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

Ragnarok Aeon's page

771 posts. 1 review. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was hesitant at first, but then I got to take a look at the PHB and got really excited and ran a quick game, borrowing the PHB and Adventure Module HotDQ from one of my friends.

While 5E addressed so many of my problems, it also introduces so very many.

The novelty of Advantage/Disadvantage quickly wears off because everything applies to it and there is no other mechanic to fall back onto.

Bounded accuracy, I love the idea, in fact E6 feels like it's baked in; it's not, however. Levels 1 & 2 are super risky (half your enemies have advantage which means twice the critical, which doesn't need to confirm btw, it's easier to be one-shot slain at level 1 by CR appropriate enemies), and magical / nonmagical divide while less apparent is even stronger. One of their simplifications was the removal of most AoO, which means Reach weapons no longer strike first onto people charging on their face, casters no longer need to worry about casting in front of melee units, etc. I could go on, but I think this rant has gone on long enough.

I love the backgrounds section (although the inspiration is rather lackluster further pushing the already repetitive mechanic) and would take them any day over Pathfinder's Traits. The classes are pretty awesome, I'd like to incorporate their version of Fighter, Rogue, and even Paladin into the Pathfinder game.

It's a mixed bag, which means I'd really only want it for inspiration. I won't even talk about how much the campaign book turned me away in this post.

tldr; I won't be switching over. I feel like I'm better off modding PF to my liking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
With a few minor changes, to the spells, it's surprising how less broken magic feel. Take Knock for example; A wizard can still use it to automatically bypass a lock, but it makes a loud knock that will alert everyone in the proximity. You might be able to crack a lock, but only to the equivalent of a brawler knocking it lose himself. The rogue is the one who can get you in silently.

There's also the fact that many traditional buff spells require the wizard to concentrate to maintain the effect, meaning that wizards can't multitask in combat as well as they could in previous editions.

It's still not perfect obviously. Sleep is still hilariously potent, and saves don't scale like they should, especially considering that there are now six different ones.

Yeah. Sleep itself is a weird gamble of a spell. Since it goes off of hitpoints not hitdice and you can get anywhere between 5 and 40 hitpoints worth to knock out (may not even work at all to working too well). It's also got fiddly bits, counting out hitpoints turns into accounting. Clearly an example of a spell that's gone in the wrong direction.
I am with wake on this one. I think the hp angle is easier to run and it adds and interesting angle to the game. Namely: it adds the concept of "weakening up" an enemy for a spell-based knock out. It also keeps those low level spells potentially useful over all 20 levels (because even Asmodeus might have under 40 hit points or whatever late in the fight).

It felt like it's more of a lateral move in practice. I actually like the concept of weakening enemies to affect them better. However from actual play, I guess it just feels more fiddly because I'm not used to it. As the GM, I know the HD and Will saves (or at least have a quick sheet). Normally 5 quick rolls (those closest who failed sleep until 4HD Sleeps. That time, I had to check who was in the range, who of the 5 had the lowest hp (one was shot and the other was attacked with swords) subtract the 3 and 5 from the 21 and decide that the one in the back (nearest to the spell origin) would be the third one affected.

YMMV; In that particular case, it actually would have been more in the player's favor if we had gone with the pathfinder version of the spell, if only because two of the buggers who actually fell asleep were going down next turn anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For better or worse, attack rolls, skill checks, and saves all follow the same track. The proficiency bonus. This means replacing a save with a skill or an attack is quite easy. DCs are universal and having contests between the three is easier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

With a few minor changes, to the spells, it's surprising how less broken magic feel. Take Knock for example; A wizard can still use it to automatically bypass a lock, but it makes a loud knock that will alert everyone in the proximity. You might be able to crack a lock, but only to the equivalent of a brawler knocking it lose himself. The rogue is the one who can get you in silently.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

At first, I too was skeptical of 5E (extremely skeptical) even after I saw some of the playtest stuff. But after having looked through the book, making a handful of characters, and testing a little; I feel I've been pulled into the sway.

A lot of people mention feats, and 5E's lack of them. The feats that are there are actually well worth it and generally balanced, as others have said. However, what's not mentioned, is the lack of need for feats. For example Weapon Finesse is there by default (Finesse on Weapons). Two-Weapon Fighting is there by default, the feat dual wielder just adds onto it giving a bonus to AC, better use with non-light weapons, and quick drawing two weapons at the same time. You can attack between movements without having to take the long feat chain of Dodge->Mobility->Spring Attack.

Another thing that I really liked that I honestly didn't think I would is the proficiency bonus and the way they did skills. If your character is proficient, they get their bonus, if not they don't get the bonus. It means that you don't have to keep pumping into a skill to keep it relevant. I was worried that this would mean that Lv1 is not really any different than Lv20. This is not true. Even though the characters stay the same, the DCs remain static. What this means is that your character can accomplish more amazing things as they level. Yet similarly, if a high level character has a low ability score and is not proficient in a skill, they will be worse than a proficient character with a good relevant score even if the latter is a much lower level. Also, it doesn't show up much, but for all those in-between you can sometimes just use half-proficiency.

Another thing that I really love that noone has mentioned is that the keen eye can pick out. Although the number of options are not bountiful right now, it is set up right from the get go for expansion and thus homebrew. The races are simple and elegant, but still provide a lot of flavor that will last a campaign and all the classes have swappable parts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trapfinding just isn't that great in a game where traps have been nerfed to hell and other classes can do it just as well (Ranger archetype). Though this really depends on how you see traps in your game. Poison Use is a really nice ability to have when you actually use poisons, but I think it's a fair trade.

As far as ki goes, Rogues don't get to apply their level where the ninja does, does not get an extra attack, get half the bonus to speed when using ki to boost speed (rogues only get 10ft, where ninja get 20ft) does not get to use it to improve stealth, does not get a reduction on acrobatic checks, and must use wisdom (which most players don't bump up very high on a rogue, they'd rather have a charismatic rogue).

All the cool ninja tricks require ki, which the rogue will have very little of (about half as much as the ninja). The rogue gets the stripped down version of ki which requires them to have the wisdom of a cleric to actually be worth it.

A ninja can also take Evasion after 10th level as a trick, thus only really missing out on trapfinding.

And the 20th level ability (which to be fair doesn't come up in most games) is much better. They get the ability to become completely undetectable even by see invisibility, or even true seeing for 2 minutes, and with every sneak attack they can deal ability score damage (no saves). Where with the rogue's master strike the enemy gets a save which is determined by the rogue's intelligence.

tldr,
What it really it just comes down to: Ninja ki > Rogue ki


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GeraintElberion wrote:


Also, 'Were and 'where' are not homophones and the H represents the small aspiration.

Everyone I have heard pronounces the T in 'cents' too, and won/one is nobody's idea of a homophone. So we're left with there/their/they're and a knotty problem... chwarae teg.

'where' and 'wear' are homophones regardless of the 'h' ("We're" is just pronounced differently, unless it's 'were' as in 'werewolf'). Also, anytime there is an 's' after an 'n' that 't' sound squiggles it's way in there, and won and one sound exactly the same.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have a bigger problem with the antipaladin, they make a complete 180 on both good and law. I can see a paladin who trying to be good, but feels law is holding him back. Or the paladin who is lawful, but feels that good is holding him back and making him weak. But the, "screw this I'm gonna go chaotic evil" mentaility would never be seen in a person who could've become a paladin.

I've never had a player want to play pretty much everything under the sun, but never the anti-paladin. Maybe greywardens, necromancers, assassins, cannibalistic barbarians, body snatchers, doppelgangers. But never anti-paladins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When players get upset with their GMs about their Paladins, it's a communication issue. Paladins are a touchy and highly variable class, despite usually being the chaste and lawful ones. If you wanna play one in a particular fashion, especially if you know it to deviate from the norm, but even if you don't think it's a big problem, talk to your GM about it.

If there's a problem, it's not that paizo didn't do a good job with the class or the alignments, it's the player and the GM didn't agree.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Ciretose has a problem of not knowing what he's asking for. It's not realism or control or even etiquette. In this thread, anyone with any ability to read subtle context cues can probably tell that he's just trying to understand why people are calling his games badwrongfun for asking/requiring his players to make an effort to keep the immersion.

If there's something that actually annoys me on these boards is that the "player entitlement" is so high that GMs who ever say "no" or even just "wait, let's work something out" are bashed as over-controlling GMs who don't care about their players and just want to narrate their own story. It never occurs to anyone that maybe, the GM might be hosing down one player so they aren't ruining it for all the other players. Because if another player is telling another how to play their character, they really just need to mind their own business, right? Forget the setting, forget any sense of a story, forget what the other players want. You as a player are entitled to a character and as long as its in the rules, you may as well play that and no silly GM is gonna stop you because rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If wizards are really supposed to be the all-powerful world-altering super mind, why ever have them at level 1. What's the point of levels if they don't mean anything. Beef up the wizard, make it a prestige class. That's what wizards in literature are, people who spent most of their life studying to gain great power, not usually the adventuring heroes who just happen upon a quest. Most don't usually work with people who do everything for you nor do they usually keep a bunch of bums who can't keep up with them. I mean some do, but those are always such awkward times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A lot of people confuse background with roleplaying. Background is there to provide plot hooks, determine motivations, and connect your character to the world and while it can help with roleplaying, it is something separate. Roleplaying is playing the role of your character, getting into the mindset of your character trying to figure out how your character would act in said situation. Roleplaying isn't acting, it's going through the actions; you can even roleplay your character in 3rd person, "My character goes up to the door, puts his ear next to it to try and hear what's being said between the generals on the other side of the door."

However, every now and then you will have elitists who have their own version of roleplaying, and for them drawn out table-theatre is their thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nepherti wrote:

Like blackbloodtroll has already told you guys, and I have already stated. I had an overreaction. I have cooled down. I am fine now. The gm agreed with my concern. maybe some of the things I said contradicted each other, but I was mad and I apologize. It can happen. I started this thread because I was upset about something I knew was no big deal, something any of the great gamers of paizoland could be totally fine with. But I wasn't, and I knew I was in the wrong, and I needed advice on how to stop this horrible anti-evil problem I have.

To the 95% of responders who helped me get over it, thank you.
edit: realized first sentence didn't fit with theme of post.

It's good to hear you got it worked out. Sadly, some posters in this forum can't let things go, and many more just don't read past the first page, or even the first paragraph, some don't even read past the title. The best thing to do in the case of this thread is to just forget and use the hide button.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The real solution depends on what exactly it is about evil characters you don't like.

If the problem is, "He might turn on us" then it's not alignment it's the player.

If the problem is, "He'll put us in uncomfortable positions" then it's not the alignment, but the player playing his character like a fool.

If the problem is, "His character holds beliefs and does actions that make me (as a player) uncomfortable" then you should talk about it, out of game.

If the problem is, "His character holds beliefs and does actions that make my character (or other characters in the party) uncomfortable" then you should roleplay it when it comes up.

If the problem is that you're worried that the party will fall apart when such issues come up, the real issue is that you don't trust the other player/s (or yourself) to play characters that will put their differences aside.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A lot of people worry too much about "alignment" when what they're really worried about is party cohesion. The important thing is that they aren't playing the party backstabber. Even a LG Paladin who tosses the rogue in jail (or even worse just straight kills) for being too greedy can be a disruption to fun gameplay.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
MY CHARACTER DOESN'T CARRY A RANGED WEAPON BECAUSE.....

The guy wielding a bow isn't carrying a melee weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the curse is in your eyes, then cut 'em out and get them replaced.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Terquem wrote:
The DM must, without fail, entertain the group, and people are entertained in different ways, but they must be entertained.
The Players also must, without fail, entertain the GM.

Both are true statements, if the GM fails to entertain the players, there are no players and there is no group and no game. If the players fail to entertain the GM, it becomes work, and the motivation for working on and presenting the campaign is gone, and the game falls to pieces because the GM is no longer putting in the enthusiastic work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So one of the players was playing a 5th level Dwarven Foehammer in the game I was running. He overran a heavy war horse and proceeded along to overrun a second one. I guess having a +16 to overrun really helps with that, but it was an amazing tactical maneuver. Causing two people to lose their horses, one ending up prone with the horse.

What's are some ridiculous but amazingly useful tactics you've seen?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it depends on what's in the area. Otherwise it'd be like people stopping in the middle of a dungeon to buy gear.

But, you know, a druid with full casting, 3/4 bab, 6+ skill points, an animal companion at first level, and a handful of other class abilities is just so helpless without being able to shapeshift into a dinosaur.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
brreitz wrote:

This is a great idea for a Wuxia campaign!

Effectively,you could have everyone be a gestalt character (from 3.5's Unearthed Arcana) with one of classes being monk. You end up with a game where everyone is jumping and tumbling and kung-fu fighting, but where their other "main" class become the focus of their character. I.e., a fighter would be a master of weapons, a wizard would be a wizened old martial arts master, etc.

If everyone knows what they're getting into, this could be a lot of fun. You could also split up the monk abilities, and allow everyone to pick two or three. I would also ditch the alignment restriction entirely, and watch out for weird archetype combos.

The lawful alignment restriction for monk never really made sense to me. The monk is all about devotion. Devotion does not mean Lawful, otherwise clerics would have to be all Lawful as well.

I've actually have wanted to run an Japanese style game at some point with Yokai and Samurai (Cavalier/Knights), Ninja(Rogues), and Shinto(Oracles).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Suddenly this is a GM vs Player argument... Problem is that both are needed.

rant:
The whole thing is actually pretty analogous to producer and consumer. If the producer produces s@+& and doesn't take in the concerns and needs of the consumer, he doesn't have any and has wasted any sort of investment in such a thing. Consumers will just go to another producer, but they still need someone to produce even if that means that have to produce things for themselves.

What I find ridiculous is the thought that a player has spent more time, money, and thought than the game master; that would imply that the "player" has somehow taken control of the game since they are creating more content and contributing more to it than the "game master"/host of the game. I mean what's even the point of having a proxy game master who apparently sucks at narrating your stories? So you can play out your character in your world?

Players should have control over their characters, with this I agree. The game / campaign is a combination and fleshing of ideas. Sometimes the players even contribute to creation of the world. But if the players have the same responsibility and power as the game master, what is the GM for? Everyone is a GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ugh, I hate inconsistency in gaming as well. I can recall one game where the DM decided that the horse that I summoned with the mount spell(he has weird summoning house rules) was considered an enemy mage and an extreme threat, but in that very same city a Goblin teleported right into the port and not a single eyelash was batted at it.

However being spiteful towards the GM is never helpful because if the GM is going to be a control freak they will be a control freak and their NPCs will be invulnerable and you will be super frail. Communicating with and working with the GM is infinitely better.

Following that same note, I hate being a player in games where I'm trying to play a character that fits in the game and somebody comes along with a cheese build disregarding setting entirely and expects to have complete control and has a hissy fit when any of their class features is even the slightest bit limited. (This has happened before and it was such a horrible experience that I left the game)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also something that bothers me is the way that exotic weapons work. I feel like exotic weapons shouldn't be its own subgroup but should be a regional thing. Guns should just be simple weapons (like crossbows) that are exotic outside of Alkenstar. Eastern Weapons shouldn't be exotic in the east. I also feel that monks should be able to use weapons appropriate to their region otherwise they really do just end up being Chinese immigrants or Asian Wannabes (if they aren't really from the East). Exotic uses of a weapon should still be considered exotic but it should still fall under simple / martial.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think people (I mean everyone, myself included) just like complaining and arguing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doug OBrien wrote:
Gaekub wrote:

Okay, let's approach this from another angle. Let's say I have a character concept. I want to make a character with a little bit of inherent magic, but not enough to make him a sorcerer. Let's also say he used these powers and some cunning to make himself a better combatant than those stronger and larger than him.

Alright, now what do I want out of this? Sneak Attack is good, as it fits the oppurtunistic idea of his character. I reject vivisectionist out of hand, as the alchemist abilities don't fit the idea, and anyway, rogue is the obvious first choice.

So I look at rogue, and realize that the only real way to get built in magic as a rogue is the minor/major magic rogue talents, which are very limited, and even worse run off of intelligence instead of charisma, which doesn't fit the idea of a weak sorcerer.

True, you could go for a sorcerer/rogue multiclass, but that's awkward, and has some weird side effects (taking a bloodline even though you only have a trace of magical power, for example.)

So instead, I go for the ninja, and voila! Magic(ish) powers based off charisma, sneak attack, poison, all in one easy class! I have created a completely non-"eastern" character using an "eastern" class.

Would you bar this character from a game with no ninjas, and why?

EDIT: Oh, and just to cover my bases, this character uses daggers, wears studded leather armor, speaks common and dwarven, and comes from the largest human town/city/settlement in this theoretical setting.

"Admiralackbar.exe has already launched. Are you sure you want to start another session?"

See, I see this example as rubbish. In your excuse for not multiclassing and then the problems with minor magic (and you describe yourself as a sorcerer). Your problem can easily be fixed with magic items and UMD (which is a class skill for rogues), but if you don't want to go down that route, you don't even need to multiclass, that's what Eldritch Heritage is for.

Why people really want the Ninja over the Rogue:

The real reason people want ninja instead of rogue isn't because of fluff, it's because the class was just built better. Traps are hardly used, and when they are, they are hardly an encounter. When people want to be sneaky of course they would rather have poison and better stealth than the trap finding ability which can easily be handed off to other classes with archetypes (the ranger trap finder is better suited to this than the rogue)

The ki pool that a rogue gets is based on Wisdom which isn't very important to rogues. Flavor-wise, how often do you hear someone who wants to play the "wise" rogue? The ki-pool that the rogues get is half as effective: obtained way later (advancedcit's smaller (no bonus for level), no extra attack for just having ki, and half the speed for the expense of a ki point that ninjas get, for some reason being a ninja makes you better. The ninja on the other hand, which gave up evasion for the ki-pool can get it unhindered with an advanced talent (which is worth it when you realize just how little traps come up and affect adventurers in a actual pathfinder game). This is the biggest offender, the reason people really love or hate the class.

The ninja tricks, which one can use are stupid awesome and mimic the effects of 1st-level spells. This makes minor / major magic pale in comparison when you realize that you can cast any of these as long as you have ki points to burn. Finally, the master ninja tricks which the rogues are completely cutoff from are even able to mimic abilities from other classes such as assassination from the assassin class and unarmed damage as a monk, they have bombs that blind, they can walk through walls and walk on air.

If they didn't kick ki in the balls before handing it to the rogues and limit the master ninja tricks to the ninja, there probably wouldn't be as big of a reaction that caused such a huge split between players who wanted to play a clearly superior supernatural ninja and GMs who don't want that "asian fanboy smut" of a class that sticks the rogue in the shadow in a figuratively.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm, can we get a list somewhere of these trap feats?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So I'm running a short game for a while, and well my players are so used to sooo much cheese that things were awkward when starting up.

The Stats:
Hearing statements like, "An 8 is pretty bad, but a 7, that's just terrible!" and "A 13 isn't terrible, but it's not good" and seeing a player get all frowny face because she wasn't sure what to do with her stats (None were below 10).

Piecemeal Armor:
One of the players wanted to use piecemeal armor, it turns out when you build a suit of medium armor with piecemeal rules it's much better and incurs no movement penalty. So those rules straight out banned.

Combat:
One player was wielding two weapons to use two combat maneuvers as a full round action, (checked the rules, it doesn't work like that).

The Rolls:
Trying to run Jade Regent with the caravan rules, two of the players both kept rolling and taking the better roll. I had to ask them to please not do that.

They aren't terrible players, but they are so used to cheese and a harsh DM (not me) where if they didn't cheese they would be screwed. They are used to gestalt, and feats that bumped up their stats, and everything stacking, and taking flaws and traits, and getting feats for writing a background, and looking for rule exploitations just to be on par with their campaign (and still being outshined by the DM's OPNPCs), I know because I've played in those campaigns.

But I'm trying to run a game not drenched in such cheese, and so I have to convince them that a 14 is indeed a good number, that a 20 in an ability score at 1st level is amazing, that there are DCs below 25, that I'm not going to set them in a fight with a black pudding at 1st level, that they aren't going to be outshined by every npc that they meet.

Overall, it's going good.

So has anyone else dealt with this situation?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that you can get rid of an ioun stone; you can't get rid of a trait and traits are usually chosen at the beginning of the game before you know what you're going to get. If two characters, one a wizard 9 and one a wizard 7/fighter 2 find a pair of orange ioun stones, it would be pretty balls for the pure wizard to be able to boost up his CL beyond his level but the multiclass character to get nothing out of it.

This is clearly an anti-multiclass perspective. You're punishing those who are trying to mix it up. Quit being racist against half-elves...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unless you're looking to be romantically involved or shipping someone, I don't really see the fascination with having someone with the opposite orientation game with you.

I mean, you'll never see someone say, "I'm not into chubby chicks, but I sure would love to game with a 'chubby chaser'" or "I'm not really into dating outside my race, but I'd love to game with some interracial couples".

To me, it just seems like it really shouldn't ever be the deciding point of whether or not to game with them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Saint Caleth wrote:
Conversely, Atheists can be some of the worst sheeple. As they say, a little bit of knowledge is the most dangerous thing.

I think the problem comes from when people think they know it all. Most humans are susceptible, regardless of what forces they believe control the world. I used to blame religion too, then I looked at atheists, I use to blame my country for being stupid, but then I looked at all the failures other countries were capable of, and then it clicked. The world is full of stupid people, and everyone is stupid at some point.

We don't have infinite time to check and verify everything and so in order to delve and focus in one area, we tend to neglect another so we have to rely on trusting that someone else who's spent a significant amount of time on their selected subject. Sometimes that other person we trust is family, sometimes it's a priest, sometimes it is a scientist with credentials.

Who you trust with what information is important. Anyone who trusts a single source for large quantities of information is doomed to be a tool. Atheist or theist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saint Caleth wrote:
Humans do indeed have an evolutionary pre-disposition to making up patterns and explanations. That is why it especially important for everyone to think critically all the time. Atheists are generally just the people who understand this and take it the most seriously I have found.

Atheist elitism for the win. Clearly, not believing in a god or gods means you think critically about the world. You're not going to be scammed if your an atheist etc. If you are one of the sheeple who does believe that's there's a god out there, clearly your mind is poisoned and you just aren't as likely to understand how important it is to think critically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I was in middle school, I lived in SC, because I have darker skin and black hair, someone thought I looked Muslim, so I got threatened with, "You a towel head? You gonna blow up some planes?" while the kids cracked their knuckles...

I find that hard to believe is religiously motivated, unless by "religiously motivated" you mean a movement against a religion (and really ethnicity is the proper term at this point).

Religion doesn't tell people to kill and hate people, specific preachers do. If a preacher tells someone to kill or hate someone, religion gets blamed. If an insane doctor tells someone to cut up a living person for "science", the doctor is blamed.

I'm not Christian, and I'm not Islamic, hell I'm not even religious, but I'm not going to blame religion for people being dumbasses.

Sure religion is intertwined with culture, so is science, technology, history, environment, government, and economy. Even without religion, dumbasses will still find a reason to hate someone. Such as "Lesbians are removing the amount of available women", "Immigrants are taking all of our jobs", "Japanese are corrupting our youth with violent and lustful cartoons and video games". Blame religion if lets you sleep at night, but it's just stupid humans being stupid.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I too know a guy that only plays females. He always plays them as lesbians (often also into bestiality) pretending to be male, until he reveals he is an "extremely beautiful and elegant lady". His female acting skills aren't as convincing as he thinks they are.

Out of character he claims to be a lesbian in a man's body. He's also super sensitive especially about drug jokes or poop jokes (which rarely comes up, but he reacts so strongly to them if they do). He is somehow managing a polygamous relationship with two girlfriends (who are also into each other, so it's an honest relationship). Oh yeah and he keeps random weapons hidden around his house (to be prepared for a burglar at any time) which he is proficient in (I cannot actually verify this claim, but I believe he spent the time to learn how to wield them). He's actually an okay guy, but definitely not what you would call normal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I identify as straight, the truth is that I am attracted to people with a pretty face, silky hair, and soft skin regardless of sex. This is difficult to talk about, not because I'm afraid of people ostracizing me, but because I don't want people to misunderstand. I still prefer the feminine figure, I like cute and pretty people. I don't want macho gay guys going after me. I don't really want to and shop with the gay crowd and act like them, because that's not who I am. I'm not the hollywood bisexual stereotype who will bang anything. I still judge people by how pretty they are. I have always found muscles unattractive, so masculine figures definitely bother me. For me, I just don't talk about my interests out of convenience. Too much explaining, and it's not like my life is or ever will be in shambles because I don't talk about it. Sometimes I consider telling people about it, but it just seems like it would take too much work for me to not be misunderstood. Sometimes I hope that I'll meet a girl and be surprised. I really don't know how else to go about it because asking someone if they have a penis would just seem rude.

I find the terms straight or gay or even bisexual too limiting to properly describe my orientation. I have a gay friend who says I'm not gay, so what am I!?

(y*n*)y


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

Irreligious people don't kill people because they believe God told them too.

You can't look at history honestly and not realize how many wars were fought over religion. Protestants vs Catholics, Christians vs Muslims, genocides and ethnic cleansing...

You have a better argument for Hitlers genocide being based on Religion than you do for either Stalin or Mao.

Actually most wars were fought for territory and economy. Even those religious wars. Religion is just a big excuse. Most people don't fight wars because "God told them too". Most people fight wars because they are paid and/or their authority told them too. Sometimes they will have "God's support" according to their priests, higher ups, etc. However, that's not the reason people usually fight. Religion is really only there to comfort them for if and when they die.

You use religion as a scapegoat, leaders use religion as a tool, but soldiers use religion as a comfort.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Turner wrote:

To Aretas, at al.:

Atheists aren't afraid of satire.

We're not afraid to poke fun at ourselves, and we're not offended when you join in.

1) Those are hilarious.

2) That's a pretty broad generalization. I know plenty of atheists who will rage on satire.

So you know a couple of atheists who aren't afraid of satire. I know a couple of Christians who aren't afraid of satire. That doesn't mean that all Christians are cool. Stupid stereotyping. Dealing with satire has absolutely s~@# to do with what you believe.

Personally, I think most atheists aren't at all any better than the religious types. Here's why. They will read something in a magazine and believe it must be true. They don't really check the credentials, or the science behind it. They aren't any better the masses that sit around and take the word from a religious figure.

There are just as many quarrels about history and what is ethical or moral within the atheist community as there are with people who believe in one or many gods.

One of the dumbest things I've heard was Religion vs Evolution. That doesn't even make sense. You can believe in evolution and still have a religion. I've heard theories about how "God made life able to adapt to survive and grow". It's creationism vs evolution, but people are stupid and mess it up, making broad generalizations.

What do you call people aliens and magic? Are they religious too? Even if they don't believe in gods?

Many atheists are not respectable in my eyes because they act like they are better than most people and yet they're only reporting what they read. No better than a priest, really.

I respect most scientists and people who pursue the truth. To do such is admittance to the fact that there's still things you don't know. The only reason that so many religions are refuted is because of so many claims of things that have been shown to be contradictory to what actually happens or what has been found. I mean would you trust a scientist who's claimed so many things that have been proven to be false?

In fact, if most religions weren't so stagnant from becoming organizations and trying to standardize and preserve their doctrines and control its followers, there'd probably be more religious people.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is an iconic with a 6 in charisma, his name is Harsk. Harsk doesn't have the social issues that some GMs associate with a 7 in charisma. He isn't constantly talking, he isn't being super annoying. Npcs aren't constantly attacking or refusing service to him or his group. In fact Harsk is stoic...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
I don't want a tome of legalese to be able to play a simple game.
It already is that. "Codifying" it just clarifies the writer's intentions. Clarification is the opposite of legalese... I find it ironic that so many gamers think that keeping terminology confusing makes it more accessible to the general public...

What is being argued at this point isn't simply keeping terminology consistent and simplified. What is being argued now is for every detail, every option, every combination, to be explained so that the GM doesn't have to make any decisions on their own. That's simply not feasible. The GM should be able to run the game without having to resort to a 6000 page tome with full correspondence just to make sure that he has ruled correctly on how fireball works. Yes, there is some hyperbole in there but that is the direction the rules would have to go with how I see many people complain about rule 0.

It's time to just play the game and have fun. It's how we used to do it as kids. We can do it again.

What's being argued for is that the writer's intentions to be clarified so that the GM can focus on decisions such as where the plot will go, what encounters to use, what monsters and bad guys to send out against the PCs, how the PCs will react, etc. However, if you believe that GM's time and energy should be deciphering archaic passages and fighting off rules lawyers who interpreted said passages differently, that's your prerogative.

I do believe that such a project would be exhaustive and wouldn't add much at this point (perhaps if Paizo ever does a second edition, they should consider this). One of the suggestions given was to mark all the words that are game terms (such as capitalization or italicizing, this is already done with spells actually); do you really believe that would make all the rulebooks multiply in size?

Let's also clarify another thing, I'm a rules light kind of guy (I play Pathfinder for the immense flavor it gives), so I prefer to have some freedom with the game. Too many rules and clutter the gameplay. I would never ask for more rules. But by God, I want the rules that are there to be clear so that they can be consistent.

I'll be honest my understanding of stealth and perception in this game has floated back and forth and even now I'm still not sure if I actually really understand them.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

High charisma, low wisdom, always ask questions about everything. Have brightly colored and outlandish clothing. Don't be a disciplined follower, play an oracle for a gnome effect.

OR

You could wear a big red cone hat and a big fake white beard and stand still in grass watching people as you try to be incognito.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cars would be great and would compliment the air ships, but I would keep them exclusive to the rich. It should be one of those expensive luxuries. It also have limitations on where it can be used and would probably have a chance to break down on rough terrain.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:
So what can make this better?

The Paladin telling the children, "Let me raise your spirits with purifying light and warmth," as he sets the nursery ablaze.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The weirdest part about DR/Evil and DR/Good, is when players will summon evil outsiders to fight evil.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Paizo is doing a great job with Golarion but with just that one setting it is busy. To add in all the baggage that comes from D&D, even just the good baggage, Paizo would have its hands full. I'd rather see Paizo grow on its own roots. I doubt it will be done with Golarion by the time the mechanics need readjustment and a new edition is due. In the mean time, there's nothing stopping you from converting creatures into your home games.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe I'm the one with a messed up morality, I don't know. I remember seeing videos of the death of Hussein, I wasn't really into it but I knew a lot of people who were cheering and even a few who laughed because it was a "bad man" who died. I saw that as nothing more than petty revenge, and I saw the people who laughed at death as twisted because this is a guy who had no impact on their personal lives. Sure, the government did terrible things under Hussein's rule, but nobody remembers all the terrible things that our very own country has done, Vietnam has a lot of examples but it is not the only time. This is coming from the guy who thinks that torture may be necessary at times to save lives. While I think it's wrong that innocents get hurt, I understand that casualties happen when using mass weapons.

Let's all gather our money and hate to track down and kill a guy. What for? His army kidnapped and raped. So you fund another army who also happens to kidnap and rape.

Some people like to stir s&~+ up. Some people like to make scapegoats. Hey guys, let's all kill all the bad men in this world. No one's really taking the time to notice that maybe it's not the bad men corrupting the world but terrible humanity and it's violent and controlling behaviors that produces these "bad men". I don't think that a lot of people who like to rile people up realize just how similar they are to the people they rally against. Ignorance can found some of the gravest injustices.

You know what I really hate though, when someone gets angry at me for not wanting to get stirred up in issues far away that I'm not really well informed on or even necessarily involved in; especially when I have much more impertinent issues at my doorstep. Some people would rather hammer up someone else's home instead of take care of their own woodwork.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Kender... Every encounter with them has always been a plucky, kleptomaniac who won't shut up. What's worse is they've usually got a thick suit of plot armor allowing them to survive and the parasites live amongst sentient creatures stealthily pocketing the resources away. They insult everyone they can, rubbing salt into the wounds. They are the most vile of evil, and they have mystical abilities to deter the Paladin's pinging radar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had one session where I was playing a bard who had a rival way back when they were younger who beat him up and stole of my bard's songs. Years later the rival had become famous playing my bards songs, so during an extremely large and important concert I knocked him out (with my fist!) and ended up replacing him and got to play my very own songs showing off my own band which had an illusionist to work the lights...

and it was glorious


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Abraham, nobody is telling anyone to sit around. However if you aren't paying attention to what you're doing, you could very well make problems worse. Sometimes you have to step back and make sure what you're doing is right. If you aren't doing that, you're being irresponsible and could very well contribute to the miserable state of the world. Congratulations on being proactive, but I think it's much better to be proactive in a way that actually advocates your ideals. It's a pain to have people sit on their asses when you're trying to accomplish a goal to help everyone, it's an even bigger pain when someone escalates problems because they don't know what they're doing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also love how often people can talk about how totally righteous they are. If you don't pay attention to where you're throwing that money; you could very well be funding the same kind of evils that you despise (funding a military that kidnaps and rapes to hunt down a man for kidnapping and raping). I find it more interesting that there are so very many people who are willing to toss money to other countries yet are also unsympathetic to the poverty within their own country. I think has something to do with "Third World" and "First World". If you're in a "First World" country, you're just not trying hard enough, but if you're in a "Third World" country you are dependent on that money. Never try to improve a person, just give them stuff; that's the first world way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, how do you "hack" a tabletop? If a GM isn't up to the task of saying no to when a player intends to break the game, then the GM is failing the other players.

Let's get into more detail about this, about "breaking" the game. At what point does the game "break"? For me, it's when the players can no longer enjoy the game. If that comes because the GM can no longer provide challenges, check if it's the lack of innovation from the GM or if the player's have an "I win" button that they use for every scenario. Sometimes it is one player that has all winning tools, in which case you have to spread those tools to the other players. The game breaks when people are not having fun.

In no case does the "developer's intentions" matter... For all I know, the developers could have intended for the Solars to take divine retribution for being called down to grant someone's petty wish.

"The rules say..." and "I'm just playing my character" are no excuse for someone to allow themself to be abused.

1 to 50 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 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.