i know that i just talking from a role play perspective not "roll" playThat's a Perception Skill thing. If you're not trained in Perception your results won't be dependable anyway.or...OR why do you need to have that 18 why cant you work with the 12 or 13 and make your character smarter....i know have min maxed for PFS but i try to act like i should if i have a low wis or int, not stupid mind you just if i have a 7 wis i would not be able to see much of anything in the dark or with a 7 int i would try not to sound like a astrophysicistBetter yet, give them 5 more points, but say you dont get back points for dumping..i don't really like minmax as when a player puts 3 stats to 7 just so they can max the others, and still want to rp like they have a 18 int /cha.Then stop using point-buy.
No you're not. I know dozens of foolish people with amazing eyes and ears.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No matter how much shoe polish you apply to it, a turd is still a turd.There are no "trap options". (well maybe some errors like "Prone shooter"). As long as you understand them and they fit your character concept, then they are not a trap.I think there's a special layer in the Abyss dedicated to game designers who implement "trap options" in 3.x D&D and PFRPG.
I regularly fall for trap options, which might explain the above sentence.
True...but every once in a while what you need is fertilizer.
There are no "trap options". (well maybe some errors like "Prone shooter"). As long as you understand them and they fit your character concept, then they are not a trap.I think there's a special layer in the Abyss dedicated to game designers who implement "trap options" in 3.x D&D and PFRPG.
I regularly fall for trap options, which might explain the above sentence.
There are no 'mysteries,' so long as you understand everything.
|
|
True...but every once in a while what you need is fertilizer.No matter how much shoe polish you apply to it, a turd is still a turd.There are no "trap options". (well maybe some errors like "Prone shooter"). As long as you understand them and they fit your character concept, then they are not a trap.I think there's a special layer in the Abyss dedicated to game designers who implement "trap options" in 3.x D&D and PFRPG.
I regularly fall for trap options, which might explain the above sentence.
On your foot? No thanks, I'll take a shoe.
Monte Cook specifically called out the "Timmy Cards" as being completely intentional. Given that so many of them exist in Pathfinder, I have to assume they are following that (horrible) design paradigm.
Isn't the "things I would change about Pathfinder" thread down the street?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monte Cook specifically called out the "Timmy Cards" as being completely intentional. Given that so many of them exist in Pathfinder, I have to assume they are following that (horrible) design paradigm.
I'm not a Magic player, but my understanding of the reference is that "Timmy Cards" aren't traps -- they are just big, flashy, and hard to set up. Not just situationally useful, but situationally awesome. So if you use them, it is just incumbent upon you to understand how to make sure you can get in those situations.
As opposed to a "trap" which would be useless in all conceivable circumstances. There may be some of those in 3.x/PF, but they are not intentional.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Too many rules. This game has some great characters, settings, visuals, and storylines. When I GM, I ignore as many detailed, extensive rules as possible. My group does not mind at all. They like taking on the roles of other people, not math.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are no 'mysteries,' so long as you understand everything.There are no "trap options". (well maybe some errors like "Prone shooter"). As long as you understand them and they fit your character concept, then they are not a trap.I think there's a special layer in the Abyss dedicated to game designers who implement "trap options" in 3.x D&D and PFRPG.
I regularly fall for trap options, which might explain the above sentence.
Pretty much. With sufficient system mastery there are no trap options.
Without it, there are things that look good, but really aren't. Whether those are intentional or things the designers didn't understand is another question. There are certainly some options that combined with other options to be better than the developers expected.
Just because you make your spot check doesn't mean it isn't a trap.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Better yet, give them 5 more points, but say you dont get back points for dumping..i don't really like minmax as when a player puts 3 stats to 7 just so they can max the others, and still want to rp like they have a 18 int /cha.Then stop using point-buy.
I prefer this method myself.
Generally speaking I don't dump as long as I have a 25 PB unless I'm going for something ludicrously MAD (like, absolutely needs 5 stats at 14+ to function MAD).
It feels nice, since I hate having to dump Cha just to get a decent Int and Wis. I hate not having at least a 12 Int on most characters.
I've noticed my players are much the same way, they're less inclined to dump (even though I don't forbid it!) with a 25 PB rather than 20. That extra little bit of wiggle room counts for a lot.
When I learned PFRPG some years ago, I didn't understand the benefit of some feats. I thought them sub-par to the point of absurdity.
I berated myself for not understanding what these feats were good for.
I doubted my intelligence (the horror ;-) !)
Then I understood while reading the forums that those ugly feats were "trap options", and intentionnaly so.
I'm sure there's a tiny island in Limbo infested with Mythic pugwampis who harass those lost gamers who deny the existence of trap options in PFRPG :-P.
I don't understand "trap options", except where it specifically refers to real traps.. lol
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monte Cook specifically called out the "Timmy Cards" as being completely intentional. Given that so many of them exist in Pathfinder, I have to assume they are following that (horrible) design paradigm.
Not really. People take that entirely out of context. Nor does Monte design for Paizo.
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2498/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-d ay-ivory-tower-design
"It raises some very important points, but over the years I’m afraid I’ve come to find it deeply annoying because whenever somebody links to it or quotes from it, I can almost guarantee you that they’re about to completely misrepresent the essay’s entire point.
What Cook basically says in the essay is, “Instead of just giving people a big toolbox full of useful tools, we probably should have included more instructions on when those tools are useful and how they can be used to best effect.”
But the vast majority of people quoting the essay instead snip some variant of “we wanted to reward mastery of the game” out of context and then go ape-shit because D&D3 deliberately included “traps” for new players.
The methods of selective quoting vary, but they all basically look something like this:
“Toughness [is] not the best choice of feat.”
OMG! WHY WOULD THEY INCLUDE A SUCKY FEAT LIKE THAT?
There are two problems with this.
First, the full quote is actually, “Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it’s not the best choice of feat.” And then the essay goes on to further clarify its meaning: “To continue to use the simplistic example above, the Toughness feat could have been written to make it clear that it was for 1st-level elf wizards (where it is likely to give them a 100 percent increase in hit points). It’s also handy when you know you’re playing a one-shot session with 1st-level characters, like at a convention (you sure don’t want to take item creation feats in such an instance, for example).”
In other words, Toughness is a special purpose tool. When used properly, it’s a useful tool. When used improperly, it’s a wasted feat slot. The designers felt like people should be smart enough to figure that out for themselves, but the point of Cook’s essay is that it probably would have been better to include more usage guidelines."
Better yet, give them 5 more points, but say you dont get back points for dumping..i don't really like minmax as when a player puts 3 stats to 7 just so they can max the others, and still want to rp like they have a 18 int /cha.Then stop using point-buy.I prefer this method myself.
Generally speaking I don't dump as long as I have a 25 PB unless I'm going for something ludicrously MAD (like, absolutely needs 5 stats at 14+ to function MAD).
It feels nice, since I hate having to dump Cha just to get a decent Int and Wis. I hate not having at least a 12 Int on most characters.
I've noticed my players are much the same way, they're less inclined to dump (even though I don't forbid it!) with a 25 PB rather than 20. That extra little bit of wiggle room counts for a lot.
Look, Rynjin and i agree yet again! A sure sign of the apocalypse! ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think we disagree on quite as many things as it seems, it's just the two or three things we do disagree on we REALLY disagree on (which, IIRC, is Alignment, the weakness of the Rogue, and trap options). =)
Monte Cook specifically called out the "Timmy Cards" as being completely intentional. Given that so many of them exist in Pathfinder, I have to assume they are following that (horrible) design paradigm.I'm not a Magic player, but my understanding of the reference is that "Timmy Cards" aren't traps -- they are just big, flashy, and hard to set up. Not just situationally useful, but situationally awesome. So if you use them, it is just incumbent upon you to understand how to make sure you can get in those situations.
As opposed to a "trap" which would be useless in all conceivable circumstances. There may be some of those in 3.x/PF, but they are not intentional.
DrDeth copy-pasted some of it, but I have the whole passage saved on Wordpress. 'Timmy' cards are explained here, and then discussed in more detail here. From the first article:
Each set, R&D makes sure to design a certain number of cards for Timmy. Timmy cards, as we call them, tend to be big creatures or spells with big effects. In general, Timmy cards are exciting but not too economical.
Better yet, give them 5 more points, but say you don't get back points for dumping..i don't really like minmax as when a player puts 3 stats to 7 just so they can max the others, and still want to rp like they have a 18 int /cha.Then stop using point-buy.
The Grey Lawyers of the Outlands can come and force a rebuild. No stat below 9 unless you are a mutant. It's a really high save and they keep coming back.
I am afraid of bunnies
Big Flemish Giants give me the willies
Beware The cuteness.
The Grey Lawyers of the Outlands can come and force a rebuild. No stat below 9 unless you are a mutant. It's a really high save and they keep coming back.Better yet, give them 5 more points, but say you don't get back points for dumping..i don't really like minmax as when a player puts 3 stats to 7 just so they can max the others, and still want to rp like they have a 18 int /cha.Then stop using point-buy.
We once had a dwarf barb with 6 INT/ 9 CHA try that. We needed information about the location of a goblin village, so he walked into the middle of the park and said to a nice looking woman "Excuse me, but could you tell us anything about a nearby goblin village?"
And the GM said: "Alright, so he walks up to the woman, swings his axe over his head and says "RRRAAAARRGHHHGRRGAAGHRGARGHARGAHR"
The Grey Lawyers of the Outlands can come and force a rebuild. No stat below 9 unless you are a mutant. It's a really high save and they keep coming back.Better yet, give them 5 more points, but say you don't get back points for dumping..i don't really like minmax as when a player puts 3 stats to 7 just so they can max the others, and still want to rp like they have a 18 int /cha.Then stop using point-buy.We once had a dwarf barb with 6 INT/ 9 CHA try that. We needed information about the location of a goblin village, so he walked into the middle of the park and said to a nice looking woman "Excuse me, but could you tell us anything about a nearby goblin village?"
And the GM said: "Alright, so he walks up to the woman, swings his axe over his head and says "RRRAAAARRGHHHGRRGAAGHRGARGHARGAHR"
"Ah yes, here we have the Controlling GM making a vibrant display of dominance, no doubt endeavoring to shun his troopmates into bending to his will.
No, no, everyone found it funny, especially the barbarian. It became a running joke eventually.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I prefer having the player roll the check first, then telling me what they say afterward.
If they roll good, it comes out as eloquent and convincing.
If not, they get to come up with a reason why they flubbed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad to hear everyone enjoyed the scene. That doesn't change the fact the GM changed what the player did of his own volition.
Now the GM was certainly entitled to have the player roll the relevant social skill to gauge the woman's reaction, but the characters action is the player's job and his alone.
We were at that point where the GM knows us well enough to pull things like that. We had that level of trust. I wouldn't have mentioned it as story without some complaining if it was bad. We still remember that and laugh. If you guys react so strongly to possible GM controlling when it isn't even your game and we're all happy, just wow.
We were at that point where the GM knows us well enough to pull things like that. We had that level of trust. I wouldn't have mentioned it as story without some complaining if it was bad. We still remember that and laugh. If you guys react so strongly to possible GM controlling when it isn't even your game and we're all happy, just wow.I'm glad to hear everyone enjoyed the scene. That doesn't change the fact the GM changed what the player did of his own volition.
Now the GM was certainly entitled to have the player roll the relevant social skill to gauge the woman's reaction, but the characters action is the player's job and his alone.
Yeah, I think the table's expectation is the point. In that game the latter bolded statement may not be the case. (I've played in games where the player actions are sometimes determined by the DM - it's not my preferred style, but it's not wrong).
I don't think the content of a book is the same content as a PDF of that book.
The Grey Lawyers of the Outlands can come and force a rebuild. No stat below 9 unless you are a mutant. It's a really high save and they keep coming back.Better yet, give them 5 more points, but say you don't get back points for dumping..i don't really like minmax as when a player puts 3 stats to 7 just so they can max the others, and still want to rp like they have a 18 int /cha.Then stop using point-buy.We once had a dwarf barb with 6 INT/ 9 CHA try that. We needed information about the location of a goblin village, so he walked into the middle of the park and said to a nice looking woman "Excuse me, but could you tell us anything about a nearby goblin village?"
And the GM said: "Alright, so he walks up to the woman, swings his axe over his head and says "RRRAAAARRGHHHGRRGAAGHRGARGHARGAHR"
And a dog pointed to the goblin village with it's nose. :)
I don't think the content of a book is the same content as a PDF of that book.
Which one has the Easter eggs?
That's too clever for me. :(
If it hurts your brain let massage them for you... So deliciously tender...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it hurts your brain let massage them for you... So deliciously tender...
such a tiny snak........
;-)
If it hurts your brain let massage them for you... So deliciously tender...such a tiny snak........
;-)
Did you just use improper grammar and a misspelled word to infer that someone else was dumb? Even as a joke, the subtext of that is pretty humorous.
Based on your previous posts I've seen, Doc, I'm going with intentional, and for that I must say bravo. *golf clap* Well played satire.
Yeah, I think the table's expectation is the point. In that game the latter bolded statement may not be the case. (I've played in games where the player actions are sometimes determined by the DM - it's not my preferred style, but it's not wrong).We were at that point where the GM knows us well enough to pull things like that. We had that level of trust. I wouldn't have mentioned it as story without some complaining if it was bad. We still remember that and laugh. If you guys react so strongly to possible GM controlling when it isn't even your game and we're all happy, just wow.I'm glad to hear everyone enjoyed the scene. That doesn't change the fact the GM changed what the player did of his own volition.
Now the GM was certainly entitled to have the player roll the relevant social skill to gauge the woman's reaction, but the characters action is the player's job and his alone.
It is wrong. It may also have been harmless, even funny, everyone may have had a blast. But it was still wrong. It's good that no one had hurt feelings. All GMs make mistakes and this time the mistake didn't upset anyone... in fact they had fun with it. But it could have gone so much worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it hurts your brain let massage them for you... So deliciously tender...such a tiny snak........
;-)
Did you just use improper grammar and a misspelled word to infer that someone else was dumb? Even as a joke, the subtext of that is pretty humorous.
Based on your previous posts I've seen, Doc, I'm going with intentional, and for that I must say bravo. *golf clap* Well played satire.
Foghorn Leghorn: "It was a joke, son, a joke."
It is wrong. It may also have been harmless, even funny, everyone may have had a blast. But it was still wrong. It's good that no one had hurt feelings. All GMs make mistakes and this time the mistake didn't upset anyone... in fact they had fun with it. But it could have gone so much worse.Yeah, I think the table's expectation is the point. In that game the latter bolded statement may not be the case. (I've played in games where the player actions are sometimes determined by the DM - it's not my preferred style, but it's not wrong).We were at that point where the GM knows us well enough to pull things like that. We had that level of trust. I wouldn't have mentioned it as story without some complaining if it was bad. We still remember that and laugh. If you guys react so strongly to possible GM controlling when it isn't even your game and we're all happy, just wow.I'm glad to hear everyone enjoyed the scene. That doesn't change the fact the GM changed what the player did of his own volition.
Now the GM was certainly entitled to have the player roll the relevant social skill to gauge the woman's reaction, but the characters action is the player's job and his alone.
Slight correction- it's only wrong without the Player's explicit buy-in. If the group had discussed this sort of behavior in advance and approved it, then it's cool.
I wouldn't have done so, because I could never give up control over my own characters actions, but apparently there are people on these boards totally fine with it.
He was too eloquent for his stats. I agree with what the DM did. The player wanted to do A, but didn't have stats for it, so in his mind A was done, but reality was what DM revealed as B. If this is the case why can't I just say I swiftly scale things with my 8 str 4 armor check penalty character? DM is the narrator, the player is the character from the character's point of view (but y'all metagamuhs fo sho), so as narrator, he describes how it happens.
Didn't want it to happen? Don't dump stat. You want your dump stats, how about you reinforce that any time anyone wants to ever talk to an NPC require a diplomacy check, and just give the DM the gist of what you want. You do that for swimming and climbing, so why not make the whole game rollplaying. Pathfinder is pretty much set up for it anyway.-Confession of a 5e convert that likes spell points and poisoning level 2 players' food.
If it hurts your brain let massage them for you... So deliciously tender...such a tiny snak........
;-)
Did you just use improper grammar and a misspelled word to infer that someone else was dumb? Even as a joke, the subtext of that is pretty humorous.
Based on your previous posts I've seen, Doc, I'm going with intentional, and for that I must say bravo. *golf clap* Well played satire.
As an ex once told me, "I think you meant to say imply."
The Grey Lawyers of the Outlands can come and force a rebuild. No stat below 9 unless you are a mutant. It's a really high save and they keep coming back.Better yet, give them 5 more points, but say you don't get back points for dumping..i don't really like minmax as when a player puts 3 stats to 7 just so they can max the others, and still want to rp like they have a 18 int /cha.Then stop using point-buy.We once had a dwarf barb with 6 INT/ 9 CHA try that. We needed information about the location of a goblin village, so he walked into the middle of the park and said to a nice looking woman "Excuse me, but could you tell us anything about a nearby goblin village?"
And the GM said: "Alright, so he walks up to the woman, swings his axe over his head and says "RRRAAAARRGHHHGRRGAAGHRGARGHARGAHR"
lol this is what im talking about have you ever looked at what is says for the stat reference
18 strength can break wood boards with their hands
18 intelligence is a genius
but on the other hand
6-7 cha
is a brutish jerk with no social skills {this is easy to role play but some people use it as an excuse to play a dick, that's why I have a problem with that}
6-7 wis
the character has no common sense,,
that's I have a problem when people place stats so low just to get that 18...I know that the comparison is just used as a reference but don't roll up a 7,cha wis and int character and tell me that they speak well and have great ideas
know I know even a broken clock is right twice a day but come play the character you rolled up...
and I know some people have an issue with it but me and my friends love to use the critical fail roll a nat 1 even on a skill and we all interpret it as a massive fail lol{and after 3 nat 1 you cut off your leg lol} but I only use this when with a group that is cool with it ^_^
He was too eloquent for his stats. I agree with what the DM did. The player wanted to do A, but didn't have stats for it, so in his mind A was done, but reality was what DM revealed as B. If this is the case why can't I just say I swiftly scale things with my 8 str 4 armor check penalty character? DM is the narrator, the player is the character from...It is wrong. It may also have been harmless, even funny, everyone may have had a blast. But it was still wrong. It's good that no one had hurt feelings. All GMs make mistakes and this time the mistake didn't upset anyone... in fact they had fun with it. But it could have gone so much worse.Yeah, I think the table's expectation is the point. In that game the latter bolded statement may not be the case. (I've played in games where the player actions are sometimes determined by the DM - it's not my preferred style, but it's not wrong).We were at that point where the GM knows us well enough to pull things like that. We had that level of trust. I wouldn't have mentioned it as story without some complaining if it was bad. We still remember that and laugh. If you guys react so strongly to possible GM controlling when it isn't even your game and we're all happy, just wow.I'm glad to hear everyone enjoyed the scene. That doesn't change the fact the GM changed what the player did of his own volition.
Now the GM was certainly entitled to have the player roll the relevant social skill to gauge the woman's reaction, but the characters action is the player's job and his alone.
Slight correction- it's only wrong without the Player's explicit buy-in. If the group had discussed this sort of behavior in advance and approved it, then it's cool.
I wouldn't have done so, because I could never give up control over my own characters actions, but apparently there are people on these boards totally fine with it.
this I don't care what you say you did you have a 6 int and a 8 cha if you roll high on diplomacy ok, but your default setting is dumb brute so that's what will come out when you speak
lol
but when someone get really upset ill be lenient...to a point
Lots of "wrongbadfun" in here all of a sudden. ^_^Anybody who knows me would know that I'm usually the target of the whole roleplaying not rollplaying Shpiel. I thought it might be fun to throw it back at the sort of person who uses it.
To each his own I guess this is not a topic for debate but one of opinion ^_^
Well to me and my rl group when we read the Stat reference for when a player has a intelligence if 6-7 (dull-witted or slow, often misuses and mispronounced words)
And that's from the paizo core book so we used that as a reference point for how a character can sound / act with a stat that is low
Or when you have a intelligence of 18 your a genius
So that would be your default role play setting as you talk with out a skill roll. So if a player dose make a skill check and rolls high yes even with a low stat they sound/do what they say how that state it.
So even if you have a 18+stat and roll low you sound/act as the gm decided how badly you fail by. So with a natural 1 , even on a skill check of trying to be stealthy natural 1 you stomp around, or nat 1 on diplomacy you scream or burp into the npcs face lol
Well to me and my rl group when we read the Stat reference for when a player has a intelligence if 6-7 (dull-witted or slow, often misuses and mispronounced words)
And that's from the paizo core book so we used that as a reference point for how a character can sound / act with a stat that is low
Or when you have a intelligence of 18 your a genius
So that would be your default role play setting as you talk with out a skill roll. So if a player dose make a skill check and rolls high yes even with a low stat they sound/do what they say how that state it.
So even if you have a 18+stat and roll low you sound/act as the gm decided how badly you fail by. So with a natural 1 , even on a skill check of trying to be stealthy natural 1 you stomp around, or nat 1 on diplomacy you scream or burp into the npcs face lol
adding to this you can't have a strength score of 8 and say you look like a body builder