Justin G.'s page

I think in this case, "exotic" just means "more complex to create."

Bump. I need this.

Justin, you just hit on a major pet peeve of mine. My friends and I call it "Entitlement Gaming Complex".

I think it has a lot to do with an increasing lack of a sense of identity among young people today.

Of course, my psychosocial analysis is worth about as much as you pay for it.

It's a huge problem of my games. It seems everybody is either a total freak (like the minotaur who is a battlemind/barbarian multiclassed into paladin, in all fairness, I think the ridiculousness was purposeful) or a "human fighter" who is completely indistinguishable from any of generic character.

Why can't anyone make moderately interesting characters? It's all about having one very interesting quality and a couple somewhat interesting ones.

For example: I had a human wizard who specialized in abjuration because in wizard school he was unpopular so kids threw rocks and magic missiles at him. Done. That was the whole concept, and he was a great character.

Nah, I'm just sick of describing the reactions the party of a minotaur, shifter, deva, dragonborn, and shardmind get in my 4e campaign. Thats not even a joke. Everybody's gotta be special.

I wish more people played as humans and to a lesser extent elves and dwarves. I'm tired of my parties being a troupe of circus freaks.

Humans are Boring But Practical.

I respect this only because TV Tropes is amazing.

I only play humans and the (very) occasional half elf. There's just something about being a normal person in such a mystical world.

Diablo 3 looks fantastic. And unfortunately, due to a moderate case of OCD I get rather obsessed with whatever my hobby is at the time. I've played Pathfinder for just over a year now but for the past 2 weeks I've spent about half my freetime preparing stuff for it, the other half watching Community.
Surely there must be others like me.

So last night my group I ran through the entirety of Stolen Land (Kingmaker AP) with my players, it was a 8 hour session that was fairly focused the entire time. I have the next module ready for next week, but I find myself in a position where I have nothing to do. I am so used to designing my own campaign and being so preoccupied with it, but with it already done for me, I am so bored.
So what is it that you do between sessions to entertain yourself with the game? (Besides go on the forums of course.)

-Justin

Does anybody know of any programs or PDF's or Word templates that allows you to format your stat blocks to look the way they do in the books and aps?

I've been sitting on the idea of a Nobility Bloodline for the Sorcerer.

That sounds really cool. Let me know if you figure that out.

Justin G. wrote:

Semantics are fun and always lead to a better, more thoughtful discussion.

/sarcasm

Wow, you guys sure are reactionary. He's not making a semantic aguement or trolling. Paizo made the unfortunate decision to have both "Racial Traits" that are race defining features like Orc Ferocity and Toothy" and "race traits" that are a category of traits like faith traits, magic traits, social traits. It's unfortunate that they decided to use the word "trait" to cover two separate game mechanisms, but they did.

There's examples of this all over the boards. it's caused quite a bit of confusion, but they are definitely two different things.
Edit: stupid autocorrect!

I'm only reactionary because he obviously knew what he meant, but felt the need to correct him anyway. It doesn't progress the conversation, it just turns it into a petty terminology war that has no purpose.

Semantics are fun and always lead to a better, more thoughtful discussion.
/sarcasm

I think a Blackblade Magus king who's legendary sword secretly manipulates him sounds awesome. But that's just my love of plot twists talking.

In my campaign setting, (which is not Golarion, but more of a... Eberronish setting if I had to compare it a published one), "Gods" are no more than extremely powerful beings that have committed themselves to an ideology. However, the powers they give to clerics have less to do with their own power but rather the powers they represent. In a world where the power of good and evil are very real things, so are the powers of the elements, law and chaos, war and peace, slavery and freedom, creation and destruction, love and hate, etc. Clerics in my setting draw power through these ideas, either through the tutelage of Gods and clergy, or through personal reflection and discovery (which is much more difficult, hence why most clerics worship a deity.) In my setting, atheists (if you could call them that) believe Gods are nothing but heightened monarchs in a sense, and seek to find their own meanings.
It also helps that in my setting, when a person dies they become a petitioner, free to roam the cosmos and planes (devout ones living with their gods), but usually cannot be perceived if they choose to go to the material plane. Why would anyone go to Hell or the Abyss in this case? Well in Hell they give you a new, powerful body and there is a lot of fun things for a person with low moral fiber to do there. And nobody really goes to the abyss unless something more powerful banishes them.
I could talk all day about this, but I should probably stop there.

I had a PC who used a carved piece of rubble as a symbol and prayed at battle sights.
He worshiped the philosophy of war and destruction and it was cool because idealogies are source of power.

Be a philosopher cleric with no God.
Or use the Seperatist archetype even though it's crappy mechanically.

I see clerics as the most versatile class in the game, at least at low levels. I think it would run really smoothly provided nothing unfair is thrown between them and their gods. Players losing powers for no good reason is never fun.

A player of mine once wished that his character became the new Dungeon Master.
When I told him he was metagaming and he couldn't do that he responded that he is the the DM now and he calls the shots.
Needless to say I no longer play with this person.