I want this player for my campaign! If you don't like him, send him over! He sounds like he is proactive and interesting and will give you a lot of adventure hooks that will happen organically.
If/when he does something so outrageous (which can be fun- at least to me) that causes people in Greyhawk to react- don't be afraid to send in the authorities. Then when the PCs need a place to hide/change their identities they will need to do something for that favor. Bam, there's an adventure hook! Not to mention all the people wanting to kill that PC (and his allies). Which is great.
Talk to the player, let him know that you fully expect the other PCs to get sick of his shenanigans and kill him at some point and will allow that to happen. But if he's the player who wants to do whatever he wants, he'll probably do whatever he wants anyway. Expect a crazy campaign ending in a ball of nasty bloody death. But at least it won't be boring.
OP, just do what YOU want for YOUR GAME. All this Psychic vs. Psionics is just semanics. Psionics, psychic, magic, divine, thaumaturgy, voodoo, radiation, demonic, angelic, biochemical, ki, midicholrian count, slack (all hail Bob), blah-blah-blah, are all fictional conceits for power sources that are not real and do not exist.
In a lot of (most) fantasy fiction there is little difference between Arcane and Divine sources of supernatural power, much less a THIRD source of supernatural power. So, decide how you want to flavor it.
Personally, I'd feel that usually simpler is probably best. Do you like the term psychic or psionic? Are the terms interchangeable in your world/campaign? Are there certain classes excluded? (Do you have both Psychics and Psions?) This is the fun of world building.
My two cents.
Spider-Man probably does have above average charisma. Even as Peter Parker he had two girls vying for him in college for him at once (Gwen and Mary Jane). Though so does Logan despite his occasional grumpiness. He has tons of friends, everywhere, is loyal to a fault, and is the guy you want to have a beer with and have your back in a fight- and women throw themselves at him despite the fact that he's a short guy.
I love it. I'd set the whole campaign in my front yard, and make the PCs insect sized. Lots of insect enemies, of course, but regular humanoids, and normal sized humans and stuff being more like forces of nature that are to be feared rather than fought. Instead of extra planar stuff, you'd have to meet the sage who lives in the strange realm called the "Sock Drawer" which is an epic adventure to get there... Could be really cool.
When I use Golarion, I do whatever I want with it and ignore written canon (sorry Paizo).
I haven't decided if Create Undead is evil or not yet. I do kind of like Neutral/Mindless Skeletons and potentially having a Neutral (or even a Good?) Necromancer who has skeletons doing his bidding. Such a necromancer would have bought the corpses from the living before they died, and cared for them especially well, preserving them with dignity.
OTOH- I kind of like old school "evil" skeletons and zombies. Right now I'm leaning towards the former. I'll decide if it comes up based on the needs of my game, that that will be canon for my campaign.
In my opinion usually it IS better if a more socially adept PLAYER has a PC who has the "face" skills. Face skills aren't THAT hard to come by, a number of traits allow for Diplomacy, Bluff, or Sense Motive. Diplomacy sees the most use in my game. The OP could find a solution where his Priest focuses more on Perception and Sense Motive and still is a great investigator, where one of the more "talky" PCs takes care of the Diplomacy (maybe trading out some skill points and/or a trait to become more Diplomacy focused). Doesn't mean that the priest can't do Diplomacy (he could "aid another" with the more verbally adept player's diplomacy efforts with a skill roll).
Any way, my two cents, not everyone has to be the best at everything- in the game or in real life. Some are better with the social aspects of the game, others with the tactical, others with the rules, etc, etc.
Big Lemon wrote:
To a certain extent this makes sense. If my job required going out and killing monsters as part of it, I'd damn sure read up on them if books were available, even if I weren't necessarily going out to fight that specific beast because a) it's interesting and b) you never know.
And also, some of this knowledge can come from "shop talk" and shared stories and training. What do other adventurers talk about in the tavern, "..time the manticore almost got me. He shot those spiky things from his tail, but alas, poor Boris, didn't duck fast enough."
"Manticores shoot spikes from their tails?"
"By Moradin's beard, I saw it with me own eyes!"
There is no way I can play in a weekly game, nor can my players. We play once a MONTH. When I did bi-weekly, even that was too challenging. When people have families, marriage and kids take precedence. That's life, man. Do a monthly game. If you are the single guy maybe run two separate monthly games, and then you should have people willing to commit to that and look forward to it. When you do a weekly game, it will probably be a drag for the folks and they won't be able to commit.
This is good writing. I understand this character perfectly.
I'll just say that I agree completely with Neil Gaiman. When he originally spoke about this issue, he made the point that everyone's writing process is different, and the author does not owe the reader anything. GRRM had some pointed words to say to folks too when they've been rude enough to ask him questions such as "will you finish the series before you die?" His response "F you!" As it should be. This is his work, if he finishes it, he finishes it, and I'll be happy to read it. If not, well, there are plenty of other things to read. And I'll wish him good health and inspiration, just as I do for myself and any other creative person.
I never get any of these threads. I come here sometimes when I'm bored, and I want to see how my hobby is evolving b/c I'm curious. But... I see others raising their fist to the sky "Why doesn't Paizo do things the way I think they should be done!" To which my answer is always, "Who cares?" Really. Who cares? Think for yourselves. Do it your way. Is it that important. Sure, you're the buyer and if there is enough of you, maybe you can sway opinion... but run a game the way you want it. It is really puzzling to me, everyone once in a while I'll make a post like this- and won't get an answer. So I guess the folks making the threads are really that hooked in to the paizo teat that they can't see that this is an imagination game that really should encourage you to think for yourself. Not... Rule X says this... oh noes, that means I'm stuck. I can't make my dream character.
Yeah, I don't get the complaining OP. I've run many, many adventures over the years (since about 1987). I've had to significantly rework... every, single, one. That's the GM's job. If you run something out of the box and expect it to work perfectly, then expect problems. PCs will either be too powerful or too weak or whatever. Always happens. Always. The adventure gives you an outline, so you don't have to start from scratch- then you do a little tweaking- and you're ready to rock and roll. But don't skimp on the tweaking.
I think they have a satisfactory amount for one book. Every class has at least two paths to go down, many have three. This will certainly get expanded as the edition ages. Barbarians (for example) will have more totems for the totem warrior option, more paths, there will be more races, etc. For one book, out the gate it's good- simple while being complex enough to satisify. Multiclassing is available, and simple to use. I really like this edition as well, as it flattens out some of the bloat from 3.5/Pathfinder. No infinitely spamming spell effects and warriors who can fight and move, no magic item Christmas tree... some very good stuff here...
Yeah, there are plenty of concepts that can't be done with Pathfinder. Which is why I don't understand why point buy... truly creative systems for fantasy roleplay don't get more traction. I love love love mutants and masterminds 2nd edition (they have a warriors and warlocks supplement). It uses the d20 engine, I can build any fantasy character concept I can imagine with it... but there are no adventures for it, and I am truly too lazy (and busy working, writing other things, living my life) to write adventures. Otherwise, THAT would be my system of choice. Hey- game designers! Write stuff for this! I'll buy it!
I can tell you my experience: My parents wouldn't let me play in the 80's because our youth pastor told them the game had demonic influences or some such. So I played anyway and kept it a secret from them. I wrapped all my AD&D books in brown paper wrappers just like my school books and wrote "History" and "Algebra" on the covers. BONUS- I could bring them to school and read them in class without my teachers knowing.
Does the Bard/Gunslinger sing:
"Desperado, why don't you come to your senses?
I would be singing this song everytime the "Desperado" was a the table. I couldn't help myself.. :) (Sorry)
I would like to see a fighter who can do crazy jumps, throw his weapon back and have it boomerang back to him, run up walls for a short distance, break stuff real good, intimidate the hell out of someone or conversely inspire them with feats of strength or a dead eye stare, or battle prowess. Block a spell with the flat of his blade, AND reflect it back to the caster. THIS is what a high level fighter should be capable of.
So, let's see what happens.
Some people are traditionalists, ergo "The Paladin must be Lawful Good"
Some people don't care about alignment, and would prefer looser rules, ergo, "Why do we have to stick with that? Why can't the Paladin be Any Good?"
Some people might say many things.
I don't think there is a right answer. In my games I would prefer a traditional game, i.e. Paladin is Lawful Good.
Though I would allow Holy Warriors of other alignment- with slightly different abilities and different names. Dragon magazine had a good article with this (the CG Avenger, NG- Sentinel ? I think?, and others...)
The Paladin has a special place in my heart as the LG challenge to play.
However, I wouldn't tell someone they are wrong if in their game they allowed a NG Paladin. Though a CG Paladin just feels a bit wrong to me. They should be something else. But, play the way you want! D&D is a legacy game and alignment isn't real! If it was, I would be True Neutral anyway... :)
The art is fine. A little cheesecake is fine, so long as some of the folks are covered up too. Paizo has a nice mix, so it's good. If it were all half naked people all the time, there would be a problem. But it's not nearly that. Some of the women and men show some skin, some don't. Like the real world!
And anyway, who cares. It's fantasy art. Go back and read your fantasy books, complainers. I would challenge you to find in any reading of classic fantasy and not find some scantily clad men and women depicted within those tales. Nudity or skin is not something to be frightened of.
Maybe next we'll be talking about how they iconics shouldn't have those sharp blades, and should be hitting the goblins with nerf bats too. Because violence is bad. After all, they could kill something? Isn't that wrong?
Or am I taking my point too far?
Weird stuff was always in D&D from the very beginning. Gygax was doing all stuff of crazy stuff in his home games- then he would advise other GMs to be conservative, when he, on the other hand, had people playing quasi-deities who had magic pistols, and aliens crashing down in the barrier peaks with laser rifles, and travelling to the land of "boot hill".
So I guess I don't buy the side of the coin when people say "such and such is classic D&D and such and such isn't" Aliens are part of classic D&D (Ring of Gaxx and Barrier Peaks) Clone spells and Kung fu monks are part of D&D... This isn't Tolkien
I can see someone limiting stuff for a campaign setting, but to declare X races isn't D&D, doesn't make much sense to me.
So, if someone wants to play a... whatever... it's all well and good. Because this was always a game where pretty much everything goes. If someone wants to play Tolkien, there are very nice Middle Earth RPGs. I would rather blast fireballs, with my Rogue Modron buddy.
The character is lawful. If a 10th level evil character is just sitting by the river, fishing, on vacation, with no armor and no weapons at hand- and the Paladin detects evil and kills him- that Paladin just committed a VERY chaotic act. He should have to atone.
Then have the high level evil guy's buddies come after him while he has no Paladin powers...
Yeah, I admit, I usually have them as the lackey. They can be pretty intimidating in that role. If I were to do a fighter as the big bad, it would probably be something like a Vampire Fighter who could do some other cool stuff besides just wield a blade. A Vampire Fighter or Spectral Undead fighter could be cool- in my personal DMing style. Just a human or demi-human fighter as the antagonist? I think the character would need something extra to have the oomph needed as the archvilian.
Just my style, YMMV
15 is standard, 20 is for good service, 10 is for subpar service. That is how tipping works, at least for food. There are several web sites you can check this out on, but I remember arguing with folks about this before- cheapskate family members who embarrassed me quite frankly with their behavior. Then I showed them the sites. I usually defaulted to 20 percent, unless it was subpar for some reason, lowering it to 15 or 10. (Sometimes a busy night is not the servers fault. But if I can SEE a server just chatting with friends when I haven't had a beverage or some such that might result in a tip reduction.)
My theory is that folks born rich don't have empathy for those in low income jobs. I do well now, but I've have a bunch of crap jobs before I got to where I am... so I tend to tip well...
my two cents.
i think the beguiler is the of the more powerful classes out there, and probably doesn't need a boost. For one thing, it gets its whole spell list as spells known- and it's a damn good list. Secondly, it's an int based caster, with 6 skill points a level. It will have a TON of skills. It's good to go. It really doesn't need conversion IMO. Just play it out of the box.
I have to say, I played a high level Warblade in a game, and it was awesome. I know Bo9S stuff isn't terribly popular, but it was very easy to build a high level guy, I had a figurine of wondrous power- Bronze Griffon, so I was flying all over the battlefield, hitting things for monstrous damage and causing other effects to enemies and using self heals (for a "second wind") when the cleric wasn't near by.
I had one level of Barbarian, though I rarely raged, and modeled my character off of Conan, and had no obviously magical maneuvers- All Iron Heart, White Raven and Tiger Claw- basically Skill Based, Leadership and Savagery, making him feel like a noble savage rather than a jumping ninja or what-have-you.
Use what works. I thought it was nicely balanced and I certainly didn't overshadow the spellcasters or the VoP Half-Orc Monk in the party (well, I was more effective than the monk... but he WAS a monk, and could do other stuff well so I didn't feel so bad).
Hahah. Yeah, if a player was pulling this in my campaign it would be a story point. He's have a chance to live, but devils WOULD be coming after him. Oh yes. But obviously some players just like the rules to exist in a vacuum without the roleplaying considerations... which is how some games run maybe and more power too them. Not mine, however.
Prince of Knives wrote:
I really don't get these sorts of arguments. Every once in a while I check in on what's going on with Paizo for my D&D fix because I am a big fan of RPGs and their development, but people sometimes act like they are slaves to the developers and their viewpoint and the system. Do people not get that the rules are just a box of toys so you can build the game that YOU choose to play? Maybe because I've been playing for a while, I've always seen it that way. I would pick up a new class and say- yeah that's cool, that's going in next week. Or: nope, no way for this one, doesn't fit my campaign for (x, y or z reason), and that would be the end of it. End of story.
Paizo shouldn't rewrite the standard rules for everyone. The standard should exist- which is: in high level gaming there is crazy magic, and fighters aren't as powerful. I personally am not not a fan of high level gaming, but it's fun to bust out every once in a while. But it's totally doable to run an E6 (I actually prefer E8) game world where fighters and mages are on a more even playing field thoughout their career.
The developers don't have to spoonfeed the poor little unhappy players every little thing. Think for yourselves. That's what I see every time I go on these boards. "Wah, I don't like this rule!" Um.. CHANGE IT! You can make suggestions to the developers, that's cool, but if they go a different route, just do what you want in your home game. Who cares? Someone tell me, because, honestly, I do not get it. Is Paizo supposed to cater to EVERYONE? Because, ladies and gentlemen, it's not possible to make everyone happy. I'm probably sounding like a cranky old guy right now (in my thirties btw)...
(grandpa simpson voice): "In my day...we would just use a house rule..."
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
@Umbriere MoonwhisperThat's a shame. I love when players put effort into a story. Even it not all of it fits, I usually finesse it so that most of it will work. Most of it usually can be made to fit. It shows that the players are invested. Shredding a story that a player puts time into is unacceptable.
Freehold DM wrote:
Well, there are two sides to every story. I gave you a short version of mine. She'd probably say I was overly rigid or some such. If she had come up with a compelling story for a Kender in Greyhawk beyond "the kender finds a portal" I would have allowed it, I'm a sucker for a good story. It could be a portal but How did the Kender find the portal? What were the circumstances? Etc. But she couldn't be bothered. If a player wants something unusual like this, they should do some of the creative work. She said: "You come up with it, you're the GM." I said, "Well my answer is simple, you're a halfling rogue. If you want a Kender, create the story." Was I an ass? You decide.
I was probably a bit harsher on her because to that point she HAD been sleeping during sessions, complaining that her Druid wasn't effective enough compared to the Ranger/Rogue?! (though I offered to let her rebuild her Druid and offered to help her with the build), and reading a novel rather than paying attention.
Some players want "Lord of the Rings" from D&D others want "Game of Thrones" as far as their levels of sex/violence. I want the latter. I had a player who was really disturbed by some of the roleplaying, I was describing what I thought was some mild sexual contact (not pornographic by any means) of an NPC, he was also disturbed by a scene of disembowlment. This guy is a good roleplayer, a big fan of Star Wars, etc, but he likes light, PG fare. WAY too light for me, and not going to fly when I GM. It's not that every scene by any means, is dark, but sex and violence is a motivator for characters, rape and torture happens, etc.
Sounds like a d----bag GM, you're better off. You're offer of an inquisitor was plenty reasonable. If the GM was still insistant on some incombat healing he could have thrown the party a bone with an amulet of emergency healing in the next treasure trove 3.5 item yes, but mighty useful for those sticky situations. It's tough to find a game with a good dynamic sometimes...