|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
In the locked thread there were some posters who talked about a campaign being built by both the DM and the players. They were acting like a restricted campaign can't be built by the players and the DM. Why can't a game of nothing but elven PC's still make the world their own? Why do the admission of other races as PC options, for example, equal working together and building the campaign world?
What is restricted is the race or class, there is nothing wrong with using what you have been given and working from their to build that world.
When I first started playing D&D way back when, I used to jump at the opportunity to play in any game that I could. It didn't matter what it was, I was in. Same went when I would DM.
That's all changed now. I would say that my standards have become a bit higher so I am more selective of the games I run and the games I play in. I don't walk around with a pre-built concept trying to get it to fit into each and every campaign that comes along. I realize and accept that there are just some games that aren't for me and that's okay. Just like I understand my games aren't for everyone.
This is one of the reasons why I have developed a reputation as a stern but fair DM. If I say there will be no dwarves in my campaign then you better not show up with a dwarf. There have been plenty of games that I said no to. The thing is, my DM's don't take offense to it. They know it's nothing personal and they also have even respect for me to accept it because why would I want to play in a game I don't like. I am also respectful enough of my DM to not ask him to change his themed campaign to suit my needs.
I don't change themed campaigns to allow in the odd character, I have another game designated for that.
Everyone has different tastes and I think people really need to realize that and accept that it is okay if I miss this one game.
Edit: Opps...My mistake.
Someone on the boards found it funny when I discussed characters being heavily involved in the story and advicating arbitrary death at the same time. Where is the problem with this? Why can't I spend a lot of time on my character, have him heavily involved with the story and at the same time, accept that things happen and characters die by that lone trap or that lucky hit from a monster?
I do this with each of my characters and I don't see why it would be funny.
One thing I have noticed over the years is how different good characters can be even though they are all under the mantle of "good". Being paladin good is not the same as being Robin Hood good and I think some people look at it with too much of a gamist view. Like say for instance there is a starving family in the city. The Robin Hood type of character would go and steal from the rich and give the money to the family. Now the paladin character would not do this because it's stealing, even though it is for a good cause. They would find a way to obtain the money in a fair and legal way.
Someone in another thread mentioned charging more money for a service because of WBL. I think it's attitudes like this that take away from the alignment system in general, even more sowhen it comes to good characters. People talk about how much they hate the alignment system but I think the fact of the matter is, they just don't play it correctly. Alignment can be a challenging thing but part of that challenge is staying with in that alignment no matter how bad our real life attitude or nature wants to intercede.
I don't cause paladins to fall every chance I get, but in my games you will see the difference between a paladin and other good characters.
I run games for multiple groups and one of my favourite groups to run for is the group who prefers to choose the concept of their character over the numbers. Some times a person will have the concept and the best choice but most of the time they will choose the lesser option if it fits the concept.
Anyone play or run for a group like this?
In my special snowflake thread there were a few people throwing around the word "dictator" a little loosely when describing a DM who wishes to stick with the restrictions he set forth. I mean, if you feel like that is being a dictator then either A: You don't fully know what the word means, or B: They are so used to getting their way that anytime they are told no the DM is suddenly this cruel overlord who's only interest is tyranny.
Why am I a dictator just because I want to stick with my restrictions or my judgement call as a DM?
I didn't want to take away from the other thread so I figured I would start another one on the topic on snowflake characters and why people feel that are deserving to play it at the expense of others etc...
I've heard testimony from members of the forum who claim that their games won't even clear the runway if that one person isn't allowed to play their snowflake and while I'm sure it may exist, I'm just not convinced that it happens like they say it does. What kind of group would ban together and declare they won't play unless Bob gets to play his special character. What makes Bob so special and why should it be allowed if the others don't agree with Bob and want to play with or without him?
I find that the message boards are a great place to chat with other members of the gaming community but I find that they are not so great when it comes to discussing certain topics. The boards are a vast array of corner cases and hypothetical situations when discussing certain topics. When I meet people who are wanting to give the hobby a go I always tell them to stay clear of the boards until they have settled fully into the game. I just don't understand why this place is such a magnet for using all the "what ifs" as an argument when discussing certain topics. I haven't gamed with everyone on the planet but I do feel with 28 years behind me that I have at least scratched the surface with how things actually happen in games.
Basically what this is saying is why are you punishing me for finding a clever, and misleading way to cheat?
I know we have all come across some of these individuals on these boards and I just want to say WTF?
I'm not sure when and where this started but everytime we have someone come up with this crazy combo that can't 100% be denied or confirmed, we have someone telling people to stop trying to punish them for their creative idea when the boards start pulling it apart trying to findways to discredit it.
I was always taught to never reward someone for cheating. Now I'm not talking about someone using material to do something cool and legit, I'm talking about the things that could or could not work, depending on the way you read it, but either way wasn't intended to work that way.
I guess I will create the level per level build thread.
Each person will choose a class and start at 1st level. Post the build and others will assess it and discuss. Afterwards the person will continue with their build level by level until they reach 20th.
20 point buy.
I know some of you think I am a stubborn DM but I have my own reasons for why I like to finalize my decisions. I have learned through the years to keep the decisions simple and to keep my judgements final. What this does is it keeps everyone at the table on the same page and it makes everything fair.
If I plan on running a specific style of game and I let one person reflavour a class or race that Ihave banned then I have to let everyone else do it and by then everyone still gets to play whatI banned which in turn makes my planned game pointless. If I state that elves do not exist in my world and no reflavouring then do not proceed to ask me if you can anyway, unless I open the floor for discussion. I have also found that this alleviates a lot of arguing and that time could be better spent playing the game. I have seen too many games fall apart because that special snowflake class, race, and even item was allowed.
I don't mind if my style is criticised but don't act like your method is somehow superior or that mine is somehow wrong because no style is superior and no style is wrong.
I know my DMing style doesn't suit some people but that's okay because the game would get pretty boring if every DM was exactly the same.
Something that I have noticed on these boards, well it's a few individuals actually, is that they come on here to complain about something and then their complaint is proven to be inaccurate so they "move the goalposts" in order to validate their argument.
Let's take the numerous "Fighter" threads for example. We have all seen the constant "Fighter Sux", or "Fighter doesn't have this Unique ability", or "Fighter can't do anything outside of Combat", etc...
Now it's funny when people start posting builds that prove them wrong, then out come the corner case scenarios that puts the fighter into a precarious situation, but then someone comes along with a build that debunks that scenario. Well after that another scenario and another and another until this wild and crazy corner case comes along that probably no class could get out of and then we hear: "Ha, see I told you that the fighter sucks".
What is it with some people on these boards? Why not just accept that you were wrong on the matter? Why continue to do that until you finally come across a situation where a class will be stumped?
Let's take Perception for instance. The moment you ask everyone to make perception checks everyone sits there and rolls until until someone finally makes it so I don't really see the point in actually rolling if they are going to eventually succeed, unless the DC is higher than they could possibly roll.
I may actually remove the "try again" rule that comes with Perception because if everyone misses the DC then you just don't find it or spot that ambush.
I've had players sit there for 30 minutes searching everyone inch of a room in a dungeon and making god knows how many Perception checks until they eventually found the secret room, to me this really cheapens the skill if you get to roll until you make it.
When ever I run monsters in my games I look at more than just their stats. I play a lot of my dragons with god like intelligence but a bit reckless at the same time due to their cockiness. I also play certain creatures how they would normally act when it comes to combat tactics. I myself know great tactics to use but that goblin I'm running may not so while there may be an obvious tactic to use, I won't use it because that particular wouldn't. I played with a DM once that had every single creature use outstanding tactics on the battlefield even though their stats or nature didn't call for it. Even the oozes in the game would use these battlefield tactics that made you sit there and go huh?
I'm working on a Magus at the moment and I was thinking about taking the "Bladebound" archtype because I wanted to create a Tiefling Magus that has his fiendish father's soul trapped in the blade and his father, is trying to eventually take over and posses his son's body.
Now there is a discussion at the moment about the "Bladebound" Magus and the possibility of adding enchantments to the blade by buying them through crafting. Well it's still an ongoing discussion but I got thinking. I would actually be better off taking a normal Magus and just asking the DM if I could eventually have an intelligent weapon that goes with my concept.
I like the concept of the bladebound and all but you are essentially stuck with just a + 5 weapon while everyone else has the possibility of going all the way to + 10 (+5 enhancements & + 5 properties).
What do you think?
I'm working on a 13th level Bladebound Magus at the moment and I'm getting a little hung up on the blade's enhancement bonus. Am I able to pay to add further enhancements to it? Let's say I pay to add +2 and the agile property to a weapon. Now being 13th, my blade comes with +4 from the get go. Would I be walking around with a sword that has +7 worth of enchantments to work with.
I don't think I'm fully aware of how it works.
Was there ever an official ruling from the devs as to whether the Improved Natural Attack feat works with a Monk's Unarmed Strike, seeing as how it states that a monk's Unarmed Strike is considered to be a natural attack?
I'm aware of what the Beastiary says but there are other such rules for specific classes that are an exception to the rule.
It seems that there is a lot of discussion about the Magus and action economy.
Well this is how I see it working.
2nd level Magus.
Round 1: Spellstrike: Cast spell, deliver spell through weapon, attack again using weapon.
Spell Combat and Spellstrike: Cast spell, deliver spell through weapon with a -2 to attack, attack again using weapon with a -2 to attack rolls, cast another spell from magus spell list. If a crit is made then it uses the weapon’s range with a x2 crit mod.
Now if I am right this is really cool as a nova type of character but the downside is you burn through spells really quick to the point where you would be asking your party to stop and rest after a few battles.
If we had a big book of rogue talents then I believe the supposed rogue problem would be solved. The problem right now is the fact that there just aren't enough talents and some of them just flat out suck. I could actually see some rogue talents that tap into a bit of the other classes without needing to multi class. Have a rogue talent that let's him dabble in the Alchemist class etc...
I'm not understanding this argument when it's being used such as in the fighter problem thread. If you really want to go down that route then you could say the Cleric is actually a better spellcaster because he gets to wear armor, his spells can harm, heal, bring back the dead, utility and everything in between, let's not forget domains and Channel Healing.
That's not what it's about though, it's more about concept and what you like to play. Sure you have some people that go for what's statistically better but in reality, that only gets you so far, especially when you have DMs who don't run APs. Classes vary in their usefulness depending on the situation and even depending on the DM.
Using this argument is basically just throwing around an opinion like it's a fact which it isn't. If the fighter is such a bad class then how come people still play it? How come the vast majority of players only ever choose a certain handful of classes becaus of their supposed superiority?
While not my favorite class, I have always like the rogue and I enjoy playing one at times. I understand they lack a little in the combat department but I don't see them being as bad a people claim. I mean their Sneak Attack got a boost by being able to sneak attack undead but they aren't supposed to be heavy hitters all the time.
I am going to post my own build when I get the chance but let's see some rogue builds and examine what they can do. It will be a 20 point buy with standard WBL gear. You can build at any level.
What I mean by the title is this.
When a player wants to multi class, do you require that the class in question make sense during the course of the game?
Like if you are in the middle of a dungeon and a rogue wants to multi class into a Wizard but hasn't mentioned anything about magic during the course of the game, nor has he taken interest in the party's Wizard so would you allow hm to take a level in Wizard if he can't explain how and why he went Wizard, besides the mechanical advantage?
Now the Sorcerer is a lot easier to explain but some other classes are not so easy because of it's background and theme.
This argument is heard a lot and this is a thread dedicated to fighter builds who can retain their combat effectiveness while contributing to out of combat challenges. When I get home I will post some of my builds but feel free to post your own and discuss them. Please keep the builds in spoiler tags.
I enjoy throwing in a cursed item every now and then but I find they are too easy to remove. A simple Remove Curse spell and the item is gone the next day without the PC having to go through the pain of it's effects. I would rather see some kind of alternative method of removing the item. I mean if the item can be removed with a simple spell then why bother having it?
This is an offshoot of the Magic Item shop thead because it takes the discussion into a different direction so I created this instead of a derail.
Enemy humanoids use the exact same rules as PCs and with those rules comes the need for magic items to face magic items. Now if your group is low on items then the encounters you face may be as well but if you go according to WBL then your humanoid enemies are going to have to have gear as well just to be a challenge to the group, to fill in that math gap. This causes even more inflation when it comes to items because if you can buy them from shops and take them from the dead then a heavy humanoid campaign can turn into a big influx of items. Now it becomes less so the more you use enemies who have more built in bonuses.
Can you use Escape Artist to get out of armor quickly? I was playing in a game where the Monk, Druid, and Wizard were all shackled and then all three dressed in heavy armor. The monk wanted to do an Escape Artist roll to get out of the shackles and the armor very quickly. DM didn't really know how to rule that one but eventually he said yes.
Well I got thinking about what if a character needed to get out of his armor quickly could he make an Escape Artist roll.
This is a continuation of a thread that was unfortunately locked due to a bit of baiting and flaming so let's keep a lid on that. Shall we?
Now I just want to point out that I hate what magic items have become. They have become math filler and I don't like this. I saw in another thread where a player's GM checks their sheets and then offers items to fill in the gaps. Now some of you may have no problem with that but I do.
Also, something else I want to point out are specific builds and player's claiming they need XY and Z in order to function. I say this is false because last time I checked, no class has to have a specific set of various items in order to do their job. Getting pluses to hit, damage, AC, and a specific ability score and you are all set, doesn't even have to be the best gear. I've never known a fighter who had trouble hitting the ACs of appropriate creatures in the bestiary. Now if it's a certain flavourful concept then yes you may need XY and Z.
It seems the more Pathfinder goes on the more the weaknesses of magic and the spellcasting classes are removed.
Let's look at some of the weaknesses.
2:Saving Throws and Spell DC's.
3:Casting spells while threatened.
7: Golems and other types of creatures.
I was reading the thread about the "Snowball" spell and I got to thinking. The game continues to remove the weaknesses that spellcasters and magic itself had to deal with. Are combat spells going to become more and more affiliated with the Conjuration school which ignores Spell Resistance? Casting while being threatened isn't that hard anymore. Access to all spells is essentially easy because you can visit any city and buy them, even if you have no prior knowledge of them. The costs of most spells is essentially 5gp etc... etc...
Now I love Wizards, I have played elven Wizards since the early 80's but I have always enjoyed the weaknesses of the class that goes along with the power. I also enjoyed the work that it took because I felt the pay off was well worth it but now the spellcasting classes are loosing their weaknesses more and more. I remember when you actually feared golems and other creatures that had spell resistance and immunity.
I know most of this started with 3rd edition but why continue to cater to it?
I'm sure good few actually ignore spell components because I see people posting their Wizards and they spend all their cash in items which doesn't leave much room for the purchasing of spell components. If you go through the lists of spells then you will find that some of them aren't so cheap. For example, the Wall of Iron spell costs 50gp per casting. Mnemonic Enhancer will cost you a 50gp Focus and you have to find some black dragon blood which may not be easy and may be expensive.
If you don't really enforce all spell components then you essentially make "Eschew Materials" worthless.
I track spell components and I ask the spell casters where they got some of the more exotic components because if there is no way they could have gotten it then they won't be casting that spell until they actually find some.
I bet this gets hand waved a good bit.
I remember back in 3rd edition, a friend of mine created a gnome cleric who had a custom magic item, a glove I think it was, that would enable him to heal from 30ft away. Well to make a long story short, we ended up on a ship and were attacked by a giant squid. Well the gnome ended up dying and being tossed overboard. Well his body sank to the bottom but before that, the DM said after he died the squid had pulled one of the arms off and it was laying on deck. The point was that we could use the arm to have the gnome rezd. Well the arm that came off was not the one with the glove and the player told us not to bring him back because the glove was gone. It was a very good character but the player didn't care because it was all about the glove.
Ever have this happen?
I know we've all used spells in ways that the design of the spell didn't intend or the rules for thqt matter but sometimes I think it's fun to use them creatively without actually breaking the game. There are also creative ways of using spells while staying with in the rules.
This thread is about sharing those experiences.
I remember back in 3rd edition, I had a Wizard that had a small fire elemental bound to a box in the kitchen of his tower and two more bound in two other boxes. The one in the kitchen of course was an oven and the other two were a heating system, which I had metal tubing all through the tower and the other one used to work in conjunction with a small water elemental to give the tower hot water.
I also had a wizard who's profession was an exterminator so he would go around using Stinking Cloud or Cloudkill to get rid of vermin.
How come when an elven or dwarven craftsman makes a sword it doesn't take on the racial property of the craftsman?
Why wouldn't a bastardsword made by an elf take on the "elven property" so an elf would be able to use it because of their ability to use all weapons with the keyword "elf" as a martial weapon?
What makes an elven or a dwarven weapon gain the specific property?
After reading SKR's thread on Raise Dead I created this thread to discuss why the push to essentially trivialise death.
In my opinion, death should not be treated like a condition that is easily taken care of. Death should be something that is costly and is hard to come back from. I don't really understand this push for death to become so trivial. Well to be honest, I believe it has something to do with lessening the impact of death because some people find death "not fun" and because theplayer has spent a lot of time creating their character so they feel like they need more protection for their investment. I don't think anyone finds death "fun" but that's the whole point, death is supposed to be unfun and a bad thing.
If the game gets to the point where you have to go through mountains of red tape just do die while a quick snap of the fingers brings you back then I will just stick with what is printed before that and not buy anything else in the future.
This is a discussion of the current flaws of the system such as.
1: The Magic Item Creation system.
2: Traits (Some are just too good).
3: Spells such as Simulacrum, Charm Person, and Planar Binding just to name a few.
4: The wording of some things are just not clear.
5: WBL and how it works with some gaming styles and not others, including the default.
Now the thread doesn't have to focus on just those, there are others out there so post them here.
Odaude: To continue our earlier discussion. I see what your saying about Skill Focus and you are right but I still think getting a class skill and a bonus to it is a bit much for a trait.
This is a continuation of a thread that some of us were trying to discuss certain flawed aspects of the game.
Do not troll this thread, if you have the urge then tough luck.
We have the right to discuss these aspects just as much as anyone else.
The hide thread function exists so use it.
Now, someone mentioned Traits and customization. Now I agree with that but I think its a bit powerful to gain a class skill from a trait. I don't even think feats do that.
The overall system of Pathfinder is great but there are a few area's that I feel need some attention. Now we all know that there is no perfect system but you can sit down and go through the books and point out those flaws that do exist and work on fixing them.
Here are a few areas that I see a problem with.
1: Magic Item Creation system.
2: Certain spells in the game such as Simulacrum.
3: Traits (Some are just too damn good).
4: Ways some things are written so they are not clear in their intent.
I know there are others so I will post more as I think of them. I am pushing for an improved game because overall, it is a fantastic product and I feel it has room to grow in terms of quality.