|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The "woe" crowd here has an interesting situation. First, they say that a +1 luck bonus to AC is not overpowered, not dangerous to the game, there are better things out there, etc. Then they try to convince us that the jingasa is now "eviscerated" now that it doesn't have the luck bonus to AC. Well, which is it? Is it overpowered and a problem (and if so, why protest the errata?) or is it nothing special (and if so, why whine that it is gone?)?
Reactionary is half a feat. You can also take both, giving you a +6 Init before Dex. That is huge. It means your entire party (all sadly bullied as children) can go before any monster gets a chance. They do not, usually, get traits, hmmm?
As for the unfun of playing MERP, I am sure I can't agree with that. There seems to be quite a few people who like it and find it fun. And whether death should come only as a consequence of bad planning and strategies, well, that is an opinion you are quite entitled to. Different people want different things from the game.
This reminds me of my early days of Magic the Gathering. In the original set was a spell called Channel. It let you get mana for life, letting a deckbuilder do some quick damage, then channel/fireball to kill the opponent, leaving them with 1 life. If this was countered, they conceded. In short, it was pitiful and stupid. WotC banned Channel, setting off a storm of rage about how they hurt the game and should have banned Fireball instead. See, there was also Disintegrate that had mostly the same effect the Channel morons could use, but Channel itself was irreplaceable to them. After this ban, the game was much better.
A GM puts work into GMing, or the results are generally poor. A player only puts in time into the campaign outside the sessions if he or she wants to. If the player doesn't, nothing bad happens. In at least some cases, a player who puts in a lot of time between sessions then uses the newfound rules loopholes to disrupt the campaign.
Don't try to frame it as the players doing the GM a favour. You know, if you have GMed, how much work it is. Sure, it is done because the GM wants to do it... but the GM also assumed the responsibility for doing that work over a long time specifically to entertain the players. It IS a commitment worthy of respect. Whether you see that or not speaks mostly of you. Calling it an opportunity cost would likely mean I would prefer to see you do something else as well, if it was my campaign.
If a player points out an error I have made in the rulebook, I expect the player to have understood the rule in question. I expect him to state it clearly and accept my ruling of it. Like it or not, the rules are not always very clear, multiple interpretations are possible. Or there are conflicting rules. And if we are to have a discussion about it, that happens AFTER the game.
See, one of the most annoying situations I have ever been in was one player who did not understand the rules himself, and because he did not, he kept questioning my rules applications to the point that EVERY. SINGLE. Piece of rules effect was debated. And when I told him to show me what the rules said, he was wrong again and again. Eventually, I put the smackdown on his passive aggressive rules whining by saying that he, specifically, was not allowed to make rules questions during play AT ALL. It cost us several hours of rules whining before I did.
Bucky is a good person. And despite knowing he did all those things, during mind control he couldn't break, he still had to doubt whether he had done everything he could so as to end the hold they had over him. All the time. He knows he did those things, and he assumes responsibility for them, despite not really being able to affect it. I found it impressive.
OBVIOUS TROLL IS OBVEOS wrote:
Tells posters to man up or go home and write a story if you can't beat pathfinder
To you, I have only one thing to say:
If he doesn't kill orc babies in a burning orphanage because a demon told him he would need not to or everyone is doomed and he missed that last part, does a paladin fall?
If we're discussing this, I can't help but feel we should widen the discussion to the concept of archetypes. In much the same way lots of people have arachnophobia but would not react in the same way to a kalashnikov, there are concepts we humans seem to react to in a very primal way. By and large, these are the things set down in mythology. And, very evidently in books like Lord of the Rings, using them gets a response from us. Of course, we also know the old myths, and are not that interested in reading a simple retread. We want the archetypes, but ALSO, we want something about them we can recognize from our own situation. Written right after the second world war, LotR borrows themes rather aggressively from that conflict, even if I will not claim it is a straight retelling as some would say.
The hunger games is the story of Jeanne D'Arc in a sci-fi dystopia. Harry Potter. Spider Man. And so on and so forth, we get mythology, with a different sensibility.
As for fantasy worlds, it's pretty much the same thing. You need enough archetypes to make our mythological hunger start ticking, set with modern themes. Forgotten Realms is largely mythological, but also more than a little superhero-themed with great archmages, pig farming with huge amounts of description of shoemaker shops, discussions of merchant guilds and their tactics, and so on. Golarion spans the range of technology from neolithic age to 19th century or so, and so on.
We need both myth and modern.
Killing a villain is not necessarily a loss for evil as such. There will be others clawing their way to the top of the pile. Some villains actually hold back the darkness through inefficiency. For a RL example, the allies decided in 1944 not to try to assassinate Hitler for this very reason.
But all of this misses the point: You don't do good by doing evil. You can't ignore the means you use. Waterboarding people IS EVIL. If you use evil means to get there, the Higher Goal you seek will be tainted by that. And if you're discussing GMing for a paladin character, you need to stop being a jerk by putting them in situations that can't be won by your judgements.
Kobold Cleaver's 83 Thread Types To Avoid (Or, A Huge Waste Of Time About Other People's Wastes of Time)
Anything dry enough, salty enough, or sugary enough keeps virtually forever. Jam opened and then left for a decade in the fridge will most likely be perfectly fine. The only way to get something to keep even longer is to remove all oxygen from it. Tin cans and bog corpses both function along that principle. But if you DO get a little air in, the environment will become anaerobic, opening the door to infection by various anaerobic bacteria. Of these, clostridium botulinum is the best-known. It has a poison, among the strongest poisons known to man, that causes paralysis. Of course, this poison is what people inject in their foreheads to look younger, botox.
Make it cool to play a cleric. Show them awesome clerics. Let them fight some of them, see others in action. Give an extra skill point or two if needed. Make the divine parts of the world present in various ways. Make temples important actors.
The problem with playing a cleric is twofold: That everyone expects you to be their healbot, and that you have a massive number of spells on your spell list and need to choose among them, i.e. learn about all of them.
So, if someone starts a cleric character, support them in playing the way they want to. Make it clear that a cleric is far, far more than the healbot it used to be in earlier editions.
Direct the player to a suggested pool of spells for his concept, if you can.
A really tired kid will often be hyperactive. Thus, when you give a tired non-hyperactive kid sugar, it will get a short term blood sugar increase that will help it function and not be as tired. However, sugar passes, and by that point the kid will be tired and maybe hyperactive. This has nothing to do with a sugar buzz. Caffeine, now...