Thank you Sean K.


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Concerning this post by Sean K Reynolds..

First off, this is not an attempt to troll or flame.

Sean's post is everything my gaming group and I have loved about tabletop. I've been more of a lurker than a poster on these boards because, while it is useful from a developer's standpoint to have individuals who attempt to "break" mechanics and find the power creep in new published material, I'm just not that interested in it.

Those that are complaining about the Vow of Poverty I feel are missing the point. Roleplaying games are not about "winning or losing." I imagine most that are complaining about it might not play a game like Call of Cthulhu because there is no "winning" against the Old Ones or they might play it with an illiterate character (so he can't accidently lose Sanity by reading a tome) that carries 50 sticks of dynamite in 1920.

Somewhere along the line, the "loot over skill/story" that is so prevalent in video gaming has taken a much greater hold with tabletop gaming than it has in the past (well, save some munchkin Battletech and Rifts players I know). Loot in the tabletop sense covers not only gear, but feats, races, bloodlines, etc. I understand that not everyone wants to play no to low magic games, but even high magic games do not require the amount of minimaxing I've seen in a lot of these posts.

Character roleplaying and sacrifice should serve as it's own reward for investment in the story, helping to engross other players while engaging the GM to help with story ideas and progression. The first instance I can remember of something like Vow of Poverty in tabletop was old school Battlesystem for TSR's Bloodstone Saga. A character named Kane, Master of Spring was written up as an "iconic character" that only owned a Carpet of Flying he used as a bedroll plus his dirty robe. He slept outside the city walls and took manual labor jobs to pay for food. As the series progressed, eventually with Kane reaching 100th level, he stuck with the same items.

I guess this post is just saying, I'd like to see more RP centric material in the future in the midst of all the super new abilities/bloodlines/variants people love so much. I'll take the human monk with 15 point buy stats any day.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I don't disagree too much, but...

Jesse Brake wrote:


Somewhere along the line, the "loot over skill/story" that is so prevalent in video gaming has taken a much greater hold with tabletop gaming than it has in the past.

...we didn't get the term 'Monty Haul campaign' from 3rd Edition or WoW. ;)


TriOmegaZero wrote:

I don't disagree too much, but...

Jesse Brake wrote:


Somewhere along the line, the "loot over skill/story" that is so prevalent in video gaming has taken a much greater hold with tabletop gaming than it has in the past.
...we didn't get the term 'Monty Haul campaign' from 3rd Edition or WoW. ;)

Ha! Truth. I didn't have too many of those games growing up and have only begun to see it more often in the last four years. And kits from 2nd edition were broken too. And I didn't allow them either.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Something people forget about, when they complain about WoW and other video games influencing tabletops games is, tabletop games did it first. They complain about things that have always been there, even if they never saw it themselves. But complaining about a fixture of the genre is not likely to make it go away. Your best option is to openly discuss it, and find out what elements work best for you and your friends.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Something people forget about, when they complain about WoW and other video games influencing tabletops games is, tabletop games did it first. They complain about things that have always been there, even if they never saw it themselves. But complaining about a fixture of the genre is not likely to make it go away. Your best option is to openly discuss it, and find out what elements work best for you and your friends.

I do agree with that. Video games are just much more popular now than they were during Chainmail and 1st edition that it seemed like a better reference than "the power gamers of yore."

We've certainly already found what works for our group. It's just a fact that from all the states I've resided in that I've met more power gamers than roleplayers.

Dark Archive

Jesse Brake wrote:

Concerning this post by Sean K Reynolds..

First off, this is not an attempt to troll or flame.

Sean's post is everything my gaming group and I have loved about tabletop. I've been more of a lurker than a poster on these boards because, while it is useful from a developer's standpoint to have individuals who attempt to "break" mechanics and find the power creep in new published material, I'm just not that interested in it.

Those that are complaining about the Vow of Poverty I feel are missing the point. Roleplaying games are not about "winning or losing." I imagine most that are complaining about it might not play a game like Call of Cthulhu because there is no "winning" against the Old Ones or they might play it with an illiterate character (so he can't accidently lose Sanity by reading a tome) that carries 50 sticks of dynamite in 1920.

Somewhere along the line, the "loot over skill/story" that is so prevalent in video gaming has taken a much greater hold with tabletop gaming than it has in the past (well, save some munchkin Battletech and Rifts players I know). Loot in the tabletop sense covers not only gear, but feats, races, bloodlines, etc. I understand that not everyone wants to play no to low magic games, but even high magic games do not require the amount of minimaxing I've seen in a lot of these posts.

Character roleplaying and sacrifice should serve as it's own reward for investment in the story, helping to engross other players while engaging the GM to help with story ideas and progression. The first instance I can remember of something like Vow of Poverty in tabletop was old school Battlesystem for TSR's Bloodstone Saga. A character named Kane, Master of Spring was written up as an "iconic character" that only owned a Carpet of Flying he used as a bedroll plus his dirty robe. He slept outside the city walls and took manual labor jobs to pay for food....

I appreciate your sentiments, and those behind Sean K Reynolds's post.

I'm also not trying to troll or flame.

Kane sounds like a cool character. You don't need any rules for a character who has adopted poverty as a lifestyle. However, if you are going to write those rules (and there is next to nothing in that section about roleplaying), some of us think that there should be a sidebar or something explaining that the vow changes a very basic assumption about the game, which can have significant consequences for everybody at the table.


The basic assumption being that with higher level adversaries, you need powerful magical gear?

I can see that if that's the case. Explaining that the vow a player is taking could affect the party is something for the GM to handle, much like if a player wanted to play a race with ECL in 3.5. If the PCs don't want someone with a VoP in the party, that's a discussion for everyone at the table, hopefully not boiling down to "is this gaming group for me?" if they want you to not play what you want to play for their own sakes. However, I don't feel that the monk class is useless (at least in the type of games I normally run) without magic items.


Jesse Brake wrote:

Concerning this post by Sean K Reynolds..

First off, this is not an attempt to troll or flame.

Sean's post is everything my gaming group and I have loved about tabletop. I've been more of a lurker than a poster on these boards because, while it is useful from a developer's standpoint to have individuals who attempt to "break" mechanics and find the power creep in new published material, I'm just not that interested in it.

Those that are complaining about the Vow of Poverty I feel are missing the point. Roleplaying games are not about "winning or losing." I imagine most that are complaining about it might not play a game like Call of Cthulhu because there is no "winning" against the Old Ones or they might play it with an illiterate character (so he can't accidently lose Sanity by reading a tome) that carries 50 sticks of dynamite in 1920.

Somewhere along the line, the "loot over skill/story" that is so prevalent in video gaming has taken a much greater hold with tabletop gaming than it has in the past (well, save some munchkin Battletech and Rifts players I know). Loot in the tabletop sense covers not only gear, but feats, races, bloodlines, etc. I understand that not everyone wants to play no to low magic games, but even high magic games do not require the amount of minimaxing I've seen in a lot of these posts.

Character roleplaying and sacrifice should serve as it's own reward for investment in the story, helping to engross other players while engaging the GM to help with story ideas and progression. The first instance I can remember of something like Vow of Poverty in tabletop was old school Battlesystem for TSR's Bloodstone Saga. A character named Kane, Master of Spring was written up as an "iconic character" that only owned a Carpet of Flying he used as a bedroll plus his dirty robe. He slept outside the city walls and took manual labor jobs to pay for food....

90% of the time if you are going to have a poor character you are not looking for the best option, but you still might was a decent one. What is the break the game comment about? Is it directed at everyone who does not care for VoP or a certain individual(s)?

What minmaxing do you speak of, and please don't use RD as an example since most of us disagree with him on a lot of issues?


I'm not familiar with RD. I'm assuming a poster?

It has nothing to do with individuals who don't like VoP as is. I put "break" in scare quotes because what I mean is pushing the limits of the mechanics to the point where, by definition of the rules, they've made an uber character that can win at anything and fears nothing in published books, therefore "breaking" balance mechanics. Maybe I'm over wording it, but does that make sense?

"Minimaxing" refers to making a character with the sole purpose of being the best at [insert game mechanic here]. I believe it was in 3.0 when a lot of players took one level of ranger just for getting Ambidexterity and Two Weapon fighting at first level? Or just taking one level of barbarian for rage for purposes of boosting STR?

Let me be clear I'm not saying don't use tactics or something. A VoP monk with no magic items better damn well use some tactics or he is completely worthless.


Jesse Brake wrote:

I'm not familiar with RD. I'm assuming a poster?

It has nothing to do with individuals who don't like VoP as is. I put "break" in scare quotes because what I mean is pushing the limits of the mechanics to the point where, by definition of the rules, they've made an uber character that can win at anything and fears nothing in published books, therefore "breaking" balance mechanics. Maybe I'm over wording it, but does that make sense?

"Minimaxing" refers to making a character with the sole purpose of being the best at [insert game mechanic here]. I believe it was in 3.0 when a lot of players took one level of ranger just for getting Ambidexterity and Two Weapon fighting at first level? Or just taking one level of barbarian for rage for purposes of boosting STR?

Let me be clear I'm not saying don't use tactics or something. A VoP monk with no magic items better damn well use some tactics or he is completely worthless.

I see what you mean now. Here is your introduction to RD trying to get around the vow.


I can't say that I agree with you on this post. Feats that undermine your ability to contribute positively to the team and that undermine your ability to accomplish role-playing goals for your character and your party is not good for role-playing. And that's exactly what Vow of Poverty does the higher a level your PC gets.

Vow of Poverty undermines role-playing and story-telling while seeming to promote it. It was true last edition and it's true now.

Edit: In addition, it's an enormous GMing headache to have to design one set of threats for the party and include one for a PC lagging behind the rest of the party... and disguise that you're doing it.


wraithstrike wrote:
I see what you mean now. Here is your introduction to RD trying to get around the vow.

I have to assume for my own sanity he's just attempting to troll. That way, it's sorta funny. Otherwise, it's PC whitewash.

Ultimately, every rule in every book is just a guideline for the GM. They can decide what is allowed, what isn't and what to ignore. As a GM, you just have to make sure you stay consistent and not change them every game session. But yeah, no, you can't even respond to that post seriously.


roguerouge wrote:

I can't say that I agree with you on this post. Feats that undermine your ability to contribute positively to the team and that undermine your ability to accomplish role-playing goals for your character and your party is not good for role-playing. And that's exactly what Vow of Poverty does the higher a level your PC gets.

Vow of Poverty undermines role-playing and story-telling while seeming to promote it. It was true last edition and it's true now.

I don't see how this prevents ALL roleplaying goals. Wealth is not necessary for all aspects of RPing. If your goal is transcendence via asceticism, then it's perfect. That isn't the only RP goal VoP could be applied to either.

I'm going forward with my response assuming "positive contribution" refers to things like damage output, utility magic items, etc (because if the PC with VoP is not receiving treasure, the rest of the party should be getting bigger shares and have more stuff themselves)? If not, then I apologize. This "positive contribution" starts to slide back into the "winning" mentality. A PC with no wealth can still contribute positively via skills and combat. Will he be AS good as someone who's used wealth to augment their various abilities? Strictly speaking, no (A GM could always say otherwise). But the point isn't to be "the best" it's to be able to play what you want to play and have fun at it. If I have a monk with no wealth, believe me I will disarm you of your fancy weapon, grapple, pin, trip, whatever sound tactic the battle calls for.

I don't think you can really say VoP is bad for roleplaying altogether regardless.


My theory is that the present edition includes a lot more "deck-building" elements, like a certain CCG I can think of.

Whereas in olden times (and in many systems to this day) if you wanted to build on a character you had to play that character and see what you found, now we have a character building process that is really a game unto itself.

That's not a bad thing, intrinsically. But many players do use character building as a surrogate for actual play, and I think that's less than desirable.


roguerouge wrote:
Vow of Poverty undermines role-playing and story-telling while seeming to promote it. It was true last edition and it's true now.

Even if that's true, a player could play a PC that refuses to accept any treasure even if there weren't a Vow of Poverty feat. So if anyone were to blame for "undermining role-playing and story-telling", it'd be the player, not the feat.

I certainly agree that if one player wants to "play on Hard Mode", he should get the enthusiastic support of everyone else at the table before proceeding.


Like TriOmegaZero said, powergaming or rules focused gaming is nothing new. It has been there since the beggining. The difference now is how visible we all are to each other. In the ADnD days people who played 12 int wizards and pacafist barbarians only new their gaming group, and maybe a few others at their local store. But thats it. We were isolated from eachother. The same went for the people who came over from tabletop wargames and treated the game as a strategy wargame with some non-combat reasons to roll dice thrown in. Both these kinds of groups exisited at the game's inception as well as every point in between.

The difference was back then there was no internet where we could collect as a whole. Gamers like any other group of people tend to collect with like minded individuals. If a group of powergaming munchkins ran into a hardcore roleplayer, he was the roleplay snob they tried playing with once and it didnt work out. The same for the reverse. But now we have these massive forums on the internet and all the little groups can see eachother to some degree. And what we see is that different groups of people take the same game and play it 100 different ways. Thats a good thing. People are having fun, thats all that matters in the end. Whether its because of the megabattle with the 3 dragons and a balor, or because of the deep emotional moment the half elf bard had with his beloved doesnt matter. Fun is fun.

Edit:
I forgot to add what I thought of Sean's post. I think the point he was trying to make is that the game isn't about perfect balance. It's about a game system that makes you 'feel' like whatever you are. If a character with vow of poverty didnt feel hindered or limited by his vow, then the internal consistency in the system wouldn't be there. The same way a barbarian wouldn't feel right if he didnt do a ton of damage powerattacking and raging. That means that certain options will be less optimal then others, and that's ok. The first focus of the game system is greating a coherent world for you to play in. Balance is a secondary concern.

Other games (the obvious being 4th Ed) made different choices. They choose balance over the feel of the rules. That doesnt make them bad, or make pathfinder better, it mean's there is a different focus. And there has to be. Robust roleplaying rules are massively complex systems and you have to make hard design choices when designing them if you want to accomplish anything. Paizo made certain choices in designing pathfinder, and they are sticking to them. And that is something I am quite happy about.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Evil Lincoln wrote:
That's not a bad thing, intrinsically. But many players do use character building as a surrogate for actual play, and I think that's less than desirable.

Would you define 'actual play' for the forum, sir? :)


Kolokotroni wrote:
...powergaming or rules focused gaming is nothing new...Gamers like any other group of people tend to collect with like minded individuals. If a group of powergaming munchkins ran into a hardcore roleplayer, he was the roleplay snob they tried playing with once and it didnt work out. The same for the reverse...People are having fun, thats all that matters in the end. Whether its because of the megabattle with the 3 dragons and a balor, or because of the deep emotional moment the half elf bard had with his beloved doesnt matter. Fun is fun.

I agree with all parts, the only thing I meant by using video games as an example is I thought it might be a more accessible comparison than explaining old school power gaming with GURPs, Chainmail, Palladium systems, etc.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Ultimate Combat is Paizo's book about Fighters.

The ragestorm will be legendary.

Silver Crusade

Back to the original point, I have yet to actually read the Vow of Poverty feat, but I do understand both sides of the issue. Jesse, you have a point about the roleplaying. Sometimes seeing the sheer volume of "can you help me with this build" posts is a little surprising (though I don't begrudge anyone the ability to do that). Point being, having a feat that benefits roleplaying is nice to see once in a while.

That being said, there is a strict mechanical system in play and taking such a feat can cause the overall party to suffer. 4th edition faced a similar issue with their Darksun updated setting, and they decided to institute inherent bonuses to make up for the lack of magical gear in the world. I'm not advocating that a monk with the Vow of Poverty should be as powerful as his magically-equipped fighter companion, but keep in mind that a monk who has forsaken magical aids should be better focused on their own physical and spiritual development.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Ultimate Combat is Paizo's book about Fighters.

The ragestorm will be legendary.

No no, you got it wrong. It's the Paizo forum. That's gonna be a "Not Enough Good Things For Clerics" ragestorm.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
That's not a bad thing, intrinsically. But many players do use character building as a surrogate for actual play, and I think that's less than desirable.
Would you define 'actual play' for the forum, sir? :)

Rolling dice in a session with a GM.

It is all too easy in this edition to get caught up in simply planning out your character's build. Now, there's nothing wrong with that, but earlier editions largely lacked this "charop solitaire" mode of play. There were good and bad options, sure, but much more of the outcomes were random. Treasure was random, fights were random, ability scores were random. Feats did not exist.

I'm not waxing nostalgic for those days, but you played the hand you were dealt. In the modern paradigm, you build the deck from which the hand is drawn.

It's not a a better or a worse way to game, just different.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I didn't say what the ragestorm would be about, just what the book is about. ;)


Space Titanium wrote:

Back to the original point, I have yet to actually read the Vow of Poverty feat, but I do understand both sides of the issue. Jesse, you have a point about the roleplaying. Sometimes seeing the sheer volume of "can you help me with this build" posts is a little surprising (though I don't begrudge anyone the ability to do that). Point being, having a feat that benefits roleplaying is nice to see once in a while.

That being said, there is a strict mechanical system in play and taking such a feat can cause the overall party to suffer. 4th edition faced a similar issue with their Darksun updated setting, and they decided to institute inherent bonuses to make up for the lack of magical gear in the world. I'm not advocating that a monk with the Vow of Poverty should be as powerful as his magically-equipped fighter companion, but keep in mind that a monk who has forsaken magical aids should be better focused on their own physical and spiritual development.

I think the amount of party suffering can be alleviated by the VoP PC's ability to use effective class tactics in correlation with the rest of the party, with a dash of GM proficiency. Honestly, if the party as a whole is underpowered for an entire campaign, the GM should either a) scale back said encounters or change, say, one CR15 demon into multiple smaller CRs to equal a 15th level encounter b) give the PCs some downtime for crafting or c) just increase the CR difficulty on encounters to show the added challenge and award extra XP. Even if it's just 50xp per encounter, it's something and people like rewards.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I didn't say what the ragestorm would be about, just what the book is about. ;)

You're right, by my logic, Ultimate Magic ragestorms should be about Monks and feats that screw casters up... oh, wait.


Space Titanium wrote:

Back to the original point, I have yet to actually read the Vow of Poverty feat, but I do understand both sides of the issue. Jesse, you have a point about the roleplaying. Sometimes seeing the sheer volume of "can you help me with this build" posts is a little surprising (though I don't begrudge anyone the ability to do that). Point being, having a feat that benefits roleplaying is nice to see once in a while.

That being said, there is a strict mechanical system in play and taking such a feat can cause the overall party to suffer. 4th edition faced a similar issue with their Darksun updated setting, and they decided to institute inherent bonuses to make up for the lack of magical gear in the world. I'm not advocating that a monk with the Vow of Poverty should be as powerful as his magically-equipped fighter companion, but keep in mind that a monk who has forsaken magical aids should be better focused on their own physical and spiritual development.

This is part of what I was trying to explain. There are different focuses for the two game systems. In pathfinder, if you take a vow of poverty, your character should actually feel impoverished. Having to pass on the gauntlets of monks being awesome is part of the feel. If you just got an inherent monks being awesome bonus to replace it, you as the player wouldn't feel the loss. There are players out there that want to play the 7 int rogue, or the 12 int wizard and work through that challenge in the game. If every option was perfectly balanced there would be no opportunity to do that.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Ultimate Combat is Paizo's book about Fighters.

The ragestorm will be legendary.

This.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jeremiziah wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Ultimate Combat is Paizo's book about Fighters.

The ragestorm will be legendary.

This.

You mean that will beat the PF Fighter preview flamestorm? That means they have to nerf the Core fighter in UC, that's kind of impossible hopefully.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
You mean that will beat the PF Fighter preview flamestorm? That means they have to nerf the Core fighter in UC, that's kind of impossible hopefully.

That sounds like a challenge. One that I think Paizo is up to.

Interplanetary Teleport.

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:
Jeremiziah wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Ultimate Combat is Paizo's book about Fighters.

The ragestorm will be legendary.

This.

You mean that will beat the PF Fighter preview flamestorm? That means they have to nerf the Core fighter in UC, that's kind of impossible hopefully.

If fighters do not get the ability to shoot fire out of their collective butts and grow prehensile tails with natural attacks that act as bane weapons against anyone who can cast a spell, some people are going to be angry, I tell you.


Jeremiziah wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Jeremiziah wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Ultimate Combat is Paizo's book about Fighters.

The ragestorm will be legendary.

This.

You mean that will beat the PF Fighter preview flamestorm? That means they have to nerf the Core fighter in UC, that's kind of impossible hopefully.
If fighters do not get the ability to shoot fire out of their collective butts and grow prehensile tails with natural attacks that act as bane weapons against anyone who can cast a spell, some people are going to be angry, I tell you.

I just want everyone to know that my happiness cup is now empty.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
That's not a bad thing, intrinsically. But many players do use character building as a surrogate for actual play, and I think that's less than desirable.
Would you define 'actual play' for the forum, sir? :)

I was commenting in a thread the other day where this was brought up. The poster commented that his/her players enjoyed the process of character creation (making a backstory, reading the preliminary materials, drawing up the character based on the limitations of the campaign world, etc) far more than anything else involving the game. When actually playing with said characters, the game was effectively a letdown.


meabolex wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
That's not a bad thing, intrinsically. But many players do use character building as a surrogate for actual play, and I think that's less than desirable.
Would you define 'actual play' for the forum, sir? :)
I was commenting in a thread the other day where this was brought up. The poster commented that their players enjoyed the process of character creation (making a backstory, reading the preliminary materials, drawing up the character based on the limitations of the campaign world, etc) far more than anything else involving the game. When actually playing with said characters, the game was effectively a letdown.

That sounds like a possible GM issue, maybe not being able to capitalize on said wealth of backstories?


Jesse Brake wrote:
That sounds like a possible GM issue, maybe not being able to capitalize on said wealth of backstories?

I have to admit, it's hard to bring your GMing ability up to the expectation of players who are *OBSESSED* with character creation.

It's also hard to have it both ways. Let's say you have two players.

Player 1 wants to play a VoP type character. Gear/Options are pretty minor. Backstory is pretty lacking. She just wants to organically grow a character from nothing.

Player 2 wants to make a complete badass. Gear/Options are agonized over. The backstory actually has chapters. She wants the character to be an entire story by itself.

Mixing the two together means player 2 will occasionally be irked by player 1's poor choices in character design. They're not "poor" so much as unimportant. Player 1 will probably not appreciate the lack of distinction between "poor" and "unimportant". Because to player 2, they *ARE* important.

Silver Crusade

Kolokotroni wrote:
This is part of what I was trying to explain. There are different focuses for the two game systems. In pathfinder, if you take a vow of poverty, your character should actually feel impoverished. Having to pass on the gauntlets of monks being awesome is part of the feel. If you just got an inherent monks being awesome bonus to replace it, you as the player wouldn't feel the loss. There are players out there that want to play the 7 int rogue, or the 12 int wizard and work through that challenge in the game. If every option was perfectly balanced there would be no opportunity to do that.

I don't disagree with that. The character should feel impoverished - it was their choice to go the route they did, and they did so for a reason. I'm just advocating that you *can* give them something to help a bit in the balance department. They shouldn't be as buffed up as your average monk of the same level, but even from a roleplaying perspective monk's that forego mortal trappings would have a better understanding of their own abilities because they have to rely more on themselves.

Jesse Break wrote:
I think the amount of party suffering can be alleviated by the VoP PC's ability to use effective class tactics in correlation with the rest of the party, with a dash of GM proficiency. Honestly, if the party as a whole is underpowered for an entire campaign, the GM should either a) scale back said encounters or change, say, one CR15 demon into multiple smaller CRs to equal a 15th level encounter b) give the PCs some downtime for crafting or c) just increase the CR difficulty on encounters to show the added challenge and award extra XP. Even if it's just 50xp per encounter, it's something and people like rewards.

I agree with you on this as well. The monk's player should use their abilities better to make up for their deficit - it even makes sense from the roleplaying perspective, which is exactly the point of all this. However, you do have to ask what makes this different from another monk - a regular monk can disarm and trip as well.

I'm not looking to reopen an old argument, and I do think that what Sean K. Reynolds was saying is a good thing. I just don't see why we can't do both at the same time.

Liberty's Edge

Jesse Brake wrote:
Jeremiziah wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Jeremiziah wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Ultimate Combat is Paizo's book about Fighters.

The ragestorm will be legendary.

This.

You mean that will beat the PF Fighter preview flamestorm? That means they have to nerf the Core fighter in UC, that's kind of impossible hopefully.
If fighters do not get the ability to shoot fire out of their collective butts and grow prehensile tails with natural attacks that act as bane weapons against anyone who can cast a spell, some people are going to be angry, I tell you.
I just want everyone to know that my happiness cup is now empty.

Ah, sorry, mate. I'll leave your thread alone. ToZ and Gorby are fun to engage with, and it's hard for me to resist. But I guess thats what we have OTD for.

By the way, I agree completely with your original post.


Jesse Brake wrote:


Somewhere along the line, the "loot over skill/story" that is so prevalent in video gaming has taken a much greater hold with tabletop gaming than it has in the past

Now, I don't know much about early editions, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that experience was DIRECTLY TIED loot gained in early editions.

Damn hardcore role-player infestations with their "good ol' days" that never exist. I wish they would stick to systems where role-playing IS the game rather than an enhancement to it rather than trying to talk down to people who don't like role-playing that much and waxing delusional about imaginary pasts. We need some RPernix.

Silver Crusade

Looking at my old 1st ed DMG

XP for:

Slain monsters

Surviving characters share XP. (not just conscious).

Then total the money, gems, and jewelry. You could give xp 1 for 1 or on a ratio based upon the ease or difficulty of the fight. Players must take the treasure back to civilization for it to count.

OT the Thief (as it was called) had a faster XP chart. It took a thief 160,000 xp to get to 10th. That would get a "magic-user" to 9th and a paladin to 7th, a cleric to 8th.

That is why multi-classing with rogue or magic user was actually kinda effective back then. That and fixed save charts.


Cartigan wrote:
Jesse Brake wrote:


Somewhere along the line, the "loot over skill/story" that is so prevalent in video gaming has taken a much greater hold with tabletop gaming than it has in the past

Now, I don't know much about early editions, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that experience was DIRECTLY TIED loot gained in early editions.

Damn hardcore role-player infestations with their "good ol' days" that never exist. I wish they would stick to systems where role-playing IS the game rather than an enhancement to it rather than trying to talk down to people who don't like role-playing that much and waxing delusional about imaginary pasts. We need some RPernix.

You seemed to overlook I said "loot over skill/story." Experience, nor character advancement or progression, ever came into question. Skill refers to ability to play your class effectively; story is self explanatory.

That was a funny bit at the end though.

1 to 50 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Thank you Sean K. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.