Dotting.
Search Posts
Voted and now waiting patiently...
Ninja Clans: Are they race specific? Is it family only or can one join? Could a PC begin as a member or is it more aspirational?
My first thought was a Mut vanilla druid with either a wolf or dog companion (based on what would be acceptable in the city). But, I've never had opportunity to play a tiny race before... so I'm intrigued by the possibility of playing a Mite. Couple more questions: Is bardic magic treated the same as other arcane? Are other weapons verboten like guns? Meaning something concealable (or at least not obvious) would be better for day-to-day on the street, whereas a greatsword strapped to your back would invite ridicule/suspicion?
Interested. Are the base classes allowed or only the listed archetypes?
Dotting with interest.
I've always wanted to play a "palace intrigue" diplomacy-with-daggers kind of game.
Dotting this with interest if it's open to new applicants.
Two words: Downtime and Followers. No joke. They'll need to heal, so serious dungeon crawls are out. They'll need a lot of mundane help, so cohorts or followers can be a massive boon. Mundane healing in pathfinder is... not great. But, at low-to-mid levels it can be done. After a major encounter, plan on them being down using long-term care for several days.
One thing to keep in mind, if you are wearing medium or heavy armor, you are subject to the chance of arcane spell failure. That in mind, the following spells are very useful and have no somatic components: Feather Fall, Solid Note, Timely Inspiration.
We're still operating with two different definitions of "rollplayer" here... It's difficult to have this conversation when there's one group using it categorically, one group using it indiscriminately, and one group using it pejoratively. If you are operating off of the original definition, comments like thegreenteagamer's don't make a whole lot of sense. I understand his point, but if we're not going to agree on a single definition, then this conversation is going to keep swirling around on itself.
Man, just go for it. The worst case scenario is that it works perfectly. Every other possible outcome is roleplay awesomeness.
"the acting out or performance of a particular role..." ... is not being accomplished. Rolling dice and declaring success or failure is not the same as contributing to the narrative.
There is probably a valid argument somewhere in here for what amount of descriptive language is required for one roll (like diplomacy) versus what's required for another roll. To me, this is just conflating a situational issue with a universal one. "Roleplay" is contributing to the narrative, to the shared story we are all creating. I have certainly been guilty of making the "I swing at the nearest orc" attack action, so I will not condemn someone for taking the "I make nicey-nice with the NPC" diplomacy check. But, if that is your common practice across the length and breadth of our shared game time, then I can't call what you are doing "Roleplay". You say "Roll Play" is pejorative, and doesn't carry the same definition it used to, anyway. Fine. So, what can I call it?
Maybe people take 'strong umbrage' with the objectification of others for no good reason. If you want to call someone names, whoever they may be, just stop. I'm sure they would. But, if that's directed at me or my post, would you kindly quote any part of it in which I have objectified someone or called them a name?
They are exclusive. I was around when the term roll play first started being used, and a lot of people misuse it today. It is, as a poster said before. A person who plays to roll the dice only. Doesn't care about descriptions, character concepts, story, etc... It was not meant to characterize people who take optimal choices. It was meant to characterize people who only make decisions based on the rolls and do not care about other aspects of the game. So, first of all, this. ^^ Somewhere along the line, people who like to optimize starting to take this as in insult. When they heard it, they felt like it was a slight on them, because they didn't make "non-optimal" choices, and just had to defend themselves against against this apparent insult, (even though it was never meant to characterize them) and thus the argument was born... Really, to all the people invoking "Stormwind", who are you actually arguing against? I have been through this entire thread, and it is chocked full of people taking strong umbrage against anyone who might say, "Your mechanical system mastery means you're not a true roleplayer!" What's notably absent, though... is anyone who is actually saying that. I have sat at the table and across the computer screen from many players. Some players, whether because they are new, bored or disinterested, suffering from creative block, distracted, shy, lazy, or whatever, simply do not offer any quality or depth of character behind the actions they take. I have sat through an entire AP right beside one player, and at the end of the adventure, I honestly couldn't tell you one thing about "who" the character was. I could tell you his name and class. I could tell you what capabilities he had in combat or skill situations. But, that's all. I have also seen some of these players struggle through these tough times and really work to improve the quality of "character" they bring to the game. I have known some excellent roleplayers who constantly work to improve the quality of their game. I have been truly fortunate to have been part of groups that work hard to build roleplaying quality off of one another, so that the depth of storytelling excellence just grows and grows through the course of the game(s). It is a vast disservice to the players that have developed, are developing, and are consistently working to develop good roleplaying skills, to say it's all just the same thing. "Roll Play" is the absence of "Roleplay". Yes, they are mutually exclusive.
I'm not interested in whose game is purer or or more advanced. I'm definitely not interested in calling someone out or shaming them for how they spend their leisure time. But, I'm also not interested in handing out participation trophies. Like it or not, their are verbal (and/or written) narrative elements to playing a tabletop rpg. It's really not a question of system mastery OR narration. It's only a question of participating in the story or just showing up with a character sheet and dice. You can be a terrific optimizer and a wonderful roleplayer. You can be a terrible optimizer and a terrific roleplayer. You can be a great optimizer and a complete rollplayer. You can be a horrible optimizer and a total rollplayer.
So... You're saying there are two distinct groups of people: the black&whiter's and the greyer's? And you go on to say that only black&whiter's would categorize people in such a self-righteous way... by grouping them into two distinct states and denouncing one? What color is the line that divided the black&whites from the greys?
A fair point. However, there is a connotation to "roleplay" that includes "interactive storyteller". While that may not be in the strictly denotative definition of the word, for me in my real life role as "other guy at the table with you", it is very important. You might hit the orc reluctantly, or with righteous fury, or with delight in the carnage, or..., or..., or... Roleplaying something great in your own head is... ... unsuccessful.
I must have a bad definition for these terms. My understanding of "rollplay" is that it is the absence of "roleplay". I have never equated it with the mechanics of the game. It's merely someone who rolls dice with no corresponding descriptive dialogue. "I attack." *rolls* "I hit." *rolls* "X damage. I'll move here and end my turn." I think everyone takes that kind of action from time to time. So, I'm not trying to shame anyone who does that. Some just do it more than others. Occasionally, you find someone who does it almost exclusively. That is what I would term a "rollplayer".
Tier 1: Characters that are the most fun. Tier 2: Characters that you thought would be pretty fun, but just didn't coalesce like you hoped. Tier 3: Characters you just couldn't get into at all. Tier 4: Character you really didn't want, but you felt like you had to fill a niche that the party wanted.
You know what else I hate? When my DM makes me ascend just because I missed an opportunity to punch that kitten that lives next door. I mean... Do I have to declare a kitten punching action everyday? He's just railroading me because there are so many good kitten NPC's!!!
I hate it when the DM puts me in a no-win benevolence scenario. Player: No starving orphans, I'm throwing all two tons of this food over the cliff. DM: There's an oblivious demon standing at the bottom of the cliff. Player: What? DM: The orphans are already starting to eat. What do you do?
Why have more than one good deity? They and all of their followers can only do things one way. Otherwise it's not Good, right? I've never heard another player in any group I've been in complain because the paladin killed an evil creature. But, I've known players to almost be run out on a rail because their paladin demanded we redeem every creature we came across. Maybe it's a game, with a game's morality. And Ragathiel is there so you can be good and a little viscious.
I'm also unsure about the faction rule. Is this a PFS game and do we have to be part of a faction? Will not having a faction decrease our chances of getting picked? I am also wondering about this.
Doesn't this whole concept just work better as an addendum to the typical faction/starting attitude rules? Either the setting allows/demands dual identities, in which case things like disguise, sleight of hand, and bluff (along with role play elements) should suffice, or the class mechanics are forcing this duality on the setting.
Dot.
If you succeed on a grapple check, on the next round, if you successfully maintain the grapple you can move your opponent without an additional check. You cannot substitute swift actions in place of move or standard actions. You only get one swift action in a round.
What the?! I said Charlemagne! Wait, let me check... Charlemagne... Peers... Paladins... Yep.
Actually... if you are speaking of Joan of Ark she actually wasn't all that successful in the long haul... she had one big battle and then pretty much failed at everything else... Firstly, no, I was not referring to Joan of Arc. She has absolutely no part in the legends of King Arthur or Charlemagne. The female knight's name was Bradamante. She was heralded as an extraordinary knight, saved a Saracen named Rogelio(?) I think and led him to baptism and becoming one of the Kings twelve Peers/Paladins? Secondly, I'm not sure what your definition of successful is, but Joan of Arc was incredibly successful in both short term and long term. She lifted the siege of Orleans in nine days, after five months without even a victorious skirmish. She created a strategy of seizing bridges along the Loire, captured several large towns without a fight, and accepted the total surrender of Reims four days after arriving with the French army. Less than two weeks later, Charles VII was crowned king, retaining his throne through the end of the Hundred Years War.
The problem at the core of "historical accuracy" argument being a fallacy is not the sizable number of anecdotes showing how often gamers are pushing historical inaccuracies as historical facts - the "historical accuracy" fallacy is usually a case when one uses historical argument for a fantasy setting just because that setting happens to share some superficial qualities with the historical setting (like a presence of plate armor) and argues that other historical facts must be true for the setting (example: if there is plate armor, there must be European-style feudalism and warriors must follow European Medieval Western Europe knightly codes of conduct). If this is true, isn't the reverse of this statement necessarily also true? Opening the door to some fantasy elements doesn't then mean anything goes.
Beyond Spaniard and Frankish knights, there are Saracens, Ethiopians, Turkish and Egyptians in the Arthurian/Carolingian Legends. And at least one very successful female knight that I can recall. So, that's.... Yeah.
The argument people are making is not the argument you're debating Crusader I'm exaggerating to the point of absurdity. But, only as an exercise in rhetoric. Yes, you can find examples of guns in history dating back to the fourteenth century. That does not make them legitimate to the setting, though. At best it would be a novelty of the setting.
If we were all using one objective setting, then yes, this would be accurate. But, otherwise, I feel perfectly justified in telling you that your boomerang throwing grippli samurai is out of place in my Carolingian setting.
This was my only point. Why this has been quoted twice as the counterpoint to allowing black or female characters is quite beyond me... ... except that these arguments are frequently and unfairly lumped together.
*snip* I'm still failing to equate this with banning gunslingers, non-core races (by which, of course, I mean things like kitsune, not human ethnicities), or naginatas.
So, you've successfully proven that "no blacks in medieval Europe" is a fallacious argument. Shall I point out the fallacy in making that the basis of "All historical accuracy claims are a fallacy" arguments? "Historical Accuracy" might be better termed "Setting Integrity". But, that still doesn't make it a fallacy in and of itself.
Can I posit a few new fallacies to walk hand-in-hand with this one? Namely the "Rules Support Fallacy", wherein if there is a codified rule for something, it must therefore be allowed in any game. Or the "Fantastical Realm Fallacy", which says that because this is a fantasy game, any off-the-wall nonsense you like is okay because dragons. How about the " You got chocolate in my peanut butter Fallacy" where we convince ourselves that everything we add must just make things better. Or maybe none of these, including the OP are actual fallacies... Just because you don't like someone's reasons doesn't make it fallacious.
I could almost buy this line of reasoning except that Dwarves, Gnomes, and Drow all have no problem smelting underground. So, if I give you any semi-realistic reason why a weak, primitive, warren-dwelling, tribal race would use shortspears, you're going to counter with, "Nu-uh! Because Dragons!" And if I say that kobolds use sucky weapons because Dragons, then you're going shout, "No way! There's all these pseudo-realistic reasons they might have weapons!" Have I summed up your counter-arguments fairly accurately? I'm pretty sure they're not going to reprint the bestiaries because you don't like the weapons they listed in the stat block. So, what's your end-game, here?
These were not weapons created solely in the minds of Paizo developers, or backwards compatible creations of D&D or another game system. These are analogous to real world weapons that have actually been used by humans in human civilizations. In real life not every space is five feet, not every resource is universally available, and there are no "stats" to tell you the most consistent way to kill another person. Don't worry. Humanity has done just fine killing each other with slings and shortspears. And with a little creative DM'ing, your kobolds can too...!
Meh... if you have infinite time and infinite resources, then nothing is a real challenge. But, if you only have one day to save the world, and the ticking bomb is on level two surrounded by CR appropriate challenges, then Tucker's Kobolds on level one are absolutely devastating. I don't go in for the 15 minute workday schroedingers wizard argument. Also, better weapons on the kobold wouldn't really change anything in either of these examples.
How do you design worthwhile orc encounters when orcs are hindered with negatives to all mental attributes? Well, in addition to their horrible mental penalties, orcs have the benefit of owning all of the terrain that they'll ever do battle on. They have this secret power that allows them to manipulate it to give themselves every advantage with the swipe of a single dry-erase marker! They can summon weapons and equipment the way Neo and Trinity do. They have the power, at will, to summon additional packs of orcs anytime they need them. So, you might try using your as DM to build the encounter, rather than hoping someone else will do all of the work for you... And the really weird thing is, from the Monster Codex and NPC Codex to Adventure Paths to all the other 3rd party stuff out there, someone actually has done all or most of the work for you.
While we're at it, why don't we rearrange their stat array. And let's adjust their racial ability scores. And some of these racial traits aren't that useful, so let's exchange them for something else. I don't really need them to be undergound. And frankly, I've never really cared for the name kobolds... can we just call them something else? Hmmm... I must not be laying the sarcasm on thickly enough. I'll work on that. Suffice to say, if you want a stronger base creature to challenge your PC's, without adding any templates or adjusting any starting equipment... Instead of reprinting all of the core bestiaries, why don't you just use the goblin, orc, hobgoblin, gnoll, bugbear, ogre, minotaur, or cyclops?
While we're at it, why don't we rearrange their stat array. And let's adjust their racial ability scores. And some of these racial traits aren't that useful, so let's exchange them for something else. I don't really need them to be undergound. And frankly, I've never really cared for the name kobolds... can we just call them something else?
Except there are whole litanies of heroes to protect human kind? The bestiary kobold is baseline version of a kobold. Just like the human commoner is the baseline version of a human. Just like every other creature is the baseline of its kind. If you want something harder, you can add templates, or class levels, or terrain challenges, or traps, or *du-dududuuuuhh* EQUIPMENT! I am almost completely lost as to why you are so passionate about this, when all you're talking about is adding 1-3 AC and switching a d6 to a d8 with reach. There couldn't possibly be an easier adjustment for a DM to make....
Ummm.... In that case, are all the human commoners extinct too? EDIT: Ninja'd by lemeres.
I may have lost the thread here... Has anyone said that you, the DM, can't give kobolds different weapons and armor? Because I've not seen that post. And frankly, I would laugh at the person who posted it. I thought the question was more thematic. Why does the average bestiary kobold wield such weapons? Because they are small, weak, cave-dwellers with a penchant for traps over frontal assaults. If you want all of your kobolds to be dervish-snipers with tanglefoot bags and poisoned bolts, I really don't have an issue with that... (Your players might, though...)
Find the narrowest hallway in your house, and try to swing something akin to a pick or a sword with good effect. You'll probably switch to something with more of a stabbing motion. You know... like a spear. Now, imagine you are in a windy network of warrens, and you are trying to defend it from invaders that may or may not be your size. You point your crossbow, but wait! The tunnel curves away, giving you no line of sight until your enemies are right on top of you!!! Why don't we mount this crossbow and have it go off when they come around the bend? We can put a trigger in the floor, and we don't have to be anywhere near it! There's plenty of reasons why kobolds are the way they are. A racial bonus to mining doesn't mean that they're all expert miners. It means they are small, cave-dwelling, cold-blooded, darkvision-having, natural tunnelers that could be very good at mining if they made it their profession... usually as slave labor at the direction of a much more powerful entity.
You guys win man-- Kobolds bad/evil/dumb exist for the sole purpose of being mercilessly slaughtered by PCs and should always have only equipment that provides them with no statistical advantage whatsoever.... Kobold Mr.: Goodbye, dearest. I'm off to work. Kobold Mrs.: What, in that hide? Go put on your nice leather. Mr.: But, sweetie... it gets so hot in the mines. Mrs.: And take your crossbow. Mr.: But, it's so heavy. And you know the foreman loves to move me from one job to the other. I'll have to lug that thing all over the darklands. Mrs.: Robert Q. Scalysnout! What would you do if some nasty adventurer attacked? Throw rocks? And where does that leave me and the little ones? Now, put that spear away and go get your rapier. Mr.: My rapier?! But, the guys all carry spears! I have to carry a spear! Mrs.: ROBERT! Mrs.: Yes, dear...
|