A Kraken in a bathing suit ? To each their own, I say. After all, that beauteous creature could be somebody's mother.
Search Posts
I have found that, while most agree what stats BASICALLY are, there is much room for interpretation on Wisdom and Intelligence. I've heard it put as basically as Intelligence is like one's IQ score and Wisdom is merely the ability to learn from one's mistakes and not do the same wrong thing twice. (This is where one player I know would say that that just leaves room for new and better mistakes.)
I must agree that Charisma is more the character's presence and personality than actual physical beauty, though I think physical beauty should add a modifier as opposed to being concidered a large part of it. An extremely ugly creature would still have a high Charisma under this criteria, do to the lasting impression that such an appearance left.Another kind of modifier, maybe ? Since there is no seperate stat for just plain being pretty or ugly, then I would say to let characters just decide how they wish to look. Afterall, extreme beauty or unattractiveness can offer the GM opportunities for hero worship or desire or repulsion to become a good plot device.
In my campaigns, there was always someone who decided to act in a way not planned for and I would either have to adapt my campaign or try to guide the errant character back in the direction I needed him to go. Neither was easy at times, but doable. Has anyone's character ever ruined a campaign beyond saving ?I must say, I raised an eyebrow when you started using terms like "errant player" and "ruined a campaign", as though a player who acts "in a way not planned for" is somehow doing something wrong or offensive. Is that how you meant it? Actually, I didn't. I have not had a player ruin any of my games, but have played in scenarios where someone had their own ideas about how things should go and acted upon them, even to the peril or displeasure of the other players or characters. I can't imagine other DMs have not at one time or another done their best to try and guide their characters the way they needed them to go in order to achieve a goal which would benefit them in the long run. I can, as a player, understand how much creative play can make a campaign more fun. As a GM, I encouraged my players to contribute their ideas and would let them incorporate what would definitely work.The bottom line is not to have so much structure that it's a big drag, nor have so little that characters (and players)run roughshod over eachother and the GM. This post was not to fish for advice, nor anger anyone. As a GM, I have had a good deal of success. As a player I have learned as much from freedom as from structure. The success or failure of a session-or even an entire campaign-depends upon cooperation between players and between players with their GM. I was criticized on another post for saying the point of role-playing is to be creative and have fun. If that's not it, then what is it ?
One campaign I ran was Top Secret set in WWII. At first, things progressed very well, but as my players got into it, they began to really start thowing me curve balls. It became a race to see if I could adapt my campaign to suit the different paths they decided to go. It was a heck of a lot of fun, since these guys were all very smart and experienced players. I had cut my teeth on D & D, as had they, and when we finished that game, we had all learned some valuable tools for future games.
Believe it or not, both groups I play in have made alliances with opponents and a good many are now on our payrole. We have done our share of knocking baddies into the next time zone, so to speak, but we have found negotiation a very useful way of getting not only information, but strong NPCs as allies. Some would see this as a bad thing, though we see it as just another tool in our arsenal.
This is for the ones who write their own campaigns, for the most part.
The werewolf in our group does far more damage just
Very clever, I must say. You are correct that an open-minded
Nobody seems to be able to agree what the real
I don't know if it was powerful or particularly effective, but I told my GM I would be using grease in the brothels as a lubricant ;). Useful, probably. (insert winking smilie here)
Amen !
What is the most creative or effective way your character
None of the tedious ones, perhaps, but the expensive ones, and all foci are still required.I love sorcerers. They point at stuff and it goes boom.Exactly....with none of those tedious and expensive spell components. Very true. My sorceress always dresses in white, too, which creates other problems. The alchemist in the group always smells weird andcreates quite a mess with her bombs, so sorceress tries to stand clear of her. ;)
Clerics are fantastic proactive characters with healing to boot, only forced out of that role by the king of proactive spellcasting, the oracle. Prepared spell casters can be more effective in certain situations where spontaneous casters are in others. I have played both. Moststill tend to have a "fly by the seat of your pants" way of operating, though. That's just MY preference, I suppose.
We have no psions in our group. Besides, I was making the comparison
I played a fairly successful paladin for a while, though
I love sorcerers. They point at stuff and it goes boom. Exactly....with none of those tedious and expensive spell components.
I'm glad to see my opinion so widely shared.
Many of the people I have gamed with see clerics as too weak a class to mess with, yet want SOMEONE to run one so that their blood and guts fighters can be healed. I have run several clerics over the years and must disagree. I have found that clerics can be every bit as effective as combat characters AND healers. Opinions.....?
First, don't you mean delud-ED ? Secondly, I must have missed your mocking, but your counting is impressive.
The sort of players I can't stand are the ones who ALWAYS play the same way, no matter what game or character. Now this doesn't mean folks that have specific class preferences--someone who always plays wizards, or clerics, or thieves,etc..It's the ones who, in complete disregard for class or alignment, play the disrupter or troublemaker. They seem to hate group harmony and do whatever they can to stir up dissention or friction between characters.
The worst GM I ever played with was my first. He had a character of his own (which I spoke of in another post) which of course got all the best stuff. At one point, his straight classed fighter (who could, oddly, cast spells better than our wizard) had the Throne of the Gods on a donkey cart to haul him around from place to place, and he sat upon it holding a Holy Avenger in one hand and the Wand of Orcus in the other. When I moved on to another group of far more experienced gamers, I had to learn to play all over again.
My first gaming experience was with a GM who insisted upon playing a character,too, and this proved to be much more advantageous for him than us. His character always got to the really good magic items first, his swings never missed, and he obviously had the most powerful character in the group from the get go. Now I realize that this was a personal character flaw of his, but after that I was strongly against GMs having their own characters in a group they were running. The next group I played with, the GM was very experienced and ran a character skillfully and well, which made me doubt my opinion. Now, I play with a group where the GM does not run a character and, to be honest, I prefer that. The NPCs are character enough, I think.
I have played wizards and I enjoyed them very much. My post was not a sorcerers are better than wizards post by any means. It was a statement of preference only. I see no reason to say that a wizard has more room to grow than a sorcerer. How well a character progresses has less to do with the class itself and more with the player, IMO, especially with a GM that likes to challenge his/her players. Like in chemistry, one can take the same elements and, in mixing them in different ways, come up with very different concoctions. Don't you agree ? The point is to be creative and have fun, eh ?
The easier accessability of Pathfinder is a real plus in my book. With old D & D, there was so much to purchase to just get started. There are many books and suplimental materials with Pathfinder too, but the core rule book is plenty to get started-especially for those who have been playing a while and have a good understanding of fantasy scenarios already. For beginners, most all they need is in the core rule book, which makes it much easier.
I must agree that I have grown to prefer sorcerers to wizards.I love the advantages of spontaneous spellcasting, vs. the more structured wizard class.This freedom gives me a real boost in the role-playing department, as our group is just more heavily into that than just stats and rules and numbers.These are important, but the player character interaction is where it's at for me, I must say.
I have played Dungeons and Dragons from the time when the dice had to have the numbers filled in with those crayons included in the set, through it's incarnations over the years. I've also played Top Secret, Star Wars, Villains & Vigilantes, GURPS, Battletech, and some others. I find the Pathfinder system has fixed some problems I have found in various Dungeons and Dragons versions, but has a few of it's own. All systems can't please everybody. Give it a shot. All in all, it's a good game. It's quite magic friendly, if that's your pleasure. It also gives other classes a strong base from which to build. |