| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1 is definitely just a wizard.
2 is a sorcerer with better RP
3 is a druid
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.
There's no reason you can't remove multiclassing. All the classes are built to be good 1-20 options. I don't think it will accomplish what you hope to accomplish, though. Single-class characters can be extremely optimized, and I see multi-class used for RP more often than for optimization.
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.
What's the point of the dice then? Do away with them, gather round once a week and tell a story...freak accidents and stupid deaths happen. More often to people who takes risks.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. 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*.
Female dm's aren't real. They're mythical creatures like unicorns or the Dutch. :-) I'm 1/4 Dutch, what do I win?
I think it's relevant enough when talking about female GMs and stereotypes that do/don't apply to them to think about how female is actually defined, but this is a subject of specific relevance for me so I'm quick to jump on it when it presents itself.I'm gonna be That Guy and make the comment about how physical sex and gender identity are not the same thing.OK, maybe I'm over-thinking this because it came directly after this comment, but why do you feel a need to say this? In what way is it relevant? 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.
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.
The big issue I find is people falling back on "I'm the GM, I make the rules, stop criticizing how I play." Nobody is breaking into your house and telling you that you're playing wrong. You brought it up on a public forum.
I don't have a problem with houserules or people suggesting houserules when they're relevant. I'm using a couple major ones in the campaign I'm running. But sometimes it does seem like over the course of the thread suddenly people have more and more houserules that weren't mentioned at first but mysteriously seem to pop up whenever the prevailing logic is against their decision. That really detracts from a thread because it ends up getting pulled in a million directions at once.
On the original topic, I just wish there were more scantily clad men. Most women put up with scantily clad women -- unless they are convinced there's some sort of political message to it. But add scantily clad men and suddenly all this male homophobia pops up, men act like it's physically repulsive to see an attractive specimen of their own sex.
So expecting to not be taken as a creep when you say hello because you aren't pretty is entitlement? Yes, it is. If you think that you should have any control whatsoever over what complete strangers think of you, you are not treating them like human beings. You are not the innocent guy saying hello and there is probably much more to the story.
So the first point I'll make is this. I'm the GM. If you don't like that you need to back away from MY table in MY house and go find something else to do. At that point I really won't care. No, you're not. I've actually never met you. You're somebody posting on an internet thread. That means you don't get to pull that card, you're just one opinion out of many and your house rules are valid targets for any sort of criticism I or anyone else wants to throw at you.
Again, it goes back the that SNL video. If the person you are hitting on finds you attractive, then you are not (to them) a creep. If the person you are trying to vaguely interact with (such as saying "hello") finds you unattractive, then you are (to them) a creep.this is also something that should be discussed. No it isn't. This is something that is discussed all the time. So many people in this thread implying that it's morally wrong that a woman may like some men and not others. If you go into situations with thoughts like that, you aren't the harmless shy guy who's just saying hello, you're the idiot who thinks he's entitled to whatever he wants just by nature of existing. Stop it. Just stop. You obviously need to grow up significantly before you are ready to have any sort of relationship anyway. I don't care if you're 40 years old, if you think this way, you have to grow up.
I've read a few pages of this thread as well as the other. I feel each tables aesthetics vary greatly as I have GM'ed or played under a couple of GM's. My question comes since when did role-playing become devoid in a ROLE-PLAYING game? It's not about RP, it's about mutli-classing. It's about whether you need to check off a sufficient number of RP boxes to make a legal mechanical decision for your character. It's also full of GMs who won't allow multi-classing, period, because apparently it takes years and years to learn magic missile, but throw a few of those at some kobolds and suddenly you're summoning devils? Sure, makes sense.
I've successfully used penandpapergames.com to find a group.
"Hey, everyone, lets go for a pizza after game!" or "That was good session. By the way, anyone wants to theater see Iron Man 3 tomorrow?" or anything else directed at socializing with the group, developing the relations above merely co-gamer allowing people to know each other better. This, pretty much. People don't generally go to games to get dates, so don't try and jump straight into dating-type activities.
1.) Don't assume anything about a woman based on the clothes she's wearing. If she wants to attract guys, but isn't interested in you, don't whine and cry about how she's teasing. She's just not interested. Move on. Maybe consider moving on in the direction of a shower, a gym, or a decent clothing store. 2.) Don't assume that females are less knowledgeable. Don't try to help them with their characters unless they ask for your help or you're the GM and you really are helping everybody. 3.) Don't assume that playstyles (tactical vs. role-playing) are gendered in any particular way. Don't assume party roles are gendered, either. 4.) Be very careful including sex in game. Don't include forced sex. Don't force pregnancy on female characters. 5.) Do not touch me. 6.) Don't hold doors if you're in the awkward zone: http://i.imgur.com/mGMTr.jpg 7.) Plenty of things that are not creepy coming from one person turn creepy when they're coming from ALL THE PEOPLE. Give a girl some space.
One of the many reasons why I don't like Ninja. They didn't have magic abilities, they didn't dress in black bathrobes, they didn't have large organizations, and for the most part they never used fancy tools. I hate to break it to you, but historically speaking, nobody had magic abilities.
Any legal character option makes sense. If it didn't, it wouldn't be an option. Everything else is a houserule.
I ask the inverse question: Why would anyone ever add this to their armor rather than just get the better armor to begin with? There's no armor check penalty on it and the max dex is high.
Chaotic alignments are very uncommon in our society. when was the last time you heard of a vigalante. Sea Shepherd was *just* convicted of piracy for attacks on Japanese whaling ships. So, within the past week.
I think 4 or so. A GM should use as much power as necessary, and no more. If you don't like some aspect of RAW, make a house rule and give it to players before a single die is rolled. Now your house rules are the new RAW.
Blood is like water, too much of it is a terrible thing but the right amount keeps you alive. A non-evil god of blood could be about personal sacrifice, family, the life force inside you, to some extent honor. When someone fights to the blood it is instead of to the death, so in that regard blood is merciful. In some games blood magic is used to heal others at the expense of the caster, so non-evil does not seem unreasonable. And 1 of 14 seems like it is way out of proportion. Pharasma has the whole neutral deity of death and birth thing pretty well covered, even if "blood" isn't explicitly in her portfolio.
Drinking is fun, but events with drinking tend to turn into events *about* drinking. That's not what my gaming time is for.
I find it really strange when people want DMs to be arbiters and to have final say but also want the rules to be vague guidelines. What is he arbiter of if not the rules? Is he the arbiter of fun? I've found that it's usually GMs who want the rules to be "guidelines". Having a game with "guidelines" gives the GM a lot more power than having a game with "rules". In a game with rules, a GM is a president. He has a lot of power, but he has to follow the constitution. In a game with "guidelines," he is a dictator. Sometimes you may find a dictator that gets along with your group, and that's great. But other times you don't, and maybe, instead of looking for a nicer dictator, you should consider having a president.
Would it be reasonable to expect that a game that grants total freedom without guidelines should actually live up to its claim that all of your choices are valid? What if the game broke down whenever a party of four players chose the same race? Or the same feat? What if the party only has two player in it? Is it okay to play the same class then? How about 3? 3 people of one class and one of another? It's important to think of these things when you create your system. Thirteen dwarven fighters and a halfling rogue is totally a valid party composition!
Just because he thought for some reason that he might have a chance at survival doesn't mean he should actually have that chance. I don't like playing with people who think that "creative" solutions should always be rewarded even if they make absolutely no sense. If I wanted that I'd abandon Pathfinder and start playing make-believe with a bunch of 5-year-olds because that's what you end up with.
Players should be discouraged from this, I have heard a person say an item was "essential for their character concept". Urrgh. They should take a tip from Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. Named weapons are awesome, but there's no reason you can't just give the name to whatever weapon of that type you happen to be carrying :)
My biggest issue with this spell is that it is race-specific. It's like making Weapon Finesse only applicable to halflings, or Power Attack only usable by half-orcs. People don't say those feats are overpowered, but they are required for certain builds.
everyone keeps saying power gaming is bad behavior.Have you been reading the thread? Many people have been arguing that "powergaming" is completely fine as long as it's not done at the expense of roleplaying. The problem is that you're supposedly required to have a roleplaying idea in mind before building your character, otherwise you're an icky powergamer. But, you know, most people don't grab RP ideas out of the ether. They're always inspired by *something*. Maybe it's a character from a book that you want to adapt to the setting. Maybe it's just a trope, or a stock character. That's fine. But I think it's also valid to build your mechanics first, and then look at what you have -- your race, your class, your abilities -- and decide from there what someone with those abilities would act like, what character types they might fit. What, exactly, do you miss out on doing things that way? Why is that any less RP?
In World of Warcraft, I used to have a hunter with a pet cat named Dog. I actually had people insulting me in tells over that name. I also made another hunter who was an orc hunter named Elfymage, and she had a pet boar named Elemental (since frost mages have water elementals as pets).
Probably not. But going against it is House Rule territory... which there's nothing wrong with. Following exactly what the rules say is, by definition, not a houserule. You may not like what the rules say, but in this case they are hardly unclear.
So, what you're saying is, instead of just using any number of valid rules for character stat generation, you metagame incessantly to passive-aggressively attack the weakness of characters whose builds you don't approve of? And you're proud of this?
You're no fun anymore...
"And why can't combat effectiveness BE A CONCEPT." lol sounds like something only a powergamer would say. btw I am copying that and the character description to hard copy and carrying it around with me in my gaming bag to say "never do this" when I start a game. More people should do this. I'd know what games to leave immediately.
You seem to have this issue where only character's who suck at combat are "valid RP characters." Didn't you get the memo? The only things that count as RP are going shopping, acting emo, and being a Mary Sue.
I like how Evil hat presented the good-evil thing. Humans have FREE-WILL, they can choose to be and do 'evil' or 'good' as it suits the individual; everything else MUST follow their NATURE. As for the OP, it's in an Orc's nature to be aggressive and violent. It's the Orc's choice to use that nature for the defense of others or to dominate others. Wait... what? This makes no sense. Humans have a nature, and they have free will. Orcs only have a nature? Really? What about elves, dwarves, halflings, etc.? Can you really count as the same general type two groups, one of whom has free will and the other of which doesn't? That's pretty huge right there. I mean, sure, it gets very silly when every dark elf you meet is a chaotic good rebel trying to redeem his race, but at the same time, I think most people assume that any living non-outsider with an INT of 3+ has free will, and if you aren't acting on that, you should make sure your players know that, because it's a massive departure from custom.
I played in a game once where the DM decided that Abyssal was actually French. It was amusing picturing all these demons going around speaking French. |