|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Blayde MacRonan wrote:
July 3rd... Season 2 of Knights of Sidonia comes to Netflix.
Blayde MacRonan wrote:
*Squeals like a nine year old girl*
So to summarize the trigger warning issue: Some magazines use content-warnings as a favor to their readers, some people use 'TW' as a part of obvious jokes, and some law students are requesting TWs to maybe avoid genuine issues and maybe skip class.
Yeah, I can see how that last one could be a problem; but overall, color me unimpressed with all the gnashing of teeth over TWs. I wasn't even aware of this TW thing until someone on the internet complained about it -- and I've been through college twice -- so from where I sit all of the noise is coming from people being triggered by trigger warnings themselves. Maybe the internet needs a new TW...
Trigger Warning: The following text contains the words 'trigger warning.'
HP has the unusual distinction of being a series that very noticeably changes tone as the series progresses. In #1, the protagonists are innocent kids, and the tone and conclusion are 100% rated-G. A few books later, the climax of the book is a good kid dying right before teenage-Harry's eyes. And of course #7 ends with beloved characters being killed in the very first chapter, and things don't get any softer for the protagonists as they're forced to grow up all too quickly.
And at the risk of triggering Kryzbyn...
OMG HAVE YOU READ HARRY POTTER YET, IT'S THE BEST SERIES EVAAAR?!
pH unbalanced wrote:
Mark Rosewater wrote:
Each set, R&D makes sure to design a certain number of cards for Timmy. Timmy cards, as we call them, tend to be big creatures or spells with big effects. In general, Timmy cards are exciting but not too economical.
There are no 'mysteries,' so long as you understand everything.
I've never read comic books, but I of course heard about superheroes from a young age. For a long time, I assumed that each superhero existed in his or her own universe -- even within the Marvel and DC franchises -- because with the exception of the mutant phenomenon which handily explains a bunch of mutant superheroes running around together, the thought of so many people having or acquiring so many different super powers within such a short span of human history is just too implausible, even within the context of a fictional universe that allows for one superhero. Right...?
Wrong, I am! I guess it's not a problem for most readers/viewers.
I enjoyed both Avengers movies, but I did so despite the added implausibility of all those characters existing within the same universe. Let alone all speaking the same language.
I think that the more feats we have, the more people believe they need a specific feat to be able to do anything.
I wonder if a little extra text would remove this perception, in the case of feats which cover actions which would normally require a DM call. For example, if someone at Paizo (or whatever company) writes a Trick Shot feat which allows a character to ricochet arrows off of objects at a -1 to hit per object, how would fans' perceptions change if the feat text included the entry "Normal: Without this feat, ricocheting arrows off of objects imposes a -5 to hit per object." Would this make fans happy, or would they then start complaining that "Ugh, this is camouflaged game errata! Now I need to buy new splatbooks to have all the game rules! This is a travesty!!!"?
The auto-immune response to 3.5. material in the hobby. Everything is overpowered or broken in 3.5. While I agree sometimes their are better options and vice-versa. It's one thing if they actually read the material. More often than not they heard from a guy that it's broken. So it's broken. If that same guy told you it's okay to burn down your house would you still listen to him.
These are probably the same people who insist that 4e sucks, because "Everybody says so."
Sometimes the phenomenon is excusable, in the case of new players who don't know any better. But ugh, yes, people really ought to at least read something before passing judgment on it.
I recently started online DMing, and invited an old friend to play who hadn't gamed since I was DMing 3.5 ~10 years ago. One of his first questions was "Are we playing 3e or 5e?" because some guy in a game store had told him that 4e sucks. So I told him how 4e is the edition that fans either love or hate, and about the nerdrage that it's generated. So I also blame the gamers who make unqualified generalizations as if they were speaking gospel truth.
(The guy also told my friend that 5e is great because humans are good. To which I told my friend, "Ah, humans have been awesome since 3e. This guy is clearly an edition warrior.")
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Was your response, as mine is right now, a blank stare eventually followed by "...So why do you hate the psion?"
I've been writing my characters on looseleaf paper and notebooks since 2e.
*Pencil & Paper Solidarity!*
Agreed 100%! I'm not familiar with any particular archetypes, but PrCs, ACFs, feats, and class abilities have been a mess since 3.0. As I'm sure you're aware. (Oh, Spellthief, you were the perfect candidate for being a PrC!) By the end of my 3.5 career, I had started telling players who wanted to take most PrCs "What particular abilities do you want from this PrC? I think we can convert it into a feat..."
So, yeah, someone should get on this multiclassing problem with a new game/clone...*whistles off-key*
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I think that 3.x-style multiclassing has the potential to be the perfect marriage of class-based and point-based character creation. Assuming it's balanced, it gives DMs an immediate and accurate measure of character capability and allows players like Lee Teague to write "[class x] [level y]" on their character sheet, fill in a few pertinents, and be done with it; while also allowing players like DarkLightHitomi a degree of freedom to play the organic character which a game world ideally allows.
You may say that I'm a dreamer,
Edit: For a contribution to the thread - I loathe Magic: the Gathering. Despite numerous attempts (most of my gaming group is big on Magic), I've never played a round of Magic that I've actually enjoyed.
I have a love-hate relationship with MtG. It truly is a novel and creative game, and I can have a lot of fun playing it, but it'll always be chained by its roots. In some ways -- if you play the Standard format exclusively, at least -- it becomes a new game every 2(?) years; but there are certain assumptions and legacy quirks that never go away. Somewhat like D&D.
To defuse the political aspects, maybe people aren't "offended" by any particular message, but just don't like that touchy-feely hippy dippy crap?
Hm, possibly, but that might be a touchy subject too.
Just last month I was griping to a couple of guys about a paper I had to write, and how the professor wasn't being overly helpful -- it was an advanced course, to be fair -- when one of them exclaimed "Oh yeah, I hate professor whatshisname, and his hippy dippy crap!" And my thought was "Whoa, dude, you just took this from first gear straight into fifth!" I didn't question the guy, but the following questions did cross my mind:
1. What do demanding professors have to do with hippy dippy crap?
I'm sure there are answers, but I'm somewhat of a second-generation hippy myself, so this attitude is always bizarre to me when it crops up.
If you're of the libertarian bent, this might be what you don't like:
John Lennon wrote:
Of course, now that I'm rereading the full lyrics, there are other themes that I'm sure plenty of folks object to. There's the anti-religious theme to offend religious folks, and the 'no countries' theme to offend extreme patriots and racists who want to 'Keep those people out of our country!'
Anyhow, this is running the risk of straying deep into the political, so I think I'll stop here.
Ah, gotcha. Same here. :)
The Indescribable wrote:
Top of the list is adding some kind of level-related bonus to AC instead of the traditional suite of AC-booster items, and relatively balanced MCing that doesn't require patch-on rules like xp penalties or favored class bonuses. That second one is somewhat of a holy grail for me, and would almost be enough of a draw for me to buy any game even if the rest of it were garbage.
There's also like a thousand pet peeves I have with the D&D traditionalisms that are still holding out. I'd like point buy to be standard, and to replace the 3-18 stat range with a simple range of modifiers. (Also eliminate other random elements in chargen, as you might guess.) I'd like to see all alignment restrictions dropped, except cleric-like restrictions for divine classes, if the game wanted to retain a hint of traditionalism. (Paladins would look something like this.)
And spells...well, spells are the primary reason that casters are so crazy. So I'd like to see the spell chapter gone through with a fine-tooth comb. For example, I'd like to stop beating around the bush with spells like rope trick; instead of adding cute provisos like "the rope can't be removed or hidden," just say that spell slots can't be regained in extra-dimensional spaces! 'Extra-dimensional spaces are filled with discordant energy that prevents gainful rest,' whatever. If invisibility can have an obviously metagame proviso like "ends if you attack," it's perfectly reasonable to add fluff-justified provisos to other spells in the interest of balance.
Oh, and move healing spells back into Necormancy!
Really though, I could go on and on, and still forget some of the things I'd like to see. The bottom line is that I need to finish the fantasy heartbreaker I've been working on, and then play it. ;)
That... that looks exactly like what I was saying, though, which is why I'm surprised; I thought you were talking about hit points?
I'd rather that defensive skill be represented by some sort of by-level bonus[es], but yes, without house rules hit points are [sadly] the only candidate for representing get-better-just-for-surviving defensive skill.
I think I'm missing something that you're saying... but okay.
Yeah, there's something I've been missing from every one of your posts on this topic. It's like, I understand what each of your words mean individually, but we're on different wavelengths so I can't put them together in a completely coherent message.
I really do giving Blue Rose and Star Wars d20 a look, though, if only to get an idea of what they're like.
I've played the latter, but not the former. Not likely to unless I stumble upon a Blue Rose fan.
1, 2, 3 Miyazaki: Castle in the Sky, Spirited Away, and Howl’s Moving Castle are my big three. I still occasionally have dreams about the scene where Sheeta and Pazu say the magic word together...*shiver* Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, Kiki’s Delivery Service, and Princess Mononoke get honorable mentions.
4 Psycho Pass: Takes place in a futuristic Japan, where crime has been virtually eliminated by an omniscient system that monitors the 'psycho pass' of each citizen to prevent violent impulses. I can't express how dark, compelling, but ultimately hopeful this show is. Can't wait for season 2 to appear on Netflix!
5 Darker Than Black: Another futuristic anime in which mysterious and 'soulless' people known as contractors cause terror and death. Dark and action-packed, this one is on my list to catch up on once I have more of a disposable income. (The first season appeared on Netflix a while back, then disappeared.)
6 Death Note: Hey, I mentioned that I'm into dark animes right?
7 Sword Art Online: A young gamer gets trapped in a new virtual reality MMORPG along with many others in this heroic drama. The premise sounds ridiculous so I neglected watching it for a long time, but I was sooo happy when I finally did!
8 Knights of Sidonia: A young man becomes the rising star and great hope of possibly the last remnant of humanity drifting through space, many years after Earth was annihilated by incomprehensible aliens. Can't wait for season 2!
9 and 10 Ghost in the Shell: A classic anime film. Ghost in the Shell: Arise is great too.
11 East of Eden: Outside of Miyazaki films, this is the only 'sweet' anime that I've ever fallen in love with. Romance and mystery conspire to create an amazing story in this more-or-less modern world drama.
12 Arpeggio of Blue Steel: A young sea captain and his crew struggle to give humanity a fighting chance against the mysterious 'fleet of fog' which obliterated all human sea-power more than a decade ago. Somewhat surprisingly, the most defined and dramatic characters are the human-like avatars of the Fleet of Fog's ships, who help and hinder the young captain. Action-packed and fast paced, the first season is very promising.
13 Angel Beats!: Dead teens live and adventure together in an afterlife with explicitly video-game physics. Again, it's an absurd-sounding plot, but it's strangely compelling; and unlike many drama-focused animes, it has a very satisfying conclusion!
14 Fate/Zero: Summoned heroes from various mythologies duke it out to win the Holy Grail, a relic capable of granting the victor's master any one wish.
15 High School of the Dead: A group of high schoolers fight to survive a zombie apocalypse and its aftermath. There's a ridiculous amount of fanservice, but if you can get past that, it's a really fun show.
16 Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood: Much better than the other FMA: the Painfully Slow One. I probably just POed every fan of the original comic, but hey, I need action! Netflix has season 1 and 2, but not the others for some reason. This is another one to catch up on later.
17 Ninja Scroll: Sooo did not expect this to be rated R, given its title! Good stuff though, and a classic.
18 Moribito: A heroic tale of adventure and redemption in a land of swords and magic. Beautiful animation, a strong heroine, a bit of action, and a satisfying ending make this one an instant recommendation for pretty much anyone.
19 Cowboy Bebop: I liked the film, though I don't remember much about it.
20 Blood: the Last Vampire: A short and bloody film involving a high school Halloween party, vampires, and a girl with a sword. And that's pretty much all ya need to know. :) Not to be confused with the series of similar title and same protagonist, which is much more drama-oriented and slow-paced.
21 RWBY: I'm still not quite sure why I like this one became an instant favorite of mine -- it's not my usual fare. Teenage drama with monster-hunters-in-training at a magical school doesn't sound very appealing, but it's an amazing show all the same. It's got gonzo action scenes, great characterization, a compelling plot, and a solid pace that makes the second-rate cgi come vibrantly alive. I'm sooooo bummed that the creator died after season 2!
22 Berserk: Blood and action, yes please!
Honorable Mention: Mushi-Shi: Not a riveting series, IMO, but this one is uniquely beautiful. It follows the wanderings of Ginko, a man who can see the mushi; spirit-things that abound in nature, and can sometimes cause problems. The very best soundtrack of any anime I've ever heard, bar none. Also, it's the only anime I've ever impressed a date by knowing. :)
I learned to play rpgs with 2e during the 90s, but there're only three things that I miss from that era:
1. Tony DiTerlizzi's artwork, which I didn't begin appreciating until Planescape.
Pretty much every other change has been a positive in my book, or at worst neutral, although I do now have a better understanding of why a lot of old school stuff is the way it is, and why many older D&Ders have stuck with pre-2000 editions or switched to retroclones.
I was a 'mayfly' until last year, but am now a happy 4e grognard. ;)
Vincent Takeda wrote:
I prefer the old older more narrow saving throws of 2e as well though.
Out of curiosity, why do you prefer 2e saves?
Thank you, Divinitus. You seem to see what I'm getting at. I'm not talking about the RAW so much as whether the RAW is actually right. I feel like animating a body is no different than animating a mud golem. There's no soul in the body anymore, and it may as well be used to kill some bad guys, rather than just sit there.
Hi, Divinitus! You're absolutely right that there's no philosophical reason that raising the dead is automatically Evil; it's just one of those legacies that's been inherited from 3e D&D. A lot of DMs either invent a good reason for undead and undead creation to be Evil, or rule this legacy away.
(The smarmy reactions you're getting are because this is a perennial hot-button topic that invariably ends in flame-wars.)
I still say writers got it wrong to change them to "conjuration".
Yep, this is one of the things that TSR got 100% right.
But don't try to stop others from doing it if they want. And yes, censorship is exactly what some people are advocating here.
Citation needed. And let's keep our goalposts firmly in place; 'censorship' is a wider term than 'ban,' and might cover sentiments beyond the supposed ban-desires that you and others are reacting against.
Keep in mind that this whole sub-topic began with cmastah recommending a show, mentioning that it has no fanservice, and then Freehold replying with 'Sounds cool, but no fanservice = no Freehold.'
Afterward, Aranna said that she often finds that fanservice detracts from an anime, and that social awareness can and has led to improved entertainment. Before Alzrius badgered him into leaving the thread, Tels said that he doesn't mind fanservice in general but doesn't like watermelon boobs. And I followed up with my opinion that the world will be a better place when anime learns the meaning of 'everything in moderation.' No mention of bannings that I remember.
And then the thread exploded with a lot of overreactions* and [intentional?] misreading of posts. But hey, I could have missed these pro-ban comments, so feel free to link them. Because for the record, I do not support fanservice bans; what I do support is a bit of human empathy and social awareness.
*If you're not convinced of the general overreaction, take a look at Sissyl's comment about these supposed pro-ban fans getting orgasms from taking fun away from others. Lol, talk about throwing stones from glass houses! I might as well speculate that fanservice lovers want fanservice to be mandatory, because they get their jollies from knowing that their softcore [often child-]porn actively undercuts self-respect and cultural improvement.
And the tragedy is that a role player such as yourself needs more expound-ment to see a problem with fanservice. Maybe the next time you watch a fanservice-heavy anime, role play an impressionable teenage girl with low self-esteem. And then imagine that you always have been and always will be that female anime fan until the day you die.
That'll be much more enlightening than spending hours and hours throwing every conceivable argument at some anonymous internet posters you feel compelled to argue with.
I get an inordinately large kick out of hearing words that got ripped right out of English, spoken with a Japanese accent. ("Japan doesn't have a word for that?!") Also, if I generally like an anime but not its voices/sounds, I can mute it and still know what's going on.
I'm surprised how difficult it seems for some anime fans to see why fanservice might be really objectionable to women. Does sex sell? Absolutely. Will fanservice ever totally disappear? No more than racism, homophobia, or boy bands will completely disappear.
But that doesn't mean we throw up our hands, and say "Oh f#+# it, bring back the Backstreet Boys!" Because here's the thing: fanservice creates a very subtle but very real effect on women and especially girls. You can say 'Well if a girl doesn't like fanservice, there are other things to watch,' but the fact is that girls will end up watching some of it anyway. Aranna watches fanservice because some fanservicey shows have other redeeming qualities; other girls and women get peer pressured or 'I want to watch what my male friends, bf, husband, big brother, or daddy are watching!' into watching animes with fanservice. (As has been pointed out, an R rating is no real obstacle for a determined child or teen.)
And what's the effect of a girl and even a woman watching fanservice? A small but insistent voice in the back of her head telling her 'You only have small-to-regular boobs, you ain't nothing!' 'Your ankles are bigger than your wrists, you ain't nothing!' 'Your waist is too big for a man to wrap his hands completely around, you ain't nothing!' And so on. It's like how stereotypes like 'black people are stupid' and 'gay people are sex-obsessed perverts' create a kind of background mental chatter. Consciously, a person knows that it's absurd and irrational; but people aren't rational. That mental chatter is enough to undercut or even crush many people's self-respect, which results in all sorts of issues.
I'm not saying that fanservice is the worst thing since Hitler, or that it's not a byproduct of human nature. I'm saying that the world will be a better place when more anime (and other entertainment) learns what 'everything in moderation' means.
This is an excellent example of the lies that edition warriors like to spread, and the double standards they live by. Powers absolutely work in three dimensions, and out of combat by the way. Unlike conjuring spells in PF, which can't summon creatures to a space in the air. (SO MMO GAMEY!) And like invisibility, which ends when the subject performs an arbitrary action. (NO CREATIVITY TOO MUCH BALANCE!)
Again, the above is not a criticism of 4E. It is merely a statement of how it is designed. That kind of inflexible design would be fantastic for say a board game. It may be wonderful for some gaming groups. I, however, happen to like the direction up.
PF has zero consistency in errata; the devs let casters get away with murder but anything nice that martials discover get nerfed into the ground. But hey, that's not a criticism of PF; it's merely a statement of how it is designed. That sort of haphazard design would be fantastic for say a collectible card game all about magic, and it may be wonderful for some game groups. I however happen to like devs who care about their product, and for consistent balance.
I'm really starting to see why so many gamers are fundamentally uncomfortable with the idea of objective alignment.
Thanks for your thoughts.
However, I could see with some players where I would just instantly make the character an NPC, because I would know the player, and thus know that he would not play the character any differently than before the change, thus perpetuating the problem (thankfully, as I said, I have not encountered such a player personally).
Yeah, this is what I've been imagining; a character who's willing to damn his own soul for the betterment of others. A tragic hero doomed to a terrible afterlife because a capricious universe deems his choices noble but his tools wicked. I.e., a player who knows that his character is technically Evil, but no less a good guy for it.
...I apologize. No doubt that would involve quite a bit of cognitive dissonance for you, but it sounds rather interesting to me. :)
I really like the morals-made-reality aspect of alignment too, but yes, trying to reframe the debate as a 'rollplay vs roleplay' issue is absolutely wrong. And seeing how alignment was in part inspired by the red army vs. blue army rules of miniature war games, it's rather revisionist as well as insulting to other role players.
At best, alignment is completely orthogonal to character development. At worst, alignment is antagonistic to character development when there are alignment restrictions or other rules threatening to punish players for role playing their characters outside of whatever narrow role the game casts them in.
That's why there are so many role playing games completely devoid of alignment, including those of the fantasy genre; many many gamers role play without alignment better without than with. In fact I'm kind of amazed that this very fact didn't have you rethinking your whole premise before posting it on a public message board.
I dunno, I always thought the pally was much more powerful than the other martials, but his drawback was that power could only be directed at evil, and he had to behave himself.
Sounds like you're a child of pre-WotC D&D too. :)
Anyhow, the "extra power balanced out by role play restrictions" philosophy fell out of favor in 2000, 'cause it works...well, inconsistently at best. And because the fighter got his own toys starting with 3e.
The paladin's alignment restriction and code are just legacy quirks at this point.
For someone so concerned with reading into context, you sure seem to have missed an important detail. I would have thought that the bolded part of my post would imply simpler spell text, but since you missed it I'll give you a hand:--------------------------------------------
Asmodeus did it wrote:
A wizard did it wrote:
--------------------------------------------You pointed out an easily, easily solved problem -- the lack of justification for Infernal Healing in other settings -- and I solved it for you. I couldn't care less what you would or wouldn't do in your games, but from personal experience I can tell you that letting go of the unwritten 'arcane magic shall not heal' rule is nothing but good clean fun. And besides, as Voadam mentions, that rule by now has more exceptions than the English language.
As to concerns for imbalance, I posit that a spell is either balanced or it's not, regardless of alignment tags. Just like the ranger's unique ability to fight with two weapons at once and other amazing class abilities aren't balanced out by his requirement to be Good.
Usual Suspect wrote:
Wow, that's an asinine group. The DM wouldn't have had to push me to know why I left...
Rape is something that the heroes kill villainous NPCs for doing, not something that PCs do because lolz the evulz!
The Indescribable wrote:
Yeah, few asses realize that they're being asses; they think they're being helpful, and just don't recognize subtle social cues like crossed arms and monosyllabic mutters.------------------------------------------------------
Later at 3rd level, I decided to use spellstrike again and this time with shocking grasp. I hit. I followed the rules as I was told. Then he jumped like a cat (the other guy playing a magus) "NO THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS" (yes, he yelled). He claimed the spell strike worked with both of my attacks not with just the one. I tried to argue with the guy but he has this method where he gets louder with his argument. And then the GM was agreeing with him. I KNEW I was right but I was getting so frustrated and I didn't want to deal with these two and I blew up. I told them I had enough of the character and I didn't want to play the Magus anymore. (I was good enough to at least finish the session)
"I'm sorry, could you repeat that? I couldn't hear you over all the shouting."
I've been skipping around this article, and Beach obviously put a lot of thought into it, and was ahead of the times when he wrote it. Like when he recognizes that the 2e description of the Good-Evil axis is contradictory by wanting to be both objective and subjective:
2e PHB wrote:
"Remember, however, that goodness has no absolute values. Although many things are commonly accepted as good (helping those in need, protecting the weak), different cultures impose their own interpretations on what is good and what is evil."
My Final Word on Alignments wrote:
Yet they never felt compelled to tell us how such a thing like Detect Good or Detect Evil or Know Alignment made such value judgments in such absolute terms. It was almost as if they clearly intended such things to have absolute definitions at first, but then backed away from that position when they realized the relativity of many moral concerns - i.e. it was as if they had intended for alignments to be absolute universal truths, but had to later back away from that position since it was obviously wrong.
But later, after completing his lengthy criticism of alignment, and how frustratingly framed it is by a strictly Lawful Good perspective:
My Final Word on Alignments wrote:
Unfortunately, to use any other standard or absolute other than the Lawful Good one already in use would doom it to failure since too much of the system is already written and in place. Only TSR itself could pull off such a major revision and expect it to gain acceptance through the new printing of their next edition. But I am not TSR and this is only one little paper, despite its length. So I am more or less forced to use much of their standard, or forced to forget the whole thing. But I did not write this paper to forget it, and you didn't read it this far to be let down. And so, using the Lawful Good standard, but modified to exclude the abstract, universal, cosmic notions of balance, we proceed.
Beach steps back from writing the alignment revamp that he'd presumably rather write, and decides to try to hammer the existing model into shape -- with mixed results, as you say, UnArcaneElection.
If I went to the trouble to write such a lengthy article on a game thing that I felt was so fundamentally flawed, I'd go the whole nine yards with it -- tear down the old, and start from scratch! But maybe I'm unusually Chaotic like that. ;)
I went to the trouble of finding and transcribing these quotes after recognizing some other quotes here, but for some reason never posted them. Oh well, better late than never...
Preceded by a sadistic explanation of black mamba venom:
A Blonde Villain wrote:
“Now, in these last agonizing minutes of life you have left, let me answer that question you asked earlier more thoroughly. Right at this moment, the biggest ‘R’ I feel is regret. Regret that maybe the greatest warrior I have ever met met her end at the hands of a bush wackin’ scrub elkie piece of s@@% like you! That woman deserved better.”
Preceded by much blood and death:
An Old Villain wrote:
And I'm surprised neither of these has appeared in this thread:
A Very Unfunny Villain wrote:
A Very Unfunny Villain wrote:
I love how both of these stories are told with complete sincerity; so much so that I didn't immediately realize that they contradicted each other the first time I saw this film.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Now, now, I don't think you're thinking this thru.
It's like the Justice League; Superman's power is totally in line with the others' because Batman can totally whip out the kryptonite to keep him in line. And that's a totally reasonable thing for Batman to do.
Does anyone honestly believe that Sorcerers would outshine Wizards if we were to remove the level adjustment and allow them to get spells at the same pace as wizards? Look at how few spells Sorcerers get.
I don't think that anybody with much play experience has believed this in about a decade. With respect to PF, the staggered spell progression for sorcerers and other spontaneous casters is simply the result of the inertia of backwards compatibility and tradition.
Two very poor reasons to keep any bad habit, but there ya go.
I agree that a lot of the small changes that were introduced with 3e resulted in quite a few problems, and some of 3e's innovations probably didn't turn out as the original 3e team expected. (See: multiclassing and feats.) And if you like the way that 2e handles things, then by all means, go retro!
But after playing 2e during my childhood, and then playing 3.0 and 3.5 for eight years, I think that introducing 2e-isms just introduces a different set of problems. Arguably lesser problems overall, but I'd personally rather spend the time and energy tinkering with PF than Frankensteining 2e and PF together. In the end, I think I'd spend a similar amount for a greater result.
But this is your game of course, so YMMV.
While I don't hate PF -- how could I hate a clone of what was once my favorite D&D game? -- neither do I own any PF products or have much hope that it'll ever being something that'll get me truly excited to play.
However, all the quirks and dare I say it, outright problems which PF has makes it much more interesting to discuss and debate than my current favorite game. Which is great fun to play, but is too well-made to generate many hot-button topics -- within its own fandom, at least.
Also, like bugleyman, my user account predates PF, and there are fun non-game related topics here, like my anime thread!
That's why I kind of get confused on concepts such as "betrayal" or "owing"? Like...an author taking extra long doesn't even come up on my radar as anything like a betrayal. If the author slept with my wife...now that is betrayal...
...And now I'm imagining coming home to some future wife of mine in bed with Neil Gaiman.
"I'm so sorry honey, but he's some kind of American God!"