|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Hello to all,
I'm looking to join a Pathfinder group. Preferably on Saturday or Sunday. As my work schedule during the week while stable may require me to work days or nights. It's not to say 8 canthe game on weekdays. Yet two months I can be working from 9-5 or 10-6. Then another month or two 12-8. Send me a PM if interested.
Depending on the person it may or may not be easier to run. Too many would probably run a Dhampir as a vampire from Twilight imo. Even then what is the standard to be measured. That's the issue their no really measurable standard beyond the DM. Which if he/she is already against allowing non-core. Chances are good one is not playing that Dhampir. Tell me upfront yes or no to a non-core race at the start. I go to a session to play D&D. Not So you think you can roleplay a non-core race.
My personal opinion about exotic depending on the type of campaign or setting. I may or may not allow them. At the very least I'm upfront with a yes or no to allow. To me someone telling that I need to convince a DM that I can play one correctly. Is just another way of saying no without saying it imo. Oreads or Undines don't exist. So beyond a description in the books. Their no real benchmark for a player to properly mimic one. What exactly is the standard where measuring the players performance in convincing a DM to allow a exotic race. Just be upfront and say yes or no.
It's like people saying their not against change simply because at the start they "well it's not because I'm against change" then proceed to show that yes they are very much against change they are also in denial about being against change.
Back to topic figure out what as a DM what one wants in terms of races before the start of the game. Tell thep layers. Don't bother with "well you can play a Ratfolk you just need to prove to me you can properly portray one at the table". Guess what players are not going to take the DM up on their offer. Were their to play D&D not Fantasy Shakespeare at the table.
I can kind of understand not wanting exotic races at the table. Any DM that tries that with core races is going to see me walking away as well as some others from the table. If anything come across as a warning sign to players to stay away from a particular DM. Is when one needs to convince a DM to play something else other than human from the core.
I'm still more a fan of it in any edition. Iit just feels like it's unnecessary and to be blunt unfunded Imo. Already it's hard enough to pay a class that can fall like a Paladin. When it's a evil act committed under the effect of a spell or cursed item. I don't see why the pkayer needs to be punished for playing a certain class.
I prefer a more codified alignment system. Where you told from the start what a character can or cannot do. Such as from Palladium Books. Are you allowed to steal from someone yes. Instead of the more vague less defined D&D system. Which instead of helping solve problems at the table make it worse sometimes. I almost never had any problems with alignment when I played or ran Rifts or Palladium Fantasy.
I dislike the older screw over player style mechanics from 2E. What I mean is if one is say a Paladin or Ranger. If one commits a evil act one falls or becomes a Ex-Ranger. Which I have no problems with. If the player willingly commits a evil act he deserves all the negative consequences. What bothers me if one unwillingly commits a evil act. One is still screwed. That makes no sense. If as a Paladin I'm mind controlled why the hell would I fall from grace. When clearly it's not my fault. It's the one mind controlling the character. Same thing with the Ranger. I cam across it yesterday I maybe joining a 2E game soon. what horrible poorly written mechanics. Damned if you do and sure ahs hell damned if you don't.
One thing I like that many player seem to dislike imo. Is having monster races use tactics and traps. One player in a Pathfinder game could not get past that "Kobolds were nothing but cannon fodder and useless" in a campaign I played in. Granted the way they were portrayed in earlier editions did not help. In 3.5. then Pathfinder if they can place traps they can and are a threat. It just seemed to bug him almost to the point of ruining his enjoyment at the table.
To be fair it's both Dms who hate Paladins. As well as player who do their best to give us their impression of Lawful Stupid. Ever have a family member going on the latest health fad. Then when one is eating something goes "don't eat bread it's not good for you. Don't eat food xyz it's not good for you etc..". Now replace that "you can't act that way it's against your alignment. You should not that it's not a good act" It gets annoying real fast.
We don't hate Paladins. We dislike DMs who screw players over when they run their games. As well as players who don't know how to play them properly.
As for Fireball it does cause damage to it's surroundings.
The spell can also cause fires on a ship. It's in the spell description. Even Lightning Bolt can do the same to items with a low melting point. I let my players know upfront that certain spells have secondary effects. Even though it's in the spell descriptions.
In my games spells can and will do damage to their surroundings. Player sometimes forget how damaging their spells can be outside a dungeon. So if the group is staying at a inn, ambushed and a arcane caster casually tosses a fireball it's going to leave a whole in the wall. Or the the very least do damage. I know it's not something everyone enjoys.
i was never on board with touch attacks guns but they are totes not better then bows and crossbows (well maybe crossbows) but its such and investment to use them i think they should of just gave them higher damage dice to make up for all the negatives and been done with it
They kind of are actually. Touch AC is incredibly easier to hit than regular AC. Their actually two APs where gunslingers should be banned as it's a turkey shoot for a Gunslinger. Rise of the runelords and Giantslayer. At the very least not without major changes to the enocunters. sure a Dm can taget the gunslinger main weapon. Yet like other melee style character. The smart player carries a backup. So when the fanbase tells you not to implement the rules as they are. Then get ignored making one aspect of the game unusable for some of the fans. I can see why people would be unhappy. Given they were told plenty of time before the rules went to print.
They were told numerous times by many people not to implement the current gun rules. Then made it look like they would listen to fan feedback. When it came time for the gun rules to go to print. We received "too bad so sad were not changing anything". With the end result that their a ranged weapon that is better than the other two ranged weapons in the rpg (Crossbows or Bows). It's almost impossible to miss a target with gun weapons.
Or to put it another way Paizo can't be given a free pass for criticism because people have a lot of emotion invested in it.
I like criticizing rpg developers. I know some in the hobby dislike that. Yet if a rpg developer keeps making the same mistake. Or releases material that the fans have repeatedly told them not to (Paizo gun rules I'm looking at you). Then I don't see why a fan should not be allowed to do so. As long as their rude or not disrespectful.
If a player decides to make a fighter that has low strength. Or a Rogue with low Dex. Then complains that at the table that those who do the opposite are more effective then their character. I'm the kind of guy to politely say I told you so. I know some people dislike that. I really dislike when someone takes a low value in a primary stat say like Strength. Then is unhappy when he can't lift as much and everyone else refuses to be his or her pack mule. Build a character your way take personal responsability for one choices and suffer in silence.
Well it's not a big thing. I simply don't like the retcon. No matter what kind it is. It was done to pander to a certain segment of the fanbase. I also don't like how they did it. To me at least it does nothing to help the character. The thing is they know need to write that aspect of the character into stories. It's all good to out a character as gay. It means nothing if they never use it again in stories.
I know what a retcon is thank you very much. I dislike it when they claim that the retcon was always part of the character. Their is no real proof that the character was gay. The only thing that stood out for about the character was that he was underused by the writers. With them writing him as being very unlucky with relationships with women. Hardly a case for the character being gay. To put it another way. Imagine if a writer decides to retcon that Foggy Nelson is a LMD. Then instead of saying it's a retcon. Instead claims it's the oppiste with Foggy Nelson always being a LMD from the first issue of Daredevil. It's the reason why Captain America being a Hydra agent was a retcon. Then Marvel tried to deny it claiming he was one from the start.
Gay Conversion Machine I mean really. Your better than that.
A gradual buildup of the character coming out of the closet slowly and trying to come to terms with his new found sexuality would have been nice. Instead to me at least it was "which character can we make gay to show were sexually progressive and all inclusive". You have to admit it was kind of out of the blue and it had no buildup. One minute he was straight the next he was gay. Personally I prefer he was bi-sexual.
Even then it's still pretty bad imo. Given that it's from a novel during 2E D&D run where the requirements to be a Paladin were very high. If it was a movie script the Paladin would be more wooden than a entire forests of trees.
After finishing a Forgotten trilogy of books I can see why some Paladins are poorly played. It's one of their older books. The love interest mentions to the Paladin he could have bought the item cheaper if he haggled for it. The hero replies "Paladins don't haggle it's dishonorable". (Facepalm). In the same book after what appears to be a obvious setup where one of the villains pretends to save the Paladin and his love interest. With the love interest pointing out the obvious to anyone except the clueless Paladin. How convnient that the person who saved them just happened to be close by to the alley where they were ambushed. Clueless Paladin acknowledges she might be right but "Paladins don't lie" then proceeds to tell his entire plan to the villain. (double faceplam). Either one or both of the authors are fans of Lawful Stupid fans or were trying to make some kind of point about how bad those who play those kind of Paladins.
One can't make that kind of stuff up.
It's also because those above the writers also seems to let them just do anything and everything. Espcailly if the writer is popular. As long as writer xyz sells comics no matter how poorly written. They will just be doing whatever they hell they want with characters and titles. I like Bendis yet he is a perfect example. If it's one of his favored characters they can and will be written as being able to do anything and everything in any story he writes. I remember one of his character taking a quinn jet full of Avengers. Spider-man was one of them. Yet his spider sense does not go off at all. Simply because a character ability got in the way of his telling his story he ignored it. No writer seems to talk to another.
Continuity is thrown out the window. At one point they brought back the Brotherhood of Mutants a evil one that also included both Mystique and the Shadow King. If the writer actually did some research. He would have known that Mystique would never ever work with the SK because he killed off Destiny. With fans pointing it out. The writer kind of fixed his mistake one of the reasons she joined the Brotherhood was to get revenge against the SK. To make it worse she does nothing to him. It came across as the writer wanting to include his favorite characters in a story and did no research in the process. It's bad when the fans point out your mistake imo.
Then their the making major changes and then coming up with excuses to hide it. It's like "Were not turning X-men gay because of we want to have more sexual diversity in our comics...he was always like that from the beginning". If a comic company is implementing changes to please a certain segment of the population just come right out and admit it. They not fooling anyone imo.
Well it also reflects the attitudes of that era Imo. People forget that the way we act in 2016. Is definitely not the same when X-men # 1 was released. What we consider inappropriate behavior was not back then. It's like someone on another forum tried to convince me and others that one of his uncles came out in the 1970s and everyone was OK with it. Having been born and lived in the 1970s. One was straight if one was gay one kept it secret and hidden. In some places one could lose their job. Without out being able to do anything about it.
the David wrote:
By that logic I should be gay. All that means is that he may have been a late bloomer like I was when it came to women. It's not to say I was not interested in women. Neither was I howling at the moon everytime one walked by. Then in my late 20s I became interested in women.
the David wrote:
Ah yes the infamous Cloud scene which people hold up to be proof positive he is gay. He went to sleep with Cloud in her female persona. Walks in later to find Cloud turned into her male persona. It's a awkward moment for Bobby. It's a awkward moment to be sure. It's still not proof he was gay.
Again the character was made gay simply as a sacrifice on the altar of sexual diversity. So Marvel can say their "hip, progressive and all for diversity".
I'm still not convinced that Leadership is broken. Nor unbalanced. As I said their were version of it in previous edition of D&D. So I'm assuming either those who find it unbalanced. Either never played 2E. Or simply forgot that it existed. Or need to control everything and anything at their table completely. I like Third party products. I find them ore interesting and informative. With more viable options than the standard PF products.
I like non-standard fantasy backgrounds in rpgs. If it's one thing I'm sick of in too many fantasy rpgs it's humanity as the dominant race because "reason". Sometimes the reason don't make any sense either. I actually prefer the divine magic from 2E as well as the speciality kits fpr priests. I just feel like they make Clerics more interesting. At first I disliked now like how in 2E D&D dump stats actually had real penalties. Want to dump that con score. Good luck coming back from the dead. Low Cha well you better have a lot of gold as your hired npcs are not going to be loyal.
I disagree about it needing to be a feat tax. We already have too many of them. We really don't need another Imo. We had a form of it for certain classes in 2E D&D. No one at least to my knowledge disliked it in that edition. Why suddenly in third edition. The only difference in third edition and later is that everyone could acquire followers not only certain classes. Your follower ia two levels lower than the pc. Magic in the game is strong Leadership I concede is good feat. 9ne of the best I don't think so.
I don't get the hate for Leadership. Did those who dislike it never play 2E D&D. Where Fighters at 9th level not only could attract soldiers. As well as a elite guard. Fully equipped with weapons and armor. Paladins at 9th level received a castle and could purchase men at arms like a Fighter if they had gold. Rangers at 10th level could attract 2D6 Followers. A mix of human and animal followers. All RAW. So either they disallowed players to get the above in 2E or simply don't understand that Leadership while powerful is not that broken imo.
I find Bard to be better than Rogues. Unless it's a specific build which allows a Rogue to benefit both from mobility and defense. Most vanilla Rogues at least at the tables I played at and do. Tend to live short lives. Most Dms simply don't allow intelligent npcs and creatures to sit still and ignore the Rogue sneak attacking them over and over. After the first sneak attack and due to low AC and hps thend to gets quickly injured and or knocked out.
I tend to like the Fighter Archtypes more than the core Fighter class. I find the core Fighter bland and uninspired. Nothing really unique in terms of class abilites. If given the choice I rather play the Samurai Sword Saint Archtype instead of a Fighter.
Condemed to death to death as the op says very rarely. In both groups I have run and played the players tend to look after each other. Let players kill themselves even after giving plenty of warning both as a DM and player yes. One can prevent a group TPK when possible. One can try and prevent a player from doing something dumb and dangerous. Usually they ignore any advice and get what they deserve imo.
The sad and scary part is part of me wonders if that is in the works.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
If they actually gave a good story reason I would not mind so much. It's like spider-Ock punches her and one punch is what sets her down the road to villany. I could understand the the turn to evil if say Spider-ock hurt or killed someone close to her. Yet Marvel used the weakest and lamest of excuses to to turn a character that really has no business being a villain into one. I'm not even that much of a Spider-Man fan yet I hate it when Marvel does stuff like that. I can tell after visiting a few comic sites. That the fans of Spider-Man HATE the change.
True yet from what I have heard. She has been turned into a full villain. No shades of grey or anything remotely heroic or good left in the character. I never viewed Black Cat as a hero. Yet turning her into the female version of the Kingpin is way out of character Imo. Made worse that they used the excuse of her getting punched by Spiderman as the readon to turn her full evil. It was not even Peter Parker but Doctor Octopus possessing his body.
It seems at least in Marvel. A character who is a villain. Are almost always portrayed as sociopathic, psychos with a anti (insert superhero or super team name here) With few exceptions. Or the heroes are always the good guys with no shades of grey Imo.
My main issue with Iceman being gay is not so much the character became gay. Their was no real concrete evidence. His being unlucky with woman and relationships. That would mean anyone including myself must be gay. As at one time or another we all have been unlucky in love. The character was sacrificed on the altar of sexual diversity imo.
I hope they finally get around to retconning Black Cat as her as a villain really does not work and totally out of character.
It's interesting how some who like that Iceman is gay react to those who say it's a retcon. One cannot even say it's a retcon or that it was handled poorly. Anyone can see it was a retcon. But if you dislike or disagree with the change your homophobic. Made worse when they say"but it's a proactive retcon and he was always meant to be gay". Show me where in the comics and I will agree. Otherwise it's like Cap being a Hydra agent. Another retcon and even if Marvel says he was always supposed to be almost no one fell for it imo. Heaven forbid any character be bisexual in the Marvel universe. Their either straight or gay. Nothing in between. With Mystique being the only exception.
That being said I still prefer Marvel to DC.
Yes to allowing players to make Golems and no it's not a evil act imo.
One can make it so in a home game. Or a one shot where a evil npc uses the soul of a another npc to make a sentient version. With the creature asking to be saved. Or the players witnessing that it's no longer a object but one with a living creature in it. Decide to save it. Whether the owner or even the Golem wishes it to be saved.
I tend to frown on games both as a player and DM where too much morality. Espcially modern morality is added. Players can't craft magic items because morally it might put the average shop owner out of business. And so on and so on. After awhile it feels like walking on eggs shells at the gaming table.
Athey have it all and can and would be able to conquer the surfaxce if it was not for that pesky Light Blindness. For some odd reason always preferred them to the Skum.
I missed a game session in which five out of six PCs failed five saves against the Aura of Madness and went insane. How the hell does one group get twenty five failed Will Saves. Want to teach too overconfident players a lesson. Throw one of these at the group
I admit to being guilty of being more negative than positive on the boards. I'm not proud of it. Yet prefer to be honest. If I don't like something in the books or errata. I will mention it. To me the worst offenders are those who post to ask a opinion on a subject. Have already made up their mind about it. Then get mad when posters usually don't agree with them. Expecting less of wanting to hear feedback and more validation.
It's also harder to control as a DM at higher levels. Rope Trick, Tiny Hut and Secure shelter all make it harder for DMs to target resting party members. As well a DM should not force the issue. I'm not saying don't do anything if the group rests too much. Don't over do it either. Otherwise end of the world or not. Players are going to sit back and not rush to save it low on resources.
Fans already play with a setting that has rules that allow some form of tech. Even then I'm not sure getting a setting and rules that support it. Justify buying the same rules twice. You and others might. I don't think their that large of a market for it imo. I can see SF doing moderately well but that's about it.
Well if they offer nothing new with Starfinder. Then don't expect many if not very little of fans coming back. Those unhappy with Pathfinder will not come back with Starfinder imo. Personally I'm probably not going to get it. I own both 5E and PF. Yet I can't justify a good enough reason at least for now to do so. That being said I never understood the drawing of lines in the sand by some rpg fans. I can enjoy both 5E and PF.
Very true. Yet I think they need to offer more than just a reskinned version of PF. I think it's not going to be a easy sell to some fan. Why even by the core. Wait for the free SRD and take what one needs from it. I already have PF it I want to play 3.5. I don't need another clone with different art.
I'm not sure it will cause any real schism within the PF community. That being said I'm not sure it will be as successful as PF was imo. For one Paizo can no longer rely on tapping the market of fans who felt betrayed by Wotc switch to 4E. That ship has sailed. As well and since no one really want to address this. How does Paizo plan on getting a significant amount of the fanbase to buy a rehash of a rehash a second time. Fans will be wondering why they should re-invest in something they already have. I think it's going to need more than the Paizo logo to sell as well as PF did imo.
I'm willing to buy the core and take a look through it. If I turn to the feat section. then see the same boring options of Dodge, Point blank Shot Snap shot etc. As well as the same flaws ported over from Pathfinder. As long prep time for a DM and problems with high level play. It probably going to be returned the lgs the next day. It's great they want to maintain backwards compiability.
I need more than that to re-invest into Starfinder. At the very least enough new material to make me want use Starfinder first. My other Sci-fi rps second. So far I'm seeing nothing that's going to make me want to use Starfinder first. I'm probably not the only one who feels the same way. I could be wrong and hope to be wrong.
To be fair though it's not really Paizo fault. It's been like this since 2E D&D. Low stats in 2E could cripple a character imo. Low con good luck surviving ressurrection. Or surviving being turned from stone to flesh. Low int meants you had a decent chance of not learning any spells. While also being limited to a certain umber of spells per level. A low Wisdom meant your spells would fizzle. If it was low enough one also took a numerical penalty on Will saves. Charisma almost everyone dump stat meant one was going to have at most one or two followers with them being less loyal. While also getting a numerical penalty while dealing with others. Dex was tied into being surprised, missle attack ajustment and a bonus to AC. You can expect none of those being good with a low dex. Strength let's just say the higher the better.
As long as stats and what you can do are so tied together it will be a problem. A low stat while giving one more roleplaying opprtunities. Does not give one anything in terms of mechanics imo. A low str Fighter has to specialize in light armor and needs a decent dex. Otherwise he maybe armored like a tank and move like a snail. Forget about carrying any treasure either.
I don't mind a player routinely taking low stats. As long as they are willing to accept the limitations low stats may impose on the character and what they can do. I don't mind helping out in terms of buying items or crafting them. After awhile if the player keeps doing the same for every character they are on their own. Yes I know it's a team game. I am in no obligation to shoulder the burden of a player who consistently keeps taking low stats either. Nor am I obligated as a DM to make sure that a player always finds the right items to overcome it. Or lower DCs either. If a player wants to build a Bard with low Cha and wants to specialize using Enchanmtent spells. Well be prepared for the npcs to succeed more than fail on their saves.
I don't think one needs to max out a primary stat. I do think it needs to be at least a 16. As long as stats are so tied to what one can do. One can take a low stat. It does hamper the character imo. A Fighter with low str can wear heavy armor and be protected yet move like a snail or not at all. A Bard can take low charisma. Yet while he can get by with skills. His spells will be fairly easy to save against. It's just how the system is setup.
Seconded on the entire post.
That's like saying a exterminator sent into a home to remove ants or other insect infestations is racist towards insects. It means the exterminator is good at what he does. I think too many players read too much into what they read. Or try to find anything wrong.
It's the first time ever where I have seen a fellow player accuse game mechanics of making a class racist. If my gaming table had Rangers and undead were a common enemy. Saying that the Ranger is racist because he is a effective at fighting undead and feels too much like genocide. Is guaranteed to get a few looks your way and questions about your overall mental stability.