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

pres man's page

7,263 posts (7,955 including aliases). 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 10 aliases.


1 to 50 of 7,263 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Take any (even sided) die. Odd = 1, Even = 2

Take a d6. 1,2 = 1; 3,4 = 2; 5,6 = 3
Take a d12. 1-4 = 1; 5-8 = 2; 9-12 = 3

Take a d4. LOL
Take a d8. 1,2 = 1; 3,4 = 2; 5,6 = 3; 7,8 = 4
Take a d12. 1-3 = 1; 4-6 = 2; 7-9 = 3; 10-12 = 4
Take a d20. 1-5 = 1; 6-10 = 2; 11-15 = 3; 16-20 = 4

Of course there is always modular arithmetic as well.

Well maybe Ukraine will get a new national anthem in a little while.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Step 1: Paladin kills the least amount of innocents possible.

Step 2: Paladin commits seppuku in disgrace.

Step 3: Player bashes the GM upside the head with CRB.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Paradox of Choice

Vlad Koroboff wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
and down the slippery slope you go, the noose of the hangmans rope your only destination.

You know,i'm pretty sure that Ukraine has more than enough of weapons.

Problem is somewhere else entirely.


Is it bribery to financially support a candidate who has already had stated positions that you want to be enacted. The candidate isn't changing positions or acting outside of a method they had already committed to, merely your contributions help to get them in a position to enact those views, which you happen to agree with. Is that really bribery?

To those that thinking talking isn't effective, research shows that is wrong.

Money has always controlled messages. If I can print 100 flyers and you can only print 5 flyers, even if we can only stand on a corner and speak there, my speech will be more significant than yours. If I can purchase a newspaper and put my views on the editorial page everyday, it is more significant still. If I can afford to purchase a cable station and push my views through that (*cough*Fox News, MSNBC*cough*) my speech is more significant.

Somehow, we have survived all of those, I'm not sure if someone can donate to every single Republican candidate in the entire country (there are still limits are how much you can donate to an individual candidate, just not limits on how much you can donate total), that is going to cause the sky to fall.

Sissyl wrote:
Someone who thinks it is okay to make laws to prevent adults who love one another from marrying IS a fanatic.

So people who support laws that limit the number of spouses to only 2 are fanatics? Or is it impossible for more than 2 people to be in love?

thejeff wrote:
... the right drums up the same kind of backlash ...

Hardly a ringing endorsement to such behavior. Also, I'd suggest claims of "the right" is about as meaningful as the "Gay mafia". Neither is a monolithic group of people.

To be clear, just because someone has an invalid reason for supporting a law, doesn't necessarily mean the law itself is invalid since there may be other valid reason for supporting a law. I mean if someone said stealing is wrong because the tooth fairy said it was wouldn't make the rest of society go, "Oh, the tooth fairy? really? What a bunch of rubbish, so now we have to make stealing legal."

To the guy in question, I'd offer a couple of thoughts. First, given that nobody really seems to know his reasons, I'd suggest that the issue isn't a defining feature of him. He hasn't apparently done a lot of discussing the issue publicly, which is what people who it is a big issue tend to do. Secondly, while $1,000+ may be a lot of money for some people, I doubt it is for this person. Probably it is the equivalent to me dropping $0.50 in a Salvation Army kettle (oh no, they hate LGBT folks). My point is trying to describe this guy as the new Phelps is way off target and tends to be a bit of Chicken Little attitude. There is no indication in his professional life he has even mistreated anyone, suggesting that he'd suddenly start treating LGBT working for the company poorly as CEO seems to be a bit hyperbolic.

This does bring up a thought of the current state of affairs. I honestly don't know what it was like during the height of the civil rights movement. The impression I get though was that it was more about policy and less about the people behind and running the policy. Now though, it seems to be at least as much about the individuals as it is about the policies themselves. Basically the difference between "THIS is wrong" vs. "Not only are YOU wrong, but YOU are an A*****E!" I'm not suggesting such an approach is wrong, I certainly understand if individuals are directly effected by negative policies feeling justified in targeting individuals on the other side of the issue.

For people that support same-sex marriage, but believe marriage should only be between two people, do you consider yourself as someone who, "discriminate[s] against polyamorous people?" Is that how you define your own mindset on the issue?

Where are all the "GM IS GOD!" folks at? He's wrong in how he is running the game? I thought such a claim was just "Player Entitlement."

Still? As if they ever did? LOL

Bill Maher Blames ‘Gay Mafia’ for Mozilla Scandal

Pershon wrote:

They've sent out three emails in 3 weeks. Exaggeration is unnecessary.

As for the value, it is subjective. I think it is a great value and just so many great pieces. I am going to struggle greatly with which addons to choose.

If you are talking about just the updates from the 1st kickstarter, then you don't know about all the direct emails from Dwarven Forge. I got one just yesterday.

I'll be glad when it is over. I got in on the first one, but wasn't interested in this one. Hasn't stopped them from sending out an email everyday saying, "Hey have you heard about this?" Yes, stop spamming my email. I appreciate the message when it started, to see if I was interested. I don't need to get a message every damn day, if I haven't gotten by now, I am not going to. And no I don't want to block them, since I might want to know about a third one sometime.

On some level I am okay with players limiting themselves to a specific type of weapon. In fact, I'd greatly prefer if the players stick with a single weapon and merely keep in enhancing it (I allow players to "repair" a normal weapon and make it masterwork). There is something inspiring about someone that still has the same sword they had at first level when they are 15th level and it has become a weapon of legend.

One thing to note about feats, in 3ed, weapon finesse had to be with a specific weapon (monkey grip was another feat like this iirc, but it isn't OGC). This was changed in 3.5 to be used with any finessable weapon that the character used. So changing some feats that originally only applied to a specific type of weapon to covering groups of weapons does have precedent.

If you really want to give him a chance to get better and are not in any hurry to start GMing again, I would let the other players know that if they don't want to play with him as the GM, then one of them should step up. That usually quells a bunch of complaining pretty quick.

Now understand you are frustrated yourself, but as the more experienced GM, you need to be a bit more above it all. Instead of telling him what you dislike, try to find things you like and let him know it. Yes it might be something pretty trivial, but work on it. I've gamed with GMs that made me grind my teeth, but I bit my tongue and only offered advice when asked. If asked about a rule being done wrong I'd usually say something like, "Well I tend to do X, but if the GM wants to Y, that's cool."

I'd even suggest to him to come to boards like this and get some cool ideas (I wouldn't say advice or help since again that seems like criticizing). Maybe even say something like, "Yeah, I kept getting a few rules messed up until I got a chance to read some threads on the stuff." Even if that isn't 100%, probably everyone has seen something that has helped them improve at some point.

Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
What, do they keep it under their mattress, or in a big vault like Uncle Scrooge Mc Duck? They don't have it invested or nothing?

Investing and having it spent in the economy are not the same thing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure if anyone has suggested this, but I wonder if this might actually end up being a good thing for the country. It might lead to huge reserves of money that are basically just sitting idle in the hands of the ultra-wealth getting pushed into the economy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was gaming so far back, we didn't even any of your fancy tools like paper or dice (I remember when this was the new thing on the block). Then there was when papyrus was suppose to revolutionize gaming, been there, done that. Hell we had to create religions, just so that they later could become myths and we could create stories using the creatures in them. You want to talk about LARPing, try running around with a hat with a bunch of live snakes stuck to it. Turn people to stone, that was just because Jimmy was butt ugly, the snake bites on the face didn't help (didn't really hurt his looks either, come to think of it).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bob the Hammerer is killed in a dramatic fight. He is buried by his companions. Down the road on the way to the next adventure they run into Glen the Summoner. He asks to travel with them. They respond, "You seem trustworthy."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

So, now let me just ask the DMPC running GM this sit rep. The party is charging across a room to rush the BBEG (for this example, he needs to be rushed, ok?) One way for your DMPC to move, in fatc the direct path- leads over a certain death trap. (You know your DMPC won;t spot it and won't make the save except on a nat 20 and won't survive due to other things). What do you do?

Moving to go around the trap is metagaming and cheating. But so is deliberately moving into the trap.

Before I answer, let me place a counter question. Let's say the party is looking for the BBEG strong hold. They grab a random street urchin and ask the urchin, "Where is the BBEG?" Let's say they charm him so he has to answer somehow. Now you the GM know where they BBEG is hiding and you are running the street urchin, thus do you tell the party where the BBEG is hiding? Or do you not? In either case you are using your knowledge as the GM, so you are metagaming and cheating.

Survey says? WRONG! Logic fails. Yet this is exactly the logic you are trying to employ in your questions here.

How do handle the trap? By employing the same methods of handling the street urchin. What is the appropriate response in game for the character? If I have been playing the character as a rush forward and smash, then that is what I do in this case. If I have been hanging back and casting buffs in the past, that is what I do in this case.

DrDeth wrote:
And yes, you could justify another route easily- BUT YOU CAN NOT POSSIBLY TAKE THE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT TRAP OUT OF YOUR DECISION. No matter what you decide- you have made that decision based upon your DM knowledge. Even if you let him die a horrible death- you have done so knowing.

Actually the reason why we play with dice is precisely so you actually never do know the outcome for certain. You could roll all ones on damage dice, or the character could roll a 20 on a save or die. It is possible. But your point is irrelevant, the issue isn't what I the person running the character knows, but instead how does the character act based on what they know. They don't know about a trap, then they don't act as if they know the trap is there. Just as the street urchin has no reason to know the location of the BBEG and so can't reveal it to party.

Players can do this all the time, when the rogue spots a trap but doesn't have a chance to tell all the other characters about it, their players act as if they don't know. I fail to see how a GM would be any less capable.

DrDeth wrote:
And think of all the things you can't do- solve puzzles, know a monsters weakness- and you have to constantly keep that in mind while DMPCing. You can NEVER have that flash of brilliance- "Mellon!". You already know that the password is the ancient elvish word for 'friend".

As I said earlier, for myself at least, I full appreciate how I can't be a "player" in my own games. There are some things that running GMPC isn't going to be the same for me, the person controlling it, as it would be for someone else controlling their PC. If I know the answer to the riddle, I can't "solve" it. But then again, if I had heard it before as a player, I couldn't "solve" it then either (Oh yeah, that was from the hobbit. The answer is teeth!). Anyone that has GMing for anytime already knows lots of monster weaknesses and strengths, that means there are going to be something a little less special for them when they "learn" a troll gets really hurt by fire.

DrDeth wrote:
And- look none of you are more experienced in DMing that I am. (That doesn't mean I am better or more imaginative and heaven knows you quite possibly know the PF ruleset better than I do). When I am DMing I am already running dozens of re-occurring roll NPCs, the BBEG and of course thousands of one shot "meet & greet or kill" monsters, shopkeepers and what not. And of course, I have a couple PC's in other games. I dunno about you guys, but this mere mortal thinks that's enuf for one guy.

I wish I could remember the way someone said it. Something like, "Experience doesn't make perfection, merely permanence."

But that is why a lot of the better "GMPC"s are wallflower types. They hang back, only offer some advice if the group seems really stuck. This takes some of the burden off the GM to be constantly "ON". To be clear, some players run their PCs this way, so that is not a characteristic of a difference between a PC and an NPC. As others have said, not everyone wants to use GMPCs, nothing wrong with that. Heck, even most of us that support their use, don't use them every single time.

P.S.: Not all meta-gaming is cheating.

I have to wonder how many construction sites are there in typical population centers, that #1 is a serious issue? I mean, 3 guys in a town of 50,000 hardly seems something to consider a systemic problem. I realize the imagine is very stereotypical in movies and cartoons, but those rarely resemble reality.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Pres man, it seems you too use NPCs, not DMPCs, from your description of it.

No, not according to the definition I posted earlier:

pres man wrote:
If a character functions exactly like a PC, despite being run by a GM, then I would say that character could be described as a "GMPC" (i.e. GM run character that is functionally equivalent to a PC). The GM might be (irrationally) emotionally invested in the character or not (just as players may or may not be in their own characters). The character might be a boon to the group or not (just as PCs can help groups or sometimes be more trouble than they're worth).

Since I am choosing to describe such characters as GMPCs, they are in fact GMPCs regardless if you would describe them as GMPCs. My definition does not depend on "feelings" or "wants", which can't be defined in a way to separate a GMPC from NPC without also separating some PCs into NPCs as well. Instead my definition depends on function, which can be more objectively measured. A demi-god that travels with the party, saving them and forcing them to act is not a GMPC in my definition, since the character does not function as an effective PC.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

  • Anything can be done badly.
  • GMPCs are no more likely to be abused than BBEG, best friend's PC, significant other's PC, or any of a wide range of other characters. If you feel you can trust a GM with those, I fail to see why you couldn't trust a GM with GMPC.
  • I seriously doubt people are upset that an item dropped for the GMPC. More likely they are upset that items are not dropping for their character. And very few items are only for a particular character. If too many items drop for one type of character (say too many weapons for the melee guy), then you sell them and let everyone get their own items. Sounds like a group that needs to work on loot distribution more than anything.
  • Can we agree that people who dislike something are the ones most likely to make the most noise, in just about any situation? It is much more rare to hear someone say, "You did a good job" than it is to hear, "What the hell were you thinking, you suck". That is practically what the internet is made for. So yeah, someone might not speak up about something they don't like in order not to make waves, but then again they are just as likely to be passive when the loud mouth guy is ranting about how awful a job the GM is doing, giving the impression they agree when in fact they might not.
  • Can missing aspects be handled other ways? Sure. Are those other ways always preferable? Depends on the group. If people have to design their characters in ways they didn't want to (your rogue now has to spend ranks on use magic device so you can use the wand of cure light wounds, sorry no choice for you). Or gives a false feeling to the game world (weird, when Bob the healer was in our party we couldn't find a potion of healing anywhere. Now that he is dead and Mark the corsair has joined us, they are everywhere.) There are cost-benefits to all choices.
  • Can't say I've ever had a GMPC in order to keep the game on track. It is helpful to use a GMPC as a way of interacting with the PCs in a consistent fashion, to help remind them of things they should know, but which their players might have forgotten (I tend to the think of the game several times a day, some people I have gamed with only think about it the day we play and even then only while playing). What they choose to do is whatever they want, I also tend to play that way as a player. I remind everyone else about stuff we had encountered, but rarely push a specific goal on group. More Scotty and less Kirk.
  • Can't say I've ever really included one to specifically "save" the group. At least no more than any individual PC can save the group. I do tend to play more self-sacrificing types and healing types both as a player and GM, so I am more likely than perhaps others to have my character try to save someone. But if a character dies, that is hardly the end of a campaign.
  • I don't run GMPCs to be a player in my own game. I can no more be a player in my own game than I can solve a riddle whose solution I already knew. I do enjoy interacting with the players and their characters as a comrade versus a stranger or enemy only, sitting on my hands waiting there like a human AI for them to decide to start interacting with the world and not each other.

    How I begin a campaign and introduce the idea of a GMPC is I tell the players to choose to play whatever they want (within the restrictions of the game). If they feel that would like an additional character to take care of some role, I can make a character to join to the party if they wish. I've had groups say, "Yeah do that." And I've had groups say, "Nah, we got it covered." While I like the interaction, not running one means there is just one less set of stats that I have to worry about leveling and such as we go on. It's a tool. A tool can be used well, or poorly. But how it is used is not the fault of the tool, but the user.

  • 1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Laithoron wrote:

    Actually I had no idea where he was coming from.

    As far as twisting the definition of "an -ism" to equate Affirmative Action with reverse racism, it doesn't work. This is because the group AA is supposed to empower lacks the overwhelming political and economic power that would make it so — at least in the areas of the world we seem to be discussing anyway. That's not a part of the definition that should be casually tossed aside thru casuistry.

    What about the groups that enforced and enacted the policy on their behalf? It is perfectly legitimate to say that a policy against dis-empowered white males instituted and enforced by empowered white males is in fact racist.

    Women can be sexist towards other women. Men can be sexist towards other men. Blacks can be racist towards other blacks. Whites can be racist towards other whites. etc.

    Good Ol' Girls Club - see divorce and child custody/parental rights laws and court decisions.

    I am saying there is some percentage [of the GM's significant other's PC] that is clearly bad.
    Though we may disagree on that percentage, I hope we can all agree that some (not all) are bad?

    Can we agree the GM's significant other's PC is fairly easy to abuse?

    Can we agree that is fairly easy for the GM's significant other's PC to appear abusive?

    Can we agree that someone might not like GM's significant other's PC but won’t say anything to the GM about it?

    Can we agree that the reason of “The party lacks ‘X’ capability” can usually be handled (even if not quite as completely) by something other than a GM's significant other's PC?

    *See what I did there? }:-)

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    If a character functions exactly like a PC, despite being run by a GM, then I would say that character could be described as a "GMPC" (i.e. GM run character that is functionally equivalent to a PC). The GM might be (irrationally) emotionally invested in the character or not (just as players may or may not be in their own characters). The character might be a boon to the group or not (just as PCs can help groups or sometimes be more trouble than they're worth).

    Now if the definition is limited to just characters that interfere with the player's enjoyment, then you have to include characters that don't remotely resemble a "PC". Demigods forcing their will on parties (This foe is beyond all of you), BBEG that can't ever be defeated and always have the exact right tools to remove all PC abilities, etc.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Jack Assery wrote:
    I understand and take your point that your GMPC's aren't on god mode, but what's stopping you? Nothing, and everyone knows it. Do you at least take my point on that?


    I realize that is a strange concept to some here. We see a lot of it when they say things like, "The GM acts like a player." As if acting like a player means being a liar, cheat, etc. Maybe we should expect GMs and players to act ethically? Just a suggestion.

    It is the same thing that allows people to game with their significant others, the same thing that allows GMs to include BBEG in games, the same thing that ensures the group can trust that the GM is applying the foes abilities in a fair fashion.

    If I as a player can't trust the GM to run a character, that I would otherwise consider to be a PC, how can I trust the GM to do anything?

    Jack Assery wrote:
    Could you imagine if the players get to play a monster/villain during combat? That's the exact same thing.

    I have done this before. Usually it is a situation where the player's character isn't present or just died, to give the player something to do. But I wouldn't have this be a problem from time to time if someone was interested.

    That is the big issue with giving players other characters to play in my experience. Players aren't usually interested in playing other characters. Getting them to just run their familiar is like pulling teeth a lot of times. Asking them to run an NPC party member, forget about it.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    The white guy sporting the power mullet, living in the trailer park, somehow missed this year's invitation to the Illuminati dinner. Maybe he'll get it next year.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Given that personal investment seems to be implying that one is willing to do anything to have character succeed, including cheating (see Why players can't be trusted in general, why GMs can't be trusted with GMPC, etc). I am not seeing how a player is being a "bad player" or "missing out" if they don't invest personally in the character they are running. Not everyone wants to run a "Blackleaf".

    And what is a "Player experience", what does that even mean? And remember the meaning has to be broad enough to include players that are ok playing 2nd fiddle, being wallflowers, etc, not just the loud boisterous players that boss everyone around, but those would also have to be covered by the "player experience" definition.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Sissyl wrote:
    A DMPC is NOT just a character who stays with the party - it's a character in which the DM is invested personally.

    Does that mean if I as a player do not personally invest in a character I am running (sorry Blackleaf), then the character is not a PC. I've GMed enough to know characters die, when it happens you shrug and start making another one. I've usually got a stable of 10 character ideas that I am itching to play, a character dying just means another idea gets to see the light.

    Am I reckless with my characters, on either side of the screen? Not usually (the character's personality might be reckless). I usually play them based on their personality, which means they usually want to live. But as the person running them, I don't get emotionally invested into any characters. Probably the only ones I am likely to get invested in is my wife's characters. But that has more to do with no wanting to sleep on the sofa. Though I know she is a good sport so even that is not really a concern for me.

    houstonderek wrote:

    Funny, replace "drugs" with "booze" and you get the Roaring Twenties. Amazing how the violence directly related to alcohol distribution completely disappeared the second it was legal again.

    Cause and effect. It's everything.

    One thing that is often overlooked is that prohibition actually had a pretty dramatic effect on drinking. Before prohibition, people were drinking ridiculous levels of alcohol (think frat party every night for everyone). After the prohibition era, the public's consumption of alcohol never reached the individual levels it was before it.

    So while there were a lot of bad things that came out of the era, there was also some small bit of good, that probably helped to extend quite a few people's lives.

    Spiked Chain:
    A common mistake was that the spiked chain was ever a double weapon in 3.x. It never was. Its power was that it threatened at reach and adjacent.

    Finessability definitely doesn't balance the EWP feat (look at the rapier vs. scimitar), especially considering you have to burn an additional feat to even access the ability.

    Comparing the spiked chain(SC) vs. heavy flail(HF) to the elven curved blade(ECB) vs. greatsword(GS) (the closest comparison) we see:

  • ECB-GS, the GS does more damage on average at first, but once you are doing 27.5 additional points of damage (not counting additional dice), the ECB catches up and after that does more damage. I'd make that as basically balanced.
  • SC-HF: The SC never catches up in damage with HF on average, due to lower damage dice + worse crit.
  • Both the ECB and SC are finessable.
  • The ECB gives and additional bonus that the GS doesn't for resisting sunder.
  • Other than finessability, the SC gives no additional benefits over the HF.

    I would argue that the elven curved blade is actually balanced as a martial weapon. In my own games, falchion actually uses the stats without the sunder bonus, and elven curved blades do 1d12 damage.

  • Honestly, I couldn't care less what the real world darts are. As you said, I don't see people using them. I also never see people using monk weapons except for ... monk characters. So anyway I might make darts more interesting and allow characters to use a weapon a monk enemy had without themselves being a monk is bonus, otherwise they just sell it which is lame in my mind.

    Matt Thomason wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    and overall you wouldn't notice the difference except that a lot more people would be out working, rather than sitting in prison.
    Or at the very least, too stoned out of their brains to be able to shoot straight and hit anything ;)

    It might be easier to break that new Girl Scout Cookie sales record.

    I'll respond in more depth later, but a few thoughts for now.

    If someone feels any weapons are "too powerful", then I would suggest they aren't looking at the game as a whole. Weapon users a low tier classes. When a wizard can force reality to bend over and grab its ankles, the fact that longbows can be fired quickly and all martial users proficient with them is pretty low concern. I understand the verisimilitude reason for having weapon groups and such, but from a purely gamist perspective it is pretty meaningless.

    In short, let's not change martial characters to not having good things, especially when their good things are pretty weak power wise.

    In my own version, I folded shuriken and darts into a single simple weapon (1d2, x2, 20 ft, draw and use as ammunition). Their use is as a poison delivery system (think the end of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon). The only basic monk weapon I kept exotic is the sai. Kamas just fold into sickles, sianghams got dropped entirely and monks use punching daggers instead, and nunchaku just become light martial flails.

    Shortbows are the rogue ranged weapon of choice (assuming they have a 10 Str).

    Weapon groups for feats is a good idea, since martial weapons need "nice things".

    Rapid reload + light crossbow > repeating light crossbow.
    Rapid reload + heavy crossbow < repeating heavy crossbow.

    FYI: spiked chain is actually an inferior weapon related to its martial counterpart (heavy flail) in PF. In 3.5 it was superior, but PF developers nerfed it due to a general dislike of it being effective.

    Mystically Inclined wrote:
    There has been something of a divide in this thread between people who wish to separate rollplay entirely from stats and only have the stats used for straight mechanics... versus people who believe that the stats of their character should be somehow reflected or evident in the character's personality.

    Yes and no. The group doesn't want to separate them, but instead suggests that numeric values should be used for numeric checks. So if a group is doing role-playing and using the social skills as per the rules, then the numeric values directly effect the role-playing. On the other hand, if a group is not making numeric checks, then the thought is that numeric values are then meaningless. A Cha 7 means that a diplomacy will have a -2 ability penalty if using the skills which will effect the check and let the group know how effective the character was. But if you are not using the skills then a Cha 7 has no actual meaning in and of itself in a social encounter to folks in this group.

    The other point of view appears to be not that the value Cha 7 is in itself meaningful, but instead is more of a type of thing like you'd hear someone say, "On a scale of 3 to 18, how cool is that guy?" Where Cha 7 guys are less cool than Cha 10 guys who are in turn less cool than Cha 15 guys, and the coolest are the Cha 18 guys. So the value, though numeric, is actually more of a qualitative measurement of "coolness".

    BIT OF TRIVIA: This is irrelevant to the post above, just cross my mind. The saying is closer to the original meaning when stated, "Eat your cake and have it too." rather than "Have your cake and eat it too."

    Obviously toughness in 3.5 was left in from 3ed because of E6. :D

    memorax wrote:
    kyrt-ryder wrote:

    Just don't tell me what personality my character has if you expect me to ever play with you, and if you ever play at my table don't b&@!# at the rest of my players for roleplaying their characters as opposed to playing some stupid numbers on a paper.

    Fine I won`t.

    If I play a non comabt class in your game I`m going to consider myself as good as the fighter in hitting and doin damage then. Since numbners on a sheet are meaningless and any penalties as well. I don`t need to have a high str I can just roleplay having been cursed by a evil good from birth as being weak.

    Actually it would be more like someone putting a low score in Str and then daring to invest skill points into Climb and Swim. Cheaters. LOL.

    It is hard to agree with someone when they are using their own version of "logic".

    Not all prioritization of ability scores are "dumps". Let's say that I am playing a fighter and I have the standard array: {15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8}. That 8 has to go somewhere. If I view Cha as the lowest priority, that doesn't mean I don't value it, merely that I value it less than the other stats. I need high strength to do damage, dex to avoid damage and reflex saves, Con in case I take damage, Int for combat related feats, and Wis for Will saves. Cha is more for social skills. Now if I can take that extra skill point I'm getting due to 13 Int, I can put it in some social skills and do something outside of combat.

    I'm not in that case "dumping" Cha. I am making a hard choice based on limited resources. If I had all 15s, I'd be happy to put a 15 in Cha. But if I want to play my role in the group, that of the tough walking wall and protector, then I have to set some priorities.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    So a player comes up with a non-standard idea that their low Cha character could still participate effectively in social encounters, by instead focusing on raising some of their social skills. The GM then feels compelled to not only apply the normal penalties, but to go beyond and apply additional penalties because they feel the player is "cheating", despite the player being the one applying the RAW and the GM fudging stuff.

    If I was in a group with a GM like that, I'd have to start considering if the GM has control issues.

    I mean, I don't how many times I've heard people complain that fighters don't do jack out side of combat, but just stand there. Or worse, they try to "interact" with their horrible Cha and just make things worse. The idea that you could have someone with a bad Cha that could still meaningfully aid the party in social encounters is ... amazing. I don't see the logic in actually hampering that, instead of nurturing it. "You used your extremely limited number of skill points to increase skills that can make you useful in social encounters. What an a-hole you are! How dare you not conform to my limited perception of what a character with the ability scores your's has! -20 to all checks cheater!"

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    thejeff wrote:
    I agree that's all the fallacy formally says. However it's often used to imply a much greater reach.That's where the Fallacy fallacy part comes in. The implication that since it is possible to roleplay any optimized character well, there are thus no drawbacks to optimization.

    Only in so much as making any choice about any thing has drawbacks. It is basically the whole Cost-Benefit analysis we all must do when making any choice.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    memorax wrote:
    I still think that if a player wants to make a character that is good at social encountes than his stats should reflect that. One should not have a cha of 5 then get around it by ignoring they value and roleplaying like it`s a 15. It kind of screw over someone who has spent the time to build a character with a cha of 15. Roleplaying is one thing. Trying to make a perfect character without acknowledging his faults and weakness is cheating the system through roleplaying. Would anyone here consider it fair if I had a str of 5 yet wanted to hit and do as much damage as someone with a str 0f 20 because I decided to roleplay a stronger character.

    Then the answer is to use the mechanics in game play. You don't want that Cha 5 character running round like a Cha 15 character, great. Make everyone roll social skill checks. And over time you'll see that the Cha 5 character is falling behind, just like you think they should. There in absolutely no need as a GM to force a consequence, when the consequence comes about natural anyway. If the low Cha player invests their skill points and the high Cha player doesn't, then not doing skill rolls is punishing them for using their limited resources appropriately.

    memorax wrote:
    I get what people are saying. I`m actually agree with some of it. I don`t agree with tossing out mechanics and elements of the game just through roleplaying. If this was Fate or a more narrative style of rpg it could bne done. In my experience most DMs kind of frown at players who optimize then try and get around negative scores through roleplaying. Again I allow it at my tables I do give better results to someone who has a postive attribute and skill points.

    I may be wrong, but I haven't seen anyone claim that the mechanics should be tossed (unless you count people saying they would change the rules because they don't like that players can do things they don't like). I have seen people saying, if you don't want people to get away with a penalty, then the GM should use the actual mechanics. GMs that allow diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, etc interactions and don't require rolls and then complain that players are dumping Cha for skills only have themselves to blame.

    I would also suggest that GMs that allow players who just put a high stat in Cha at the beginning of the campaign, but never require them to improve their social skills of the character are "cheating" the system.

    voideternal wrote:

    Examine a hypothetical TRPG called "Wizards are better than Fighters". In this game, there is only one rule. If you're a Wizard, you succeed at whatever you're doing. If you're a fighter, you fail at whatever you're doing.

    According to the Fallacy, an optimized player picks wizard and can roleplay a great Wizard. But even with the Fallacy, a player can't both optimize and roleplay a great Fighter.

    Seems there is still some confusion about the Fallacy. Let me try to clear things up a little.

    If someone claims (using your example), that a player can only either roleplay with a fighter or optimize with a wizard, then that person is making the Fallacy. The Fallacy doesn't say anything else except that the other options {not roleplay a fighter and roleplay a wizard} are also possible. The Fallacy makes no judgement on which play style is better or anything like that. Merely that there other options.

    Compare it to alignments. Say someone said that you could only either be Lawful Evil (optimize and not roleplay) or Chaotic Good (unoptimized and roleplay). Clearly that would be flawed. You could be Lawful Good (optimized and roleplay), Chaotic Evil (unoptimized and not roleplay), Neutral Good (semi-optimized and Roleplay), Neutral Evil (semi-optimized and not roleplay), Lawful Neutral (optimized and semi-roleplay), Chaotic Neutral (unooptimized and semi-roleplay), and Neutral Neutral (semi-optimized and semi-roleplay).

    The Fallacy says all of those (and others) are possibilities. Just because someone chooses to play "Neutral Good" (Semi-optimized and roleplay), that doesn't disprove the Fallacy, but the fallacy just says that is a possibility.

    voideternal wrote:
    The Stormwind Fallacy might say that you can optimize and RP great. But perhaps it's impossible to optimize by picking Rogue and RP a great Rogue, though a player COULD optimize by picking Wizard and RP the Wizard great.

    It doesn't say anything about any particular character and design choice. One can choose to play a less than optimal choice and roleplay it well. The Fallacy makes no judgement on those choices. It merely says that if someone else chooses to play a more optimal choice, that decision doesn't effect how well the character will be roleplayed. If someone makes an even less optimal choice, that also has no effect on how well the character will be roleplayed. The fact that some choices are less optimal to other choices is irrelevant to the Fallacy itself.

    Interesting to consider that the "he or she" way avoiding picking a specific gender might now be considered offensive since some folks don't clearly self-identify as either "he" or "she". Oh, times it is a changing.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    RDM42 wrote:
    Its a quibble with a difference; I've run into people that create someone with a five charisma, then literally try to act as if that low stat didn't exist and that they were positive in all the manifestations of the stat, and consider it unfair when you ask for rolls in social situations.

    Well they can complain all they want, but them's the rules of the game, so assuming your not playing fast and loose with the social skill rules (e.g. upping the DC and/or penalties because you don't like how a character was built), there isn't too much room to call something unfair.

    RDM42 wrote:
    If you don't manifest your low stat in some way - whatever that may be- in play, I'm going to make you manifest it by calling for rolls.

    Well, I am fine with this to a point. Do you call for everyone to make rolls or only players who aren't playing their stats the "right way"? If you don't hold everyone to the same standard for when to roll or not roll, then yeah, they can legitimately claim you are being unfair. A character with a high Cha can still roll poorly and a character with a low Cha can still roll really well.

    Now if you make everyone roll, then I'm all for that. Use mechanics for mechanical issues. But if you never do anything directly with the numbers written on the page, then don't complain when people don't worry about those numbers on that page.

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    memorax wrote:
    Some here mention skill points to get around a low stat. Well unless your playing a Bard or Rogue good luck. Unless a player invests just in diplomacy for a couple of levels that stat of 10 is just not going to happen.
    See the wizard example above. It's easy to make it happen.

    You missed the part:

    memorax wrote:
    It's possible of a DM alters the amounts of skill points given.

    He's made it clear in his game, as the GM, he's going to tweak the system so that you have to play the stats his way.

    Ashiel wrote:
    I'm curious. Can you point out a feat that exists purely for roleplaying?

    Most applications of Exotic Weapon Proficiency. I believe the developers said at the time when PF was created that exotic weapons should be for flavor and not function. Thus you could burn a feat for an inferior weapon and it was not a flaw but a feature.

    1 to 50 of 7,263 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.