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

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Your Most Contentious House Rules


Gamer Talk

51 to 100 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HarbinNick wrote:
--I think the difference is clear by now.

No, I just see different (and unreasonable, in the second case) reasoning behind the two houserules.

I understand you want to classify them differently, but there really isn't a functional difference, just your dislike for one and not the other.


HarbinNick wrote:

You want to know a house rule? Here is a house rule...

-Combat expertise is such a bad feat it can be taken as a FREE bonus feat at 2nd level by a martial character. Or he can take toughness at 2nd level. Now THAT is a house rule. Totally makes fighters either tougher, or more versatile I like that rule.
-You can't play gnomes in my pathfinder Golarin is "I'm a DM who likes to jerk players around. Who cares? I'm GOD!"
--I think the difference is clear by now.

Your rage may be understandable, but the generally understood definition of 'house rule' among TTRPGers is pretty broad. There are some gamers who come up with academic terminology and differences, like "mods" vs. "house rules" vs. "adjustments," but most of us understand a house rule to mean "stuff the DM changed for any of the following reasons:"

"It's not fun."
"It's not fair."
"It's not realistic."
"I just don't like it."

Some DMs use the last reason entirely too often and/or are dicks about it, but keep in mind that there are worse DMs: the kind that don't like something, but won't disallow it and won't tell you that they're going to punish you for playing whatever they don't like.

Sometimes "I just don't like it" is the lesser of two evils.


Next game I run, I'm going to give Weapon Finesse away for free, just make it a combat option.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orthos wrote:
*raises hand* I'll spare you all the debate but that's not a house rule I'd care to play under personally =)

I'd be curious to note the main points of such a debate particularly since this is something that I've made specific to my campaign setting. Do you have any links handy?


Laithoron wrote:
I'd be curious to note the main points of such a debate particularly since this is something that I've made specific to my campaign setting. Do you have any links handy?

Here's a few of the top of my search. You even participated in one!

Various threads:


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thanks hogarth! I do remember commenting in that one now that you mention it, but since I was approaching it from a cosmology standpoint, I guess I forgot about it.

*reads up on the others...


Laithoron wrote:
Tequila: Have you seen the political combat system from Dynasties and Demagogues? I bought this book to help out with the coming arcs in my PbP and local games (both are set in the same city), and I was favorably impressed with the 'social combat' system they had for political debates. :)

I'll have to check it out sometime. Does it also have domain management rules?

Josh M. wrote:
(3.5) Psionics are treated as Arcane Spellcasting, for the purposes of Spell Resistance, level-checks, etc. This just makes things simpler to run, and not everybody in the world needs two separate kinds of Resistance. Only one person in all our groups even has a remote interest in Psionics, so this never really becomes and issue.

I believe psionics-magic transparency is the default option in 3.x.

Orthos wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Orthos wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Huh, I can't think of anything that caused problems for my group. I've been extremely lucky I guess.

This.

It probably helps that most all of my houserules benefit the players in some way...
I imagine that it does =)

Whenever I have a problem that could be solved by taking stuff away from the PCs, or by giving them stuff, I usually do the latter. And it tends to go over well with the players.

Who would have thought, eh? ;)

Andoran RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Josh M. wrote:
Next game I run, I'm going to give Weapon Finesse away for free, just make it a combat option.

I've done that before. Players were ambivalent to positive about it.


Charlie Bell wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Next game I run, I'm going to give Weapon Finesse away for free, just make it a combat option.
I've done that before. Players were ambivalent to positive about it.

Exactly. It barely qualifies as a Feat. My players haven't even brought it up, it's just a call I'm going to make. It'd be different if you could use it with any weapon, like you can with Power Attack and Cleave. But the fact that not only is it fairly sub-optimal(I can't believe I used that term), but you can only use it with certain weapons.

It's just unfairly limiting, compared to other options costing the same resources.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I've always understood a houserule to be any rule that differs from the official rules. Since nothing says you must use a houserule every game, your 'setting rule' is just a houserule that isn't used every game.

This.

Also thanks for being quite rude, Nick. I didn't insult you, no need to go calling me names.


Charlie Bell wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Next game I run, I'm going to give Weapon Finesse away for free, just make it a combat option.
I've done that before. Players were ambivalent to positive about it.

In my opinion, this rule is functionally the same thing as giving the Rogue a bonus feat at level 1. It doesn't hurt anything.

The only thing that aggravates me about it is that it lets wizards dump strength and still be good at making touch attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Josh M. wrote:
This one I don't get. Do you disallow PDF's?

PDFs are ok, as long as I approve the material and I have a physical copy I can refer to at the table.

I have a couple of binders I use for that kind of thing.

But one of my players has a PDF called the "Great Character Folio"or some such thing, and it has every race, every core, prestige and racial class, every feat, every skill variant ever put out by WotC for 3.5. On average, he brings me something new once a month.

I instituted the "physical copy" rule because I need to control what's going into my campaign. Regardless of how we as a group choose to use the rules, it's MY campaign setting, and if a race or class doesn't fit, it doesn't fit.

Oh, and for those who have problems with the title of the thread, I chose to use the name "Houserule" because I didn't want to say "The Changes You Have Made To The Official Rules For The Purposes Of Adjudicating The Flow Of Play In Your Campaign".

If I had, I'll bet the mods would have changed it to "houserule". :)


I like to give melee characters improved unarmed strike for free. I don't let 20's auto hit if it wouldn't normally hit. I let 1's hit if it normally hits, if not then it's a possible crit fail. Same with saving throws, they don't auto fail or succeed on rolls. I let dexterity have an big influence on out of combat speed. Other than that, I just follow the books unless I find something very unreasonable.
While not very contentious among the players I've had, they are still some of the ones I wanted to share.

One thing I do though is I never allow players to make some rolls, like perception for example unless they actively use it.

Andoran RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

cranewings wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Next game I run, I'm going to give Weapon Finesse away for free, just make it a combat option.
I've done that before. Players were ambivalent to positive about it.

In my opinion, this rule is functionally the same thing as giving the Rogue a bonus feat at level 1. It doesn't hurt anything.

The only thing that aggravates me about it is that it lets wizards dump strength and still be good at making touch attacks.

The only thing that aggravated me about it was replacing the feat on monsters and NPCs with Weapon Finesse. But that was transparent to the players.


Sauce987654321 wrote:
I like to give melee characters improved unarmed strike for free. I don't let 20's auto hit if it wouldn't normally hit. I let 1's hit if it normally hits, if not then it's a possible crit fail. Same with saving throws, they don't auto fail or succeed on rolls. I let dexterity have an big influence on out of combat speed. Other than that, I just follow the books unless I find something very unreasonable.

I do best out of 3 on reflex saves, penalized for armor check penalties, to see who wins a race between equal speed people. For chases between horses of equal speed, I do contested riding checks, best out of 3.

How do you do it?

Andoran RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another one I've used is Imp Unarmed Strike gives a base 1d6 damage instead of 1d3. It helps out non-monk unarmed combatants. I reckon if you're going to spend a feat on it just not to suck, you might as well at least get better than 1d3 damage.

Shadow Lodge

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
I instituted the "physical copy" rule because I need to control what's going into my campaign. Regardless of how we as a group choose to use the rules, it's MY campaign setting, and if a race or class doesn't fit, it doesn't fit.

I'm pretty relaxed about what I'll allow. I just remind my players that if they can have it, so can the bad guys.


cranewings wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Next game I run, I'm going to give Weapon Finesse away for free, just make it a combat option.
I've done that before. Players were ambivalent to positive about it.

In my opinion, this rule is functionally the same thing as giving the Rogue a bonus feat at level 1. It doesn't hurt anything.

The only thing that aggravates me about it is that it lets wizards dump strength and still be good at making touch attacks.

You'd rather your wizards had better Strength scores? I figured DEX was a higher priority stat than STR by a longshot, for saves and AC alone.

Honestly, I never thought about the Wizards and touch attack thing. Still, I think I'll still leave Finesse as a combat option, not a feat in my games.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
This one I don't get. Do you disallow PDF's?

PDFs are ok, as long as I approve the material and I have a physical copy I can refer to at the table.

I have a couple of binders I use for that kind of thing.

But one of my players has a PDF called the "Great Character Folio"or some such thing, and it has every race, every core, prestige and racial class, every feat, every skill variant ever put out by WotC for 3.5. On average, he brings me something new once a month.

I instituted the "physical copy" rule because I need to control what's going into my campaign. Regardless of how we as a group choose to use the rules, it's MY campaign setting, and if a race or class doesn't fit, it doesn't fit.

Oh, and for those who have problems with the title of the thread, I chose to use the name "Houserule" because I didn't want to say "The Changes You Have Made To The Official Rules For The Purposes Of Adjudicating The Flow Of Play In Your Campaign".

If I had, I'll bet the mods would have changed it to "houserule". :)

That makes sense. And kudos for taking the initiative to keep copies of things in a binder; I really didn't keep track of PC class stuff enough in the last game I ran, and I was getting surprised left and right with things the players were doing. Chalk that one up to my own disorganization, and having too many RL things going on distracting me.


Josh M. wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Next game I run, I'm going to give Weapon Finesse away for free, just make it a combat option.
I've done that before. Players were ambivalent to positive about it.

In my opinion, this rule is functionally the same thing as giving the Rogue a bonus feat at level 1. It doesn't hurt anything.

The only thing that aggravates me about it is that it lets wizards dump strength and still be good at making touch attacks.

You'd rather your wizards had better Strength scores? I figured DEX was a higher priority stat than STR by a longshot, for saves and AC alone.

Honestly, I never thought about the Wizards and touch attack thing. Still, I think I'll still leave Finesse as a combat option, not a feat in my games.

I detect the smell of cheese anytime I see a wizard with a strength less than 10. I love the image of a guy who can lift 70 pounds over his head once growing to manhood in an ancient culture, doing all of the labor for a wizard school, then moving on to adventure = living outside, climbing mountains and spelunking. It is kind of stupid. Likewise, when did the wizard get all this dexterity from? Play a lot of basketball I guess?

Shadow Lodge

Not every party goes delving.

Shadow Lodge

cranewings wrote:
Likewise, when did the wizard get all this dexterity from? Play a lot of basketball I guess?

I imagine for many it came from a lot of running a la Rincewind.


Could have been natural agility, since some people are just naturally lithe and slender. Or, from all the years of writing and doing lab work in wizard's school. Could be anything. Some people are just naturally dexterous.


cranewings wrote:
Sauce987654321 wrote:
I like to give melee characters improved unarmed strike for free. I don't let 20's auto hit if it wouldn't normally hit. I let 1's hit if it normally hits, if not then it's a possible crit fail. Same with saving throws, they don't auto fail or succeed on rolls. I let dexterity have an big influence on out of combat speed. Other than that, I just follow the books unless I find something very unreasonable.

I do best out of 3 on reflex saves, penalized for armor check penalties, to see who wins a race between equal speed people. For chases between horses of equal speed, I do contested riding checks, best out of 3.

How do you do it?

It's not really a system I use. I abstract speed in my games. For example, an average house cat can run nearly 30mph, but they have only have 30 land speed with 15 dex. So I would make creatures like quicklings, who have a land speed of 120 and a dex of 24, run at faster than sound speeds. If equal, I just do who has higher dex, as I like to take out the randomness of chases. Even if someone has a land speed of 40 or 50, sometimes I won't let them catch up to people who have really high dex scores who have 30 landspeeds. Other than that, I sometimes like to use this

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/mastery/chases.html


TOZ wrote:
Not every party goes delving.

Sure, if your wizard:

Didn't learn magic in a wizard school where he had to do manual labor.

Didn't grow up in an ancient society.

Didn't have a father.

Didn't go on to live outside like typical adventurers.

__________

If all that is true, maybe I would accept a low strength. If your character is "sickly" he shouldn't have a good dexterity either. If he isn't strong, he shouldn't have played enough sports to get his dex up and get an AC bonus.

If your character was born rich, had servants, never worked, then went to wizard school and still didn't work, then graduated and hired people to carry his crap, sure, I guess. That's why I just smell cheese instead of outright declaring it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Traditionally, the wizard has always had a low strength. In 1E, there's even a line on the Strength Table for a Strength of 5: "Here or lower the character can only be a magic-user".

I think the source is that in books and movies, the arcane caster is always a scrawny old person who can barely lift the huge old tome containing ancient knowledge and spells.

These types can survive in the wilderness because of a high Consitution (tough as an old boot), but don't expect a lot of physical heroics.

And high Dexterity is developed from practicing somatic components. :)

Andoran RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

cranewings wrote:
I detect the smell of cheese anytime I see a wizard with a strength less than 10. I love the image of a guy who can lift 70 pounds over his head once growing to manhood in an ancient culture, doing all of the labor for a wizard school, then moving on to adventure = living outside, climbing mountains and spelunking. It is kind of stupid. Likewise, when did the wizard get all this dexterity from? Play a lot of basketball I guess?

Enforce encumbrance and all of a sudden nobody dumps STR when they realize they can't simultaneously carry a spellbook, spell component pouch, and clothes.

Cheliax

Most of our house rules grew out of game play or past game systems so my group is ok with them. Whenever I decide to run a house rule I generally run it past them to see if there are any holes in the rule, are they unfair or will they drag down the game as a time sink.

I think several posters over here would find issue with my house rules, but my group seems to be happy with the way we play right now. If anything they just want more streamlined quality play so they can get more spell/sword/RP time in each session.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:
I detect the smell of cheese anytime I see a wizard with a strength less than 10.

I detect the smell of One True Way-ism anytime I read a snide pronouncement like that one. What you call "cheese," other people may well call "not intentionally gimping your character."

Tell you what -- every time your fighter has a magic weapon and/or armor instead of an apparatus of Kwaalish, people are going to make comments about "cheese," mkay?

Shadow Lodge

cranewings wrote:
Didn't have a father.

You're gonna have to explain this one.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
cranewings wrote:
I detect the smell of cheese anytime I see a wizard with a strength less than 10.

I detect the smell of One True Way-ism anytime I read a snide pronouncement like that one. What you call "cheese," other people may well call "not intentionally gimping your character."

Tell you what -- every time your fighter has a magic weapon and/or armor instead of an apparatus of Kwaalish, people are going to make comments about "cheese," mkay?

I don't generally allow magic items or weapon creation, and I give inherent skill bonuses to strike / damage / stat / skill / AC as characters level to make up for any perceived balance issues to the extent that I feel like catering to that line of thought. Any magic items are usually wonderous items and have something to do with the story.

Fighters running around in their uninspired +1 chain main and +1 flaming sword of gimpiness are just about as stale as a wizard with a strength of 7 is cheesy.

So you are spot on. Call me cheesy next time I have fighters with magic swords running around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Didn't have a father.
You're gonna have to explain this one.

His name is Anakin.


Orthos wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Didn't have a father.
You're gonna have to explain this one.

Most fathers in ancient societies wouldn't sit by while their sons eat cake, read books, and get shamefully weak. The fact that he has a knack for magic that puts him in a wizard school later doesn't mean he would be able to grow up without working or trying.

Again, you can write a backstory where you justify a weakling living in an ancient society so that you can game the system and have the stats you want, but it doesn't change my opinion of it if the motivation is to get the stats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The most contentious house rule we have is "Tie Goes to Defender".

It means that an attacker's roll must exceed, not just equal the AC of the target.

I hate it. I think that statistically, it works AGAINST the PCs. But the majority of players insist on using it.

We take terms being DM/GM and when I'm up, I disallow it.


cranewings wrote:
Fighters running around in their uninspired +1 chain main and +1 flaming sword of gimpiness are just about as stale as a wizard with a strength of 7 is cheesy.

So, as long as we're clear, it's not so much specific players whom you're accusing of being cheesy, but the core assumptions built into the game system as a whole.

I might actually agree with you, if you had put it that way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:
Most fathers in ancient societies wouldn't sit by while their sons eat cake, read books, and get shamefully weak. The fact that he has a knack for magic that puts him in a wizard school later doesn't mean he would be able to grow up without working or trying.

What if the father is exactly the same way? What if the entire school of wizardry depends on the use of magic to accomplish physical things so they don't have to develop much strength?

What if the campaign world is --gasp-- different from medieval history?

EDIT: Spells like mage hand, telekinesis and floating disk were developed to accomodate lazy mages..


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Wizard/Strength thing reminded me of something else that I do. It's not necessarily something that has much relevance in terms of game mechanics, but rather for fluff...

I determine a character's weight based off of their race/body-type, height, and strength score. Therefore, muscular and athletic characters simply weigh more than the stick-thin super-model with no muscle tone because [you know] they actually have muscle mass. In otherwords, don't describe your 5'10" female ranger with a 16 Str (before magic items) as weighing 120 pounds and being ultra-thin — the girl's gonna have some hurtin' guns on her.

If I remember correctly, I basically eliminate the random die roll weight multiplier, and add the character's Str modifier to the racial modifier. Generally this produces pretty realistic weights, although sometimes the Half Elf and Elf values seem to work better than the Human values.


In our games if you take a prestige class you can't take another prestige class until you max out that one. It's what makes it prestigious. Or some such thing. It's far less of an issue in pathfinder than it was in 3.5


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

What if the father is exactly the same way? What if the entire school of wizardry depends on the use of magic to accomplish physical things so they don't have to develop much strength?

What if the campaign world is --gasp-- different from medieval history?

EDIT: Spells like mage hand, telekinesis and floating disk were developed to accomodate lazy mages..

Let's not get crazy now.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Fighters running around in their uninspired +1 chain main and +1 flaming sword of gimpiness are just about as stale as a wizard with a strength of 7 is cheesy.

So, as long as we're clear, it's not so much specific players whom you're accusing of being cheesy, but the core assumptions built into the game system as a whole.

I might actually agree with you, if you had put it that way.

When you rolled 3d6 straight down the line, the way the stat system was originally envisioned, there was no correlation between strength and intelligence. You might be strong and dumb, or weak and smart, or smart and strong and so on. Obviously, it was better to be strong and smart than just smart.

Now that we almost all do point-buy, including me, we encourage players to pick the statistically best option. It is just elementary school math. The right answer is obvious. That's why all the wizards dump strength, even if it doesn't make sense. They will do a back story acrobatic to get the low strength, just because it seems necessary. I think it stinks.

My solution is to give a crap load of starting stat points, but dumping an attribute below 10 gives you extra starting gold so that people only dump their stats if it ACTUALLY fits their character concept. Not once, for any group, has a player dropped a stat below 10 sense I started this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
darth_borehd wrote:

The most contentious house rule we have is "Tie Goes to Defender".

It means that an attacker's roll must exceed, not just equal the AC of the target.

I hate it. I think that statistically, it works AGAINST the PCs. But the majority of players insist on using it.

We take terms being DM/GM and when I'm up, I disallow it.

It is exactly the same thing as, "Everyone one and everything gets a +1 AC bonus."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:
When you rolled 3d6 straight down the line, the way the stat system was originally envisioned, there was no correlation between strength and intelligence. Now that we almost all do point-buy, including me, we encourage players to pick the statistically best option. I think it stinks.

We still roll stats in my home game.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
What if the campaign world is --gasp-- different from medieval history?

Then you're obviously playing wrong.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
cranewings wrote:
When you rolled 3d6 straight down the line, the way the stat system was originally envisioned, there was no correlation between strength and intelligence.

The stat system has changed since then.

Lantern Lodge

Tels wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

What if the father is exactly the same way? What if the entire school of wizardry depends on the use of magic to accomplish physical things so they don't have to develop much strength?

What if the campaign world is --gasp-- different from medieval history?

EDIT: Spells like mage hand, telekinesis and floating disk were developed to accomodate lazy mages..

Let's not get crazy now.

Nope!


Even back in the day, there were modifiers. In 1E, you were expected to have at least two 15s or better. You don't do that on 3d6 down the line.

Lantern Lodge

Kullen wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
What if the campaign world is --gasp-- different from medieval history?
Then you're obviously playing wrong.

Nope!!


cranewings wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Next game I run, I'm going to give Weapon Finesse away for free, just make it a combat option.
I've done that before. Players were ambivalent to positive about it.

In my opinion, this rule is functionally the same thing as giving the Rogue a bonus feat at level 1. It doesn't hurt anything.

The only thing that aggravates me about it is that it lets wizards dump strength and still be good at making touch attacks.

You'd rather your wizards had better Strength scores? I figured DEX was a higher priority stat than STR by a longshot, for saves and AC alone.

Honestly, I never thought about the Wizards and touch attack thing. Still, I think I'll still leave Finesse as a combat option, not a feat in my games.

I detect the smell of cheese anytime I see a wizard with a strength less than 10. I love the image of a guy who can lift 70 pounds over his head once growing to manhood in an ancient culture, doing all of the labor for a wizard school, then moving on to adventure = living outside, climbing mountains and spelunking. It is kind of stupid. Likewise, when did the wizard get all this dexterity from? Play a lot of basketball I guess?

Just because someone is a wizard that does not mean they can't be athletic. What is unrealistic is for every wizard to not be athletic and fit the role of the stereotypical nerd from those 1980's movies, when it comes to physical ability.

A lot of archaeologist have to live outside for their digs, until modern times they had it rougher than we do now. They are not wizards, bu they are scientist so there is not much difference. Not every wizard is out trying to fight monsters, and the wizard just like our modern day archaeologist might have someone more suited to living in nature as a guide.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It isn't that people are saying that wizards can't be athletic. They're just saying that a non-athletic wizard isn't necessarily cheezy.


cranewings wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Not every party goes delving.

Sure, if your wizard:

Didn't learn magic in a wizard school where he had to do manual labor.

Didn't grow up in an ancient society.

Didn't have a father.

Didn't go on to live outside like typical adventurers.

__________

If all that is true, maybe I would accept a low strength. If your character is "sickly" he shouldn't have a good dexterity either. If he isn't strong, he shouldn't have played enough sports to get his dex up and get an AC bonus.

If your character was born rich, had servants, never worked, then went to wizard school and still didn't work, then graduated and hired people to carry his crap, sure, I guess. That's why I just smell cheese instead of outright declaring it.

Being hardy and being quick are not the same thing. Many athletes(amatuer and professional) stay injured more than people who play sports just as much, that have less strength and dexterity.

Strength and dex are also not related. For the most part you have what you are born with. Well lifting weight can help with strength, but you can't really do a whole lot to speed/dexterity, which is not the same as practicing for particular events such as shooting a basketball. You might be trying to say the gameworld is different, but I have never seen anything to support that. Being to lazy to carry your own stuff, does not mean you are incapable of doing it.

51 to 100 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gamer Life / Gamer Talk / Your Most Contentious House Rules All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 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.