SwnyNerdgasm's page

If the character was lawful good would a paladin dip make sense? I'd us then go anti paladin?

You know GOT is a book first...which I assume is what the OP is referring too?

why I stopped watching the show, I know what's gonna happen.

Game of Thrones isn't exactly a mature show.Typical hollywood crap mix of everything in every episode. Don't say I don't watch it but its fantasy tailored to people who don't like fantasy.

Lord of the Rings meets Desperate Housewives.

I mean seriously I'm not prude at all , but the theres a completely not story related sex scene every 20 minutes in every f%&@ing episode.

They should call it F&!#ing Game of f*##ing Thrones.

I'm gonna have to agree with you on this one GoT is a fantasy series non fantasy fans can watch and say that they like fantasy

i doubt we will ever see a proper 3.5 style Warlock, Swordsage, Incarnate, Binder, or Psion in the official Pathfinder RPG line.

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

SwnyNerdgasm wrote:

Are these your rules for your own characters? Cause giving your players a list of rules, no how matter how stringent is stupid. As a DM you can already veto race, class, or a myriad of other choices what exactly is the point of restoring their names?

they are primarily rules for my own characters.

but my general restrictions for others only serve to ban WoWish stuff along the lines of names like "DwarfDroodHealzors", "Lazorchicken", or "InfantryFox" as examples or completely derogatory names like "Watermelon-Feaster" "Poo-Face" and the like. other than those 2 guidelines, i am fine with the vast majority of names, hell, a third aasimaar PC in the same campaign can call herself Lumiere for all i care. we will just assume that there was probably some signifficant NPC responsible for starting the name trend.

i am fine with a character going by a nickname, alias, or moniker.

For example, a female bard who dresses in monochrome gothic lolita fashion can go by the alias "The Monochrome Puppeteer" as a reference to her color scheme, specialized performance, and doll like style of fashion

or a male fighter named "Boris" can call himself "The Strong and Fair" in reference to his strength and honesty.

but aliases come later unless the character is sufficiently leveled or has a backstory featuring a sufficient level of fame.

i merely need a name i can attach a face to.

I understand the point you're making but if a player at my table wants to name their character Infantryfox, is allow them to write whatever they want on their sheet, that doesn't mean I or anyone else at the table will use it as we pretty much just use everyone's real name.

Are these your rules for your own characters? Cause giving your players a list of rules, no how matter how stringent is stupid. As a DM you can already veto race, class, or a myriad of other choices what exactly is the point of restricting their names?

As a DM I don't feel I should have any say in what another player names his character. The fact that some people think they have the right to tell someone they can't name their character what they want seems a little arrogant to me.

Dont forget the evils a LN cleric can inflict when he follows the exact letter of Iomedae's laws and ignores the spirit

Lamontius wrote:

I'm completely happy with you doing whatever you want to, in your game

You have proved my point. Dice rolling is more accommodating than PB.

I'm pretty sure that's not the point he was trying to make.

Dotting for later

My old group had a few of these grudge matches, but we stopped doing it when I brought a kryptonian.

Just make him a being of pure DM Fiat

Ummm working for 16+ hours, then sleeping for 2 hours and going back to work

Dotting for the future

I was going to change it around, but I decided that if my players get hit with it, they'll have to suck it up and deal.

This rule would be like saying Vincent Van Gogh wouldn't be human he'd be a member of the Artist race, sorcerers aren't their own race they are just people born with a natural talent that they have dedicated their life to mastering

Not a pathfinder game but... these are coming back

I knew that I thought the races in the second and third chapters was what was meant

SwnyNerdgasm wrote:

Bruunwald wrote:

In fact, he's been kicked out of our group at least three times.

Did you not learn the first two times?

LOL! You'd think, right?

When you've known somebody most of your life, and so have the other players, you all become like family. And as you probably know, familial relationships are fraught with politics of a most weird and confusing sort.

I have no other explanation for it. It's just one of those things.

I know exactly what you mean, I have a friend who is probably exactly the type of person you're describing

In fact, he's been kicked out of our group at least three times.

Did you not learn the first two times?

SwnyNerdgasm wrote:

Are you and your group having fun? if the answer is yes, then you're playing the right way.

That's our general policy. And hellz yeah, we have a good time.

Even so, I'm curious if I as a GM decided to eliminate just one of these rules, which one it should be and what benefits might derive from that decision. I think we're all open to playing in new ways.

Well if you decide to lose some of those house rules i think you'll have to figure out what type of campaign you want to run, then look over the rules to see which ones don't fit in and cut them out. Then sit down with your players and discuss any changes you want to make.

Are you and your group having fun? if the answer is yes, then you're playing the right way.

I never said I wasn't strawmanning, I just pointed out that you seem to have a very adversarial relationship with your players.

Malleus Maleficarum wrote:

WHAT KIND OF GM RUNS 1ST LEVEL CHARACTERS INTO A DRAGON's DEN? I would get up and leave as soon as the encounter happened because just the idea of it is so friggin asinine.

The dragon's den exists in the world. It's not the DM's fault if the PCs stumble upon it, it's not the DM's responsibility to fiat away the dragon and replace it with a baby goblin, and it's certainly not the DM's fault if the 1st-level characters decide attacking the dragon head-on - instead of sneaking around, or running away, or poisoning it, or doing pretty much anything else - would be a wise course of action.

Does your world just not have dragons until the PCs hit a certain level, at which point dragons suddenly spring to life fully-grown?

How in the hell is a 1st level party supposed to do anything but run away from an adult dragon? Though I get the feeling you wouldn't even allow that because I'm sure you'd have the dragon wake up chase down the party and have a snack.

RadiantSophia wrote:

This discussion is irrelevant except between an individual GM and her players.

I do not completely agree. A lot of the complaints are about how the system not the players (magic not being rare and so on.) Now of course one could change the system as much as they want but expecting anyone else to care about how they want the system to be is... silly.

Change it to play as you want to at your table or find another system. But this "my fun is more valid then yours!" bull needs to go.

But then what can we argue about besides paladins, alignments and monks?

There are other races in the ARG that don't exist at all in Golarion.

Which ones?

I'm really not all that familiar with what Inquisitors are good at. Are they more of a damage oriented divine class, with some spellcasting?

They specialize in being BAMF's and also getting a sweet-ass hat as a class ability

Gentlemen, check the OPs profile. 7 posts all in this thread, nothing else there. The name? Vulnerable to Fire... need I say more? It starts with a "T".

Yeah but I got nothing better to do while I'm stuck at work...

SwnyNerdgasm wrote:

Not to create a thread derailment, because I honestly want to see where this is gonna go, but they were actually an interestingly built world for me up until Anita finally slept with Jean-Claude, after that every book needed like 10 pages of erotica to every 5 pages of plot

Ah. My first (and only) experience with LKH was with " A Kiss of Shadows", somethin' about Fey, lots of sex.

Yeah her Merry Gentry series was well after she devolved into smut, but I would reccomend giving at least the first two or three Anita Blake series a read, like I said they have an interesting take on the fact that vampires are "out of the coffin" so to speak and just recently(in the first book at least) have gained the right to vote.

SwnyNerdgasm wrote:

Vulnerable to Fire wrote:

Marthian wrote:

And if everyone's having fun, why change it?

If everyone stopped reading Shakespeare and started reading Twilight, that would still be bad no matter how much they like Twilight.

At least they're reading, and I'm sure that even people who read and enjoy Twilight will sooner or later move on to better books, look at me, I actually have a ton of Laurell K. Hamilton books, even after they basically became porn but I read other better things too, hell, she's the author who got me into urban fantasy.

Wait stop hold the phone...Laurell K. Hamilton books weren't always porn?

Not to create a thread derailment, because I honestly want to see where this is gonna go, but they were actually an interestingly built world for me up until Anita finally slept with Jean-Claude, after that every book needed like 10 pages of erotica to every 5 pages of plot

Marthian wrote:

And if everyone's having fun, why change it?

If everyone stopped reading Shakespeare and started reading Twilight, that would still be bad no matter how much they like Twilight.

At least they're reading, and I'm sure that even people who read and enjoy Twilight will sooner or later move on to better books, look at me, I actually have a ton of Laurell K. Hamilton books, even after they basically became porn but I read other better things too, hell, she's the author who got me into urban fantasy.

Expected someone to take a shot at WoW before opening the thread.

Like freaking clockwork.

Now we just need a complaint about how "anime the art is" to complete the set.

(complaining about rogues having hit die as high as d8?!)

G*@-D~~NED JAPANIMATION CRAPTASTIC ART!!!

Monty Hall Dungeons

I haven't heard that term in a while, I think I'm getting old

SwnyNerdgasm wrote:

I'm sorry, I'm all for "realism" but this is a fantasy roleplaying game, there really should be a sense of escapism for the players that you seem to be missing. I don't want to play some scrubby farmer with a rusty shortsword, I want to be the hero of the story.

Thank you for proving my point. Players today want to sacrifice verisimilitude in favor of totally owning all the demons.

I don't want to sacrifice it totally, but I would like to point out one thing you said.

You're not special, you're not heroes, you're some average people who picked up swords

Why would anyone want to be Jimmy Olsen, when the game is clearly about the players being Superman? Hey I've got no problem with a realistic dark and gritty campaign, as long as I know it going into it, but if i'm told to make a character for a heroic high fantasy campaign and then the first session the DM says, "Okay guys we're gonna be running what basically amounts to a reskinned Black Company style AP with little to no magic" I think it would be fair to say I'd feel a bit blind-sided.

Maybe the issue is you have one idea for a campaign and you players have another, it happens, I happen to inject tons of horror elements into almost any campaign I run, but if my players aren't fans of horror then they should speak up and let me know. That way we can open up a bit of dialogue between us and both sides of the screen can have fun, after all that's what a role-playing game is all about

I think it goes both ways, sure players can get entitled, but a lot of "Old School" DM's and get entitled too. So you spent hours crafting a realistic fantasy world for me and my fellow players to adventure in, because your running the show, we don't get to make OUR characters the way we want them, but must instead kow-tow to what you think we should have? I'm sorry, I'm all for "realism" but this is a fantasy roleplaying game, there really should be a sense of escapism for the players that you seem to be missing. I don't want to play some scrubby farmer with a rusty shortsword, I want to be the hero of the story.

It basically boils down to something I told my cousin when he first tried his hands at running a campaign, "Your world, their story" sure you can craft a world down to the most minor detail, but if we players don't get to enjoy the limelight why should we even leave our farms?

Players and Gamemasters should work together to make sure they are both having fun, maybe you should give a little in allowing things to the players.

SwnyNerdgasm wrote:

Well if you're going over the top, I'd say barbarian with skill focus(truck driver) and any feat that will help with am wrestling

Only if he has the traits Estranged Son and Evil Father-in-Law.

Estranged son trait is totally OP and broken, I don't know anyone who would allow it

Well if you're going over the top, I'd say barbarian with skill focus(truck driver) and any feat that will help with am wrestling

If Paizo does do a single-player Pathfinder game, I'd love to see 'em do a game in the style of a classic JRPG, with whimsical, animesque art and a heavy focus on story and all the classic tropes thereof. They certainly have the mix of magical sci-fi elements (The alien-filled planets, the Lovecraftian/Aberrant creatures, the firearms, all of frickin' Numeria) and they have a lot of the sorts of quirky races that tend to show up as party members in such games (Goblins, Stryx, Dhampyrs, Ghorans, Androids, the list goes on)...

Hey, if they can make an awesome JRPG starring Charles Barkley, they can make one of Pathfinder! CHAAAAAAAAAAAOS DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

Was with you till you said JRPG

What point buy and books are you looking for?

The character could be like Shepherd Book. A pacifist religious man leaving the abbey to walk the world, but as the story progresses, it's hinted that he used to be a government sponsored assassin. Translate to pathfinder, that could be like gaining a level of monk or fighter in the middle of a campaign.

Actually in Pathfinder that would be the equivalent of always having the class and not telling anyone

Any church that has inquisitors would be an organization of witch hunters

And "firefly" has just taken a new meaning in my campaigns

You are all thinking it, so I'll just say it... Mystic Theurge

Sorry it was bothering me that I didn't also post this part earlier.

"It's not pining, it's passed on. This cleric is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late cleric. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you hadn't nailed it to the perch, it would be pushing up the daisies. It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-cleric!"

What if the character isn't dead but just pining for the fjords?

Just to be sure:

It is the Double Barrel Guns that bother you, or all guns?

You would prefer that Gunslingers be unable to reload any firearm as a free action?

I think What's bothering the OP is that martials can't have nice things

We'll set up a play date

xidoraven wrote:

Runelord of wrath, riding a barded T-Rex with mounted wands of scorching ray, surrounded by orcish barbarians wielding Numerian ship-guns.

I... didn't think anyone else remembered those cartoons existed.

If you're talking about Dino-Riders I still have most of the toys in my storeroom

Im sure there's a looking for group sub forum somewhere or you can try meetup.com

Ill probably be stuck running it, but I have been wanting to play a changeling cleric for awhile now