|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Okay it looks like a few problems are popping up because people don't remember what this thread was actually about...
This thread was asking why people use Pathfinder for low-magic games. It is a legitimate question that has every right to be here (Most games have at least one house rule, even PFS has its own houserules).
For the discussion about what is or isn't Pathfinder see What Does I am Running a Pathfinder Game Mean?
For Low Magic Houserules or E6/E8 or really any modification to the original rules, please make a new thread in the Houserules / Homebrew
And if you know better RPGs for our low magic need, make a thread in Other RPGs and maybe toss us a link and let us know.
Yeah, I should correct that, low-magic helps makes the game feel more immersive in the types of setting that many GMs run.
Now if you're running a setting where cities are floating on in the sky on rocks, lords get resurrected every time an assassin tries to make an attempt on their lives, and wizards run taxi services, then low-magic makes no sense (or you're playing in a sci-fi setting ;p).
When people use the term "realism" they are actually referring to verisimilitude, which is essentially the ability to keep the players immersed in the universe of the game. Players care less about realism, and more about consistency.
Too many rules that need to be applied during play will also shatter that illusion and break verisimilitude as well. How can you be immersed in the world if you have to stop every 5 minutes to make sure the rules are right?
Obviously, for different people it's different points. Which is why it's extremely important to find a group that you have at somewhat a similar mindset with. If I ask a player what he says to the guard to bluff his way in, that's because my group is the kind that wants some sort of verisimilitude. The player doesn't have to act, be charismatic, know tons of lore, or make complex formulae to succeed; they just need to have some image in their head of what they are doing. In the same vein, I make magic scarce where people wouldn't have it, but available where there is lots.
Low Magic just helps makes the game feel immersive, something a lot of GMs and players want to go for. Figuring out how to limit without adding in obtrusive or game breaking houserules is difficult but possible. The game actually works pretty well for low magic at low levels, it's only at higher levels that it starts bleeding through.
My point was that I prefer low magic games, and in fact most of the games that have burned me have been high magic games where the magic just got silly and killed my immersion; this is as a player.
The problems with all 3 of those situations above was not "low magic" it was the GM who put in a houserule that skewed who had magic; in fact you can see where it was the magic in the "low magic" game that ruined the fun. Sometimes you have to sit back and look at what you've done and say, "Wow, that was a dumb idea". Or if you're too dense, hopefully your players will let you know.
I am a GM who gives in to his players. When I decide what kind of game I am running, I consider the players' fun. With my players, immersion is important. They want do want challenges, but it doesn't make sense for their characters to walk if they've got a free ride going where they're going. They want to have something powerful to fall back on, but it pulls them out of the game when they realize that every other person can use cheap tricks to live forever, but for some odd reason doesn't. If there is an auto-win button with no consequence, they don't want to insult their own intelligence to have fun.
I can't say I have a great sense of balance, and even my sense of "low magic" can be considered "high magic" based on some of the posts up here. I do know that I like to add 1)Rituals, 2)Rare Important Magical Components, and 3)Side Effects for Powerful Spells. All of these things are tropes in fantasy but strangely missing in D&D.
I think one of the bigger questions that keeps popping up is why use Pathfinder for low magic? Apparently there are sooo many other established systems that do it better.
The problem is that it just isn't that easy. Please trust me when I say I've been looking. Yes, there are PLENTY of other systems rules light or rules heavy; I've played White Wolf Games (Mage, Vampire), Shadowrun, Ironclaw, WRM, and multiple versions of D&D. As one of friends have told me, "You're never satisfied with any system you use". For some reason I still come back to D&D despite it not being made for low magic.
1) Everyone knows it. It's just overall easier to get into a system that is really well known rather than try to have everyone relearn a new system that may or may not work but we won't know until we try. There's just a certain value from that legacy.
2) Despite being rules heavy, this game has a simple and easy to remember mechanic that was secured in 3rd edition: the d20 roll. Roll your icosahedron, 1's are bad and 20's are good. Ta-da success.
3) Interchangeable parts. Sure if you add in new things, it might create a broken combination down the line, but in general there are a lot of subsystems in play that can be taken out and replaced if need be: Skills, Classes, Feats, Spells, Hitpoints, etc. This is absolutely horrible for someone not ready to face the daunting challenge, but for tinkerers who have a goal in mind it's an incredible tool. That is why there are so many d20 games including M&M for Superheroes and Starwars for Jedi. 8 in 10 campaigns I've played include houserules of some sort.
4) You can choose your game by choosing your levels. Different levels hold within them to play the game. For super gritty games, go with Levels 1-3, for a truly low magic feeling game try for somewhere between 3-8, for really off the wall and magic dependency go higher. Whether this is a good feature or a bad feature is debatable.
5) It supports multiple play styles. Let's be honest, this game was built upon miniatures tactics with fantasy thrown in. However there is room to evolve it into something more. One can and should be able to apply clever solutions. It depends on how the GM runs it all. You can make more or less player involved for those who just want hack and slash or for those who want a little something more like actual negotiations or puzzles. Sometimes you can even have something in between to allow people of both sides to play in and enjoy the same game.
There actually is support for low magic in this game, it's just difficult to keep it that way. House rules are used to keep it from spiraling into a high magic game. I have actually taken bits and pieces from a bunch of other systems (most house rules I have used are actually from different editions of D&D).
In my experience, d20 and it's variations are far from the perfect system, but it by far the most malleable to people's desires.
I actually do like magic. There are even many 4th level spells like Dimension Door and Haste that I really like the party to have. It's the broad spells that are too broad and powerful spells that can be cast at any time that actually bug me.
Broad spells include Summon Monster (I feel it should be limited to certain monsters and that learning to summon other creatures should be separate spells, I also like it being the same creature every time so the more you use that creature the better rapport with it) and Polymorph (I seriously feel like each polymorph should be it's own thing, learning each new shape should feel like an adventure, also that picking something out of a bestiary is just silly)
I also have a weird thing against prestidigitation for it's broad and general use. I feel that it's uses should be separated (cleaning things, changing the taste of something, creating a crude object) for their lack of cohesion, but I also feel that none of those things should really be a spell but just things you can do as a wizard of a certain school.
I like teleport in my game... through the use of gates. Limited by the crystalline bases etched with runes. Not something you can just take about and do whenever, there is a process to it and rare components.
I'm the similar with resurrect, which is a ritual which requires powerful people and any delay or inferior materials lowers the chance of successfully bringing someone back.
As far as "low magic" not being Pathfinder, well it's kind of subjective. Pathfinder does have all these rules that slip into the void with even low magic. Maybe you're talking about Golarion? It's definitely got plentiful magic with powerful characters, but there is much of it that can be presented with even low magic. How often do generals get resurrected? Why would the desert bother people if they can just go with any old cleric (Protection from heat and constant supply of water)?
In fact the only settings that feel like they're actually high magic are in the southeast of Golarion where two legendary wizards dueled and created the mana wastelands. One went missing but the other runs a successful undead country. But then, they go and make those wizards feel like one of a kind.
Cayden Cailean's trial of the gods is a mystery... Even though we all know how well mysteries and high level magic play out...
How often is magic spoke of in it's aid to help win the battles in the legends of pathfinder? Even though it is almost always prevalent with fly and haste, resurrections and protections, a creative use of an odd spell that has lasted through the ages?
I mean there's always the binding of demons, but that's usually with a macguffin not a specific spell for some reason. With a high magic world, shouldn't there be a legend for every spell or at least a good number of them?
Even the stories of pathfinder don't always resonate with the quite the same kind of high magic world.
Because "High Magic" doesn't truly represent most fantasy. It's not as much an issue of what magic is available, as much as how available and how easy is it to obtain. When magic is 1)frequently 2)easy to obtain with 3)little to no consequences, it is an easy and annoying cop out that can destroy the immersion of your world.
Take for example resurrection; If all you need for resurrection is enough gold, a cleric of appropriate level, and the willingness to come back, then why won't every king have this? In D&D and Pathfinder the only real bar to higher magic is gold (and technically level). Even if you can't cast it yourself, with enough gold you can get somebody of appropriate level to cast it.
Just the mere access of those spells changes the way the world runs and how it's perceived. Any permanent death of a ruler would require deliberate murder and access to high level magic. Any misdeed could be scryed upon, and would require appropriate. The separation between poor and rich would be that much greater. Clerics and Mages would be trained and respected more in their ability to protect against environmental dangers with low level spells.
Disregarding that as a GM can be pretty immersion breaking when you realize that there is this problem that can be solved easily by something that exists within the universe, but is also easy to obtain (as long as you have the coin, which all the rich people do).
And I ache every time I see the excuse "Well people fear magic, because it's different". If that's so true, then we wouldn't have people going to magic shows, or taking advice from "psychics".
No in fantasy, people fear magic because it's dangerous. There are risks. There's the chance of possession, working with dark unknown powers. There is the chance your spell could go horribly wrong, and wreak all sorts of dangers. Maybe these spells cause you to give up some of your life. What if for every cure spell you cast, you draw positive energy permanently away from the world creating imbalance between dark and light?
But in D&D / PF, spells have a set effect (unless it's "wild magic") that works just like science. You do x and you get y. Sure people might have misgivings at first because it's new. But if it gets a specific result each time they'll come to accept, love, and even improve upon it. Because seriously, there's no danger in using magic.
Not only that, but they only need to take a single rest and can do it all again the next day. No specific and rare resources (it's converted all to gold equivalent), no need to sacrifice blood, people, time (unless you're the specific target the spell is against), no need to gather up a group of peers to help channel your power and control, no need to wait longer than a single day. It's easy, and it's convenient. No wonder groups are willing to rest in the middle of the dungeon to let their casters get their spells back, it's more convenient and safe than non-magical means.
You see, elves are weird and pick up interesting (or rather uninteresting hobbies) that would drive a normal person insane. These include watching grass grow, watching paint dry, watching trees grow, waiting at the chariot stop, following snail migration patterns, watching the sun from dawn to dusk, etc.
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.
In some cases, the feat tax comes with a stat tax as well; the most obvious is the Int 13 from Combat Expertise, but the Dex 15 for TWF kills some shield builds. So just giving them more feats won't help them. It also means that casters can do anything they like, because they're not going to waste feats on tree taxes.
What's really bizarre about the Dex 15 for TWF is that deflect arrows is only Dex 13.
Apparently it's a lot more effort to wield those two weapons together efficiently (While not common, still can be found a fair amount in real life) than to knock arrows out of the sky (Something only seen in movies).
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.
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.
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.
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.
'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
Suddenly this is a GM vs Player argument... Problem is that both are needed.
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.
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)
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.
Doug OBrien wrote:
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!?
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.