| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, I liked her old look a lot better. She looked much more confident.
@ Terraneaux I'm sorry your play experience was not up to your expectations, but I am enjoying this a lot. It shouldn't have been up to *any* self-respecting gamer's expectations. They should have released it as "early access" but in doing so they probably wouldn't have been able to hornswoggle people into buying it. As someone who's played a ton of Pathfinder, the balancing decisions were incredibly idiotic, and it looked like they added crazy unfun difficulty spikes to hide the fact that they didn't really finish the game. It's like playing a PF game with a horrible antagonistic DM who doesn't know the rules and who cheats to cover this up.
Please dun take this as a quarry or attack on the gendertransformation potion. It was much more i did think she sold an artifact for something cosmetic for her partner. (cosmetic cuz gender has no meaning in PF-Universe) It's not really cosmetic. It's a pretty important quality-of-life thing. One could take a very grim view on things and say that Anevia should have suffered through it for the greater good, but it's not a trivial sacrifice.
A lot of NPC's are flagged as being intimidate-immune because winning an encounter with social skills, especially one like Intimidate that is not based on ingratiating or making friends with the NPC's, is seen as 'too easy.' Nobody took hit point damage or anything. Plus, if a PC can intimidate an NPC, it makes a value judgment about that PC's protagonism and 'coolness' that most GM's are somewhat leery - the PC's are oftentimes the perennial underdogs only able to succeed when they jump through certain hoops set by the GM.
Furthermore, if ANY paladin is going to be accepting of another despite race... it's Irabeth, who's had to go through the same prejudices in her time in Lastwall due to her orc blood. Really? Just because someone is from discriminated minority A doesn't mean that they don't have as much, or possibly more, dislike of discriminated minority B.
Conan + Aliens. Awesome!
On the other hand, one could have an adventure path where the PC's themselves play as dragons. That could be pretty intense. Like the old Council of Wyrms.
Tell them they're supposed to be playing heroes, not children. If they persist have NPCs start treating them like cowards. Who knows, I had a really terrible GM once who would throw overwhelming challenges at the PC's, browbeat them for not running away because they weren't 'thinking tactically,' and then have all the NPCs treat them like s#~& for running away. Also he'd get really nasty towards players who tried to optimize. My point is, OP, the players you're talking about have a perception that the encounters they're running into are likely to kill them. Are you new to this group? Maybe it's got a culture that you're not aware of. Talk to them, and try to change their perceptions.
I think that sometimes monsters need to die in one hit. It's weird that you don't think that's ok.
Not exactly. What matters is that the Paladin feels that the alliance (not the associates) is doing more good than harm. I don't really think that Paladins are allowed to be utilitarian about things.
If someone actually says "I want to run a game with x, y, and z components and without j, k, and l" then that's absolutely awesome, it's a good thing their game has focus and theme, and good on the GM for handling things that way. In my experience, however, that rarely ever happens. There's a 'control-freak' GM archetype out there, and they don't like enumerating all of the rules at the campaign at the start, either because the rules are very restrictive and they know they'll attract more players with a 'just the tip' sort of selling strategy, or else they don't actually have a set of guidelines and restrictions for their campaign, as the enjoyment for them is capriciously and arbitrarily passing judgment on player choices and opinions as they come up, then falling back on 'Rule 0.'
I can promise you that the appeal of my table is not in what I allow and don't allow, it's that I run awesome games. Are you incapable of running awesome games without banning things? If its the player with that mentality then they can suck it up and play a core class but, if I would like to play a gunslinger for example in "your" kill the undead invasion campaign. You can be sure I will bring any and all information on the class and guns with me each time so the group has access to them. I would even go so far as to give you the characters magic item wish list. As to take away as much work on your part to fit the character and concept into the game. That's legit. But what about the GM who just flat-out refuses to read it because they don't own the book themselves, possibly in the hopes of mooching a book purchase, like that guy upthread? DMs don't have to make sense. It's personal preference. Running a gaming table like a tin pot dictatorship just makes someone look like a petty idiot.
One could argue that offering or enforcing such a contract while certainly being lawful is not morally good. One could argue, but one wouldn't have much basis for argument.
That's not really what Atheism means, though. I mean, it'd be like if I put some 'Christians' in a setting and was like 'They don't really believe that Jesus was the son of God, died for our sins, and resurrected. They just use it as an excuse to persecute people.' The 'definition' of atheism used in Golarion is uncomfortably close to certain misapprehensions of what atheists believe.
I like Mengkare as Lawful Good. We need to have some good-aligned archvillains in the setting, after all.
I thought it was hilarious as hell. I saw the 1600 hp and read the encounter, thinking, 'is there some way the PC's have to weaken him to make him killable or something' and then realized it was the same value as the experience. Man, I wonder if any n00b-ish GM's are going to make that mistake, though. Sounds pretty terrible. |
Shopping Cart
|
