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

thejeff's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 16,683 posts (17,482 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 16,683 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Matthew Morris wrote:
Wasn't this similar to the mysterious stranger gunslinger and some rules. Where it was unclear and people were taking advantage of it, then it became clear?

Not really, IIRC. In this case, it was unclear, then there was a FAQ making it clearly allowed (with the caveat that it could change), then there was another FAQ changing it to clearly not allowed.


pauljathome wrote:
"Inari" wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:


Because you took a dodgy path, and the rules changed. Same thing with Bracers of the Falcon, vivisectionests, and other things that have changed.

Why no warning or grace? Ask the people who ran 30 minute MotFF runs to get 10 tieflings why.

Okay, I do not think I was abusing any rules,

You absolutely were NOT abusing anything. The PDT were extremely clear that this was known and legal. The people who are saying this was dodgy are 100% wrong.

I totally agree that it is unfair that lots of characters got hurt by this. For reasons that I totally don't understand many people (unfortunately including Mike) seem to thing that rebuilds and grandfathering are inherently abusive.

I think "dodgy" in the sense that it was risky because the FAQ did state it might be reversed. Not in the abusing rules sense.


Neurophage wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Or a mystery. Or groundwork for things that'll come up later. Or a sandbox, where you figure out what you want to pay attention to.

Red Herrings do something. The entire point of a red herring is that it does something other than what you expect it to do. Groundwork does something. It serves as the base for something else that hopefully also does something. In the case of a sandbox, just because the players don't act on something doesn't mean it's static. Things can do something when players aren't looking at them.

thejeff" wrote:
It's a rule, but it's a rule for specific kinds of story. It really doesn't work well in stories that are made up as you go along, like RPGs. In most traditional fiction you can go back and make sure the things that turned out to be important got focus and take out things that didn't. In RPGs, you don't know how the campaign is going to go from the start. It's better to leave in things that don't turn out to be important than to omit things that needed to be shown early on.
There's nothing that says that details the PCs don't interact with are static objects. Just because they didn't take the caravan leader's request for aid because they thought it was boring doesn't mean that no one did. Just because someone has to fire the gun on the mantlepiece doesn't mean that it has to be a PC who does it.

PC doesn't have to do it, but it has to effect the PC somehow. If the gun gets fired offstage and the PCs (and the players and thus the audience) never even learn about it, that's not Chekhov's gun. If it's a sandbox game and someone else takes the caravan job, that's great, but unless it comes back to bite the PCs it doesn't matter. Especially if, as you probably should be doing in sandbox, I'm dropping 2-3 plot hooks for every one the PCs actually bite on, they can't all wind up being important.

Neurophage wrote:
thejeff wrote:

This is true to some extent in any serialized fiction, when the story isn't completely finished when the early episodes are released - long form TV serials, comics, old magazine serials.

With the exception of works with more than one writer, there's nothing stopping the writer from making use of any detail that's established anywhere. An audience has only what the story tells them to use to interpret the world. They are awash in a sea of nothing with only what's shown on-screen or on-page to know what the world is. When details don't go anywhere, people notice. Just by creating a work, the creator makes a contract...

I'm not sure what your point is there. Any reasonably complex story, that can't be revised as it goes is going to have some details that get set up and ignored. Plotline gets dropped or changed. Characters go in a different way. Whatever.

It's not that there's something "stopping the writer from making use of any detail that's established anywhere", it's that there's nothing requiring the writer to make use of every detail that's established anywhere. In a normal story, the writer can just go back and edit out anything that doesn't wind up being used - and edit in new details to support later ideas. If you're publishing as you go, you can't do that, since it's already set in stone. Thus it's a good idea to set up more than you actually expect to need, because you know you won't be able to use some of them.


Andrew Torgerud wrote:

i read your last two statements as...

1) "it's not open to abuse"
2) except by "a few marginal characters"

Which is why i limited my previous point to rebuilds. the grandfathering of characters based on players' future intent just isn't going to happen due to past PFS grandfather attempts.

Which makes it pretty damn limited abuse. If you even want to count "This existing character that could have taken a prestige class now will, even though I wasn't planning to" as abuse. The character's not likely to be designed to do it well anyway.

What's gone wrong with past PFS grandfather attempts? How does that apply? If there a flaw with this suggestion I haven't seen?


Decorpsed wrote:
Serisan wrote:
Definitely talk to your DM. In a home game setting, I would not allow this item because of how powerful it would be. At-will Fortune, Healing, etc. is overpowered, IMO.
I agree with you on the overpowered point. Hex Vulnerability itself seems pretty darn powerful when paired with friendly Hexes. I think the spell could probably benefit from having its targets limited to enemies only. The second paragraph adding the save bonuses seems to hint at this intention anyway.

I suspect that's what they were thinking. Sloppy, though.

For the item, I would definitely have it work for everyone, not just the crafter's hexes. Wouldn't come up very often, because how would the enemies know? Still make a nice little drawback.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Torgerud wrote:

The problem is how do you define the limits of the rebuilds? How do you grant a one-time use to a portion of the player base based on the player's "intent" - and avoid abuse by another portion that currently is unaffected but might take advantage of more leniency.

There has to be a line in the sand. in this case, the line is 1 exp earned in the PrC. the consequences are the level 2-5ish characters who were working towards that path must decide if they want to continue to their goal according to the rules, or retrain or scrap. Clear cutoffs - no abuse.

I don't see it happening, but if someone can word the limitations of the rebuild, perhaps the campaign staff would re-consider it. It would have to apply to any PrC... and avoid abuse by players who just want a rebuild of their lvl ~3 characters

Which is why a number of people have just suggested grandfathering any character that doesn't qualify for a rebuild - If you had 1 Player chronicle after 1st level when the rule came down, you can still use the SLAs to qualify.

It's simple. It's not open to abuse. No rebuilding just to make unrelated changes. It doesn't lead to annoyances like trying to run new characters through a dozen adventures in a week to get them grandfathered.
At most, there would be a few marginal characters who weren't intended to go prestige, but happen to qualify.


Neurophage wrote:
The problem with Chekhov's Gun is that it isn't a trope. It's a rule for how to construct a good story which boils down to "if a detail doesn't do anything, don't draw attention to it. If a detail that doesn't do anything will draw attention by its very nature, don't put it in the scene in the first place." So, yes. Every GM should be mindful of Chekhov's Gun because any scenario where I don't know what I'm supposed to be paying attention to is a poorly-constructed one.

Or a mystery. Or groundwork for things that'll come up later. Or a sandbox, where you figure out what you want to pay attention to.

It's a rule, but it's a rule for specific kinds of story. It really doesn't work well in stories that are made up as you go along, like RPGs. In most traditional fiction you can go back and make sure the things that turned out to be important got focus and take out things that didn't. In RPGs, you don't know how the campaign is going to go from the start. It's better to leave in things that don't turn out to be important than to omit things that needed to be shown early on.

This is true to some extent in any serialized fiction, when the story isn't completely finished when the early episodes are released - long form TV serials, comics, old magazine serials.


Matthew Morris wrote:
"Inari" wrote:

So, Inari is Kitsune Life Oracle 4/Sorc 1 who just today made it to lvl 6.... I told my buddy at the table I will take my 1st MT lvl now and he pointed me to this thread.

Inari's 1st, 3rd and 5th Feat were the magical tails feats to get him to cast 2nd lvl arcane spells, now how am I supposed to proceed ??? I am fine with Oracle 4/ Sorc 1, this is not too bad I can cast arcane spells from wands and scrolls, not much of a hit but I am playing with 3 less feats. Can some figure of authority please explain to me why I have to retrain all my feats now and pay my PP & GP for that ?

This is a huge hit for Inari, I would love to see a way to grant a grace period or at least granting a free rebuild...

Because you took a dodgy path, and the rules changed. Same thing with Bracers of the Falcon, vivisectionests, and other things that have changed.

Why no warning or grace? Ask the people who ran 30 minute MotFF runs to get 10 tieflings why.

Honestly? Make a new PC. There's a reason you look at my characters and see Dex 2.0 and Mayim 2.0. My recordkeeping has been less than stellar, so rather than prevailing on my VC to rebuild the missing sheets, I started over.

I still don't see what would have been the disadvantage to extending the grandfathering to any existing characters who couldn't rebuild, but them's the rules.

Retrain. Continue on as is. Start over.


Edymnion wrote:
Mark Hoover wrote:
So what does that tell you about your character?

Frankly, nothing.

The trait flavor text is just that, suggested flavor text. Reactionary would make just as much sense if it said you drank an entire pot of coffee every morning.

I don't know anyone that actually enforces trait flavor text any more than they do feat flavor text.

In fact they mean so little, you're actually prohibited from drawing inspiration from them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xexyz wrote:
I try to avoid Chekhov's Guns as much as I can. Players lose immersion in the game if they feel like they're dealing with videogame conventions because every room in the dungeon is nondescript except the one containing the plot coupon.

I'm amused by Chekhov's Gun being described as a "videogame convention". You do know it dates to the 19th century, right? Long before videogames (or RPGs, for that matter).

I mean, I do get what you're saying and the relationship, but still...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, you've got less control over where the story goes in RPGs than in fiction, unless you're going for full on railroading. It's quite possible that Chekhov's gun may be attached to a plot the GM had in mind, but the players never picked up on. Or it may be a red herring.

Plus, in an RPG, the audience are the players. There are few ways of bringing something to the audience's attention without bringing it to the character's. That gun, quietly hanging on the mantelpiece? If you mention it, a PC will grab it and take it with them. If you don't it wasn't Chekhov's gun in the first place. As long as everything you mention is important, anyway. Players tend to be too genre savvy for a strict Chekov's Gun trope to work.

But it does work well in mass and in reverse. Drop a lot of things that could be important later and then they'll all look like brilliant uses of the trope when they turn out to be important. Everyone will have forgotten all the things that could have been it, but didn't turn out to be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Wow. I go do something else for a while and... wow.

Takeda, I think there are people on this thread who are going to dissect your statements for any negativity they can find, and attack you for it. If I was capable of apologizing for the community, I would.

I agree with some things you have said. I think there's a trend in modern gaming that diverges from the old school, and that makes my style of GMing clash with players of later versions of the game. But I still GM in my own style. And I still have players who play my games.

As far as the insults thrown your way are concerned... Well, I don't think being called a Grognard is really an insult, since it underlines literally decades of experience at gaming that younger players have not yet achieved. I am reminded of a lion basking in the sun while cubs chew on his tail. Eventually they'll get big enough to know better.

Everybody has a gaming style, and everybody thinks that style is the best way to play. Learning to agree to disagree is a big step forward. I wish more people would take it.

Wow, there are a lot of passive-aggressive attacks in there.

You don't know how long any of the "cubs" here have been playing, unless they tell you. I can promise you Vincent doesn't have decades of experience on me. I just fundamentally disagree with his assessment of gamers these days. Of course, I was never particularly "old school", even back in the day. Things change, but bemoaning the state of gaming and blaming it on cell phones and PF ruining gamers is a lot more like the old man ranting about "kids these days" than like the "learning to agree to disagree" you preach.


Vincent Takeda wrote:
Usual Suspect wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Usual Suspect wrote:
I'm honestly not sure what is meant in this thread by "Trust." If you mean trust the GM to play fair, I can't understand why a GM would want to cheat. Any GM can beat/kill the PCs anytime they want. There's no challenge or fun to that. I have yet to meet a GM like that and I've been playing a long time with a lot of different groups.
It is not always about "Beating the PC's", but some GM's try to run the game like a novel and will do whatever has to be done to see that novel to completion. Another problem may be favortism.
I guess I've mostly been lucky. Only ever had one really bad GM, and his problem wasn't railroading stories. It was that he let players do terrible things to each other in game, thought it was funny when they turned on each other, then just shrugged and told us to suck it up if anybody complained. There was some serious favoritism there and some horrible players (not bad role players, but honestly people that were horrible) so I left. In 30+ years only having one group I could not handle playing with is pretty good; especially as much as the military moved me around.
Yeah. I've been in some groups that really liked pvp. I think if the players liked it, then as a gm I'd allow it, but as a player I wouldn't participate in it. Not really my thing.

Not generally fond of it. It's rarely worked well in D&D for me. I particularly hated thieves back in the old days - And GMs who wouldn't let us do anything unless we caught them red-handed.

OTOH, I've played and loved Amber, though I prefer there to at least be something going on in addition to the Throne War.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

Its not a slur... Is it how you game or isnt it?

Me having an opinion about a large group of people who truly do play that way is not a slur. Its an opinion about a fact.

An opinion folks particularly here dont seem to want me having or expresssing for any reason ever.

I think it's that you're accusing a large group of people of playing that way, when the rest of us don't see it.

Especially when you talk about "the average gamer" or how PF ruins gamers, PF players who think they're pretty much like the other PF players they've seen can be forgiven for thinking you're attacking them.

And no, I don't play like that. And I don't think the average player does these days either - though I've seen some and I've seen some back at least in 2E days. I play PF and I don't think it pushes me to play like that either. Maybe it's something about the way you (or your group?) run PF.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

Yeah. Rynjin could have said 'I'm happy to say my experience with pathfinder hasn't matched your experience with it'... But he didn't...

Lots of posters could have said hey, lets not call the guy ignorant, what he says is actually pretty true among the guys I game with... But that didn't happen either.

What happens instead is what ALWAYS seems to happen instead.. Someone looks at my posts and says 'how dare he not like how I do things!!!' and then the most quoted quote in the thread is 'yeah YEAH!!! How DARE HE!'

which I believe was a sentiment I bolded in my original series of posts... I cant disagree with how you play.. HOW DARE I?

Go back and read it... How Dare I?

Thats my experience with these threads and folks who play this system... How Dare I? How dare I examine your methods. How dare I dislike your deal. Its tantamount to disliking you. How dare I not like you. How dare I say it. How dare I not reflect upon it.

I don't TRUST paiso and palladium gamers because I experience this kind of thing all the time... every time.

No wrongbadfun is just an illusion... Deep down its all about 'different playstyle and perspective than me? HOW DARE HE!' Time and time again.

Yeah, he could of.

But you really did come off as "All of you Pathfinder gamers are ruining gaming!"

It's not that you're saying "I don't like to play the way you guys do", but you're saying "You guys play like this" when that's not how they see themselves playing. But you really did make it a broad enough slur that it's hard not to take offense.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

I wouldnt want to make that statement. Let me clarify then. I do not like the playstlye of shameless metagaming, game the game, requiring that one must know immediately when his character has experienced something that could have consequences in the future when immediate knowledge of said thing is both not relevant, not possible for his character, and immersion breaking. I do not like the playstyle where having a crystal clear perspective on everything that's happening to his character at all times is non negotiable. I do not like the playstyle where characters are even capable of having tacit numerical and mechanical knowledge of their opponents.

I would go on to say that such behaviors becoming acceptable and habit has made the gaming experience worse for me and that such behaviors, in my experience, are either inentionally or unintentionally born of systems built on the d20/3e/4e/3.p/pathfinder or at the very least these systems attract this kind of player like a drop of blood in the shark tank.

Those gamers are probably awesome people but I will not play in that playstyle and actively encourage playing in other ways. If you like that playstyle you're still probably an awesome person but that gaming style makes me sad in my pants and I wish people would play that way less. If you call me 'ignorant nostalgiac grognard' for my opinions I will light the thread on fire because that's making a judgement against me, not my opinions.

If you go back and read my posts I think I was doing a fantastic job avoiding language that anyone could 'take personal'... But suddenly the ignorant nostalgic grognard barb came out, which doesnt seem to apply to any other posts but mine, and suddenly its the most quoted quote in the thread. Three cheers for the guy who used the personal insult against me.

If that's not ragebaiting I dont know what is. The paizo threads are the only threads where this kind of behavior keeps happening again and again and again... not on other forums so its not just a me problem......

I've probably been playing almost as long as you. I haven't seen the kind of shift in playstyle you're talking about. If anything, metagaming (of a slightly different kind) is far less tolerated than in the early days of D&D. Partly why it was so important back then to keep things out of the players hands.

I can't really speculate on why you see this change and I don't. I've seen some bits of it here and there throughout my gaming and heard complaints of similar things going back as far as I can remember.

Maybe you just had really good players back then. Maybe time has hidden some of the bad stuff.

Regardless, your original posts really did come off as an attack on modern gamers in general and PF in particular. When you start claiming things about "the average gamer" and saying PF "was actually making my players worse gamers", you don't really seem to be going out of your way to avoid causing offense.


Vincent Takeda wrote:
Vincent Takeda wrote:
Yep. Again my experience isn't the one truth... YMMV...

The only way you could think of yourself as a victim is if my analysis is accurate and you know its wrong but you do it anyway. But even that is fine. Game how you want to game and, as picard would say, 'if you're going to be damned, be damned for who you really are'.

This thread is about trust. I trust you know what kind of gamer you are... Balance of probabilities is that its one of the three I just listed. Which is good for me.

The same applies to you getting offended when Rynjin called out:
Quote:

There's a whole lot of ignorant hostility and nostalgia tripping in this thread.

"Back in my day, men were men and gamers were gamers and everything was perfect and everybody and everything today is doing it wrong *Waves cane wildly*".

Get over yourselves.

Obviously, if you didn't recognize yourself in that, you wouldn't have responded.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

Its funny how I dont remember the terms of use on these forums requiring me to only say the kinds of things people like to hear and blow smoke up people's butts.

I'm free to have an opinion and I'm free to voice it.

If you don't like the sound of what I'm critiquing... its probably you.

If you don't like the label, don't fit the label.

The same applies to you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darrell Impey UK wrote:

Artokus's is Mythic, so a no go in PFS, unfortunately. :(

I don't have the Alchemy Manual, so I'm not 100% sure, but I think Artokus's is legal:

Additional Resources wrote:
The mythic alchemical items on pages 26-27 are legal, however the mythic section of each is not available for PFS play


chbgraphicarts wrote:

Doctor Jekyll & Mister Hyde, Victor Frankenstein, H.P Lovecraft's Reanimator, various alchemists in history, Doctor Moreau (especially the Vivisectionist), etc. etc.

Think Renaissance- to Victorian-era mad alchemical scientist.

It's kind of a weird class, since it's really two in one.

The Mister Hyde and the Mad Bomber. Mr. Hyde's pretty obvious, but the Bomber doesn't have quite such clear origins.


I don't seem to have mentioned Digger last time this thread was active.

It's about a wombat. And a dead god. And a nameless hyena. And a baby shadow demon.
Read it.

It's over now, but that just means you get to read it all at once.


memorax wrote:
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.

Good thing no one is claiming any of that then. (Well, maybe the Barbarian/wizard thing, but no one is really arguing that wizards shouldn't be able to get spell books, just that some of us want there to be some thing beyond "It's a game and the rules say I have a spellbook, so I do")

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "roleplaying class features", but I'd say you do have to roleplay getting wands, potions and scrolls. Or at least acknowledge that you do so - That may be as simple as "Before we leave town I want to buy these wands, these scrolls and brew up these potions." Which might just get a nod from the GM or a session spent roleplaying out a shopping trip, depending on the groups preferences.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:

I'm a DM, and I view games as a story that we're all telling together.

That said, I worry alot less about the mechanics of what someone wants to play, and more about the concept. I don't like multi-classing because I've found it usually dilutes concepts. However, if someone has a concept that they think requires multi-classing, they're welcome to it. I don't require them to justify it to me. A character is more than their mechanics, and their character (and the choices/actions thereof) is their contribution to the story.

Maybe Grot the barbarian sees magic writing and suddenly realises that he understands it. Maybe he's playing with a wand, when it activates. Maybe he was secretly interested in magic all along, and used to sneak away at night to watch the tribal shaman perform rituals. If I feel like an in-game reason is needed, it's easy to produce one. If the player just thinks "magical barbarian" sounds more fun, that's reason enough for me. I'll arrange a method for them to get a spellbook (a discarded knapsack in the ruins, centerpiece of a goblin altar, among the effects of a bandit, gift from a saved traveller, curiosity for sale cheap from a wandering trader, so on), or maybe even just have it manifest one morning. That sounds like an excellent plot hook, actually. Who sent the book... and why? Even better if the spells gained per level also simply appear in it.

Sounds great to me. I'm really a lot more flexible than it might be sound here.

I'm just not happy with the "I don't need a reason. It's a game and the rules say I can" line of thought.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
In all seriousness, though, he was a ditch-digger with incidental fighter levels. We worked it out beforehand. :)

I had a monk in a 3.5 game called "Honorable Street-Washer Wu". He was a drunken fighting master who pushed around a street-cleaner's cart (secretly loaded with brandy). It was his cover as the lord's spy.

He was in the west of the world because his lord sent him to find out what happened to two trade envoys who disappeared (turned out they were living the high life in a coastal city a lot like San Francisco).

He actually died when he was hiding behind his cart from an angry dragon. The dragon breathed, the cartload of brandy (along with some thunderstones and a load of fireworks) exploded and Wu was no more.

Until his sister came out of the east looking for him and found a way to resurrect him from his ashes. He turned out to be one of my all-time favorite characters.

The point is his entire background came out of a very short conversation I had with the GM, and explained how an eastern character that absolutely didn't belong managed to fit in a decidedly western campaign, with in-game reasons for his presence.

You shouldn't have ever had to have that conversation. And wouldn't have, if the GM didn't really want to be writing a novel!!

It took longer to explain it here than to talk with the GM about it.

Finding the envoys living it up was the GM's way to get Wu to the city where the other PCs were.

The bit with the dragon was just an encounter gone bad.

The sister was the character I replaced Wu with, until he got resurrected.

There wasn't a lot of rp involved in this, honestly.

My comment was snark, based on my frustration with some of the rest of this thread. I failed a will save, basically. :)

Definitely sounds like a cool character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Claims of victimhood...

Just because someone disagrees with you or criticizes a certain aspect of the game, it doesn't mean they are accusing you of having BADWRONGFUN! Stop whining and acting like you're a brave little martyr being oppressed by the evil munchkins who are "poisoning" this hobby!

How should you act when you're being oppressed by evil munchkins?

I think that was the plot of a game back in high school.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
In all seriousness, though, he was a ditch-digger with incidental fighter levels. We worked it out beforehand. :)

I had a monk in a 3.5 game called "Honorable Street-Washer Wu". He was a drunken fighting master who pushed around a street-cleaner's cart (secretly loaded with brandy). It was his cover as the lord's spy.

He was in the west of the world because his lord sent him to find out what happened to two trade envoys who disappeared (turned out they were living the high life in a coastal city a lot like San Francisco).

He actually died when he was hiding behind his cart from an angry dragon. The dragon breathed, the cartload of brandy (along with some thunderstones and a load of fireworks) exploded and Wu was no more.

Until his sister came out of the east looking for him and found a way to resurrect him from his ashes. He turned out to be one of my all-time favorite characters.

The point is his entire background came out of a very short conversation I had with the GM, and explained how an eastern character that absolutely didn't belong managed to fit in a decidedly western campaign, with in-game reasons for his presence.

You shouldn't have ever had to have that conversation. And wouldn't have, if the GM didn't really want to be writing a novel!!


I was referring specifically to the one character and how it came about.

Not so much the rest of the play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
thejeff wrote:
bookrat wrote:

So my wife is dyslexic. She doesn't read any of the rule books. She often has no idea what the rules are or how to play in anyway beyond rolling a d20 for skills and to attack, and then the damage dice. She has a very poor creative imagination and has an extremely difficult time coming up with character concepts, especially backgrounds for characters. But she wants to play because she wants to be involved with my hobbies and she enjoys spending time with me and our friends.

Are you saying she

Wow. So she literally can't play the character she wants to play because she is unable to creatively come up with a background. You really do discriminate against people who have poor imaginations.

I guess you're right, we wouldn't do well in a game together. I'm against discrimination against people with disabilities.

I answered further a little later down.
me wrote:
Maybe I misread it, but I suspect such a player would be more likely to just be willing to make a character who would fit easily into the setting. In my experience, players who aren't into either the mechanics or the roleplaying, but just the social aspect of the game, don't usually care much what they play. If she was really fixated on gunslinger for some reason in that game, maybe her husband could help her come up with the backstory? Or I could. Especially if one of us is building the character anyway.

So, just to be clear: Despite having little idea of the rules or any background for the character or even interest in the game other than as social activity, she does have a definite character that she's set on playing? And it's not something suggested to her as part of the campaign proposal? Does she have a determination not to have any explanation or background, even if someone else comes up with it?

Most of the people I've played with before who fit that description, even without the "poor creative imagination" didn't get strongly attached to character concepts. In fact were usually just as happy playing a character someone else had made for them. That's why I thought it wouldn't be a big deal.

Does she get into the roleplaying part at least?

Beyond that, I wouldn't describe someone with "a very poor creative imagination" as disabled (and it's that we're talking about as the problem here, not the dyslexia). I'm not sure how much accommodation I'd make for that. This is a game of creative imagination. Maybe it just isn't for her. At least as I prefer to play.


Krensky wrote:

I think the playwright hit it on the head.

Young Jean Lee wrote:
"Hated him," Lee said, clearly still surprised. "And I realized that the reason why they hated him was — despite all their commitment to social justice — what they believed in most was not being a loser. [Matt] is exhibiting behavior that gets attributed to people of color: not being assertive, not standing up for himself, always being in a service position."

But was he that way as an accurate representation of what women claim to want or because he was designed by committee.


I'm also curious whether that represents some deeper inner truth about women and men or merely the perils of design by committee.
Probably some of both.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:

I think that misses the point of adjuncting. Adjunct positions are designed for field professionals to teach a class, not to give people a post-doc alternative to scramble together multiple part time jobs and complain about not being able to make it.

There isn't a job there for you, you need to move on. That will also allow people who want to actually adjunct a slot to do it.

That may have been true once. Now adjunct positions are designed to cut costs for universities without the commitment of actual tenured faculty.

Jobs are rarely designed for workers. They're designed for the employer.


Kalindlara wrote:
graystone wrote:

thejeff wrote:
While there's some logic there, I think the same people complaining about the books not being there would scream even louder about not being allowed to take the levels.

Not really. If you let it be know that you have to have them to take levels in them then you just write them down on your sheet with a note about the background and you're planning to multiclass. It sits there doing nothing until you take your level. You can say you've been practicing in downtime and the item doesn't just show up. Same with the gun.

The people that would scream are the ones that have this sprung on them last minute. They are the ones that are going along with the idea that you've been training in offtime and didn't NEED to spell it out. Most time when someone tells you that you can level up in a class, you think that actually means you get the full class features. Even the 'item pops up out of nowhere' crowd explain it as the fact that they have been practicing. Look at Anzyr's post "And as per the multiclassing rules you should assume the character has

This is another one that was dismissed early on. I'm super supportive of planned multi classing. Even if it's as late as the last town before the level up... or the player indicating he wants to study a looted spellbook... or trying to gather arcane lore from certain dungeon environments. All my statements thus far were meant to address out-of-nowhere multiclassing specifically.

Yeah, this whole thing spun out of an argument that no roleplaying, preparation or any other explanation was needed for multiclassing. Which led to where does the gun and/or spellbook come from, if the player refuses to specify and the GM has no opportunity to work something out.


yronimos wrote:

I think these are actually the best answers, at least to my understanding of dragons.

Dragons are like flawed people, with both their strengths and their deadly sins and weaknesses "dialed up to 11" over centuries of life.

They are creatures of superhuman strength, learning, and age... and also creatures of superhuman avarice, pride, vanity, ambition, wrath, envy, gluttony, and (though these don't get emphasized as often in traditional fantasy) lust, sloth, ennui, and apathy.

Toss in a healthy dose of superhuman paranoia and misanthropy as well, with respects to Ashtathlon: dragons don't trust banks... in fact, they don't trust anyone.

Your average dragon is kind of like your average eccentric, elderly neighbor: locked up in a decaying old haunted house completely alone, thinking dirty old man thoughts, hoarding a lifetime of pinched pennies and perhaps ill-gotten loot in a sock under the mattress, afraid to throw away old newspapers and broken appliances and other junk because he might need them some day, certain that everyone else is as greedy and angry and wicked as he is, angrily muttering about the "good old days" of his wasted youth, and dreaming about getting the chance to shoot those damned adventuring kids who keep daring each other to sneak onto his lawn.

How about young dragons? They're not all ancient overwhelmingly powerful monsters.


graystone wrote:
Death_Keeper wrote:
graystone wrote:

]Ok then, by your logic wizards don't learn spells from book... Gatcha... They just had spells pop into there head and can only CAST them when they happen to trip across a book to remind them what they somehow learned by osmosis? So do alchemists learn by randomly tossing stuff into a jar until something happens? A cleric becomes a priest THEN learns who his god is?

If you don't care about HOW they learn a level you shouldn't care about HOW they got thier book/gun. You're fine with the magic fairy giving away spells without any learning, why not have them bring a book along too... it's make more sense.

What is this argument? I said the character now has the Capability to cast spells (mental facility for his mind to hold and focus spells,) I never said he learned any.

Will you stop bringing up irrelevant things? I am talking about the simple act of the player saying "I take a level in wizard" and his CHARACTER getting a PHYSICAL OBJECT instantly dropped into his lap.

By multiclassing they gain SPELLS KNOWN. It's one of the abilities they gain under SPELLS. EVERY wizard may cast read magic without a spellbook. Read magic is a spell. How did the wizard learn it?

This ISN'T irrelevant. You are allowing people to learn spells without giving them the book with the spells in it. That's YOUR logic and it makes no sense to me. To state it the way I'm seeing it: "I'm somehow letting my players take levels in classes without their required items and then complaining when they ask for them."

While there's some logic there, I think the same people complaining about the books not being there would scream even louder about not being allowed to take the levels.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I understand what you are saying, and that it was a futile attempt but that did not mean the players were not making a real attempt to change the game.

Sorry. Misapprehended your point. I do agree that players were trying to get rulings changed, or were fostering different interpretations of the rules.

It is very probable that the same mechanism I speak about "these days" was operating then; GMs were feeling threatened because it seemed (to them) that players were trying to take over their games.

On reflection, that seems a probable explanation for the "I am God" thing.

<shuffles feet sheepishly, ducks head to hide embarrassment>

Sometimes you have to pull authority to keep the game going. Shut down arguments and keep playing.

"I am God" might be a bit ... overdramatic, but sometimes you have to just pull rank. Hash it out later if necessary.


Kalindlara wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Snorter wrote:

Most people are asking the wrong questions;

Instead of grilling players, as to why their character has some skill or equipment originating from another country, they should be asking the writers and publishers of gaming settings how the hell they justify the existence of anachronistic primitive cultures, in worlds where the technologically and magically dominant empires have the means to travel anywhere on the globe in seconds, and forcibly assimilate the native population.

I think that game settings with a variety of cultures are there for the GM to cherry-pick his preferences. You use this culture and this culture and this culture, but you discard these others.

The assumption that "it's in the rules, so it is allowed" should be amended to "it's in the rules, so it is an option" and GMs need to say yea or nay to that option.

I don't have a link at the moment (sorry, Anzyr) but I believe James Jacobs has said that Golarion is a deliberate patchwork of unmixing cultures - making it easy to cut out Alkenstar, or Numeria, or whichever trope you have no desire for. This way thejeff can have his campaign with no unexplained gunslingers and Anzyr can say "I'm from Alkenstar, NBD" when his GM asks. Something for everyone. :)

And then I'll ask him, "So what brings you way the hell up here?" and we'll start all over again. :)

Now mind, if the game was starting in Absalom or some other major trade hub, I probably wouldn't even ask. Everything comes through there eventually.

It's part of my issue with the kitchen sink, segregated nature of Golarion. It's all nicely divided up so you can segregate stuff out as you please, but players often just assume they can take any of the bits as they please, with no concern how they fit together.

Edit: And I don't want to outright ban that, because with some creativity it can lead to great characters with great plot hooks. Or it can just lead to silliness that breaks my suspension of disbelief.


Rastrum wrote:
Depends on how you do leveling and downtime. If you let people level up between fighting the dragon's minions and the dragon itself in the adjacent room, then of course you don't spontaneously acquire a spellbook or gun (unless you had an appropriate form of backstory reasoning, like "I use my newfound magic powers to make a spellbook as my first act of arcane might!" or "I cobbled together this gun in five minutes from stuff those kobolds dropped."). If you only level up during downtime, then of course the player acquires a spellbook or homemade gun as part of their exploration of this new avenue of knowledge.

Well, downtime might still be "we go back to our camp in the woods". Or "We spend a week continuing to trek across the tundra, mile after mile" <sorry, got carried away>

Mind you, I'd still have no problem with "I'm carrying my dad's old musket, hoping I can finally fix it one day" or "I never finished my wizard training, but I've still got my old notes."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:

The claims that back before Evil Videogames, roleplaying games were so much better because no one was thinking about mechanics or 'winning', and then when videogames came out they polluted people's minds and made them munchkins. Seriously, look at release dates:

Cathode ray tube amusement device: 1947
Spacewar!: 1962
Computer Space: 1971
Pong: 1972
OD&D: 1974

Seriously, widely available arcade video games like Pong (which reached a wider audience than RPGs every have) have literally been around before RPGs. Before video games came along, there were no roleplaying games.
The earliest video games (pre-1970ish) reached fairly small audiences, so there were plenty of gamers in the 1950s and 1960s who had never played a video game. But they weren't playing roleplaying games, they were playing wargames. Ya know, those things with no roleplaying or character development.
And it got even better in the 1980s when video games started introducing *gasp* detailed stories and complex characters who develop. Filthy munckins!

If video games had any effect on how this hobby has developed, they helped change tabletop wargaming into roleplaying.

That's a bit of a stretch. I think when people talk about the influence of videogames on table top, they're talking about Computer RPGs influencing pen and paper RPGs, not Pong.

And CRPGs came directly from P&P ones.


graystone wrote:
#2 One makes your class abilities not work. That doesn't seem like any "developers' intent". Spellbook is a class feature you gain. You gain spells in said book. You abilities are centered around It makes little sense that said book starts out someplace away from you. And how did you LEARN to cast spells if you don't have the book? From a game and logic basis, it makes 0% sense to not have the book.

So just for the record, you do think the book just mysteriously appears when you take the class?

"If there is /NO/ mention, No events that have anything to do with these items... none at all, would I get the spellbook or pistol without any explanation? would I just /have/ one because I took the level

I start at level one, as a fighter, and fight nothing but animals, wolves and boars. I never return to town in between level one and level two, then I multiclass into wizard or gunslinger, would I receive the spellbook or gun?"

If you want add in a event that stripped them of all their starting gear, but the GM made sure they found useful stuff to cover their known needs, but not an random extra spellbook or gun that no one needed.

This is admittedly an extreme situation. Not likely to happen.
But in that case, does the new wizard get a spellbook when he takes his first level? Does it just pop out of thin air? Does a gun do the same for the gunslinger?
Because the rules say they get one and it's a game, so there's no need for any further explanation.

Again, if I was running and aware that they were going to do this, I'd arrange for it to work out. Or for them to start with one that they can't yet use, so they can do a little bit of rp to set the stage for the class change. But I've been told again and again that it isn't necessary. Because it's a game, no matter what you get the spellbook along with that 1st wizard level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryzoken wrote:

I theorize dragons hoard treasure to attract adventurous idiots to their lairs.

It's like the draconic equivalent of ordering a pizza, except the pizza tries to kill you, providing entertainment AND a meal! Double win!

And likely more treasure as well.


Snorter wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Campaign setting reasons? In Golarion, for example, guns are from Alkenstar. If the game is set in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords, I'm going to want something about how and why your character is there and has guns - especially if he isn't from Alkenstar. If you've been playing for a few levels and decide to take a level of gunslinger, it's going to have to be pretty convincing, if it already hasn't come up in game. "It's a legal component" isn't going to cut it.

Other examples for other settings and games could abound.

Even in a low-magic or realistic setting, you'd only be justified up to a point;

"When did your 19th century Inuit tribesman get hold of a Winchester?" could be answered by "I was given it by a grateful explorer, whose life I saved", through to "I took it off the corpse of a guy who'd been mauled by a polar bear", to "I killed some idiot at the trading station, who thought he could use it to order me around.".

All these reasons make sense in a zero-magic setting; throw in reliable teleportation, shadow walk, wind walk, races with natural flight, and weightless inter-dimensional storage pouches, and there's no reason why typical gaming worlds aren't homogenous monocultures, except for Writer Fiat.

Most people are asking the wrong questions;
Instead of grilling players, as to why their character has some skill or equipment originating from another country, they should be asking the writers and publishers of gaming settings how the hell they justify the existence of anachronistic primitive cultures, in worlds where the technologically and magically dominant empires have the means to travel anywhere on the globe in seconds, and forcibly assimilate the native population.

The question then becomes, if they're so easy to come by, why aren't they cheaper and in widespread use? Which annoys me too, but is much easier for me to firewall if I assume that Alkenstar really does keep a tight lid on them.

Also don't forget that the gunslinger not only has a gun, but knows how to make and repair guns and make his own ammunition.

The difference in your example is that there was an entire trading and colonial culture using guns to dominate the real world in that time. You're 19th Inuit village doesn't have a firearms industry, but if they've had any contact with the outside world, they've had contact with cultures that do.
Does Alkenstar have colonies and trading posts all over Golarion?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to keep people from playing gunslingers, but if it doesn't fit the area, I'd like there to be a reason there's a gunslinger there.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

The first question anyone in our group asks a GM starting a new campaign is "Any special creation rules?" The second is, "Are you using any house rules?"

We just assume that the game is going to be unique, and not RAW.

And even if there weren't any house rules, I still can't imagine making assumptions about the game world without asking questions. Even if every GM in the group was using the same setting, I would expect the game-worlds to all be different.

This is alien to me.

The first thing we ask are questions about the setting, where we're starting, what kind of characters he's looking for, generally what the campaign's going to be about. Sometimes we'll ask first what system it's going to be run in, if that wasn't clear. :)

House rules come later.

Or maybe we're just phrasing it differently. I don't think of any of that as house rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From the newly spawned thread:

Anzyr wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
RAW is clear. They get them for free when they level. And as per the multiclassing rules you should assume the character has been training with it all along.

Can you quote/link the bit in the rules that says you should assume that?

I actually thought it was there, but can't find it now.

I can't find it via some searching and am away from book at the moment, but this should cover the RAW of multiclassing, that a Fighter gains all the Wizards abilities anyway.

CRB wrote:


For example, let's say a 5th-level fighter decides to dabble in the arcane arts, and adds one level of wizard when he advances to 6th level. Such a character would have the powers and abilities of both a 5th-level fighter and a 1st-level wizard, but would still be considered a 6th-level character. (His class levels would be 5th and 1st, but his total character level is 6th.) He keeps all of his bonus feats gained from 5 levels of fighter, but can now also cast 1st-level spells and picks an arcane school. He adds all of the hit points, base attack bonuses, and saving throw bonuses from a 1st-level wizard on top of those gained from being a 5th-level fighter.

If the Fighter decides to dabble in the arcane arts, all they need to do is add a level of Wizard when they advance. I'm sure someone will find the language in the meantime, because I am also sure I've read that.

I'd also found that. It says nothing directly relevant to the question. It also doesn't explicitly say the new wizard gets a book or any free spells.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
The question is not that the character who gains a wizard level in the course of the game gets a spellbook. The question is how he gets the spellbook. An in-game reason must exist, or there's no point in having a game-world.
The reason has been provided. It has been there all along. You don't like that answer. But it is a valid one. Unless you want to bring reality into it, in which case please explain how your giant insects are avoiding the square cube law.

Magic.

You could actually rule that spellbooks magically appear for anyone who takes their first level in wizard. It would be kind of a weird way to do it, but it would work. As a player, I would be interested in figuring out what or who was behind it.

Good idea. Of course, that means the game-world has to change.

Well, wouldn't change so much as be that way all along.

If it changed or if it only affected those PCs who multiclassed, the mystery would be even more intriguing.


Anzyr wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
The question is not that the character who gains a wizard level in the course of the game gets a spellbook. The question is how he gets the spellbook. An in-game reason must exist, or there's no point in having a game-world.
The reason has been provided. It has been there all along. You don't like that answer. But it is a valid one. Unless you want to bring reality into it, in which case please explain how your giant insects are avoiding the square cube law.

Magic.

You could actually rule that spellbooks magically appear for anyone who takes their first level in wizard. It would be kind of a weird way to do it, but it would work. As a player, I would be interested in figuring out what or who was behind it.


Kalindlara wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
No you do have to have a reason. That reason is just "It's been there all along." as the multiclassing rules indicate.
I'm afraid I don't see anything in the Core Rulebook's Multiclassing section about that. Can you provide a more specific reference? Was it clarified in a later printing or a different sourcebook?

Seconded. As I asked in the other thread, quote/link please. I'd like to see the wording.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
The question is not that the character who gains a wizard level in the course of the game gets a spellbook. The question is how he gets the spellbook. An in-game reason must exist, or there's no point in having a game-world.

Someday I want to run a one-shot with no roleplay, no fluff, just stats. No descriptions. No names. No motivations or reasons for anything. Just combat encounters (with stats, but no creatures. Make your Know roll you get mechanical information, but nothing else), loot to convert into new powers and bonuses, and xp that also gives you new powers and bonuses.


Anzyr wrote:
RAW is clear. They get them for free when they level. And as per the multiclassing rules you should assume the character has been training with it all along.

Can you quote/link the bit in the rules that says you should assume that?

I actually thought it was there, but can't find it now.


PFS also guarantees downtime between all sessions and assumes all kinds of things happen offscreen. It has the reputation of being strict RAW, which is probably why he suggested asking there, but the fundamental question at play here doesn't even make sense.

In PFS, I wouldn't bat an eye at someone who I"d seen before as an X, coming back in another scenario with a level of wizard. Because, unlike most campaigns, there's always plenty of time. He's known to be off doing his own thing.

PFS requires a heftier helping of Suspension of Disbelief than usual anyway. You can, for example, find that both you and another character are wielding the same unique weapon and that you got it by taking from the same enemy that you both separately killed.

But yeah, that question is kind of pointless to ask because anyone will just say "Of course you get them. Come up with a roleplay reason." Except for a few who apparently get stuck on the "I don't have to have a reason, because it's a game!"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah. Doesn't work for me. Mind you, I don't have any problem with the spellbook having been there all along. It's the "And it was never mentioned and the character never talked about and no one ever noticed him looking at it and he never talked about studying magic or showed any interest and now he's a wizard - because it's a game."

Give me a token to hang my suspension of disbelief from. Throw me a bone. Not just "It's a game and the rules say I can so it doesn't matter."

It's suspension of disbelief that RPGs share with stories and not with a lot of other games. The tolerance is different for different people I suppose. As I said, if you're happy playing that way, that's great for you. Doesn't work for me. That doesn't mean I'm doing it wrong. It doesn't mean you're doing it wrong. We just have different tastes.

1 to 50 of 16,683 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.