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

3,173 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,173 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
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!"


Rynjin wrote:
I expect an adaptation to be an adaptation. Not a new story that is largely inferior to the original work, and simply uses the more well known name to get more butts in seats.

'...in the eye of the beholder,' and all that.


Rynjin wrote:

I'm not bummed. The Golden Compass adaptation was atrocious, much like the Eragon adaptation I wish I could scrub from my memory.

They still owe me a good movie based on both.

Lol, Weitz did Disney-fy the Golden Compass...but I still own and enjoy it! I find that my movie-going experiences are better when I don't expect movies to be just like the books, or just like the originals. That's how I'm able to enjoy the SW prequels and The Hobbit movies. :)

I found Eragon to be pretty forgettable, though. (Both the book and the film.)


thejeff wrote:

More generally and especially with the vast majority of sf/fantasy authors who are struggling to make a living at it or still trying to break through enough to make it a full time job, they really can't afford to alienate their audience.

Which doesn't give fans the license to be jerks, but they don't have to keep buying the books either.

I also read a quite a few indy comics and though I was always pretty much of the "Oh hey cool! A new issue of X is out." school of thought, it was pretty obvious that a too slow or irregular schedule was a death knell. Even if people didn't get upset, they'd stop looking for it or shift their budget over to other things. It's the same with books, on a larger scale.

Come out with good new books regularly and your readers will keep looking for them. Wait too long between books and they'll stop looking for them.

Yeah, it's not about 'owing' anyone anything. 'Owing' implies something much more formal than preordering a book from B&N or Amazon, IMO.

It's really about cause and effect, as you describe. An author can take however long he needs/wants to write the next sequel, but he risks slipping from his readers' minds. Cause and effect.

I suppose it's great that some readers become Fans -- yes, with a capital F -- they're the ones who gave me the heads-up when the latest Wheel of Time book came out! But I prefer a more Zen attitude toward entertainment, like you: "Oh hey, the next X book/movie/game is out!" I find things much more satisfying this way. :)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

What a writer does with their time is none of my business. A writer doesn't owe me anything. If I buy a book and enjoy that book then that's that. If the book is part of a series, but doesn't tell a whole story on its own then I'll probably be annoyed and not continue reading the series.

In movie terms: I love Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. It's a great movie even if you never watch another Star Wars movie. George Lucas didn't owe us prequels to that story. And look what happened when he did. We were all very sad about it.

I'm going to agree with Dudemeister here. To cite a movie that didn't get its sequels, I name The Golden Compass. Am I bummed that there doesn't seem to be any hope of ever seeing The Subtle Knife or the Amber Spyglass in theaters? Absolutely!

But Newline Cinemas and Chris Weitz don't owe me anything. I've long since done as Gaiman suggests in his blog: I read the books*, saw other movies, read other books, and got on with my life.

*Which are amazing, by the way!


Umbral Reaver wrote:
I don't care.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Larkos wrote:
My favorite TN character in fiction is Nico Bellic from GTA IV. He's just so completely and utterly mercenary. What separates him from a Ne mercenary is that he doesn't really enjoy killing though he's good at it nor does he want massive wealth. He just wants to get a fresh start and have a comfortable lifestyle. Unfortunately, being trained as a professional killer and working at the height of the Yugoslav Wars doesn't leave one with many peaceful marketable skills. And so Nico will do almost anything: killing, stealing, driving, bodyguarding, bowling (Cousin!)
You think that killing hundreds of innocent people, either for the sake of money he doesn't really need, or just to pass the time while driving across town (I assume that all GTA4 players did this), doesn't push you into 'evil' territory?

Yeah, I'm finding it a bit worrisome that apathy and mercenary violence so often get conflated with neutrality. I guess a surprising number of gamers only recognize the narrow Disney-style mustachio-twirling outright-malicious kind of evil as evil?


Jesuncolo wrote:
"Why I fight against evil people? Well, because being mean to other people doesn't make society a liveable place. I don't want my personal life to be influenced by douchebags who want to make other's life miserable. Plus, this cult is about to bring about an apocalypse, isn't this enough motivation?"
deusvult wrote:

True Neutral:

I'm willing to go to through some difficulty or to expose myself to risk to help others.... but only when it's to benefit people/places/things that I like/love. For everyone/everyplace/everything else that requires heroes or protection, that's either not my job or it requires some incentive for me to get on board."

This is neither good nor evil, but the Neutral character probably still self-identify as "good" and probably refute anyone proclaiming him otherwise.

This is neither more chaotic nor more lawful as the character is quite willing to see to the good of his community over his own interests, but only with that community he chooses to identify with and not with groups he fails/declines with which to self-identify.

Kaelan Ashenveil wrote:
I'm going to hurt the people that I hate, and I'm going to help the people who I love.
Emmanuel Nouvellon-Pugh wrote:
I hate people who are pricks, so if I have a chance to kill them without getting in over my head I will.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:

My bard isn't really true neutral - he's just neutral neutral. He doesn't really care about that sort of stuff either way.

He's mostly after finding great stories to tell about... himself. And glory. He's all about glory. He mostly helps people out, because who's going to tell an epic ballad about a jerk? But, he doesn't really care that much either. (his inspire courage is through perform: oratory - telling stories about himself)

After he saves someone and delivers them back home, unlike some GTS, he's not going to bother making sure that they'll remain safe. He's too busy posing for his adoring fans!

(and he may have a tendency to rewrite history a bit - "And then I stood with blade drawn against tide of the orcish hordes... and Thog the Barbarian, I think he might have been there too...")

Fabius Maximus wrote:

I played a Lizardfolk ranger in an Eberron campaign (Q'barra). He didn't give a hoot about all those pesky humans trudging through "his" jungle, but hired himself out as a guide nonetheless. Even lizard people got to make a living.

After the party came across a threat that endangered the whole region, he helped them because his tribe was affected, too. Eating the hearts of particularly powerful enemies in front of the paladin and the treehugger elves didn't make him win popularity contests, though.

Yes, all of the above are great examples and conceptions of N [anti]heroes!


Yes!!!

No!!!

Maybe!!!

I like exclamation marks a little too much!!!


atheral wrote:
hmm...I doubt I'd rate mushishi G...there are some episodes which can be rather...graphic. And some of the topics covered are rather mature (the effects of Alzheimer's, death and other such things)

Ah right, it's been a while for me.

atheral wrote:

The answer to the question though is from what I can tell twofold.

Netflix picks up the rights to a show for x amount of weeks/months and at the end of that time period they either renew it or let it lapse. (This is the most likely the case when in comes to 1 or 2 season anime)

the other way they tend to do things (mostly for long multi season shows) are to cycle the seasons in an out of their catalouge.

Yeah, I figured it was something business-logistical like this. Thanks for the info!


Sharoth wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Sharoth wrote:
RIN ~Daughters of Mnemosyne~ has been an enjoyable series so far. A warning, however. It is definately R rated and NOT for kids. If you want to watch it, Netflix will have it on until October 1st. After that, it goes away from Netflix.
Wtf, Netflix, wtf? I'm one and a half episodes in, and so far it's very good!
Yes, it is good. However, it is a VERY adult themed series.

Oh, no doubt. Like thejeff though, I don't know if that's why it's being phased out. I'm guessing that there's another reason, because this happens to other streaming shows, like Mushishi, which are 100% rated-G.

I'd love to know what that reason is, though.


Sharoth wrote:
RIN ~Daughters of Mnemosyne~ has been an enjoyable series so far. A warning, however. It is definately R rated and NOT for kids. If you want to watch it, Netflix will have it on until October 1st. After that, it goes away from Netflix.

Wtf, Netflix, wtf? I'm one and a half episodes in, and so far it's very good!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


All of the inconsistencies having to do with size categories bug the hell outta me. Why don't big creatures have 10-ft+ steps? Why do smaller creatures have 5-ft steps at all?*

Eh. To me the problem has less to do with size as it does speed. After all, a 5-foot step is essentially described as a quick shift without dropping your defenses, so I mean, how effectively you cover that distance seems to be as important as anything else.

So it always bugged me that a creature with a base movespeed of 15 and a creature with a movespeed of... let's say 5000 have an identical 'quick step'.

Much moreso at least than a pixie and a giant with the same movespeed being able to shift similarly at least.

Ah yes, well, I speak under the general assumption that larger creatures have higher speeds. :)

Chengar Qordath wrote:
I suspect the main reason five foot steps never go beyond five feet is that it would screw martials even more than the current rules do. Martials really don't need to face monsters that can ten foot step away and deny them a full attack.

Bingo. It's also why each size category's weight and height ranges follow the square-cube law, but standard space and reach do not. The 3e team obviously realized that real consistency was just too problematic, and so they ended up writing something that looks like it came from an early Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? reject.


I just finished the first season of Psycho Pass and I...I'm speechless with amazement. There are no words that do it justice. Twisted, conflicted, heroic, tragic, intense, immersive...this is the best I can do, but these words fall utterly short of its qualities.

All I can do is reiterate my previous comment: This show is an instant classic!


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Anyone else find the 5ft step kind'of immersion breaking?

All of the inconsistencies having to do with size categories bug the hell outta me. Why don't big creatures have 10-ft+ steps? Why do smaller creatures have 5-ft steps at all?*

Going back to 3e, the writers were obviously going for some sense of internal consistency. But then someone said "Whoa guys, we can't make bigger and smaller creatures too consistent, 'cause the game has to be, ya know...playable."

And the result of course looks like something written by a fifth-grader who hasn't quite mastered multiplication.

*I can guess, but the reason doesn't make it any more consistent.


TheJayde wrote:
I play with a group of players who only play 2E. Trying to conver them to 3E instead of Pathfinder. Which is funny because the younger guy in the group has been trying to convert them to 3E for years, and now that I convinced them to convert to at least try it out- he wont try out Pathfinder at all. Odd scenario... anyways...

It's the uncanny nerd valley at work!


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
For example magic items may increase to-hit by +8, while they can increase AC by 15 or more. Why are defenses dependent on items when offense actually does increase with level?

I saw the thread's title, and this is the first thing I thought of.

"I'm a world-class legendary swordsman! I can dodge fireballs coming at me left, front, and center...I'm sorry, what did you just say? Parrying? Never heard of it."

I know that abstract hit points are supposed to take on the burden of parrying and dodging swords, but this one stat not increasing with level is probably the single biggest reason I can't take PF (and most of D&D) seriously anymore. Takes me right out of the fiction.


Jaçinto wrote:
I just found them disgustingly awful...

Oh, nerdrage! What would the internet do without it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingmanHighborn wrote:
But then there was DS9 and I hated it, it was soooooooo BOOOOORRRRRINGGG! Nothing happened until the Dominion stuff started up otherwise it was Space CSI.

Haha, this just goes to show there's no accounting for taste. The space CSI vibe, and DS9's tone of slight moral ambiguity, which is more than the other ST shows can boast, is what makes it the least boring Trek series, IMO. Possibly with the exception of Enterprise's later two seasons.


Poldaran wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Wow, didn't know that raise dead could be used on a sci-fi thread!
Sure you did. It's just not a spell. It's any number of technobabbly solutions. I can think of two just from Star Trek movies.

Of course, how could I make this mistake after watching The Wrath of Khan?!

Lord Fyre wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Wow, didn't know that raise dead could be used on a sci-fi thread!
You have never read Mary Shelley?

Sadly, yes. Or the first sentence of every paragraph, at least. Darned thing still took entirely too long to read though!


Greylurker wrote:

Ntflix has picked up a lot of interesting stuff.

If you haven't checked it out yet try Psycho Pass, that's some fun stuff

I was just going to bring up Psycho Pass. I'm halfway thru season 1, and it's an instant classic! Good animation, interesting [and non-annoying!] characters, dystopian futuristic setting, a well-paced plot with a bit of action...it really doesn't get any better than this for me!

Highly recommended to anyone who likes any of those things. :)


Suichimo wrote:
Zark wrote:
discosoc wrote:

My group is just really burned out with Pathfinder, after a year and a half of playing. Combine that with about 10 years of 3/3.5, and it becomes a pretty heavy dose of fatigue.

I think a lot of people are in that boat, which is why 5E seems to be doing so well. It feels like the anti-3.5 version.

Are there other people out there that starting to feel burned out with Pathfinder? I though we was alone in this. I’m not being sarcastic. We even have one in our table top group who has bought 5ed players guide.

I mean, I like pathfinder and love I Paizo and I have been playing PF since the BETA-version, but as you put it: “Combine that with about 10 years of 3/3.5, and it becomes a pretty heavy dose of fatigue.”

Unless the Devs clear up some of the stuff I think we either swap to 5E or start to play call of Cthulhu.

I am. I would've switch to 4e when it came out, but only one other person in my usual group was interested for more than a session, so our voices were worthless.

I was luckier, and got to immediately dive into 4e in 2008! So I'm not burned out on PF, but that's because I never really got into it in the first place -- I've only played a couple of games.

I played 3.0 and 3.5 for eight years, but there are definitely quite a few bits of the system -- including PF -- that rub me the wrong way.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Well of course most of us can take a tough cookie, and eat it. I know I have in the past, and I'm sure most of us here have too. Restating the obvious doesn't make the RAW any less influential on DMs, or this topic any less worthy of discussion.

Really, with so many DMs being reluctant to make house rule judgments upon player request, it should be downright obvious why having a clear and consistent set of RAW is important.

RAW is a myth.

I'm looking at d20pfsrd.com right now, and I assure you, the RAW are very real. And there's a lot of them.

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
I have ran into countless situations where there is no RAW answer, whether that be a rules conflict or rules omission.

So have I, but we're not talking about one of those. We're talking about a situation the RAW very much does cover; it just doesn't provide any guidance to DMs who might otherwise change it.


Greylurker wrote:
He's a mostly happy headstrong idiot prone to destroying things. Has pretty much Zero angst and believes the best solutions to problems is kill it with fire. If that doesn't work use more fire.
Blayde MacRonan wrote:
I'm obviously biased when it comes to Fairy Tail, so take what I say with that in mind...

Thanks! I gave it a try, and while it is a bit slapstick for my taste, it's also strangely engaging. I'm only three episodes in, so if it gets better after #4, I should be a fan soon enough. :)

(It might be in part due to the kick I get out of the narrator or the characters every time they say 'Fairy Tail.' I had no idea that a sound could be halfway between D and L!)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
, how many DMs do you think seriously entertain...
Every one I've ever gamed with, soo ...three (four counting me!).
I again congratulate you on your great fortune to know such cool DMs, and your own liberal attitude! But the question I posed is: Judging from the responses to the OP of this thread, how many DMs do you think seriously entertain spell requests?
I wouldn't draw any such conclusions. Resisting an actual change to the written rules does not imply resistance to adapting those rules to better fit a specific table. I've tossed whole swaths of rules out (e.g., alignment) but it would be pretty arrogant of me to ask Paizo to do the same to their current product line when they've clearly invested a lot of their metaphysical design into the rule set.

Here are some snippets from the thread's first two pages:

Corrik wrote:

I wish the entire internet had a downvote button.

I'm not going to explain the concept of specialized fields of knowledge, but I will humorously picture you fuming at a hospital. If you want gravity bow, take levels in a class that can get it.

Simon Legrande wrote:
If only there was some way that spell lists could just be modified to taste. It sucks that the Paizo team said "here's the rules, you better not alter them!" I had to buy a new CRB when my first one burst into flames the second I changed a rule I didn't like. I'm afraid to use the PRD now because I don't want my computer to explode.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:

The problem with limited spell lists is then every character will tend to have the same spells. This is the way it was in 1st edition when there were only 4 spell lists. You had cleric, magic user, druid and illusionist spells. Paladins got cleric spells; rangers used both magic user and druid. Bards were a weird case where you had to start as fighter, then go thief, and then could become a bard; who gets druid spells.

This usually meant that similar characters had the same spells. This also created the situation where you had to have certain classes. This is where the idea of the standard party of fighter, cleric, magic user, and thief comes from. I for one am glad that has changed. Now if no one wants to play a cleric his role can be covered by multiple other classes. Doing away with specialized spell lists would mean that would no longer be the same.

Zilfrel Findadur wrote:
Just speak with your GM, geez christ, The rules are just guidelines, unless it is a PFS PC, and you're screwed xD
K177Y C47 wrote:

Eldritch Knight and Magus...

Your welcome...

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
As a GM I would see no reason for the Bard to have gravity bow. It's a measly 2.5 average damage increase that can't be critical to your character concept.
LazarX wrote:
It's called Rule Zero.
Seranov wrote:

I think it's not really a big deal. If there was one single spell that I desperately needed, there are numerous ways to get it: the vast majority of which involve actually making efforts to go get what you want, instead of expecting it to come to you.

Not that I consider Gravity Bow, or Lead Blades, or Strongjaw, or any such feat to be really important for a martial character of any sort. Damage dice are mostly irrelevant, anyway, as most damage will always come from static bonuses. There are much more important things to be using spell slots on.

born_of_fire wrote:
Because. Those are the rules of the game you are playing. The completely arbitrary rules of the game you are playing. Someone, somewhere, decided those are the rules and that's all there is to it. You should not be surprised to find arbitrary rules in games, they are a part of every game we play.

I didn't see any of them say "But yeah, I'd totally let your bard learn Gravity Bow." Or even that they'd hypothetically give it earnest consideration. Some of them even attest to the contrary. Maybe they'll repost to restore my faith in the Paizo community though.

blahpers wrote:
But in any case, what of it? If your GM says "no", tough cookies. Get a more cooperative GM or learn to work within the boundaries set by the table--or GM a game yourself and show how awesome it is to use your idea of what the rules should be like.

Well of course most of us can take a tough cookie, and eat it. I know I have in the past, and I'm sure most of us here have too. Restating the obvious doesn't make the RAW any less influential on DMs, or this topic any less worthy of discussion.

Really, with so many DMs being reluctant to make house rule judgments upon player request, it should be downright obvious why having a clear and consistent set of RAW is important.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
, how many DMs do you think seriously entertain...
Every one I've ever gamed with, soo ...three (four counting me!).

I again congratulate you on your great fortune to know such cool DMs, and your own liberal attitude! But the question I posed is: Judging from the responses to the OP of this thread, how many DMs do you think seriously entertain spell requests?


I found Fairy Tail on Netflix again, but couldn't bring myself to actually click on the play button. The guy on the cover looks so...Naruto-ish. Am I judging a book wrongly by its cover here?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Mr. T's floating head dominated the conversation for so long that I forgot that Cranefist was the OP. Sorry about that.

Apology accepted.

blahpers wrote:
Since I don't care to scroll back for names on my phone at this point, suffice it that I consider requesting that Paizo effectively do away with class-based spell lists is unreasonable, that it was requested in this thread, and that the request was worded in such a way that it could be reasonably perceived as a demand.

Seems to me that we're seeing a corollary of Poe's Law here: cranefist says 'I wish,' some folks reply, some other folks reply to those replies, and then people start getting the idea that the OP is 'throwing a hissy fit' (someone earlier) and that those other guys are 'making demands,' when in fact we have no evidence to suggest this at all.

I assure you that I can reasonably perceive a lot of the replies to the OP as snarky, argumentative, antisocial, and several other less flattering things. And in my younger days, I would have mistaken my perception for reality. But we can't depend on perception, particularly in such an impersonal and anonymous environment.

blahpers wrote:
This is unlikely to produce any effect other than players arguing back and forth to no effect. Pathfinder isn't going to change the wording, and players who don't like class based spell lists already have more than enough means to rectify the issue at their own tables. So why waste the time and effort on a fruitless discussion?

Playing PF is unlikely to produce anything other than a lot of wasted weekend afternoons, so why waste the time and effort on a fruitless game?

blahpers wrote:
Now, if MrT wants to argue the merits of such a system rather than actually try to convince Paizo to make it thus? Great! Let's head to the S/HR/H forum and talk alternate spell systems. You'll get plenty of discussion on the subject.

So your complaint is that this thread is in the wrong forum? Well by all means, request it be moved, but it seems to me we've gotten lots of good discussion already!


Devil's Advocate wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
As I mentioned in an earlier post, 'KISS with the RAW' is not an unreasonable policy for most DMs. It takes a lot of system mastery to know which rules and restrictions exist for what reason, and which ones are safe to change.
Good thing the RAW actually do include explicit advice for GMs who are wondering if they can add spells to existing spell lists without breaking the game. It's on page 220 of the Core Rules, as quoted up-thread.

To rephrase and/or expand on Weirdo's reply:

The page 220 quote is basically a reminder of Rule 0, which is great as far as it goes, but again...how far does it go? Page 220 throws in the additional stipulation of "spells that a bard or sorcerer might encounter while adventuring," which is vague to the point of uselessness. It could mean anything from "Bards and sorcs should totally be able learn any spells they see someone cast from a mile away or see in some wizard's spell book" to "Bards and sorcs should be able to learn bard and sorc spells that you homebrew but don't specifically add to their spell lists, given that a friendly caster of the appropriate class trains them in this new spell for a year and a day." There's no commentary about what spell lists represent in-game, why these classes have free access to certain spells but others require DM go-ahead, or what a DM should base that go-ahead on.

Page 220 essentially never takes a DM beyond square one. (aka Rule 0.) Which leaves us with the reality that I've been pointing out: Most DMs say 'no' out of habit because they lack the system mastery and/or confidence to make a judgment call, and the books provide them with no guidance. Or they have specific reasons for believing that spell lists are spell lists for Reasons, as many Paizonians have demonstrated on this very thread. Speaking of which, judging by the replies to the OP and the largely ignored page 220 quote that you yourself posted, how many DMs do you think seriously entertain "Can I take this spell...?" requests?


blahpers wrote:
Fair, I guess, apart from being a bit tu quoque, but I didn't start the thread making unreasonable demands...

Please point out exactly where cranefist, or anyone else here, made a demand on anyone. The OP is an 'I wish' statement, followed up by several 'I think' reply-to-reply posts, as far as I can see.


blahpers wrote:
Leaving aside for a moment whether this is a good idea: what are the chances that your thread in any way influences Paizo to completely upend their design philosophy and print what you, specifically, want? This isn't just "it'd be nice if rogues had more options"--it's a reversal of their idea of what spell lists are for, and it would have significant ramifications for every caster class and archetype they've ever released--to say nothing of the effect on Golarion lore. You're pushing against a mountain of inertia.

To turn your question around: What are the chances that your replies to this thread will convince anyone that wishing for a better PF is somehow wrong or unworthy of their mental energy, regardless of how silly you think their wishes are? Or that Paizo will stay their hands from completely upending their design philosophy because of what you, blahpers, say on this thread?

I'm betting that your reply will not be fundamentally dissimilar from MrTsFloatingHead's, or anyone else's on this thread.


Simon Legrande wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Devil's Advocate wrote:
With GM permission (as allowed by the RAW without ever invoking Rule 0), your bard absolutely can learn gravity bow.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
What I find interesting is how widely varied different groups can be. I have what would probably be called a pretty strict group. We track encumbrance, use alignments, etc.. I can't imagine my DM wouldn't let me pick up a first level spell that fit the theme if my archer bard.

You are very lucky indeed to have such a cool DM! Most say 'no' out of habit, IME.

So is the bare-bones form of the argument essentially "Paizo has to change the rules to what I want because GMs can't be trusted to"? Or am I missing a subtle nuance somewhere?

Me personally? I'm not a Paizo customer, and I couldn't care less what Paizo does or doesn't do.

In general, regarding fans who want change: The specific rules and restrictions that Paizo writes into PF very much do matter whatever Rule 0 says, because as several of us have been saying, DMs tend to default to the RAW. Even the ones who have Rule 0 at the top of their head tend to assume that any given restriction and rule has a good reason behind it, even if that reason is "This spell's writer thought that bards had too many level X spells at the time that he wrote this spell."

Simon Legrande wrote:


Honestly, I'm sure everyone here understands that GMs are just egomaniacal jerks who love crushing the player's fun so I could see why it would be necessary to go for that angle. But maybe enough crying, pleading, and heavy bribing could get your GM to change his/her mind just this once. Frankly, the jerk is more likely to make you spend some other valuable mechanic type just to get one measly thing that isn't built into your character abilities by the standard rules than just give you something nice one time.

Sarcastic strawman much?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, 'KISS with the RAW' is not an unreasonable policy for most DMs. It takes a lot of system mastery to know which rules and restrictions exist for what reason, and which ones are safe to change. Without a lot of experience or a lot of forum input, it's easy to make a call that you'll later regret.

Which, again, underscores the importance of keeping the RAW consistent and transparent. I especially like Weirdo's comment about designers explaining the choices they make -- a great thing that should happen more often in every game IMO!


Mysterious Stranger wrote:

As a GM I usually go by the rules so my players know what to expect. If there are any hose rules or exceptions I tell them about them up front. If there is already an in game method to handle the request I use that. This seems to be the fairest way to handle these situations. As a GM you are supposed to be impartial and not favor any one player over another.

There are also some concepts that just don’t work in the game. I had a player who wanted to play a character based on the TV series Hercules. No matter how he tried he could not build a character that satisfied what he wanted to do. The problem was he wanted to play a demi-god not a PC. I use a 25pt buy but he wanted to have the equivalent of a 60pt buy. I suggested that he base the character more of off mythology so he could dump a couple of stats to afford closer to what he wanted for physical stats. When he was not willing to do that I simply told him no.

I agree, if you can't see a meaningful difference between "I want god stats" and "I don't want to pay this cool-tax*," it's probably best that you avoid using Rule 0 without a lot of consideration and forum aid.

*Great term, MrTsFloatingHead!


Seranov wrote:
Paizo has made mistakes in the past, yes. Plenty of them. But when they make up spell lists for classes like the Bard and Inquisitor, everything that is on those lists is there because that's how they wanted it. They're under no compunction to change it.

Ah, I remember my happily naive years, when I believed that every rule and option was a carefully placed part of an elegantly crafted masterpiece!


Devil's Advocate wrote:
With GM permission (as allowed by the RAW without ever invoking Rule 0), your bard absolutely can learn gravity bow.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
What I find interesting is how widely varied different groups can be. I have what would probably be called a pretty strict group. We track encumbrance, use alignments, etc.. I can't imagine my DM wouldn't let me pick up a first level spell that fit the theme if my archer bard.

You are very lucky indeed to have such a cool DM! Most say 'no' out of habit, IME.


born_of_fire wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:

"Why" is such a silly question when it comes to game rules. The answer is "because".

Why can't I used my hands on the ball in soccer? Why do checkers only move diagonally? Why are there 4 quarters in a football game? Why is fighting allowed in hockey but not basketball?

Because. Those are the rules of the game you are playing. The completely arbitrary rules of the game you are playing. Someone, somewhere, decided those are the rules and that's all there is to it. You should not be surprised to find arbitrary rules in games, they are a part of every game we play.

Likewise, you shouldn't be surprised when people wish that some of the arbitrarily lame rules were arbitrarily fun.
LOL you are correct sir. In fact, I am never surprised to encounter people who think the world and all its itinerant rules and customs should cater to their every whim. Disappointed, saddened, exasperated...sure, but surprised? Never--I have a pretty good idea that those people exist and also why they do. You'll note I never asked OP why he feels the way he does, I simply answered his question honestly :)

Likewise, I'm never surprised to encounter traditionalists who exaggerate every question and criticism of rules and customs into some childish expression of selfishness. Disappointed, saddened, and exasperated that these traditionalists never seem to consider that rules can be changed for the better...sure, but surprised? Never--I have a pretty good idea that those people exist and also why they do. Stay classy, BoF. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
born_of_fire wrote:

"Why" is such a silly question when it comes to game rules. The answer is "because".

Why can't I used my hands on the ball in soccer? Why do checkers only move diagonally? Why are there 4 quarters in a football game? Why is fighting allowed in hockey but not basketball?

Because. Those are the rules of the game you are playing. The completely arbitrary rules of the game you are playing. Someone, somewhere, decided those are the rules and that's all there is to it. You should not be surprised to find arbitrary rules in games, they are a part of every game we play.

Likewise, you shouldn't be surprised when people wish that some of the arbitrarily lame rules were arbitrarily fun.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Zilfrel Findadur wrote:
Just speak with your GM, geez christ, The rules are just guidelines, unless it is a PFS PC, and you're screwed xD

IME, DMs treat particular rules which they happen to disagree with as guidelines, while other rules get treated as gospel. Or at least as "There's gotta be a good reason this rule exists, even if I have no idea what that reason might be..."

Maybe you've been luckier than I, and have had more liberal DMs, but based on the replies to this very thread, how likely do you think it is that any given DM will see this particular rule as a guideline?

As a GM I would see no reason for the Bard to have gravity bow. It's a measly 2.5 average damage increase that can't be critical to your character concept.

Case in point.

"I see no reason why you should have X, so good luck finding and jumping those rules-hoops to get X." Most DMs react similarly to house rule requests, IME. Unless there's a clear and present reason to change a rule that s/he already happens to agree with, the player is stuck with the RAW. With the latter being more likely, because if the DM already disagreed with the RAW, there'd probably already be an established house rule in place.

And I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad practice btw; a DM has to know the game very well indeed to make wise decisions about house rule requests. But it does render the "Just speak to ur GM jeezus christ lol rules r just guidelines" sentiment terribly naive.


Zilfrel Findadur wrote:
Just speak with your GM, geez christ, The rules are just guidelines, unless it is a PFS PC, and you're screwed xD

IME, DMs treat particular rules which they happen to disagree with as guidelines, while other rules get treated as gospel. Or at least as "There's gotta be a good reason this rule exists, even if I have no idea what that reason might be..."

Maybe you've been luckier than I, and have had more liberal DMs, but based on the replies to this very thread, how likely do you think it is that any given DM will see this particular rule as a guideline?


Cranefist wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Cranefist wrote:
Corrik wrote:

I wish the entire internet had a downvote button.

I'm not going to explain the concept of specialized fields of knowledge, but I will humorously picture you fuming at a hospital. If you want gravity bow, take levels in a class that can get it.

Where in Pathfinder is the school of specialized knowledge? Do Bards with Spellcraft only understand Bard spells? Do Bards have to return for training to learn new Charisma based effects? Are they always studying, what, their 1st level Bard text book they got before the first session?

Bards have specialized knowledge because they know fewer spells than a sorcerer. Each Bard individually has limited knowledge. What spells they can pick from is besides the point.

Apparently not, since they're only allowed to pick from a limited list representing spells that a bard is capable of casting using whatever means a bard uses to cast spells. If you want your bard to learn to adapt spells that bards normally cannot cast, there's an archetype for that.

boooorrriiinnngggg

I don't think there is a justification for the spell lists.

"We should have spell lists cause D&D."

"How many spells go on the list?"

"You have to fit them on 7 pages."

"Got it."

lol, no disagreement here! Spell lists are definitely composed in large part of arbitrarium, and I often imagine game designers rolling a die and consulting one of Gygax's in/famous random tables to determine who gets which spell and at what level.

It was arguably necessary back when a magic-user's only class feature was his spell list (and possibly turn undead), but now it's just arbitrariness for the sake of Tradition.


Quark Blast wrote:
Oh, and the "4E fallacy" isn't a fallacy. If 4E had been doing so well why did they drop it in it's relative youth? With only four years of serious support and another few months of tepid promo it died youngest of the editions - especially if you count 3.5 as errata for 3.0, as seems reasonable to do. And without the push to 4E, PF would never have gained the traction it has. Paizo, Necromancer and Kobold all owe a great debt to the (unintentional) 4E-Booster Rocket to their relative success. IMO.

Or in other words, "Edition X failed because it was a mistake, but edition Y was honorably retired because Reasons." People have been arguing over why editions 'fail' and what qualifies as errata vs. a new edition and whatnot for years, but the only thing we know is: It's all speculation. We don't know the particulars of why which edition gets discontinued, or why some last longer than others. Edition changes can happen as a result of unmet revenue goals, designer changeovers, or any number of reasons. We don't know.

So yes, using 4e as an argument against new editions is very much a fallacy. Likewise, calling it the 'Voldemort Edition' is undeniable edition-warring, which is all the less reason to take anything you say seriously.


Pan wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
I will say, I know several people who won't come to the boards anymore, though it had nothing to do with the playtest. Its because they perceive (whether right or wrong is another discussion) that many people on these boards are jerks.
I don't know how many potential customers gave up on PF due to play test civility, or lack thereof, but I do know that other 3.x forums like ENworld, GitP, and Brilliant Gameologists have quite a bit of negative PF sentiment. "The so-called 'play test' was a brilliant free-PR stunt" and "PF is just different enough to be a pain in the ass, but not different enough to be worth buying" are a couple of the milder criticisms I've seen.
Playtests must be rough on companies. I have seen these same criticisms levied at WOTC with 5E.

Indeed! There are always fans who want incremental change, and there are always those who want dramatic change, no matter the game.

Still, I see where the second criticism comes from. By 2008, I had a set of house rules that were comparably different from 3.5 than PF is. Arguably more so. (Just not in quite the same way.) So I have no reason to buy into all of PF's niggling little changes -- as a hypothetical 3.x DM I prefer my own niggling little changes, and as a very occasional PF player I can just use the PF srd.

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Year after year though those people get hooked into a group and eventually buy a CRB.

And year after year people get hooked into D&D or WoD or Exalted or whatever game groups, and eventually buy the books. What's your point?

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Part of the PF appeal is how paizo doesn't have a history of edition hopping, even thought the game itself is still relatively young compared to previous.

PF doesn't have much of a history, period.

In any case, yes, many fans like PF because presumably it won't evolve as quickly as D&D. And yet this is a bug rather than a feature for many potential fans.


Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
I will say, I know several people who won't come to the boards anymore, though it had nothing to do with the playtest. Its because they perceive (whether right or wrong is another discussion) that many people on these boards are jerks.

I don't know how many potential customers gave up on PF due to play test civility, or lack thereof, but I do know that other 3.x forums like ENworld, GitP, and Brilliant Gameologists have quite a bit of negative PF sentiment. "The so-called 'play test' was a brilliant free-PR stunt" and "PF is just different enough to be a pain in the ass, but not different enough to be worth buying" are a couple of the milder criticisms I've seen.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Undone wrote:
No appears to be heads over shoulders on yes.

Let's look at the extremes.

Yes: "Pathfinder totally needs this, not that I am going to stop playing anytime soon."

No: "Paizo would be dead to me."

Perhaps this a bad polling location, since everyone on these forums plays Pathfinder to some extent, but I am not seeing reward out-weighing risk on this business venture even if the results were more even.

I personally haven't been a Paizo customer since the days of the print mags, but a PF 2e might turn me into a returned customer. But I'm probably unusual for a Paizo forumite, so I think you're right.

Arctic Sphinx wrote:
Not sure, but I kind of want to see what they come up with for a second edition, so...

Same here, basically. I have no horse in this race, but I'll be curious to see what PF 2e looks like when it comes.

Undone wrote:
The only things in this edition which I don't like are easily said no to. Crafting and Leadership. Only a few other legal things make me raise my eyebrows like dazing spell/Sacred geometry (Did someone who hated math class write this feat).

No, I think it was someone who likes math a little too much. Or it's one helluva a nerdy April Fool's joke!


Wow, didn't know that raise dead could be used on a sci-fi thread!

I originally voted for SW because at best it was much more exciting than ST, and at worst it was Natalie Portman in entertainingly absurd costumes. But with the ST reboots in mind, I think it's a wash.

So I change my vote to New BSG, which is still the only sci-fi thing that I'll recommend to a non-sci-fi fan!


I didn't get into FMA until I tried Brotherhood. The original hits one of my big triggers; it's...much...too...slooooooow. Brotherhood isn't one of my all-time favorites either, but it's fun, and it moves along at a steady clip. Hopefully netflix will add season 5+ at some point so I can finish the series!

(Or maybe it'll eventually get out from behind crunchyroll's paywall.)


Scythia wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
If their spellcasting is natural, why are they all musical savants and preoccupied with random lore?

Because the idea of a bard comes to us from Celtic tribes, where a bard was a lore keeper who kept verbal history often in the form of songs. Also, the songs they sang were thought to have power, one legend says that an unpopular king was broken out in spots and sores after a bard sang a scathing satire about him.

In many folk beliefs and religious traditions alike, music is thought of as a way to commune with greater forces or channel power. The Bard class uses the concept of both the original Celtic bard, and the mysticism assigned to music.

I'm aware of the original inspiration for the D&D bard, and I think that 'I inspire people with the power of music!' is a fun concept; I just have difficulty fitting the 3.x bard into the context of the game world.


I could actually wrap my head around bards in 2e, where they were basically MCed mage-thieves, without actually having to multiclass. I remember some FR novel mentioning a bard college, which could explain why all bards are musicians of some sort.

But then in 3e, bards became free-spirited spontaneous caster-rogues with a bit of cleric thrown in for good measure, I guess. But...where do bards come from? If they're trained, why are they spontaneous casters? If their spellcasting is natural, why are they all musical savants and preoccupied with random lore? Why are they the only arcane class that can heal?*

To this day, I don't get it.

*Don't get me wrong, I'm all for arcane healing, it's just weird that the bard is the only one.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
I've tried, but I simply can't get over the "meh" feeling over D&D Next. Honestly, this is the first edition of D&D I really just can't get into. I can't see what it actually offers me that I want.

Same here. In addition to all the replies here, though, it is the new edition of D&D, which is enough for many fans to buy at least the Core 3. And it does have a couple of novel things like the proficiency bonus, even if I don't think they're going to turn out nearly as swimmingly as 5e fans are hoping.

Steve Geddes wrote:
I've never got excited about a system because of the system - it's always about the supplements/adventures/accessories.

I'm the opposite, which is no doubt why I can't summon any enthusiasm for 5e. :)


Buri wrote:
Diffan wrote:
System Abuse - Lord knows that we'll eventually see things like DPR-Kings and other such Character_Optimization threads that go into the guts of the system to find the ULTIMATE combo-power build (and that's cool, I'm fine with people who love to system-craft, etc) but the extent it was done in 3E and 4E, I felt bordered on the absurd. Obviously there will be loopholes or RAW vs. RAI questions and debates because the game is created by people, who are not perfect. But with the toned down scope of the system and less emphasis on min/max character builds, I think there will be less emphasis on it.
This is of particualr import to me. Things are worded in a way that lets them be more easily understood and ruled upon.

I suspect that 5e will be just as thoroughly dissected by the CharOp forums as every WotC edition. (The only reason that I omit TSR editions is because they had the shelter of existing before the internet became a big thing.)

CharOpping is something that fans do because they enjoy doing it, regardless of an edition's relative merits or flaws. Not even 5e's 'rulings instead of rules' will make a difference, because there are still official rules that can be used as a point of common discussion. Every other edition has provided DMs the ability to overrule the RAW, and it didn't stop CharOp from dissecting the RAW. Unless 5e can brain wash its fans, I don't see the CharOp scene changing.


Buri wrote:
I can't bring myself to quite simply avoid coming here because I've been a PF player and GM for a while. I can see why there is bias on a competitors forum but to wholly discount things when it's obvious you either haven't even looked at the competing product, you're lying, or being intentionally obtuse just grates me. In the other thread about trust, people really need to grow up and learn to be accountable for themselves which is another thing that grates on me. Actual age is secondary there which is even more frustrating.

I do however agree with you here. I haven't read beyond the OP of the trust thread because I know I'll faceplant myself into a concussion. :p


Buri wrote:

Optional systems off the top of my head:

alternate ability score generation
alternate racial stats depending on race (human is one)
optional encumbrance rules vs the default carry capacity
feats

thejeff wrote:
Let's say I thought the original goals were a little bit loftier and I wouldn't count that towards filling them.

Yeah, if the above is the kind of thing that all this talk of modularity is about, color me unimpressed. D&D has had this kind of modularity -- aka 'variant rules' -- since day one. And besides, I've been writing variant rules of my own for quite a while, without any rulebook's go-ahead.

I can see the appeal for DMs who aren't confident enough to make their own house rules, and calling out D&D's modularity might make a great marketing point, but it's all lost on me.

1 to 50 of 3,173 << 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.