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

memorax's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 2,111 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

8FoldPath wrote:


I do see what you are saying, they are still a business and as a result they will need to be treated as such. However business can be conducted in many ways. I feel business is conducted in a way that primarily benefits the customer here. You can chose to spend very little here and still play the game or you can spend lots the choice is the customers. They should get some browny points for that :)

Well at the same time I'm not sure I really should be thanking them for something any smart company does. Giving and having customer service is a must for most companies. Some can get by because of having deep pockets. I guess for me to consider anyone a family member and/or friend it has to be someone I know for a long time. Not someone who sells me a product. Despite my complaints about their product. I do think the people that work at Paizo are good people. At the same time I barely know them.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
I love Pathfinder, but at this point, I have very little faith in Paizo's ability and willingness to balance the game.

Seconded. I like much of their material. They is also a lack of willigness to find a middle ground when it comes to feats.

Liberty's Edge

The only real disadvantage and not much of one for a beginner playing a Ranger is that eventually one has to specialize in ranged or two weapon. Ranged is imo the better choice. It's not to say that a Ranger can't do both. The focus is on one combat style eventually.

Liberty's Edge

I just want to give a big thank you to Greystaff. He sent me his notes asap. Much appreciated.

Liberty's Edge

The problem with norberger is that his alignment is Neutral Evil. So I'm not sure how a character playing a Cleric in a group would fit into a good or neutral aligned group. Thanks for the link TMZ

Liberty's Edge

No Gunslingers. The touch ACs of many of the npcs are so easy to hit it becomes a turkey shoot for the Gunslinger. Espcially if the person running the Gunslinger has no system mastery. The person running the character did so much damage in my games. I was doubling in some cases tripling the hit points to avoid a one shot kill. A dedicated archer is better and is less of a headache for a DM. If traps are a worry I would recommend the Archeologist or Investigator. I find both do a better job of trapfinding then the Rogue does. Or a Bard with a level dip with Rogue.

My only other recommendation is to take a hard look at what the party can do and then at the npcs. Like most APs the npcs are poorly built. So much so that even a party with beginners could easily defeat some of the BBEGS. For example one of them has no crowd control spells yet the pcs are supposed to fight the npc in a enclosed area. As well the human fort occupied by Ogres should be redone completely. Large creatures in a medium sized structure are at a disadvantage. Keep the Ogres outside the fort. Replace with Bugbear, Hobgoblins or Orcs. Not to mention the Ogres in Pathfinder are a rather special lot. Think the Hills have Eyes types. So that may bother some more squeamsih players.

Liberty's Edge

I'm thinking of running the Adventure Path at a alter date set in Golarion. Which god would replace the Greyhawk gods?

St Cuthbert = Iomedea

Pelor = Sarenrae

Kord = Gorum?

Wee Jas = Nethys

Olidammara = Cayden Cailean

Fharlanghn = Desna

Moradin = Torag

Yondalla = Chaldira

Garl Glittergold = Abadar

Anyone I'm missing from the list? Or that others have added?

Liberty's Edge

At low levels and in the hands of someone who does not know what he is doing. Then sure a Wizard at low level may not have as much damage output as a martial character. To sit there and tell me with a straight face at mid to high levels casters damage output sucks. I can honestly say that you don't know what your talking about. Again unless the person running the Wizard is a complete novice to the hobby. Otherwise just with the core I can do so much more than a martial character without their support. Who needs martial support when one can summon Elementals. Who are Neutral in alignment and are unaffected by any of the Protection spells. Magic Missile, Lightning Bolt, Fireball, Cone of Cold, Ice Storm etc.. Casters stink with causing damage at high levels...gimme a break.

Liberty's Edge

I meant no offence Jeff. It is a interesting case study in terms of gamer behaviors and tastes though.

I'm not that huge a fan of 4E like I used to be. I would probably play in a game of it. I'm more interested in 5E. Or even something completely different like Rifts. Though David true feeling about 5E do keep emerging as this thread keeps going on imo. He tries to pass himself as being open minded about yet is anything but imo.

Liberty's Edge

David Bowles wrote:


GMs should prepare and casters should know their spells. That's common courtesy. I imagine there is GM prep even for 5th. Maybe not, though. To me, prepping is the fun part of GMing.

Both players and dms should know their spells and abilites. I find that I could run a 5E with little preparation and not have to worry about it slowing down in play. Eve nwith Hero Lab and a cheat sheet the various modifier in Pathfinder can be a pain in the behind.

Liberty's Edge

David Bowles wrote:
People proficient with 3.X don't have to bend over to make it work. Speed and ease of play only get you so far.

You kind of do actually at mid to higher levels imo. A cheat sheet is almost mandatory imo. As most modifiers don't stack. So if I cast a spell that provides a morale bonus. The cleric with Nobility as a domain can't use his Inspiring Word domain ability as they don't stack. Then their is the various modifiers from spells and items one needs to keep track off. As again similar bonuses don't stack. Take a look at the description for Haste as a spell it's not a lot but enough to remember.

The game slows down when players who use casters don't know their spells. Flipping through the core and various books the delays do add up. One had the same problem in previous edition as well. Not so much as in third edition/PF. Even as a dm having tio flip through books to find out what feat XYZ does slows the game down. Trying running a game frm level 1-20 with players and a dm who does not prepare ahead of time and tell me how fast it goes.

David Bowles wrote:


There are only CR limits in PFS, not PF homebrew. I don't use the CR system at all when I run, because I can do math on my own.

Well CR is a good way to judge if a group of players can fight something. One can also use the throw a powerful monster and hope the players run away approach. Except that leads to tpks and unhappy players.

David Bowles wrote:


5th's organized play rules are quite poor, imo. That's a big obstacle to killing off PF, even if they capture over half the market share

I think your putting too much faith in organized play. Most games unless players and dms can't find players are home games imo. We were running games long before Paizo even had a organized play.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:


Or he could stick to PF.

I assumed as much since he keeps tryingt to compare what 5E can do to PF

thejeff wrote:


3.x did a lot more than remove "onwtruwayism limits". For one thing, it introduced the whole "build game" part of the hobby. Or at least vastly amplified it.

It did make it easier to run the game as well. Their is no CR limits in 2E. Or anything that helps with judging what one can throw at a approriate level party. It seems to me at least trial and error. Which can leads to tpks. Uild" a game that is true. It also added some more complexity to the game as well.

thejeff wrote:


For me, 3.x/PF still feels like D&D, even though there are parts of the system I dislike. 4th didn't. Though it played well enough objectively, without the D&D feel, that wasn't enough to keep me interested. I'm aware that's an entirely subjective feeling, but subjective feelings are an important part of appeal.
5E seems to have the feel again. It's too soon to tell if it'll avoid what wound up annoying me about 3.x and avoided bringing back what I didn't like about AD&D (which I've mostly forgotten, it having been a long time.)

I play PF and dislike some elements as well. It's fdunny because many elements of 5E were in 4E. They just repackaged them differently so hearing a fellow gamer like one but not the other is interesting. Same reason that 4E was less complex than third edition because fans asked for it. Yet with 4E is was not as well received. Now with 5E it is. We really don't know what we want sometimes do we.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:

Some certainly will shift over. Others will stay. Unlike shifts from AD&D->2E or 2E->3.0 or 3.5->PF or 4E, PF isn't going away. Support won't be drying up, so I doubt games will be either. Certainly less so than with previous shifts.

Support for 4E is done though. It'll be interesting to see what happens with its fans. Move on to 5E? Switch to a 3rd part clone? (13th Age is something of a 4E clone, right?)

I think you maybe surprised. The attitudes of gamers have changed imo. gone are the days where a player will bend over backwards to make a rpg system work. They find one that is fast, easy and with relatively small amount of flaws and stay with that. It's the reason why Hero System despite being one of the more complete and flexiable generic rpgs on the market has lot much of it's market share. With Fate, Savage Worlds that while not as comprehensive are much faster and easier to play and run. Gamers with more than one choice of rpg just don't want to put with issues within rpgs imo. It's not just the younger generation as well. When the hobby stops becoming fun and feels like a job most take a hard look at the rpgs they run and play and switch accordingly.

Liberty's Edge

I'm not sure what you mean by that David. Your a very confusing poster. D&D whatever it's version has always had a D&D feel to it. From the boxed sets to 5E. There have always been D&Disms imo. Vancian casting in one form or another. Caster who can't wear armor. Druids being nature lovers. The list goes on. Third edition simply removed many of the onetruwayism of 2E. Only humans allowed to go any level. demi-humans with level limits. Proficiences and non-proficinces. Which they just renamed into class skill anyway. While 3E and later D&D has more flexibility it still very much has its elements of D&D.

If that bothers you maybe another fantasy rpg is in order imo. Every game has it's unique elements. If as a player one is used to just charging into battle I don't recommend either Earthdawn or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. It's easy to die in those rpgs imo.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:

Well I don't really consider 3E and 3.5. that much The big difference if WotC had put out a 3.5 rehash would be that it would be in direct competition with an existing 3.5 rehash. That wasn't the case with either 3.5 or PF. Both replaced previous editions.

Marketing wise, it's an entirely different situation. More like trying to start PF while 3.5 was still being published.

Good point. I do we can agree that a 5E that was 3.5 unchanged would not sell well.

The interesting thing about 5E and it being more simpler to run. Is more and more outside of these boards those in the hobby once they finish their existing PF games will switch to 5E. It's like when 3E came out and 2E games began drying up. I go to other sites and the general feeling is that some put up with Pathfinder flaws because they had to and disliked 4E. Now with 5E they no onger want to deal with those flaws. I think 5E may actually give Paizo a run for it's money.

At this point with 5E I don't think they can re-release a unchanged PF. If they can at least do something about high level play then maybe. If the game still slows down at high levels I can see those in the hobby panning the new edition. Gamers want a rpg that gives them opitions while also being if not rules light easier to use. They put up with the flaws because they have too. Not because they want to.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Stagnation. Sameness. Boredom. Unwillingness to do new stuff. Complacency.

Seconded. As well as personality clashes and some unacceptable behavior for a adult. For example I recently asked two players who were brothers not to show to the game anymore. They had to go to a BBQ and not show up to one of my games. All fine because sometimes one wants to do more than just gaming. Except the week of the game when I hold my games on Saturday they decide to tell me they can' show Friday night. Again sometimes stuff like that happens at the last minute. They knew the Monday of that week. Instead of telling me before they told me at the last minute because they have self imposed internet days. Which was a load of BS because outside of work all they do is play MMOS for hours on end. Why not take 10-15 mins to send me a text or email before the hours long mmos sessions. Then acted to not understand why I and the rest of the players were angry and unhappy.

Another player kept using his mental illness as a excuse for bad behavior. After a point mentally ill or not one can only take so much. Espcially when the player is getting the right amount of help and the proper meds. It reached a point where we wall walked on egg shells because none of knew what would set him off. It all came to a head one day when he had a huge hissy fit because he wanted to pronounce the word sensei a certain way which was the wrong way and we tried to tell him the right way. Stomping off slamming the door as hard as he could on the way out. After again not his fault it was the illness. H also had the bad habit of trying to cause situations in game if he was not the center of attention.

The player who wants to play a race with a negative reputation without having to suffer from the reputation. Then accuses the dM of being racist.

There a point where whatever the reasons good, bad or even valid one does not want to deal with old members of a gaming group.

Liberty's Edge

In some cases one has no choice but to use 3.5. material as it's better and worth taking than some of the Pathfinder material. Then they why as devs they get the reputation for not liking martials.

Liberty's Edge

Well I don't really consider 3E and 3.5. that much different. For me 3.5 was just a rehash like Pathfinder with a few house rules added in. I'm not saying every gamer in the hobby would not buy 5E if it was just another rehash of 3.5 with better art. It would sure as hell not be the same amount that bought 3E or Pathfinder. At most you might get a few that buy the PDF. A entire gaming group buying the same thing a third time. All I'm going to say is good luck.

The only reason I bought Pathfinder is because besides what they did to the Fighter I like the changes and it's supported. As well I sold off all my 3E books as well. So if I have to buy the same thing again I might as well go with the latest supported version. If I had kept my 3E material chances are good all I would be using is the online SRD to supplement my 3E material. Without buying anything for PF. As it seems that even after all this time they still can't get a proper mix of fluff and crunch. In the Giant Slayers handbook they redid Monkey Grip for PF. Yet once again nerfed it to make it somewhat useless. Paizo really does not like martials imo.

Liberty's Edge

Even with 3.5. fans involved in the playtest. It makes no sense to release for a third time the same set of rules. Why would anyone buy the same product twice. Even with backwards compability it's still would not have been enough for myself and my gaming group to reinvest. It's the same reason that Call of Cthulhu 7E is similiar to 5E. Familiar elements with some new rules. The ability to use older sourcebooks with some changes. Not another rehash with better art and organization.

Liberty's Edge

Playing with new players may also be something someone has to do. At one point I wanted to game with a new group. I had become tired of playing with the same group of people over and over and wanted to meet new members of the hobby. As well as new friends. Long story short most of the older gaming group either moved away. No longer game. Or I simply no longer want to deal with anymore. Both in and out of gaming.

Liberty's Edge

Most of the the time I'm satisfied with what is in the Bestiaries. Sometimes it's also good to fight a non-standard monster as well. Not to mention in some cases one has to modify the monster or the npcs to make it a challenge for the players. So far three APs and I have had to modify about 90% of the npcs. Most are poorly designed.

Liberty's Edge

That works in home games. Not so sure if one can do that in a PFS type of game. I rather have the freedom to build a monster who can use teo weaposn without having to worry if the monster has the right attributes or not.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:


Maybe try referring to things that don't match you preferences using language other than "gutted" and "simplistic?" I dunno. :P

Seconded.

We as gamers sometimes really don't know what we want. We complain that third edition in all it's forms falls apart at higher levels. About the Caster vs martial disparity. About the amount of modifier and flipping through books needed. Wotc released 4E then 5E and some are still not happy. For all the complaints I hear about 3.5/Pathfinder I'm starting to wonder if their is a basis behind that. Not really wanting anything to change. Simply to complain for the sake of it. Not most people in this thread and it's not addressed to those posters. From now on I'm simply going to ignore or assume that a person complains about Pathfinder that unless they say otherwise really is not interested to see anything change.

Liberty's Edge

David Bowles wrote:


I don't think I ever said 5th is "wrong", just gutted, simplistic, and more arbitrary vs formulaic.

Your not helping your case writing this type of stuff about 5E. I may respect yet disagree. Yet as a person who likes 5E. Why would I think your a fan let alone like any part of the system

David Bowles wrote:


People have made it very clear that they like the simplicity, whereas I like formulas.

According to Mike Mearls they expected gamers to want complexity and instead were told they wanted simplicity. Depending on the system I like one that has forumlas well. Hero System is a good example. It works for that system imo. At high levels if one has both a dm and/or players who don't know their characters combats take forever. I'm playing a Bard I need a cheet sheet because the bonuses don't stack. With Hero most bonuses stack unless told otherwise.

Again nothing is wrong with either approach. I just think that 5E may not be the system for you. Pathfinder maybe more to your liking.

David Bowles wrote:


I personally think they could have done a much better job of dropping some clunky things, but not stripping it down as much as they did. For example, I love buffs, and what they did with them, to me, is horrible. They could have thrown players like me a bone, but they didn't. Full-on gutting mode.

Well you do have Pathfinder if your worried about 5E being so "gutted". Second your not the market to whom they want to cater to imo. Third a rehashed 3.5 with new art and layout was simply not going to sell well. Why would anyone buy the same system a third time.

Liberty's Edge

Hama wrote:


Quote: I'm playing a gay/lesbian/bi elven druid who loves nature is a vegan and his animal companion is vegan, hates filthy meat eaters and wants to....

I'm almost tempted to ask if this really happened. Then I remember the player who accused the DM of being racist because he wanted to play a Drow and expect no racism towards him.

Liberty's Edge

I see your point. It's just very frustrating at times. I'm not expecting a echo chamber went talking about 5E. Neither nit-picking of 5E. I guess in all fairness I need to talk the good with the bad.

Liberty's Edge

That's why for myself at least it's harder and harder to talk or discuss anything with anyone in this hobby. If it's a edition or rpg one likes it's flawless and above reproach. One they don't like and everything and anything is wrong with it.

I enjoy Pathfinder. Yet any games I run or play I ask that people know their character and/or make cheat sheets. In games I run it's a requirement for both. No exceptions unless one is blind or has problems writing.

5E is not perfect but man I never seen one poster go out of his way to find fault with a rpg ever. I'm a critic of some Pathfinder elements I admit and I'm not that harsh.

Liberty's Edge

ElementalXX wrote:


that poor, poor feat

Pretty much. Nor does it seem like the trend is stopping either.

Liberty's Edge

kyrt-ryder wrote:


Try rolling up a character in Traveller

Lol very true. Kind of reminds me of Battlelords.

Liberty's Edge

I was wondering when they would replicate 3.5. Monkey Grip and they did. In a less effective not really worth taking format. As usual the fluff does not match the crunch. But hey Sacred Geometry is perfectly fine. It's like they want to limit Martians whenever they can imo.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:


I don't think those people should play 5E. Nor should 5E designers put much thought into catering to those peoples preferences.

Seconded. There is a point where the designers can try to cater to everyone or focus on what the core fans want. As in some cases no matter what some in the hobby simply will not be satisfied imo.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It just seems more if the usual " why is 5E not a rehash of Pathfinder". I bought 5E because it was not the same as Pathfinder. I even bought some used 2E for the same reason. One of the strengths of 4E that 5E has is how both editions handle monsters, it's just so much easier to run a encounter in both. With Parhfinder their is so much to remember sometimes. Espcislly at higher levels.

At this point I think no matter what anyone says David will find some fault with 5E. Their is simply no pleasing some members of the hobby. I'm not saying everyone hasn't like 5E. At a certain point one has to question why they bought it in the first place. It's not like the development process was a closed affair. It's like when Wotc said that 4E would be different and some in the hobby were Shocked and surprised.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:


IMO often they want BOTH. They want their mental vision AND they want it to work in the game the way they expect.

Agreed and seconded.

We want both. It's all good to give me a feat similar to Minkey Grip. Yet if the perquisites and/ or negatives are too high I'm simply not going to take it. If a DM removed the Improved version of say Sunder. Then multiplies the hit points of items by five or more. Again like above not worth taking. A good balance of fluff and crunch is something some dms and Paizo devs simply can't seems to do.

Liberty's Edge

Another one is the DM boyfriend/girlfriend whose significant other is untouchable or blameless. Despite his or her behavior at the table. Like Ulden Death Squad I had to game on a regular basis with a later who spoke in squeaky doll like voice every game. It got so bad that I had to keep a smile or neutral look on my face at all times. When I and other players mentioned it to both the DM and offending player. The DM kicked is out. He tried hiding the reason why trying to feed us a load of BS but we knew.

The socially handicapped gaming group. What I mean by this is take a gaming group. Who have not played with and new members for years. Suddenly recruiting new blood. Then expecting everyone to act and behave like them. It's so damn hard and annoying to game with such a group. As I r never knows what may or may not offend such a group. I get that playing with familiar players makes some groups more comfortable. Yet why recruit new players in the first place.

The DM who dislikes certain magic items yet includes them in the game. Then curses them. When every magic ring that we find other than a Ring of Protection is cursed. Well a pattern begins to emerge. There a reason after awhile that even if it means leaving them behind the group does not take let alone cast Detect Magic on some items.

Liberty's Edge

MMCJawa wrote:


The Strategy guide was never intended for long-term fans. It's more meant for beginners and people transitioning from the Beginner's Box. It's meant to grow the fan (e.g. consumer) base, not necessarily cater to it.

I see the need for the guide. Yet imo unless a gamer is just getting into the hobby. Almost everyone if not everyone I know who plays roleplaying games knows about D&D. It being the main gateway rpg to the hobby. While it's good to cater to beginners of the hobby. They need to also cater to those familiar with the hobby as well.

MMCJawa wrote:


As for why they haven't done a Great Beyond Hardcover, it might be for similar reasons as why they waited for all the core 20 gods to have AP articles. They may hold off on such a compendium until the planes and major planar forces have received equivalent coverage in AP or CS format.

That could take another five to ten years. I truly don't have the time let alone the willingness to wait that long for such a book. I might as well use existing material. I know that aps sell well and they want to push material through them. I don't see why I should as a fan be held hostage to the AP format for new game material as well.

Liberty's Edge

At the same time it should also be something they work on without being asked imo. We had a book that while usable was lacking when it came to gods. So they gave us the Inner sea Gods book. The current Paizo book while again serviceable is also lacking. If we can get a Strategy guide which I don't remember seeing a huge demand for or many fans asking. Why not a book on the planes.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't hate or like them. I respect the people thst work for the company. I like most of theit products. Their not friends nor family to me. Just someone I buy a product from. I also don't feel like they listen to my feedback more than any other rpg company that I buy from.

Liberty's Edge

GreyWolfLord wrote:

I think it depends on your playstyle.

On these boards, there is a great number that pay no attention to the fluff (why the heck they think it's even written is beyond me...apparently it's so they can ignore it as they obviously don't feel it's part of the rules).

I expect the crunch to match the fluff. With Craft Ooze I was not expecting a ooze companion with no restrictions. Neither was I expecting a ooze that was both unintelligent and non-loyal. What the point of taking such a feat when in the end my own creation could attack my character and my companions.

Liberty's Edge

For myself Fluff and Crunch have to be equal. Or at the very least both have to be useful. Craft Ooze is a good example imo. It has some great fluff. Yet the crunch really does not make it worth taking imo. It requires some decent prerequistes to take. It cost money time and a proper place to make a ooze. Only to have the ooze not only be dumb as a rock and also not loyal to the creator. Unless one is part of a group that retreats alot it's useless in combat. As it can't tell friend from foe and it can't be made to tell who is either. As they have no loyalty. It might be worth keeping the ooze as a guard or something similar. Might as well just get a Otyugh who is smarter and loyal. To that'd the problem with much of the material.

Beautifully written descriptions. Yet the rules just don't match up. Let alone make it worth taking. I'm not a optimizer. I just want to take abilites that are worth taking. Too often I find both the older and new material lacking. Or sometimes too situational.

Liberty's Edge

So far I'm glad that so far i'm hearing more positive then negative about 5E. I get that David expected a rehash of Pathfidner with better art and organization. Except that makes no sense from a edition point of view. Or even a financial one imo. Two editions that are the same and people think that a third that is going to be the same is going to sell well. Good luck. I get gamers like familiarity. Except why invest in something that is the same a third time. Then again to be fair it's the same complaint some hardcore fans have with 7E Call of Cthulhu.

Liberty's Edge

Usual Suspect wrote:
I freely admit that the drow prejudice is a bad one; but it is an in game fact and part of the balance of the overpowered drow. To solve the problem in games I run, there are no drow. There are evil elves, but they look just like any other elf. There is no mark of Cain crap like the drow curse of dark skin. Elves might be light skinned or dark skinned, but that is not what marks them as evil. The evil dark elven society is just a society of evil elves that are no more powerful than other elves. They look just like any other elf, send spies into the outside world, infiltrate good elven society, and are harder to deal with because you can't tell who's a bad guy by the color of their skin.

If I ever run a homebrew setting I may do the same. It did annoy in Faerun that their just had to be a evil faction of surface elves. And eco-terrorists to boot. I wish devs would understand that not every nook, cranny or underside of a rock needs to hide a evil enemy. I think they either borrowed the Drow from another source. or gave them the mark of Cain because they wanted to keep the elves at least n pre-third edition as Tolkien as possible.

Liberty's Edge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Drow are very evil, so are killed on sight. Wait, one of them isn't, so we stop shooting drow on sight and wait and see if they're evil?

Which was told to the player who ran the Drow. It would not have been so bad if he had not accused the dm of racism. The dm is about as non-racist as one can get. It's not like he would have not a chance to get at least as well known as Drizzt. The player expected instant recognition just by saying he was not evil and like Drizzt.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet. The player who wants to play a existing race without the prejudice other members of the race receive. A player in one of my friends games wanted to play a Drow. The dm allowed it. With the warning that he would have to make a name for himself. Not ride on the coattails of Drizzt. The game was set in Faerun. The player at the time seemed to understand. In play not so much. He expected that every npc would accpet him because he would say that he is not a evil Drow. His favorite phrase "I'm like Drizzt". Even with Drizzt fame most people policy is to shoot questions first ask question later when it comes to them. Even then he just never understood or pretended not understand why he scare the average person.

Not the dm was not being a bad one. He was more than willing to allow the player to become respected and even possibly liked. Not automatically at first level. Both the dm and the player had a big following out. As the player accused the dm of being racist. The player was African American. The dm was anything but. THe Dm
is gay. Of all the things to accuse the dm of being it's racist. The player was banned and we stopped hanging out with the guy. Not just because of what happened in the game. Just personality issues in and out of it.

Another pet peeve. Is members of the community are shocked and surprised when either here or another forum. Obscure rpg # 123123 is not being talked about. It maybe the best thing since sliced bread in the rpg world. If the company that publishes has no advertising I'm not going to know about it. Nor is it a bad thing that I don't

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:


Very definitely. Though I've usually played Hero for Superheroes (Champions) where little is outright banned. Fantasy hero though, you don't just randomly take any of the powers in the books.

Their is a difference. Pathfinder justs throws a possible broken or very powerful ability into the game without warning to dms. The Hero System goes out of it's way to warn gms of ability that can be game changing or break a game. A Gunslinger because of it targeting Touch AC and with monsters having low touch acs I had to find out during paying the game that I would probably ban the class. With Hero System they warn that a variable power pool can be game breaking without finding out through playing the game at character creation.

Liberty's Edge

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

I'm a backseat GM.

It's because I'm a GM so much more often than I'm a player. When I sit in the player's seat, I just can't turn it off!

.

I do the same as well sometimes. Only if the dm is having trouble running the game. sometimes a a fellow dm one just needs to do so.

Liberty's Edge

Icyshadow wrote:


And we all have the right not to like those GMs, whether we play with them or not. Your point?

Agreed and seconded. Which is the point of this thread. I repsect and understand whne a dm bans something. I don't have to like it.

Liberty's Edge

ElterAgo wrote:


Several have limited a lot "Everything in Ultimate Magic (or whichever book) is ridiculously overpowered! I don't allow any of it." All of that kind of stuff basically comes down to misunderstanding or not following all the rules.

Sometimes it's not even reading the rules. Someone told them Ultimate Magic was broken and that's all it takes. The book being broken might not even be yet because they made the mistake of not reading it for themselves they will never know.

Liberty's Edge

Even then one has to be careful with some of the optimzation guides. One of them suggests a low strength I think it's a value of 9. The player in my group ignored that because once he built the character complete with equipment he was encumbered. As in his character could not move. Were not talking someone who had a lot of items either.

I suppose what bothers quite a bit is that the assumption that the player with the good build needs to somehow know without being told that he should not step on any of the other players toes so to speak. I can adapt to what is needed. I'm dead set on building a optimized character or even a good build. Just give me a heads yup. The assumption seems to be "well you made a good build because you know the rules. You must have done it on purpose"

Liberty's Edge

Despite it's flaws the Palladium rules when it came to alignment I never ever had any trouble with rulingas as both a player and gm. No Dirty Harry or Lawful Stupid Paladins issues. It says in point form what a player or npc can or cannot do.

For example a Princepled which is Lawful Good never kills for pleasure. Aberrant which is Lawful Evil will never torture for pleasure, but will use it to extract information and intimidate others. I know some here dislike a coded set of rules for alignment yet to me anyway it reduces the amount of conflict about alignments at the table.

I don't mind "Core Only" if the DM actually takes a look at the material before banning it. It bothers the hell out of me when it's too often a auto response from dms. Made worse when the negative experience about non-core material was had by someone else. Then the same dm turned player acts like a kid in a candy store using as much core and non-core material as possible. Broken as a term when it comes to the rules as well tends to be used to often. If I had a 1$ for everytime it was used I would be 10000$ or more richer.

I also don't mind a ban on certain classes as well because again either the dm takes the time to read the class or had experienced a negative experience with the class. Next AP i plan to ban Gunslingers not because I don't think they belong in fantasy. The mechanic that target touch AC makes them too damn powerful. Running Rise of the Runelords it was a turkey shoot for the Gunslinger. I don't recommend them in the upcoming Giants AP either.

The whole realism argument in D&D is just really strange. Made worse when people try to say that D&D is realistic. Ars Magica is what a realsitic fantasy rpg is all about. D&D is anything but. When Dragons the size of jumbo jets not only fly and find enough food to feed themselves. wizards can make their own demiplanes. Realism was put on the entire planet stockpile of nukes. Blown up and sent to the other side of the universe. Even the realistic elements sometimes make no sense. I espcially dislike it when Wizard are allowed to break the walls of reality because of "reasons". Yet as soon as a Fighter can jump from roof to roof easily it's not only broken it's enough that some stop playing the game.

Liberty's Edge

They could always include new and updated rules for Stealth and Perception. We have melee and ranged tactics toolbox sourcebook. Maybe call it a Stealth tactics toolbox or something similar. To me it's the only way to fix any issues. Short of a new edition. I understand wanting to keep backewards compability. At the same time the flaws and ruled issue need to be addressed. A new edition with little to no rule changes just is not going to sell as well imo. I know a few on the hobby that don't play or run Pathfinder. As they feel it's not different enough. That's a big issue I think the devs have to deal with. A new edition that is different but not completly.

1 to 50 of 2,111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.