Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Imron Gauthfallow

Tequila Sunrise's page

2,903 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,903 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Sissyl wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

Good story, believable characters, an interesting conflict, good language, a bit of mystery, some emotional punch, appropriate length, unexpected plot twists, decent dialogue... oh, and one or more ideas, well executed.

SF books are still books.

Yes, this!

I will add that while I can enjoy stories that involve time travel -- Lost, Star Trek, etc. -- I've never read or seen anything that I didn't enjoy despite the time travel. My favorites all have a conspicuous lack of time-space continuum shenanigans, even when the story flirts with time manipulation, as with Frank Herbert's Dune.

My absolute favourite time travel story is The Anubis Gates, maybe you should try that too.

Added to my list!

Also, Tim Powers seems to have written a novel that inspired the fourth Pirates movie...


DM Under The Bridge wrote:


If you liked the film, try the short book. For added immersion, read it while the songs the protagonist plays are on. That will take you to paranoid places good buddy.

Added to my reading list!

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:


The movie entirely missed everything that made the original book amazing.
It's like the script writers went through the book page by page and intentionally changed everything to the point where giving the movie the same name as the book is basically a lie.

...Welcome to Hollywood cinema! It's much more enjoyable when you stop expecting film adaptations to be the same as the source fiction.


Sissyl wrote:

Good story, believable characters, an interesting conflict, good language, a bit of mystery, some emotional punch, appropriate length, unexpected plot twists, decent dialogue... oh, and one or more ideas, well executed.

SF books are still books.

Yes, this!

I will add that while I can enjoy stories that involve time travel -- Lost, Star Trek, etc. -- I've never read or seen anything that I didn't enjoy despite the time travel. My favorites all have a conspicuous lack of time-space continuum shenanigans, even when the story flirts with time manipulation, as with Frank Herbert's Dune.


Krensky wrote:
Henry Southgard wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Seriously, Cruise destroys every sci-fi project he gets attached too. Well, except Scientology, I guess.
Don't forget Will Smith. I'm amazed that Men In Black came out as good as it did.

He doesn't destroy every sci-fi property though.

The MiB movies were good. Independence Day was (empty) fun.

Really it's just the last one that was horrible.

Yeah, Will Smith gets cast in some pretty lame movies, but ya can't blame the guy for accepting huge cheques in exchange for reciting some cheesy dialogue from someone's half-baked script.

And hey, I Am Legend is one of my favorite scifi films! I tear up every time I see...

Spoiler:
Neville strangle his dog while singing Bob Marley's Everything's Gonna Be Alright.


Asurasan wrote:
I tend to play Neutral characters, all across the Law-Chaos spectrum. Contrary to the above post, I tend to find more useful character building concepts in law and chaos than I find in good and evil.

Hm, interesting! Is law/chaos more clear to you than good/evil, or is law/chaos just more interesting?

For sure, it's difficult to play a truly Good character in a For Gold And Glory! kind of campaign, while it can be...tiresome for others to play an antihero in a Save The World! kind of campaign.

I guess I find law/chaos rather ill-defined and subjective from the metagame PoV, and so I don't find it useful for investing my characters with personality.

That said, whoever my current DM is may decide that my current character is Lawful or Chaotic despite what's on my character sheet, and that's cool.


I have two go-to alignments:

If I want to play an average Joe kind of character, or an antihero, I play Neutral.

If I want to play a hero, I play Neutral Good.

KestrelZ wrote:
I have a history of playing characters that help the group out, so I have a good cross-group reputation. I don't like getting hung up on the Lawful/chaos polarity (word of law vs intention).

Yeah, interpretation of the law/chaos axis varies so wildly depending on DM that it doesn't even enter into my decision making process. In other words, my characters are always neutral with respect to law/chaos, unless I'm playing a class with an alignment requirement. In which case I play the character exactly the same as I otherwise would. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Honestly I feel like Marshmellow is grasping at straws....
Care to elaborate?

I'm not K177Y, but when someone starts claiming that 15 = 25 = 40...well, let's just say that it's really hard to take that person seriously.

Oh, and FYI, 'sacred cow' is a term that refers to a game quirk that exists largely because of tradition. Hence, point buy doesn't qualify, as it's a relatively recent invention with some clear advantages. If you're going to call anything a sacred cow, call rolling for stats a sacred cow.


master_marshmallow wrote:
For me, that is 'the problem' and the idea that 'balance at all costs' is the goal of this or any other thread when it comes to point buy misses the point entirely, and those who actually hold point buy as a sacred cow and a herald of 'balance at all costs' miss the point doubly.

Sacred cow? 'Balance at all costs?' This thread's resurrection has resulted in some of the weirdest assertions I've ever read on an internet forum.

I'm pretty sure that most of the D&Ders who're that concerned with balance are playing mostly 4e. Like me! I think that most balance advocates on this forum simply want PF to be a bit more balanced.

But hey, who knows? I could be wrong.


Umbranus wrote:
Lakesidefantasy wrote:
I just found it ironic to call it "happy gaming" right after we made it harder to game by not participating.
Is it really a problem finding enough players where you are from? Here it is more often to find enough GMs for the number of players. Or to keep your games from becoming too big. In one game we're now 6 players and that's after one quit, for example.

Speaking for myself, there are places where gamers are very scarce. I spent most of my life in a very rural area, where I often went years between finding/forming rpg groups, and couldn't keep a group together for more than a year.

That said, I don't think that this fact obligates anyone to play a game they don't really want to play. Just like I don't think my close friends are obligated to table-top role play with me just because I enjoy it so much. Likewise, I don't feel obligated to do things like help fellow students with their math homework just because I can do advanced calculus. And the stakes there are arguably much higher than the fate of a game campaign!

I have other hobbies to occupy myself with, even if ttrping is my favorite.


Lakesidefantasy wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
Lakesidefantasy wrote:
Umbranus wrote:

Sure there can be rude ways to do this. But imagine the following and tell me if it is rude and what about it is.

GM: I'm going to make a game of pathfinder, care to join in?
Me: Pathfinder sounds nice, how are you going to generate stats?
GM: We will be rolling them standard.
Me: Hmm.. you're sat on this? I really don't like rolling. Couldn't you just give us stat arrays? Like you roll some stats and we use them, allocating them as we see fit? Or perhaps point buy?
GM: No, I'm really set on having them rolled individually.
Me: Sorry, but then I'll have to pass. Happy gaming to you. *sadface*

Happy gaming?

It's easy to vilify the Dungeon Master, but what if the other players want to use the Standard method for rolling stats too? And, they really need you to play or else nobody can play. Should they all just acquiesce and play your way?

I guess so, if they want to play at all.

If you have a problem with the wording: I'm not a native speaker in English, nor are the people I game with. I just guessed that happy gaming comes close to what I'd tell them. What I meant was to sincerely wish them fun with their game even if I do not take part in it.
'Happy gaming' is indeed a completely polite expression, and your dialogue reads as totally sincere. Lakesidefantasy is interpreting it in the worst possible way, because doing so supports his claim that turning games down is childish. /serious

Yes, Umbranus there is nothing wrong with the expression, and I don't doubt your sincerity. I just found it ironic to call it "happy gaming" right after we made it harder to game by not participating.

My overall point is that among supporters of Point-Buy there is a vociferous minority that allegedly will refuse to play in a game where ability scores are rolled. Although I have to question whether they are so vehement and really would turn own a game where the Standard method is used. Usually their hyperbolic claims have them standing up to some villainous Dungeon Master who wants Players to roll 3d6 "down the line" then beg for mercy.

Conversely, although there may be some, I don't see such vociferous claims coming from the other side. For instance, "I will never play in a game where I am given a 'choice' between 0 Point-Buy and an array of 11-11-11-10-10-10 from some demon-monkey Dungeon Master who wants me to kiss his brown-eyed, faceless mother whenever I roll a natural 20."

First you accuse Umbranus of vilifying DMs and coercing other gamers to play his way, and now your complaint is that he's too polite when he turns down games.

Forgive me for pointing out that there's some crazy nonsense coming from both sides of this debate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Meh.
Would you care to elaborate?

I could be wrong, but I think Freehold means "The greater variance of those d6s is why I like rolling stats!"


Umbranus wrote:
Lakesidefantasy wrote:
Umbranus wrote:

Sure there can be rude ways to do this. But imagine the following and tell me if it is rude and what about it is.

GM: I'm going to make a game of pathfinder, care to join in?
Me: Pathfinder sounds nice, how are you going to generate stats?
GM: We will be rolling them standard.
Me: Hmm.. you're sat on this? I really don't like rolling. Couldn't you just give us stat arrays? Like you roll some stats and we use them, allocating them as we see fit? Or perhaps point buy?
GM: No, I'm really set on having them rolled individually.
Me: Sorry, but then I'll have to pass. Happy gaming to you. *sadface*

Happy gaming?

It's easy to vilify the Dungeon Master, but what if the other players want to use the Standard method for rolling stats too? And, they really need you to play or else nobody can play. Should they all just acquiesce and play your way?

I guess so, if they want to play at all.

If you have a problem with the wording: I'm not a native speaker in English, nor are the people I game with. I just guessed that happy gaming comes close to what I'd tell them. What I meant was to sincerely wish them fun with their game even if I do not take part in it.

'Happy gaming' is indeed a completely polite expression, and your dialogue reads as totally sincere. Lakesidefantasy is interpreting it in the worst possible way, because doing so supports his claim that turning games down is childish. /serious


master_marshmallow wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
My experience is that 2d6+6 should be the standard for rolling, it sets the minimum stat at 8, which is about as low as non minmaxers are willing to go anyway.

Er, not that I have issue with all of the insightful and convincing arguments you've made, but...

I don't think that means what you think it means.

There's a non missing in there.

My bad.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
My experience is that 2d6+6 should be the standard for rolling, it sets the minimum stat at 8, which is about as low as non minmaxers are willing to go anyway.

Er, not that I have issue with all of the insightful and convincing arguments you've made, but...

I don't think that means what you think it means.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
My problems with point buy are less about the game style choice and about giving players a way to make the characters they want, and more about the fact that it's a lie and players still can't make the characters they want, but the ones who claim they can get to have a huge chip on their shoulder about it.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I was just responding to the canard that "point-buy is always more fair!" -- it's not. That's not to say it's an inferior method or that rolling is awesome; it just means that one (1) of the cited advantages doesn't often hold up.

You're both 1000000% right. Point buy doesn't create more choice or fairness. Random predefined choices create choice, and the capriciousness of luck creates fairness.

Look, think of this way, people: Where do you have more choice, in a casino, or on Pluto? And what's more fair, a feudal monarchy, or a bologna sandwich?

...Exactly.

Okay, okay, if that's too confusing for you point buyers, just think of chargen as a temporary opposite-zone: What's fair is unfair, and what's deterministic is actually freedom!


loaba wrote:
I want to know who's got the fruit for 3d6-in-order. 'Cause really, this 4d6-DTL AND arrange to taste is just a bunch of Unearthed Arcana bull-pucky.

I'd totally try 3d6 down the line for a one-shot. Of course the problem with one-shots with the NYC Paizo group is that we're always in a time crunch, so rolling and in-session character creation would probably mean pulling an all-night game.

Now that I think of it though...nah, we're all too old for all-night games!

Fake Healer wrote:
Maybe in a future edition of the game we could have the spells divided into schools and each school's DCs are tied to a certain ability school. Like say that all Divination spells DCs are tied to wisdom, all Enchantment spells DCs are anchored to Charisma, Transmutation DC base on Intelligence...something like that would reduce the whole "wizards need one stat only" mentality and help keep them from maximizing their spell DCs as easily.

Careful, that's dangerously close to vaguely resembling how 4e handles the wizard class. ;)


Lakesidefantasy wrote:


I think most Pathfinder gamers use the Standard method simply because it is called the Standard method in the Core Rulebook. However, the Purchase or Point-Buy method seems to have increased in use. I think this may partially come from the influence of 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons, because , if I recall correctly, it adopted the Purchase method as the standard. (I may be wrong about this, it has been years since I last played 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons).

Point buy is indeed standard in 4e, though I hadn't before considered that it might have a noticeable effect on chargen choice in PF.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Hmmm.... I missed it...

Where in my two posts did I say one way superior to another?

Oh, my One True Way comment wasn't a commentary on you; it's just a quirk of my ultra-grognard forum character.


Umbranus wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


Everyone who uses point buy is by default a whiner. (...)
You can't handle the dice!

Insults are always helpful in a discussion.

Sorry if the sarcasm wasn't clear.

It helps to imagine Stephen Colbert speaking my recent posts on this thread. :)

For example...

Damian Magecraft wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Well yes, in a controlled environment such as point buy people will generally use the spreads that are good. I don't see that as a bad thing though, it allows for much greater player choice in what you want to build compared to rolling and potentially getting stats unsuited for the character you want.

When the fighter/rogue/mage/cleric/bard in game A has the same exact stats as the fighter/rogue/mage/cleric/bard in game B and the fighter/rogue/mage/cleric/bard in Game C and the fighter/rogue/mage/cleric/bard in game D, Ad nauseaum...

It gets old... Fast.

Right on, friend! Rolling straight down the line, with no rearrangements, is the only way to avoid all these awful munchkin cookie cutter PCs! Oh Crom, I just love to see a fighter with 15/9/7/13/14/12!

Point buy results in exactly the same characters every time. Rolling with rearrangements results in superficially different characters -- the individual scores are slightly different from what they'd be with point buy, but they're arranged in the same awful munchkin cookie cutter order. If able, wizard players still put their highest stat in Int and their lowest in Str and Cha, for example. And everyone knows that characters can't be different or interesting unless their stats are completely random!

...You were talking about the One True Way to roll stats, laid down by the two Fathers of True Role Playing, right? (3d6, straight down the line, no rearrangements, no complaints!)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CKorfmann wrote:
I prefer rolling for stats simply because all PCs are not, or should not be created equally. People aren't, so why should PCs? I believe the stats should be rolled in front on the GM. If you want big gosh-darn heroes, than use the 7 sets of 4d6 drop one and reroll 1s. If you are more inclined toward 15-20 point buy stats, than you can skip the rerolls and extra set.

Bah, you're talking pansy anime storygaming nonsense. Roll 3d6 in front of your DM, right down the line, no rerolls, no rearrangements, and no complaints. Because life isn't fair! You want to play a Big Damn Hero? Kamikaze your PCs until you roll good scores.

This isn't a game we're playing, people, this is serious stuff.


Umbranus wrote:
@Whining: I can only talk for my self but I would try to get every game to either use point buy or a set array and if that doesn't work leave without hard feelings. No whining from my side, I just don't play d20 games with rolled stats.

Everyone who uses point buy is by default a whiner. Even if your voice never approaches that trembling pitch, you are rebelling against the tradition of uncertainty that was laid down by the great Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. Because you can't handle real characters.

You can't handle the dice!

;)

MichaelSandar wrote:
It's always roll for us. 4d6-L. Reroll if the total modifier is less than +1. If someone doesn't like their stats, suck it up. No 'suiciding'. Find a way to be a hero despite your deficiencies.

That's right, suicide is the coward's way out. But there are many unfortunate tragedies among individuals who attempt the adventurer's lifestyle without being quite cut out for it.

*wink*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
tony gent wrote:

Its odd that in all the years I've been gaming (which is 30+ ) I've only ever seen two characters with mega stats as we've always insisted that they are rolled in front of the DM .

Strange that

I know, right?

All these whiny point buy lovers remind me of all those one-time house guests who complain about my homemade candies. So what if I don't watch how much sugar I toss into the pot? It's all about the thrill of the first taste: will this toffee be like eating mildly sweet lard, or will it be like eating a chunk of dehydrated non-diet soda?

And hey, in 30+ years, I've only sent one dinner guest into a diabetic coma. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

Dice Roll is jsut bad...

It create rediculous levels of disparity and can make a lot of people feel sort of cheated (guy wanted to make a Gish type character (who are prone to being MAD) but ended up with 12s across the board or the guy who is dominating because he defied stats and got all 18s). Additionally, you get awkward problems like "hey! We don't have BSF... we need a BSF. Hey! Since you haven't made a character yet you get to be BSF *rolls stats* 12...14...12...8..10...9... well then... "

Additionally, Dice Roll just makes the GM's job even harder. With PB you know roughly how powerful (attribute wise) everyone is. With dice rolls you know have to find a way to challenge the guy who got really good rolls while not just straight out slaughtering the guy who can't roll for the life of him...

Disparity is abundant regardless of the stat generation method.

Yeah, everyone knows that PF is crazy broken. And if it can't be perfectly balanced, why strive for balance at all?

It's like I keep telling my senator, my reps, my police department, and my neighborhood watch: Look guys, utopia's never going to happen. It's an impossible ideal. So why strive for it? Why waste time on laws that can't guarantee freedom everywhere all the time? Why waste money on police departments that can't protect everyone everywhere all the time? So screw law and order! Let's have some fun, cause some mayhem, and live in blissful anarchy!

If you can't have utopia, go for chaos; and if you can't have perfect balance, throw all equity to the wind!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MattR1986 wrote:
I'm glad I wasn't the only one thazt thought he was new. I don't know what you mean by single player.

I think Hama means "He plays as if it's just him and the DM."

Oh, and I assumed that he was a new DM too. I think the uncontrollable giggling really gives that impression.


Lakesidefantasy wrote:
I think good, old fashioned Player Ability Score envy plays heavily into criticism of rolling scores and less the issue of balance.

Sadly, you are one million percent right. That some people don't understand how important stat-rolling is just goes to show how much they're roll players rather than role players.

Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
With my live group I played through three campaigns with. This one girl never rolled below a 14, and had one character with nothing below a 16. She was often times eclipsing everyone else at their own jobs. For instance, one game she was a wizard, and had more Hps than anyone, and we had a barbarian in the party (we rolled hps, but she had 2 18s and one was in con and she pretty much rolled a 6 every time) Everyone else at the table was pretty normal on each character, but she just always rolled awesome for stats, and I watched it happen. One game the gm made us roll races randomly too, everyone gets a human, halfling, kobolod, warforged...and 1% chance of getting a drow noble, which she got. I wouldn't believe someone.could be that lucky if I didn't see it happen time and time again. I can't tell you how many.times everyone at the table felt worthless because she maxed characters in three games with multiple pcs.

Jealousy strikes again!

Mature players would have thanked the dice gods that one of their number rolled great stats. Savvy players would have used her great stats to the group's advantage. Real role players would have constructed a golden palanquin to carry her hither and thither upon, because a character with such high stats is clearly divine!

I mean, grow up, people. This isn't a game we're playing. Life isn't fair.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
At that point you might as well just roll everything. Stats, class, armor type, weapon. Maybe even your level one feat.

Real role players roll to determine whether they get a feat every level.

;)


Maerimydra wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:
Thread necromancy, I know, but this episode of the dungeon bastard sums up my exact feelings about point buy versus dice rolls for stats.
I too enjoyed the sarcastic slippery slope argument. Unless that wasn't sarcasm. Then I am concerned...

I agree with Dungeon Bastard. Point buy is for sissy storygamers. Maybe it's because of the way I was raised, but when I roll crappy stats, I do what any real man would do: kamikaze that loser! Hey, not everyone is cut out to be an adventurer.

;)

Yeah but for character creation to be truly random, one would have to roll his class too. :P

Sadly, there is no 18-sided dice.

That's what d100 tables are for! The first 50% of mine consists of the fighter, rogue, and monk. 51+ puts you in a good class. To be a full caster, you have to roll 91-99.

Rolling a 100 is the holy grail of chargen of course, being "Roll again twice."

Now that's hardcore gaming!


Marthkus wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:
Thread necromancy, I know, but this episode of the dungeon bastard sums up my exact feelings about point buy versus dice rolls for stats.
I too enjoyed the sarcastic slippery slope argument. Unless that wasn't sarcasm. Then I am concerned...

I agree with Dungeon Bastard. Point buy is for sissy storygamers. Maybe it's because of the way I was raised, but when I roll crappy stats, I do what any real man would do: kamikaze that loser! Hey, not everyone is cut out to be an adventurer.

;)


Aranna wrote:
If he won't listen then he won't listen... but that doesn't mean you have to stop talking. Keep giving him advice outside the game and see if he doesn't eventually start taking it.

I actually wouldn't recommend this, when dealing with anyone stubborn. Or anyone simply peeved by potentially tactless unsolicited advice. Continuing to give advice will be seen as nagging at best, and will probably result in said individual digging their heels in even further.


Slivan "Sli" Simmeran wrote:

Don't mean this in any disrespectful way but why clone 4e?

Seems to be the general feeling that it wasn't very popular. I don't think we would all be in the pathfinder forums if it had been (I might be wrong on this thinking).

The Paizo forums are a pretty insular community, and if you're in a PF-heavy area, I'm not surprised if it seems like nobody plays 4e. But 4e is basically all I've played since 2008, and I haven't had much trouble finding other 4e players. Mostly the problem is finding reliable gamers, which has been a perennial problem for me. *sigh*

One of the reasons I favor more diverse forums over the Paizo forums these days is because of this pervasive idea that "Nobody here likes 4e so nobody will call me out for edition-sniping." Or sometimes outright lying about 4e. It seems every time I do visit these forums, I end up correcting a PF fan's "mistaken" assertions about 4e. Just look at much of this thread, for example!

Anywho, if you want a more realistic idea of 4e's popularity, try visiting RPGnet. RPGnet has the additional advantage of having a large non-D&D and 'system-nomad' population, which lends a certain perspective to the relative similarity of D&D's various editions and clones.

Heck, there's at least one dedicated 4e community, where we occasionally chime in just to say how thankful we are that we have 4e!


Marthkus wrote:
The GM is aware of it and their sense of (overused word) verisimilitude is as important as the PCs.

You're right, verisimilitude is important. So here are my ideas for getting rid of the PF stuff that kills verisimilitude:

AC: Characters get better at stabbing things, they get better at dodging fireballs, but they never get better at dodging swords? What am I playing, Diablo? Must be changed! (Mentioned earlier, but worth repeating.)

Wizards: Wizards are described as masters of magic, even more so than in earlier iterations of D&D, but they're not. If a spell is level-appropriate, a wizard should be able to learn and cast it!

Iterative Attacks: Skilled combatants are better off standing still? Ludicrous! Full-attacking, or its equivalent in PF2, needs to be a standard action!

Swallow Whole: If a PC cuts his way out of a big beastie, the beastie should die. Not use localized regeneration to heal the hole in its throat and go right on fighting. So gamey!

BAB: A wizard, particularly one of the bookworm NPC sort, can go his entire career never having lifted a dagger. And yet he's a better warrior than most actual warriors! Nonsense!

Default Attack Stat: Aiming with muscle makes no sense. Dexterity should be the default attack stat, if not the only attack stat, with Strength limiting the weapons you can wield.

Monster Realism: Critters do not get better at fighting, skills, dodging fireballs, or resisting mental influence just because they're bigger. All animals and animal-intelligence monsters should have +0 BAB (or maybe +5 if a predator), a handful of skill points, and +0 base saves regardless of size!

Dex 11-: Characters with low-to-average Dex are just as hard to hit flat-footed? That's ridiculous! Ability bonuses need to be changed to a realistic paradigm: a score of 1-2 is a +1, a 3-4 is a +2, and so on. That way when anyone is flat-footed, they always become easier to hit! Unless of course they're already paralyzed or something, in which case they're already basically an object.

Size Categories: Size categories are unrealistic, and not even consistent within their own logic. Each category is supposed to represent a doubling of each dimension, but that's not how minis are sized. Also, Small creatures should not be Medium-lite just because some players want to play Frodo -- Small and Medium having the same space and reach is absurd, and must be changed! Also, size should affect Perception for the same reason it affects AC and attack rolls. Oh and while we're on the topic, someone who actually understands math should redo the attack/AC size mods.

Monster Building: Monsters and PCs should follow the same rules. None of this 3+ HD per CR insanity -- talk about power creep! -- everything gets 1 HD per CR, with monster class abilities thrown in for higher CR monsters!

Class Abilities: Why must a PC take rogue levels to get Evasion, or barbarian levels to get Rage? Anyone can learn to dodge fireballs, and get destructively angry. I say turn everything into feats! Then we can all build the characters we want, instead of playing a tabletop mmorpg!

Yes, these are actual issues that ruin my verisimilitude when playing PF. As much, if not more than 4e's oddities. You might have difficulty taking 4e seriously, but I assure you, there are plenty of us with the same problem with 3.x. And nobody gets to claim a monopoly on verisimilitude, because if there are any GURPers reading this thread, they have stomach aches from all the laughter, and temporary blindness from all the eye-rolling.

And now I think we should follow Pan's advice, and quit with the not-so-subtle edition-sniping.


Pan wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
DigitalMage wrote:
It is interesting that more than a couple of suggestions of what to do in PF2 are things that 4e actually did. Paizo may want to take a look at 4e and see what stuff it did well and perhaps learn from that.
...But don't tell the fans! PF 2e might fail just because the haters carry the old "It's not really a rpg" nonsense over from 4e. ;)
You been waiting since the OP to bust this out I bet!

That's right, this is all part of my master plan to manipulating Paizo into publishing Pathfinder: the Fourthing!


DigitalMage wrote:
It is interesting that more than a couple of suggestions of what to do in PF2 are things that 4e actually did. Paizo may want to take a look at 4e and see what stuff it did well and perhaps learn from that.

...But don't tell the fans! PF 2e might fail just because the haters carry the old "It's not really a rpg" nonsense over from 4e. ;)


Marthkus wrote:

Case in point being encounter powers.

I get really angry anytime I see an ability in PF that last for "the rest of combat" or "once per combat".

Is it really that hard to say, "after using this ability, you can't use it again until you rest for a minute."?

In an (overused) word: verisimilitude

On the other hand, is it really so hard to mentally replace "once per encounter" with "after using this ability, you can't use it again until you rest for a minute"?

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but really, this is the kind of complaint that rings hollow to many people, and sounds a lot like "I'm looking for things to complain about."


Scavion wrote:
tsuruki wrote:


The monster creation rules in particular are the literal heart and soul of 3.x. I believe that a key downfall of 4.0 was that it suffered a severe lack of DM friendly systems.
By taking away a well grounded encounter design system they completely alienated a lot of dm's and said dm's simply bunkered down in 3.5 and ignored 4.0 altogether, and then pathfinder came along :).

Monster creation was actually super well done in 4e. The statblocks are really nice and you can fine tune and reflavor them easily.

In the 5e playtest, it inherited the nicely organized monster statblocks from 4e.

I was just about to say that, among DMs who have run many systems, 4e is generally known as the most friendly. Except among the Viking Hat "Grrr, I don't need no stinkin' rules nor pansy guidelines for nothin'!" crowd.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Yeah. Is it a controversial view that they're still doing fine with their first edition?

Not at all. I thought you were referencing the "Paizo is the top ttrpg company" meme.

Steve Geddes wrote:
"Maybe I'm right" doesnt really relate to whether Paizo eventually produce a new edition. I'm commenting on the argument, not the likelihood.

I have a feeling we're having a semantic disagreement; I'm not particularly interested in the arguments for or against PF 2e, so I'll leave it at that.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


I reject the implicit assumption that, without producing a new edition, Paizo will not remain profitable into the future. The only argument I've seen as to why "A new edition is inevitable" have been from people pointing to other companies who don't have that model.
Which ttrpg companies don't eventually write new editions, or go under before they can?

The most successful one is still doing fine on its first edition.

The point being that the ones that do ride the edition treadmill are companies for whom the rules are the predominant profit-driver. That's not Paizo's business model (or wasnt anyway - maybe things have changed).

Being in the same industry isnt the right basis of comparison, it's business models that matter.

What, you mean Paizo? If you say so.

Anyway, sure, Paizo is more focused on adventures than WotC -- but I can't help but think there are other ttrpg companies also not focused on rules. White Wolf comes to mind as having a big focus on story rather than rules. And so far as I know, all those companies all eventually print new editions.

I mean, hey, I could be wrong. Maybe you're right and PF will be the Monopoly of ttrpgs even in 4047, when we all ascend to time-space godhood with the aid of Federation technology. But PF the first is only six years old, so those look like long odds indeed.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
What was the original point of this thread again? I've forgotten.

I think it had something to do with pigmies. Or maybe rubik's cubes.


memorax wrote:
We will see. 5E may be the first edition of D&D I don`t buy. Not because of the rules. Just new edition fatigue. It has to knock my gaming socks off. Try to address some issues 3.5 had. More importantly their goal of one edition for all D&D player with the promised modularity better still be part of it. Otherwise I have PF and 2E to keep me happy.

Call me a cynic, but I have a word for "One edition for everyone" -- market-speak hot air.

I'm in the same boat, though for slightly different reasons. 5e will probably be the first edition I won't buy, because I've already had my socks knocked off. If I were a younger man, I'd probably buy it just 'cause; but I've seen enough editions to know that 5e probably has nothing to interest me.


Steve Geddes wrote:


I reject the implicit assumption that, without producing a new edition, Paizo will not remain profitable into the future. The only argument I've seen as to why "A new edition is inevitable" have been from people pointing to other companies who don't have that model.

Which ttrpg companies don't eventually write new editions, or go under before they can?


Jack Assery wrote:
Like a Rules Compendium? I'm certainly on board with that; I hate having to look up Errata, FAQ, and revised books for new RAW. If only to put a better wording on what we have as many things can be interpreted in multiple ways. I'd still love a power creep but I would buy the s*** out of an intuitive rule book.

On a total tangent, this is the first thread where I've ever seen 'power creep' used this way. I.e., as a singular/plural noun rather than a little/lot noun, and as a positive thing rather than a bad thing.

/tangent


Scavion wrote:
That said, skills, skill challenges, and everything outside of combat is very...sparse.

It depends on your attitude toward skills, really. There are fewer skills, but they cover more area, which allows characters to be good at more things. There are fewer social skill rules; which if you're comfortable with the old fashioned way -- "Let's role play this out, and roll a skill check at the end" -- is better than say, the 3.x Diplomacy rules.

Scavion wrote:
Skill challenges are just "Roll X X and X. Okay well done you get to move on." Yes, I can fluff it up through description but ultimately it's kinda boring.

Yeah, skill challenges as presented are more or less just "Roll several skill checks instead of the traditional one skill check," though other 4e fans have taken this crude framework and really ran with it. I hear the fan-made guidelines are much better.

Scavion wrote:
4e demands a grid which makes power of imagination play difficult. I play a homebrewed Final Fantasy D6 I found online and it is amazing in comparison. None of these silly 5ft square nonsense. Stuff is either short range, medium, or long and you only need to know where you are in relation to stuff.

I'm skeptical of these kind of combat zones, because the grid really focuses my imagination. I've played 'theatre of the mind,' and it tends to get confusing fast.

Scavion wrote:
Paizo's adventures rock.

That they do!


Nathanael Love wrote:
Paizo shouldn't be held hostage by people who just want to accelerate the edition carousal either.

Shhh, it's okay, shhh.

There there, Nate. Whatever outlandish opinions you imagine your fellow PF fans to have, be assured that you're the only one who thinks that there's even a remote chance that Paizo will do something as radical as removing vancian casting. It's just not in the cards, so chill.

If it seems like there's a cacophony of fans clamoring to tear down everything you love about the game, it's because you're not hearing the cacophony of fans throwing themselves against the bulwark of tradition right alongside you. In an anonymous environment like the internet, people tend to notice contrary opinions much more than agreement. I assure you, I hear the cacophony of fans like you, and it's deafening compared to those clamoring for change.


Athaleon wrote:
But I would move it out of Conjuration, perhaps into Necromancy (as a "master of life and death" sort of deal). As they said in 3.5, Conjuration does everything. Transmutation does everything else.

Haha, oh god yes! I began playing in 2e D&D, and conjured heals still make no freaking sense. And seriously, even if they did make sense, why then are inflict spells not conjurations?

And as long as we're making magic schools a little more sensible, let's kill Abjuration and give its stuff to the others. It's the one school defined by its ends rather than its means. And hey, 7 is a nice magical number!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jack Assery wrote:
My question though is: can we have high fantasy games where wizards aren't relegating the rest of the party to useless because he can do everything? I would love each class to have unique abilities, and mages aren't the only offender here either.

I think it would be possible if the Paizo team took a good careful look at each spell, and weren't afraid bash things into shape with the nerf bat. 95% of the problem with casters is the spells, not the classes themselves.

Ideally, they also wouldn't be afraid to buff the weaker spells either!


Athaleon wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


This is a problem with every edition and clone, not least of all PF. I.e., "I can't be a real necromancer until I hit 5th/6th/7th/8th level and can...

That reminds me. If magic is powerful and common in the setting (in other words, if Spells = Solutions), and players can freely choose to play a mage, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

In that case, however, there shouldn't be a "Cleric" or "Wizard" class that allows any one player access to all the solutions. Instead, there should be specialized mages in each theme, like the old Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage. Pathfinder did exactly the opposite: Relaxing all the prohibitions on banned schools, and even introducing the Opposition Research feat.

I'm of two minds, here. I see the logic behind the "All casters are specialists" idea, but at the same time I think generalist casters could be done well. Or at least better/balanced than they currently are.

I'd certainly rather play a game where all casters are specialists than play a game where generalist casters are only mostly generalists. I seem to be mentioning this a lot lately, but it drives me bonkers that a spell has different levels for each spell list it's on -- and might arbitrarily be absent from one generalist spell list or other. Wizards should be able to heal dagnabit! ;)


137ben wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Also, a Paizo 4E clone is not gonna happen. The reason that Pathfinder exists is that Paizo didn't really like 4E.
I thought the reason Pathfinder exists is that 4e is a closed system and Paizo would have had to pay WotC to publish 3rd party material using it.
Either way, Kthulhu is sadly right about a Paizo 4e clone never happening. :(
A 3rd party 4e clone is very likely to happen, though, even if it is a different developer. Every edition since Basic has gotten numerous retroclones, 4e will probably fit the trend as well.

There are already a few 4e clone projects in progress, some more like spin-offs, some more like true clones -- they tend to get posted about on more system-neutral sites. There's also a finished 4e Modern game, though I haven't played it.

So I'm hopeful!


Atarlost wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Also, a Paizo 4E clone is not gonna happen. The reason that Pathfinder exists is that Paizo didn't really like 4E.
I thought the reason Pathfinder exists is that 4e is a closed system and Paizo would have had to pay WotC to publish 3rd party material using it.

Either way, Kthulhu is sadly right about a Paizo 4e clone never happening. :(


Kthulhu wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
What if pathfinder 2.0 was just 4ed rewritten to be just as mechanically sound but re-fluffed to not feel like a MMO wargame when I read the rules?
Honestly I kinda like 4e. If there was a greater roleplaying emphasis and not a need to buy every damn thing and have a subscription to the dang character builder I'd play it more.
I've never understood that particular complaint. Roleplaying isn't a function of the system. If can't roleplay in a 4E game, it's not 4E's fault...it's obvious that you are looking for a reason to dislike the system, and have decided the ridiculously nebulous "I can't roleplay under this system" is your excuse for disliking it.

QFT. Everyone has different tastes, and there probably are gamers who have tried 4e and genuinely have difficulty role playing in it, just like there are probably gamers who genuinely can't role play well in PF. And if that's the case, people should say that.

Because "4e feels like an MMO when I read the rules" comes off as "I've never actually played 4e, but someone told me it's an MMO with dice, and it's psychologically convenient for me to believe that's true. So I'll parrot back this soundbyte with my own twist."

Te'Shen wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
I've never understood that particular complaint. Roleplaying isn't a function of the system. If can't roleplay in a 4E game, it's not 4E's fault. . . .

Very true.

I, however, have had problems making the kind of character I wanted to make the few times I played 4th edition. That's why I didn't stick with it. 3.5/Pathfinder still has a similar problem at times. If you have to hit level 7 to be a good X, then there is a bit of disconnect between the character you want to play and the character you want to play until you hit X level.

This is a problem with every edition and clone, not least of all PF. I.e., "I can't be a real necromancer until I hit 5th/6th/7th/8th level and can take animate dead! And to be a really effective necro, I have to be a cleric rather than an actual necromancer."

4e is actually pretty good about making character concepts available from level 1 -- in fact one of the more absurd edition-warry complaints that's sometimes leveled against it are things like "What, rangers get a pet at level 1?! Boo!"

And to answer the question that is probably coming next, no, 4e has no official necromancer class. It's a bummer for necro fans, but they've had a lot of fun refluffing the shaman as a necro.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Honestly I kinda like 4e. If there was a greater roleplaying emphasis and not a need to buy every damn thing and have a subscription to the dang character builder I'd play it more.
I already play 4e without having bought nearly every book and without DDI or its character builder -- honestly, where do these ideas come from? -- so I'd buy the crap out of a Paizo 4e clone!
Maybe I misunderstood, but why would you buy the crap out of a paizo clone of 4E but not the actual 4E books and/or DDI?

"Buy the crap out of" may have been hyperbolic. I probably wouldn't buy everything 4e-clone related; but then again, by the time Paizo could put one out, I'm hoping to have a much much higher income. So maybe I would.


Calybos1 wrote:

Frankly, money IS a factor. Buying a bunch of new books really does present an obstacle for a significant portion of gamers.

It's not simply a matter of "Hey, the new edition fixes problem X and adds feature Y, so everyone should get it!" The reply "How much will it cost me?" is legitimate, and a savvy company like Paizo knows that perfectly well.

Too true for many of us! I'm a broke college student at the moment, so my bar for new rpg purchases is very high indeed. :(

1 to 50 of 2,903 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.