Terquem's page

did this ever happen?

Bark

I overheard this exchange at the bar at the Shady Dragon Inn last night

One fellow: "have you seen the comments on wands and their availability on the paizo forums? Wow, some of those people have a deep interest in macro economics."

Other fellow: "I read some of them, and I admit a lot of what they are saying goes right over my head. I mean the percentage of residents able to cast necessary spells for crafting unique magic items is a complex derivative."

One fellow: "Tell me about it, I mean is there a school for this sort of deep study of Magical Economics in diverse population sizes?"

Dwarven drunk sitting two chairs away: "Yeah, it's called the Keynesian school."

Boy, I wish I knew the rest of you better. It seems like we only just met a few days ago, and here we are heading into our first real mystery together, and getting separated at the same time. Well, if it means anything I want you all to know that I've enjoyed knowing you, being a part of this has meant a lot to me. And now that I've found my brother I can send a message home to let our family know he is alright. Shoot, maybe we’ll even find his girlfriend down below. I hope so, for him. But gee, I still really hardly know much about any of you except that Caine can really work a wench, er, um, I mean a winch. Just look at him go.

I find that the apparent suggestions that GMs should create content for games involving characters of high levels

On Their Own

is appalling

Does anyone else remember when "High Level Play" was trying to swing the cost of building your own fortress, and seeing if you could attract

3-7 8th level fighters
2-12 fighters of 4th to 7th level
20-200 fighters of 1st to 3rd level

or something like that?

I might, might?, play Pathfinder 2 if there was an Elfquest crossover...

or QT Bunny

I don't run games in Golarion, ever, so this is not an issue that matters to me in the slightest, and because I feel this way I will not post in this thread...

dangit!

I believe the game of Pathfinder has evolved beyond the useful interpretation of rolling for ability scores.

Most die rolling methods produce results that are interpreted on a curve, while the game is built around linear progressions

90 percent of character development is placed completely in the hands of the player with many choices that can be made to define and explain the character and how it works, and the remaining 5 percent is the question of "Did the player roll the ability scores and generate them arbitrarily, or did he build them?"

When players build ability scores, character creation becomes nearly 100 percent under player control - give them fixed hit point increases at each level and the character creation process becomes 100 percent divested from arbitrary rolls.

The nature of luck and what the dice do or do not do for you in the playing of the game is always going to be a factor of the Pathfinder formula, but as so much player choice has been built into class/feat/skill selection it seems that the game really should place rolling ability scores in the "optional" rules section

For me, there is this ancient thing in my brain that places too much emphasis on "playing the character that you rolled up" instead of "playing the character you want to play"

Every, single, one of these “Paladin Dilemma” threads reads exactly the same to me. It all reads like at one time a Player and a DM got into an argument about what the player thought their character should be allowed to do and what the DM thought the character should not do.

And that argument created a rift so great that the universe shook under its tremendous weight.

The problem is usually not with the Paladin's choices, but with the agreement between the Player and the Dungeon Master as to what it means to have fun playing a paladin.

As to the trolley question

My character saves all fifty people in harms way, regardless of their own intentions to do harm to others, and the trolley driver

Because my character is a hero.

Why are there Alignment Threads?

Two Eight year olds playing

"I throw my rope around you, now I caught you."

"I am wearing my invisible rope repellant cloak"

"I used my super invisible cloak grabbing rope"

"I am faster than your rope"

"I am using super speed rope, no one is faster, you are caught"

"I don't want to play any more"

Every single whim of every single deity in the Golarion universe is filtered through the mind of the DM sitting at your table.

Yes, quite a lot has changed over the years!

The single most important thing being the reduction of hair on the top of my head!

This new "Alignment-less" version of Pathfinder does not appear to be one I will like, sorry, good luck, have fun, good day.

I said GOOD DAY!

*Stands up, fingering the shinny token in his hand*

"Hi, I'm Terquem, and I'm a struggling Tacticslion"

Crowd - "Hi, Terquem."

"I guess it started when I asked a question about Paladins and Goblins, and from there I found myself posting almost every hour. it seemed fun, you know in the beginning..."

I've often wondered why the film makers didn't use an avatar from an 80's "teen" movie as the main villain's avatar in the Oasis, you know without actually acknowledging that it was the principle from Ferris Bueller, or something like that.

Yes, but first you'll need to grab him by the waist and swing him through the air in several figure 8 patterns, you know, to calibrate him

I don't think this new "Goblins Only" version of Pathfinder will be to my liking, thank you very much. Good day.

I said GOOD DAY!

unless you all agree that those rules will be applied to the game you are playing, which is suggested by the rule books, only suggested.

I don't remember reading in any of the books that discussing real world moral conundrums and arguing if "the ends justify the means" can be, in any way, adjudicated, by the dungeon master for improving the overall quality of the game session

Sure, sometimes talking about morality can be fun

I've never experienced a game of D&D where talking about morality, as it is understood in the real world, made the game better.

What I don't get, and it's probably just ignorance or lack of experience on my part, but I don't get why discussions of "real world" moral philosophy, at the table, is necessary for a good game of Make Believe.

I'm just going to stop giving out treasure entirely.

Instead I'll give out coupons, with expiration dates, and lots of fine print that makes them useable only in certain stores and in conjunction with certain other purchases. Make the PCs get jobs so they have to earn money like everyone else

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Sometimes, I get this really weird feeling that maybe, just maybe, we are not all playing the same game.

It is a verisimilitude problem

Stop thinking about your character and the think about the world around your character

These wands are not beyond even the basic economy of a small village - they are not difficult to create. Every village , everywhere would have them - generals of every army would have baskets full of them

Noi villager would suffer economic hardships because they could not harvest crops for a week due to a serious injury - no one would die from a fall off a ladder (assuming the fall did not take them to negative numbers equal to their constitution) Grampa bumps his head, goes to -3 hit points, a donation to the church and he's back at the plow

seriously - I've always managed divine magic in a way that is based upon the 1st edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide

Divine Spells are prayed for, and the deity DECIDES if that is really the spell you need for the day OR NOT and by extrapolation, in my campaign settings, there are no wands of healing, of any kind - if they existed they would have a dramatic effect on the natural course of life and death

Now, some may say, "But David, this isn't fair to the heroic characters."

and to this I say, "With the groups I have played with, it has never been a problem."

If the problem in your game is that it is "too scary" to adventure because the characters might die, then we aren't playing the same game. If you want to heal the characters back to full hit points after each encounter, that's great to, as long as you are having fun, I don't see a problem, but I've been running games in the same campaign setting for a while now, and when the games are done, and I am alone thinking about the campaign world that I and the players I play with have created, I want it to make sense, to me, and wands of healing just don't fit that world.

This sounds like a really weird game. I can't wait to read the rules.

This is where the GM steps in and says "You don't have time to do that," end of issue.

WHAAAAAT?!

The GM, cannot, just, arbitrarily decide that a character is not allowed to do something if the rules say she can.

I fear that at some point, somewhere, a GM is going to be in a difficult position where she is forced to either let something slide, or enforce a rule that causes a player to be faced with the situation where their character doesn't get to automatically do exactly what they want to do

And then, the boards will be swamped with threads decrying the "broken" resonance system and why it needs to be removed from player characters.

26) How will a succubus behave in a grapple? That is the only question that matters on these boards.

I think they might still be allowed to enjoy it, but your character cannot enjoy it, unless they remove the alignment rules completely

I think

unless, you know, there's like a hundred and fifty of them, or something like that.

Oh, I think I see now. You want to play the "fall of the arch-angel" but be the one who was in the right, and come out on top in the end.

Okay, um, never mind. Have fun.

I am struggling to understand how anyone, ever, got into the hobby of playing a fantasy role playing game and after, oh I don't know how long, became convinced that the rules of the game must be followed exactly as they are understood, or the game itself is somehow broken.

"I'm not re-hashing that debate - I'm arguing that a cleric CN cleric casting protection from good 5 times and becoming evil (making them 1 step removed too many from their CG deity) is a bad mechanic. A GM that enforces that rule would be a jerk - a rule that makes a GM a jerk for running *as written* is a bad rule."

THIS, this, this, this - if you want to have a CG deity (for what ever reason) but want to be CN (for what ever reason) and find that your character is constantly in need of "Protection from Good" spells in a game where

a) the DM keeps throwing "good" aligned creatures at your character because she wants your character dead, and you don't - and then rules you are shifting to an "evil" alignment as punishment, then

play in another DM's games

or

b) Your character "keeps" finding reasons to "engage" with "good" align creatures in a way that results in your character "needing" protection from the said "good" creatures and your DM thinks that this behavior is pushing a little heavy on the evil side of conflict resolution management, and a threat of alignment shift for your character seems misguided and "unfair" by you, then

your DM might want to find another player to play with who understands why there is a problem

The problem isn't with the system or the mechanics. The problem is in what each of you wants out of the experience of playing the game.

9) If I play a ranger, do I have to have a "favorite" enemy, or can I be angry and full of rage at all things equally?

In my experience, as a GM, there were far too many times when I thought I was being nice to a player by giving them something they wanted that eventually turned out to be a tool the player used to bludgeon the game into something they personally wanted it to be.

I could post pages of experiences with games and how, in my mind anyway, things have changed, but I've learned that very few people actually want to read those sorts of things.

What I mean to say is, that if, and when, I play PF2.0, I hope it will be with a group of players who want the same thing out of the experience that I do.

My campaign settings do not have Wands of Cure Light Wounds

There are so many people who will not play in a game with me as the GM

I still don't see it as a problem for me

When did they start letting paladins post on these boards?

*knocks on door, opens it, peeks in, whispers*

Ability modifiers used to be on bell curve

*slowly pulls head back through the door and closes it*

I swear, if they do not include the "Bohemian-earspoon" in the weapons table I will be very put out.

Well, if we're asking, then I would actually prefer more D&D in my realism, than the other way around.

In the very first version of D&D,

Magic Missile was a spell that fired a crossbow bolt with a +2 on the to hit die roll

stuff that in your cannon sock

But, on another note

The Index Card Role Playing Game does not use ability scores and only uses modifiers

Wait, so warrior, wizard, and rogue...hmmm man you could take a party like that into some Tunnels and fight some Trolls

30 meters is 98.4252 feet, off by about 1 foot six inches

it was exhausting

I want to play Pathfinder 2nd edition

But I want my character to have skills in driving a car, and fixing machines that target missiles

And I want to be able to drive a car that has armor, machine guns, and missile launchers

and I want the setting to be a dystopian future America where the open roads are filled with desperate people in dangerous cars

I mean I want to play Car Wars

I don't see HOW it could possibly be compatible with 1e unless each separate character class has a unique experience point progression table I mean this is fundamentally...

Wait what?

Ohhhhh

never mind