Occasionally I see comments like "PF doesn't have eleven hundred PrCs/feats/spells/subraces/templates/others -- isn't that great!" Which puzzles me, because I've been under the impression that being able to use 3.0 and 3.5 stuff with minimal fuss is a big selling point of PF.
So I'd like to get a general idea from actual PF fans -- do you play PF as its own completely independent game, or as a game to mix-n-match with its similar predecessors?
Ok, if someone really wants to just get up and leave it means they really don't care about the other person's feelings. If they care so little for that person's feelings why would they care if everyone else sees them walk out on a date?
As I already mentioned, many people don't like being the center of attention, even if they might otherwise have the courage to walk out of an uncomfortable situation.
They don't do it because they'd feel horrible if they thought the person would get upset and/or don't want to feel the public shame from everyone else because they know what they're doing is socially unacceptable.
You're projecting your own value judgments onto others, who you don't know and have no idea what they are thinking. Some of them surely do share your rigid views on social etiquette, but as you get older you'll realize that many have different standards.
Me, for example. I'm now walking out of this thread, but it's not because I don't care about you or anyone else here. I just have a long week ahead of me!
And what's more uncomfortable, sitting at a table with someone in an awkward limbo where the date is going badly, or leaving and everyone just seeing a person get up and leave and likely not even knowing that you just did that?
The unwitting datee isn't imagining a quick and quiet exit; he/she is imagining "WHAT YOU'RE LEAVING NOW? WHAT A WITCH!!!" or "OH DON'T LEAVE ME LIKE MY FIANCE DID, WHAT'S WRONG WITH ME WHY WON'T ANYONE LOVE ME?!" followed by everyone in the room turning to see the actor and the unwitting datee.
You know that won't happen because you've seen the show, but the unwitting datee doesn't know what will happen if she leaves early. Much like a player wanting to leave a game early doesn't know what's going to happen if he does.
Look at that silly MTV Show "Disaster Date". The person thinks they are on a normal date that went horribly wrong and they don't know they're being filmed and the whole thing is a set up. They probably know within the first 2 minutes they will NEVER go on a date with this person again...however because they aren't rude and they try to endure the rest of the dinner/lunch and then would probably try to find an exit. You never see people one minute in say "I'm not having fun" and walk out. That's so rude. It's only when the date really spirals out of control that they can't take anymore and have to bail.
1. For many people, it's not some sense of obligation that keeps them at the table. It's the thought of the other person causing an uncomfortable scene, should the unwitting datee leave early. Many people just don't want to be the center of attention of a room full of people, for any remotely awkward reason. It's only when the actual date becomes more uncomfortable than anything the unwitting datee can think of that he/she walks out. It's a social math formula, really: Walk-Out = Actual Discomfort > Potential Discomfort.
2. They don't air the ones where the unwitting datees do get up and walk out two minutes in, because that would be boring tv.
3. Wait, this is mtv we're talking about. It'd be godawful watching-paint-dry wish-for-the-sweet-release-of-death tv to see people simply say "I'm sorry, I've got to go" ten times in twenty minutes. How is mtv still on the air?
I've never had anyone walk out on me, but had a few who stopped showing up without so much as a "Thanks, but this ain't for me" email for phone call. Granted, a couple of them were not really missed for different reasons, but sometimes it happens and you want to know why.
Yup, I've had a few of those. Very irritating, if for no other reason than "Really, you couldn't be bothered to give even one of us a heads-up?"
Making "sweeping judgement" is not an indication of maturity or age level. Only of how judgmental someone is.
Which is an indicator of maturity, at least where I come from. Younger people have fewer experiences with which to contextualize life, so they're prone to bring their own limited experiences to hypotheticals. And when those past experiences are dramatic, it results in sweeping judgments on events that a more mature person wouldn't immediately categorize as black or white.
Not to say that there aren't immature non-judgmentals and mature judgmentals out there, but that's the trend.
And I'm NOT being overly sweeping in judgement because I've already given a number of ways people can leave and said that if someone is engaging in inappropriate table behavior toward you like cussing you out, making racist comments or other behavior then ofc it's ok to leave.
This statement would be a lot more convincing if you hadn't spent much of this thread slinging around words like tantrum, storm out, little girl, and drama queen so freely. And from your very first post, which Ross Byers deleted for being incendiary.
As I recall, "Magic? What, that superstitious nonsense?" is part of Conan's shtick. He comes from a free-spirited culture of rippling manliness that has no sorcerers, so some sorcerous tricks don't affect him.
I also distinctly remember a Dragonlance story written during the TSR era, in which a group of dwarves encounters a fireball-slinging mage. After the mage tries to toast them all, he gets hammered into pulp. One dwarf looks at the charred remains of his companion and says "I guess Bob forgot that fireballs are just magic."
That said, I think disbelief = resistance/immunity is pretty silly within the context of D&D, except maybe for psychic type magic. Magic is part of the physics of the D&D world; you can disbelieve it all you want, but it's not going to spontaneously stop working just for you.
It, of course, depends entirely on the reason and the manner of walking out.
And frankly, the fact that you insist on making this sweeping judgment without regard to circumstance doesn't reflect well on your own maturity.
I like a nice combat cake, frosted with flourishes of role play, with a side of problem-solving.
Planescape is my favorite D&D setting of all time.
We NEED the battle mat. Just trying to describe where everything is at is sometimes impossible and also impossible to describe where our characters are at. We have characters with Flight and boots of spider climb, so it helps to have some means to visualize where the characters are at.
Ditto. I don't do well with purely verbal description, so games with me get mighty confusing without a battle mat.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I havent found any significant difference in playstyle when we play PF/4E/S&W or DCC (as we are currently). However, there are certainly systems I prefer, so presumably that's the same thing (ie some systems suit our playstyle better and we just dont change our style, regardless of the system).
Ditto. Some of the details are different in 4e (few-to-no 'trash' combats meant to drain PC resources), but overall D&D (and D&D clones) is D&D.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
i like rules that are less restrictive and allow for more freedom and hate such arbritrary things as weapon restrictions for feats or class restrictions on spells.
Same here. 'Because tradition' doesn't justify arbitrary restrictions IMO.
I believe Tri mentioned that his fellow players left him to scout, and then proceeded to initiate a combat [which he couldn't join] without him.
Some people put a lot of emphasis on stats and what they mean. For example, some one once posted that they couldn't accomplish their concept via point buy. They wanted a "smart fighter" and 18 strength and 13 intelligence wasn't good enough. Even though many posters thought it would work out fine. Person was dead set on the idea that 18 strength and 18 Intelligence was an absolute must.
Is that you, Batman?
Given the option of essentially choosing your own point buy, why would one opt for actual point buy?
It's like having the option of receiving $25, or receiving an amount of your own choosing up to $100. Sure, one might say "Well I can't buy as many unhealthy snacks with $100, so I'll take the $25," but most people are going to take the $100.
This is why point buy isn't an option in my games; it's point buy or nothing.
Guy Ladouceur wrote:
My question is why do people exclude this rule? Do they not see death as an option in there games? Does it happen to often in their group's?
I can't speak for others, but here's why I never used it:
It's non-intuitive. It's a rule that (at least in part) defeats the point of having hit points to begin with. The whole point of having hit points is to make death cinematic and somewhat predictable, rather than realistic and sudden.
It's one more pesky rule to remember, because it doesn't naturally follow from any other rule or concept. Like mana burn in Magic the Gathering, if it were excised from the book new players wouldn't miss it. Nobody would ever wonder "Gee, I feel like something is supposed to happen when I lose 50 or half my hp in one shot..." In fact I played 3.0 for quite a while before stumbling across the massive damage rule.
It flies in the face of pretty much every definition of hit points imaginable. If you like abstract hit points, it's one more strain on the abstraction: "I fail the save and die from what, exactly?" Holy cow, that was a close call I almost...*croak* OMG, my luckiness hurt...*croak* Etc. If you like concrete hit points as I do, you have your explanation as to how characters survive attacks that deal lots of damage, and an arbitrary death save is equally silly.
It's annoying to use at the table, especially the pre-PF version. The half-hp adjustment is an improvement, but rolling the save is still largely a wrist exercise. "Oh gee I rolled another 2, I'm safe." IMO, when a d20 is rolled there should always be a 25-75% chance of success/failure. Your adjustment may or may not make the DC threatening, but with all the multi- and iterative attacks happening at high levels, I don't want anyone rolling saves every time they get walloped.
Recently it was brought to my attention that PF carried death by massive damage over from 3.5, which surprised me. It was like stepping out of a time machine into the future, and stumbling over a telephone cord. But maybe that's just me.
So do you in PF, and did you in 3.5? Do you have an opinion about this strange rule?
I got the exact same thing, but I was going for Chaotic Edgy Superhuman Badass 20! Well, that's two minutes of my life I'll never get back.
...Good thing I didn't actually read that thing. Seriously, 129 questions for a BS survey? For shame! :)
I know that TSR D&D has certain claims to sim that 3.x doesn't have. For example, I distinctly remember the 2e DMG talking about lethal traps that are well...lethal. (A collapsing room, or a lava pit, for example.) No saving throw, no hit point depletion; you're just dead, because nobody could possibly live through such a trauma. Whereas in 3.x, lethal traps aren't truly lethal -- there's usually a saving throw or a damage roll that can be overcome if you have enough save bonuses and/or hit points. (I'm sure there are individual exceptions to this generalization, but the 3.5 DMG does give a damage value for full submersion in lava.)
That's just off the top of my head; I'm sure a fan of a pre-3e edition could come up with other exclusive claims to sim. ("If monsters follow the same rules as PCs, why don't they get max HP for their first HD? PCs in my edition don't get such special treatment," etc.)
Anyway, I think 3.x is a stronger attempt at sim than other editions. But there are enough inconsistencies and downright absurdities that in the end, D&D is D&D. It's just not geared toward simulation of anything other than its own quirky trope universe.
FYI, RAI = Rules as Intended
Why? Why do people do that?
Because people who homebrew are usually proud of their work? Because unless you're simply asking for a rule clarification, limiting yourself to RAW or RAI is well, limiting. Sometimes the third solution is the best one.
I'm kinda wondering why you feel that [appropriate] house rule suggestions should be restricted to the house rules forum. Do they cause cancer like cigarettes?
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
I'm far from gregarious, but I admit I find this idea baffling. Where are you from, if you don't mind me asking, and aren't there times when you just want to ask something of a stranger out of the blue? ("Hey, nice T-shirt, I like Bob Marley too.") Isn't this a primary method of making friends?
I love the bravura warlord, which is all about "Hit me again, hit me again...gotcha, now my friends can hit you again!" Basically it rewards being a reckless swashbuckling battle captain, which is awesome.
Really though, the warlord is emblematic of 4e's whole "You don't need a cleric to heal, or magic to have tactical fun" attitude, and its intentional design of combat roles. So despite the goofy name, the warlord embodies several of 4e's major innovations which is why it gets so much love.
You really think they were kicking themselves?
Unless you have green skin and a long warty nose, I can pretty much guarantee so, yeah!
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Ah, gotcha. I was imagining a more involved form of pretending, but still a good story. :)
Although I have had a similar problem recently my group broke up (long story). I was down at the FLGS and asked some guys who were hanging out looking at gaming books if they had any room in their game. They... acted like I was some sort of space alien. Jaws hanging open, staring, and stammering. So much so that I really felt self conscious all of a sudden and left the place. This worked for me without fail in the past. Why did it fail now? Am I too old to be gaming now? Is this just a kids hobby? I might be in for a rough time finding a new group if this is how I am going to be treated.
If your avatar reflects your RL gender, they were probably just exceptionally socially awkward. You know, the kind of guys that keep the gamer stereotype going.
If it makes you feel any better, they were probably kicking themselves and blaming each other for scaring you off as soon as you were out of earshot.
Nymian Harthing wrote:
1. my ex worked at our FLGS
Seeing as you use the past tense twice, what's to stop you from recruiting at your FLGS?
As for suggestions, I second penandpapergames.com; I used it to start a group in the gaming desert of upstate NY, so you can probably make it work for you too. Also ENworld's gamer map, wotc's gamer classifieds forum, and rpg.net's gaming gatherings forum.
Also, local colleges always have gamers.
Josh M. wrote:
So you played one edition of a SW game, once, at a con, with a weird GM(Mind Trick only working once? wth?)and this has made up your mind about the game?
If it makes you feel any better, I give new songs and books even less of a chance to grab my attention. (A single listen-thru or chapter, respectively.)
But in any case, I didn't decide that I hate SW rpgs. Just that they're not my favorite, so I'm not going to go seeking out SW games with my limited game time.
*Jumps on the bandwagon*
I accidentally played a SW game at my first con. (I had seen the movies exactly once, so how was I supposed to know that "Flames of the Rebellion" was a reference to SW?) It was fun, but not so much that I sought out SW games afterwards. At the beginning of the session, the GM told the guy who leapt on the jedi pregen "FYI, your mind trick will work once and only once, so make it count." Near the end of the session, the GM not-so-subtely red-flagged the moment when the jedi was supposed to use his mind trick.
That's the kind of thing that lends a lot of credence to "Books and movies are better left as books and movies." This is why I've never played the Wheel of Time rpg, the Middle Earth rpg, or the Song of Ice and Fire rpg, despite enjoying those books/movies/shows ten times more than I do SW. I don't want to play a rpg that has a built-in Mary Sue race and/or class, even if the GM is willing to bend over backwards to balance things.
Also, nobody capitulates to a question. Questions aren't enemies or opponents.
Unless possibly you're talking about some kind of Riddler who asks questions about a rpg's pretend codifications of morality in order to bog his victims down in a morass of subjective debate and endless bickering.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
In that case, I'm finally free of this genetic condition that makes me reliant on daily meds and therapy! WOOT!
As to what I'd do...
1. Work out, now that muscle growth isn't agonizingly slow.
I'm a poor judge of actorship, but what I like about DS9 is probably why Samnell says it would have worked better as its own universe: it feels slightly slightly rougher around the edges than other Trek shows, it has a bare droplet of comic relief in the form of the ferengis, and of course it has Sisko's epic They-Call-Me-Emissary-But-I-Don't-Really-Believe-It plot.
Someday I'll finish watching DS9. I do believe it's the best ST show, though that's not saying much IMO. I wish there were a list of episodes that actually further the overarching plot, so I could skip all of the filler episodes.
Sisko and Picard both have the advantage of great voices.
A highly regarded expert wrote:
Of course he could!
...The only question remaining is who would he replicate: Kirk or Picard?
Oh yeah, the second can of worms has been opened!
And for bonus points: Why don't trekkies ever seem to argue over Janeway, Sisko, or Archer?
Freehold DM wrote:
TS, I've had too many players trying to file the serial numbers off pun-pun to buy into the "he's not supposed to be played!!!" line. I only restrict books to those books I own so I actually know what is in front of me and I'm not just taking someone's word for it.
Well if you own half the books, ya can't be a half-bad DM in my book!
As to players trying to pull the Pun-Pun fast-one, wouldn't you say the problem is with the players? I'm not denying that 3.x D&D is a hot mess, but if I had players actually thinking that Pun-Pun would be fun to play I'd think I had more of a problem than a bunch of ill-worded stats.
Just yesterday one of the guys here got inspired to begin a 3.5 game, and outright told us to powergame our hearts out. And even that's not license to play Pun-Pun.
...Well, maybe I'll play Pun-Pun for ten minutes, just because I don't think anyone in the group knows what he is, and then say "Just kidding, here's my real character..." as I pull out a second character sheet.
Even funnier if Pun-Pun waits until just before the player takes advantage of that final technicality before curb-stomping the upstart. "You really thought nobody had thought of this before?! I will suffer no rivals!"
Not very mature of the DM, mind you, but funny!
Ever hear of Pun-Pun? That's your reason for wanting core only. It doesn't sound like you are one of them, but there are some people out there--Min/Maxers, Power Gamers, etc--who study ways to break the system. The more books you allow to be used, the more the odds that such a players will find the "I win!" loophole and create a character that will give you a headache. Remember, GMs do a lot more work than players in preparation. Would you like it if somebody created characters that would make your hard work worthless? The samurai from CW is a bad example. Yes, he's not that much better than a fighter, but then you add all the feats, spells, other classes, prestige classes, and so on in that book, you can see how it makes a GM's job progressively more difficult. The rest of the Complete books in 3.5 had even more exploitable content, getting worse with each release over time. Pathfinder is the same way to some extent, but I believe Paizo has much better quality controls in place. I still restrict which Pathfinder books are allowed to Core, APG, UM, and UC.
Oh please, let's not start with the "core only games are balanced" excuse. Maybe PF is a little different, but three of the 5-6 most broken 3.0/.5 classes are right in the PHB. Source books allow players to get more creative, whether to power game or simply to game, but if someone wants to break the game they don't need sourcebooks.
There's a legitimate reason to say 'core-only', however tiresome the phrase is: unfamiliarity with all those new widgets. If nobody at the table is experienced with D&D, it can save a headache or two to at least start a group as core-only. There's also the possibility that the DM is new and doesn't fully trust his players for whatever reason, or that he simply can't be bothered to deal with all those game widgets. Though I'd question whether the DM is playing with the right group in the first case, and whether he's DMing the right game in the second case, but whatever.
But core-only = balanced is a lame excuse.
And FYI, Pun-Pun's creator explicitly says it's not meant to be played. He says so right on the wiki.
So what you're saying is -- if everything I hear about PF is true -- that Jesus is OP and needs to be nerfed? ;)
The main issue really is the question behind the trinity of how wise it is to behave in a manner that leaves you in that kind of intellectual fix.
My professor told me today that the mystery has answers of a sort, but anyone not knee-deep in studying that aspect of Christianity isn't qualified to express them correctly. Which I mentally translated as 'Christianity wants to be a special snowflake faith, so we can't have a simple answer like the deific aspects that Meatrace mentioned or "God is omnipotent; no further explanation is necessary."' And he did confirm that early Christians felt the need to cleave to the faith's monotheistic roots (Judaism), while incorporating two new divine figures.
Oh, and he also used an actor metaphor, which I liked. After all, an actor doesn't stop being himself while he's playing a character on stage.
Lord Snow wrote:
If we are already explaining things about this concept, I am intrested to know how exactly the concept of the trinity differs itself from paganism (or polytheism or however you prefer to call it). I mean, I get it that all three aspects of the trinity are of the same thing, but they ARE three seperate powers, and none of them is omnipotent (Jesus, if I remember correctly, was killed by a bunch of puny romans).
As I believe someone mentioned, the crucifixation was all part of the divine plan. As I understand it, they're all omnipotent but share the same goals. So they never conflict with each other and therefore never call each other's omnipotence into question.
...Although what if they didn't share the same goals? Wouldn't that make an epic plot!
So I'm taking this religion 101 class, and the professor mentioned that phrase we've all heard at one point or another:
"The Mystery of the Holy Trinity." As in, how can God be himself, his son, and the Holy Ghost all at once?
Thing is, I don't see a mystery; God is supposed to be omnipotent, so he wiggled his fingers and BAMF! He's now got three of Himself. It's like a magic-user in a ttrpg who wiggles his fingers to cast some miraculous spell; the explanation is inherent in the character. It's magic/will-of-god; what more explanation is required?
Maybe I just don't understand the question though. Are people looking for some kind of scientific explanation, like "God stepped into a replicator chamber, and pressed the copy button twice"? Seems unlikely, given how science and faith are generally seen as orthogonal (if not competitive) methods of thought.
...And yes, I'm going to ask my professor!
I shouldn't be, but I'm somewhat surprised how many people took offense to the OP and/or didn't even read the whole thing.
@ KV: For what it's worth, I've never GMed a ttrpg that I didn't house rule, and I don't think your OP is offensive.
Lesson: There's no such thing as 'just letting off a little steam' on the internet.
I've been pretty fortunate in avoiding dick DMs, but...
5) This is more for 3.5 but "Core Only". Why? Because everything else is broken and therefore not allowed. Bull. That's a stupid rule. Complete Warrior wasn't broken. You can't tell me that Samurai class was better than the fighter.
Oh Gods, if I had a dime for every core-only DM I had between 2000 and 2008, I'd be able to drop out of school, buy a small radio station, and broadcast my rants about core-only games.
There would be no replays.
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
You may be giving too much credit to WotC's power of forethought...but wouldn't it be funny if that's how it turned out?
Anyway, like you I'm sticking with 4e so this pretty academic to me.
The important part is what you define as balance. If you define balance as removing all options except for small scale skirmish options and homogenizing all the classes and limited the number of available effects, and having challenges scale vertically, you can do that. 4e will be the result.
And your OP was so promising...
I'm saddened by the possibility that some paizonian who's never played 4e will read a comment like this and take it for truth. So play what you like, folks, and don't hate.
Think the answer is to get your party to play 4e. Bread n butter healing were minor actions my dwarven melee cleric kicked some serious ass (not as much as a DPR character but still pretty good at times). Made healing a non-issue really.
QFT. 4e is the only edition where I find being the healer fun.
Addendum: I hear that playing a CoDzilla can be fun, but that doesn't start kicking in until about 6th level. Hm, I feel an impending second suggestion...
Wow, weird things sure do happen during edition transitions. I can't remember the last time I've heard "rule-lite" and "4e" in the same sentence.
...Hey, is that Hel freezing over?
I was good at it, but I was very glad that I was an eperienced DM, because unfortunately the system left non experienced DM's gasping, since there weren't enough structures in place for them. This was demonstrated to me again recently, when the 4E game that has been running at my LFGS closed down because the DM just couldn't work out what he was doing. He was finding combats easy, but it was the other stuff he was struggling with. I sat in on one session there and gave him a heap of pointers (at his request), and at the end of that game he looked at me incredulously and said "How do you come up with that stuff, I can't find any of that in the rules"
I'm curious what these pointers were; as a fairly experienced DM, I sometimes forget what it's like to be new.