I still feel cheated. I have not played then ending yet and I have not downloaded the EC. Because I am angry. And because I am sad.
I understand that ME is supposed to be about sacrifice.
I could have lived with being bombed to the stone-age. I could have lived with making peace with the Reapers.
But this pseudo religious mumbo jumbo nonsense from the conduit!? Honestly? There is peace between the Geth and the Quarians - stupid conduit proven wrong!
I feel like I was promised little blue children and BW/ME fail to deliver - big time.
The whole ending sounds like they wanted the thing over with, move on to greener pastures, whatever.
Yes, they are a company that wants to make a profit - but sc**ing over their fanbase?
And to add insult to injury, to be able to choose at all, I need to play a buggy multiplayer game, I am neither good at nor like?
I agree with magnuskn, I will be very careful in the future ordering a game in advance.
Looks a bit like it, Kevida. But then, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. :D
I always think that system preferences are pet peeves.
I am looking forward to introducing this to our annual old-time gamers reunion we have each Xmas and Easter, where my old party gets together to have a fun afternoon. We are getting old and you know what they say about old dogs and new tricks.
Ha! I forgot the best thing:
Got my copy this weekend and I am amazed!
I am of a mind to covert this for Star Wars. OMG the possibilities!
As far as I understand it this is NOT the Cortex system. The Cortex system is used in games like Firefly and is not working like the Marvel Heroes system.
This is not a game for number-crunching or min-maxing. This is a set of tools to make storytelling, fast-paced, two-fisted role-playing sessions with a minimum of rules baggage.
To quote, "there is no rule that prevents you from putting a d12 in every category. But such a character is sure to earn you that stare from your friends. Yes, that's the one."
F&S? Like in Feder & Schwert? Are they still allowed to translate rpg stuff?
oh em gee
The same guys who translated Deathlords as "Fürsten der Finsternis" (Princes of Darkness), Exalted as "die Hohen" (instead of "die Erhabenen", because it allegedly looked better with the logo) and Obtenebration as "Schattenspiele" (Shadow Play)?
to each their own, I guess
This may have been asked before:
I thought about making the spider large and using a heavy warhorse instead of a simple horse.
Then I noticed that the stats for Cuddles are off.
Thankyou for your opinion.
I do not intend to slander the effort you guys made in translating all the rules in such a short time.
It is the same problem I had when reading the german translation of Glen Cook's Black Company or books translated for Vampire.
In the groups I play atm we use a mix of german and english books, and I almost always have to re-check in my english version, because I don't get the translation.
Maybe it is just cause I am used to the english terms. I never find anything either in the glossary.
You mean like fireball-like explosions that do not necessarily ignite stuff IRL?
Oil doesn't burn btw, the fumes do.
But I agree, the physical effects of many elemental spells are unsatisfactorily vague.
I once looked this up for an underwater encounter with a giant eel and a party with a sorcerer with lightning bolt.
In conclusion, it depends on the water's salinity. The current travels through the better conductor. In salt water the water's conductivity is greater than the body's and thus the effect on a person would be minimal as the current would only travel along a body's surface.
The encounter took place in an estuary (brak water) so I ruled that the Lightning bolt would in fact emanate as a burst from the caster's fingertip affecting all inside the area.
I admit some official ruling on underwater spell effects would be good to have. Another case where rules and RL physics don't match well.
This is my character in our (doomed) RotRL campaign:
"Old Rolyn Bester was in search of a slave, someone to keep him company and someone to help him in the field. He bought the young half-orc girl, because she looked strong and that gleam in her eye bespoke of intelligence.
Salora Bester - CR 2
Female Varisian Half-orc Inquisitor of Iomedae 3
LN Medium Humanoid (Half-orc)
Initiative +5 Senses Perception +6
Speaking of conversions... I don't have my books to hand, but
Healing in a can. Not a ZOMG damage build, but will act nicely against hordes of undead. Also good to patch up loads of allies.
Female Human Hospitaler 10
LG Medium Humanoid (Human)
Init +1; Senses Perception +4
Combat Gear Mithral Full Plate of Speed, +2 Warhammer, +1 Heavy Steel Shield; Other Gear Ring of Protection +2, Handy Haversack, Headband of Alluring Charisma +4
Name of PC: Rogar
Party is finally able to establish a bridge head on Thistletop.
I still wonder how you are supposed to do this with 4 level 2 characters. We had 5 at level 3 and we struggle mightily.
What am I doing?
I just cancelled the CotCT AP I ran, cause the players were not able to follow the plot.
I am wondering how long the RotRL campaign I play in will go on, cause we wiped twice on the druid, and I don't have the slightest idea how the party will ever tackle Thistletop even at level 3.
I am making do, I play PF at the moment, because I frankly have the choice between bad parties and not playing at all. I am sorely tempted to chose the latter soon.
What would I love to do?
When I want to smash things, count my dps and optimize I play WoW.
Thankyou! This is a combat simulation with rp elements. I can have that with Descent.
Not my cup of tea, thankyouverymuch.
I said brute, not fighter. And the fighter I quote is an example. Barbarians at least get more skills than the fighter.And, hell, they are SENTIENT BEINGS!! Not mutants and mindless drones, growing weapons out of their wrists.
Hell, the Ranger and Druid should be more charismatic than the Fighter because those classes are designed to deal with animals - which involves being Charismatic if not Intelligent, but no one ever gives them crap about it.
I do. I give a crap. Cause I don't think anyone should get away with having their cake and eating it when it concerns fighting prowess optimization by "just winging the roleplay aspects" (i.e. being a suave player with a character without suave stats) whereas non-number-crunchers are insulted by being called sub-optimal!
If you think you can get away with dropping attributes ridiculously low, feel free, but don't expect to not suffer any negative consequences for it. That goes either way.
Let's face it, over half of the optimization defenders optimize to "better kill things to death" and not to "better represent their roleplaying concept".
I am done with this!
Maybe it is my fault for loving to play Jacks/Janes-of-all-trades.
Nothing is wrong with building along a concept and making that concept work well inside the given rules' system. If that is optimization, I am ok with it.
I have a problem with stuff I have seen on this forum, not this thread maybe along the following lines:
Skills are redundant, spells do that way better.
80 to 90% of all the feats are combat oriented.
When the word optimization is brought on the table, it does concern combat prowess in 99% of all cases.
As close as it may be; this is not a combat simulation game. It is a roleplaying game. But if building a socially adept character with an emphasis on skills and mental attributes is considered sub par, then this system is crap.
I know D20 is about killing things first and foremost and other things to a lesser degree. At least this seems to be the root of the whole conflict.
Sorry, in 3.5 a fighter could fight, climb and ride - period. PFRPG has improved that at least.
Someone who wants to play anything other than a fantasy super hero, look elsewhere, you won't find it here.
I have realised this is not my kind of rpg, I have never felt at home and I more and more realise, that it is holding me back.
I've had it with the inhumanly strong freaks with the amoebean intellect and the lizard charisma, who believe can walk unnoticed among the populace.
Roleplay, roleplay and optimise all you want, please; but in my book, a brute with Int 7 and Cha 5 (and not a single rank in diplomacy) will never succeed in woeing any (sane) princess, never sway any (sane) king with soothing words, no matter how silver-tongued the player may be.
I finally got it! Yay.
The box looks quite small, but it feels very heavy for such a small thing.
The core rulebook has been revised (I think). The booklet adds some new rules for mounts and also has 3 new scenarios plus 3 patrols (2 are basically the ones from the core book, yet advanced, the third one is new).
All the materials are of high quality, so the price is ok in my book.
Player 1: I play an exiled nobleman who wants to help the oppressed people of Sherwood. He is chivalric and a little mischievous. He's a great archer, too. I spent some feats on archery and leadership.
Player 2: I play an outlaw. He is a giant of a man and good with his quarterstaff. He is trustworthy and outgoing, albeit a bit loud at times.
Player 3: I play a monk. He loves his food and his ale. He is concerned for the people of Sherwood, too. He is not a great fighter, but a good diplomat.
- Characters built for the setting and campaign. Able to do what is likely to happen during adventures. Where is that bad optimization?
Assume there is a rogue with a base attack of +6.
Surprise Attack (Ex): During the surprise round, opponents are always considered flat-footed to a rogue with this ability, even if they have already acted.
My question is this:
The rogue gets a surprise round against an enemy: he can attack once for weapon damage + sneak damage.
What happens in the first round of combat?
When the rogue does a full attack (mainhand/mainhand/offhand) does he add sneak damage to all three attacks?
It's ridiculous to say that someone is oppressing you for expressing their preference for more esquilaxes in an appropriate forum, though.
Yes, you are right, polling different opinions is a good approach. What you get from that is the smallest common denominator (modified by the tastes of the developers), that is what gets printed. Being against that would be ridiculous indeed.
Saying, "I don't like ghouls, and I would not use them and would like to see them used less in publications.", is expressing an opinion. That is fair, and I am not saying the least against that.
What I oppose is the attitude, " Ghouls are rubbish and outdated, no idea why they are used as we have so many other undead to chose from, and anyone who thinks different is a numtard." - that is beyond the pale!
A Man In Black wrote:
Nicely painted black and white. There is a difference between having an opinion and having an attitude.
This thread makes me sad.
Can't people go back to playing the game as they like and stop forcing their style on others as "the only true and approved" way?
If you don't like a particular creature in a particular AP - change it.
There is a gazillion monsters around, why not substitude one for the other?
I personally am sick of all the splat-book orcs and elves and cliché dwarves and halflings (especially those). In the CotCT I ran I substituted creatures where I felt them to be inappropriate for the style and mood I wanted to create. I replaced the Derro with crazed halfling necromancers, I replaced the hag with a giant morray - and guess what - people had fun!
Why not use things to your advantage? Toy with your players expectations. I was shocked to read the preface to Ashes at Dawn, where it was said, so many people had trouble getting their mind around working with vampires towards a common goal... hello??
This hobby is all about creativity - why adhere slavishly to written material? Can't we finally agree to disagree? Can't we finally admit that there are as many ways to roll this game as there are players out there - and that it is a good thing?
Name of PC: Kyenna
Name of PC:Sheul
That druid and his cat surely pack a punch, especially against a party that so ill-suited for such an encounter.
The PRD states for intimidate:
You can use this skill to frighten your opponents or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.
Boldened for emphasis.
By RAW there is no such thing as a "nice" intimidate. Intimidate is the use of a threat to get your way. How do you threaten someone in a nice way?
You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you for 1d6 × 10 minutes with a successful check. [...] If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers [u]limited[/u] assistance. After the Intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities.
The use of force (either verbal or physical) is implied here. Tomake the opponent act (as if) friendly.The opponent helps you because there are consequences should he not cooperate, that he is made aware of by the check.
That is the major difference I think between Intimidate and Diplomacy. The latter uses reasoning, the former uses force.
Looks like I opened the box of Pandora...
Yes, of course the D20 system (in almost all of its indisputably various incarnations - and I call it D20 to steer the discussion away from the edition war trap) is VERY versatile.
But, and this has been my impression ever since 3e hit the shelves and I started playing D&D, it is best in simulating tactical combat, it is less well adept at simulating the application of (social) skills.
I cannot even disagree that the system does not reward roleplaying, nor does it penalise it. I do not agree that skills are useless.
Be that as it may, I am not telling anyone how he or she should play, or what to like. I don't say that any style is superior to any other. But I may like a different style than someone else and I am entitled to do so, as is everybody else.
I don't like the way D&D (D20) handles skills. I see how it handles tactical combat situations, it does so in an abstract that does appeal to me in a lesser fashion than do other abstract ways in which other systems handle tactical combat situations. I am not judging except for my own personal taste.
So I will move to a different system for a time, maybe I will return to PF or I may not. No harm done...
Again: I was not insinuating that either play style was inferior or superior to any other! To each their own, so to speak. It wasn't my intention to insult anyone, if I did, I am sorry.
All I was wanting to say was that, after quite a while of playing it neither D&D nor, alas PF, can satisfy what I am looking for in a RPG. No more, no less. I am just not into the tactics/simulation thing. And my fondest memories are of other RPG campaigns. And I always felt something vital missing from D&D - vital for me. It is hard to put a finger on, really, what it is.
- And I am not using many supplements either. I played 2 D&D campaigns (using PHB, PHB2, UA, and Complete Mage), and I GM'd the CotCT AP (with PF Core and APG). -
Maybe it is what Cartigan says about D&D/PF being a numbers game.
I want to thank all posters for their system suggestions, and I will look them up.
I'd also like to thank all for keeping this discussion so civil! :D
First of all, thank you all for the support!
Truly, I think the party is at the heart of my discontent. And surely it is a question of what you do with a system as much as what said system has to offer.
I cannot stress this enough, I was not saying that D20 or PF in particular was a bad, inferior or restrictive system. It is not.
What I said was, and I will stick to it, it is obviously not the "right" system for me.
And also, yes, you can build a character who excels at what he does in some fields and this does, of course, not make the character bad for role-playing. It is a given that each and every one of us wants to shine at times and have our moments in the lime-light.
I love well-rounded characters, Jacks and Janes-of-all-trades, people with flaws and perks, and I like to see that reflected in "the numbers" too. I have always had difficulties with the linear scaling concept of level and hitpoints. I am in favour of health levels. Not saying either is better in general, both represent reality in a very artificial fashion. All I am saying is, I can identify better with health levels than with hitpoints.
Yes, a character that is good at what he or she does can be founded on a good concept, and be fun to play, too. A well-rounded character has flaws, too. And I feel flaws and merits should be balanced in a way.
But I do not want to discuss about drop stats and optimization. That is totally beside the point.
I am discontent with my "gaming life" - one reason for this is that I cannot regularily play with my friends at the moment and have to "make do" with colleagues. D20 seems to be the smallest common denominator here. I am afraid of doing the game a disservice by judging from my party. But then, as I said, D20 has never really been my cup of tea.
So I think it best, as some of you have suggested to take a break and move to "greener" pastures. Distance promotes affection.
I apologize if I may have stepped on anyone's toes. I had to have my "coming out" and I felt confident I could do so here.
I have never been the greatest adherent to D20 systems.
Maybe that has to do with my RPG origins, Rulemaster and Vampire.
Whatever it is, lately I feel a rising estrangement from all things D20.
I know the game is what you make of it.
Still, I am so fed up with edition wars, optimization, drop stats, void classes, balancing, brokeness, monster PCs, and whatnot.
I really liked what Paizo did with 3.5e, it made so much sense when it was announced. I thought to myself, finally I can make a character in D20 and not just an elaborate combat sheet.
Maybe it IS the people I am playing with. Maybe it is me. I find myself starting to think in optimizing terms, and I hate it. Because from a game theoretical point of view, I see the benefits of optimization for combat effectiveness. But that is not the point of the game, is it?
My PF days are over, for now, I guess. I want to tell stories, and for me, personally, D20 is not the means to do that. It may well be for others, and the APs tell great stories in their own right. But in the end, not for me.
Cheers all! Game on!