J-Gal's page

I wish to get rid of my account, so if someone could close or delete it for me that would be most helpful. Thank you.

Pathfinder Society modules don't use XP, but any regular module or adventure path does. You can just reverse engineer the XP from the CR value but if I was to give a personal recommendation, I find the Adventure Paths to be far more intriguing and thematic than PFS. They also provide a complete adventure that goes up to level 16 or so, so they provide months upon months of entertainment.
But, some people are into PFS. To each his own.

Aasimar- Eh... I get that you need a counterpart to the tiefling but this race doesn't speak to me in any particular way. I suppose an evil aasimar trying to fight his good thoughts might be humorous. 6/10

Tiefling- I actually like tieflings. They are the right amount of unnerving and creepy, while still being human enough to be identifiable. 8/10

Drow- UGH. Just ugh. I've never seen a drow that wasn't either a complete bastard or Drizzt. No middle ground whatsoever and I hate them as player races. There might be a cool new take on them someday but it won't be at my table. 1/10

The Elemental Ones (Ifrit, Slyph, etc.)- I am pretty much neutral towards these. They are pretty okay I guess. 5/10

Tengu- People are really into these but I don't really get it. They're birds. And birds are dumb. 4/10

Kitsune- I'm not into Asian themed stuff. If that makes me an ignorant American then I wear that badge proudly. Sorry. They're foxes. And foxes are dumb. 3/10

Grippli- They're frogs. And frogs are dumb. 4/10

Even more coming soon.

I'm going to go through the races and review them so there will be more fodder for me to be yelled at. My game tonight got cancelled and I'm bored, so why the hell not.

Human- The best race. The idea of a mere human becoming an epic hero is one that will always speak to me. Everyone knows how to play one, and they can be almost anything. 10/10

Elf- I'm not huge on elves but I kind of like them. I would never play one but I get the appeal. Really good when their near-immortality is explored in an honest way. 7/10

Dwarf- I like dwarves. They lend to good roleplaying I find and make for solid, if not mostly similar characters. Plus beards. 8/10

Halfling- I'm a big fan of halflings for the same reasons I'm into humans. Everyone counts the halflings out but they're heroic in their own sense. 9/10

Gnome- The best comic relief race out there. They are the perfect amount of strange. 9/10

Half-elf- It's cool to play someone of two heritages, but so many half-elves might as well just be full human. 7/10

Half-orc- Could be a really tragic character born out of a horrifying reality of Orcish savagery. More often "ME DUM, ME HIT TINGS." 6/10

More coming soon.

I like play unoptimized characters in a party of equally unoptimized characters. Half the fun is actually being a little afraid of the roving band of orcs, and running away as your friends are being chopped to bits.

J-Gal wrote:

Vinja89 wrote:

One thing i always found funny is, you say there is no place for gunslingers and firearms in your campaign, nobody panics. You say there is no room for catfolk in your campaign everybody looses their minds and you get called out for stymieing player creativity, and a good DM would make room! Just a humorous observation i have made.

Personally i say the more the merrier! whatever makes the player happy, within reason of course.

Thank you, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Hell, it seems like my players would be happier with me telling them "There is no magic in this setting." than "There are only humans in this setting".

The severity of the reaction is because there is no middle ground. Except for some very specific things, like gunslingers, almost every concept can be expressed as a function of the core classes. Whether its effective, or whether it does a good job of it or not is a separate question. But in general a class restriction doesnt put a hard stop on a concept. If I want to play a ninja, but you dont want to play the ninja class, i can play a sneaky bard who goes into the assasin prestige class, or a rogue, or any other number of courses. It might not be perfect. But its doable.

Theres no work around for race. If I want to play an anthropomorphic fox because I have this idea for a character with a bunch of nervous ticks around playing with his big fluffy tail, nothing in the core rules is going to help me with that. If I want to play a small creepy dark skinned sneaky guy from the shadow planes and you ban wayamg, I cant dress a halfling up in a costume and call it done. It doesnt work. A racial ban is a hard stop on a concept that involves that race.

That isnt to say you dont have the right to ban a race, or many races, thats up to you and your group. But there is a rational reason why the reaction is likely more severe in terms of races then it is in terms of classes/feats/whatever.

If a player could explain to me what a wayang is doing at level 1 in the middle of Taldor hanging out with humans and elves and dwarves, I MIGHT allow it. However, if a player's character has just died and the PCs are on the Plane of Shadow and he says "Can I play a wayang?" I am much more liable to say yes.

I am still puzzled why the OP omits half-orcs from his list of classic races. They've been a part of D&D since the beginning(they were removed in 2nd edition, but then brought back).

That's more of a personal preference. I feel that half-orcs should be relatively uncommon and certainly looked upon with horror and scorn. I said it explicitly to get a rise out of you guys but I do mean it. I don't like them.

One thing i always found funny is, you say there is no place for gunslingers and firearms in your campaign, nobody panics. You say there is no room for catfolk in your campaign everybody looses their minds and you get called out for stymieing player creativity, and a good DM would make room! Just a humorous observation i have made.

Personally i say the more the merrier! whatever makes the player happy, within reason of course.

Thank you, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Hell, it seems like my players would be happier with me telling them "There is no magic in this setting." than "There are only humans in this setting".

I had an elf come back as a yuan-ti abomination due to custom reincarnate tables. Good times.

My favorite reincarnation story was when a dwarf came back as an orc, took one look at his reflection in the nearby stream, drew his sword, and without a word committed seppuku.

Ashiel wrote:

Umbranus wrote:

J-Gal wrote:

Send some fruit baskets to the widows you have left in your wake. That might be a good first step in becoming good again.

Just make sure the baskets are big enough so that it isn't seen as you're mocking your victim's relatives.

Or even better put some money in it along with the fruit.

Hm, makes you wonder what the price of a life is. While I'd estimate it as being about 8,010 gp (the cost in spellcasting services to have raise dead plus two restoration spells cast). :P

Though Skyrim would have us believe the value of a life is less than that of a mammoth tusk. (^.^)"

Nay, I use Reincarnate as base cost for raising. A scroll cost 1,700 gp so about that much. Rounding up to 2 thousands.

I don't agree you should have to pay for the restoration.

Something tells me that paladin would rather be dead than wake up as a troglodyte or something similar.

I must say that number 3 describes the absolute farthest and most extreme example of that style, by and far the vast majority of optimizers are either casual gamers or dedicated roleplayers who happen to enjoy making effective characters that are good at their jobs.

Keep in mind of course the difference between Practical Optimization- which is optimization of characters for play, and Theoretical Optimization- which is pushing the rules as far as they can go as a thought exercise.

I have a player (keep in mind he's a 2nd year engineering student), who's sole pleasure from D&D is optimizing his character and seeing the fruits of his labor every Saturday. He plays Starcraft every night and Warhammer 40K every week. Needless to say, I am very familiar with the group 3 mindset.

In response to the OP (yes, I admit it, I haven't read through 6 pages of thread that sprung up in a single day!), you have three camps of people in most D&D-style RPGs:

1) The ones who are "Tolkien faithful". They want the "classic" D&D races of elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and humans. They're fine with half-elves, and often don't draw much difference between orcs and half-orcs (which means they're often fine with someone playing orcs). You'll often find these players falling into stereotypes like "Elves don't like dwarves, most races are upset about humans' fast expansion, everyone loves halflings, and gnomes make things that work, but with comically catastrophic side effects."

2) The players who want "something different". They start reaching out for odd races that are functionally humanoid (to provide a touch point for their RP, and to make sure all available "slots" are present for items). Some will be creative in developing rationale for why a given race is there with the PCs (it gets dicey if the PCs grew up together; in a village of humans and the odd demihuman, it can be hard to figure out where that cat person came from... Medieval societies weren't known for being particularly accepting of difference, much less an anthropomorphic feline waltzing about), others will hope the GM just sort of glosses it over (most GMs who allow non-standard races typically do, just to smooth things along). This group is often comprised of people who have been involved in the RPG hobby for a long time, and they need something fresh to keep their interest high.

3) The min/maxing ("optimizing" seems to be the latest preferred term...) players who are looking for every conceivable numerical advantage. These players pore over every rulebook for the game, and are often the first to ask the GM if third-party books designed with the d20 System in mind are usable. They're looking for a "perfect" combination of racial traits, class abilities, 20-level feat and skill planning matrices, backgrounds,...

I agree with you. And I would put myself squarely in group 1, except that I'm not into Tolkien as much as I'm into the pseudo-Tolkien AD&D theme.

J-Gal wrote:

I think the main disconnect here is that when I play Pathfinder/D&D, I typically play in a Greyhawk/Forgotten Realms-esque setting. ****

Ummm... Forgotten Realms is the birthplace of weird or unusual player races. Literally half of the 3.5 Forgotten Realms line was pages upon pages of weird new races to play. Every expansion they dropped had pages of new race descriptions with pictures, stat blocks, backgrounds, etc.

Forgotten Realms was the 3.5 home of: genasii, assimar, tiefling, drow PCs, gnoll PCs, hagspawn PCs, underdark fairy PCs (gloaming), no fewer than 5 reptilian PC races, loxodon, thri-kreen, so many variants of the core races it isn't even funny, blind morlock PCs, four-armed spider-men PCs, and the list goes on.
Saying "I normally play in a Forgotten Realms-esque setting" and "I don't like abnormal races" is like saying "I hate super powers and comics so I only play Mutants and Masterminds".

If you want a rant about all the weird and awful directions FR has taken I can give you one but it won't be fun for anyone involved. There are parts of FR that I really like and parts that make me facepalm. Just how I can love Spiderman, The Avengers, The X-Men, and The Punisher, but think Howard The Duck should've never been made.

I think the main disconnect here is that when I play Pathfinder/D&D, I typically play in a Greyhawk/Forgotten Realms-esque setting. It might vary a little bit, but that's the kind of game I play when I play this system. I understand that there are some people who are bored or not satisfied by that kind of setting but that's what D&D is to me (reread that if it didn't get through, "me!"). Denying that the core of Pathfinder and D&D follows a certain theme is just wrong. Sure, they branch out after the core, but there is certainly a core. I like the core. It's warm and nostalgic and tells a fantastical (but very human) story, in my opinion. The further away from human a PC gets, the less interested I get. That's just me. I'm not trying to take it all away from you guys but there is a certain... Expectation from players that anything that's in a hardcover book is fair game.

Ashiel wrote:

This is also one of the problems with the idea of "forced alignment" as it goes against everything that the alignment system is. For example, let's pretend for a moment that I'm a vampire, you're my victim, and I turn you into another vampire. When you become a vampire your alignment changes to Evil, but being a vampire has literally no further effect on your personality beyond whatever you want to explore with that change, so if you now as a vampire don't kill people (vampires can very easily feed on both nonsentient creatures as well as not kill their victims), then your alignment will just naturally shift back to whatever fits your personality.

Except that "forced alignment" is part of the very same game system (cf Helm of Opposite Alignment) that the alignment system is.

Alignment is not only a label. It is a description of the character's personality. When you become a vampire, and thus evil, your whole personality changes on this specific axis.

Allowing characters to ignore forced alignment change and keep their exact previous personality is merely a houserule. And one I greatly dislike at that, because it voids any moral struggle within the character.

I personally love the idea of "forced alignment" in a sense. Your character can act however they want, but their alignment can (and should!) evolve to reflect that. A magical compulsion to change alignment can be equally rewarding when done in an elegant way. Maybe the Helm of Opposite Alignment forces your mind to have "insights" on all your prior experiences and have a new outlook on them. A lawful good person putting on the helm could have the "revelation" of: "Why am I helping these people? They are weak and I am strong. Keeping the weak alive does nothing for me, and I should be my top concern."

Send some fruit baskets to the widows you have left in your wake. That might be a good first step in becoming good again.

J-Gal wrote:

I, for one, find Gnomes woefully underrepresented.

The Golarion take has made them more fresh for me, and I'm enjoying my gnome druid and my brothers gnome dragon disciple.

I'm pleased with the Golarion treatment of Gnomes. They are finally distinct from halflings. They've always struck me as almost the dwarven fey, much in the same way that elves are sort of the human fey, and Golarion finally treats them with the... lunacy they deserve.

I don't think anyone is saying "you can't do cool fantasy with humans anymore," it's just that 99% of cool fantasy is about humans and human lookalikes already. I don't think it makes you a special snowflake for wanting something that hasn't been the default for forty years.

Though the obvious rebuttal to that is, "Then why are you playing Dungeons & Dragons?"

I, for one, find Gnomes woefully underrepresented.

I generally shoot for 12.5 encounters per adventure with enough XP to level up those using the adventure. Though the number of encounters vary, though is generally close to that.

All my encounters are defined encounters, I don't use random monster tables. I have a sidebar of pre-generated monsters ready to be inserted in place where a random monster might go. I have no needs of anything 'random' in my adventures ever. However, I also have prepared lists of any traps, haunts, hazards and other interesting non-encounter encounters prepared throughout the adventure setting.

I may or may not have rumor tables, sometimes I have specific plot hooks for each player as a kind of defined list. I tend to have several pre-defined factions with their own agendas and motivations within the setting of the adventure that are directly related to events there.

I do like to work with a prepared story as a lead in and something to cleave to as the adventure progresses, but its not a fully defined story (as something that could be considered a railroad). At the same time, I don't care for sandbox or otherwise total free-for-all adventures. I tend to have a starting place and a finishing place with probably paths between those two points, though players can certainly change things as it moves along.

I have actually published a small adventure site/extended encounter, so I used the above techniques to do that, though it wasn't a full adventure... Haiku of Horror: Autumn Moon Bath House (PFRPG)

Interesting, whenever I play 4e I use really planned out tactical set-piece encounters but in Pathfinder since combat takes maybe 30 minutes, I love filling in the gaps with a little randomness. It keeps things interesting for me and I always love the player's reaction to my chuckle after they roll something horrible.

I'm really interested in finding out how everybody else makes their adventures.
The method I usually follow is writing a old-school module-esque adventure complete with the rumor tables, random encounter tables, and encounters that could be far outside the party's skill level (gotta know when to run). I'm also really into non-linear storytelling, with maybe 5 hooks spread around but never just a completely open sandbox for the PCs to rape and pillage. I try to work in difficult moral decisions when I can and try to tempt the players with red herrings. One thing I really struggle with is making the world dynamic, changing noticeably because of the PCs actions with progressive villains.
So what guidelines do you create your adventures with? Or do you run modules? Or a mixture of both?
Feel free to bounce campaign ideas around too. More the merrier.

J-Gal wrote:

Zhayne wrote:

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

it's that i don't like them because of the...

I've personally dealt with too many GMs who tell my character how he feels about something, or in some cases, told me what my character does, based on his preconceived notions. If I don't say 'my dwarf hates that goblin on sight', then he doesn't, and I sure as F don't attack it.

I absolutely agree with this for some of the core races. There are enough Dwarves out there (in my and many settings) that outliers exist. But for the strange races, one that acts like an outlier is comparatively much more rare.

See, I find this a bit silly. How do you define "stereotypes" for a rare race? They have none! Who's to say what stereotypical catfolk society is?

Also, Drow, despite their non-core nature, are fairly numerous (in FR & Golarion), which is why they have a well-defined culture. Same goes for all "evil" races. They simply arent common as adventurers (who tend not to follow the evil of their race anyway, and are already outliers).

There is a description of each race in the books... Granted you can change that if you want but I like to take it as is. I take those descriptions to mean that the vast majority of the members of that race have all those traits, and the outliers at least have a few.

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

it's that i don't like them because of the...

I've personally dealt with too many GMs who tell my character how he feels about something, or in some cases, told me what my character does, based on his preconceived notions. If I don't say 'my dwarf hates that goblin on sight', then he doesn't, and I sure as F don't attack it.

I absolutely agree with this for some of the core races. There are enough Dwarves out there (in my and many settings) that outliers exist. But for the strange races, one that acts like an outlier is comparatively much more rare.

Maybe it's just me, but the second someone sits down at my table and shows me their catfolk character, I immediately tune it out. In my opinion, this race is a magnet that attracts (and reveals) horrible gamers.

The drow are that race to me. I've never seen a drow played that I haven't absolutely despised.

J-Gal wrote:

williamoak wrote:

J-Gal wrote:

I'm not declaring any of it wrong. I'm just saying it's gotten a bit much and I want to vent about how much it vexes me to no end. I'm nostalgic about the old days of D&D and all this weird stuff is taking a big crap all over it for me. I don't want to have to make a list of the 30+ things I ban from my games. It's a personal preference, I don't like that Pathfinder is going in this particular direction. Never once did I say that this is the wrong way to play, I'm saying that I don't like it. There is no wrong way to roleplay, but the more stuff that is getting heaped on to Pathfinder makes it less and less attractive to ME specifically and probably many people out there.

Then play another game? I would recommend "Dungeon world". It has pretty much exactly the aesthetic you seem to seek, is super-simple to pick-up, and can be bought for a mere 10 bucks.

I see little value in complaining for the sake of complaining, when there are things out there that could make you happy NOW (and for such an affordable price too).

Because just as you feel the new stuff is taking a crap on what you like, many of us feel you are doing the same on what we enjoy (IE more stuff).

My good sir, this country was founded on complaining for the sake of complaining.

Many where. That does not mean it is the right thing to do. Dude, there are plenty of TRPGs that do EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT! Why are you sticking with pathfinder? Why are you sticking with players whom you dont enjoy playing with? It just seems unfortunate.

Because Pathfinder did exactly what I wanted it to do for a while, and I have all the books.

J-Gal wrote:

the more stuff that is getting heaped on to Pathfinder makes it less and less attractive to ME specifically and probably many people out there.

I would be willing to bet cash money that the additional options attract more players than it repels, especially since you can just choose to purchase only products you will use.

Well, you see that's half the issue. When my players buy their ARG and find out they can't play their monkey men... I'm the one who has to listen about the Epic of Gilgamesh or whatever link that guy posted.

J-Gal wrote:

I'm not declaring any of it wrong. I'm just saying it's gotten a bit much and I want to vent about how much it vexes me to no end. I'm nostalgic about the old days of D&D and all this weird stuff is taking a big crap all over it for me. I don't want to have to make a list of the 30+ things I ban from my games. It's a personal preference, I don't like that Pathfinder is going in this particular direction. Never once did I say that this is the wrong way to play, I'm saying that I don't like it. There is no wrong way to roleplay, but the more stuff that is getting heaped on to Pathfinder makes it less and less attractive to ME specifically and probably many people out there.

Then play another game? I would recommend "Dungeon world". It has pretty much exactly the aesthetic you seem to seek, is super-simple to pick-up, and can be bought for a mere 10 bucks.

I see little value in complaining for the sake of complaining, when there are things out there that could make you happy NOW (and for such an affordable price too).

Because just as you feel the new stuff is taking a crap on what you like, many of us feel you are doing the same on what we enjoy (IE more stuff).

My good sir, this country was founded on complaining for the sake of complaining.

I'm not declaring any of it wrong. I'm just saying it's gotten a bit much and I want to vent about how much it vexes me to no end. I'm nostalgic about the old days of D&D and all this weird stuff is taking a big crap all over it for me. I don't want to have to make a list of the 30+ things I ban from my games. It's a personal preference, I don't like that Pathfinder is going in this particular direction. Never once did I say that this is the wrong way to play, I'm saying that I don't like it. There is no wrong way to roleplay, but the more stuff that is getting heaped on to Pathfinder makes it less and less attractive to ME specifically and probably many people out there.

I wouldn't have a problem with it, therefore, I would allow them to do so.

But that's going to influence everybody else in the game. Who is going to play a human when Bob is a dragon?

J-Gal wrote:

But if a player came to you everytime you run a campaign wanting to play a dragon, that would become quickly tiresome.

Zhayne wrote:

To you. I wouldn't have a problem with it.

But would you allow them to do so? As much as I want my players to have a good time, I don't DM by committee. If they don't like it, they can read the books and DM a game and I'll play by their rules.

J-Gal wrote:

Sure. But as someone who grew up with their main fantasy outlets being old AD&D modules, Baldurs Gate, Icewind Dale, etc. I am very much in love with the mythos the D&D game has built up over time. There is no denying that there is a setting that is distinctly D&D. I just don't believe that the odd races of that system should be player characters unless there is a compelling reason for it.

What do your players want? That is a compelling reason. If they all want to play the exotic in a world of mundanes and deal with the social challenges make your campaign that way.

If, instead, they imagine a world where the exotic is the norm than play that way. Make an empire of a hundred races that has fought and spread out, fighting against orcs and hobgoblins and other races that think their race is the only true race.

Heck, make a world of a thousand islands. Each player gets one to build with his or her race. You as the GM bring the PCs together on a ship. And you the GM build the rest of the islands to explore.

What I'm getting at is, the compelling reason is for all the players (GM included) to have fun. The One Ring works great for Tolkien but I wouldn't want to play it all the time. Let some craziness into the PF and D&D worlds. Basic D&D didn't shy away from exotic races.

Don't get me wrong, all of the races in the books exist in my games, but I draw the line when it comes to playing as them. As an extreme example, everyone playing a dragon in a one off could be a lot of fun. But if a player came to you everytime you run a campaign wanting to play a dragon, that would become quickly tiresome.

J-Gal wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Wait, even the GM didn't know? O.o

I used to have an honor system in place where I would trust players not to do weird stuff like that (and I have a lot to think about in the game besides reviewing their character sheets.)

Needless to say I have ceased the honor system.

Wow. Well I can actually relate to the honor system idea as I too trust my players a lot. I would even say that under the right circumstances that might have not even bothered me and could have been really cool (say the the PC did something unexpected that wasn't cheesy within the rules and then did the big reveal as sort of a thematic surprise) but I get the impression this wasn't one of those times. :P

I guess that doesn't come up much because I tend to be pretty involved in the development of most of my PC's characters because I tend to try to incorporate things about and for those characters into my games, so usually even if one of the PCs has a secret that is kept from the rest of the party for long stretches of the campaign I'm usually privy to it. (^_^)"

In fact, there's actually quite a few PCs and NPCs in the current campaign that I'm running that have some secrets - some of them quite dark and would get them into serious trouble - that the rest of the PCs don't know anything about yet, or in some cases only a few select PCs with similar dark secrets are aware of (some of the PCs have picked their battles in who they speak of their situations to).

If we had talked about it before and level-adjusted it a bit, I would've allowed it. But he literally just said "I turn werebear!" and looked at me with a defiant grin. I then screamed at him for about 20 minutes while he sipped on his Mt. Dew and then I calmed down I just accepted it, hahaha

J-Gal wrote:

I just don't believe that the odd races of that system should be player characters unless there is a compelling reason for it.

So don't allow them. It's a perfectly valid choice for your game. But it's also a perfectly valid choice to allow them. I've done it in both of my biggest campaigns and still had at least 1/3rd of the party be core races.

I just find that, as soon as it's printed on paper, many players feel cheated about not using those options. This is not specific to Pathfinder, it's in all of the systems. I just don't like the splatbook crud that builds up on my favorite systems.

J-Gal wrote:

But my point is that its introduction into D&D/Pathfinder is pretty recent. The classics meaning they've been around since inception or reaaaaaaaaal close.

I don't find that definition of classic compelling. RPGs are meant to emulate any story we want, not just the conventions of a specific game.

Sure. But as someone who grew up with their main fantasy outlets being old AD&D modules, Baldurs Gate, Icewind Dale, etc. I am very much in love with the mythos the D&D game has built up over time. There is no denying that there is a setting that is distinctly D&D. I just don't believe that the odd races of that system should be player characters unless there is a compelling reason for it.

J-Gal wrote:

Edit: And if you can show me the vanara in any core rulebook besides Pathfinder as a player race, I will redact my statement. Halflings have been around since before AD&D.

I don't think they have anything on the vanara.

See what I mean?

You don't get more classic than this.

But my point is that its introduction into D&D/Pathfinder is pretty recent. The classics meaning they've been around since inception or reaaaaaaaaal close.

This might seem odd, but I almost never give my enemy NPCs healing spells. I like my fights real fast and players always get grumpy when the enemies get boosted back up.

Wait, even the GM didn't know? O.o

I used to have an honor system in place where I would trust players not to do weird stuff like that (and I have a lot to think about in the game besides reviewing their character sheets.)

bob_the_monster wrote:

He's all like "You didn't even ask what they were charged with".

And I am like "Korgoth doesn't care" They pointed swords at him and tried to arrest him by association and threatened him. Barbarians follow the law of nature. On a battlefield if you point a sword at someone that's a death threat.

I think what he's really mad about is that my little level 4 Barbarian has Power Attack, Cleave and was able to kill both the Paladin captain's mount and him in a single round. Honestly I am sick of mediocre or bad DMs trying to shove "the local law" down on PCs. A group of Paladins hunting a party over a stolen magical sword is just silly.

Yeah OK I'm min-maxed and deal 2d6 + 22 damage on a hit and have a bite attack. So what? Sure I can critically hit for 4d6 + 44 damage while raging. That's what Barbarians do.

He made me justify my build, which is strictly APG and Core. Masterwork greatsword, 20 base strength. Potions of Bull's strength for emergencies, or cleric buffs. Rage for 4 more strength. 3 levels in Fighter get me extra feats for cleave, power attack and extra rage. Also Two-hand fighter variant gives me. 2*STR damage on the first attack.

Honestly this guy's just mad that I critically hit his Paladin for 61 damage and buried him. Isn't that the epitome of bad DMing?

Your GM raises a lot of red flags that have nothing to do with alignment. Most notably the fact that he's demanding you "justify" your build when the entire build can be summed up as "I swing my sword real good".

The fact a group of Paladins is apparently the equivalent of the local police also seems pretty suspect, but that could just be a difference of ideals from my perspective and that GM's (to me Paladins are way more than just mundane law enforcement).

While I'm also of the opinion that what your barbarian did wasn't evil I'm also tossing out that I don't think it was particularly good either since it was effectively just self defense. It was illegal, unacceptable self defense...

Regardless of the plausibility of paladins working as the local law enforcement, we can't deny that the OP is having a temper tantrum on the forum because he stole something valuable and oh no... They want it back.

If PF ever made accurate Tolkien races into the game..every powergaming/munchkin -insert favorite term here , type would play elves, Numenoreans and for the dark edgies Black Numernoeans.

the difference in Tolkiens power level of races is pretty vast.

D&D at its roots took many ideas from the Prof. , but rolemaster actually did it, and take this from somebody that played quite a bit of that old game...there were to many elves running amok in the 3rd age :), the GMs just let most players bring what they wanted and it was usually a High elf, My Rohan warrior was basically a cheerleader :).

But I am a believer is everything has its place, and have in the past asked my players as a whole before any Character generation is even begun, what each is interested in, once I have some kind of consensus, I make the campaign, its not hard to change the window dressing.

Problems do arise when players show up at random games with random characters and do random things, but that's why I avoid doing pickup games at stores and that sort of thing, as in most of these situations communication between GM and players is key, just get everyone on the same sheet of paper, and then season to taste. :)

I frankly find all these Tolkien references unnecessary. I think D&D has formed its own subculture that I am referring to now. I don't even really like Tolkien all that much :P

Elves & halflings: 60 years.

Dwarves: 60 years, loosely based on norse mythology.
Gnomes: 30 years, loosely (though closer than dwarves) on norse folklore.

"monkey people" = 2500 years.

Whine all you want, but dont come here calling halflings "classic" while dismissing the vanara.

Simply stating the age of a mythical being does not warrant its inclusion as a player race in the game. They are monkey people, what do you want me to say?

Edit: And if you can show me the vanara in any core rulebook besides Pathfinder as a player race, I will redact my statement. Halflings have been around since before AD&D.

Back. I like this last j gal. Its all about your approach here. I agree with this latest point, in the context you provided. Like i said earlier, i prefer to play only the big 7 races myself(though not a fan of small races).i allow my players about 85 % of the expanded races barring things i seeas balance issues like the trox.

I apologize if my previous approaches have been seen as trolling or hyperboles. I mean, they were, but I just like to debate that way, haha. I guess my two big problems with the vast amounts of races are this:

1) People will just pick a race for the mechanical benefits, roleplaying be damned. Humans are so easy, almost any behavior can be human. When you have vishkanya player who has no actual idea what a vishkanya is (and don't look at me, because I certainly don't) that's a huge issue to me.

2) Not everyone has to be special. Some of my favorite characters had almost no backstory (grew up on a farm and then the town got attacked for example) and then define themselves as heroic and special throughout the game. I don't think anybody should be incredibly special right out of the box at level one.

Just to add some context to this, I have run parties with a tiefling, drow, dhampir, fetchling, and an orc. (I like to call this group the dark and edgys)
And another group with 2 half-orcs, a kitsune, a human (thank the lord) and a vishkanya.
Neither group could provide any context for why they might be together, forcing me to either do the "YOUR LORD HAS SUMMONED YOU" or "at the same bar" intros, and the weirdness just got worse. Most players (in my experience) do not like to experience any form of racism, and when they do (particularly the drow and orc), they will raze the entire town.
With all that said, I have had players who have roleplayed their odd race excellently, but it was facilitated by the fact that everyone around them was somewhat normal in comparison. At what point is everyone SO BLOODY UNIQUE that it becomes more about who can create the most cheesy, overpowered character who comes from a land far away and less about some homegrown heroes (which is the feel I prefer)

J-Gal wrote:

-Sigh-. Does anyone else feel similarly?

Nope. Humans are still the overwhelming majority among PCs.

I don't know who you are playing with then.

J-Gal wrote:

3e-PF has so many moving parts it gets away from you.

I really have absolutely no clue what you want to say with this.

Ever make three level 15 NPCs for a big encounter in Pathfinder and try to do so in an hour and a half? It's daunting. Say what you will about the older editions or 4e, you could slap an NPC together in 10 minutes or so.

This isn't to sound snide or argumentative, but why are you playing Pathfinder J Gal? Pretty sure there are several 1st ed D&D style games out right now, and most that I've seen are fairly cheap/free.

This standard D&D setting...I don't know how to break this to you, but things changed. (ok, here I'm going to sound a little snide) Why don't you go look to see what the current "standard" D&D setting is like right now. Beyond that, this isn't D&D, this is Pathfinder...and Golarion, the core Pathfinder setting, has half orcs, it has goblins, and damphir (much to my annoyance, but I solve that by not playing them), and tieflings and cat folk and assimars and all sorts of other things.

As for player choice...*shrugs*...I don't know what to tell you, I'm a power gamer, so the only things I play are humans and the occasional elf. As a GM I regularly see tieflings, assimars, fetchlings, and tengu, and recently had my first catfolk player. Each game there was only 1-2 of the above races, out of anywhere from 4-8 players...so, no...it's not really a problem over here.

Having played 3rd ed games where there wasn't a player in sight that didn't have at least two templates and there were no races that didn't have an adjustment...I've felt the way you do...but I'd like to think I didn't try to sound quite so superior about the fact that that just wasn't my scene. Don't like the game your playing? Don't play...

What you probably shouldn't do, is get online and tell people what is and isn't Pathfinder. As much as I occasionally butt heads with the developers over disagreements on design, the game is theirs. Unless your name is Jason "Crane Wing" Bulmahn you don't really get to say what is and isn't Pathfinder...well, least not without sounding...silly.

Well to be honest I don't find myself playing Pathfinder much these days because of its (I would say over-)emphasis on mechanics. But with that said, I hate every edition of D&D in its own special way.

J-Gal wrote:

Auskrem wrote:

J-Gal wrote:

I'm talking humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and half-elves.

raises an eyebrow

I am unsure what the implication of your raised eyebrow is, but if it's because of the exclusion of half-orcs, I assure you, it was purposeful.

You do realize that half-orcs were in the original 1st edition AD&D, right?

Oh, and classes? Clerics, druids, fighters, rangers, paladins, magic-users, illusionists, thieves, assassins and monks were all in the original AD&D PHB.

My concern is not with the Original AD&D, because that had it's own set of issues. I'm simply speaking from a stance of personal preference. As I assume everyone else here is. I'm not saying that no one can play these races or classes, I'm simply saying that I find their existence... irritating. Just like I find country music irritating, some people like it, but that doesn't mean I won't go ballistic if someone fills up my iTunes library with it.

My issue with the OP is that it sounds like he just straight up attacked them. Yes, he was probably going to be arrested, but a simple "Let us pass, or draw steel." would have made this decidedly neutral. Or if you killed a few and said to the rest "You still want some?" Or if you did non-lethal. But the wholesale slaughter of 11 people who have been tasked with protecting a community while you're protecting evil sword thieves? Sorry, not buying that for a second.

Evil.

We only need three classes: the Cleric, the Fighting man, and the Magic-User. Anything else is blasphemy and not allowed in my games.

It should be stated that no one else wants to play with me anymore. Kids nowadays want to play all these weird classes like "rogue".

I know you're being snide but this honestly sounds wonderful to me. Except the rogue part. Rogues have their place and it's called thief. But what's with all these superfluous classes?

The presence of those options doesn't take away from your ability to have a game without them. So why wish that those options be taken away from those who don't want to play your style of game?

I see your point but the same argument could be applied to nearly anything. I'm all for roleplaying games to be diverse and inclusive... But you can't deny that D&D and Pathfinder strive for a certain theme. If they released a new book with stats for AK-47s and Rocket Launchers I believe that would be going against the spirit of this specific game. Would I look down upon an RPG that uses it? No. But it ain't Pathfinder man.

I'm not bashing the way anyone wants to play their homebrew settings, but when you're in what one could call the "typical D&D setting" these races should be incredibly rare and specific to a location. How all these weirdos come together in one group all the time is just ridiculous at best and absolutely immersion breaking at its worst.

Ninjas shouldn't have gotten the "Ninja" Treatment.
Rogues are literally obsolete now.