Lemurion's page

I've played various games for years now, but I'm new to Pathfinder, never having actually played it. I have however, thoroughly enjoyed the Pathfinder comics by Dynamite.

I'd love to give this a try (and have done some PBP in the past), so I'll give you a thought regarding a character once I have a better feel for the world if that's okay.

Thanks

I really like the Hero system, I've played it since its third edition and I love playing superheroes by those rules. However, it's a lot of work to create characters.

After that, my fallback is D&D and while it may not be strictly accurate to call Pathfinder D&D I find it's close enough that the name works for me.

And Pathfinder is definitely my current favorite version (followed by OSRIC).

The old "positivist/negativist" argument won't work unless the basic parameters are agreed upon, and the parameters are the source of the continued argument.

To test, what would LilithsThrall and SeekerofShadowLight say to the following:

"My DM has a rule that rogues can only sneak attack once a round, no more. He says it's because he does not want to see the cheesy TWF SA flanking rogue because he thinks they are broken. I tried explaining that I am not even interested in the TWF chain, but he said those are his rules."

Here is a basic violation of the core RAW for a demonstratively false reason, nerfing a player's character for no game reason whatsoever, since he is not going to be using the "exploit" the rule is intended to prevent.

Is the DM acting like a jerk? Is what he is doing just fine? Let's get away from the psionics issue, since that has external framework at play.

I can't predict what someone else would say, but I can give you my answer.

No, I don't believe the DM is necessarily being a jerk. I don't have a problem with accepting the DM's right to make that decision for that game, and making that decision does not make the DM a jerk. Depending on how it's being handled (i.e. insulting the player when they bring it up) they could be acting like a jerk, but that's not because of the rules decision.

As per Rule 0, the DM is allowed to change a rule if they think it's broken. So far he is on defensible grounds. Second, the DM does have a reason (it may be a bad reason but it's a reason) for doing it – he wants to prevent a particular rules exploit he dislikes and thinks is broken.

As for the player's statement that they don't intend to utilize the feat chain the DM thinks is broken, that's irrelevant. Just because this player does not intend to use the feat chain doesn't mean that another player wouldn't want to. If the DM allows this player multiple sneak attacks how can they deny them to another player who would use the exploit the DM wants to shut down? He would either have to allow the other player the one thing he specifically wanted to avoid, or rule differently for different characters; neither is a good choice from his perspective.

I also fail to see what part of the DM's reason is demonstrably false. He's basing his reasoning on personal opinion, which is perfectly valid.

He thinks it's broken so he's disallowing it.

That's his right.

The exclusion of a thing can also decrease enjoyment, putting everyone on the same boat.

You are right as far as it goes, but you're arguing a different case. Enjoyment can only be reduced by the exclusion of something if that thing would normally be there to be excluded. If the default is its absence, then excluding it is normal and its addition causes an increase in enjoyment rather than its absence causing a decrease.

That's the case in the provided example, so in the example given the two parties are not in the same boat. One is seeking increased enjoyment, the other seeking to avoid reduced enjoyment.

They are not the same thing.

I was running one game and the players show up in town and get a room at the local inn. One of the key points of this inn (and why it was expensive) was that the proprietor had a deal with the Thieves' Guild that they wouldn't hit his guests.

The players knew this.

One of the PCs angered the head of the guild, causing her to lose face in public. (He knew she was the head of the guild even though the general population of the town didn't.)

Rather than going back to the inn with the rest of the party he came up with the bright idea that as he was a Wood Elf he wanted to sleep/trance outdoors in the city park rather than in the inn.

He failed his roll to wake up when they found him: and his saving throws. Plural.

He died, was chopped up, and fed to the fishes. Literally.

In another game I brought in one of my favorite items: The cursed everhitting sword.

It has no bonus to hit, but never misses. You roll to hit normally, and if you miss it makes up the difference from your hit points.

I agree with you Vendle, but because some people don't seem to think the GM's responsibilities should bring any extra consideration I wanted to make the point in terms that did not rely on the idea of extra consideration for extra responsibilities.

"No Psionics," is not a need.

"Yes Psionics," is not a need either.

We are talking about balancing wants here; the player wants psionics, the GM doesn't want psionics, and the question is which desire should outweigh the other. The player is saying "Psionics will make the game more fun for me;" while the GM is saying "Psionics will make the game less fun for me."

I do not believe that any one person has the right to increase their enjoyment of the game at the expense of another person's enjoyment. This means that whenever such a situation comes up, the decision belongs to the person whose enjoyment would be decreased rather than the person whose enjoyment would be increased.

Decreasing one's own enjoyment of the game to increase another person's enjoyment is doing them a favor; when someone wants a favor the burden of explanation lies with the person asking the favor, not the person of whom the favor is asked.

It's polite to give a brief explanation, but not required because no one is entitled to have favors done for them.

This is why the GM is able to say no, and also put a stop to the discussion when they have had enough.

"Olive branches are over rated. Nothing says I come in peaces like gateing in a demonic hoard and crushing the townfolk under your iron and fuzzy fist."

That's why I like to make my olive branches out of anti-matter.

Precise Strike (Ex): A duelist gains the ability to strike precisely with a light or one-handed piercing weapon, adding her duelist level to her damage roll.

When making a precise strike, a duelist cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield.

Duelists cannot TWF ever, which is what makes them do bad damage. Also hampers their parry attack availability.

The quotation from the SRD doesn't support your conclusion: There's no point saying "when making a precise strike, a duelist cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand..." unless it's reasonable to presume that the duelist might have a weapon in her other hand.

I would read that excerpt to say that a duelist can use TWF, they simply cannot attack with the second weapon in the same round they do a precise strike.

I don't know how many people here remember the original Oriental Adventures; but that's where I started having problems with added classes. Many of their classes worked perfectly fine, but there was one class (Bushi I think) which was designed to replace fighters.

It was a great class - it could do everything a fighter could do plus a few more tricks - and it came with a much faster experience progression table. It was seriously broken.

Ever since then, I've been very conservative about what I will let in a game and what I won't.

I have a simple rule when it comes to non-core material: If I don't have access to it I don't want it in the game because then I can't balance things properly.

I also believe that when you're starting a new system, and for many people, Pathfinder is surprisingly new, it's a good idea to start small and work large. Sticking to official Paizo Pathfinder products to start is a good way to get a handle on things, and then let more things in.

Weather that means adding it all in, banning all non core stuff or picking and choosing what fits out games. I never got the mentality of people wanting to limit options cause they don't like that. Thats like saying, I don't like this. I know you might and you might find it fun but since I don't like it. I don't think you should be allowed to play with it either. I just don't get that.

I am for options even options I personally don't care for.

This is a valid point, but there is an aspect that sometimes gets overlooked: When a player asks to use a given class or option, they are not just asking if they can play with it, they are also asking if the GM will play with it, too. So the GM isn't simply saying the player shouldn't be allowed to play with the option because the GM doesn't like the player using it - but because the GM doesn't like playing with or dealing with it.

It's not that the GM doesn't want the game to be more fun for the player, but that they don't want the game to be less fun for themselves. I think that's a valid reason, too.

I went to TV Tropes (barely escaping with my soul) and I did find the references to Pathfinder hate rather odd. I haven't seen any in my local group - there's been the mild dislike of people who don't want to invest in/learn a new(ish) rule system - but that's not specific to Pathfinder.

The edition I've seen the most hatred for has been 4E and I think that's more from the "bait and switch" aspect of it being so different from previous editions but still advertised as D&D.

Also, while it may not have the biggest advertising blitz, it at least has bookstore placement. I found my copy at eye level in Borders.

Everyone in the game needs to be able to have fun. Players and GM alike, otherwise there's no point playing.

There is one thing that I haven't seen considered regarding the Psion/Wizard issue that I think is important: There is a big difference between saying "you can't" on one side and saying "you must" on the other, and that's why I think the GM's "no" should outweigh the player's "I want to..." in this kind of situation.

The GM is essentially saying, "if you want to do this, you can only do it this way; otherwise you can do something else." While they are restricting the player's actions, they are not forcing the player to do something they don't want to do. The player still has the right to play a different character.

By insisting on playing a character type the GM does not want in the campaign, the player is forcing the GM to do something they do not want to do. This is far more disrespectful than the GM's refusal to allow the player to play a Psion under the guise of being a Wizard.

Everyone at the gaming table has the basic right to say "no."

No GM should be required to allow something in a game they are running that they are uncomfortable adjudicating, because all that will do is make the game less fun for everyone at the table.

When it comes to rules interpretations, yes the GM should listen to the players and even change their mind when convinced. However, on the flip side of this, the players should not engage in a major argument about such rulings in such a way that it disrupts the flow of the game.

As a DM or GM I believe it is my job to facilitate the group's enjoyment of the game. That includes everyone at the table.

I can't speak to the OP's group, but I've been playing over 30 years so I have plenty of experience with players wanting to use splatbooks or even "Dragon Magazine NPC classes" from back in the old days.

I tend to prefer core only or core + a limited number of supplements both when I run a game and when I play in it. My own thoughts is that while many if not most splatbooks are not overpowered in and of themselves, there are a number of edge cases where combining feats etc. from different books can be overpowering in the context of a given campaign. However, the real issue I have as a DM is that I don't like characters built around books I don't have unfettered access to. I don't want or need a scenario that's either too easy or too hard because I don't know something about their character.

Players can want to use any thing they want, but some things just don't work in a given campaign; and the DM/GM is the one who's most likely to know that.