I thought that was winning for CoC?
Seriously, though, just point out that critical failures happen on average once every two minutes *at least*, more often as you gain additional attacks. In real life, I think most of us would reconsider letting somebody like that near the sharp objects.
I think I'm going to stick with the oracle build posted above. The downside, is that he probably won't have any AoE's, and I don't think the Magus can have them period. So we'll probably have to stock up on alchemist fires. (Bag of holding ftw!)
There are AoEs on the magus spell list (burning hands, fireball, etc). The question is only whether the person playing the magus is someone who will just prepare a bunch of touch spells because they are theoretically optimal for magus, or if he's someone who wants to be prepared for contingencies.
I think the spell recall ability encourages the magus to avoid preparing shocking grasp (or vampiric touch, at the appropriate level) in every spell slot.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I really don't see how testosterone is a negative to charisma then. If you want to be making announcements, issuing commands, generally getting big groups of people to listen to you, having the deeper voice that comes from testosterone is a tremendous advantage.
Because giving a charisma bonus to females has nothing to do with goblins and orcs, who as far as I know are both humanoids and therefore have two sexes. It also has nothing to do with "judgement". There's a reason why there are three mental stats, and CHA has the *least* to do with judgement. It has the *most* to do with physical attractiveness, and we have already had a thread of thousands of posts full of hetero guys saying women have an absolute monopoly on physical attractiveness.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I honestly think a bonus to Charisma or Wisdom makes a bit of sense, if only due to the reduced levels of testosterone clouding the character's judgment. I don't think it's intended to be sexist.
Umm, how does charisma relate to judgment? I really can't see it as any more than the self-centered hetero-male idea that orientations are for women and a few weirdos, because *they* have the objective truth.
The Crusader wrote:
OK. What if a gay guy wants to play a female character in a game, and the GM says "No, I don't want you to do that, it will make the other guys uncomfortable. You can be in my game, but you can't play a female. Also never mention your boyfriend. Just sit around here while we talk about Kate Upton for the first hour and never say a thing because gay people are icky." That's what I hear when I see kitsune banned because "furries are silly".
The Crusader wrote:
Trying to spin this to demonstrate that the DM had no legitimate reasoning or rationale means, once again, Entitlement and Self-Centeredness.
I treated the player's statements differently from the OP's statements because they are second-hand information, and there have been many cases of second-hand information on this forum that have been shown to be highly distorted when other people from that game have appeared. There have been cases where I personally could have done so with games I have been in, but I have chosen not to do so because there is very little to gain from it.
So that is the reason why I don't assume that the issue is anything other than a GM who doesn't want kitsune, given the reasons he has stated and a player who wants to play a kitsune, with all other statements about said player being conjecture at best.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Nit pick ahead: Most APs are pretty agnostic on the topic. They don't typically "specifically allow for it" with any races outside the main PC races. Rather, they don't specifically discourage any.
There is a campaign trait tailored around not being from Varisia. That's what I was referring to. It isn't specific to any one race but it does seem to exist primarily to allow "unusual" backgrounds into the campaign.
The Crusader wrote:
Deciding that you have the right to play this, just because you want to, is the very definition of Player Entitlement. This is almost by definition out of place in most settings. Simply refusing to acknowledge that shows a remarkable amount of self-centeredness.
I said he has the right to ban a race, but I don't think we should ignore that 1.) there is no special dramatic plot reason to do so, because he's running an AP that specifically allows for it and 2.) he specifically stated that he doesn't want to allow it *because he doesn't like furries*.
I mean it's a part of who they are, and being a furry is about more than sex just like being gay is about more than sex. It was the OP who specifically said he didn't want "a silly furry game" you don't have to guess at his motivations it's right there.
Plus it's not like you can even say "there aren't kitsune in his setting" because it isn't even his setting, it's an AP, and the AP materials actually specifically allow for player characters to come from somewhere other than where you start the AP.
I've tried just a flat "No, I don't want this to become some silly furry game. Shattered Star is grim."
A lot of the people I've played Pathfinder with are furries, so honestly I don't like the idea of saying "NO FURRIES IN MY GAME" It's like saying "NO GAY PEOPLE IN MY GAME"
Plus Shattered Star is about Pathfinder Society. One of the campaign traits is specifically for a Society member who isn't from Magnimar. You really don't have a justification here except for "I don't like it." You can say "I don't like it" as a GM but don't pretend you have any other justification, because you don't.
A few points of AC can make a huge difference. Much better to avoid damage than to soak it in my opinion. I don't think barbarians make very good tanks for that reason. Paladins will have more AC and higher saves which make them very good for that type.
I would guess with all the rogue hate on these forums, the rogue...
Least played among people on the forums, maybe. Plenty of people love the idea of the rogue no matter how weak the class is.
I'd probably say cavalier, because of the number of campaigns that restrict mounts (except for small characters). Also gunslingers seem to be banned in half the games out there.
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
Use it to your advantage, have your attackers blow right past the front line and hit their squishies.
Yeah, this is the real issue. There needs to be *something*. In GURPS you don't have AoO, but you have shorter movement and you have facing -- if you go past the fighter, you put your back to him, and he can stab you in the back where you can't defend yourself.
I don't want to breeze through encounters. If you read my previous post, I want the freedom to throw high-CR encounters and appropriate tactics at my players without killing a player every other combat. That's why I give players tools like hero points that reduce randomness. Otherwise I would end up with either an *extremely* deadly game, which reduces party cohesion, or a world where all their enemies are inexplicably less competent than they are.
I don't want to do away with die-rolling, I just don't want it to be a focus. It's enjoyable to deal a lot of damage even if it just means, hey, we ended this a round earlier, maybe we don't need to use as many charges on the CLW wand.
I could just as easily flip your question around, why bother playing Pathfinder at all? You could just play tabletop Russian Roulette. Roll a d6, on a 6 you die. Wasn't that fun? It has a higher mortality rate than most games, so obviously it's *challenging*.
The thing is... there are a few ways to increase the challenge of an encounter. I think randomness is a cheap, lazy way to do it. I try and give my players tools to reduce that randomness so that I can be confident in using encounters that may be a higher CR and opponents that have decent tactics.
Detect Magic wrote:
To expand what I've stated in my aside, I think the term "little person" implies that you're not normal. If you were, you'd be called a "person". Thus, the adjective "little" implies abnormality. "Dwarf" on the other hand doesn't imply anything of the sort. You can be a "dwarf" and also a "person".
It's not a perfect term, but the etymology of "dwarf" is from mythology. So I think it carries more unfortunate baggage with it than "little person".
Unconscious and dying after a normal blow, but still with several rounds in which you can be healed or stabilize on your own, is not comparable to going from full hp to dead in one shot, which can easily happen with a two-handed critical.
Someone with a strength of 18 wielding a greatsword deals 2d6+6 damage, or 2d6+9 with Power Attack, so a maximum of 18 or 21 without a critical. A sorcerer or wizard with a CON of 10 would be killed outright from 16 damage (17 with favored class bonus).
Except there are no Huge Rocs, Medium Rocs, or Large Rocs. Beast Shape is based on bestiary entries, not animal companions.
The point is that the eagle shaman description specifically references wild-shaping into a roc, except the roc is gargantuan and you can't wild-shape into gargantuan creatures. So it's up to the GM to interpret that and decide whether to allow eagle shamans to wild-shape into a Young Roc.
The "D&D is satanic" thing was kind of a fad in the 80s, I guess, the very few people I know who buy any of that are much older, there are Christian groups now that play D&D, self-described fundamentalists even. High school isn't as segregated as its portrayed, really it's a bunch of people and 90% of them think that they're total outcasts and the people with the most money and highest charisma do a bit better but that's about it.
Most of the "jocks" at my school were all around high achievers who took advanced courses and cared about their GPA because their parents pressured them a lot to get into a good college. If they weren't playing D&D it's because they were busy getting in enough studying and extracurriculars.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
People still go to casinos, too. Clearly our educational system needs to focus more on statistics and probability.
Big Lemon wrote:
The thing is, I know that there are a number of cultural issues where I am much closer to the masculine stereotype than to the feminine. But I don't see myself as masculine or even androgynous. I don't appreciate the amount of gender absolutism that comes along with saying "Well, you could identify as any one of these other genders..." No. I don't want to. I want to be a woman who likes rules and tactics.
Table: Character Wealth by Level lists the amount of treasure each PC is expected to have at a specific level. Note that this table assumes a standard fantasy game. Low-fantasy games might award only half this value, while high-fantasy games might double the value. It is assumed that some of this treasure is consumed in the course of an adventure (such as potions and scrolls), and that some of the less useful items are sold for half value so more useful gear can be purchased.
Table: Character Wealth by Level can also be used to budget gear for characters starting above 1st level, such as a new character created to replace a dead one. Characters should spend no more than half their total wealth on any single item. For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins. Different character types might spend their wealth differently than these percentages suggest; for example, arcane casters might spend very little on weapons but a great deal more on other magic items and disposable items.
Heh, yeah, that is a stereotype I would rather do without. I am very rules oriented and probably not as good at RPing the NPCs as I should be. My husband is the exact opposite.
I would probably hesitate to run a game for strangers because I don't know what they'd expect, if they'd listen to me, etc. But with a group I've played with, no problem.
That's ridiculous on its face even if you're playing a totally tactical game. A baseball manager doesn't bench a guy because he got put out on a sacrifice bunt, he pats him on the back for doing what's best for the team.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'm still 6" too short for all that to have done me any good at all. Me and a fair number of other men will *NEVER* be attractive to 99.9% women on that basis alone.
I'm a woman of above average height in an area full of people who are above national average for height and I've dated a couple guys shorter than me. The only thing unattractive is how they both spent their time going "HEY! I'M NOT THAT SHORT. ARE YOU SURE IT'S OK THAT I'M SHORTER THAN YOU? OMG MY FRIENDS ARE MAKING FUN OF ME FOR BEING SHORTER THAN YOU. ARE YOU SURE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DUMP ME?" It's just such a total lack of confidence, not to mention the implied sleights at my own appearance, that is a turn-off. I mean, people thought Tom Cruise was attractive before they found out he was a total whack job and he's shorter than the average American dude.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Appearance can *very much* be changed. Not every guy can be David Tennant, but in reality, you don't have to be. If you manage to stay within a reasonably healthy weight for your height, practice hygiene, and pay a modicum of attention to your clothing you're probably in the top 20% of men, looks-wise.
6) Not really a house rule, but "no math or physics" was periodically mentioned. Especially when we tried to use physics or math to show that an ability would work or something an enemy did wouldn't work.
This is really a pretty necessary rule. You think rules arguments are bad given the set of Pathfinder rules, arguments that devolve into looking up physics concepts on Wikipedia? NEVER. ENDING.
John Kretzer wrote:
Sorry, I was unclear, that was actually what I meant. The GM that ignores WBL is probably one who primarily focuses on casters as a player, and is therefore ignorant of the extent to which martial characters rely on regular equipment upgrades.
Reminds me of a recent "player/GM horror story" on another site. One player was playing an "huaghty elf" and hated the idea of other players playing "monster races", including things like half-orcs, tieflings, most races in the ARG...
That seems like it should result in a dead elf very quickly.
Goth Guru wrote:
You're missing the entire point of my post. If you're playing in a campaign with magic, there is no reason why excluding monks and ninja is any more realistic than including them, because you're not playing a historical campaign. There is no Asia. There is no Europe. There's an entirely different world that operates based on entirely different rules.
Goth Guru wrote:
If the campaign is medieval, set before the age of exploration, there are no Monks or Ninjas outside of the orient. Someone could create a bare knuckles fighter or rogue wearing black pajamas, to try to simulate those classes, but that's their issue.
A "medieval" campaign also wouldn't have magic in it, because that's not historical, either. If the Eastern classes don't fit the feel you're going for, fine, but don't pretend that it's inherently more logical that a fantasy world should draw from certain parts of world culture and not others. You already have mish-mash of Greek, Roman, Celtic, Germanic, middle Eastern and Judeo-Christian beliefs even without the ninja, samurai or monk. You won't accurately recreate the tactics of any given era even without gunslingers and alchemists.
Again, do what you want. I banned summoners in my game, because they are frustrating and worked poorly with some of my house rules. My players didn't really question it because they still had options. I can tolerate DM fiat as long as it's laid out, but I'm suggesting to you guys as fellow DMs to take a moment and reconsider why you think something doesn't "make sense".
Only if it's well-earned. Some characters seem to exist to promote intra-party conflict, like the rogue who is stealing from party members. Not fun, just tiresome. But there's also cases where you have established characters and their motivations conflict -- that's fun.
Watching my mostly Lawful Neutral party trying to make a deal that would sell some people into slavery in exchange for getting out alive and getting the Macguffin, only to have it completely ruined when the halfling cleric (of Cayden Cailean. srsly, does anyone know any non-beer related facts about his portfolio) full-out charges the dude with her rapier. That's fun. It's a lot better than sitting back and watching your character go along with something she never would just because your GM wants everybody to get along.
In my opinion the reason I like "scantly-clad" women is because they have such an awesome body in comparison to guys and can get more attention and admiration about it then men.
This is one of the most idiotic arguments in the world and I hear it all the time. You are, I assume, a heterosexual male. You find women more attractive than men. There's nothing wrong with that. But you need to recognize that you find women attractive because of your sexual orientation, not because it's a universal truth.
NOT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS A HETEROSEXUAL MALE.
Not everyone likes scantily clad women. I don't actively dislike them, necessarily, but they don't do anything for me. In terms of interest, they would rank somewhere above filing cabinets and below potted plants. I would much rather look at a scantily clad male, thank you very much. That's my orientation.
Toyotas are some of the most popular cars in America; many of them are even manufactured here. Toyota is a Japanese company, but they are built for Americans; they are representative of what types of vehicle Americans drive.
Video games, anime -- it's the same thing. Everything you see these days is made with Americans in mind. ESPECIALLY if you look at it and think it's sooooo Japanese, because that's what Americans want.