Oh, this isn't one that comes up a lot, but something that has always been a source of contention between my fellow players and me:
-Paladins don't gamble. They just don't, I'm sorry. If you're playing a Paladin and your GM allows it, fine, cool, whatever. I'll let it go. I hate it, though, and not one of my NPC Paladins would ever indulge. To be sure, in my world you'd definitely get some aside glances from the other Paladins if they caught you doing it. It's not "fall-worthy" (something that's just way too abused) but it's just a really terrible way for a champion of light to spend her time-it would be like if you eyed somebody eating from the bins at the grocery; not something you would turn someone into the authorities for, but distasteful and rude. If you win, you're taking money from poor saps having a run of bad luck. If you lose, you're throwing good coin away that could be put to better use vanquishing evil or helping the less fortunate. Since I am apparently the only person in the world who holds this opinion, I'll include it here.
Actually, it was a plot point in one episode of the original Captain Scarlet & the Mysterons that gambling is a sackable offense for Spectrum members.
Aloso I'd rather play in an Arcana Evolved game than Pathfinder as I'd rather play a magister instead of a sorceror or wizard.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerers are better than wizards!I love Evocation. I think it's the best school out there and is by far my favorite. I've used it to greater effect than any other school.
I also don't believe monks, fighters, or rogues are bad, and I think sorcerers are better than wizards.
Your turn.
PS: Not an argument thread. Just a thread where you confess your dirty little gaming opinions that may go against the status quo.
My 2 cents on this.
Wizards are mechanically objectively better than Sorcerers (due to a quirk in how Arcane Schools work, Sorcerers don't even have the Spells Per Day advantage, and lack flexibility).
But Sorcerers are also better designed than Wizards IMO. They're weaker, which pushes them closer to the middle rankings of power even if slightly, which makes them better. Balancing to the middle almost always results in better design.
And they have actual class features that most Sorcerers will actually use, and a varied number of them, which also makes them more interesting.
It depends on what value of "better" you look for.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think DMs don't exist to teach players but to provide fun.
I think a party doesn't need a healer since the DM can adapt.
I enjoy melee combat as a rogue.
I like Catfolk.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think DMs don't exist to teach players but to provide fun.
I think a party doesn't need a healer since the DM can adapt.
I enjoy melee combat as a rogue.
I like Catfolk.
You lost me at Catfolk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I make my own character sheets. I really dislike the official ones.I don't use layout-based character sheets.
Simple notebook [or .txt if it's an online campaign] sheets for me.
I've been writing my characters on looseleaf paper and notebooks since 2e.
*Pencil & Paper Solidarity!*
I prefer to play in games where the players are experiencing the GM's story, rather than collective storywriting, (and yet tend to GM best sandbox games that end up with big storylines that weren't prepped ahead of time)
I also think that for games with GMs, the GM is the number one factor in the enjoyment of the game, much more important than the system itself.
Following from the previous, I believe there is not sufficient material out there, in any system I've found, for teaching GMs how to be good GMs beyond simple application of rules. (something I plan on fixing, but I admit that writing is far from my best medium)
I make my own character sheets. I really dislike the official ones.I did the same. But even though I created it in Excel, I also never bothered to "automate" it. Seemed to me to be far more bother that it would have been worth, since essentially I'm the only person who ever used my sheet.
I just use Word and insert tables as needed (separate spaces for Saves, To Hit, etc). It's really easy to customize to suit the particular character I'm creating, though of course it's not automated. My Excel Fu is very weak, which is why I use Word.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I desperately want to abuse Explosive Runes, as a GM. But the fact that I like having friends prevents it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I learned some rules of the game by reading the text in my Hero Lab virtual PC's sheet.
I desperately want to abuse Explosive Runes, as a GM. But the fact that I like having friends prevents it.
My nephew refuses to this day to even glance at a book in my games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I desperately want to abuse Explosive Runes, as a GM. But the fact that I like having friends prevents it.My nephew refuses to this day to even glance at a book in my games.
A boy must learn.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get what's so friggin' special about the Tengu.
I admit, there's some severe dissonance between the 3.5 binder and the PF occultist, and I likewise greatly prefer the former, mechanically and thematically. (The vestiges are also, for the grand majority, far more interesting than the spirits of Secrets of Pact Magic, and their mechanics far more conductive and favorable to adding fan-made content in the form of homebrewed vestiges; trying to cook up homebrew occultist spirits, or even converting vestiges into spirits, seems to take quite a lot more time.)
All that said, I can't see enough difference between 3.5 psionics and Dreamscarred's to dislike one in favor of the other, save for some classes one has that the other doesn't (Ardent, Lurk, Divine Mind on the 3.5 side; Marksman, Vitalist, Cryptic, Dread, Aegis on the PF side). So I'm rather curious what the downside is to Dreamscarred's work in comparison.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- I think the DM's authority wholly transcends the rule book, and that he or she can (and should) alter reality on a whim if such will make the game a better one in the group's eyes
- I think the need to push political correctness has grown noticeable and tiresome in Paizo products
- I have zero problem with stereotypical portrayals of elves, dwarves, et al., so long as the player is enjoying him or herself and plays them with some panache
- I think the array of class variants has now officially grown to the point where it's silly
I regret that I have but one favorite to give this post.
I think a party doesn't need a healer since the DM can adapt.
I don't think it's a good idea to assume that the DM will adapt to your party.
I think a party doesn't need a healer since the DM can adapt.I don't think it's a good idea to assume that the DM will adapt to your party.
That's something I've always done my best to do. I GM pretty flexibly and can fairly quickly adjust the game around the party.
That's something I've always done my best to do. I GM pretty flexibly and can fairly quickly adjust the game around the party.I think a party doesn't need a healer since the DM can adapt.I don't think it's a good idea to assume that the DM will adapt to your party.
I just pretty firmly believe that it's not always the DM's job to adapt to a poor party composition. Everyone wants to be a barbarian? Fine, but don't expect the dragon to fight on your terms.
|
I admit, there's some severe dissonance between the 3.5 binder and the PF occultist, and I likewise greatly prefer the former, mechanically and thematically. (The vestiges are also, for the grand majority, far more interesting than the spirits of Secrets of Pact Magic, and their mechanics far more conductive and favorable to adding fan-made content in the form of homebrewed vestiges; trying to cook up homebrew occultist spirits, or even converting vestiges into spirits, seems to take quite a lot more time.)
All that said, I can't see enough difference between 3.5 psionics and Dreamscarred's to dislike one in favor of the other, save for some classes one has that the other doesn't (Ardent, Lurk, Divine Mind on the 3.5 side; Marksman, Vitalist, Cryptic, Dread, Aegis on the PF side). So I'm rather curious what the downside is to Dreamscarred's work in comparison.
You said you haunted the "Let's Make Some New Vestiges" thread back on the old Wizards of the Coast Forums with me, right? Good times and great stuff.
To clarify vis-à-vis psionics: First of all, no, I don't like the new Dreamscarred classes. More generally speaking, though, as 3.5 psionics progressed, it started incorporating more stuff and going in a direction I didn't like - I liked the 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook, but not everything about it; I don't like Wilders, I think the psionic focus mechanic is irritating, and I don't like the "[energy] blast" powers. Beyond that, it got less satisfactory still, and Dreamscarred continued in that direction.
I am a lonely diehard standard-bearer of the "psionics ought to be different from magic" camp. I do not like how Wilders and Divine Minds and such made it "parallel magic" even more than it already was. I do understand the complications that that poses, so what I really want is a totally revised psionics system that was patterned less after spellcasting progression and more after the 2nd Edition psionics system (particularly the way DARK SUN improved on it). I've done some personal, private work to that effect, and speaking in all seriousness, one thing I'd be very interested in is input and stories from people who actually have had experience with playing 2nd Edition Psionicists (I never liked the alignment restriction, though - if anything, the supremely self-driven psionic set ought to favor Chaos over Law, but anyways). I have the 2nd Edition psionics books, but never played 2nd Edition, and was never able to entirely figure out how they should have worked out in actual play (I made my way into brand-name D&D by way of Baldur's Gate, Planescape: Torment, and that set, which turned out to be 2nd Edition's farewell finale, and it wasn't actually until encountering Pathfinder Society in 2011 that I finally got the opportunity to play actual tabletop gaming routinely, having spent the previous decade madly collecting books and playing the computer games, but having no one to play with for various sucky reasons).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's something I've always done my best to do. I GM pretty flexibly and can fairly quickly adjust the game around the party.I just pretty firmly believe that it's not always the DM's job to adapt to a poor party composition. Everyone wants to be a barbarian? Fine, but don't expect the dragon to fight on your terms.
I guess that's where you and I differ. I don't expect the party to adhere to any particular array of classes. I'm not going to expect anyone to play a certain role, unless it goes against the my world's makeup (for instance, I don't allow the anthropomorphic races as player character choices). Now, the party might regret not having someone play a healer and they can change that if they wish (introduce a new character, multiclass, etc) but the choice is entirely up to them.
Vive la difference!
You said you haunted the "Let's Make Some New Vestiges" thread back on the old Wizards of the Coast Forums with me, right? Good times and great stuff.
Yep, I went by Edge of Oblivion over there. Off the top of my head some of the Vestiges I made were Valefor, Sitri, Lavos, Schala, Blaine, and a handful of others.
I am a lonely diehard standard-bearer of the "psionics ought to be different from magic" camp. I do not like how Wilders and Divine Minds and such made it "parallel magic" even more than it already was. I do understand the complications that that poses, so what I really want is a totally revised psionics system that was patterned less after spellcasting progression and more after the 2nd Edition psionics system (particularly the way DARK SUN improved on...
My 2nd-edition experience is pretty much limited to Planescape: Torment so I sadly had no personal involvement with 2E psionics. But if someone pointed me toward it or a conversion of it to 3e/PF mechanics I'd certainly give it a shot.
Otherwise I'm all in favor of having psionic options that are clearly different from magic; I just like also having the "pseudo-magic" psionics available, primarily because I just prefer psionic point-cost systems over spellslots.
|
|
Otherwise I'm all in favor of having psionic options that are clearly different from magic; I just like also having the "pseudo-magic" psionics available, primarily because I just prefer psionic point-cost systems over spellslots.
Tell me about it; my ultimate home turf is the Might & Magic computer games, which of course use spell points, so I was never happy with Vancian magic.
I remember when 3.0 psionics came out, and a semi-friend of mine at the time mentioned that he hated the Psion. His reasoning? "It's what the Sorcerer should have been."
I alway liked Heroes of Might and Magic IV.
Of course, it's the only one I played. But watching a stack of clerics pimp slap dragons to death was funny.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just pretty firmly believe that it's not always the DM's job to adapt to a poor party composition. Everyone wants to be a barbarian? Fine, but don't expect the dragon to fight on your terms.That's something I've always done my best to do. I GM pretty flexibly and can fairly quickly adjust the game around the party.I think a party doesn't need a healer since the DM can adapt.I don't think it's a good idea to assume that the DM will adapt to your party.
If my players want to be all barbarians, it's their good right. I will adapt the encounters to make them challenging but doable. The dragon only exists to be beaten in an epic battle, not to teach my players how to play the game.
|
|
I alway liked Heroes of Might and Magic IV.
Of course, it's the only one I played. But watching a stack of clerics pimp slap dragons to death was funny.
Yes, well, that's from when everything started to tragically go Hindenberg. Only Might & Magic IX was worse - then New World Computing died, Ubisoft bought the rights, and made it into something that, while well-designed, is strictly NOT Might & Magic. To hell (I mean, to Sheogh) with "Ashan."
Just to clarify, is HoMaM IV one of the bad ones, or are you saying it's the last good one?
It's been like 10 years since I played it and I no longer have the disk (though I do still have the instruction booklet in my drawer full of them!) , so I can't really judge it for myself.
it's just a preference, less a requirement. there's room for both approaches. I have to straddle it often as half my group likes to build elaborate stories on their own while the other half does 100% of their creation through interactions at the table. I have to say, while I lean one way, I have definitely come to appreciate the players working things out with each other first, particularly after the last set of character creation where three of the people chose classes that could channel positive energy and then another player decided that he wanted to be a necromancer. while I'd have been happy to roll with the idea, it was clear that those players would have been really irritated to be forced to play/roleplay around what was mostly a whim once the game started.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is really frustrating is when you come up with a character, then the group discussion takes a direction that makes your idea no longer part of the group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Otherwise I'm all in favor of having psionic options that are clearly different from magic; I just like also having the "pseudo-magic" psionics available, primarily because I just prefer psionic point-cost systems over spellslots.
Tell me about it; my ultimate home turf is the Might & Magic computer games, which of course use spell points, so I was never happy with Vancian magic.
I remember when 3.0 psionics came out, and a semi-friend of mine at the time mentioned that he hated the Psion. His reasoning? "It's what the Sorcerer should have been."
Was your response, as mine is right now, a blank stare eventually followed by "...So why do you hate the psion?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I'm concerned, if the players (whom I prefer to create their characters without consulting each other at all, the better to actually play what they wish to play) create five paladins and a ninja, then it's my job as a DM to create adventures that would appeal to five paladins and a ninja. That doesn't mean there won't be challenges that require a hired gun, whether literal or metaphorical, but ... I can't stand the artificiality of crafting a balanced party. It just sets off my bullsh!t detector, since I abhor most meta-gaming with the fury of a thousand suns.
I do pretty much the opposite. I build a world and a story to go with it then I let it live. I'm happy to let the players be whatever they want to be as long as they understand that the world is not going to morph to suit them. The players are welcome to pursue only the things that they are best suited for, but that may not always advance them along the main story path. Think of it like a limited sandbox I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I'm concerned, if the players (whom I prefer to create their characters without consulting each other at all, the better to actually play what they wish to play) create five paladins and a ninja, then it's my job as a DM to create adventures that would appeal to five paladins and a ninja. That doesn't mean there won't be challenges that require a hired gun, whether literal or metaphorical, but ... I can't stand the artificiality of crafting a balanced party. It just sets off my bullsh!t detector, since I abhor most meta-gaming with the fury of a thousand suns.
Yesbut when they all do interlocking backgrounds, so that they have a good reason to be together, it is a joy to behold. I'll happily let them consult on balancing the party if they do that.
We had one where everyone was either related to, worked with, or was sleeping with someone else, sometimes interlocking.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get what's so friggin' special about the Tengu.
They're nothing to crow about, true. Always ravin' on.
I don't get what's so friggin' special about the Tengu.They're nothing to crow about, true. Always ravin' on.
Stop that. Stop that now.
I alway liked Heroes of Might and Magic IV.
Of course, it's the only one I played. But watching a stack of clerics pimp slap dragons to death was funny.
Heroes of Might and Magic 3 is Master Race. Love and embrace it as the best or GTFO.
:P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stop that. Stop that now.I don't get what's so friggin' special about the Tengu.They're nothing to crow about, true. Always ravin' on.
Caw!