly the way I want it, usually as the result of a misguided perception of party composition), it's not fun to me anymore. If a player comes up to me and says "You are supposed to be the Striker while I Tank, why aren't you taking this feat to improve DPR", I assert my rights to throw his dice out of the window. Most optimizers I've met unfortunately talk like that.

As you pointed out before, meatrace, there are in-betweens. There are shades of gray. But to be honest, I couldn't be bothered by these shades: if someone approaches me and asks me why I'm not playing this build to improve the overral party effectiveness, I'm assuming he wants me do play a bunch of numbers and not a character.

If I want advice on how my character is doing MECHANICALLY, I'd rather ask the GM who is the final arbiter of the system used after all (and who usually suggests you to take the NOT optimized option, by the way).


TOZ wrote:
meatrace wrote:
But there are players insinuating that intentionally playing an ineffective character is always okay and that it's the height of arrogance to even imply that they have any responsibility to their group.
No, you had players outright stating that a player making demands of them would not be well received. Note that no statement of the characters actual effectiveness was made. Just that said player was criticizing another's character and demanding changes be made.

Was gonna respond to meatrace, but I think that TOZ nailed what I was going to say.

Wanting to play an intentionally nerfed character in a group and then complaining if you die is arrogant. Equally arrogant is someone that b&*&+es at you because you picked "the wrong feat" (from their subjective and restricted point of view, I must add). I'm not saying that one is acceptable and the other is not, they are both detrimental.


meatrace wrote:
Pixel Cube wrote:
leo1925 wrote:

That depends....

If your character being unoptimized (for any reason) causes the death of my character because your character can't lift his own weight then yes i have the right to look down to your unoptimized character and even tell you to optimize.

This is the reason I stopped playing with optimizers. This mindset. Right here. "Stop being ineffective". I don't even know where to start from to describe how incredibly wrong it is, so I won't try.

That said, I am glad that this board is generally a better place than most of the RPG messageboards on the net when it comes to obsessive optimizing and theorycrafting. People here being more polite than average, and the ability to ignore entire threads also helps.

Yes. How dare players have an expectation of their fellow players to actually try and not die.

"Try not to die" is not the same as "pick this feat/spell combo and that only, yes I am better than you because I can somehow foresee everything that the GM is going to throw at us, therefore this build I am imposing over you cannot fail, yes I am basically saying what character you should be allowed to play, YOU SHOULD BE THANKFUL FOR THAT".


Lvl 12 Procrastinator wrote:
I think if another player at my table looked down on me and told me I need to optimize, I would make a point of building an unoptimized monk sporting the Vow of Poverty the next time I died.

I think I would ask if I can play a Strenghless fighter with Skill Focus (Profession: Basketweaver) for good measure.


leo1925 wrote:

That depends....

If your character being unoptimized (for any reason) causes the death of my character because your character can't lift his own weight then yes i have the right to look down to your unoptimized character and even tell you to optimize.

This is the reason I stopped playing with optimizers. This mindset. Right here. "Stop being ineffective". I don't even know where to start from to describe how incredibly wrong it is, so I won't try.

That said, I am glad that this board is generally a better place than most of the RPG messageboards on the net when it comes to obsessive optimizing and theorycrafting. People here being more polite than average, and the ability to ignore entire threads also helps.


I can't think of anything that wasn't already asked/discussed in the individual threads.


IMHO, optimization/balance/minmaxing threads should be automatically cancelled 3.7 seconds after their creation, resulting in an autoban for the OP and all the board members who happened to be in a 17 mile radius, followed by a goat sacrifice to appease the Scorching Sun god.

That or I could simply ignore/hide them.


Stop don't liking what I like, guys


25
Jen the GM wrote:
Apologies. Life is too hectic to continue with this. I loved all of your characters and I was happy to GM for them. Happy holidays everyone

That's sad...


Thanks for your replies. I have printed the PCs pregens and I'll hand them over to them as a test. If they can understand even parts of it, I think I have the idea for their next Christmas Gift.


Could it be accessible to a non-english speaking 12 year old?

Hi, I'm Italian and I've been recently teaching my two 12 year olds cousins to how play pen and paper RPGs. Right now I'm using an homebrew, extremely rules-light system, and they are having a blast, so I tought that maybe it's time to upgrade to a proper system like the one in the BB. They aren't having any problem handling my simple system so I don't think the will have problems handling this basic Pathfinder, adn I know for sure that they would love the maps, artwork and miniatures.

The problem is neither of the speak or read english very good. They learn it at school, but not very well. Is the Beginner Box english to complicated for them? Could it help them learn a new language in addition to the game system with my supervision? I will be their GM and read the rules for them, but I'd like them to eventually start doing things on their own.

I could hope for the Italian version to be released, but I doubt that's going to happen (the Italian publisher for Pathfinder has no plans for the BB at the moments, and they have been notoriously slow and unprofessional in handling Pathfinder manuals and products so far). Therefore I'd rather not wait for something that could never be released.

What do you say? Is the BB english simple enough for somebody that is just starting to learn the language?


Monkeygod wrote:

/bump

This kinda died off, didn't it? Bad, bad Pixel, lol

Quoting myself:

Pixel Cube wrote:
I'm currently busy running two pbp campaigns here on the boards, so this will likely start by the end of the year.

Make that the start of the new year. I'm still busy with the two campaigns, so I'd rather end them first to be more focused on this adventure, than do all three half-assed.


Viktyr Korimir wrote:
Layander wrote:
I am not here to make an edition war so I will be specific. I want to be able to use things like pathfinder or 4th edition but when I try I hit speed bumps and I wanted your input.

Likewise, this is not intended as an edition war or a criticism of your desired play style, but have you considered that you might simply be playing the wrong game? D&D of any edition-- and by extension Pathfinder-- isn't designed to be Conan or Lord of the Rings so much as it's designed to be D&D. The entire combat system of D&D is based on doing the exact opposite of what you seem to want-- making more experienced adventurers practically invincible and giving them flashy new ways of destroying similarly larger-than-life monsters. Later editions of the game have only exaggerated this tendency by applying the same logic to lower-level PCs.

If you want a grittier fantasy game, more akin to your Conan or your Lord of the Rings, you should try a different ruleset. If you want combat to be quick and brutal, try Rolemaster. If you want magic to be powerful, but less world-changing, try Shadowrun 4th Edition without all the technology rules. (I'd make everyone Physical Magicians, though; if they want to be Conan, they can limit themselves.)

There are rules for making D&D and Pathfinder grittier, but in my opinion they don't really improve the game. All they really do is make powerful attacks and spells another kind of save-or-die. Still, if you want to try, click here and here and see if you can't find something that solves your problem.

I second this too. D&D just doesn't work for gritty fantasy adventures.


OberonViking wrote:

Nice roll for hit points.

I can only find +7 Sense Motive and 17 CMD. What have I missed?

2 ranks, +3 skill training, +3 skill focus. But you're right about the CMD, it should be 17.


25

Weekends are always slow on the forums, so don't worry


25

He has been active on the forums, but probably's just the weekend.


OberonViking wrote:
Pixel Cube wrote:
How are we handling the 2nd level hit points?
Roll hit points here. Re-roll One's with hit points. [This will probably be the only house rule I'll introduce.]

1d10 ⇒ 9


OberonViking wrote:
Wulfrid Flagbearer wrote:

I think I'll go with this one, Wulfrid the wolf-raised halfelf paladin. Will update the sheet soon and come up with a short backgroud tomorrow.

I'm also willing to go cleric if there are many who want to play martial characters.

As I often say: Play the character you most want to play.

I equally want to play both, so if we need an healer I'll be happy to be one.

How are we handling the 2nd level hit points?


Dotting. I have several level 1 characters ready, let's see...


The Intimidating Prowess Feat lets you add your Str to Intimidate in addition to Cha, so Pathfinder kinda have this covered if you really want to.


There is always the option of NOT using D&D system and its derivative in the first place. There are many PRGs that achieve a gritty and more realistic fantasy feel. Instead than butcher the D&D system, you should try one of those first.

I suggest Burning Wheel, A Song of Ice and Fire RPG (not the d20 one) and The Riddle of Steel.


A barbarian's goal should always be KILL EVERYONE, regardless of level or alignment.


Icyshadow wrote:
It tends to happen. Gorbacz just loves to attack me whenever I happen to mention those people I speak of. His vehement hatred of them drove this thread downhill, and if I weren't here, it wouldn't have happened.

Well, maybe you just should have ignored Gorbacz's post. Is not that difficult.


Steve Geddes wrote:

I am continually surprised by the emotions people invest in gaming companies and their products.

Sadly, this conversation did indeed proceed as expected. :(

I'm not seeing anything that bad in this conversation to be honest. RPG gamers are actually more educated and polite than the average person. And even the dreaded Edition Wars were nothing compared to the still raging Console Wars between videogamers. If you want to see "a surprising amount of emotion" on display, take a look at a random videogame board.


Icyshadow wrote:
Well, the disagreements on playstyle is enough (it happens all the time), but when a part of the community at the playtest times were ignored or just dismissed in favor of another group, I can understand why they're still somewhat sore about it. I had no part in it myself, but I am trying to see both sides of the issue, and they're not as bad as Gorbacz implies once you actually get to know them.

But I bet they weren't the only playtesters involved either. When you say that their experience was ignored and dismissed, you are probably forgetting other experiences that were considered and taken into account instead. My or your or somebody else's opinions about the game are not the only ones. The developers can't listen to everybody, and cannot accomodate every choice or playstyle.

The fact that they are actually listening to at least someone, and that the playtest is open, unlike most gaming companies, is something that I'm happy about, in my opinion at least.


Icyshadow wrote:

Well, I tried to keep this civil and instead YOU guys decide to jump (though at least Pixel is being polite about it). You are already biased against my pals from the start, so I might as well just be quiet and not feed you any more than I already have. The only point I am going to throw is this: "Try having fun when there is no balance and when your character is nothing more than dead weight to your allies by the end."

Also, "to each his own". Even though I could houserule the bad stuff, it doesn't mean it wasn't originall there.

Well, you just can't point out that one of the main developers rubbed you the wrong way and expect us to not be curious about it.

But let's not focus on that. I think that many disagreement about the game and playtest are mainly caused by our personal preferences and different expectations. That doesn't mean that we couldn't get along and disagree politely. The only thing I really wanted to know was whether Sean K was rude to you or not when you two were arguing, but I understand if you don't want to put more fuel on the fire.


Icyshadow wrote:
Let's just say it involved reports about game inbalance found in the playtests being ignored in favor of "did you kids have fun" style playtesting that kinda wrecked the game balance? There's a reason why there were debates about the Rogue and Monk being too weak a few months back. Now, shall we get back to the topic at hand before someone explodes with rage? :)

NO

WE MUST DISCUSS THIS NOW
Now I don't think I've seen that post, but I must say that I kinda agree with his vision of the game. Fun >>>>> Balance.

But that doesn't mean that ignoring a viewpoint in favour of another makes you rude and offensive, which is the topic we are discussing.

Did Sean K tell "look, the important thing is that you had fun" or "shut up about the balance and start having fun you morons"? It makes a world of difference.


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.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
a Ranger with four arms (Gods damned Advanced Race Guide playtest) who duel wields longbows (and still pales in comparison to the Sorcerer).

I'm sorry, I just lost it when reading this.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Pixel Cube wrote:
MurphysParadox wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
No non-combat challenges. That always ends up with at least half a dozen NPCs getting stabbed.
That is fine. You get them arrested. They run, you seal the city. They scream about how things are unfair, you say actions beget consequences and one of those guys you killed was the King's son. They break out, you hit them with a few 18 level assassins, TPK, game over, you are finally free! Yay!
That's a bit elaborate. I've always been a fan of "Guess what, ROCK FALLS, EVERYONE DIES" myself.
I asked for ways to do that on the boards. The overwhelming response was "You're a child if you do that to your players".

Unless they kinda deserve it. Also, HEY EVERYONE THE TARRASQUE'S IN TOWN or SUDDENLY EVERY NPC EXPLODES INTO 19d6 FIREBALLS or the old timers' favourite THIS DUNGEON IS NOT THE TOMB OF HORRORS, I SWEAR.


GRR Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire has very strong female characters, but I'm afraid they still get constant abuse (like everything else in the setting, to be honest).


MurphysParadox wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
No non-combat challenges. That always ends up with at least half a dozen NPCs getting stabbed.
That is fine. You get them arrested. They run, you seal the city. They scream about how things are unfair, you say actions beget consequences and one of those guys you killed was the King's son. They break out, you hit them with a few 18 level assassins, TPK, game over, you are finally free! Yay!

That's a bit elaborate. I've always been a fan of "Guess what, ROCK FALLS, EVERYONE DIES" myself.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
As has been said before Kelsey, there is no unarmed damage bonus. There is a flat unarmed damage value which ONLY counts on Unarmed Strikes. There is a feat that 'could' conceivably (though the rules are ambiguous) allow the Monk Unarmed Damage on Natural Attacks, but it's a feat they would have to take and get your explicit permission to use that way.

That's another rules argument I lost.

Quote:
He lost 3 levels of sorcerer, 3 levels of spellcasting progression, and could not Full Attack with Imbue Arrow because the spellcasting takes the normal action and you shoot the arrow as part of that. (So if he was willing to eat the +4 spell levels he could Quicken a second Imbued Arrow)

Nope, the spells were all free actions, and only the first one per round counted against his spells per day.

...Gods, I'm an idiot.

Don't be so hard on yourself. Finding a proper group takes time. I left mine because of personal reasons that had nothing to do with the game, so I know how's like.

But you know what we should do? We should turn this thread into a "Hey, guess what crazy s~%! my players want to do when I DM". You already shared yours (Zen archery and unarmed damage) but I feel like there's more. Let's all have a laugh on the stuff they tried to pull off with a straight face instead than get all depressed.

I know that every GM has been through there at least once. Come on, share your war story.


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.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Detect Magic wrote:
GM: Stop that. Problem solved.
Oh, how I wish I could get away with that.

Thing is, if you can't get away with that, then the group is beyond fixing and banning this or that isn't going to solve anything. It's pretty much established that the social contract between rpg gamers states that the one on GM duty can do that and always get away with it.

If your group doesn't respect this rule, it bloody should be.


InVinoVeritas wrote:
One other idea: Ban monks.

How do you roleplay that?


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
I asked, and they said that the rules do not obligate them to explain it

getbetterplayers.exe

But seriously, sounds like a disfuctional player/GM relationship to me. You should sit down and have a nice talk about the whole experience of your game together, because no amout of GM vetoes is going to stop a player with this mindset to munchkin his way up to Pun-Pun.


In Italy we have an author called Licia Troisi that writes popular fantasy sagas. She's not so much "critically acclaimed" but her books sell, which baffles me because I have read them and they are ugly, unimaginative self-insert wankery fanfiction based on her and her friends' D&D campaigns, ridden with unlikeble characters and terrible exposition. She's our equivalent of Stephanie Meyer, in a way.

1 to 50 of 327 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 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.