mdt's page

It's all about finding a group of people that all play the same way you do. Be that high theatre or tabletop wargaming.

Insecticon?

I'm kind of old fashioned. I like to own my property, not merely rent it.

See I disagree if you have magic and magical items your going to have things that everyone will use simply because it makes no sense not to. Saying that a ring of sustenance is too metagamy because its common is like saying full plate is metagamy because every heavy fighter wants it or a weapon, or a horse for travel purposes, or a house to keep the rain off. Just like an adventuring caster will appreciate the extra hours to memorize spells, sketch the things they saw or just relax you'll have spells like vermin repulsion that every noble is going to want on their pantry.

I learned that no matter how many hints I give my players, they will still try their very hardest to not notice them.

"I'm going to break the game."

"Congratultions, you've done it. I wish you luck in finding a new group."

I think any player, outside of playtests, who sets out to "break the game" is probably being a total douchebag. Be prepared to boot him. He sounds like trouble.

If only I could run a Spice and Wolf campaign, with actual working economic rules... :)

And I don't want an eidolon to always be a big dumb brute going HULK SMASH! whenever I play a Summoner.

Trading physical stats for better mental ones doesn't seem like it would over power the class.

The weird thing is, these particular players do not really see the full extent of the silliness. They really seem convinced that these fun loving free love pirates existed some where, at some time.

In this sense, all RPGs are silly.

Historical accuracy is meaningless in Pathfinder. Fireball-flinging wizards never existed, pirate queens never existed, drow never existed...

I would argue that consistency with mythic and pop-culture expectations is more valuable to a campaign than historical accuracy.

What I am seeing is this
Group A (including you) approached character creation with one set of expectations.
Group B approached character creation with another set of expectations.

Neither set has any superiority to another (this is something you need to realise and get over, you are not playing the game better than them).

The conflict comes from your GM failing to set and manage expectations during character creation: this is why Paizo creates player's guides for their Aventure Paths.

If your GM had told everyone: "This is going to be a fun-time, rock n roll, pirates-of-the-carribean adventure." Then you would all have known what to expect and you would be the one who was out-of-line with your punchy lizard.

If your GM had declared: "This will be a dark, gritty pirate adventure with a certain historical realism and a real lack of joie de vivre." then your good-time-guys would have been out-of-line.

But actually, if your GM had said either of those things then you prbably would have made characters which matched the campaign accordingly.

So... stop moaning about the other players.

The fact that they do not have the same cultural expectations as you does not make them 'silly' and your attitude that they are having BADWRONGFUN is not coming across as very helpful.

Your GM has messed up, and he is the one who has to fix it.

Talk to him. He clearly doesn't realise the mistake he has made.

Your GM needs to reset expectations for the campaign.

What is or isn't bypassable with a +5 to your crafting Spellcraft check is something we are going to address in an eventual blog and FAQ.

Energy resistance costs what it should cost based on how powerful the ability is, not at what level some weird new class or race gets it.

The mythical, immortal beast that slays gods and kings, known as "Katana" to mortals, clearly does not live up to its' legend... ;-)

The Craft feats let you have more choice after character generation. Unless you never gain levels and more treasure during the game, someone with a crafting feat can take what he finds in dungeons and shops and turn it into what he wants. Non-crafters are stuck with luck of the draw.

The cover, and the version number.

I was looking for a name for next session's NPC hero. He will be Q'Oshea, a proud kobold freedom fighter.

This thread isn't going anywhere and we're tired of dealing with the flags for it, so I'm closing it. Blue Star, if you have a specific answerable question feel free to open a new one, otherwise let's consider this argument done and had.

That's highly convenient.

Would we get better pricing on racial abilities if we gave up the idea that all the core races are precisely equal? Dropping this notion of preconceived parity may enable a better balancing of the system as a whole.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Isn't free will required for your actions to be moral/immoral? Thus, your outsiders and by extension the corrupted creatures are unable to be called good/evil because they have no free will to choose one or the other?

None of the characters in my games have free will. They're all controlled by fat dudes swilling Mountain Dew.

WHERE'S THE MOUNTAIN DEW!? CAN I HAVE SOME MOUNTAIN DEW?

As for the topic, I think the point of the "outsider/corrupted" thing was that evil for the most part is a learned thing. Now granted, there are in real life parents that are just awesome parents and their kid grows up to be a serial killer, but then that guy has mental problems, he's not been raised to be a serial killer. On the other hand, take Drow. Most Drow are evil. They are raised to be evil, so you end up with the opposite of "Great parenting". Then, despite all attempts to turn the kid into a psychopathic killer, you end up with a kid that wants to worship some human nature chick and wield dual scimitars. THerefore, the only way to 100% say ALL of this race is EVIL or ALL of this race is GOOD is to have them supernaturally influenced.

Here's a bit more info from what I announced at the PaizoCon Preview Banquet.

The title is Ultimate Races.

Essentially, it has four sections.

The first provides lots of cool character stuff for the seven core races. New rules elements will provide options for players looking to develop their characters in ways that emphasize their race. This might include archetypes that allow an elf character to explore his connection to nature or magic, a dwarf character to carry on the legacy of his multi-generational clan, or a gnome to explore its connection to the First World or delve deep into its weird obsessions. New feats and spells, when appropriate, will add further depth and more exciting options. Each of the core races will receive plenty of pages and a breadth of interesting content.

The second section will provide slightly shorter but nonetheless quite significant treatments of several (meaning more than 10) "spotlight" races that make interesting and exciting player character options. Races like goblins, aasimar, tiefling, dhampyr, drow, the elemental races of Bestiary 2, and several others.

The third section includes shorter (but more than you get in the Core Rulebook) basic information that give you what you need to know (and a bit more) to play characters of EVERY OTHER 0-Hit Die creature in the Bestiary, Bestiary 2, or newly announced Bestiary 3. If you want to play a merman, we'll tell you how to pull it off with style. We'll also have some sweet weird stuff like grippli, duergar, and stryx (from the Inner Sea World Guide).

The fourth section (which I actually forgot to mention at the Preview Banquet) gives a thorough optional system that allows players and GMs to create custom races. Part of this will help you emulate more powerful creatures, but other parts will be about making wholly original creatures that advance as player characters. This will include all kinds of weird stuff, and it will be the focus of an extensive open playtest.

That's the outline as it exists today. We may be able to add in some stuff beyond this, but that's the general sense of what we're shooting for in the book.