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

knightnday's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 783 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 783 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

That's the point of the watermark though -- they don't want you to remove it. If you could just peel it off then pirates would as well, would would make the money spent on protecting the PDFs sort of a waste.

I'm not sure I understand the issue, however. Why do you need the image to be 100% clean for your VTT? Is the watermark interfering in using the map in some way on the VTT?

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
thejeff wrote:

There may be cases where I like a particular GM and I like enough of his campaign premise but the thing I'm interested in playing doesn't quite fit the rules.

That's when I try to negotiate.

There are cases when I want to find a game, but everyone is playing something I don't like. So I decide to run my own done up in a way I like, but then get told on this thread that I may have to give that up. I'm not adverse to allowing in things players want, but I'm not going to put in the effort to define the world when I could just sit back and make it up as I go. But then I run in to the problem of posters who say they don't want the same old tropes used, so I end up between a squeeze of trying to make something reasonably original and something that pleases all the players. I'm not the sort that can manage both, so I have to figure out where my ground lies if indeed it exists at all in the Pathfinder community.

The "pathfinder community" is a pretty big place with tons of people -- you have folks at your local (for a given value of local) game store that play pick up games or Society games, people that play by post, that play home games, and more.

I'm sure that there is a group for everyone; there almost has to be, given the wildly divergent ideas on the game we see posted here.

The thing is, sometimes you have to play a game that may not interest you in order to network and find players and games. Sometimes you have to put aside your likes and dislikes to make something to attract people.

You cannot please everyone all the time, or even some people any of the time. Advice I was given once was to run something and then do a survey, if you will, with the people at the table and see what they liked and didn't like, what they wanted to do and what they actually got done. More than what character they got to play or if they got the +whatever thingy they wanted is a more important question: did they have fun? Would they want to play with you again? Why or why not?

Some days it can be a chore to be a player or GM if you are not happy, I know this. But you often have to put yourself out there to be seen and so people know that SilvercanMoonpaw plays like so or GMs like this. That way the community of players can make an informed decision on you, and you on them.

Good luck!

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

And on the opposite side of the coin: why are you joining the games of a GM who's game you don't like? Maybe it's the fact that I play online where there's a big crowd and you could be spoiled for choice if you're open enough, but why is it such a big deal that every GM has to be willing to compromise? Let gamer selection take care of it: people will join what will get them what they want, and if no one joins the uncompromising GM's games they either have to adapt or not GM.

I mean I'm getting very confused: How can one, as a GM putting together a setting, decide when something is disallowed? You compromise-encouragers make it sound as if there is no point in disallowing anything because anything can be re-flavored to fit. But then how can there be unique flavor if every part of the standard flavor is on-limits?

You do not HAVE to compromise as a GM or player; that said, it often helps to keep people's feelings in mind when you are setting up your game.

In face to face games as opposed to online there are often less choices in who can or will GM. In those cases it is often a fine line to walk to get a non-standard build or idea, either as a world or a character, into play. Gamers can be a prickly bunch with what can seem to be irrational likes and dislikes -- for instance, I am not a big fan of dinosaurs for monsters and especially not for animal companions; there is nothing wrong with them -- I just don't care for them.

So, if you came to me and wanted to play Joe the Dinosaur Rider I may be reluctant to allow that. Others dislike gunfighers, ninja, furry-types, playing a different gender than your own, punny names, crafters and so on. This can be hard on players that are dying to play X and no one will ever let them.

So, circling back to your last paragraph, as a world building GM who enjoys creating new and exciting backdrops for players to play in and often without player input you have to be willing to admit that not every corner may be filled in and that there could be room for a compromise. What is over on that island right there? Well heck, dunno, never thought about it. Well then, can my turtle person mage be from there, a lost race of turtle people?

I've been building worlds for going on 35ish years now. Some are notes on the back of a napkin. Some are multiple 3 ring binders filled with political notes, character sheets, economies and so on. None of them are so filled in that I couldn't shoe horn in something if I really really tried.

The question becomes, however, is the character's idea one that will reshape the world in ways that are detrimental to everyone's fun? Will they break the premise the world is created around?

Example: Generica is based around humans and their allies in the never-ending battle against goblins and their ilk. "Monster" races like goblins, kobolds, orcs and so on are not allowed. Could a player play one? Well, maybe. If this were a real campaign I'd have to think long and hard to allow that, given that nearly every "civilized" place in Generica will basically attack the character on sight, and the party with them. They'll be outlaws in a land that desperately hates that race. Is the player's need to play a goblin worth everyone being possibly miserable for the whole game?

There are always arguments for corner cases and what ifs. What if there was a Gate? What if the character was summoned? What if a magician made them from scratch? What if it was just one gun and the player was the only one who knew the secret of gun powder? What if?

It isn't a question that has a set answer. You have to be willing to put aside your pride as a GM to compromise a bit on your world. You have to be willing to put aside your passion as a player to compromise a bit on your idea. Not every world gets played every time, and not every idea gets a seat at the table just because you like it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A compromise that isn't a compromise isn't a compromise.

I'm willing to meet a player (or GM if I am ever in the situation) halfway. I'm even willing to bump that up to sixty percent some days. But if the conversation is just a continuing variation on "give me what I want regardless of what we've decided for starting classes/races/thingies" with little to no give then we've hit an impasse.

You are welcome to color within the lines or meet me part of the way for something outside the box, but I am not obligated to just give you want you want because it will be "fun" for you.

I find that an overused term and excuse. We're ALL here for fun. But if you can only play X and your fun is diminished because you aren't given 100% your way, then we're going to have problems down the line I can already tell; I've experienced this enough with players and GMs over the years that the warning signs are like billboards on the highway of "this is going to suck."

The vast majority of the time I work out the house rules with my players before we sit down. The 0 session gives us a chance to make sure that everyone is on the same page and no one is overly disgruntled or making something to spite me or the table.

On the rare occasions that I am GMing for a new group then I either play a "generic" setting where most things go, or I let them know what the rules are and where the lines are and indicate just how much or little I am going to negotiate on this. If we cannot come to an agreement, someone else can GM, we can play a board game or another setting, or the person that is unwilling to be part of the game is welcome to watch.

BigDTBone wrote:
knightnday wrote:

Posting this here instead of the thread I found it in so as not to derail.

In a thread, Chris Lambertz said:

Removed a post. This kind of comment is really unnecessary.

While I understand that the comment was removed because it violated policy in some way, someone who did not see the comment doesn't know what was said or why it was unnecessary.

It might help teach people what is unacceptable if they have a hint of what is, well, unacceptable in these cases. Something like "Talking about Blah is unnecessary" or "We don't insult others" or whatever. This way the next person knows that "Blah" isn't acceptable and hopefully will edit themselves before the mods have to.

Thank you for listening.

I didn't see the quote in question, but I know from my experience that when Chris leaves that message then the person who's post was removed knew better.

It's fair to say that if you see that message then the "xxx example of thing you know you shouldn't have said" is understood.

Oh no doubt the person deleted knows. My direction was more towards the other bad little boys and girls out there. :)

Thank you for responding Chris and for all your hard work.

I am not sure, other than comments I've seen where people grow unhappy if there are too many critters on the board.

We've used cohorts/henchmen since forever; everyone had a few hirelings or henchmen or horses or whatever. It didn't bog anything down for us and everyone seemed to enjoy it.

Posting this here instead of the thread I found it in so as not to derail.

In a thread, Chris Lambertz said:

Removed a post. This kind of comment is really unnecessary.

While I understand that the comment was removed because it violated policy in some way, someone who did not see the comment doesn't know what was said or why it was unnecessary.

It might help teach people what is unacceptable if they have a hint of what is, well, unacceptable in these cases. Something like "Talking about Blah is unnecessary" or "We don't insult others" or whatever. This way the next person knows that "Blah" isn't acceptable and hopefully will edit themselves before the mods have to.

Thank you for listening.

thejeff wrote:
Wyntr wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
I don't want a neverending mass of combat encounters in my APs. Paizo should remove all the monsters except possibly the bosses. If someone want it all in, they can add it themselves. That should free up space for some romance options.
Pfft - Paizo should remove all the rules and stuff from the APs; just publish them as novels and anyone who wants to play them in the RPG can come up with all of that stuff themselves :P
Nah. Paizo should publish blank books and we can all just write up the entire adventure ourselves.

Although .. blank books with Pathfinder artwork on them would be neat. I have tons of journal-type moleskin books and the like around, some with art would be nice.

thejeff wrote:
Anonymous Visitor 349 755 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Anonymous Visitor 349 755 wrote:

I don't see why adventure paths need romance options for either men or women. The game isn't about romance. If that's desired I'd rather see third party materials for the subject matter rather than Paizo working on it.

It seems to me this discussion is focusing entirely on the wrong aspects of the game and trying to shoehorn personal desires into a setting based on epic fantasy adventure. Not Romance.

Because there are never romances in epic fantasy adventures.
If a DM wants to add love interests they can add them themselves. They're always gonna upset someone with some lack of something or shoehorned romance so just leave it out and leave it to DMs to add in themselves.
Nah. I like stuff built in. I like their being options. They take up little space and Paizo doesn't overdo it. Most of the cases talked about in this thread aren't even formal called out as romance options, just NPCs that it's possible to take in that direction.

Agreed. Options are useful for those that are interested in romantic or other relationships. I suggested that Paizo expand on it, in fact, in a online PDF of extra material like they used to do with Dragon or Dungeon magazines.

As for "wrong aspects" of the game -- what would that be? As thejeff mentioned, romance comes up in epic fantasy adventure.

There is no One Way.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Fluffy, Damn, and Oh Hell No!

Thank you Gabriel Iglesias

thejeff wrote:

I have a more psychological take that leads to similar places. Based loosely on the legends of mortals in faerie (or the Fellowship's time in Lorien), elves generally percieve time differently. Not that they go away or move slowly or anything, but they sort of drift through their lives most of time. One day is like another and the seasons turn in an endless whirl. You turn around and a decade has passed and you've barely noticed it go. That's their natural state and they spend most of their long lives like that, when they're living among their own kind.

They can make the effort and deal with things in the same way shorter lived races do, but it's stressful and they can only keep it up for a little while without harm. A couple of decades or so. Long enough to adventure or deal with wars and other crises or even to serve as an ambassador or even live as a merchant in human lands for awhile.

This is fairly close to how I deal with it as well. Elves that grow up outside of an elven community tend to end up with more problems as they've had to deal with all these short lived hyper other races.

My books arrived in excellent condition today after crossing mountains and broken wastelands. Thank you again for this!

Ashiel wrote:

My personal 2 coppers on the whole thing is that I don't generally want children in my games unless there is a legitimately good reason for it because it causes an immersion issue, and I feel like most people aren't really going to deal with the issues of actually being a child (as has been my experiences with the majority of child characters I've interacted with over the years, which has been more than I'd have expected).


As a general rule, playing a child isn't going to make you stronger than if you weren't. No advanced templates, you get the same point buy as everyone else, I'd even be fairly slow to make you take on any sort of adjustments other than those that might come with dropping a size category if you're indeed that young (but again, the younger, the less inclined I'd be to accept the character without some thought put into it); so worrying about someone trying to squeeze extra points out of the age thing isn't a worry of mine.

I guess overall, this was a long winded post that could be summed up as "maybe", with most of it hinging on what the player was willing to invest into the game and how open they would be to us working together to achieve something that is immersive and rewarding. I'm generally willing to try to help with unusual character concepts if possible, and there are plenty of players I'd rather not play some more traditional roles either (everyone knows that one guy who seems to think that neutral is just a cover for sociopath or something), so just give me some reasons to believe that you can take the torch and run with it.

Pretty much all of this. I am a big believer in having a party that works together as characters and players both; most of the groups I've been lucky enough to have been a GM for have worked together very well.

I'm more likely to discuss this with interest with a long-term player than someone who is newer to the table. I want to know that the player is coming at this, for lack of a better word, honestly. I want the player to be able to explain what they are planning and why they want/need to play this character with this group. I want to know that the other players are OK with it too. There are issues with young characters in these sorts of worlds, as some have pointed out above, and for other players there are triggers involved.

Heck, "maybe" is an answer on a great deal of things that come up. While I have base rules I am usually willing to discuss things that seem to interest the player *if* they aren't a problem for the rest of the players and do not break my or their immersion in the game. A kid PC? Maybe. A bulette character? Probably not.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

the Discworld connection might be iffy and only apply to Rincewind (or Terry just forgot what he was doing along the way.)

Ridcully teleports himself and Granny in Lords and Ladies and then claims to be out of juice to teleport back. He recovers a bit, it seems, as they walk and claims he might be able to teleport only himself back or manage a small fireball.

This seems to indicate that they have a power point system of some sort rather than slots.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh good it's this thread again.

Yes, there are reasons to play any class. Yes, you can often do similar things with another class, sometimes better. Yes, indeed, the rogue and the monk are often the jokes of the gaming world and exist only so other classes shine next to them.

I think that covers about everything that gets said in these threads outside of insults and allegations about someone's mom. Is this thread going to cover new ground or are all the dead horses going to get beaten?

Sorry if this seems cynical, but it is a once at week at least thing with "Does the Rogue/Figher/Monk/Insert Class Here suck or REALLY suck?" threads. They don't do much more than get people riled up, get locked, and then spawn a new thread with a similar title.

80 years at a party college, maybe?

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
it was a school for disabled students, but because of local prejudices, the school was kept on lockdown like it were a prison and they had plenty of guards and a teacher who loved beating our left wrists silly with a ruler. which lead to violent reactions, which led to brawls.

So it was likely that the guards were not trying to do more than slow down a child rather than administer a beating or otherwise take them down. In any case, it seems a bit of a stretch, you'll have to pardon us for our disbelief.

Despite being a kung fu master at age 8, there are a number of circumstances that might augment the child and still allow them to have age penalties -- even more so considering this child was apparently small for their age.

In any case, I am not sure that this story, entertaining as it is, is a good measuring stick against modifiers for child characters.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
why are people still talking about this? haven't people realized that there is no inherently right or wrong answer yet?

Heh. We could say that about every thread on these boards. But then we'd have nothing to talk about.

Pendagast wrote:
knightnday wrote:

Eh .. I have kids. They are working to become "real people", but they still have a long way to go, many more experiences to get and so on. Children are lovely creatures but they need a great deal more seasoning before they have the tools necessary to handle a great many of things a standard life, let alone an adventuring life, would bring.

And this isn't about playing Harry alongside Hermoine and Ron and having adventures. This is Harry in the first book, Dumbledore, Snape and Hagrid wandering off for adventures.

Editted to add: And are the other adventurers OK with trusting their life to someone who is younger than the socks the dwarf has on?

isn't this the same as a 147 year old elf, teaming up with a 15 year old half orc?

Yes, it certainly is. I've seen characters and players that were less than thrilled to travel with what they considered children even though they were considered adults by their race and culture. Actual children would be worse for those folks.

Whether or not the child is allowed, should a child (8 years old as I recall) have some sort of mechanical penalty for their age. I think this ended up being the concern of the OP

Eh .. I have kids. They are working to become "real people", but they still have a long way to go, many more experiences to get and so on. Children are lovely creatures but they need a great deal more seasoning before they have the tools necessary to handle a great many of things a standard life, let alone an adventuring life, would bring.

And this isn't about playing Harry alongside Hermoine and Ron and having adventures. This is Harry in the first book, Dumbledore, Snape and Hagrid wandering off for adventures.

Editted to add: And are the other adventurers OK with trusting their life to someone who is younger than the socks the dwarf has on?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Dragging this back towards the light, I'll comment that there can be interesting child/teen characters that one could have in a game: a younger version of Gaston from Ladyhawke, Talen from the Sparkhawk saga, Garion or X'Nedra from the Belgariad, a squire for your knight, an apprentice and so on.

They are interesting not for being children/teens, but because they are interesting characters. They'd be interesting at 20 as well, I'd add.

Again, the questions become why you want to play someone so much younger than what would be standard for an adventurer, and what sort of impact that should have mechanically and otherwise.

Before we ever got that far I'd want a clear understanding of the whys for this character and what the goals here are before we'd discuss mechanics. "Just because" or "there are wizards who can cast spells so therefore.." isn't a discussion, it's an evasion. Of course, I tend to ask questions of my players and their concepts before dice touch the table so this isn't anything new for us. The further into oddness you go, the more questions there are.


Liam Warner wrote:
That's part of why I find using it so baffling since it effectively says "YOU shalt suck most righteoulsy until 3rd level or you do something like oh finishing this mission then spend downtime retraining so you have the same levels as everyone else but stat penalties for being younger." Why not just apply the stat penalties and let them have the same PC levels from the start and assume they've already had some major event that move them from NPC to PC which is why their adventuring in the first place?

That is certainly an option. Another, which seems to be a target for the dreaded "passive aggressive" comment, are those in the book.

In the end, if you allow children to be characters, it is up to the GM and players to decide if children should be the equivalent of adults or if they should have some sort of meaningful downside to not being fully grown, apprenticed, or otherwise trained members of their species.

Looking forward to this as well.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
A campaign is a matter of deciding what breaks from reality you find acceptable.

Why exactly what I find acceptable "isn't relevant"? Just because YOU don't find child adventurers or whatever else acceptable doesn't make it unreasonable. Fantasy is not Reality and I'm going to make as many breaks from it as I please, that's the whole point of it. There's no limit, other than the one you set yourself.

And the answer to your reply is: "Because I want them to."
And unlike real life, that's all I really need.
Also, I present to you Jaela Daran, an eleven year old Cleric of Silver Flame from the Eberron setting. She's normally 3rd level, but is also the most powerful Cleric in Eberron (18th level) when she's near her keep.

3rd level just so happens to be the level when the rules say you can give them access to PC classes.

also because, the GM needs to find his own world more acceptable than the players do if he's going to make/illustrate content for it.

+1 regarding the GM needing to find their own world acceptable.

@Anarchy_Kanya: There are limits, actually: those the GM and/or table has set up. You can like and want to play an 8 year old barbarian or 6 year old magician or 18 month old cavalier who rides on a stuffed toy sheep, but that doesn't always mean you can in every campaign. Breaks from reality are fine; not every table is set to the same level of break, however.

Also, what is the link to that character supposed to illustrate? To me, it says "plot device" followed by "that sure is a lot of +6 gear for a 3rd level PC." I'm not sure that it helps to prove that 11 year old characters are viable.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope that isn't what it is, but I fear it might be.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nephril wrote:
I didn't bother to read through all the posts. The overwhelming attitude of "its the dms game" sickens me. Let him play by himself if its his game. The game is shared by all players and Dms alike. It is fair for a player to have a say in the rules. if anything it should be left up to the group to decide. if there is a reason the dm does not want a child involved i.e. sexual content or adult material that a player character under the age of 18 would just make him feel weird trying to roleplay with then I would restrict the play of children. if it is purely based on the "adults are this strong you must be weaker" then i will remind you this is a FANTASY game and each character in it is expected to be above average. Extraordinary people have exceptional stats even kids.

Oddly enough, the "It's a fantasy game therefore.." makes me fairly ill. It's a meaningless phrase meant to say that basically anything can happen because it's fantasy?

Even in most fantasy novels and material there are rules to the world at large -- how magic works, what magic can do and so on. Just because magic is involved doesn't mean that the floodgates are open and anything goes.

As for it being the GM or Players game -- we've beaten this particular dead horse into dust over the last few years. Everyone should communicate, no one is better than anyone else, etc etc. Vehemently saying that the GM should run a game for himself if he doesn't let the player have their way doesn't fly for me. We can talk about it, sure, but if I get ultimatums I am more than happy to do just that -- play by myself.

My players have, for the most part, been eager and willing to discuss things and work out compromises and/or trust that when I put down rules they are for their benefit and not just for my own personal jollies. Hopefully others have the same luck with their GMs, and they have players at their table that are willing to discuss things rationally.

Might be something in the Book of Erotic Fantasy, although it has been ages since I flipped through it.

Nifty! Gonna have to grab one of these.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Da'ath wrote:

Falantrius, it is probably in your best interests to skim through these posts, copy and paste to a file all the constructive advice you've been given, save it, and HIDE this thread from here on out. Make sure you save the names of those with constructive advice so you can PM them later if you have further questions about their suggestions.

The majority of posts you'll get at this point are going to be regurgitations of the same material offered, either in the form of constructive advice or people trying to showboat how knowledgable they think they are regarding your religion, how foolish you are for your ideas, incomprehensible responses harping on the same thing you've already addressed/apologized for, or other similar responses and/or wastes of space.

Hiding the thread will save you a lot of typing and headaches over the course of the next 300 or so posts which will all say the same thing.

This thread really should be locked at this point.

A side note? That is good advice for almost every thread on the forums. Things get circular after a while. Best wishes and good gaming.

Leganduil wrote:
Also, you mention a game that you run in your home - do you have to host? If not and that game involves parents with kids, it may be easier (quieter, etc) to move the game to the parents' house if they're willing, a lot of times kids can keep themselves entertained if they have access to all their toys and are someplace familiar.

Father of three here, two tens and a four. I agree with this comment from Leganduil regarding allowing those with children to host (if they can.) I've found that it is actually quieter and there are less interruptions for boredom or "where is the X" or "Can I have blah to eat/drink" if they are in familiar territory.

Moreover, as a parent, I can say I am much more at ease and concentrating on the game (and I usually GM!) when I am not worrying that my children are doing something in another room. My wife is the same, and she tends to worry that they are in there dismantling things instead of just being quiet. A quiet room can be more terrifying for parents than a noisy one.

I do not think it is rude to make a 'no kids' night if you host. That said, I'd talk to the parents before hand. If, like with my wife and I, they both play then someone may have to stay home to take care of the kids as babysitters are not an expense some want to foot. As long as you are honest and direct I think you'll be fine. And they should understand -- they have to live with the little monsters!

Cardz5000 wrote:
As a person with your life experiences I feel you would have an appreciation for how unique they are. If someone wrote you as a PF character I would expect them to realize that there would be mechanical disadvantages, or would you have me believe that not once has your genetic issue left you in a situation that would have not been easier to deal with without said issue?

A quote from Auren earlier:

speaking of lucky star and the like, i'm a more extreme real life case, i'm a 25 year old young adult woman chronologically, but could pass for a 10 year old girl cosmetically. but then, i am also mute and have to be accompanied by my boyfriend any time i want to see a movie, eat a chocolate bar, shop at a comic book store, or drink a margarita.

That definitely seems like more than a cosmetic modification. In fact, I know that is a HERO games disadvantage (I remember from some NPCS.)

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:

childlike is a worthless feat tax with no mechanical benefit that should have been left as a cosmetic thing, as is the pass for human feat, age modifiers exist for middle aged and older, but the only rules that exist for children, are a series of optional rules in a book that contains nothing but optional rules and holds no more weight on pathfinder than unearthed arcana ever did in D&D. (no weight at all)

i don't even consider ultimate campaign a valid rules resource, just like i don't even consider unearthed arcana a valid rules resource either. both are books of rules that are purely designed to be optional and the book states it holds no weight as an official rulebook.

in fact, the rules on child characters are just as useless as the rules on armor as Damage Reduction, they aren't proper rules, they are just a badly thought out houserule suggestion

There's the thing. What is the intent by playing the child? What are you trying to accomplish and where are we going to stand when mechanics come into play as they are almost likely to do? Same goes with just letting the halfling pretend to be a kid because it is a cosmetic thing and so on.

I'd like to bring back Zodiac_Sheep's comment

2) How does you being a child further the story? Doesn't have to be in definite terms (he's the child of the king in the AP or something isn't necessary, but it's a little weird to want to play an 11 year old 'just cuz').

That is important in all of this.

As for the bit about whether X book is or isn't a valid rules resource, that's for an individual to decide. It does give a GM and player common ground to see how the game suggests they could take this.

But it isn't cosmetic. This is something covered in the rules -- that is, modifiers due to age. This isn't "I want to be short", this is something that carries advantages and disadvantages, enough so that Halflings can take Childlike as a Feat.

With anything someone does when designing a character, intent plays into it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I stopped going to the movies. It's just too much noise, too many rude people in a small area for me. I'd rather just wait for the movie to come out on Pay Per View or on DVD than sit there and watch people's phones light up or hear them talk.

Does the GM have the right? Well, yes. If the two of you can find a way that you can agree on to make it work, then there you go.

For myself and my table, we'd be fairly leery to allow child PCs into most games. It isn't something we are particularly interested in to begin with, and unless it is a specific campaign focusing on the children/young adults, you can usually get the same results with someone that edges a lot closer to the adult age range.

I've run and played in a number of online (text) games where it was just not allowed at all because, well, people tend to take things into areas that they shouldn't and the owners of said games didn't want Chris Hansen wandering over to ask some questions. That may colour some of my view of this as well.

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
... that's really what a lot of this thread is: some DMs hate their players and think of them as bratty, spoiled children who have to be punished and controlled (makes you wonder why they all hang out together). ...

Completely untrue as well as thoroughly and needlessly obnoxious.

I like the players and GM's in my groups or I would be in the group. I do not punish or control them. We talk about what we want to see in a campaign and all of us strive to provide that for everyone.

The majority of the group prefers nearly perfect accessibility to magic items so that is how we play. That doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer significantly less perfect accessibility, both as a player and a GM.

Well, I wouldn't say completely untrue. I am sure there are GMs out there who have had players that were a handful, just like there are players that dislike Gms that are too controlling because of that one time with the guy with the thing that scarred them for life.

Our tables have swung the entire range from low to high magic, from barely finding anything to get by on to tripping over artifacts on the way to the Biggest Magical Emporium ever. I prefer a middle range, myself, as a GM and a player both. I don't prefer having players that are never able to find an item they could use or want, but at the same time I dislike being handed a spread sheet and being told that the player won't have a good time if they don't get X by Y level.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
One way (of many) around that magic shop design consideration would be for the players to seek out the specific items they need via actual adventuring.
That can totally work, but some groups are leery of anything too railroad-y, and that solution (while very good for players who want to be told where to go next) would not be optimal for some of the people I've DMed for. You really need to know your players.

Bolded for emphasis. Regardless of anything else said in this thread or another thread, this right here is all that matters. Talk to your players -- they don't bite, usually -- and ask their opinions. See what kind of game they are looking for, compare to what you are interested in, find the middle ground if you aren't on the same page. Adjust as needed.

The book rules on settlements are a starting place and don't have the final word at your table anymore than anything else. As long as you understand what you are getting into by giving less (or more!) treasure, be it from drops or garishly bright warehouse sized buildings with massive assortments of things, you'll be fine.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not only that, you can change anything you and your group may find unappealing with hardly any effort.

As far as the potion bit versus the FAQ goes, it is pretty easy (as mentioned above) to hammer out a simple magic item. The FAQ, on the other hand, likely requires conversation with multiple people and digging through rules and interpretations and, although I wish it didn't have to consider this, the consideration of if you should change things and how much/how little grar and screaming you are going to get out of it.

Every time there is a new answer, the forums have to decide which side gets the pitch forks and torches and what the rallying cries will be.

As far as the LGBT banner bit -- the gaming community and communities in general are made up of all sorts of people. The vast majority, regardless of what you may believe, are incredibly nice and creative people who all want to play a game that has heroes that resemble them. And they deserve it. So a bit of banner waving now and again is good for the game, the community, and the world. And this is how we continue to get great stories. For peoples of all sorts. That is why I love Paizo.

Sorry for the soapbox.

My suggestion would be a homebrew class or to pull from some of the various 3.0/3.5 sources -- the Candlecaster was mentioned above for example.

I'm afraid what you are looking for isn't something that I see the Witch class becoming anytime in the near future. Rather, much like anything in the game, you should always feel free to alter things to fit you and your table's wants and needs. I'm certain that there are a number of people here that would be eager to help you with a great deal of the heavy lifting in that regard.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some "popcorn" posts.
Whats a "popcorn post?"

Posts that say things like "Getting some popcorn" or otherwise indicating that they are gathering around to watch the ensuing fight.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My wife mentions that going through the rules for Pathfinder and all the books (and in many other games as well) can be a little like going to TVTropes or Wikipedia. You only meant to look up one little thing and before you know it, it's 4 AM.

I love the game but it can be daunting when you start out or even if you've done it for a while if you want to check, double-check and recheck that you haven't missed that one little trait or feat or bit of gear that is going to really make this character shine or do just what you wanted.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

For those who don't care about delving too deeply into the full weight of things, PF can easily be short and sweet, regardless of what you do.

Character generation can be swift, easy, and not painful.

I'd be curious to know how to do this. I think it might be true if you know the system well, or if you've already built dozens of characters.

When we use our usual style of character generation (ie making whatever choices seem best at the time) it really seems to fall apart a few levels later. We either havent got the right stats or the right prerequisite feats to get what we want - so we end up going broader rather than specialising and eventually end up dying between levels six and eight, since none of us are as good as 'the game expects'.

I'm really hoping the Strategy Guide is going to solve this problem for us. At the moment though, character generation takes ages - the trouble with the plethora of options in Pathfinder (even if there's an obvious choice as to what I 'should' take) is that I dont know which are the obvious ones and which ones to ignore.

Personally, I think the disconnect here is that those who think it's easy are undervaluing their expertise and perhaps underestimating how much effort acquiring that expertise takes for those of us with no interest in the character building side of games.

I think you are right, this is what the Strategy Guide will hopefully fix.

And yes, people tend to forget that some things are easier for them than others. When I was playing Shadowrun hardcore (since it was mentioned) I could calculate the Essence and nuyen cost in my head for just about any piece of ware and apply it as I went; others were flipping pages back and forth at a loss.

The same thing applies for Pathfinder. Not everyone creates lots of characters for fun or interest; they may only create the one they intend to play until that game ends which could take years and not look into the myriad of feats, spells and gears otherwise. For some people character creation can be as fun or more fun that then actual playing of the character itself.

This is why we have some of the grar and yelling on the boards -- some people do this as a passion, rummaging through the numbers and various feats to decide what is "best" and "worst" (for a given value of such) while others get lost in the forest of options and pick out what they think is a good idea at the time.

If you've made dozens or hundreds of mages or fighters or whatever, you have that experience to draw on. If you haven't done that, or don't go over and over the various books looking at options and making notes of what would be good combinations it can be a harrowing experience sometimes.

Neither one of these methods or styles is better or worse than the other. This is no different than the people who play a video game and those who study it and build walkthroughs and dig through every class and combination and little traveled path to see every aspect of the game. One isn't better than the other, or more dedicated.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scarletrose wrote:

It's really weird to me this whole "RPGs are for girls too" argument.

I really wonder if that is such a strange thing.
I have my D&d red box since I was 7.
The second person I ever invited to play was a girl.
I was part of a club about rpgs, comics and videogames and there have never been a shortage of girls.
It's so weird to hear that to some people is somewhat unexpected, because it's so common in my experience that is not even debatable.

I agree, I always find it a little odd given my experience with role playing. When I started with my first long-time group in the late 70s there were two ladies present that pretty much drove the game in fact, the main PCs. When I went to college in the 80s several women played in our various games, and later at another college, this one primarily female, the majority of those I ran games for were women.

From talks with my wife about her friends at work and at school, they were all heavily into fantasy/scifi books and had at least played once or were neutral/positive about RPGs in general.

That is .. wow. I'm not sure I have the descriptive power to deal with that backstory.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bioboygamer wrote:

Well, I've got some info from the player's character sheet:

Ifrit Sorcerer 3

STR 10
DEX 17
CON 17
INT 12
CHA 20

17 AC (4 armor + 3 from DEX)


Unfortunately, it seems like the player in question uses his character sheet as more of a quick reference for the session, and he keeps the rest of his character info at home. All the same, it looks like he's not going to be nearly as overpowered as he was before.

If there's any other info you want, I could probably just ask him, but I'm not sure if there's much else to say at this point.

The bolded above is mine. I wouldn't allow this, especially if you believe him to be overpowered. My common practice is to keep a copy of the full character sheet of each person on hand, in case they miss a session or leave theirs behind or some other mishap happens. That way you are all on the same page and someone cannot "remember" some stat or item that they don't have incorrectly. Some people cheat, and some people have faulty memories; either way, this prevents that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scribbling Rambler wrote:

Mark's post on negative conditioning has implications well beyond the FAQ.

For example, when I see a particular community member who posts negative comments on every single AP, it is much harder to recognize any valid criticsms they may have. So my eyes tend to slide past their posts.

And that is for me as a casual observer - imagine what it must be like for somebody who is directly involved in the creation of the product.

Valid criticism is important, and the folks at Paizo are very good at taking it and responding when appropriate. However, when it becomes apparent that a poster will never be pleased, there's not much point in changing things to please them.

Not only that, but to those who may be new to these boards and aren't used to the certain level of charm that some may employ the raging fits thrown can make this seem like an unhappy or hostile place. There are places on the Internet that I just don't go because I don't want to be bogged down with what is essentially screaming and yelling. I doubt I am the only one.

Constructive criticism is good and helpful. Unrelenting negativity doesn't do much for the people that work at Paizo, fellow gamers, or to fix the problem.

I like that they continued a game version that I liked. I like what they do and how they do it. I like their art more than just about any other game out there.

Deathunseen wrote:
yeah it probably should be in advice i just thought since i was basically asking the rules on players killing players but yeah

The only rules for that are the ones you and your players make. That said, player versus player conflict seldom ends up well; it requires a great deal of maturity (and no, not age) to deal with this sort of thing. Usually it results in bad feelings and can even break up gaming circles.

Additionally, having someone who has to be Evil (with a capital E) and mustache twirling and betraying his own party seldom works out well either. From discussions on the board and first hand experience, you seldom see people with the subtlety to pull it off without being a cartoon.

1 to 50 of 783 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.