Churgri of Vapula

Zouron's page

Organized Play Member. 385 posts (559 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Sounds like an excellent idea, this whole in a vacuum was a problem I had as well. I understand that it is supposed to be up to the GM and allow the interaction to be fluid and flexible, but when you don't have any real guidelines at all it becomes a chore to keep it reasonable.

As a GM I want to have strings to present and manipulate, as a player I want to have something to plan around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I would most certainly buy it. I always much prefer this one to the official stuff and to this day I still use this book.

What I want the most is even more Kingdom Events and also something to make cities have a bit more personality at the construction step.

Other things were more things to build in the countryside, different types of roads and balanced setup for different leadership structures. Like a council leadership rather than a single ruler, or elected leadership.

Rules for letting minor nobles having land without it totally ruining the economy and possibly ideas or rules for how they can levy their influence on the country/kingdom as a whole.

Clearer "rules"/guides for interacting with other kingdoms (like trade agreements would have an effect or how a vassal/colony would influence the country as well) as well as diplomatic events.

Rules for standing army, as the rules seem to reflect an army engage in active warfare.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts on the subject.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

amazing kingdom builder book, you really should make a new updated version with even more goodies!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There seem to be some issues with the drop down menu (and the screen economy seems to be rather wasteful)

on the wish list I loved the side menues with everything written out rather than having to press the top menus, just makes me perform more actions before I get to the content I am interested in.

windows 10, chrome.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Kingmaker would be awesome for this... *dreams of kingmaker as an adventure card game*


So.... how do they heal?


idilippy wrote:

I had a good deal of interest in this production, but seeing that it is only a 1 hour run time does make it seem far, far too short for the price. As much as I like Pathfinder I can't see myself spending half the price of an audiobook or more for less than 1/10th the content of most audiobooks. Are the other 5 parts going to be equally short?

As a comparison, the shortest audiobook in my library (The Gunslinger by Stephen King), is 7 hours and 54 minutes long and cost $2 less than this. I don't know anything about radio dramas compared to audiobooks, is it common for 6 hours of programming to run almost $100? I was very much looking forward to having this, I listen to audiobooks all the time, but at the moment even if it gets fantastic reviews I can't see myself getting it.

It is expensive, which is one of the complaints made over at Big Finish Production's own forum, usually for them each episode is apparently 2 hours long rather than this, I am hoping this will be awesome enough to make up for that (and the many many delays).


try amazon.de as well it also have it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*completely off topic* Argonians are my favorite elder scrolls race :)


knightnday wrote:
I think we may be over exaggerating "Approval" of the setting. People are there to play, and in my experience (which is mine and may not be yours) people aren't silently sullen because we are playing X game. People were happy to be PLAYING! The game, the actual act of getting together to play was what was important. If the campaign wasn't working out, we'd talk about it. But people did not show with the expectation they were going to vote in some way.

This matches much closer to my experience as well a few of the group have ideas they like to try out an of course they tell about these ideas as the crop up, so those of us that GM knows about what people would like anyway, which means eventually those concepts can usually be played.

Another thing I find interesting is that attitude of "just go play with another group", I guess I must live relatively isolated because honestly because it is rare that we see anyone else playing beyond our little group (which is basically 4 people total! with two that only sometimes are interested and no there is no gaming store within 30 km of where we live). Maybe I am just not very privileged, but turning away players with a wave of a hand is just not feasible if I want to game I have to compromise.

(for example I can't run modern, sci-fi or my favorite superhero genre games at all since we can't find enough people to run those type of games).


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
"The Mandate of Heaven" for you chinese philosophy buffs.

Umm what here represents the mandate of heaven? Not much I have seen qualifies as the right o rule because because you rule in a way that is beneficial to all.


GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Zouron wrote:
actually personally I feel a need to be given a really really good reason for magic to be common and I never felt I got that from pathfinder. Each to their own I guess.

There is always the fact that spells can he learned thus magic can be used by anybody in some form by anyone who is smart enough and the average person is smart enough for at least simple and basic spells. Such spells are beneficial and everyone will try to learn and obtain what will make their lives easier (except a very few small religious groups like the amish)

I dont see how that isnt a good reason for magic to be common, then those other posts preceding this one have good points from the metagame side.

How should I put it, the mechanics says that magic is available in large quantities to the player characters etc, in fact the whole thing is balanced around the point, but that is just it those are the mechanics not the flavor. I can even accept that some low level magical items like potions of CLW and the like is relatively easy to get a hold of, that being said the PC classes do belong to the 1% of the population, not everyone, adapt sorta allows commoners access (with training and at the very least average and really higher than average is needed making it the least accessible "average person" class. Admittedly that is still mechanically.

Personally I would expect from a man in the street for magic to be uncommon, not something super strange but still something to raise an eyebrow and that the more powerful magic (4+) would be a pretty darn rare sight.

Anyway there is more things that make me think my way, but I believe we will have to disagree or you could shun me :p


actually personally I feel a need to be given a really really good reason for magic to be common and I never felt I got that from pathfinder. Each to their own I guess.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Some things changed, some things improved. Over-all, I'd say Pathfinder is an improvement over 3.5 or 3E.

I mostly agree, especially if we look at the raw mechanics rather than their implementation in the form of classes, spells, feat, etc.


Well it certainly seems some people on the thread reads way way more into a statement than is reasonable justified twisting it to be something it is not, something far more extreme and unreasonable in an attempt to avoid having to actually argue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Zouron wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
So...*scratches head*...what would be your ideal PF? Only wizards get spells, and those spells are all at-will?
never said I knew what would be ideal for PF but the systems Mr Sin mentioned are certainly a step in the right direction.
Fair enough, though only the 3.5 warlock (and presumably the PF invoker) have at-will-only magic. Power points (used by psionic classes) are a daily resource, and vestiges (used by binders) always have encounter abilities.

I said a step in the right direction not that it was the solution.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:

Since this was apparently rather controversial in another thread...

Modulo cheap and easy access to resurrection, I think that PCs dying to random encounters, traps, and other narratively inconsequential things makes the game less fun and pushes players towards being less invested in their characters and in the campaign. Additionally, if the player spent a long time making the character, developing the backstory, and connecting the character to the world, the campaign, and the other PCs, then by randomly killing off their PC you're making them throw away all that work for nothing.

Yeah, I'm always surprised when a DM expects me to put a lot of thought into my PC and to care about him/her, and at the same time insists on things like "Let the dice fall where they may!" and "All real PCs start at level 1!"

'Cause unless we're playing 4e, those things are mighty hard to do all at the same time. And even in 4e, sometimes the dice just don't go my way...

I wonder what a GM would say if their setting might die just as easily and then the players go "Let the dice fall where they may! Remember REAL settings start at level 1". Personally I think as a GM I would start screaming and throw a tantrum if my "setting" was destroyed hehe.

Seriously though players should be treated as the main characters in a story, they can die randomly but it should never be without rhyme or reason.


random thought here: People making such comments are trying to make themselves into special snowflakes on the forum/thread?

(the thought just made me giggle)


I know the feel about the years of experience thing, honestly mostly to me it is mostly useful to show where in the history of rpgs one started and through that give an idea about what assumptions are made about the game at the time.

I like to throw in that I kind of wish people would stop deliberately reading more into what a post contains for the purpose of being able to ridicule the poster without actually having to make a rational response to the post.


GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Zouron wrote:

yes possibly :P but the reason I don't like that everyone has spells is because I feel it cheapens magic it makes magic mundane rather than magical and the idea of limiting resources to a daily amount is just silly in my head nor am I fund of the encounter resource as a limiter, I feel all such are rather artificial.

Obviously I dislike the way spellcasting is done in pathfinder as well, but that hardly is a unique thing or something the majority can't understand (even if they might disagree).

I dont like the spellcasting system either but I think in world where magic can be learned, only the stupidist people would not know some form of magic, even commoners would eventually learn a couple of cantrips, farmers would have a couple spelks that get passed down the family, I mean seriously, just look at technology today, even third world countries have significant knowledge of tech, why wouldnt a fantasy world have widespread magic use?

The only answers to the above question are when the ability to use magic comes from birth (the ability, not the right) or if magic just recently came into the world.

All this talk of soldiers who go straight fighter to fight armies backed by magic and spells is insane, no general is field going to field an army that hasnt even tried to gain every possible advantage and if magic is learnable, you can bet your plot that general is having her soldiers learn combat magic right along with swordplay and likely even has them learning to resist enchantments and spot illusions. There is just no good reason not to do so.

And well that is my pet peeve.

The assumption you make here that everyone can potentially learn magic and would learn some making magic comparable to technology makes me cringe i is the absolutely worst part of the pathfinder system. I believe that magic at the end of the day should be magical, should be something strange and different not easily quantified controlled or comprehended magic should be that which breaks all the rules that normal people play by and not 1d4+1 damage.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
So...*scratches head*...what would be your ideal PF? Only wizards get spells, and those spells are all at-will?

never said I knew what would be ideal for PF but the systems Mr Sin mentioned are certainly a step in the right direction.


yes possibly :P but the reason I don't like that everyone has spells is because I feel it cheapens magic it makes magic mundane rather than magical and the idea of limiting resources to a daily amount is just silly in my head nor am I fund of the encounter resource as a limiter, I feel all such are rather artificial.

Obviously I dislike the way spellcasting is done in pathfinder as well, but that hardly is a unique thing or something the majority can't understand (even if they might disagree).


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Zouron wrote:

Far far FAR to many classes have spells and spell-like abilities, spells are for wizards not everyone.

...

limited daily resources is the worst feature of Pathfinder.

I'm not going to shun you, but I am very confused.

What confuses you?


Not sure if it on the get shunned list but a few minor things I loath:

Resurrection cheapens death, it is boring and too easily available (ie. it exists).

Far far FAR to many classes have spells and spell-like abilities, spells are for wizards not everyone.

Drows should be shot on sight.

Forgotten realm is not a setting it is a tool build for the purpose of telling the characters "you are not heroes, but zeroes!"

cheating on a dice roll is okay for both players and GMs as long as the purpose is to enhance the story and/or move it along.

limited daily resources is the worst feature of Pathfinder.

Abilities/spells/etc with a duration measured in rounds is just weird and a metagaming limitation.

Alignment is a cool tool.

People that play/use with their mobile phone/ipad/etc at the gaming table are being inexcusable rude.

Just because a game takes place in a fantasy place does not mean characters need weird names, especially human characters. I really want to be able to pronounce character and location names.

Seoni is not cool OR sexy.


of course, I don't think we are disputing that to me it was more a point of saying that a character didn't have to be special by what he did but by what he was and that such a perception is not unknown in fantasy even in the "holy grain" of fantasy literature.


pennywit wrote:
Weather, weather, weather. D20pfsrd has a nice random weather generator. Before each session, I used this to game out about two or three months of weather conditions. Sometimes this turns into just flavor. At other times, my players fought (for example) bandits and owlbears in thunderstorms ... which significantly hampered the ranged attackers.

Well I used the random weather generator in the core books (p. 439) and rolled up as we went along, once a day pretty much. I started campaign out in an early fall and the generator quickly turned it into an early winter that was rather long an harsh with the battle against the staglord taking place after a major snowstorm with 5 feet of snow covering almost everything.

My players hate snow, running water and cold since kingmaker and endure elements is standard issue.


Arssanguinus wrote:
Zouron wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:

At the beginning, none of the characters involved even KNEW exactly what gaandalf and Aragon were. Gaandalf was "a wandering wizard". And Aragon was 'a ranger.'

If the only reason you are different is being of an odd race, you really aren't that different.

You mean none of the other characters knew this. that doesn't change the fact who says the other characters knows that the half-nymph has a nymph as a mother?
I repeat, if the source of interest in the character is simply the fact that they are 'x unusual race' then I'm simply not going to find them that interesting.

That might be, but does that make them an invalid choice for others or for others to feel that that character is uninteresting? I mean if I had to ban/disallow every character from a game that I found rather dull I would probably have to disallow 2/3 of all characters put before me.


Arssanguinus wrote:

At the beginning, none of the characters involved even KNEW exactly what gaandalf and Aragon were. Gaandalf was "a wandering wizard". And Aragon was 'a ranger.'

If the only reason you are different is being of an odd race, you really aren't that different.

You mean none of the other characters knew this. that doesn't change the fact who says the other characters knows that the half-nymph has a nymph as a mother?


Arssanguinus wrote:
Zouron wrote:
Terquem wrote:
A Character should not be special because of what they are, but because of what they do.
I am not sure everyone feels compelled to agree with that philosophy and fantasy have plenty of examples of people who are special for what they are first before what they do just take Aragorn (decendent of a king) or for that matter Gandalf is another example of someone who is special because they are.

Not really. Gaandalf is special because he took a much different route from all of his fellow Istari. Because he maintained his "common touch". And many other reasons than 'what he was'

Aragon is special because of what he represented, and what he did. Yes, he had special blood or status, but what made him special was what he DID with it.

And how is this different than a special snowflake who at the beginning are mostly special for what they are? I mean we are talking character creation here not end of the campaign. I mean with the example of the half nymph bard she is special by being a rather unique individual by birth and decide to make her own way and choices by adventuring. After all adventuring is being different than almost anyone else of their kind being in that special 1% which include paladin Orcs and what not.


Terquem wrote:
A Character should not be special because of what they are, but because of what they do.

I am not sure everyone feels compelled to agree with that philosophy and fantasy have plenty of examples of people who are special for what they are first before what they do just take Aragorn (decendent of a king) or for that matter Gandalf is another example of someone who is special because they are.


which is why she should carry a large instument so the opponents goes "ohh a bard/skald/musician/entertainer, we can bother about her later".

Anyaway we seem to get a bit off topic mostly, I will agree that a half almost everything can usually disguise themselves as human with a minimum of effort while more exotic shapes have to do the hooded monk robe like the dragonlance draconians. This means from a snowflaky point of view makes them logical getting more attention while they beg/intimidate/slaughter those that wants to take it out on them, which in turn makes every social encounter more potentially bothersome for a GM and therefore influence the decision process of allowing said character to be a part of the story.

Though regarding this snowflaky story we are on, I have heard very little about if the other players should have a "say" if they want the special snowflake in the group, I kinda thinks that is important too, since their enjoyment of the game have to be taken into account as well in this process.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

though some characters i will most likely never get a chance to RP

a fire lolimental bard (an anthropomorphic flame shaped like a young girl, could drop the racial hit dice off a small fire elemental and it wouldn't be too powerful a PC race)

I'd love to see that work out in practice in a game would be awesome! Gods I would love to have my player come up with such concepts.


Erick Wilson wrote:
Zouron wrote:

... 3pp products (if they are not made by the creator of the game they are inherently bad, ie. non-paizo books for pathfinder for example).

Yup. You nailed it. And there are a ton of other examples too.

Though I will say I have had a lot of problems with 3rd party products, which often have significant balance issues. I do tend to oppose those (except for modules and the like) as a blanket policy. Basically, I have a (probably overdeveloped) knee-jerk response to potentially OP character concepts that is on the level of the knee-jerk response to non-canonical concepts that is possessed by many GMs (and hardly at all by me). But then, balance issues are at this point creeping more and more into the Paizo material anyway...

Balance was always an illusion in my book anyway and only really came through in a few and limited number of situations, usually there will always be one or more characters that will for whatever reason be able to do more. For my games being a high perception character will give you tons of benefits since it is a skil I use probably way to much, on the other hand another GM in my area tend to do stuff that favours pure speklcasting characters, which means the balance is out the window to some degree.

Mikaze wrote:
Zouron wrote:
Beardless female dwarves
I'm amazed that hating this is still a thing.

It came up last week and the ranting was legendary and did include the "pointless limitation" of a 10 dice max fireball rather then a level number of dice fireball.


knightnday wrote:
Erick Wilson wrote:
... old-school laurels and sneer at newness and innovation ...
... I have a question, and I mean this in all honesty: which newness and innovation are we speaking of? I keep seeing this phrase used in this thread and I am legitimately curious what we mean by this? ...

While I can't answer for Erick Wilson, I can give a couple of examples I encountered from other "old" players:

Dwarf wizards
Beardless female dwarves
Non-hobbit halflings (that isn't Kenders)
oracle/gunslingers/alchemist/ninja pathfinder classes
Archtypes
3pp products (if they are not made by the creator of the game they are inherently bad, ie. non-paizo books for pathfinder for example).


I don't personally instantly consider a snowflake a bad thing and in general I am willing to work with the player to allow a snowflake that is made for the purpose of exploring that unique point of view, however on the other hand I will not allow the same character if it is made solely for the purpose of statistical optimizing. As I am usually the GM these days I always talk to the players about their character to see why they want to play that even if it is a regular John Farmer so that I can accommodate each player's wants for the character within the established campaign being played.

As a player I like playing unique races exploring what it means to be a member of that race and their mindset, it's fun really and I played some rather unique things (in my opinion) over the years (for reference I started roleplaying in '85) including tree spirit, an earth elemental and a mouse. That being said in the beginning I didn't feel a need to play anything special, a regular fighter or thief would be grand over time though I started to become more and more bored of playing "yet another farmer boy who went off to seek his fortune". All this means I tend to play rather unique characters to get me excited about the game, I found though that very few GMs, that I have encountered, will allow anything that isn't core and that is rather frustrating for me since it greatly lessen my enjoyment of my characters and I get less involved in the game by being forced to (without any sort of leeway) play a standard race/class combo.

Overall I think that player's should be aware and accepting even respectful of the desires and wants for the game that the GM brings and that any game everyone agreed to, the players should try to work within that setting. ON THE OTHER HAND I do feel that GMs in general need to be more open and accepting towards the players and learn to say "yes" and not just "no" a lesson I have seen forgotten far far to many times; whether this is in regard to concept, class/race or even 3pp material.

If we accept each other maybe the game will be even more awesome for all it might not be but at least we game it a chance, in the end it is the synergy between everyone at the table that makes a game fun, at least for me.


A great and frankly awesome idea, I am so up for this. *does a happy dance*

Good question about Kobolds of Golarion (there is also a bit of kobold stuff in classic monsters revisited though it is probably fairly outdated since the kobold guide).


usually I find that the music only works if you get the players caught up in the story, so the music needs to fit the situation or distort it. For me the most successful "scare" music I had was the soundtrack from Jurassic Park, but try to check to see which kind of music will fit the pacing of the story you are telling before selecting the track.

I would also suggest looking at Nox Arcana albums like Necronomicon or Darklore Manor.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Dustin Ashe wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
With the possible exception of buddhist you can add the War domain to all of those. For buddhist the Martyr domain would be appropriate.
Hmmm.

Lol. Not a joke.

"Madness" may also be appropriate for Real world, but if you're making fantasy clerics that can actually cast spells and otherwise have observable proof that they exist perhaps not.

I am sure we could put war on Buddhism as well, while not as commonly known in the west, religious Buddhist war is not entirely unknown (which just goes to show that people are people everywhere).


hmm well didn't catch it (nor can I see it now but meh I can be stupid too!).


LazarX wrote:
TempusAvatar wrote:
Suggestion: Maybe instead of having four denominations of Christianity with holy symbol: cross, would it be possible to change it up a bit? Maybe give Catholicism the rosary & crucifix?
I wash my hands of this thread.

I am not sure this is a reason to "wash your hands", I think the point was to make it easier to tell the religions apart.


James Jacobs wrote:
Draco Bahamut wrote:

...

We're doing what we can. I'm still frustrated at the miscommunications that happened between us and some artists in Serpent's Skull that had characters who were supposed to be black come in not so black.

With the upcoming Mummy's Mask adventure path we're trying to do better.

Is there a list anywhere of which characters suffered this miscommunication? (I am asking since I am about to run the Serpent's Skull AP)


They all in all seem fine, I would do a few things differently:

Catholic: Favoured Weapon - Long Sword

For me the holy knight with the sword and the crusades seems like the place to look for the favoured weapon.

Taoist-Confucian: Domains - Community, Knowledge, Law, Nobility, Runes

If I remember correctly the Confucian and Taoist came to as a schools of thought on how to organize the world in the right way as a response to the fragmentation and civil war during the Zhou Dynasty period commonly known as the Warrior States period. Both of them had a lot of similarities* but a radically different approach to the way of ordering the world and both sprang up from the professional administrative elite the Shi, anyway to make a long story short these schools of thoughts are about how to order society.

Therefore Community is appropriate since this is the core subject of these two, they are both philosophies so Knowledge seems appropriate, they are created by an elite part of society leading to nobility and both are about how to order things giving us Law, finally Runes are about writing and well that just seems appropriate.

I suppose I should note that Neo-Confucianism seems to me to grants people a "sense" of what is right and wrong and says they must ensure that right is done, anyone happens to disagree are "bad"/"evil" and no compromise is possible. The guy that came up with it is someone called Zhu Xi in the 12th century and I don't really know how much Confucian has changed since.

If you want something to stand in contrast to Confucian-Taoism I suggest you look into Legalism from the same period (the philosophy of the triumphant Qin Dynasty).

* Confucian seems to me to be more optimistic and believing that if things are ordered right people will act right, while Tao seems to say that people will always act in self interest and any notion they will live up to an ideal is nonesense... so it is more skeptical.

From a quick search I noted that the Symbol of Confucian is the chinese ideogram for water the spring of life, so I suppose that water could be used instead of runes for domains to make them slightly different?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well in the case of an animated Pathfinder movie I would love to see Don Bluth as the director or maybe Hayao Miyazaki cause his works are totally awesome.

As for story, I agree original is best but if it was to be an AP I would probably say Jade Regent, the whole harshness of travel work so well in animated movies.


Kobolds are in some respects the poor downtrodden underdogs of the monster worlds, even when they work together well them still get run over by a steam roller and traps? half the stuff that lives near them is either trap masters themselves or can barely be scratched by most things the Kobolds can make.

Personally I like seeing the Kobolds as these slightly alien people who dreams of a believed glory past and strive against all odds not to rule everything but to survive long enough for make sure their clan survive (and get a few good kicks in on whatever outsider they can before the end). Of course my view is just in how I experience them in the games and I tend to play them, I suppose they are more lawful then evil in my book, though they do enjoy a solid payback on the so called dominate races when the opportunity presents itself.


I think you need to sit down and talk to them about it, have a chat and explain your side of it and see what theirs is and if there is anything can be done to salvage the group/game and if not drop the game. A game that is not fun is not worth playing.

Also it isn't really about if you are more right than them it is the perception of evil overlord that needs to be changed and if you do sit down avoid getting too caught up in a minor detail as like a single ruling but keep focusing on the bigger picture "Dictactor GM".


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Zouron wrote:
A few of the real life questions seems to be exclusively pointed towards Americans (I'm Danish), for me the gun education in primary school made me go huh? and voter ID is another one of those I am not entirely sure what it entails. It might be advisable to clarify the real life questions or make them more universal rather than refer to current specific laws and regulation of one place or another as you are trying to find correlation between opinions on various questions on a particular cultural sphere and rpg issues, but that your potential sampling list includes (one/few/some/many) people from outside this cultural sphere.

My bad, here. I tried to make most questions non-specific to nationality, but a few U.S. issues slipped in anyway.

Gun ed in primary schools is actually just an idea that came up in the gun control thread, and I thought it'd make a good question.

Voter ID laws are the result of an effort by certain Republican lawmakers. The laws require citizens to get voter IDs to vote; supposedly this is to protect the voting process against voter fraud. They're controversial because voter fraud hasn't been an issue since the Kennedy administration. They make voting much more of a to-do than it's ever been historically, and they happen to make it much more difficult for the lower classes (i.e., those more likely to vote Democrat) to get IDs and vote.

Thanks for the clarification, I think I will keep my answers blank though.

feytharn wrote:
** spoiler omitted **...

I so agree with the points that some of these issues are pretty much American exclusive issues though I did try to take a stand on them anyway.


Demographic Questions

Which decade of life are you in? (11-20 counts as 2nd, 21-30 counts as 3rd, etc.)
4th Decade

Are you male or female?
Male

Aside from geekdom, how many minority groups are you a member of? (LGBT, racial/ethnic, physically disabled, emotionally/mentally disabled, religious)
None

How financially comfortable are you?
2. I'm somewhat poor.

In your experience, how big is the typical game group? (Including the GM.)
2. 4 to 6

Do you play mostly private games, or mostly at public events?
Only private games

How often do you like to play D&D?
2. once a week

How often do you play D&D?
5. 6-11 times a year

Are you mostly a DM or a player?
Mostly a DM

Which edition was your introduction to D&D?
7. 1989 AD&D 2e

I am most comfortable in…
2. suburban environments

Real Life Issues

Are you religious/spiritual?
2. Casually

How do you feel about sex education in primary school?
1. It should be mandatory and exhaustive.

How do you feel about gun sale taxes?
1. I think guns should be illegal.

How do you feel about personal gun licenses?
1. I think guns should be illegal, even with a license.

How do you feel about gun education in primary school?

How do you feel about concealable and semi-automatic guns?
2. Concealable and semi-automatic guns should be illegal.

What do you want from tax reform?
1. smarter taxes

How do you feel about government surveillance?
2. A little less privacy is an acceptable price for added security.

Wars to Spread Democracy and/or Protect Foreign Civilians are…
1. thinly veiled imperialism

Unions are…
1. the working Joe's leverage

Voter ID Laws are…

Global Warming is…
1. Science

Capital punishment is...
1. Never acceptable.

How do you feel about immigration?
1. There are ways we can all live together!

How do you feel about racism and sexism?
1. They're alive and ugly in the world today.

What's your stance on abortion?
1. I'm Pro-Choice

Do you believe that your government should provide certain necessities of modern life to all of its citizens? (Police, fire departments, schooling, roads, medical care, etc.)
1. Yes

Stem Cell Research is…
1. Science

How do you feel about the separation of church and state?
1. It's a very good thing. Oh, and tax those churches just like the rest of us!

LGBTs are…
1. people like everyone else

Poverty is…
1. the nation's responsibility

If I had the power to change my country's drug and alcohol laws, I would…
5. Make it all illegal!

Game Life Issues

Do you value game balance?
2. Somewhat

Random Game Stats (Abilities, HPs) are…
1. best avoided

Do you value game realism?
2. Somewhat

Do you enjoy core-only games? (With possible exceptions being occasional.)
1. Ugh, no, the walls are closing in around me!

Do you enjoy kitchen sink games? (Few to no character options banned.)
2. They have their charm.

Do you prefer individual XP, or group/no XP?
Group

(Read the next question before answering this one.)
Ideally, alignment is…
1. carefully managed

(If you answered 3 to the last question, don't answer this one.)
Ideally, alignment is…
2. descriptive ("Judging by your character's past actions, s/he is alignment X")

Do you like alignment overall?
2. It has its charm

Paladins should be…
1. any alignment like clerics (with an appropriately tweaked smite power and spell list for non-good ones)

Additional character options are best as…
1. base classes

PC death is…
2. Acceptable if it results from poor decision-making or a climactic showdown.

What is your favorite level range?
2. 6-10

Low Levels (1-4)
2. "Savor the low fantasy fun!"

High levels (13+)
2. "Ugh, let's start a new campaign…"

I favor…
2. Complex classes. If I don't have at least a few spells or powers to pick from, I start getting bored.

Hit points are…
1. an abstraction of luck, stamina, divine favor, skill, etc..

Evil PCs are…
2. Okay if everyone's on board.

DMPCs are…
2. Acceptable if they stick to support roles.

Do you enjoy guns/steampunk in D&D?
1. Yes!

Do you enjoy asian/non-european stuff in D&D?
1. Yes!

AoOs are…
2. good in concept, if not in execution

Combat is best as…
2. a great way to break up social, travel and problem-solving encounters

Do you turn down opportunities to play rpgs other than your favorite edition of your favorite game? (Assume that the GM is your friend, but only moderately skilled, or untried.)
1. Almost never.

Do you turn down opportunities to play rpgs other than your favorite edition of your favorite game? (Assume that the GM is a game-only friend or a stranger, but is a highly skilled one.)
1. Almost never.

Comment: A few of the real life questions seems to be exclusively pointed towards Americans (I'm Danish), for me the gun education in primary school made me go huh? and voter ID is another one of those I am not entirely sure what it entails. It might be advisable to clarify the real life questions or make them more universal rather than refer to current specific laws and regulation of one place or another as you are trying to find correlation between opinions on various questions on a particular cultural sphere and rpg issues, but that your potential sampling list includes (one/few/some/many) people from outside this cultural sphere.


There are few prestige classes I like, I honestly like the whole archetype thing better, I often feel like a prestige class takes more effort to plan for but has much the same effect as an archtype. All that being said my faborite prestige class is "Harrower" I am totally in love with this prestige class and the whole concept of fortune telling.


Umbral Reaver wrote:

The old tale is that ranger was given TWF because Drizzt used a pair of scimitars. The authors refute that, but who knows?

Also, due to poor rules wording, drow maybe had a racial ability to wield two weapons.

That rings a bell, I heard of that before, but wasn't the AD&D 2e days and the rules said that it had to be a small off hand weapon such as a dagger or short sword? (sorry I don't even know where my AD&D 2e books are any more so can't look it up).

As for Drow they are also an abomination onto nuggan ;) just kidding.

MrSin wrote:


dhsensenbaugh wrote:
who only looks at the core rules when rolling a character?
I have many a horror story.

I don't need horror for that, yesterday I had one of my players tell me that he thought that using things from the APG was a bit too exotic and implied that the main reason for using such material was to powergame :/


MrSin wrote:
They removed things like Barbarians needing to be ragaholics who can't be lawful, and monks all being lawful guys from monestaries right? Or how about how they removed rangers having a specific list of pets to choose from, or druids needing to be neutral no matter what?

The whole alignment restriction thing can make a Rageaholic and in fact the whole rage mechanic as presented is something I strongly dislike, I wish they it more general like say "great resolve" or some such, something a bit more abstract then "Me mad, Me brush PUNY monster." but that is netiehr here nor there. Let us just say I agree with this.

MrSin wrote:


Edit: I should add that archery and two weapon fighting and the animal companion list are all from 3.5 core. You can blame the not entirely successful attempt at backwards compatibility I guess?

I suppose it is backward compatible to a degree, or maybe it is more like it is easier for people to grasp the major new leaps when small stuff like that are maintained.


MrSin wrote:
Zouron wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Well, to be fair its only 3 feats and it doesn't take much to use a two handed weapon effectively. You really just need power attack and your done, unlike archery which has a lot of feats attached to it and two weapon fighting which requires at least 3 over its career(and for less oomph
Well to me the point of running around with power attack is to gain cleave, cleave and greater cleave to me are to a power attack what improved and greater two-weapon fighting are to two-weapon fighting, the extra "oomph" that makes it all worth it.
Cleave and greater cleave? Gross. Those are highly optional, and situational. There isn't really an oomph in your attack routine either, unlike two weapon fighting or power attack or rapid shot or precise shot or... yeah, you get the idea.

I suppose in a manner they are, I have personally just found them highly useful quite a bit more often then not and quite a bit easier to obtain then Greater "You need Dex 19 sucker" Two-Weapon Fighting. That being said there is no denying that two-weapon fighting is awesome mechanically and thematically.

Umbral Reaver wrote:
Zouron wrote:
No a Drizzt class is an abomination unto nuggan! :p
You do know the ranger was based on Drizzt, right? :P

*shivers* It is sad to see how the poor ranger class have been abused by the vile and abominable R.A.Salvatore.

A quick research revealed the Ranger class first appeared in Strategic Review in 1975 at least according to wiki (I haven't read it so I wouldn't know) but I seem to remember it was also a first edition AD&D class (fighter subclass), so it might pre-date Drizztzy a bit.

1 to 50 of 385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>