|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I would have preferred a gradual personality change for Emma. Having negative reaction towards superhumans since the beginning of the show. It just feels kind of forced imo. At the very least if she wanted to contain them. Instead not only those she want to capture them she wants to kill them as well for their own "good". What's next she's going to put Skye out of her misery.
Exactly it's not a Paizo problem. They are a business. Which is to sell new product to make more money to pay their bills. So why blame them. I can see it being the fault of a player who when told by a DM "core and only core". Keeps buying new material and tries to get a dM to use it. I like buying rpg sourcebooks. I try not to force any DM to use the new material. I may ask but never demand the material be used.
Please let's be honest a DM having to refuse a player requests for allowing new material while annoying. Is simply not that big of a thing. I'm a DM I barely break a sweat whenever a player asks to include a new class from a book. I can refuse or allow it.
Again there is a difference. How does being accused of being " control freak railroading GM if you don't allow everything". Have to do with Paizo releasing new material. I like buy new books as I'm something of a completist at heart. When I'm a player I'm not going to assume that every DM will allow me to take anything and everything that I want. Same thing when as a DM I'm free to allow or disallow what is in the books as well. As long as both parties are respectful in the process.
I keep hearing drawbacks. What drawbacks exactly. Fans of the game want new material some do not. Those that do are free to keep buying. Those that are against are in no way shape or form forced to do. I like junk food. I have eaten every single product at my nearest Mcdonald. Not all at once and over a period of many years. I never felt the urge to sample the entire menu at once simply because they offered it while adding new items to the menu.
What's a extremely very minor problem is being made out to be a huge issue and to be blunt quite frankly it's not. I bought many books from 2E D&D. I never felt the urge nor was ever forced to use them all.
The issue never was about what a DM can or cannot allow at the table. It's that somehow people interested in a rpg. Are somehow either forced at gunpoint to buy the new material. As well as being forced to use the new material in their games. Which is not the case. Simply not using the material or even buying it is the solution. A imppossible solution to the Bloat crowd
Well it was a legit tactic and one I would have used as well. Eventually though it becomes harder and harder to plan ahead imo. As with a smart group they can bypass many of the encounters. As a DM one also has to be careful at high levels as well. Bad rolls on the part of the group and it's too easy to get a TPK imo. I also recommend heavily altering many of the npcs in the APS. Some are poorly designed and built around the group being new to the hobby. A experienced group will easily defeat many of the npcs in the APs imo.
I'm also a DM as well as a player. While I have not read every AP. I have read some in case I wanted to run them. As a example I decided not to run Kingmaker yet ended up a player in a campaign. I was upfront with the DM about my knowledge. He was ok with it and I can do a good job of pretending I never read the AP. So if your like me chances are good that if you use the APs then you may also be playing in one as well.
At higher levels it's really easy to kill off pcs if the DM is not careful. In my last session the BBEG who is a 14th level caster. Hit the group with a prismatic spray. A couple of bad saves and I ended up right or wrong fudging the results. Ironically the Fighter rolled two 20s on his saves. But if I took the results. One dead caster. Two petrified characters. A dead familiar. Another both planeshifted and insane. I ended up keeping only two of the characters petrified. That's with a spell from the premade npc list for the BBEG. Not something I added in.
Personally I agree that people can change certain behaviors like swearing. But they have to be willing to change. If not good luck. It's way too easy to say "well I did it so can you". Another person might turn around and say "good for you I'm not and if you don't like it your free to leave". The problem to day is that everyone assumes that people will act and behave like themselves. Which is usually not the case.
For me at least railroading is when the group comes to a fork in a road. The group wants to go left. But no matter the desires of the group the DM either subtle or not so subtle tries to make the players go on the right. Even if they really as a group don't want to go on the left. Allows the players to go to the left yet somehow no matter what the group does they have to go on the right.
I think their needs to be a little give and take on both sides imo. If a person who has a habit of swearing is in the presence of someone who does not approve. They should tone it down. That being said if one also decides to hangout with people who do one also has to either learn to accept a certain level of swearing. Or find another group to hangout socially. I don't see why one side has to give or take. Let me tell you . I rather be with a person who I don't have to walk on eggshells constantly in a social context.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Let's be honest here as if you or anyone else would be hanging out with someone who is racist in the first place. Their a huge difference between a few swear words and making comments about a racial group. I wish posters would stop using extreme examples. I have a friend who swears. Perhaps a bit much he is in no way racist.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I just don't see how it takes so much effort not to swear.
It's not so much the effort. So much as having to worry if any word is offensive to a person. I actually got told at work "buddy language" after saying the word dammit. I had just banged my elbow into the wall. One can also say is it that hard to actually stomach a swear word or two as well.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
I do think their is a difference in having opposing viewpoints. And one where a poster paints a entire generation of gamers in a negative way. Saying that the current generation of gamers can't roleplay because of computer games and mmos. While blaming Pathfinder. Is not conductive to having a good discussion. I'm 40 and probably your age or close to it. So while I was not offended too much by it. I do think it's being unfair. This hobby needs new blood. It can survive eternally with older gamers imo. Maybe it was not your intention but it does kind of come off as insulting.
A potential gamer in their early teens to mid twenties. Comes on the forum and lurks in the background without making a account. After reading some of what gets posted here. With all due respect to some members of this forum. Your not doing the hobby any favors. Your really not. If I was getting into the hobby and reading some of the BS some of the older members post here. I can tell you I would not enter the hobby. It's also some what of a insult at Paizo as well. I have had my share of disagreements with the devs. Accusing them of being responsible for the decline of gaming. Is simply not true.
As far back as 1E their were problem players. It's not something that suddenly came into existence with 3E. I had a player who I known for years. Who a few months ago I asked to leave my game. Unless we played Palladium he simply shut down at the table. Was there simply because his brother was there. I put up with it for so many years and enough was enough. It was not the only reason it was a bunch of others. My first gaming group I am ashamed to say were and still act like some stereotypes of the hobby. I also don't came with them. Nor hangout with them anymore.
I think at this point VT were not going to agree. I was kidding about archiving my posts as well. I know your not maybe the NSA or CSIS as I'm Canadian. All I'm saying is be careful what you post. Expect a negative reaction if it's going to be a inflammatory kind of post. Those are the kinds of posts that usually get a strong reaction imo.
Where is this coming from. I was raised with manners. I'm willing to accomdate another person if my behavior bothers them. I'm not going to bend over backwards either. I don't curse as a sailor. I admit to sometimes swearing and cursing under stress or injury. But I can't be around someone who with a simple swear word is offended on a regular basis. I want to relax when I'm with friends or family. Not constantly worry about what I say and having to tiptoe on eggshells. If I can't do that then I'm simply not interested in hanging out with that kind of person. Most people won't either imo.
Well I would do the same. The trick is to let them know. Too often it's assumed that for example a person who swears should know ahead of time that it bothers someone. If I was your friend I would make a effort not to swear. Not telling me anything and assuming I will figure it out is not the best way to go about it imo.
The reason why I say it can be social awkward is the context. Among friends sure profanity and cursing can be kept to a minimum. In a public place like a bar or a sport event. One can ask for less profanity. One will simply be ignored. Or depending on the area and the mood of the person get into a fight.
I'm not saying I swear for the sake of swearing. I just can't be around a person(s) where I have to scrutinize every single word I say. Like Freehold has pointed out. Sometimes in the heat of the moment like a injury one will swear. In that context instead of worrying about what was said. Worry about the injured person. Even then make sure to point out if one is offended by swear words before a conversation begins. I'm not going to live my life figuring out which person is or is not offended by swear words. It's the same way when inviting people over to dinner I expect to be told of any food allergies or restrictions on the menu. I also make a point of asking as well. Showing up to a all meat BBQ then complaining of a lack of vegetarian or vegan option is on you. i'm from Montreal and I know of a place where the chef will simply say "you have a food restriction well then you can't eat here go elsewhere". Not what I would do. But I'm not the owner.
I also agree with the anti-swear words. It's the same thing. Saying Dang instead of damn is still the same thing. Calling crap HAW (human atomic waste) is still the same thing. I'm more of a live and let live. Some don't mind swearing. Some do. Both sides should respect the other. But at the same time their is a limit to how much once should accomadate another person. While I want the other person to be comfortable. I also don't want to have to walk on eggshells at all times. My social circle and myself used to hangout with a person that insisted at eating at only kosher restaurants. Once, twice three times after a point he simply was no longer invited. We decided as a group that we were not in the mood to eat at josher only restuarants. As well he ate non-kosher meat when it suited him.
I don't like too much profanity myself. But if every single swear word bothers a person. Then it's a bit much. Sometimes if I hit my hand with a hammer or bang my elbow into a door. Well I can tell you that I might say a swear word or two. Or more. I can respect not wanting to hear profanity. I will never ever respect low self imposed tolerance levels. When one is certain age it comes across as being social awkward. I used work with a person that every single swear word even as simple as the word damn was considered offensive. Then he wondered why no one wanted to hangout with him after work. Or never said anything to him beyond a simple Hello or Hi. When it comes to other people if I have to walk around on eggshells at all times. I rather keep my dealings with that kind of person to the absolute minimum.
Mind you I once had to tell one of my ex-players to tone down the details of what he did in the bedroom. IT was great that he was happy with his girlfriend. Myself and others at the table did not need to know the amount and variety of sexual positions being done in the bedroom.
So basically you want to come here. Say whatever you want to say. No matter how negative or inflammatory. Then get called out on it and cry foul and act like some sort of victim. Ok I can't stop you from doing that. All I'm saying is if one wants to engage in such behavior. To take responsability for it. I'm not impressed with this new social movement. Where somehow one can say what they want. Yet somehow be immune to feedback or criticism. If a posters is going to come here. Draw a line in the sand by picking a side. Then say negative comments about the other is asking to be crticized imo.
Coming here and accusing both the mmo generation and Pathfinder as a rpg for the downfall of rpgs. Implying that it's not only a opinion but a fact. Well VT did you honestly think that would go over well with some here. It goes back to wanting to say whatever a person feels like while being immune to feedback or criticism. One can it have it both ways.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
Are you archiving or saving everything I post on these forums. It's starting to creep me out somewhat. As rest assured I'm not doing the same. The post you referenced was from the same bloat thread. Again with a difference that you seem to want to ignore.
Some posters go into those threads that criticize Paizo and tell people to leave and find another rpg. Simply because I or others dislike a rule or feat or the design process. I'm not telling you to leave or find another forum. Post whatever you want. Disagree as much as you like with my posts or others. All I'm saying expect the same in return and take responsability for what is posted. Espcially if it's a negative or inflammatory post.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
Yeah nice try. That post you referenced was taken from a bloat thread. Which imo has nothing to do with this topic. I was never referencing any modern gamer in the least. I was pointing out that complaining about Paizo releasing new material. Then trying to come across as a victim by saying that one is forced to buy new material. No one is forced to buy anything. It's like a raging diabetic who keeps eating donuts. Then complains that he is forced to eat then because Dunkin Donuts keeps producing them every day.
Hardly anything close to "oh these modern gamers with their mmos and player entitled attitudes. It's them and Pathfinder that are ruining the hobby. Nothing anyone says will ever change my mind about that" stance that your taking.
Again your more then welcome to post here. At the same take responsability for what you post as well. Posters want to come here. Post whatever they want positive and negative. Then when it bites them in the behind because it causes a negative reaction. They get angry, offeneded and defensive. You can't have it both ways. Go to a forum. Post whatever you like despite the content. Then play the victim when it gets a negative reaction.
Which applies to me as well. If I ever post something inflammatory or negative such as blaming the ruin of rpgs to Pathfinder and a modern crowd. I expect the rest of the forum to do the same thing. I don't think people understand or want to understand that Freedom of speech is a two way street. A person is allowed to say what they want. Everyone else is allowed to crticize what they say. As freedom of speech does not suddenly make one immune to criticism.
Some of us don't agree with VT posts. Do I also need to apologize for doing so now as well. If some posters on this forum want a echo chamber tell me. I probably won't alter my posts to accomdate that kind of forum. I can respect his point of view even if I don't agree with it. Again people come here write topics and/or posts that are guaranteed to get a negative reaction. Then simply expect no reaction by doing so. I love the double standards but pretty much the usual for this forum.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
Again your not doing yourself any favors. It is by no means a fact. In your opinion and only opinion that Pathfinder gamers are ruining gaming. I played with enough 1E and 2E players and DMs who did not ruin the game but made it a pain to be in the hobby. Does that mean that 1E and 2E players factually ruined the hobby not in the least.
There is nothing wrong with having a difference in playstyle. It's when others hear and elsewhere insult a certain playstyle. A good example is a person playing mmos automatically means the person playstyle and mindset at the table is geared to that and only that. Sometimes it is and sometimes it's not. One gets tired of being lumped into a certain group or playstyle. Nor does it do anyone favors here or elsewhere. Why would I want to play under a DM who has such a dismissive attitude to my playstyle or my hobbies.
As well terms like Grognard get thrown about because somehow before third edition. Their never was any problems or problem players. Somehow minimaxers/optimizers etc suddenly came into being once the 3E PHB was printed. All I'm going to tell you guess again. We had all that with 1E and 2E. No one I played with almost never wanted to play a Paladin. From the alignment restriction to the absurd stat requirements. It's not exactly easy to roll a 17+ on 3D6. Being told that unless one is going to play a certain way and only that way will some in the hobby even consider playing with others again does no one here or outside of the forums.
How exactly does that help a person imo. I could never play with someone who has such a onetruwayism and only that was as a phiosophy. Respect it sure but never play with a person like that. Their too much of my view and only my view in the hobby. It's not to say I don't sometimes do the same but it's rare. I consider myself a enlightened grognard. Their certain views on rpgs and non-rpgs that I will never change. I also know that change is not always bad. Or that the generation who plays mmos and computer games and later editions of D&D are not hopeless souls because they refuse or never played any pre-third edition of D&D.
Finally if one mind is made up on a topic please refrain from posting here. It's really starting to bother me how some come here expect validation or "atta boy" comments on what they post. Not get that and get very defensive and insulted. While I try to be polite when I can and not always succeed. If for example one asks if they were being a bad DM and they were. Then get the majority of people telling them that they are and get angry and defensive then don't bother asking for feedback. If all one wants to hear is that no they are the worlds greatest DM then save yourself the trouble and time. That being said some here could be somewhat more diplomatic in their responses as well. But were also adults as well. I will be polite when I respond to a poster. I'm also not going to sugercoat what I say either.
...and I still don't hire people if they cuss during the job interview.
Not even remotely the same thing imo. I would not hire someone who swears in a interview either. If the person interested in the job can't be professional it goes to someone who can. But being bothered by the occasional swear word. Or even just "damn I almost I died". Is trying to hide behind fake innocence as far as I'm concerned. If any swear word offends a person then they can't go to a sports event or any similar kind of event where emotions run high. Try telling someone "buddy language" at a sports event and see where that gets you.
As for Freehold it's obvious he is going to try and milk it for all it's worth ;)
Rules will needed were not something that was usually fun or that we wanted to do at a table with older editions. As such discussions needed both DM and players to be level headed. A minimum amount of rules lawyering as well. We tried keeping rules discussions to a minimum because all we wanted to do is both run and play a game. Who wants to sit around a table and discuss what rule XYZ vs rule abc means. It's not to say that with Pathfinder and later editions it does not happen at our tables. Compared with 1E and 2E we have hardly had any problems with the rules. Nor is that a bad thing imo.
I also think the market has changed as well imo. Gamers want to play with RAW as much as possible instead of trying to figure out what a rule is trying to say. While it's all well and good to say play whatever you want. The system as it is really does not help certain concepts imo. Sure one can build a really smart fighter with low str and con. But if he expects to be as effective as a Fighter built the usual way. Good luck. Not unless the DM gives a helping hand. Or plays the smart fighter as staying out of combat. With other rpg systems such as Hero System and Gurps one can build both types of Fighters effectively.
Dump stats are more common know then they were in previous editions imo. Want to build a character with a low con go right ahead. Good luck coming back from the dead. Dex actual made a character harder to hit from missile weapons. I know some may not like being called Grognards but if you think that pre-third edition, pre-mmo was some kind of gamers paradise. I suggest you remove the rose colored glasses spray painted black and take a good hard look at that time. It was not a bad time to play rpgs. It's certainly not the unrealistic, stress free nostalgia utopia some make it out to be.
Very much agreed and seconded. Then the same people wonder why no to little new blood is coming into the hobby. With all due respect insulting the younger generation and their liking of playing mmos and a proper set of rules is not exactly very welcoming. While I treat both players and dms with all the respect that is due. Having been on both sides of the screen I don't expect or demand it. Nothing makes me want to leave a table as a player faster than a DM pulling a guilt trip on how much more work they have to do. Been there, done that get over yourself.
While I would have offered to pay without being asked. If it bothered them so much why not ask. If it's one thign that bothers me it's when something bothers another person yet they don't say anything about it. Expecting a person to read their minds.
I can understand if everyone else was and you were not. But if no one else is chipping in for snacks. I don't see why you were singled out.
Well this I think is a mistake on your part. Even if it was ok at first. They did tell you not to drink the milk. Even if I find the new reason somewhat laughable. When I go buy juice if it's game week I tend to buy more than usual in case someone wants some. The milk as well.
I can understand if a person curses like a sailor. Or has a child in the house. But if all it takes to be offended is one or two curse words. All i can say is I'm not impressed with the "fake innocence". As a child being bothered by swear words I understand. Past 15 years old it's time to grow a pair and/or seek professional help imo. My gaming table either you get over that particular hangup or seek a new game elsewhere. As were not going to put up nor enable anyone who pretends to hide behind fake innocence.
To sum up. I don't think you should have been kicked out. But look at it this way. Now you know what to expect and do it differently at another game table.
I do think roleplaying class features should only be done rarely. I see some saying that a Wizard without a book is not useless because he can use wands, scrolls and potions. All well and good. Except do I also need to roleplay getting a wand, potion or scroll. Having to roleplay every single item or class feature does get annoying after awhile. As well do come up with a better example then saying that a Barbarian without Rage is the same as a Wizard without a spellbook. It's not even remotely in the same league imo. A Barbarian can still hit and do damage. Take more damage than a Wizard as well as being somewhat harder to hot. While only being slightly less effective. A wizard without a spellbook, scrolls, wands or potions. Is simply a commoner left with a ranged weapon and not really good with it.
Understood. I do expect some of the above to happen. One also has to be careful how long one drags out such roleplaying. If I multiclass into a Wizard and roleplay it. I expect to get a spellbook within 3-5 game session. Or simply ask if I could just be a single classed character. There is a fine line between roleplaying and feeling useless at the table. If I multiclassed into a fighter while being a Rogue. Without better armor I'm not going to charge into combat. While roleplaying is all well and good I don't play sucidal characters fro any DM.
While I agree it also depends on the players at the table. If they have a interest in doing that kind of roleplaying I work with them to achieve it. If not I can;t very well force the players to do so. It's a bit of give and take on both parties imo.
How is a wizard without a spellbook going to roleplay being one. Without a spellbook. Once he cast his spells. He can't re-learn them without spending a hour with a spellbook. Now it's different if a multiclassed Sorcerer. Some class choices can be roleplayed easily. Some not so much. All a Wizard can do is cast spells when he needs to. While fun roleplaying at first not so much because once all the spells cast. Your reduced to firing a ranged weapon or nothing at all. Or at most a skill resource.
I will if possible try to make a character fit in a DM campaign. Sometimes give a reasons why he would fit or the choices I made. And sometimes I don't. It all depends on the class and the campaign. Sometimes if I'm playing a melee class. Sometimes all I want to do is travel, acquire wealth and crack a few skulls. I may use that to expand on a background. Or I may not. It's not easy to come up with backgrounds imo. Not only that depending on the DM. It can be from a paragraph or two to a a mandatory five page+ backstory. Again sometimes I'm in the mood to write a extensive background sometimes I'm not. I try to work with a DM but if I can and he or she insists on a long essay I may or may not walk from the game.
That kind of player behavior has not happened to me very often. But even I would not work to hard to incorporate such a player. A few months back I dropped a player who was pretty much the defination of a "lump" playstyle from the GMG. He loved playing Palladium rpgs and when it came to those rpgs he would come up with the best backgrounds. Any other rpgs he was lazy as heck. Simply stating "make me a character". No input or help. After a certain point I had enough.
That being said I do wish posters would stop using such extreme examples. Really how often does a player join a pirate themed campaign with the intention of not playing a pirate.
That I can understand as I too don't simply allow someone to multiclass in a dungeon. At the very least when they get a chance to rest. I don't see the need to explain or give a reason for every choice on a character sheet. Or rarely. Only when I or a a player are roleplaying out of character. If a player to use your barbarian hating magician suddenly decides to become a wizard. Then I will either say no. Or if I allow it expect the player to roleplay a very confused individual.
Then I suggest no allowing anyone to multiclass then. If I start as Rogue then want to become a Wizard. I can't very be one without a spellbook. At the very least I would let them find a spellbook down the line. Sure it may not be realistic in terms of roleplaying but it's allowed by the rules. In the same way if a character playing a Rogue wants to multiclass being a Fighter. I would not allow a the player to suddenly get a suit of full plate. I would allow him to get it eventually. no one going to multiclass if every instance is penalized simply because one can't roleplay it imo.
I don't mind sometimes explaining everything I put into a build. Sometimes only sometimes. I'm playing D&D. Not answering a questionnaire or applying for a job. Even then only if I ask to play something that the DM might possibly ban. Or if I want to take some rule or class that is not from the core or 3pp. I can understand say if it's a Gunslinger or a rare class in Golarion. If I want to take a two weapon ranger I don't see the need to give a long dissertation or essay for every single choice. Beyond "i'm in the mood to play a character with two weapons". One of my players wanted to play a Gunslinger. Another a Aasimar. Both freely gave background elements without being asked. They would have simply walked out if I asked for a reason for every choice made on the character sheet.
While their is a limit to what one can ask from a DM realize their is also a limit to what a DM can reasonably ask from players. If I asked for a long dissertation or essay on every player choice when I run games. Or if someone else ran a game. They and myself would rapidly no longer have players. Possibly even blacklisted. I can tell you this if I'm forced to give a dissertation or essay on a character choice as a player I'm doing to same to you as a DM. Fair is fair. Give me a anti-gunslinger rant as a DM then want to take one as a player you can bet I'm going to ask why.
To say that someone who refuses to do so is not a roleplayer. Is not only a galaxy sized cop-out it's also insulting. Some on this forum either have some very forgiving players. Or they are simply the only one willing to run games. I can guarantee in my neck of the woods accusing someone of not being a roleplayer without a very good reason. Is not going to be invited to any games.
Fortunately this seems to have become less lately. I do agree that sometimes it's not really not asking for feedback. More like seeking "atta boy" kind of validation.
A new one.
Posters who complain about posters who seems to hate alignment, hit points, Vancian casting, SoD/SoS spells. While also telling them to leave and play another game.
A message board is simply not a echo chamber. Don't like a certain topic don't post in it. And no your not doing Paizo or yourselves or the hobby any favors by doing so either.
Seconded. Your not the only one.
I do the same when someone posts that one can't both roleplay while having a effective character.
Very much agreed and seconded. Fortunately it's been very rare in my cases. Yet it is annoying when it does. For example a player in one of my first 3.5. games wanted to make a multiclass monk/bard yet still be as effective as a regular Monk in melee. More than once I tried to tell the player to play a single class monk. Or accept that to a lesser degree he will be less effective. Ignores my and others advice then complains the entire time that they single class monk is better than his character.
Yes the game has many options. Too many sometimes. While I'm willing to work with a player who suffers from it. I do have a limit to how much. After a point either get over it. Or look for another group. It's a set of rpg rules. Not the procedure to use to save the world.
Threads that are started by posters who want mention in the original post that they want to hear about both sides of a topic. In reality it's a thinly hidden validation thread. For example asking if Pathfinder has too much bloat. Then when the response is usually towards the negative getting unhappy that the other forum members don't agree.
Going into a complaint thread and complaining about the complaining. It happens way too often. As long as a poster(s) are being respectful let them post about what feats/classes/etc they don't like. Nothing bothers me more when a poster comes along and verbally wags their finger accusing myself and others for being bad people because we dare to criticize Paizo. I'm purchasing their books. Damn straight I'm going to point out something I don't like.
Posters who spout terms like minmaxers, optimizers, bloat, broken like it's going out of style. Funny enough some of us can make a character that is both good at roleplaying while making him effective at the table as well. No reason by one has to be exclusive to the other. Paizo releases new material. Unless someone is holding a gun at your head no one is forced to use it.
Lore the Seeker wrote:
You think but apprently those complaining about bloat . Are either being held at gunpoint forced to use new material. Or simply act like every new book means the death of Pathfinder as a whole.
What I don't like
Save or suck spells/effects.
Why does a fighter not have Perception. The frontline character. The one taking the damage. As well they don;t offer much as one levels up. It would be nice for a skill to improve or time as well. Higher ranks means it takes a move action to notice something.
Either feats need to be taken because of feat taxes. Which I don't like. Mostly a lack of feats that hit the proper middle ground. What i mean is that either a feat is really good. Perhaps too good. Or simply not worth taking. With the description of the feat not matching what the feat can actually do.
I'm finding that the art is start to look too alike for my tastes. Nothing stand out. At least with 3.5. and having different artist it was not a problem.
That instead of helping resolve a issue make it even worse. As well too often at the whims of Pathfinder society. When a rule/feat/trait gets banned before the book containing is even released their is a problem. Not to mention sometimes it feels like the devs simply don't listen. We ask for a feat that allows us to apply dex to damage. What we get is either not worth taking. Sometimes confusing and not worth taking.
Here the thing though no matter how feedback or criticism is phrased it's seen a attack on Paizo. I get if it was something rude. Many times it's not. I have the ACG. For the most part I like the material in the book. I'm still going to warn someone to either get the PDF or wait until the second printing because it's edited badly.
Silver Surfer wrote:
Get used to it imo.
Every now and then one to a handful of posters feel the need to make brownie points with the Paizo staff. Going into threads such as these. Verbally wagging fingers on how you, I or others are truly bad people. For daring to criticize Paizo.
Normally I agree. But let's be honest. As soon as a new book is announced from Paizo.It's assumed that the bloat will go out of control. So far the game seems to be surviving.
Actually they just released 7E awhile back, Unlike the previous versions which simply were rehashes with different production values. 7E address some of the flaws of COC.
I was simply pointing out that according to some in this thread. Any rpg that has more than just the core book is too big. I'm a fan of NWOD. Their at least 20+ sourcebooks not including the core books. I read them all at least once. I never felt the need to use all of what was read. As for COC I'm not a expert so I can answer that
There is useful material. Yet I disagree there about it being a lot imo. There is a lack of options that hit a proper middle ground. What I mean is that the option is not too good say like Sacred Geometery or not worth taking such Craft Ooze. To be fair they do exist but imo a precious few. The devs also have a bad habit of thinking that good fluff descriptions will hide bad crunch. Craft ooze has some good fluff. Yet in terms of crunch it's not worth taking. Requires a decent set of prerequistes. I'm left with a Ooze that even if I could communicate with is dumber than a bag full of hammers with no loyalty to me as it's creator. I can't use it to help my group as chances are good it will attack them in a combat. It might help to escape a encounter. But again situational and I don't waste feat slots on those.
If one is going to accuse Pathfinder of becoming too big. Then it means any rpg that is six books or more is too big then imo. I'm a fan of Earthdawn I bought much of 3E. That at least 11-13 book right there. Call of Cthulhu 6E and both OWOD and NWOD have many books. Do I agree that their is much material for PF yes. Then again unless your the DM or a player who wants to access to all of it to make a character all that is needed is the CRB.
No one is forced to buy let alone read everything. Not to mention when it comes to successful rpgs expect a certain amount of support. I knew PF was going to be popular and expected a certain amount of support. It's funny how people stat out the number of options in PF. Did they do the same when you went to university or college. Make a list of all the courses then complain about the number of courses one needs to take and pass to graduate. Or going into a Tim hortons or Dunkin Donuts then complaining about the variety they carry. As well that they keep making new ones. I know some here and outside the boards don't like being told this. But again no one is forcing anyone to use all the material let alone buy it. I did not buy the Monster Codex. I'm probably not going to get the Strategy guide. I'm not going to tell Paizo not to publish them because they don't interest me.
As for Rifts I'm a fan. I had and sometimes still have fun in the system. To take a break for the balanced staleness that is PB one needs a system that does the opposite imo. Unlike PF where more and more either the new material is simply not worth taking. The crunch does not match the fluff. Or too situational. I see many more options that I would enjoy taking in Rifts
I'm glad they made Juliette a Hexenbeast. It avoided what I call the Lois Lane Syndrome. Where being married to Superman and being a popular character. Somehow makes her immune to villain attacks and retribution. Nick is not always around and makes sure that if anyone is dumb enough to strike at The Grimm through his love interest. There is going to be hell to pay. My only complaint is how they dragged out the Wu storyline.
Right because you never used any straw men either. It's the pot calling the kettle black. I'm going back on topic. You want to continue go right ahead. If it's not about the topic of the thread i'm not going to respond back.
So getting back to topic.
New material can be used and not given the table and desires of the DM. I don't see and will never see the big issue around that. Even way back as 2E I was a fan of the complete series of books. I bought them all. I never felt the need to use them all. Both as a a player and DM.
I'm did not buy the Monster Codex and chances are good I will not buy the strategy guide. My choosing not to buy either was not a difficult or hard process. Unless one is forced at gunpoint by someone no one is forced to buy let alone use every scrap of new or existing material. And yes it is that simple. Those making it out to be such a big issue simply don't want to spend money on or want new material. Which is fine I totally get that.
No one in any of the too much bloat threads has every explained how they are forced into using new material. Why Paizo doing what a proper and profitable rpg company should be doing is a bad thing. In my neck of the woods why have Tim Hortons. I like some donuts dislike others. I don't enter and complain about the fact that they have a good selection of donuts. Or that they keep making new flavors. As no one is forcing me or anyone else to try the new ones.
For me as a DM unless it was homebrew. I pretty much allow almost any races from the core. Even some 3pp and 3.5. occasionally. The point being made that if in your example your DM refused to allow you to play a Strix. That you would suddenly turn into a unreasoning abusive player who considers the DM a tyrant. Which almost never outside these boards. What usually happens is that it can go either way. A player gets what he wants. The player picks something else because his choice was refused. Or the player leaves the table. Or depending on how much is disagreed upon the DM leaves. If the players and DM have trouble agreeing on what is allowed. Sometimes the DM has to walk away as well.
The who derail started because a few posters were bothered that a player should get a reason for something being disallowed at the table.
Which I and most never said. Their a difference between your example and asking that a DM provide a reason for disallowing something. Your example almost never happens. Players asking DM for a reason for disallowing something at the table. With DM actually giving a reason why and players more often then not accepting the answer.