| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, he killed him so hard that Merlin began living backwards in time from the moment of AM disembowling him until his conception.
TIME AM CONCEPT THAT SCIENCE NOT FULLY ABLE TO EXPLAIN, AS IT AM THING THAT AM UNIDIRECTIONAL AND UNCHANGING THROUGH SCIENCE. SINCE AM NOT EXPLAINABLE TO SCIENCE, AM CLEARLY ONGOING SPELL WITH DURATION OF 'PERMANENT.'
CLEARLY, TIME AM SPELL-LIKE ABILITY. CL OF PHYSICS AM DEFINITELY 42, BARBARIAN DISPEL WITH 67 SPELL SUNDER CHECK. AM CAKEWALK FOR BARBARIAN. AM MAKING NEWTON CRY.
In fact, he killed him so hard that Merlin began living backwards in time from the moment of AM disembowling him until his conception.TIME AM CONCEPT THAT SCIENCE NOT FULLY ABLE TO EXPLAIN, AS IT AM THING THAT AM UNIDIRECTIONAL AND UNCHANGING THROUGH SCIENCE. SINCE AM NOT EXPLAINABLE TO SCIENCE, AM CLEARLY ONGOING SPELL WITH DURATION OF 'PERMANENT.'
CLEARLY, TIME AM SPELL-LIKE ABILITY. CL OF PHYSICS AM DEFINITELY 42, BARBARIAN DISPEL WITH 67 SPELL SUNDER CHECK. AM CAKEWALK FOR BARBARIAN. AM MAKING NEWTON CRY.
Just wait till you can sunder death and resurrect people with your ragepounce.
|
That Americans think that any acronym they invent on the spot is instantly comprehensible and readable by anyone across the globe.OH PLEASE!!! This is my biggest one.
I still can't make sense of YMMV. RAW was pretty easy. IMHO is pretty easy.
I cannot for the life of me figure out what YMMV is and I am an american.
Found that with a internet search. After leaning what it mean it is a good acronym, one that express a concept well. The trouble is learning its meaning the first time.
Urban Dictionary is your friend for abbreviations. It has the definition of IMHO and YMMV, though not one for RAW. Google is also pretty good.
Just wait till you can sunder death and resurrect people with your ragepounce.
SOURCES SAY ABILITY AM CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR RELEASE IN PENTULTIMATE COMBAT, RELEASE DATE JUNE 2014.
BARBARIAN AM ALREADY COUNTING DAYS.
I'm sure if I had a good DM I could learn how to use traps in a fulfilling way, but I haven't had such a DM so far.
I'd be hurt, but seriously, I threw in all those traps in that one session (Part 1 of the evil hillbilly druid adventure) so that Cyz would finally get the spotlight (especially knowing how few ranks Cadogan bothered to put into his trap skills). But, yeah, traps in 3.X will basically continue to suck, until they get totally overhauled.
I'm sure if I had a good DM I could learn how to use traps in a fulfilling way, but I haven't had such a DM so far.I'd be hurt, but seriously, I threw in all those traps in that one session (Part 1 of the evil hillbilly druid adventure) so that Cyz would finally get the spotlight (especially knowing how few ranks Cadogan bothered to put into his trap skills). But, yeah, traps in 3.X will basically continue to suck, until they get totally overhauled.
That sounds like an interesting thread topic to broach.
That sounds like an interesting thread topic to broach.
I'm presently out of ideas, except for these:
But this leaves the same problem that existed in 1e: if you have a rogue/trapfinder guy, the whole game grinds to a halt while he does his thing, and it's an extended pizza break for everyone else. And if you don't, there's a tendency for well-designed traps to have "TPK" written all over them, unless the PCs have endless hordes of expendible orc servitors.
Not in any way shape or form. I realize that I am well versed in arthurian legend and cannot remember when King Arthur went to a magic shop. I am pretty sure they didn't search for the grail in one either.You forget the bit where the Lady in the Lake squeezed every last copper out of Arthur. Merlin sat on the sidelines, laughing, muttering "stupid damn useless martial characters".
Then AM BARBARIAN appeared out of nowhere and rolled a natural one, but killed Merlin anyway. In fact, he killed him so hard that Merlin began living backwards in time from the moment of AM disembowling him until his conception.
Actually Merlin carries a club/shillelagh and is pretty deadly with it - or a stag's horns in the Vita Merlini. He also participates in a tournament fighting in melee (in the Vulgate). Since he tends to shriek with laughter at the same time, he may be a Barbarian/Druid/Bard and kind of hard to simulate in PF; anyway, he's no slouch in melee.
King Arthur is pretty much a middling warrior in the medieval texts - less skilled than Lancelot, Gawain, or Tristram certainly. Excalibur and the Sword in the Stone (two different weapons, however) really do buttress his claim (enough that Morgan stealing Excalibur seriously undermines him). But that's probably because he multiclassed into Aristocrat from Cavalier.
|
But this leaves the same problem that existed in 1e: if you have a rogue/trapfinder guy, the whole game grinds to a halt while he does his thing, and it's an extended pizza break for everyone else.
To illustrate, I don't even remember these traps Kirth says my wife's character dealt with. At all. I remember the crazy stuffed manticore that the psionic characters flipped out over, and the insane Perception rolls the rogue made listening at doors, and the stained-glass window we found. (Ew, btw.)
But the traps? Can't recall a thing about them, and I was at the table the whole time.
To illustrate, I don't even remember these traps Kirth says my wife's character dealt with. At all. I remember the crazy stuffed manticore that the psionic characters flipped out over, and the insane Perception rolls the rogue made listening at doors, and the stained-glass window we found. (Ew, btw.)
But the traps? Can't recall a thing about them, and I was at the table the whole time.
Different adventure, even!
When investigating the Quicklime Syndicate offices, the windows were trapped, the file cabinets were trapped, etc. Cyz found and disarmed a number of them, but Derek (knowing full well how weak traps are in 3.X) simply had Cadogan set off a lot of others and basically trusted his evasion to keep him alive.
But a "not a good DM"? Please give me more substantive feedback so I can improve!
If a player builds a character with a magic item in mind, I tell them they will never find it in a magic shop, so hope for random. They then usually change their idea.You realize that you just obliterated the concept of King Arthur, right ?
King Arthur did not buy Excalibur in a magic shop.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My pet peeve is the idea that just because you are not sitting around and talking, you are not role playing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Doing damage is the end all and be all for every character in every game. Not optimized for damage = unplayable/insult to your group.
2. Alignment is so hard, why can’t I spin evil into good?
3. I don’t use alignment/experience/WBL in my game. Let me tell you how you should use it in yours.
4. My characters never die because I’m smart. Your characters never die because your GM goes easy on you/is dumb/you’re a munchkin.
5. Someone asks for advice on the best way to do X and the first few replies are about how they should do anything but X.
6. My table is the perfect representative sample of ‘most players’ experience/preference.
7. If you get insulted by insults/mocking/belittlement/piling-on, it proves you are wrong about everything.
8. I don’t care what people mean when they use terms, their common accepted meanings or their dictionary definition. I’m only interested in the definition I came up with.
9. Usually related to # 8, optimal = not useless.
10. Usually related to # 9, roleplaying is only about superficial personality quirks and sometimes alignment. It is completely divorced from a character’s abilities/skills/stats/build/the role you play.
11. Usually related to # 10, your view is subjective opinion. My opposing view is stone cold objective fact.
12. If I don’t experience an issue, it doesn’t exist, but I’m more than happy to tell you the best way to handle it anyway.
13. Popcorn posts. I don’t have anything to add... just wanted to let everyone know I’m amusing myself by ridiculing you.
14. A few posters = the majority of the community and ‘majority’ opinion = correct.
15. Characters have unlimited wealth and will always have the best gear and unlimited scrolls/wands/ect or you are doing it wrong.
16. If I’ve been playing longer than you, I’m right. You will understand when you grow up. If you’ve been playing longer than me, you are wrong. Get with the times grognard.
17. There is an unlimited amount of PF gamers whose personalities/gamestyles/schedule/commitment/ect perfectly mesh with yours, so quit the group at the first sign of an issue and find another.
18. The bigger a PC weakness, the less it should be targeted.
19. NPCs/monsters/deities cannot have abilities PCs can’t also get.
20. Puns.
-
PS: 21. Participating in memes you hate, but b*tching about others doing it. I have no self control...
|
That sounds like an interesting thread topic to broach.I'm sure if I had a good DM I could learn how to use traps in a fulfilling way, but I haven't had such a DM so far.I'd be hurt, but seriously, I threw in all those traps in that one session (Part 1 of the evil hillbilly druid adventure) so that Cyz would finally get the spotlight (especially knowing how few ranks Cadogan bothered to put into his trap skills). But, yeah, traps in 3.X will basically continue to suck, until they get totally overhauled.
I had an idea, but given that I'm far from the first to ponder this issue I doubt it's anything that hasn't already failed in the past.
My idea was that traps shouldn't actually deal damage-- they should impede progress in other ways. Perhaps a trap drops a cage onto a specific square, and those caught in it are unharmed but can't leave the square they're in. Or a portcullis gate drops shut, locking half the party in and the other out while providing partial cover to anyone attacking something on the other side. And of course anything that simply counts as difficult terrain could be interesting if the party is cashing or being chased by something.
Crypt of the Everflame had a trap involving a pair of statues on rails. If the trap was tripped, the statues were pulled forward by chains, bull rushing anything in their path, and quite possibly forcing a PC into a (visible, untrapped) pit. I thought this was one of the better traps I'd seen.
I also think traps would make an excellent obstacle for DM's that want to set up combat in an area more interesting than a blank grid. If the PCs know where a trap is, they could try to bull rush an enemy into it. If they don't, a trap could force them to rethink their strategy mid-combat, or just be a nasty surprise when they get bull rushed into it. Maybe the biggest problem with traps is that their CR means most DMs don't think to have a combatant and a trap in the same encounter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
King Arthur did not buy Excalibur in a magic shop.If a player builds a character with a magic item in mind, I tell them they will never find it in a magic shop, so hope for random. They then usually change their idea.You realize that you just obliterated the concept of King Arthur, right ?
Oh, that reminds me. Another meme I hate. People who take the wrong half of your argument and beat on that relentlessly as proof you are wrong.
No, King Authur did not buy Excalibur in a magic shop, but he is a great example of a character who is built around a specific magic item.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stupid helpful conversations of substance that emerge in threads that were clearly never meant to be helpful or substantial.
GoldenOpal, #5...
That seems off to me. Shouldn't people offer suggestions on how else to achieve the same character concept someone wants?
I mean, if someone wants a white necromancer, and presents a Wizard as what he has currently, wouldn't it be a good idea to make sure he's aware of other ways to do it? Such as Cleric, Oracle of Bones, Oracle of Ju-Ju, 3rd party classes that do it well, Summoner with Undead Appearance eidolon?
Popcorn, anyone?
i find sprinkling some cayenne on my popcorn gives it a little spice.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
GoldenOpal, #5...
That seems off to me. Shouldn't people offer suggestions on how else to achieve the same character concept someone wants?
I mean, if someone wants a white necromancer, and presents a Wizard as what he has currently, wouldn't it be a good idea to make sure he's aware of other ways to do it? Such as Cleric, Oracle of Bones, Oracle of Ju-Ju, 3rd party classes that do it well, Summoner with Undead Appearance eidolon?
In this case, "X" would be "necromancer", and none of your examples would be "anything but X".
The type of issue represented by #5 is where someone says (for example) "I want to build a necromancer" and you get replies telling you to play completely different things (like a ninja or a monk of the four winds or a vivisectionist).
Another Meme I don't like: That because magic items are in the game they are obvious flashy things that take away from the characters.
A +5 sword doesn't have to be flashy -- like an elite soldier it might simply get the job done well with little to no fuss.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GoldenOpal, #5...
That seems off to me. Shouldn't people offer suggestions on how else to achieve the same character concept someone wants?
I mean, if someone wants a white necromancer, and presents a Wizard as what he has currently, wouldn't it be a good idea to make sure he's aware of other ways to do it? Such as Cleric, Oracle of Bones, Oracle of Ju-Ju, 3rd party classes that do it well, Summoner with Undead Appearance eidolon?
In this case, "X" would be "necromancer", and none of your examples would be "anything but X".
The type of issue represented by #5 is where someone says (for example) "I want to build a necromancer" and you get replies telling you to play completely different things (like a ninja or a monk of the four winds or a vivisectionist).
I agree. The most constructive approach to a post like this is:
1. Acknowledge the OP's request.
2. Discuss any drawbacks and/or mechanical disadvantages of the choice.
3. Offer mechanically superior choices that achieve the same theme/concept that the OP requested.
4. Touch back on the original request and offer advice based solely on that. Something along the lines of "However, if you're really married to X then your best bet would be to..."
5. Don't be a douchebag.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In this case, "X" would be "necromancer", and none of your examples would be "anything but X".
The type of issue represented by #5 is where someone says (for example) "I want to build a necromancer" and you get replies telling you to play completely different things (like a ninja or a monk of the four winds or a vivisectionist).
One of the great problems with communication on the internet, however, is having a basic understanding of the emotional resonance that other people have, as well as a natural tendency to put on an air, purposefully or not, that isn't there in "real life" (aka "in person"). This subtle disconnect means that often people take things one way online that people who post them don't mean and vice-versa.
Further, the specific cases that's given notwithstanding, there are plenty of reasons to say "anything but X", but the purpose is not to tell the person that they are having wrong/bad-fun (or whatsoever Opal's purpose is in disliking it), but rather with the thought of enhancing their fun by showing a different potential facet that they might have not thought of that could take their concept to the next level. Further, the OP might simply have a wrong idea about something, and the desire is to assist, not denigrate.
All that, and, you know, Cheapy's examples pretty much sound like "anything but X" to me. So, you know, YMMV (to use another poster's previous peeve.)
Just to clarify, I'd heard of YMMV and similar things before, but only from TVTropes, and I, as an American, had no idea what most of the the abbreviations are. I just kind of followed the context enough to get what they mean and went from there. For example, I'm still not sure if OP means "Opening Post", "Opening Poster", both, or something else fairly similar, but not-quite-those. I just figure the jargon creates itself over time.
To actually add some of my own, the only "meme" that I truly don't like is actually an underlying current on the internet as a whole (and with people in general), that of self-superiority and disparaging of others, especially in a casual and/or condescending way. Effectively treating someone else as lesser than yourself for any reason. I've done it (both accidentally and on purpose), but it's still something that irritates me, as there's no real reason to behave in such a manner. That said, jovial and genuinely friendly teasing or just general silliness doesn't necessarily fall into this category (and make no mistake, pretending to be a jerk is actually an in-person meme, just as much as it is an online one, and something that many people enjoy). And much of that comes down to communication - how you communicate yourself, and how the recipient takes it.
So, yeah. Sheesh, I need to get more eloquent I talk way too much.
I GOT it: a meme I dislike is Tacticslion going on forever.
EDIT: AND Tacticslion getting Ninja'd by, like, everybody. Every time. :D
EDIT: AND Tacticslion getting Ninja'd by, like, everybody. Every time. :D
Pop on there with a place holder and then go back into edits to fill that bad boy out. That one, at least, there might be a solution to.
EDIT: AND Tacticslion getting Ninja'd by, like, everybody. Every time. :DPop on there with a place holder and then go back into edits to fill that bad boy out. That one, at least, there might be a solution to.
Too true!
OR... I can simply write less. That's technically an option, and it might have to do with the "more eloquent" thing, right above... but, NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. I got some writin' to do!
@GoldenOpal - I was about to tell you how awesome you are, until I got to #20. STAY OFFA MY PUNS!
I’m well aware my distaste of puns makes me less than awesome, but thanks. We all have our crosses to bear. Honestly they wouldn’t be so bad if they didn’t always travel in swarms.
GoldenOpal, #5...
That seems off to me. Shouldn't people offer suggestions on how else to achieve the same character concept someone wants?
I mean, if someone wants a white necromancer, and presents a Wizard as what he has currently, wouldn't it be a good idea to make sure he's aware of other ways to do it? Such as Cleric, Oracle of Bones, Oracle of Ju-Ju, 3rd party classes that do it well, Summoner with Undead Appearance eidolon?
In this case, "X" would be "necromancer", and none of your examples would be "anything but X".
The type of issue represented by #5 is where someone says (for example) "I want to build a necromancer" and you get replies telling you to play completely different things (like a ninja or a monk of the four winds or a vivisectionist).
Jiggy got what I was going for.
Sean FitzSimon lays out a great method on how to avoid your helpful FYIs coming across as you are doing it all wrong. And Tacticslion gives a good explanation as to why if you don’t follow Sean’s method your posts may be taken more dismissive and condescending than intended. Though in some cases I’m sure the negative tone is exactly what was intended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4. ... Your characters never die because your GM goes easy on you...
Ooh I this one!!!
I agree. The most constructive approach to a post like this is:1. Acknowledge the OP's request.
2. Discuss any drawbacks and/or mechanical disadvantages of the choice.
3. Offer mechanically superior choices that achieve the same theme/concept that the OP requested.
4. Touch back on the original request and offer advice based solely on that. Something along the lines of "However, if you're really married to X then your best bet would be to..."
5. Don't be a douchebag.
You have to understand, however, that this works both ways.
When asking for advice be sure to include the following:
1. The character creation rules (20 pt buy, rolls, PFS, dartboard, starting level etc.)
2. Include any house rules that would effect this character.
3. When presenting your character note any particular aspects that need to remain intact. Note what sacrifices you are willing to make and ones you will not.
4. Be clear in what you are asking for. If you wish for general optimization advice, say so. If you just want to decide on your next feat, say so.
5. Remember that you are asking for help, not the other way around. Deriding someone for not telling you what you want to hear is a good way not to be spoken to again.
6. Keep in mind there may be better ways to go about what you are doing. Otherwise you wouldn't be asking.
You have to understand, however, that this works both ways.
When asking for advice be sure to include the following:
1. The character creation rules (20 pt buy, rolls, PFS, dartboard, starting level etc.)
2. Include any house rules that would effect this character.
3. When presenting your character note any particular aspects that need to remain intact. Note what sacrifices you are willing to make and ones you will not.
4. Be clear in what you are asking for. If you wish for general optimization advice, say so. If you just want to decide on your next feat, say so.
5. Remember that you are asking for help, not the other way around. Deriding someone for not telling you what you want to hear is a good way not to be spoken to again.
6. Keep in mind there may be better ways to go about what you are doing. Otherwise you wouldn't be asking.
For a lot of questions 1-3 are good, but shouldn’t always be necessary. I’m talking the more the “Help me pick a familar” met with “get a bonded item” variety. Closely related to the ‘spells do everything better’ meme – some days it is like every advice post needs a ‘no, I don’t want to play a wizard’ tagline attached.
4 is great advice. Not following this is another meme that deserves some hate.
5 and 6 Break Sean’s 5.
1 and 3 are necessary most of the time at least. When you say "help me pick a familiar" and fail to say "I can't take improved familiar" people will operate on the assumption it's allowed. You might not need all of it. But you do need to give everything relevant. Add on to the fact that english is not always someone's first language and it complicates things further.
And 5 and 6 aren't douchebaggery in themselves. They speak of douchebaggery on part of the OP. If someone is giving you advice which is contrary to what you asked for there is one super secret of the ancients passed down from internet forum to internet forum that will ensure you need not deal with such hassles: ignore them.
Starting a flame war because someone told you that your idea for a dwarf blasting oracle was crap and you should feel crap and explains why you should be a gnome sorcerer drives off the people who don't read the entire thread and just feel like giving advice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK this may have been brought up earlier but this seems like a good venue for what I want to say.
Post#1: "I want a low magic game"; "I want to get rid of the bog down of high level players turns being on the long side"; or similar
Post #2: Just play E6 it magically fixes everything.
[rant incoming] No, in my opinion all E6 does is typify avoidance ostrich with their head buried in the sand behavior when it comes to addressing the short comings of the system. To say well for not quite 1/3 of the levels in the core book the game is fine and after that... well that's hard to deal with so just don't play it and everything will be OK is a cop out.[/rant]
Shoot me if I ever do that.In the back of the head. At the theater.
To soon. lol.
King Arthur did not buy Excalibur in a magic shop.If a player builds a character with a magic item in mind, I tell them they will never find it in a magic shop, so hope for random. They then usually change their idea.You realize that you just obliterated the concept of King Arthur, right ?Oh, that reminds me. Another meme I hate. People who take the wrong half of your argument and beat on that relentlessly as proof you are wrong.
No, King Authur did not buy Excalibur in a magic shop, but he is a great example of a character who is built around a specific magic item.
Which is also incorrect. He was not built around a magic item. The concept of King Arthur is much more that.
The original poster did not prove I obliterated the concept of king arthur. They simply were wrong.
I originally said if a character has low abilities, and they expect a magic item to make up for them, they have to rely on random roles. No where is that the concept of King Arthur.
Also in my response I addressed Excalibur as being a PLOT element which is something completely different from a character expecting a stat boost item.
Really the meme of starting a post as You realize or you Do realize, is very often turned around because it often appears as a post that was made after one jumps to a conclusion rather than thinking something through.
|
|
King Arthur did not buy Excalibur in a magic shop.If a player builds a character with a magic item in mind, I tell them they will never find it in a magic shop, so hope for random. They then usually change their idea.You realize that you just obliterated the concept of King Arthur, right ?Oh, that reminds me. Another meme I hate. People who take the wrong half of your argument and beat on that relentlessly as proof you are wrong.
No, King Authur did not buy Excalibur in a magic shop, but he is a great example of a character who is built around a specific magic item.
Which is also incorrect. He was not built around a magic item. The concept of King Arthur is much more that.
The original poster did not prove I obliterated the concept of king arthur. They simply were wrong.
I originally said if a character has low abilities, and they expect a magic item to make up for them, they have to rely on random roles. No where is that the concept of King Arthur.
Also in my response I addressed Excalibur as being a PLOT element which is something completely different from a character expecting a stat boost item.
Really the meme of starting a post as You realize or you Do realize, is very often turned around because it often appears as a post that was made after one jumps to a conclusion rather than thinking something through.
I'll go one step beyond all that. Name a single magical ability that Excalibur shows in most versions of the story.
Excalibur doesn't even have to be a magical weapon.
Excalibur doesn't even have to be a magical weapon.
Agreed.
It is a symbol, but it holds a possible magic like is given to the Faerie Banner of the MacLeods. King Richard I found a sword in ruins on his way back from the Crusades and claimed it was Excalibur for propaganda purposes. Then he was captured by Austrians.
If I was to make Excalibur a magic weapon I would give it an area of effect morale bonus.
|
|
I originally said if a character has low abilities, and they expect a magic item to make up for them, they have to rely on random roles. No where is that the concept of King Arthur.
To be more precise, it was the "hope for random" part of your following sentence "If a player builds a character with a magic item in mind, I tell them they will never find it in a magic shop, so hope for random" that my comment was aimed at.
I am quite happy that further discussion allowed you to clarify what your stance was.
However, I must say that I have never seen a character buy a magic item to make up for a low ability score. What I have seen in spades is a character buying a magic item that boosts his HIGH ability scores.
That all martial characters are worse than all casters.
Since when has this been a meme?
|
That all martial characters are worse than all casters.Since when has this been a meme?
That all martial characters are worse than all /FULL/ casters.
Fixed.
And umm. Since 2e. At least.
>That options that people don't take due to them being too weak should still be used as a balancing measure for new options.
>That the payoff for big feat trees is worth having a bunch of useless garbage feats as prerequisites.
>That significantly underpowered is more acceptable than slightly overpowered.
Your mileage may vary.
Or YKMV to euros. And just about everyone else who hasn't been to the Moon.
This makes me wonder: what does the "K" stand for? Kilometerage?
|
|
That balance is objective.
>that balance should not be based on precedences.
(Example, feats have a certain value. Many things are deemed equivalent in value to feats, either directly, or through easily quantified inferences)It's ridiculous to price +2 to a skill at 2 RP, while pricing a feat that gives +3 to a skill, and +6 to a skill at 10 ranks, at 1rp.
Oh wait, that playtest is over. :P
That charisma has any use for most characters.
That mages are still tier I (summoners, Druids, and even clerics and witches tend to surpass them these days)
That summoner (especially synthasists) are OK without a rewrite
That we should just accept gunslingers into our fantasy game
+1 To this good sir.
Personally I don't mind firearms (though I'm not a fan of Pathfinder Firearm Mechanics). But I dont want gunslingers.
Give me pirates and musketeers. Keep your damn cowboys out of my fantasy RPG.
Oh, my latest annoyance. "I need help making a class X" "Well start with dipping into class Y, then go the rest of the way class X." arrrgh.
>The delusion that there is another way to make a non-ninja rogue that isn't comprised of garbage and fail.
Ranger 1. Rogue 2 (or 3, if you prefer). Ranger+++++.
Drop the CR ratings by maybe half; and
Add guidelines for roll-playing the finding and disabling as part of the prerequisite for being allowed to roll for success. But this leaves the same problem that existed in 1e: if you have a rogue/trapfinder guy, the whole game grinds to a halt while he does his thing, and it's an extended pizza break for everyone else. And if you don't, there's a tendency for well-designed traps to have "TPK" written all over them, unless the PCs have endless hordes of expendible orc servitors.
This is a big problem. Hmmmm.
For now I propose we leave traps alone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
> That myself, Trinam, and TOZ aren't mixed up as being the same people as much as we used to be.
Oh gods yes. You can't ALL be Cayden.