LowRoller's page

As a player i'm not interested in PvP at all. I never build a character with pvp in mind. No stealing-from-party rogues, no angry-at-everything barbarians.

If i found myself in a group with 'pvp on' i would just quit. It's simply not the kind of game i want to play.

I find it hard to understand why two characters that hate eachover enough to kill would stick together in the same group. The most probable action would be to leave the group long before it came to blows. If i went on a dangerous mission i sure as hell wouldn't want mortal enemies around.

So...a a speed of 240 would grant an acrobatics bonus of 88 for long jumps (4bonus x 21). On a roll of 1 you'd still make an 89' jump. If you're standing still and jump you only make it 44'.

I love rolling for stats, i just don't like playing them if i roll low

This thread reminds me of Ring of Sustenance discussions:

One group feels one way, another group feels the opposite, and there's no changing anyone's minds, so discussion just goes in a circle.

That's the nature of rings :)

Gotta love paladin threads :)

The written codes can be interpreted in such an hardline unforgiving way as to make the paladin completely unplayable.

Just decide if you want paladin to be playable at all or not. If you want it playable then make a list of no-no's and hand it to the player. If you don't want it to be playable then ban the class. Don't let someone make one and then depower him for silly stuff.

I'd say there's a distinct difference between meeting a requirement and then adding further to the required stat vs gaining a higher then required ability without ever having the lower ones.

Not that anyone should care considering the weakness of most prestige classes.

It's kinda obvious to me why you cant roll in a PB game. The purpose of PB is to get characters of an even level. Allowing one or more players to roll stats would defeat that purpose.

They do owe me an explanation if they're any sort of reasonable human being.

They are not in any sort of important position where I should follow their orders without question. I am not employed by them, and they are not my superior in any way. We have come together to PLAY A GAME.

And if you're on so much of a power trip from being in charge of running A GAME that you can't formulate a coherent reason for why you dislike something and think everyone should "Respect yo authoritay" because you sit at a different spot on the table, yes, I probably am better off finding someone I wouldn't want to punch after being in the same room for 5 minutes with them.

Thankfully, I only play with people I know, who are actual human beings who can communicate with each other, not the ego tripping aliens that everyone else plays with apparently.

Funny thing is that i could turn those exact arguments against you by simply asking why you must play that specific race/class/whatever.

Remember that 'i want to' i not a good enough answer.

ciretose wrote:

If the explanation is "I don't want 'X' in this campaign" that is a good enough answer

No.

This is the issue. That effectively defeats the purpose of asking why.

That's pretty much the equivalent of "Why?" "Because."

I don't let my little brother get away with that s*~$ and I certainly won't allow someone who's an adult to do so either.

This is the core of the discussion. I say it IS a good enough answer. Nobody is obligated to GM a game with [Insert race/class/whatever] if they don't want to. Not wanting to is sufficient reason not to run a game.

If you dont like it then find another GM. If all the players dislike it then the GM will have to find other players. Everybody has vetorights on what game they participate in.

Nobody owes you an explanation why they dont like things. You can moan and b~~@~ till the end of time but they still dont owe you that explanation. It's no different from not liking tomatoes.

The problem can be solved by playing with the kind of flavor that doesn't force you to suddenly ban things your players might happen to like.

It's worked for me as a DM every darn time, and a campaign can still be serious even if you have things that aren't human as playable characters.

This is a clear case of 'i don't have a problem with [insert thing] so i don't see why anyone else should have a problem with it'

Any GM has a right to refuse to run a game with races he does not like, just like players have every right to not play in games with rules they do not like.

The very concept of "earning your chops" and "standing the heat" in a pen and paper rpg is just silly.

You are not a special forces veteran of 20 years who's been on a hundred dangerous missions. Anyone who actually thinks that harsh rules in Pathfinder makes them badass really needs a serious reality check.

Now i understand why all of Piccolos opinions on this forum are based on low level characters.

I'm afraid there will be a delay in our regularly-scheduled updates (and games) as the universe (i.e., the GM) has been bedridden for the last 48 hours with a particularly nasty virus.

Games did happen on Friday AND Saturday, and I'll post the updates as I become strong enough to sit upright for more than a few minutes... probably out to the group Thursday-ish, and up here Friday-ish. Sorry for the delay!

(And yes, I posted to the obits, and no, it had nothing to do with this group. What can I say? I love a spectacularly silly PC death as much as the next GM...)

Taking sickdays? The GM entitlement these days...

With those stats i might be suicidal too, especially if everyone else got great rolls. This is the reason i prefer point buy. YMMV

Artanthos wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

So Wizards get a free pass and **** the Fighters.

Yup, I think I've spent too much time in this thread, so I'm going to bow out now before I start getting really angry.

Good luck Abadar! Sorry we threadjacked you with this debate.

You make your choices; you live with the results.

I choose for my fighter to have skills.

If you're too busy trying to beat the barbarian at DPR to develop anything else, that is your decision, not something forced upon you by the rules.

And yet Barbarians get 4+int skill points per level. Why on earth are people so opposed to putting Fighters a little bit closer to the same level as Barbarians?

The bigger question is why they are in the homebrew forum arguing about it. If they like things as they are just leave it.

I have to agree that chaotic alignment is not the same as total random behaviour. If that was true chaotic alignment would just mean insane.

Drop the martyr act slade, nobody is buying it. Leadership is a very powerful feat and your "i do it for the team and now they dont want to pay for it" argument is just nonsense. If you dont want the feat then dont take it. If you want the feat then take it but dont expect others to give you extra money for it. I bet nobody asked you to get a cohort.

moronic post. i should not have had to post this. i misinterpreted lethal as your dead for no good reason at al. epic fail

Dont worry, everyone rolls a natural 1 on rulereading every now and then.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

I bolded the relevant part.

Ah. You're right. I did miss that. Let's use your definition, whatever that is. Does that match with the rest of the text? If it does great, if it does not, then I say the whole text is more important than the one word name.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

To reiterate a question that nobody seems to want to answer: if I bring my 30 level 1 followers (which I also get through leadership), do they get a share too? I mean, they could be my friends too. They can have personality, be a in-game person too. They can have all of them name, lives, a family to feed. So if you bring your bard, and your bard deserves a share, if I bring my 30 level 1 archers, do they get a share too?

If they all want a share that's something I'd expect the CHARACTERS not PLAYERS to hash out in game. I expect the characters to hash out the cohort as well.

There's a lot of talk of "player mechanics" and "DMPCs". The characters don't know these terms.

And this is where you clearly miss the point so many have tried to get through to you. OUT OF CHARACTER MATTERS! You cant take a feat, get a cohort and a bunch of followers, demand their share of treasure and expect the other PLAYERS to be happy about this.

Healbot clerics are known for their high cost gear requirements...

I'd ignore him and buy a CLW wand

LowRoller wrote:

Sounds like a player issue that started when you created your charachters. A chaotic neutral were-tiger barbarian is exactly the monster she seems to be, there's no way to prove that she is not what she is.

I agree; however, we play in a group where people are allowed to run their characters as they see fit.

Then you are pretty much screwed if one player decides to play a disruptive character. Not every type of character fits in every campaign.

Sounds like a player issue that started when you created your charachters. A chaotic neutral were-tiger barbarian is exactly the monster she seems to be, there's no way to prove that she is not what she is.

You broke the rule of fun by taking away control of the charachter. PvP is a very bad idea unless everyone agrees to allow it. It can destroy game groups.

There's a lot of different shades between these options but where would you put yourself in the alignment system?

Lawful Good: I follow the RAW and CR system. I want my players to survive so i try to give them hints and information to warn them of deadly enemies.

Neutral Good: I try to follow the RAI and tweak when needed. I want my players to survive so i give them hints and information to warn them of deadly enemies, sometimes i fudge the dice if the monsters are too lucky and/or the players too unlucky.

Chaotic Good: The rules are just a rough guideline, i'm the only true law. I want my players to survive so i'll make sure they dont die unless they do something really stupid.

Lawful Neutral: I follow the Raw and CR system. The players will be given reasonable opportunity to find information about upcomming enemies. The dice will decide the outcome.

Neutral: I mostly follow the rules but some things needs correcting to keep the difficulty at the right level. The players will be given reasonable opportunity to find information about upcomming enemies. The dice will decide the outcome.

Chaotic Neutral: The rules are just a rough guideline. I will make sure the encounters are well balances. Players will find enough information, if they look at the right places. It's up to the players and the dice, the same goes for battles.

Lawful Evil: I follow RAW and CR recommendations. A few +2 CR encounters are well within reason. Why should i inform the players, if they dig hard enough they will find what they need, else they didn't deserve to survive in the first place.

Neutral Evil: The rules are too easily abused by the players. Some things need to be altered, others need to be restricted to NPC use. Players will have to fend for themself, it's not my job to keep them alive.

Chaotic Evil: I'm the god of this world! Those pesky players need to feel my wrath and bow before my might! Die insects, die!

Evil are always free to evilly plot against other evil while good are not free to plot against good, it's totally unfair!

Why it would detract from the fun?

It's quite simple. A side charachter that i dont get to build or control in any way is not my cohort, it's just another NPC the GM uses.
You can write as many walls of text you like but in the end your suggestion is not a solution to allowing the feat, it's just a concealed way of dissallowing it.

This was a somewhat amusing read. So the solution for GM's to allow the feat is to take away any possible use or fun the player could have from the feat..