|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I knew that it would not last DC lost me as reader when every new event had the usual tagine of promising to change the status quo and in the end. Mega event after event. Stuff would happen in those events and have no bearing on the status quo. At least Marvel flaws and all are wiling to change the status quo. So I held off buying the reboot as I knew DC would reboot the major reboot. I may no longer collection to from them yet wish them well as the comics industry needs to have multiple comic companies Imo.
And as soon as anyone tries to play evil characters, the campaign falls apart from intra party backstabbing, ultra douchebaggery and sheer idiocy.
As some have already said it's a player issue who lack maturity not a alignment. By that logic that means that Paizo evil AP is going to be unplayable then. It's not to say I have not had my share of those who do behave like the above. I have also seen the rare evil pc played well.
It's also not helped that while we have a alignment system it's also too open ended. I played many games from Palladium books and mechanics aside of the system. Their alignment system has everything listed in point form what a character can do. I never had problems with Lawful Stupid Paladins or dirty harry style Paladins. For every "well you can't do that it's against your alignment" from a player more often than not yes that player was playing with his alignment. For example will a pc torture someone. Yes/no, only for a good cause. It's almost all there.
I know some here dislike having everything written down with alignment and prefer a unwritten free form style. Which I can respect yet to me at least here and outside of the forums it seems to cause more problems then they solve.
It's also not helped with a personal bias from the devs. Don't offer something like infernal healing if you really don't want people taking it. Some of the mechanics make no sense as well. As some have pointed out casting evil spells makes someone evil. Does that now mean that someone who is evil who casts good spells is now good. Simply by casting enough spells with the good descriptor.
The Green Tea Gamer wrote:
I wish I could disagree with the above but I can't. Between one of them getting new owners who will only take used Pathfinder/D&D products. To them also not updating their website. I get that the new owners want to push board games more and less rpgs. For love of god at least make sure new Pathfinder stuff is clearly shown on the new releases site of the website. The other one same problem with the staff. One of them was playing 40K with his buddies and was really loud. The DM politely told him to not speak so loudly and the guy became offended. So he made a big deal of telling his buddies that we were too loud over and over. Even his buddies after awhile you could see on their faces todl him to knock it off. As it stopped being funny.
Which did anger the DM and we went from holding our games at the store. To holding them at his place. As the DM said "if they are not interested in keeping my business I'm going elsewhere". Too many gaming stores are run like a hobby not a business. Bottom line as well it's getting hard to justify supporting game stores when it's cheaper online as well.
I have to disagree. Putting any terms such as Munchkins, powergamers, rollplayers, roleplayers in a player recruitment ad. Is probably the worst thing to do imo. While I appreciate and respect the honest of the person writing the ad. I'm not going anywhere near such a person game. For one that person prejudices are showing upfront. Second we all optimize to a small extent in this game. One has to imo.
So one can build a low str and con Fighter. He just will hit and do less damage as well. While also carrying less in terms of items. Their no roleplaying reason around that. It's all easy to say to roleplay yet depending on the class it's easier to do than others imo. It's just the way the system is built imo.
While I like giving a short explanation of what my character can do. Neither am I in the mood to give the equivalent of War and Peace in terms of description either.
I don't see why one cannot do both. I and others I have seen in the hobby have ND will continue to do both. It is easier to role play the social attributes vs the physical attributes. For example a low str will always be a character who both cannot hit or lift as much as a higher str character. Players who dump star Str, Con and dex find out the hard way that I don't ppull punches when it comes to combat.
Same thing with treasure a low str player in one of my Games was unhappy that he keput coming across heavy armor. It was a area where npcs made heavy use of it. Dead npcs breastplate or banded mail was not sudeeply going to morph into leather and a chain shirt.
If your going to build a PC in a certain fashion. Ignore any advice. Expect the DM to suddenly alter the treasure because of alow physical dump state. More often not its not going to happen. Build the character you want roleplay him the way you want.then also accept that certain choices made during character creation. MY also end up causing trouble for our character in the long one. Role laying WI get one out of certain situations at a gaming table. It's also not a gimmicks to succeed at everything either Imo.
Not a bad book at all. I give it a 6/10. We still have to suffer from poor archtype design. At this point why it still happens. Who knows. The Vigilante is okay. Not bad. Not something exciting either imo. Some useful advice on how to handle spells. Which I hope they include in the pocket edition of the core book. That stuff really should be in the core not in another book imo.
I don't know if this is Paizo's worst archetype... But it's a serious contender for the position.
Agreed very close. I'm also not too thrilled with the Grey Paladin either. For what you get and what you lose from the standard Paladin. If the devs don't want players using any other alignment for a Paladin that LG. Don't offer something that is really not worth taking.
Then some fans wonder why some of us are so hard on the devs. At this point there no real good reason to get such archtypes. They had a playtest. Even with that the devs have the final say. Yet they still keep refusing to find the proper middle ground when it comes to new material. Either a option is too good or not worth taking. This far into the development cycle pf Pathfinder they know better. They simpl don't care. I'm glad I bought the book. Out of a score of ten I'm docking two points for poor archtype design.
The mechanics of Parhfinde are not perfect by any means. I like running and playing it. It has some flaws. Yet like my example with the Bard. If a player after being given advice by the DM and players. Still insists on taking a low charisma score. Is to some extent responsible for the spells failing more often than not in and out of combat. Yes PF has some bad options rule wise. Sometimes it's not so much the rules. So much as a player wanting to do their own thing at a gaming table. Then complains about about their character not being effective. As long as classes are built around having certain stats at high levels. With some poor options rules wise it's not going to get better.
Speaking for myself it's not simply just about numbers. It's also seeing what other characters are capable of doing. Then going out of ones way to do the opposite. Let me explain.
A player wants to play a Bard who specialize in Enchantment spells. Yet at the same time decides to take a low Cha score. While a generalist wizard who has a variety of spells who has a high Int score. The second still has a good chance of their Charm Person beating a opponents DC. As long as the system still ties in spell DC to a primary casting attribute. It's going to be a problem.
Even a melee class who dumps Strength. While still somewhat viable is not going to either hit and damage as much as one that does not dump strength. Good luck carrying stuff as well.
Obviously no one has to optimize or have a high primary stat score. Yet at the same time your responsbile for what happens at the table if you take a low stat in that score. You can't dump Cha as a Bard then complain at the table your spells are not as effective as the player that does the opposite. Same way your suddenly not going to be as effective in social situation as the player who built his character around being the party face. You can try but chances are the other guy will be better at it.
That's the main issue wanting to build a character their way. Yet refuse to acknowledge or accept responsability for choices that lead to it being less effective. If your told that making a character a certain way leads to having the character do 15 points in combat vs 30 points. Then ignore any advice. Well it's on you. I'm not toning down encounters as a DM to make a player feel better. Or build a character in such a way as to do less damage.
It seems to depend on the thread imo. A good example are the threads where the flaws of a Fighter are discussed versus wizards. Too often you have those who claim their nothing wrong with wizards. Then list a bunch of advantages that Wizard and magic have. Then claim as long as you don't actually play the Wizard properly nothing wrong. Telling me as a player that I should hold back when I play a Wizard to make the player who runs a Fighter feel good. Is not exactly a ringing endorsement for the Fighter.
At one point their was a bunch of gamers starting "This happened last game and I had to rule on it as a DM was I right". Pretending to want to hear both sides when in reality all they real want is "atta boy you did right". While getting very angry when they get told that they were in error.
Or they go into a discussion feeling very passionate about a topic. Unwilling to see both sides. Their character will act a certain way at all times no matter the situation. So if they don't believe in healing during combat. Don't expect them to do it in combat even if another character dies. You try and do the same to them and they then claim that your taking revenge. How is that fair really.
I'm not saying I'm a saint but more often than not too many posts are not argued from a position of good faith imo.
Maybe it's just me and I'm too hard on the devs. Yet more and more unless it's the hardcovers I'm not finding a majority of the new material exciting or worth a look. I cut back on the companions as I have been reading less and less options that I'm interested in. Between a lack of nerfing something properly and too much. Not much for me at least interesting. After the APG it feels like the newer stuff is not up to par to me at least.
It just feels like fans asking for both good crunch and fluff keep getting ignored. I get they want to keep power creep under control. That ship has sailed imo. Offer balanced yet also options worth taking. Divine Protection I would have reduced the bonus added to saves by half. Now it's not even worth taking if the DM offers it for free. Or even pays you to take it.
If the majority of the feedback from a playtest is " class XYZ sucks". The designer goes ahead and changes nothing. Kind of reinforces that your not listening to the feedback. Your never going to get fans agreeing 100% on a topic. If the majority says a class, option, etc is poorly designed one has to at least take that into account. If your design process is to wait for 100% approval on every aspect your never going to change anything.
At this point the devs can do no better. I'm not cutting them anymore slack for poor choices in terms of feats class, options or anything else they design. Insist on making poor design choices. Even when some fans point out makes a class worse both in the long and short term is asking negative feedback as far as I'm concerned.
As I said before it's a great public relations exercise as it makes the fans think their feedback means something. When in reality just like any other rpg company they do their own thing.
Swashbuckler could have been a decent class. Now it's either going to be a dip as you said or players are going to use other options to build something similar. I just understand their game design process or the devs. Why build a poorly designed class when you can do a good one. It's like Palladium and Rifts. They were complaints of power creep in the early stages of rifts releases so their response was to increase the power creep.
Well as I said they don't participate in playtest. So I will concede that the new Warpriest is more balanced. A couple of good nerfs don't make the other stuff that was poorly nerfed any better.
Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:
They have shown they more than willing to nerf something whenever they choose too. If they wanted to they could fix the gun rules. They choose not too imo. Depending on what AP one runs it can ruin a entire campaign. A Gunslinger in Rise of the Runelord and Giantslayer, even most APs is almost never going to miss as it's way too easy to target Touch AC.
Despite my feelings on the lack of a true playtest for the core which I won't go into.
To me their play tests are just a feel good public relations exercise for the fanbase. Otherwise play test or not they simply do their own thing. Which they can do. Then what's the point of a play test. A good example are the gun rules. Almost no one wanted guns targeting Touch AC. In the end despite objections to them. They ended up being printed anyway. That's why I won't participate in any such play tests.
What bothers me the most. They refuse to find or even attempt to try to find the proper middle ground on designing new material. Or nerfs. At this point in the development of the game they should know better. They just don't want to try imo.
Which we only received because of the negative reaction from the ACG. Even then for the longest time their defense was they just had to get out at Gencon. So I concede that their was a apology which I forgot about.
True but I don't think the fiasco with the ACG should have even happened in the first place. One time they were unable to release a book at Gencon would not have ruined the company imo. All they had to say that the ACG still needed some playtesting and fine tuning. Then release it later. With the amount of errata I can't really tell anyone I know to buy the book. Short of a second printing or used.
The book was a rush release at Gencon to get more sales even when it was known that errors were in the book. Hell the first print run has Adventure Path on the cover.
Paizo took way too damn long to get errata out for the book. When it did it was nine pages. As usually either they nerfed stuff that did not need nerfing. Ignored stuff that needed nerfing. In some cases something like Divine Protection that was pretty strong nerfed into almost being useless. What was too good of a feat is now not even worth taking if your DM offers it to you for free imo. It also revealed how much of the book need errata. It feels like almost a quarter to half the book imo. Might as well wait for the second printing.
Nor was there ever a really apology imo either. Of course they are not forced to apology. Yet with the mess and fiasco that was the ACG if I was in there place I would have apologized. Even with their reason for getting it out at Gencon. To me and some others here it left a bad taste in our mouths. In some cases it led to some fans cancelling their subscriptions and no longer trusting Paizo quality at face value. Really I can't blame them.
I'm sure what I wrote will bother some of the fans here. I'm not lying to protect their feelings nor the devs at Paizo.
That's always been and will remain a problem with the devs. Almost no proper middle ground. Either something is not worth the paper it's printed on. Or too broken that it risks causing problems during the campaign. Matched only by great fluff, lousy mechanics style of development. A option had great fluff but the crunch is not simply not worth taking IMO.
Good players are not that easy to find either. So neither really can be too unreasonable at a table. With all due respect its not that hard to DM. Saying that players should not voice any complaints simply because DMs are not a DM a dozen. Is kind of dumb IMO. I went through a string of bad DMs before I became one. So their not as rare as you think IMO.
My main issue is that Dms who restrict certain classes then end up being the ones who complain the most when they can't take the same class. If you don't want guns or ninjas in your campaign fine. I may not agree and I can respect a fellow DM decision. Respect my decision if I decide to ban the same class. Thankfully such gamers are rare.
I see no problem with reskinning a class, Archtype or feat. As long as both sides players and DM agree.
Grey Lensman wrote:
Well in my experience it's less to see why they should have banned the class. More they get to ban what they want at their game tables then expect to be given free rein as a player. I don't mind if you ban stuff but unless your playing a class to see if it banning it was wrong. I just don't see why a anti-gun DM suddenly as a player wants to play a Gunslinger. Espcially if as a DM their very passionate against allowing something.
I have been victim of this only twice and with Pathfinder. I may not like them saying no to certain classes as long as they are honest about why they ban. So far with one exception they have. What gets me is when they go on a rant about it. Whether the players are interested in such a rant or not. Then once they stop being a Dm insist on playing the same class.
Player: Can I play a Gunslinger?
Me: No I don't like Paizo rules on guns
Player: Let's try and see maybe the gun rules are not so bad
Me: I rather not I don't like their gun rules. Last game as DM you went on big rant on how guns don't belong in fantasy now you want to play one.
Player (looking shocked that I remembered his rant) That's true let me take something else
I suggest Dm turned players who ban stuff don't take what they ban at games. Espcially if you go off on a unwanted rant about it. Makes you look like hypocrite.
Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:
I know exactly what you mean. We have one guy who keeps doing the same. The rest of us try to at least give 24-48 hours notice so that we can adjust our schedules. Finally I had enough and called him out on it on the group emails. Last week another player. The problem is the DM refuses to really do anything. Yes I get the other player " has out of game issues". The DM defense of the other player is "well you missed sessions too".
I admit I did but you know I don't wait on the day of the game or 2-3 hours before the game starts to cancel. Not unless it's a real emergency. Or say I find out a hour before I leave work that I have to do overtime. Even then it's understandable if the player was young and in his teens. The guy is in his late thirties. He has no consideration for anyone else at the table. So I agree drug addicts are less flaky then gamers. It's made worse when they get told at the start of the game that theirs a certain amount of commitment expected and showing up at least semi-regularly is one of them.
I gamed with a few like that but their is a point where you have to ask if they really are interested in the game. Or simply showing up because they have nothing better to do. I enjoy a nice weather like the rest of them. I'm not going to constantly keep cancelling or as a player willing to see games cancelled over and over because it's nice outside. It's all a matter of priorities and I get that some have different kinds in the hobby. It's also made worse when they then complain that they game is not consistent or run regularly enough.
Which is always strange to me as D&D was and is and never meant to be historical take on the Middle Ages. Even Alignment it's not meant to be a modern code to leave by now or then. Frankly I find it too open ended and wish their was clear and concise rules as to what a player can or cannot do at the table. Espcially for Paladins.
Player A: I know your a Paladin but nothing in the code requires you to commit suicide
Player B: (insisting on playing a Lawful Stupid Paladin) No we must wake our opponent. It outguns and can kill us easily but to use any unfair advantage is not heroic...CHAAARGE!!!
Player A and the rest of the players (Sigh)
Not to mention the default setting is not set in the modern day. It has slavery. A country that run by Outsiders. Another by Undead. Those who control those countries are not thinking nor treating their subjects the way the would be treated in the current world.
Racism,sexist,homophobia were and are unfortuantely still a problem. Those three are reduced in the modern world. They still exist. Racial groups still suffer racism. Sexism is low but it's not gone. Homophobia still exists as well. It's not something that was only prevalent during the Middle Ages.
I admit bad experience with TOH may have coloured my opinion of GG. I don't hate the guy. I'm glad he worked on D&D. That does not mean that because of that everything he did was a good thing for the hobby. Sorry but I'm not one of those hero worship types. I'm not afraid of saying both and bad things about stuff I like as as well as people. TOH for whatever reason wax not GG finest hour IMO.
I get those in the hobby who want to defend GG. After reading Tomb of Horrors. I stopped being one of them. It's like he had a very bad experience as a DM at a gaming table. Then decided to get revenge at his players and those who came after. Kind of embarrased he is part of D&D actually.
It's not good game design. Sorry if anything if you ever want to lose players and possibly friends even close friends. Never ever run that module. Or at the very least follow any advice on DMing from the module imo.
Another story. This time a DM who is a poster child of the worst DM imo
Let his best friend and girlfriend get away with murder in and probably out of game because their his best friend and girlfriend.
His buddy was trying to lose weight. I get that I'm overweight. His buddy wanted to lose weight as well. Unlike myself who had more willpower if someone else brought junk food to the game would eat it. I'm more than willing to bring healthy food to a gaming table. Every now and then I need to have some junk food. All three tried to make me feel guilty because one of them lacked willpower. Their backhanded comments about losing weight did not help either. 95% of the time I eat healthy. Don't get on my case the other 5%.
His girlfriend would talk in a voice that was Jennifer Tilly from the Chucky movie. Except ten times worse. While totally wanting to do her own thing and refusing to change anything. Even if it was detrimental to her character and others. Maybe I should not have said anything to the DM. Either that or stabbing sharp pencils into my ear.
The DM was a coward. Instead of telling to my face that he wanted me out of the game. Sent me a email. Then wondered why when we came face to face I refused to say anything to him. I kind of had a hint. With the way they causally talked about the number of players that came and went from the game. It was before I realized that better no
To be honest I don't think your player who stunk was clueless. If your genuinely clueless about smelling bad. Your told about it. One apologizes. One does not grumble about it leave wash up and come back. Too often it's not so much about being clueless so much as wanting to see how far they can take bad behavior until they either change what bothers others or are asked to leave. a "clueless person" when told they stink. Does not respond with " Aw, c'mon! It's not that bad! " imo.
Happened with a new game I'm in. The DM was in the process of recruiting new players. One of them is one of those gamers who is s certain age. Yet instead decides to act less mature than their physical age. Already the DM is hesitant to add him to the group. But decides to be fair and give him a chance anyway. The DM setup a group on Facebook to stay in contact. The DM being hands on likes to setup and build props and scenes for the game. The problem player writes something truly dumb on the page. Both dismissing the work on the DM did, swearing, and all but getting himself booted out of the game. Why do both men and women think acting like that is both acceptable and the right way to act.
Was with three ex-friends
One was someone I had know since college. Who apparently had no respect for me as a person and a dM. Never said it to me face. Yet decided to tell a very close friend how he felt about me one day. My friend was explaining to me that he kept saying "why are you telling me this". Yet it kept going over his head. My friend who really never liked the other guy told me. You come to my house, laugh at my jokes, partake of my food, say you like my game. Yet talk absolute thrash and show no respect behind my back. So I gave him the similar treatment. I never called him back. Ignored any of his calls. Not that he called back but id he did I was not answering. Total lack of respect from someone I thought was a friend
Another were a duo of brothers. Who because of real life being too hard to handle. Decided to retreat into the world of mmos. If they could not show to a game. Would wait to the last minute to let the rest of the group know. Refused to do game notes. The other brother really showed up to sleep or play on his IPad. Anytime you tried to bring up their behavior in and out of the game they became super passive aggressive. Eventually when one of the brothers swore up and down he would show. Decided not to show up and did not even bother to call. Enough was enough and we as a group decided not to call them anymore.
It used to be the rage quitting happened once in a blue moon. Now it seems both men and women can't handle the stress of something not going their way. Even something in a rpg.
In game a player who wanted to play a Drow in a Forgotten Realms campaign. Expected to be treated like Drizzt at first level. No fear or hate because he was Drow. Eventually the player accused the DM of being racist. right just because your black means that the racism a Drow receives is the same thing (rolls eyes).
Had the displeasure of playing with a male chauvinist pig. As a guy I never experienced that kind of BS out or in a rpg setting. Thankfully once was enough. The player besides being a attention seeker at the table treated the female npcs badly. The DM was having none of it. Eventually he sent us to a castle where we were supposed to hunt and defeat a vampire.
After a few encounters we come across maid cleaning up. The player says something really rude and disgusting which I can't print here. Essentially telling him she is not helping him. The player gets angry and in character removes his gauntlet to slap the maid across the face. He does and takes two negative levels. Player getting angry hits her again another two negative levels. Getting very angry does it a third time another two negative levels/ He went from seventh to first level in three hits. You guessed it the "maid" was the vampire. At that point the player rage quits and was never seen again. Last I heard many years ago he was beaten up pretty badly at another game for making the Dm girlfriend cry.
As long as the DM gives players a heads up before the game begins. That certain races will face more bigotry than others. Which is unfortunately not always the case. Which leads to conflict at the table. At the very least the DM should at least give a reason for bigotry if it's not obvious. I was once in a game where a DM hated Drow and decided they would face bigotry simply because he hated them. If you dislike a race in a rpg that much why include them in your game in the first place imo.
To be fair Hama, I do get your point. Some of the more exotic looking races like the plant hybrids would be victims of racism. Imagine walking into town with a pc Strix. Hell even a human Sorceter with the Aberrant bloodline at later levels would scare the locals. The Tengu st least in the art have more of a noble bearing IMO.
Depends on the world. If it's a world where you have no to little contact with demons, Devils, and other outsiders than yes a Bird man would stand out. If your using Golarion where the extraordinary is common and Outsiders uncommon. A bird man might get some bigotry. A raised eyebrow or two. But if he is with a group that has a mix of core races. Then I can't see the automatic racism happening. Remember your playing a fantasy rpg world. Not the real world.
Considering the reputation Orcs have in most settings. If your allowing a Half-Orc with little to no racism a bird man is not going to be bothered by most people IMO.
I would be very careful towards displaying bigotry towards players who take animal races. As unless the animal race has a history of not being liked by others. Or simply a evil race. It comes across as the DM going out of his way to punish a player.
Unless your running a homebrew campaign and such creatures are targeting for racism and bigotry. It really should not be happening that much imo. Golarion is world that has many different species that interact with each other. Their should be bigotry yes. Not "it's a tengu it's different kill it, kill it now !" around every corner. Espcially with Ogres, Giants and a whole lot of other more inhuman and evil looking creatures.
You end up getting the stupidity about mutants from Marvel comics. The human looking mutant gets singled out for torture and death because their a mutant and different. Yet the eight or is it ten foot tall talking orange rock looking Thing. Gets a free pass on racism because you know he got his powers from space radiation. Their so man non- mutant human villains more psychotic and sociopathic in the Marvel Universe. Yet mutants get the short end of the stick.
On the other end. I once had a fellow player want to play a DRow in a Forgotten Realms campaign. He wanted to be the next Drizzt. He was warned by both the DM and players that even with Drizzt, even with hin doing good deeds that he would face racism. The player seemed okay with it. Then eventually left the game because he accused the DM of being racist. Apparently beign racist to Drow is being racist to black men who knew.
A final warning if I allowed you to take something that I disliked as a DM without too much complaint. While want to take something different and you look like your going to vomit. Then guess what next game your probably not going to have me being as lenient.
were looking for two or more players to join a upcoming Giant slayers campaign. The game is going to be held in Montreal Quebec
A few guidelines:
We are looking for players to be at the table. No Skyping or anything similar. We tried it once before and it's not for myself nor my current players
While we understand that players have lives outside of gaming. We expect a certain commitment to the game. We play once maybe twice a month depending on the availability of players and DM. If your unable and/or unwilling to do please don't waste our times and yours.
Our group is a mix of roleplaying with some minor optimization. So fair warning. We are also pretty laid back. We play to have fun and unwind.