The Chazter's page

Not much point in attempting to use facts to enlighten those whose mind is set.

I have to agree with you there. I think you'll agree, though, that facts have a funny way of reinterpreting themselves depending on who's using them to support their view, and sometimes facts that support an opposing view are 'overlooked' entirely. I didn't know anything about the cougar situation in Oregon until you brought it up and I researched it myself, but I'm grateful that you did because now I know both sides of the issue, and I think it's a fairly important one as far as conservation goes. If anyone else is the least bit interested in this kind of thing, a quick Google search for 'cougar extinction hunting oregon' will be very enlightening. Thank you again.

guys played a

strange game of

(ARGH! I got interrupted TWICE before I could post the last reply)

until something changed

(sorry, I just discovered this thread)

masses attempting to

Sir Kaikillah wrote:

(Hunters and fishermen are the true conservationists in America in my opinion)

And they care every bit as much about true conservation as the logging industry does. Bravo!

Elora wrote:

(cougars) are far overpopulated and the deer and elk populations are plummeting...

How ever did the deer and elk populations survive before the 'true conservationists' were around to protect them? Thank you!

There are a couple of big fans of the show here at Paizo...

-Vic.
.

Make that THREE big fans. Thanks to Sci-fi for picking it up. Hey, a quick question... Isn't it true that the next season of both Dr. Who AND Battlestar Gallactica aren't starting until early October? I haven't missed anything over the summer, have I?

With all the skills and skill points rogues have at their disposal, you might expect to see a lot of variety from one rogue to the other, but it seems they almost always end up with the same classic 'thief' skills. Has anyone tried something different? How did it work out?

I hate that the media these days always refers to obvious criminals - those caught in the act on security cameras or police dash cams in the footage we see on tv every day - as 'suspects' rather than perpetrators. I mean, there they are on tv breaking the law for the world to see. If that's not proof beyond reasonable doubt, nothing is.

I hate that most drivers(in and around Dallas,TX)...

...don't bother to signal until they've already changed lanes (if they signal at all).

...don't bother to wave 'thanks' when someone slows down to let them in.

...don't pretend to be sorry or even acknowledge the other driver when they cut them off or almost hit them changing lanes (because they weren't signaling/weren't paying attention/just don't care)

...can't put down their F*****g cell phones while they're driving!

...there is absolutely no penalty whatsoever for a LG caster summoning a demon, no matter how many times he/she does it...

What if the demon (or any 'evil' creature) were summoned and magically bound (i.e. Quest, Wish, etc) to perform a specific 'good' task, like destroying another demon, for example, then banished upon that task's completion...no harm done? Why would that be considered 'evil' and deserving of punishment as opposed to summoning a 'good' creature to do exactly the same thing? Might a chaotic good diety, for example, support an 'ends justify the means' type of activity? Just wondering.

Speaking of evil sun gods, you might look up the Aztec god HUITZILOPOCHTLI. Granted, he wasn't considered evil by the Aztecs, but, according to the article I read, he could be fed only by blood (he was a war god too), so his temple was the focus of fearsome sacrifices of prisoners captured by Aztec warriors. Victims' heads were strung as trophies on a great rack! Perhaps, in the D&D world, his clerics then raise those sacrificed prisoners to have them serve HUITZILOPOCHTLI and his followers as part of their punishment for opposing him in life? Of course, it would be difficult to be 'neutral' if you're rasing dead, but that's for you to figure out ;)

Although I prefer 3.5e, I liked 2e just fine. I didn't have any problems with the rules myself, but then I usually stuck to the core books. My biggest gripe was with the bulk (and sometimes quality) of supplements they released. Granted, 3.5 seems to be a little supplement-happy too, but at least the quality is a bit better...so far. 2e had its strengths and weaknesses just like 3.5e. If you're curious, try it.

What Mini's are people using for their characters?

I saw a post @ Wizards that mentioned using Shrinky Dinks for figures...

http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-99060.html

This allows for total customization and you don't have to work with a teeny-tiny brush. Plus...it's cheap!

So what are the first published adventures you folks ran as DMs or played in with a character?

That would be The Keep On The Borderlands, the original edition, I think, back when you could still get a Flametongue sword in that room with the wights(I think they were wights) before they changed it to a plain old +2 sword. Remember that original boxed set with the 'chits' instead of dice? 'Chits' were those numbered pieces of paper you'd cut out, turn face down, mix up and grab one at random to determine your 'roll'. Dice must've been more expensive back then, I guess ;)

...I want to know if there's any serious gamers out there who feel the same way that I do...

I do. I despise the kind of game you describe where players feel the need to play some wacked-out combo, but that does seem to be the growing trend, unfortunately. I prefer a serious game...as serious as a fantasy rpg can be, that is...where players are more concerned with 'how' they play not 'what' they play, but it's getting harder to find games like that :(

According to Chase's 2006 Calendar of Events, today, the 13th, is 'Embrace Your Geekness Day'. The description of the holiday in the calendar starts with "Are you into Dungeon games?". So, I was just wondering, which comes first...Does playing a dungeon game make you a geek OR do geeks just naturally gravitate to dungeon games? Hmmm.

...I sometimes find it hard to come up with good alternatives to the tavern scene...

That 80s movie Dragonslayer gives me an idea. How about having the local ruler in the area decree, after learning of a threat he/she either can't or doesn't want to handle himself/herself, that all citizens enter their name in a lottery to undertake this 'glorious' task, and on so-and-so day, amid ceremony, lots will be drawn to determine who will, for the benefit of all, journey to so-and-so location to deal with this threat. Of course the pcs names will be drawn and maybe an npc or two as well just to make things interesting. Lots of possibilities here, I think.

Since it is spreading over the message boards, does anyone want to decide upon a (serious :P ) definition of what a munchkin player is?

Kalin

Munchkin vs. Roleplayer...

Munchkin: Plays to win
Roleplayer: Plays to experience
Munchkin: Plays for reward(i.e. power, fame, magic, wealth)
Roleplayer: Plays for adventure(i.e fun)
Munchkin: Prefers action
Roleplayer: Prefers interaction
Munchkin: Uses the rules to 'perfect' their character
Roleplayer: Uses the rules to facilitate play and make it enjoyable for everyone

Anything else?

Ok. So we've heard everyone talk about their favorite race, class, combo, etc. Well, how about your least favorite enemy or your most feared opponent...not just the baddest of the bad period, but the baddest at different CRs? Just wondering.

Recent threads have gotten me thinking about how expansions, specifically those that introduce new feats, classes, races or prestige classes that might not be as well balanced as the core groups, could lead to an arms race among players. For example, if one player buys an expansion the other players don't have which contains a new class that seems a little too good to the other players, another player may then purchase an expansion to find themselves a new class so as not to feel at a disadvantage. The DM might then up the difficulty of encounters to keep them challenging for the new classes, which would then put players who didn't purchase an expansion at a further disadvantage...unless they choose a new class too. I've seen this happen to some extent in games I've played. Has anyone else experienced something similar in their games?

Too true...but as long as people keep buying these books, for whatever reason, WOC's gonna keep pumpin' them out.

As I have said elsehwere, I dislike them.

While the Knight especially, and the others in general, are well designed and may be fun, they just seem entirely unnneccessary.

The Duskblade is basically a bladesinger. The beguiler is nearly a bard/encghanter. And so on. They are just not needed. They are overspecialized, and could have been made out of regular classes, skills, feats and PrCs.

In case you never check that board, here's an interesting post I noticed last week. I've added to it slightly...
If you were plunged into a D&D world permanently, which setting would you choose, and what race & class would you want be? Unless you're itching to play a human commoner, assume you could be polymorphed into whatever race you like and be trained in whatever skills you desire. Think about more than just being the biggest baddest mo-fo on the block. If you're stuck there and want to survive or even prosper, how would you do it?

(snip)...munchkin/power player gamers ruin a RPG in the long run...(snip)

I couldn't agree more. While they're good for WOC's business in the short run, because they run out to buy all the new books with all the new powers, they're death in the long run for true RPGs. It only took one game playing with new players who were totally satisfied to spend the entire session flexing their stats and mods in two freakin' battles...to convince me of that.

Ok, I'm sure my choice isn't the 'optimum' choice because I have only the Player's Handbook to pick from, but I would choose a plain ol' Dwarf Cleric. Why? Defense! I want to survive, whether or not I'm destined for fame and fortune. Dwarves are inherantly tough/resistant, and I like their clannish culture as a means of support in case things don't go so well, plus they have bonuses/talents which could make them a respectable living even as a commoner. Clerics have armor, decent hit points, magic, healing spells and allies/patrons from the start(i.e. their church). A safe choice, yes?

Have you considered a PBEM(play by email) or PBM(play by mail) game? It's not as good as the real thing, but it's better than no gaming at all, and it fits your schedule whatever that may be. Just an idea. Hey, I also want to say thanks sincerely for doing what you do. Stay safe and come back soon!

Forgive this most humble question from an unworthy player who has only the Player's Handbook... Are there any variant racial write-ups for the standard elf in any of the official supplements? What I'm looking for is something that focuses on elves non-militant cultural interests like their aptitude for the magical arts, their love of lore, their affinity with nature and their talent in the performing arts. I'd like to find a racial package that replaces most of the free weapon feats with skill bonuses like Spellcraft, Use Magic Device, Knowledge(history or nature), Survival and Performance(oratory, dance, singing). BTW, why do elves 'as is' get so many free weapon feats while ignoring these other interests? They could be so much more…interesting, IMHO.

A common occurrence in the group I play with, it the tendency for the players to gravitate to the more exotic flavor classes and prestige classes, while shamefully neglecting the regular ones. (...snip) Anyone else notice this type of trend?

Yes, unfortunately, and I think Wizards tends to promote this kind of thing with expansion after expansion enticing that little munchkin in all of us to try them out. This, of course, was predicatable since that's exactly the strategy they used with Magic the Gathering to keep selling cards. However, Wizards is not entirely at fault here. It's those players who just have to be different or just have to feel like they're badder than their companions, and it's the DMs who allow it in the name of 'greater options'. I'm not against options, but I think players and DMs can use their own creativity to make their characters colorful and unique without needing prestige classes or bizarre combos to do it for them, often, as the original poster lamented, at the expense of game balance. Creative roleplaying, IMHO, is the best way to define (and enjoy) a character. No expansions necessary.

My guess would be that the guy who left that note is probably another player whose character got killed doing something really stupid, so now he has issues but lacks the maturity or creativity to face them any other way. Or maybe his puny intellect struggles to understand the game but simply cannot grasp its finer points, and so lashes out in frustration. Yeh, that must be it ;)

I'd like to see half-elves tweeked to reflect the fact that they are half human not just watered-down elves. I'd also like to see Elves' free weapon feats replaced with something less militant, like the Magical Apptitude feat plus bonuses to Performance(Dance, Oratory, Musical Instrument) and Survival skills.

I was wondering if anyone else here caught the first episode last night. Yep, that reminded me a lot of old school D&D...the good, the bad and the ugly. I was going to start a thread today about it if no one else did. You gotta' watch it at least once!

I haven't seen the book yet, so this is an uninformed opinion, but this seems like a familiar tactic for Wizards...just another excuse to sell a book and/or appeal to the munchkins who always want better powers, better skills, a better class, etc, plus it's more hassle for the DMs trying to keep up with everything. Oh, I'm sure there's probably some neat stuff in there, but enough 'quality' stuff for another expensive hard-cover book? Probably not would be my guess.

Just wondering what everyone's thoughts were about the new Player's Handbook II.

Personally, I thought that the material as presented was well done and mainly balanced, though I haven't inserted any of it into my campaign to be sure. I thought the Knight class was particularly well done and the inclusion of the new spells was more of an "eh, whatever," though a few were nice.

I like the *idea* of retooling a character; changing your ideals and goals as the character progresses through the ranks is only natural after all, but what's to stop a character from just leaving the group and creating a new one?

I like that the book was more of less aimed at the newer player, of which I have 4 in my group. I have no doubt that the 2 other, much more experienced players, will find useful things in the book as well, but reading the book from cover to cover (or just those sections that apply to them, for that matter) should greatly enhance the other player's awareness of the game, and thereby enhance their gaming experience.

Aside from the obvious benefit(i.e. more or enhanced powers and abilities), why do you choose to play a prestige class? Since my 3ed experience is limited, I'm going by my 2ed experience that many players, at least the ones I was around, chose kits mostly if not entirely for the extra powers and abilities gained rather than the roleplaying potential, which always seemed like a munchkiny thing to do to me. Unless you're trying to pimp your pc, why not just stay with the class you start with, multi-class if want more versatility, and define your character by your actions and roleplaying rather than a prestige class? Just asking...

"What the hell?

Why do we have to jump when someone plays the "race" card even in the most pointless situations? Ban White Dragons! How ridiculous can this get...wait it just did..lol

I have to agree. But one suggestion I didn't see... Why not come up with your own avatar and submit it to paizo for approval?

So which would you rather play, sorcerer or wizard?

IMHO, sorcerers are too specialized with their limited spell-selection and skills. They're great in specific situations, but not so great in a full-blown campaign facing different situations and a variety of encounters. Yes, wizards take more planning and don't have as many spells per day, but overall, I think they're the better choice for pcs.

My problems with the DnD hit point system is that weapons, or any kind of damage for that mater, do far less damage than they should at higher levels. The same knife that would kill a first level character will mearly wound a 10th level character and bearly scratch a 20th level character.

(snip)

If anyone has any thought on the matter(even if it is to tell me that I am an idiot ;) ), has a good way of explaining the HP system or house rules to deal with the problem, please post them.

I like the GURPS system for handling hit points and combat in general. (I haven't played for a few years, so any GURPS players please correct me if I forget something.) In GURPS, hit points are determined by your health score(like constitution) modified by race and certain feats. So, hit points don't vary nearly as much as they do using levels and hit dice as in D&D. Actually, you don't earn experience points or levels, you earn character points which can then be used to buy higher stats, better skills(almost everything in GURPS is done as a skill), more spells, additional feats, or traded for gold to buy more stuff. Experienced characters will have more character points to spend and could thus have more hit points, but not anything like the variation you see in D&D. So how do characters survive without all those hit points? Well, in combat there are attack rolls and defense rolls. If your opponent rolls a potentially successful attack against you, you then roll to defend, either by dodging, parrying with a weapon or blocking with a shield. If you defend successfully, the attack fails. If you fail to defend, the attack connects and you may take damage. First, there is damage reduction (like Barbarians in D&D), which can reduce or even negate any damage(if you're lucky). Damage reduction comes from armor and certain feats like toughness. Better armor absorbs better blows. So what about damage that does get through? Damage that gets through is modified by weapon type(bludgeoning - no mod, slashing - damage x1.5, or piercing - damage x2). So, for example, although a dagger doesn't pack as much punch as a mace, it can be just as deadly against unarmored opponents with that damage multiplier. Lastly, any damage you do take has a temporary shock effect, smaller or larger depending on the amount of damage, hindering your attacks and defenses until you shake it off the next round. So even a small wound has a small effect, and several small wounds in the same round can really add up. Unlike D&D, hit points represent only how much physical damage your body can take. Other factors like experience and skill come into play through active defenses. Combat, IMHO, seems more realistic in this system because defending is as active as attacking, and because of the way hit points are handled, even a great warrior could go down from a couple of really lucky hits. No one, therefore takes combat or their opponents lightly. It is life or death, afterall ;)

My problems with the DnD hit point system is that weapons, or any kind of damage for that mater, do far less damage than they should at higher levels. The same knife that would kill a first level character will mearly wound a 10th level character and bearly scratch a 20th level character.

(snip)

If anyone has any thought on the matter(even if it is to tell me that I am an idiot ;) ), has a good way of explaining the HP system or house rules to deal with the problem, please post them.

I like the GURPS system for handling hit points and combat in general. (I haven't played for a few years, so any GURPS players please correct me if I forget something.) In GURPS, hit points are determined by your health score(like constitution) modified by race and certain feats. So, hit points tend to be in the same range whether you're a mage-type(there are no classes, per se) or a warrior-type. Now, you don't earn experience points or levels, you earn character points which can then be used to buy higher stats, better skills, more spells(which are like skills in GURPS), additional feats, or traded for gold to buy more stuff. Experienced characters will have more character points to spend and could thus have more hit points, but not anything like the variation you see in D&D. So how do characters survive without all those hit points? Well, in combat there are attack rolls and defense rolls. If your opponent rolls a potentially successful attack against you, you then roll to defend, either by dodging, parrying with a weapon or blocking with a shield. If you defend successfully, the attack fails. If you fail to defend, the attack connects and you may take damage. First, there is damage reduction (like Barbarians in D&D), which can reduce or even negate any damage(if you're lucky). Damage reduction comes from armor and certain feats like toughness. Damage that gets through is finally modified by strength, magic(if any) and possibly weapon type(bludgeoning - no mod, slashing - damage x1.5, or piercing - damage x2). Lastly, any damage you do take has a temporary shock effect, smaller or larger depending on the amount of damage, hindering your attacks and defenses until you shake it off the next round. So even a small wound has some effect, and several small wounds can really add up. Unlike D&D, hit points represent only how much physical damage you can take. Other factors like experience and skill come into play through active defenses. Combat, IMHO, seems more realistic in this system because defending is as active as attacking, and because of the way hit points are handled, even a great warrior could go down from a couple of really lucky hits. No one, therefore, takes combat lightly. It is life or death, afterall.

I like to play rogues. Rogues, that is, not thieves. They're adventurers, not criminals. They use their talents to help the party succeed, just as the other party members do, not to prey on innocents. So, why do I have to go to out-of-the way shops to purchase a new set of tools? Why am I the one that gets funny looks when something turns up missing (because, it turns out, the freakin' mage misplaced it). Every class has talents which could be used for good or bad, so why am I the usual suspect? Are every warrior's tools-of-the-trade(i.e. their weapons) considered 'assasin's' tools? No? Then why are every rogue's tools-of-the-trade considered 'thieves'' tools?

I like to play rogues. Rogues, that is, not thieves. They're adventurers, not criminals. They use their talents to help the party succeed, just as the other party members do, not to prey on others. So, why do I have to go to out-of-the way shops to purchase a new set of tools? Why am I the one that gets funny looks when something turns up missing (because, it turns out, the freakin' mage misplaced it). Every class has talents which could be used for good or bad, so why am I the usual suspect? Are every warrior's tools-of-the-trade(i.e. their weapons) considered 'assasin's' tools? No? So, why are every rogue's tools-of-the-trade considered 'thieves'' tools?

While we're on the subject of old-school fantasy crpgs, is it possible that some of you haven't been to the following website yet?

http://www.the-underdogs.org/theme.php?id=9

You can d/l just about all the classic rpgs (and other pc games too) plus docs and maps...totally legal...as well as some games you've probably forgotten about. Remember Questron and Wizard's Crown?

>>I was just wanting to see how much of the paizo community plays which classes. (snip...)

I've played every class...hasn't everyone...but I'd say the Bard is my favorite. No, they're not the best spellcasters or the best fighters or the best skill freaks, but they're fairly good at just about everything, so they can play many roles. I like having lots of options, plus their unique Bard skills can be really useful. Wizards are my second favorite. Again, because of their options. Of course they can't fight and don't have many skills, but they have good skills, IMHO, with all Knowledge skills, and they can do ANYTHING if they get a chance to cast a spell (assuming they survive long enough, that is).

The Craft skill is listed as usable untrained, but I'm wondering how much an untrained crafter can actually do without supervision? Some skills, like Alchemy, for example, seem practically impossible without at least some training. I'm not talking about just throwing chemicals together to see if you come up with something useful, but rather trying to accomplish a specific task like create this or identify that. Your thoughts?

Hi. I'd like to join a small group of mature players for some serious D&D. I like good stories, interesting NPCs, unusual encounters and lots of roleplaying. I don't like hack-n-slash or munchkins. Although I'm fairly new to 3.5, I'm a quick learner and a reliable player. If you've got the game and you need another player, let's talk more. Thanks!

Though it may have already been said (I didn't read all the replies) I think bards appeal to those who like to have options, lots and lots of options OR those who don't want to focus too much in any particular area at the expense of another. They like to be fairly good at everything, useful in almost any situation. That's why I like Bards... because even though a bard may not have the best attack or the best spell or the best skill, he/she is never completely helpless. I think they also have arguably more roleplaying potential than any other class with so many varied talents and their unique abilities. Yes, they're my favorite class ;)

As everyone knows, Paladins are not allowed to use poison because it violates their code of conduct. So what is it about poison that makes it so bad? Some of you may say that it's bad because one's enemy doesn't necessarily know when one is using it against them, so it's a hidden advantage, and that makes it dishonorable. Others may say that it causes unnecessary pain or suffering, so that makes it evil. But I don't understand either of these arguments since many creatures use natural poisons simply for defense or capturing prey. Does that make them dishonorable or evil creatures? What if a Paladin were to use toxins for the same reasons? And if the use of posion is not permissable, why is the use of magic ok? Both can be hidden advantages, and both can cause several unpleasant effects on one's enemy. Whether you strike a foe with a sword that's enchanted to do extra damage or coated with poison to do extra damage, the intent and effect are the same. And since toxins could be used to incapacitate or capture an opponent without having to fight to the death, just as magic could, that would seem to make them a useful tool for a good and lawful character. What am I missing?

Ah, yes... I remember the 'me versus them' DM, 2nd edition, who gave each player something like 300k exp to buy levels and magic items (he only ran high-powered games and didn't care much about character development). I despise this kind of game, but I just wanted to play since I couldn't find another one at the time. So, I spent a fair amount of time trying to divide up my exp to create an interesting, well-prepared character. First hour of play: We travel for a looooong time just trying to get to where we're headed, some abandoned town, I think, while being worn down by several random encounters along the way. Then, once we get there, before we even have a chance to rest or check things out, we get blasted by a storm of fireballs from out of nowhere. We, the characters, actually survived the initial inferno, but then the DM had us roll for every single magical item we possessed. Several items failed, weakening us even further. But the worse part was when someone's Helm of Brilliance, which failed its save, of course, detonated and wiped out what remained of our party. Some adventure, eh?

Ok, I may be wrong about this, but it seems like most talk here and most games I've played in recently focus on combat and power-gaming rather than story and roleplaying. I always liked D&D as a system for interactive story-telling with a little combat thrown in for excitement, but it seems like it's become more of a video game with a little story thrown in for flavor. Now, I like a good first-person shooter on the pc as much as the next guy, but when I play D&D, I want something with a lot more depth. Am I way off here? What do you guys think?