Vampire Lord

ExOichoThrow's page

166 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 166 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been clear this entire time that I do t think anyone should be FORCED to take poison. Yet multiple people have insisted on talking down to me as if I'm requesting that GMs take you by the hand the to coat it. It's absolutely dishonest and frankly downright pathetic.

but I think that unless you have a good reason , you're a bad teammate and that its unkind as a player if you dont have a legitimate one or arent willing to make concessions for your teammates for the sake of the mission. If you were actually in a joint effort to commence an operation where everyone's life is at risk you absolutely do owe it to your allies to explain yourself when denying your entire party an advantage---you are quite literally reducing chances of success and therefore survival, so you had better have a reason.

Teams should absolutely be making compromises for the sake of a missions success, not saying things like "yeah but it's my right to refuse". Of course it is. It just makes you stupid and selfish in 90% of the cases.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
TOZ wrote:
What if I just don’t want to use it?
Unless you fill out the 'why I don't want to use poison' essay in triplicate, it seems some would find it a personal insult to the poison creating character... Clearly it's a dastardly plot if a group of players don't want poison... :P

So does misrepresenting people's stances in an attempt to ridicule them make you feel better about life or what's the deal?

TwilightKnight wrote:
ExOichoThrow wrote:
It's a team game and you're outright refusing to take advantage of a teammate's primary ability for reasons you can't even explain in-lore.
That may to true for some, but not all. I can only speak for myself and say that I have thought about this issue thoroughly and have very clear reasoning for my paladin. If you don’t agree with his logic, that’s an entirely different matter. And since my other characters are fine with poison, including my LG healer cleric of Sarenrae, it is clearly not a player issue.

Sure. If you can think of a specific in-character reason that's fine. But when its entire tables of diverse classes coming up with that reason, it's clearly something else going on.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
I have seen plenty of players who don’t care about the people they play with, yes. Usually by demanding the others do what they say, such as using poison when they don’t want to.

Alright you should go play and refuse all buffs and heals from clerics! Those bastards expect to use their divine fonts and spell slots on other people.. how selfish of them.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

haha reading the replies makes me glad I never looked into PFS. You guys don't care about playing with other people apparently. It's a team game and you're outright refusing to take advantage of a teammate's primary ability for reasons you can't even explain in-lore. As for it being complicated, it's really not. You just ask the details or let him answer any questions about the poison. It takes maybe 10 seconds and he's probably giving you the same poison the whole night, so it's easy to remember.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Getting a bit lost in the weeds, so this will be my last comment on this, but part of what I'm saying is that I can't imagine calling a character an Archer or a Warpriest and not be talking about a particular sack of mechanics.
I mean, this is definitely a personal level choice though. Theres nothing "wrong" with in-setting/in-character referring to my Angel-Summoner as a priest or Cleric, and its not even a terribly inaccurate description of the characters background, role, and abilities.

Never said it wasn't a personal choice.

Which is why I'm slightly bemused that so many are interpreting my own personal preferences and choices as me telling them what they can and can't do, while they at the same time imply that I am playing the game wrong if I don't make the same choices as them.

I think the confusion is that you keep acknowledging that it's solely a personal choice but keep arguing against it when you're unlikely to sway anyone involved and all parties seem to realize that. I might be totally wrong-- it's just my read of things.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The problem is that the poison DCs don't scale and that their damage and effects don't scale, either. I mean, I guess they do, but they aren't as fluid or approachable as, say, proficiencies, which is the DC these things are meant to go against. So, you'll have plenty of levels where you're doing jack all unless the bad guys roll a 2 on their save (though even then if the DCs are up to snuff, but that's a system issue and not a scaling issue).

Toxicologist fixes this. And is otherwise a pretty solid research field, really, given that there's a Poison Bomb.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Not to mention, handiness and action economy. It takes an action to draw a poison (and a free hand, so if you're holding, say, a couple bombs, something's gotta go), an action to apply said poison to a weapon (or ammunition, though this can be done in bulk before combat, so it should last an entire encounter otherwise), which has to be adjacent to you, or also in your hand (referring which then leaves you an action to maybe deliver the poison with a strike, or move into position to do so next round? It's no less clunky than drinking potions or using bombs in combat. It's just awful, even with investments to help negate these drawbacks.

As Captain Morgan notes, I said 'before the fight' and did so for a reason. The good way for an Alchemist to leverage poisons is for everyone to get their weapons poisoned between fights. The poison will just sit there until used, after all, and is free (this is prohibitively expensive to do with non-free poison). This means that every combat a number of on-level poisons equal to the number of weapon users in the PC group will probably be used for a cost of 0 actions during the fight.

That's a fairly hefty damage buff to a party.

ironically people complain about the lack of an ability to buff up before a fight, but also completely ignore alchemist, who is arguably the best at buffing their party before a fight. Especially in early game where you don't have to worry about having magic weapons yet, having backup weapons that are poisoned are really strong.

Innominat wrote:

We don't generally consider people poisoning rats in their house to be evil, but we do generally consider people punching non-consenting adults to be evil.

The biggest ethical question is "can you control the damage"? With punching, someone can surrender and you can stop punching them. With poison, if they surrender, can you stop the poison? If no, then it could end up killing someone who surrendered, which would be murder and an evil act. That is why canonically paladins were prohibited from using poison in some D&D editions.

i guess paladins shouldn't use daggers ever? after all if they crit / have crit specialization they can make somebody bleed.

This also means they have no excuse to use non-lethal poisons like lethargy poison, for example.

edit: in fact, champions can access domains of their deities. Would a champion truly never use fire ray because they could accidentally kill them with a crit and light them on fire?

It seems silly and people are only applying this logic to poison because of their own subconscious biases.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
ExOichoThrow wrote:
Imagine playing a buffing character and all your spells that would be a net positive for the party are refused by other players. Sure you cant force them but anyone who's not a complete jerk would make somevoncessions for things that would help the other player have fun. Especially if it helps keep them alive, too.

Imagine respecting the wishes of other people.

Imagine asking people first.

Imagine bringing along a self-sufficient character for those times nobody wants you in their character actualization.


Look, I obviously understand that a Cleric's healing is going to be appreciated almost universally.

But the point here is that the OP learned a valuable lesson, which is: you need to ask first, instead of just assume your contributions will be appreciated or even accepted.

The thing to watch out for is player entitlement - the notion that you have a right to be offended when your help is turned down. You actually don't have that right. You should always ask politely, and if you get a polite "thanks but no thanks" reply, you should be prepared to play your character without relying on boosting others.

This is just common sense.

Nah, maybe this is ok with PFS type people but in any real teamwork setting this logic is insanely toxic. It's not entitlement to want to be able to use your abilities in a game that explicitly says you can use those abilities. God forbid somebody wants to play a support character! Oh wait you're actually fine with support characters you're just using this logic specifically for poisons which has no in universe basis at all.

Look, I'm not saying a GM should force somebody to let themselves be buffed in any certain way. But undeniably in my opinion anyone who straight up refuses to let a person play their character style (and yes, supporting as an alchemist poisoner is an explicit part of the game) is a detriment to their table and also a completely socially unaware tool.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

Hello everyone,

I've had a recurring problem lately: I play an Alchemist in PFS, and poison is one of her main tools. As such, at the beginning of sessions, I ask who has piercing/slashing weapons so I can poison them. And I got a lot of players/characters straight up refusing poison. Even a Rogue...

You can't force your abilities onto other players.

If you keep having this experience, play something else.

PS. To answer your question, no, poison isn't evil. It's neutral. That still isn't a great argument to foist your abilities onto other players.

Please accept that "but I need you to accept this for my build to be effective" isn't a good argument. If your build relies on having others do something they don't want to do, then don't play that build.

Imagine playing a buffing character and all your spells that would be a net positive for the party are refused by other players. Sure you cant force them but anyone who's not a complete jerk would make somevoncessions for things that would help the other player have fun. Especially if it helps keep them alive, too.

Dishonorable I could see. I don't think Mora's have anything to do with it.

Worst comes to worst poison your own crossbows and get quick draw so you can shoot and drop

13 people marked this as a favorite.

If your definition of functional is "peak performance" no game with any amount of character customization and meaningful choice will ever be good enough for you

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Henro wrote:
Why is Acute Scent so important to people and what does it have to do with the power level of casters?!
1st level feat trouncing low to mid level invisibility/sneaking spells and illusionary spells.

weren't you the one saying it was useless though?

how can that be? I'm posting

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The OP apparently has disappeared, which makes it look like I created the thread. Is there a way to edit the thread title or re-add the OP's context?

I think it changes the tone of the thread greatly that the OP has disappeared.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
"Someone could theoretically build a 7th level NPC that invalidates my first level feat choice" is still a bad argument.
What makes it a bad argument? That it's theoretical? Not at my tables, it's not, and I'm pretty sure my tables aren't the only ones, either. That it takes 7+ levels and a specialized build for a creature to counter it? This is like complaining that your 1st level Color Spray spell doesn't work on the big bad that's an Undead, or that you can't Power Attack a creature that's flying because you have to use a bow instead.

It's a bad argument because you're using it to say that Scent isn't useful. That's like saying Color Spray is a bad 1st level spell solely because it won't work on undead, or that melee attacks are useless because flying creatures exist.

Nobody claimed it was an auto-win 100% of the time. They claimed it usually worked and was quite useful. A rare theoretical build that counters that does not change this fact, and yet that's exactly what you seem to be claiming. That the existence of a way around it makes it useless.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
How dare a GM make adversity and obstacles in NPCs that require out-of-box thinking and problem solving. For reals, I might as well make the PCs 20th level and throw Level -21 creatures at them because I dare use their same tools against them to make interesting or dynamic encounters that aren't easy or predictable.

Using the system to create occasional obstacles the players must be clever to overcome is fine, but for scent to not be useful, you'd have to start giving all your Stealth using villains Foil Senses...and that's not creating fun, clever, puzzles any more it's a mean spirited move that makes an ability a player invested in no longer useful.

So there are two options here:

#1: You use Foil Senses only occasionally. In this case, your argument is bad because scent is still


You come off very adversarial and full of yourself when you make these statements, and I just wanted to let you know in case you weren't aware I.E "said nobody ever" "its a useless ability" "How DARE the GM give you obstacles" etc.

Also, if you perceive the zombies in another room while you're raging because of your scent, your rage wouldn't end because you're perceiving the zombies. That makes it very useful.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually think gaining imprecise scent can be game changing and very interesting. Please don't speak for everyone ever!

I confirm, please delete!

I'd like my forum account deleted

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I think they need to make more feats to specialize into the schools. I just don't know how they can do it. Maybe make more focus spells based on that and give options. Like multiple choices of focus spells per school.

I think wizard is balanced but i think the lack of specialization does suck.

^ Where can i go to delete my account or get somebody else to delete it?

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Whenever i read these threads it feels like im discussing pf2 with people who want to play pathfinder 1.5

They will list that casters are weaker, give specific reasons, and then if you try to point out that class balance is affected by OTHER reasons, they will say you're misrepresenting them or arguing dishonestly.

I'm honestly getting really close to no longer bothering with these forums. In play, casters feel very balanced in my opinion and I and other people have brought up tons of reasons. This reminds me of video game forums like WoW where people just whine for buffs even if their class is performing fine, solely out of greed or a misunderstanding of the game.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It'll be an eastern themed book. Not sure of the title.

Samurai - WIS based class that has proficiency with martial and advanced weapons. Uses abilities as "reads" that gives insight into their opponents and allows them to make attacks that deal extra precision damage while making perception checks. Can ignore concealed/hidden conditions because of prediction and reads.

Can choose subclasses to focus on archery, spears, or swords.

Shinobi- Proficient with specific weapons that have the Shinobi trait, Is about having specific ninja tools. The tools themselves are feats/features and the shinobi makes a few per day.

Could also be a rogue subclass but could have enough specific flavor to be its own thing.

Sage- A mystical spontaneous caster (4 slot progression similar to summoner or magus) that uses meditation and calmness to channel inner power. Could potentially be a monk subclass. High emphasis on focus spells, refocusing in battle through various meditation styles. Always of sound mind. Maybe has specific abilities to help allies remain calm and give bonuses to emotional effects. Could also have stances. I think a stance based spellcaster could be very interesting.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aramil halfelven wrote:

For myself, this all boils down to a frustration with the Vancian magic system. The limitation is too great or at least *feels* too great. The greatest modern innovation in tabletop rpgs to combat this? Cantrips that you can cast at will.

The ability to cast scalable cantrips doesn't offset this. Balance gets talked about a lot. However, I don't think this is a problem of balance. It's about human psychology. The feel of it. Maybe, mathematically speaking, casters are balanced. But it doesn't matter if they're not enjoyable.

I remember playing pillars of eternity where the Cipher class could cast more spells as he damaged opponents. Mathematically, he would be objectively weaker as he had to roll to hit with a physical attack and then roll to hit with his spells but the freedom of not having limited spells felt great. It's about feeling not maths.

But Balance is a far easier metric to analyze than fun.

I love vancian magic and find the limits to be the reason i enjoy playing the game. I wouldn't want to play a spellcaster that didn't have the spellcasting limits in the game now.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
ExOichoThrow wrote:
If you're too afraid if using your consumables and you're a hoarder, that's your own mindset getting in the way of using tools. It's not the games fault if you're afraid of using items because they're consumable.

It's the games fault if you NEED them to keep up: if it's just to get you to the starting line, it's an issue. For instance, with the summoner playtest, if I need scrolls to get my low level buffs and utility spells, I consider the class a failure from the start. I have no intention to buy/keep consumables: the "tools" should be available in non-breakable forms if they want everyone to use them.

And to be clear, it's not "afraid to use them" but not literally throwing money away that could go to buy a permanent "tool".

the tools are available in non breakable forms. You can literally buy a wand or a staff.

You're not spending the money on weapon runes presumably as a caster, so you have lots of money to throw around. Whether or not you like the design is up to you, but it's objectively very balanced.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Its laughable that people think scrolls arent powerful. It sucks that you cant get runes to increase spell attack accuracy but consumables like scrolls especially at early levels are very affordable.

If you're too afraid if using your consumables and you're a hoarder, that's your own mindset getting in the way of using tools. It's not the games fault if you're afraid of using items because they're consumable.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A new domain spell is a new ability, and any new ability that would give a focus pool gives you a focus point. So it definitely gives one IMO.

It'd be weird to me if dancing didn't allow movement. It's not hard at all for a dancer to move 5 feet while dancing. In fact.. in many cases it'd be weird if they didnt.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really dislike that Paizo isn't commenting on this, but I also don't think it would make a massive difference if they released one to be honest. an errata would be nice but its not like it's affecting my group's games.

It does. Hopefully they add a skill feat or something along those lines that lets you avoid the penalty, as there are lots of technical ways to trip somebody while being prone. They could even maybe add sweep techniques while prone to end up on top of somebody, maybe it could be a monk thing.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Blake's Tiger wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Frankly, I'm surprised that people are so surprised. Unlike the alleged "majority" the "in this book" text did not go unnoticed by any of my friends or I.

I even posted about it, spreading the good word to others long before the ignorant made it into a big issue.

from the common spells on the divine spell list in this book (page 309) or from other divine spells to which you gain access.
Yes. Your conclusion is perfectly accurate if you ignore the part that comes after your ellipses, which us "ignorant" read as future proofing and to which our GM, OP had ostensibly granted us access in the sanctioning blog.

It seemed pretty clear to me and mine that, that was regarding otherwise restricted spells to which you have Access (typically from a feat, ability, or GM).

Example: Fireball on a cleric of a nature deity.

So you ignored the four rarities in the rulebook, essentially.

"Common elements are prevalent enough, at least among adventurers, that a player is assumed to be able to access them provided they meet the prerequisites (if any)."

There was never any pre-requisite on the common spells from new books that they had to be learned seperately or anything like that. The book itself tells you that by default, you have access to the common spells on your list.

11 people marked this as a favorite.

I dont think 99% of people who read the spellcasting section of clerics and druids would interpret it this way. Its needlessly complicated and frankly seems downright pedantic to even assert that you should have to learn common spells as a cleric/druid.

This is a joke and most people who play will never read the rules this way.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:

The whole problem would have gone away if Paizo had refrained from publishing any material labelled as "common" after the release of the CRB.

It would certainly have been easier to explain if clerics had a "prayer book" of spells, equivalent to a wizard's spell book.

This said, calling it "the most downright silly thing I've ever read" is pure hyperbolae. There are many examples of silly things that would rank higher, at least in my subjective estimation. Starting with non-magical healing in a single action with no hands and no materials.


The intent seemed really obvious to me and everyone I've played with that if it's common, you have access to it by default. This kind of reading of the rules is downright idiotic, to be honest with you. Yes, it specifies that you get the spells at page X of that book. It seems extremely clear that the reason it says that, is because that was the only book that was out as it's the original rulebook.

The team has been extremely clear on most issues like this and you'd have to be a fool in my opinion to actually start limiting clerics/druids in non PFS games. As somebody who was slightly interested in PFS, I now am not.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I haven't seen anything in the rulebooks that says you have to be within intitial range to sustain a spell. Sustaining a spell is not reactivation, it's sustaining. They would have called it reactivation if that's what it was.

Forbidden ward would become a nearly unusable mess if we played by those rules, as that means you have to stay within 30 feet of two different moving targets.

Summons also aren't particularly strong as it is.

Sustaining is very clear. You can't be fatigued, and you have to have a spell with a sustained duration.

"Choose one spell with a sustained duration you have in effect. The duration of that spell continues until the end of your next turn. "

Range isn't mentioned once.

Sorry, could you give me a source on this?

I'm flabbergasted that you would have to learn common spells that aren't in the CRB.

Castilliano wrote:

Having been a wrestler, I can vouch that it's quite difficult to stand up while someone's grappling you. MMA fights seem to confirm this. Sometimes neither fighter can stand if they're both grappling each other. You kind of have to escape first, or stand up as part of an escape. In game, the latter may blur the distinct actions mechanically, but it works as a narrative.

It's easy, especially in a game w/ giants & dragons, to imagine exceptions, but PF2 mechanics also suggest a comparable level of competency if one creature has succeeded at grappling another. Lucky grapplers can quickly be shaken off.

My problem with this is that I'm also a wrestler. If somebody ever tried to grapple me with a single hand theres zero chance I'd be unable to move or unable to stand up. If grappling did more or took more actions or required more to do, I could see it. But a single free hand would never stop any resisting adult from that kind of movement.

I'm not even sure what move would be implied to do with a single hand. A single underhook? Wrist control? It's weird.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
richienvh wrote:

I don’t know if this was aimed at me, but I agree with you.

Me apologizing, even though I never engaged in any of the behaviors you mentioned was just an attempt at moving forward in the exact manner you mentioned. Sorry if that seemed like attempting to change anything. Didn’t mean to silence, nor invalidate anyone

Now it's my turn to apologize, LOL. I was replying to Skyler.

It would seem incredibly unrealistic and puzzling to me to not be able to stand up because somebody is grappling you.

Granted, the rules for grappling are already kind of weird so i guess it makes sense.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
And yet a GM can, and would, say "This is my [insert name of published adventure here] campaign" if they used any of the published adventure, or even just kind of based their adventure on it... or once I played in a "Temple of Elemental Evil" campaign wherein the only thing the GM had actually used was the title and the maps, with every other detail changed.

Are you seriously going t sit here and argue that even though you actively chose not to play what was in the AP, you still played an AP?

Just admit you said something a bit silly and move on. It's a nonsensical argument.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
HammerJack wrote:
"True Strike fixes spell attacks" is honestly a weird position when you have spell lists that include attack roll spells and don't include True Strike.

Yeah, it's a very puzzling position. Does that mean they think spell lists without true strike should just never be used for spell attacks?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rushniyamat wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
The same could be said of a few more of the spells in the game that involve attack rolls because they also bring saving throws into the mix (specifically tanglefoot, but also ray of enfeeblement and disintegrate since those are attack+save spells).
Given that these are all single target it's a disadvantage rather than an advantage, since the spell needs to get through two...

Actually, the text of Disintegrate doesn't note that you need to hit: "You fire a green ray at your target. Make a spell attack. You deal 12d10 damage, and the target must attempt a basic Fortitude save. On critical hit, treat the save result as one degree worse" (CRB page 330).

The attack trait added to the spell in the errata doesn't change it too because it only says you need to roll against an AC.

Edit: Ray of Enfeeblement's text do note that you have to succeed in order to cause the target to save. I am not sure which of these spells need an erreta (but I hope Ray of Enfeeblement does) ;).

I would bet money that you have to hit the spell attack on disintegrate for it to have any kind of effect.

The Raven Black wrote:

My take on the Neutral tenets :

. You must never perform acts anathema to your deity.

. You must never put your own needs before those of your deity. You must never knowingly harm an innocent unless doing so furthers the goals of your deity.

Taking from both Good and Evil tenets without forbidding aligned acts, and putting your deity's goals above anything else. No need for protecting innocents but also no need for oppressing them. And no talk of "your master" because it smacks too much of Evil.

It's so simple that its genius.

I definitely think potency runes should apply to spell attacks. A simple fix is to be able to put the runes on spell focuses for example a cleric having a rune on their holy book/symbol

1 person marked this as a favorite.

this discussion about tanking is becoming a bit pedantic, don't you guys think? In actual play a person who's tanky is immediately identifiable, and a lot of this discussion is based on perception of the meaning of "tank".

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Man, I WISH knowing somebody well meant i could predict everything they would do to such a high degree of accuracy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrimsonKnight wrote:
Rude_ wrote:
Aside from a tinker/artificer type thing, what other class trope hasn't been done?

Lore master

Monster tamer/maker or becoming a monster

ones paizo will probobly never do
Spell weaver (make your own spells)
puppet master (control hoards of minions) GM territory slow down the game too much

Loremaster is an archetype isnt it?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
I think Old_Man_Robot emphasized it best in his #2. The action economy debate keeps being filled with feelings. (In a non-mean way) I don't care about y'alls feelings. Feelings do not belong in serious, mechanics affecting, debates.

I mean, we're talking about a game. Whether something feels engaging and fun for the people participating in it is the most important thing. Otherwise why are you even playing it? To say feelings don't matter is absurd. They're, ultimately, the only thing that matter.

Yeah, they're subjective, but... so what? The whole conversation is subjective. Even supposedly objective balance standards are based on subjective assessments on which criteria we should use as balancing points and what games should look like. Hell, the only reason balance is even such an important topic to begin with is because people decided that a well balanced game feels better than one that isn't.

there's a difference between measuring objective metrics to provide the best feelings, and measuring subjective "feeling" metrics and then adjusting based on those.

Game design theories and concepts dont just go off raw feelings, because it's not measurable and therefore not really reliable long term.

I think Blends would actually fit.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
ExOichoThrow wrote:

I'm not confused at all. Popularity doesnt equal good, but things dont become popular without any merit to them. Honestly you sound like a condescending hipster.

Things dont become popular for no reason. Even if they're popular because they're overrated theres some merit to why they became popular in the first place.

You just said "Popularity doesn't equal good, but things don't become popular without being particularly good or worthy"

I am assuming you meant a word other than merit?

Popularity always exists for a reason, but things don't always become popular because they have merit to them. Human history has shown this time and time again with damaging medical treatments (zero merit), cults and even fad tools/hardware.

You actually just reworded my sentence to mean something else. Having some merits doesnt necessarily mean something is good. It means it has SOME good things about it. I feel like you're going out of your way to misinterpret what I'm saying.

By the way, cults as one of the examples you used they get popular because they DO have merits to them. They usually have strong communities, bonding etc. That doesnt mean they're overall good, either. The world isnt black and white.

I wont bother replying again because this feels disingenuous and focused on semantic.

Verzen wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Verzen wrote:
MAP and 3 action econ prevents that brokenness with pounce.

I wasn't speaking specifically on that making return, so much as I was pointing out that people will push the folds of "Customization" to derive results that are, well, broken/unbalanced/weird (the example isn't even OP if I remember, because the dang thing exploded in one hit).


Creature type (pick a creature type from this list)
Pick 2 attack types. b/p/s(1d8 dmg), b/p/s(1d6 ranged), b/p/s/energy(agile and 1d4 ranged or melee)
Resistance. (Gain 1/2 level resistance)
Pick monster ability (1/5/10/15/20) (list of various active abilities such as breath attack)
Pick monster resistance (3/7/11/17) (essentially what your monster type gets in the bestiary locked behind level)

This alone would make it infinitely more customizable without the broken crunch of 1e.

See this falls into the same trap though.

It should be something like this:

Select a Creature type:

Dragon, Angel, Beast, Spirit

Choose two attack types that have the same trait as the creature type:

Claws [Dragon][Beast][Spirit]
Weapon [Spirit][Angel]
Bite [Dragon][Beast]
Horns [Beast][Dragon]

and so on and so forth with the other options.

Basically, print the options sure, but they need to be limited to who you can actually add them to and that will provide a little more structure to prevent the "fringe building" that can occur with total customization.

Think of it as a compromise for the sake of balance, less confusion, and less choice paralysis.

I entirely disagree. If I want a storm cloud that has bludgeoning 1d8 for attack, is considered an elemental, has resistance 1/2 level to electricity, and also has 1d4 agile electricity attack and the "monster" ability is an electricity breath attack, I should be able to get that. I don't know why you guys are so hell bent on preventing people from having fun with this class. Nothing would be unbalanced about a modified build-a-bear...

Has it ever occurred to you that people arent trying to prevent others from having fun, but are considering what would be better for the game and ergo for fun for the most amount of people?

You clearly think people disagreeing with you literally directly want to ruin your fun. It's really, really strange.

1 to 50 of 166 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>