Please consider dropping the simplified and boring skill system!
You LIED when you said PAthfinder would be 3.5, with the retarded simplified skill system its just as bad as 4th edition.
I do NOT want to only have to roll one check in order to detect a rogue, I want my bloody Spot AND Listen checks. I want characters who may be good at spotting but bad at listening is that so bloody wrong? I shouldn't be allowed to get 10 bloody ranks in spot, listen AND apparantly now smell, taste and touch just by spending 10 points, that should amount to 50.
And changing fly to a skill?
All I have to say to that is Javhol mein fuher!
And NO I am NOT a troll, this is really what I believe.
Point is, Paizo PROMISED to stick to 3.5 and they seem to have LIED!
|
Please consider dropping the simplified and boring skill system!
You LIED when you said PAthfinder would be 3.5, with the gay ass simplified skill system its just as bad as 4th edition.I do NOT want to only have to roll one check in order to detect a rogue, I want my bloody Spot AND Listen checks. I want characters who may be good at spotting but bad at listening is that so bloody wrong?
And NO I am NOT a troll, this is really what I believe.
Staying with 3.5 is always an option.
Word of advice. Using "gay-ass" as an insult isn't likely to get many people in your corner.
He didn't hyphenate it either.
But seriously, I always found Spot AND Listen checks to be redundant.
Look, Paizo promised to stick to 3.5 and this new skill system is distinctly NOT 3.5, and neither are maneuvers.
I am not going to buy your products if they're just thinly veiled 4th edition books.
Again: What part of this book is 3.5?
Again: Why the hell should I only have to spend 1 skill point to get the effects of essentially 5 skills? Some people are trained in jumping but not in tumbling.
Second COmplaint: Improved Grapple/Bull Rush etc only give +2 instead of +4? What the HELL?
Third Complaint: Since when is reduced spell failure an action of ANY kind? Now what are you saying, that a high level wizard can't reduce his spell failure chance, cast haste and then a quickened fireball in the same round? I can't accept that.
Please consider dropping the simplified and boring skill system!
You LIED when you said PAthfinder would be 3.5, with the retarded simplified skill system its just as bad as 4th edition.I do NOT want to only have to roll one check in order to detect a rogue, I want my bloody Spot AND Listen checks. I want characters who may be good at spotting but bad at listening is that so bloody wrong? I shouldn't be allowed to get 10 bloody ranks in spot, listen AND apparantly now smell, taste and touch just by spending 10 points, that should amount to 50.
And changing fly to a skill?
All I have to say to that is Javhol mein fuher!And NO I am NOT a troll, this is really what I believe.
Point is, Paizo PROMISED to stick to 3.5 and they seem to have LIED!
Hi Aaron! You might want to edit your post (and perhaps the forum topic if possible) to be a bit less inflammatory.
You bring up the important point of backwards compatibility. Paizo did say that Pathfinder would have it(not that it would *be* 3.5), and I think they have reasonably achieved it - and I'm quite a hawk for compatibility compared to most.
Fly is now a skill. Flying is not. Just a different mechanic for handling flyer's manueverability (instead of poor/average/good/perfect).
As for differentiating sight and sound based Perception checks - I'm hoping they implement Traits to allow for better variation there.
Welcome to the boards!
|
Paizo promised to be compatible with 3.5 with fairly minimal conversion and I think this system fits that bill, while fixing some of the trouble that came from the needless complexities of 3.5s skill system. You pointed out that you liked being able to roll your spot and listen checks, while they roll their hide and move silently checks, and compare each of those.
Seems a lot of us think that is more rolling then needed to convey a single concept, especially when its something that is likely to be done often. Its an abstract system so saying that your character is 'sneaky' or 'observant' seems to be fair enough.
Its one thing to disagree with some of the combinations of skills, or even that you just prefer the old skill system and to voice your opinion that they should stick with that(there are threads about this in the skills section of the forum down below), but there is no need to troll and rant and insult about these things.
As for 'manuevers' I think you mean the combat feats, and those have evolved from the first alpha, and it seems that jason mentioned on his blog a day or two ago that those are finally going to get pulled for the beta, either being revised to be normal feats or removed altogether based on the feat itself.
-Tarlane
And again, I am NOT trolling. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me a troll.
I personally don't care if my beliefs are expressed in an inflammatory manner. Otherwise its impossible to be heard. Say what you will about civility, in the end nobody listens to a quiet person regardless of what people try to say.
So why then did they get my hopes up?
I wanted to have a source of 3.5 material but thats been blown to hades with all this 4th edition style b+@!+&!s.
As far as I'm concerned, Paizo has LIED TO ME and they must answer for it.
You also seem to be jumping to the conclusion that all of the rules that appear in the Alpha document will be part of the final RPG. Part of the point is that we try out the rules, see which ones we can live with and which ones actually work or not, and the good folks at Paizo polish the rules based on that feedback.
On the other hand, its a lot harder to constructively view feedback when its couched in an antagonistic, accusatory manner. Honestly, they'll listen to you, even if you don't scream at them.
As far as I'm concerned, Paizo has LIED TO ME and they must answer for it.
Duh duh
Da da da da da daDee da dee dee da
(Kirk vs. Spock battle song, in case you were wondering.)
So in other words, there's still a chance Paizo will come to their senses and drop all the World of Warcraft mechanics?
Good. Then I'm going to continue complaining until I am blue in the face in the hopes that they fix these glaring problems.
If you REALLY want a constructive breakdown of why the alpha is bad, fine, I'll give you one in a few weeks. But mark my words, you accomplish more with moaning than with speaking apologetically and repeating "IMHO" all the time.
Hey, "grognards" like myself have been on the defensive since day one, being attacked and lambasted and censored by Wizards. Its about time one of us grows a pair and fights.
|
|
I agree with the OP that Spot and Listen are two different things and should be separated.
However, I think that, by changing it, it makes it easier for people to do it the way they prefer. So, folks that want to use the 3.5 method can easily do so. For those who never liked it, well, now there's a published way to do it the way many have been homebrewing it.
There're always rules a group is going to homebrew. But it is better to keep those at a minimum. It's easier for a DM to say, there's about 3 or 4 things we do differently than it is to say, [/i]there's about a dozen things we do differently[/i].
For the OP: I remember Paizo saying they had options to consider; I do not remember a promise. Sure, that doesn't make you less upset and it certainly doesn't diminish your argument, but...
-W. E. Ray
Hey, "grognards" like myself have been on the defensive since day one, being attacked and lambasted and censored by Wizards. Its about time one of us grows a pair and fights.
Oh, what did I miss, there is a fight somewhere?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
And again, I am NOT trolling. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me a troll.
I personally don't care if my beliefs are expressed in an inflammatory manner. Otherwise its impossible to be heard. Say what you will about civility, in the end nobody listens to a quiet person regardless of what people try to say.
Hi, Aaron. Welcome to the PAIZO boards. Now, calm down.
I agree, you're not being a "troll". A troll to my understanding is someone who says insincere provocative things, just to get a reaction out of people.
You are, on the other hand, rude, accusatory, and--as you admit-- inflammatory.
People get heard, by the Pathfinder development team, by posting in the appropriate forum, once, politely. I speak from experience.
Other people on this thread have politely corrected you: PAIZO never said that Pathfinder was going to be identical to the SRD 3.5 rules. The company has promised that the eventual Pathfinder game system will require minimal conversions in both directions. When you claim, in all capitals, that someone "lied to" you, you're not just immature, you're also in error.
And, for what it's worth, you haven't seen that game. All you've seen are the Alpha documents, which are intended to include all the wild and revolutionary ideas that Jason thinks might be fun enough to use.
For what it's worth, Aaron, I'm probably going to stick with Wizards' D&D 3.5 ruleset, excepting when I run Pathfinder Society organized play. I understand your concerns with the mechanics, and I probably agree with them to some extent.
But I wouldn't want to have a face-to-face conversation with you. You strike me as an unpleasant, uncivil person.
Show me that I'm wrong: apologize.
This thread screams "I am bored today and want to upset someone!" It's very hard to take it seriously with me imagining you as Yosemite Sam jumping up and down.
It sounds like you want to be screaming at Hasbro, anyway.
|
Duh duh
Da da da da da da
Dee da-da dee da(Kirk vs. Spock battle song, in case you were wondering.)
Bum-bum bum-bum bum-bum bum!
DeeeeeEEEE-AH!
DeeeeeEEEE-AH!Bum bum buuuummm.
(contented sigh)
"Just like when Spock had to fight Kirk on Star Trek. Best friends, forced to do battle! dunh de deh deh deh deh deh dunh de dah dah!"
|
Hmph that's funny cause see, when I see someone get all rediculous and inflamatory I ignore them, when they reasonably counter my point I listen, BUT BECAUSE SOMEONE SAYS SHOUTING AND BEING INFLAMATORY WORKS BETTER IT MUST BE TRUE YOU LYING JACKHOLES :)
Um if you can tell me once how a fighter with a 10 (average human)intelligence can maintain an adequate lookout without the aid of magic or becoming inadequate at the other class appropriate skills then I'll listen to you about how it should be 5 seperate checks and 50 skillpoints.
So what do you want exactly? Do you want the SRD printed out with pathfinder pasted on the front page? They said that they'd keep the system backwards compatable, you yelling that it's not doesn't make it so, right now as it stands I can run pathfinder characters through RotR so tell me how they lied?
and last point, tell me without looking at the book at what level of manueverability you gain the ability to make a 90 degree turn?
Duh duh
Da da da da da da
Dee da-da dee da(Kirk vs. Spock battle song, in case you were wondering.)
Bum-bum bum-bum bum-bum bum!
DeeeeeEEEE-AH!
DeeeeeEEEE-AH!Bum bum buuuummm.
(contented sigh)
"Just like when Spock had to fight Kirk on Star Trek. Best friends, forced to do battle! dunh de deh deh deh deh deh dunh de dah dah!"
When it comes right down to it, being a dork is pretty awesome.
|
So in other words, there's still a chance Paizo will come to their senses and drop all the World of Warcraft mechanics?
Good. Then I'm going to continue complaining until I am blue in the face in the hopes that they fix these glaring problems.
If you REALLY want a constructive breakdown of why the alpha is bad, fine, I'll give you one in a few weeks. But mark my words, you accomplish more with moaning than with speaking apologetically and repeating "IMHO" all the time.
Hey, "grognards" like myself have been on the defensive since day one, being attacked and lambasted and censored by Wizards. Its about time one of us grows a pair and fights.
If you like 3.5 there is nothing that is preventing you from passing up PFRPG and continuing to run 3.5. I know people who still play 2nd edition and a few that still play 1st edition. There is nothing to stop you from continuing to use the system if that's what you want to do. I get so tired of the tirades of people who act as if there is someone forcing them to switch from 3.5 to Pathfinder.
|
|
So in other words, there's still a chance Paizo will come to their senses and drop all the World of Warcraft mechanics?
Good. Then I'm going to continue complaining until I am blue in the face in the hopes that they fix these glaring problems.
If you REALLY want a constructive breakdown of why the alpha is bad, fine, I'll give you one in a few weeks. But mark my words, you accomplish more with moaning than with speaking apologetically and repeating "IMHO" all the time.
Hey, "grognards" like myself have been on the defensive since day one, being attacked and lambasted and censored by Wizards. Its about time one of us grows a pair and fights.
And from one grognard from another, consider yourself ignored. Until you can come back and address your concerns like a grownup you're not going to taken seriously. I might all so suggest that you post into the area that best adresses you concern.
Second COmplaint: Improved Grapple/Bull Rush etc only give +2 instead of +4? What the HELL?
This is actually easy to explain if you think about the math behind the two systems.
In 3.5 both parties roll a d20. The difference between the two die results can vary from -19 to +19 for a total span of 39 different results. In Pathfinder only one party rolls a die, the other party has a static value. The possible results are from 1 to 20, for a total span of 20 different results.
A +2 bonus on a span of 20 different results has about the same effect as a +4 bonus on a span of 39 different results, as you will surely agree.
Had they kept the Improved feats at +4, their influence on the result would actually have been doubled.
Say what you will about civility, in the end nobody listens to a quiet person regardless of what people try to say.
If by "nobody" you mean "of the people who slavishly listen to Rush Limbaugh," you might be correct. But as Chris has pointed out better than I can, when dealing with the majority of people on these boards, you're sadly mistaken.
If my being honest offends you, then I apologize.
If speaking with passion offends you, then I apologize.
If my style of no-derrière-kissing criticism offends you or comes across as barbaric or immature, I apologize (personally I consider butt kissing less mature).
However, you will not see me kowtow, politic, or play-the-game.
My intention isn't to be uncivil to the people on this forums, its an attempt to bravely stand up for the old skill system, so that people previously afraid to speak will come forth. Somebody has to be the first.
EDIT: Butt is a curse word? since when?
And changing fly to a skill?
All I have to say to that is Javhol mein fuher!And NO I am NOT a troll, this is really what I believe.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have Godwin's Law.
And I don't care what you are. Statements like the above have no place in discussion, comrade. (Note, the subtle weaving of irony into... wait, did I say subtle? ;-p )
I appreciate you humor, Pneumonica. I found the ignorant use of such language (and rhetoric) in the original post monstrously offensive,as would all the users of this board. I am upset to see such disrespect here. I hope Paizo does not let such libel be directed towards them.
|
|
If my being honest offends you, then I apologize.
If speaking with passion offends you, then I apologize.
If my style of no-b~&&-kissing criticism offends you or comes across as barbaric or immature, I apologize (personally I consider butt kissing less mature).However, you will not see me kowtow, politic, or play-the-game.
Apology accepted. But don't assume that just because someone agrees with the designers here at Paizo that they are kowtowing.
There are plenty of people who disagree around here with quite a bit some of those discussions have resulted in changes from the original alpha to what we have now. Make your case and feel free to stick to it. So far everyone seems to really speak thier mind. Your welcome to too.
"Just like when Spock had to fight Kirk on Star Trek. Best friends, forced to do battle! dunh de deh deh deh deh deh dunh de dah dah!"
LMAO... This thread really did need to lighten up. thanks for the laugh. ;oP
Being passionate is great! I think Paizo prefers governed passion for game discussion and unbridled passion for cheese related issues.
I mean, it's not as if I had a huge karate fight in the street with Mike McArtor and then he wrote the Guide to Korvosa.
Right?
If my being honest offends you, then I apologize. If speaking with passion offends you, then I apologize.
If my style of no-derrière-kissing criticism offends you or comes across as barbaric or immature, I apologize (personally I consider butt kissing less mature).
Ah... I see. You seem to equate "being a dick" with "being bold and noble and forthright and virtuous," and "being civil" with "being a politically-correct liberal wimp suck-up." Unfortunately, no one on an internet message board will ever change that belief; only life experience in a human society can.
|
|
Aaron, welcome to the messageboards. Apology accepted. Reading Jason's comments at the start of the Alpha document may relieve some of your concerns.
When I play Pathfinder RPG, I know I am playing a unique rpg in its own right, but one that is rooted in 3.5 and thirty years of continuity. While keeping backward compatibility a goal, Jason and the PAIZO team seek to revise certain areas to remedy some known problems with the system. This effort renews the usefulness of our 3.5 collections, but helps us weigh-in on ideas during the Alpha and Beta playtest period to help make Pathfinder Roleplaying Game the game we all want to play.
Please, please don't see a need to YELL back at my comments, but I am happy to engage in some discussion with you. The PAIZO staff does listen, and I can appreciate you standing up for your love of 3.5 the way it is with listen and spot seperate. During my playtest of the alpha rules last week, my six particular players were all in favor of perception checks, and the rules surrounding acrobatics. But I think you'll find that the PAIZO game designers really do listen, even if you don't SHOUT.
Hope that helps. And I hope you continue to encourage fans of the 3.5 system to speak up, without resorting to insults and accusations. Sincerely, I can respect your passion and hope you continue to participate on these boards with more self control.
All I have to say to that is Javhol mein fuher!And NO I am NOT a troll, this is really what I believe.
If you're going to use my language to insult people, at least do it right.
It's "Jawohl, mein Führer!" The umlauts really aren't optional. And we still know the "w". And all nouns are capitalised. Not that Führer wouldn't be capitalised even English, because it's pretty obvious who you're talking about.
Now, please tell me, you non-troll, how insulting a whole nation in the course of complaining about a trivial matter isn't trolling?
And NO I am NOT a troll, this is really what I believe.
After the Nazi-Reference, the frequent all caps, and the fact that your post count is suspiciously low, it will be an uphill battle for you to convince us of that.
Look, Paizo promised to stick to 3.5 and this new skill system is distinctly NOT 3.5, and neither are maneuvers.
The new skill system is so very close to 3.5. Many of the consolidations were house rules or rules in other OGL games long before 4e or even Saga came around.
As for manoeuvres: There are none in PF. The closest thing would be combat feats (which will be gone in the beta, as they were only an experiment that didn't work out), but none of them are 4e-like experiments with the same limitations and crap.
I am not going to buy your products if they're just thinly veiled 4th edition books.
Take a look at pathfinder's skill system (which is, frankly, a lot better than either 3e's or 4e's). There might be some consolidations, but then again, 3e skills already had some skills you could consider "catch-all" skills for several actions, not to mention that a lot of the skills that have been swallowed by others were those few people ever bothered with because they came into play so rarely.
If it were 4e-like, each class would have some skills it *had* to take, and there wouldn't be skill ranks, either.
Again: Why the hell should I only have to spend 1 skill point to get the effects of essentially 5 skills? Some people are trained in jumping but not in tumbling.
And there are people who are great at feinting, but couldn't convincingly lie to anyone if it meant the firing squad.
Second COmplaint: Improved Grapple/Bull Rush etc only give +2 instead of +4? What the HELL?
Gosh! You're right. That's a total deal breaker. This change means the worlds are totally different now. All of evolution has to be re-run. There probably won't even be any humans this time around!!!
So in other words, there's still a chance Paizo will come to their senses and drop all the World of Warcraft mechanics?
What WoW mechanics? I don't see them. Not even close. PF isn't 3.5, that's sure - it's not supposed to be, because then it would be 3.5. But's it's quite close to 3.5 - an awful lot closer to it than WoW, or 4e.
Good. Then I'm going to continue complaining until I am blue in the face in the hopes that they fix these glaring problems.
Since the majority doesn't consider those problems glaring - and in fact, many like them and agree that it's still the same game in spirit - you better get an ambulance ready, because volume doesn't enter into the considerations when they think about what to keep and what to change.
If you REALLY want a constructive breakdown of why the alpha is bad, fine, I'll give you one in a few weeks. But mark my words, you accomplish more with moaning than with speaking apologetically and repeating "IMHO" all the time.
Yeah, you'll be known as "that moaning troll everyone ignores"
If you present yourself like a brat, people will treat you like a brat. They'll read two troll-lines (like being called f$!$ or Nazis) and just ignore your posts from that point forward.
Even if you had pure gold further down the post, it won't be noticed under a pile of dung.
Just out of curiosity do you handle your relationships with your DM the same way?
I had a player like that once. Kept ignoring the campaign guidelines (like "no evil characters"), kept using wrong rules (if that was advantageous for him - like using the 3.0 price for gloves of storing, which is a fifth of 3.5's, and I consider the new one to be the proper one)
When I told him that something didn't work that way, he'd be right in my face. "WHY NOT?" "THAT'S STUPID!", and to explanations. "YEAH, I GUESS YOU CAN DRESS UP EVERYHING PRETTILY!"
I kicked him after the second round (he wasn't that bad in the first, and I wanted to give him a chance). The other players agreed that this was the best thing to do.
For myself, I have a mixed reaction to simplification. Some of it like Stealth makes sense to me. You're simply not going to be that good in HIding if you're a noisy klutz and vice versa. Others like Concentration/Spellcraft thing show signs of needing more work. I really think that this needs to be worked out on a case by case basis as opposed to one answer for all.
Yeah, I'd like some other changes as well: Concentration should remain separate, and I'd separate all the "sports" skills into acrobatics (for dex) and athletics (for str). But I won't have a fit over it.
Please consider dropping the simplified and boring skill system!
Promising so far. You think Pathfinder's skill system is boring? Why is that, and how should Paizo fix it?
You LIED when you said PAthfinder would be 3.5, with the retarded simplified skill system its just as bad as 4th edition.
...and this is where about a third of the messageboard audience probably stopped listening to you. Arguments that start off with "You LIED!" tend not to persuade.
I do NOT want to only have to roll one check in order to detect a rogue, I want my bloody Spot AND Listen checks. I want characters who may be good at spotting but bad at listening is that so bloody wrong? I shouldn't be allowed to get 10 bloody ranks in spot, listen AND apparantly now smell, taste and touch just by spending 10 points, that should amount to 50.
(1) Who has 50 skill points to spare?
(2) "Bloody" is considered a profanity in some countries. Since you're using it as such... this is where some other people probably stopped listening to you.And changing fly to a skill?
All I have to say to that is Javhol mein fuher!
(1) You aren't allowed to Godwin yourself until you learn to spell "Führer."
(2) How is the Fly skill related to fascism, exactly?(3) This is where even more people probably stopped listening to you.
And NO I am NOT a troll, this is really what I believe.
You know who says "I am not a troll" a lot? Trolls. Especially when it's their first post on the messageboard.
Point is, Paizo PROMISED to stick to 3.5 and they seem to have LIED!
I'm tempted to revisit the "you LIED!" thing again, but I've bashed your writing style enough for now, so I'm (finally!) going to address your complaint.
Paizo did not promise to stick to 3.5e. They're writing a new ruleset that's supposed to be (mostly) backward compatible with 3.5e. This isn't the same thing.
If by "nobody" you mean "of the people who slavishly listen to Rush Limbaugh," you might be correct. But as Chris has pointed out better than I can, when dealing with the majority of people on these boards, you're sadly mistaken.Say what you will about civility, in the end nobody listens to a quiet person regardless of what people try to say.
Wait, so...Say what you will about civility, in the end, the people who slavishly listen to Rush Limbaugh listen to a quiet person regardless of what people try to say.
I listen to Rush, regularly, and I think this was meant to be an insult, but I think it's actually quite complimentary. Thanks!
To everyone else: I apologize for the general tone of my reply.
As much as trolls are bad, I always thought picking apart each and every line of a flippant post was one of those ridiculous messageboard tropes as well.
Just imagine the OP as an little guy running around with a swizzle bowtie making jokes about marmalade and woman drivers (honking on a bicycle horn for good measure). Then comes along a 2-ton, 12' tall Brian Posehn-esque neanderthal, raging beat-red and stomping on the guy in fury until there's nothing left but paste.
It's THAT ridiculous to me.
I'll write a book about it. There will be a handful of people who pick it up. I'll make a modest sum but the publisher will net a loss.
Oh, and yeah, the whole "IMO" thing is such BS. One should never, ever say, "in my opinion..." If the discussion is bias then of course everything said is opinion. STATE YOUR OPINIONS AS FACTS! ALWAYS. We know it's all opinion anyway.
-W. E. Ray
I would have to agree with you here.
Unfortunatly one of my very first posts on these bards was attacked by one of the famous regulars on these boards.
It was the usual accusation that the way I worded my post insinuated that I was including everyone everywhere as sharing my opinion and he took offence that I included him in an opinion he did not share.
I have been attacked for wording things like they were fact and not throwing up the "IMO" disclaimer.
So I wish everyone agreed with you Molech, but it doesnt seem that way (IMHO of course).
PS - Sorry for the threadjack.
As much as trolls are bad, I always thought picking apart each and every line of a flippant post was one of those ridiculous messageboard tropes as well.
Just imagine the OP as an little guy running around with a swizzle bowtie making jokes about marmalade and woman drivers (honking on a bicycle horn for good measure). Then comes along a 2-ton, 12' tall Brian Posehn-esque neanderthal, raging beat-red and stomping on the guy in fury until there's nothing left but paste.
It's THAT ridiculous to me.
Hmm... You might have a point. Replying to a troll runs the twin risks of sinking to the troll's level and counting, from the troll's point of view, as a win.
Once in a great while, though, I get this uncontrollable urge to vivisect someone's messageboard scribble, and Aaron set me off.
I listen to Rush, regularly, and I think this was meant to be an insult, but I think it's actually quite complimentary. Thanks!
Any time! I actually find myself kind of liking the guy sometimes, until he starts ranting and starting every sentence with "Those stupid liberals...!". Then I get bored and change the station. Ann Coulter would maybe have been a better example, but I'm 99% sure she doesn't really agree with most of the things she says...
It's very hard to take it seriously... imagining you as Yosemite Sam jumping up and down.HEY!
You'd better start taking Yosemite Sam seriously!
Oh, and for the record, screaming at Hasbro is okay.
-W. E. Ray
Ah hate that rabbit...
Skill Simplification? This is NOT 3.5!!!!!!
5 exclemation marks. A sure sign of a truely insane mind
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If you're going to use my language to insult people, at least do it right.
It's "Jawohl, mein Führer!" The umlauts really aren't optional. And we still know the "w". And all nouns are capitalised. Not that Führer wouldn't be capitalised even English, because it's pretty obvious who you're talking about.
Now, please tell me, you non-troll, how insulting a whole nation in the course of complaining about a trivial matter isn't trolling?
KaeYoss, if I had arms, I'd hug you.
|
|
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?threadid=31914
Back in my day, we had *real* trolling. This new "I have to be rude or people won't listen to me" fad is just tiresome.
And where are the ENGLISH spelling errors? Any yahoo can misspell German after a Hogan's Heroes marathon, it takes some real cojones to misspell your native language!
I have to award some points on the level of outrage over trivialities, though. That +2 vs +4 on Bull's Rush is classic; I'll have to incorporate it into my own d20 trolling.
Overall, I'd give it a 7 out of 10.
Aaron:
Whether folks agree with you or disagree with you here is largely irrelevant. Who you want to listen to you are those folks making the decisions and writing the game.
If you want -them- to listen to you then you need to construct your posts in such fashion as if you were in front of them discussing it, trying to persuade them that there is a problem.
Shouting, screaming people are often heard but rarely listened to. If you have problems with the skills (and clearly, you do) I would suggest you sit down and construct a well thought out and well written post explaining exactly why it is you think the current system is insufficient.
This Is Not Blizzard's boards for WoW. This is NOT WotC's boards for D&D. This is a board where the designers frequently and regularly not only read- but post on, and reply to people. If you want them to not merely hear you, but to listen, you have to be polite. And you have to be clear. And you have to make some sense.
Welcome to Paizo's boards. It really is a different experience than in other places.
-S
Look, there has been a LOT of back and forth on a lot of Rules issues for PF.
Paizo has been a stand-out in both listening and directly engaging with the playtesters on these boards (which is more then you'll see from most other companies). This is not intended as a flame or to be even hot- however, Mr. Goddard has kicked this particular anthill, so let's address his defense for apparently sounding like we need to reply with fire and acid:
If my being honest offends you, then I apologize.
If speaking with passion offends you, then I apologize.
Slathering your invective with sarcastic double speak isn't doing much for your case.
Wandering up and saying "Hi! I'm new here- you're a pack of lying a$$h0l3s!" would get you ejected from most establishments, there's no reason to expect doing the same online would not result in the same reaction
I've yet to see any butt kissing here- I'm given to understand that such behavior is done to elicit favors or to express some kind of Hero Worship. The Paizoians are decent folks, but I hardly think they deserve or elicit such exhalation. Kicking in the metaphorical door and wildly slinging mud on the other hand, is both horribly immature and, in spite of all your protestations, very Trollish indeed.
Clearly not- almost all of us here are gamers and would never resort to this kind of counterproductive behavior.
Bravely? Oh please. Where is this silent majority that up to now has been so grievously ignored and under-represented here? Tagging yourself with such an inflated adverb says two things: you're a blowhard with an exaggerated sense of your own importance and you have no grasp of what real bravery is about. This is a message board on a Game Company's website, not Vichy France. When the 3.5 PHB burnings kick in on Main Street, then maybe you'll have a point.Whether or not you really, really believe what you write is a something of a moot point- the tone of your initial post belongs under a bridge.
Aaron:
Welcome to Paizo's boards. It really is a different experience than in other places.
-S
I read much but rarely post here. I've spent years on WOW boards. I've spent (mis-spent?) time on the WOTC boards. What Selgard says is absolutely true, this place is at its core, a very different experience than most other places.
For that I am appreciative to the users here who do take the time to create civil, well-thought-out and informative posts. They have decided not to take the easy way out ("being a brat").
Thanks again, folks.
Ignoring most of the ridiculous statements made by the OP, I am fine with skill simplification.
It is not that I want anyone who can listen well be able to see, and taste things with great skill as well. They all should require separate training but, I think that if all skills were seperated into component parts (like most knowledges making you learn about many things to learn about one specific thing) those skills would be worth less and people would be less likely to to even take them.
I might feel differently if the skill system allowed for different costs for different skills (with more important skills costing more and less individually useful skills costing less). I think that system would support skills of different value better than 3rd edition's system. But I don't really care that much about it, I'm fine with skill simplification, I would rather have that than have skills with vastly different value.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
To all:
I'd like to note, for the record, that Aaron's posts have shown a trend towards calmer communication. in each of his posts, the signal-to-blood-pressure ratio has gone up.
I expect that, in a few years, Aaron will be a welcome ol' friend here.
--
On the actual topic of the thread, skill simplification, I'll reiterate what I said about a month ago:
One issue about joining skills together: it makes them cheaper.
If, say, Hide and Move Silently were combined into one skill ("Sneaking"), it becomes easier for characters to get good at stealth, because players only need to buy up one skill.
Is this a good thing? Well, it's a thing.
When they're distinct skills, the additional cost allows the rogue, who has skill points coming out of her ears, to be substantially better at stealth, because she can afford ranks in both Hide and Move Silently, whereas other classes either need to devote heavy portions of their skill point allotments to stealth, or simply fall behind the rogue.
The same is true with a lot of other highly-valued abilities: Trapfinding and Disable Device, Intimidation and Bluff, Jump and Tumble. The design team for 3rd Edition split them into enough skills to allow "skill monkeys" to be better at them than other characters. (In this way, Zynete, the more highly-prized skills are more expensive.)
Two free opinions, worth what you pay for them:
Opinion 1: Every time someone says "clerics and fighters need more skill points" or "we need to arrange things so that when we take ranks in Listen, we're also taking ranks in Spot", what I hear is "we need to all be as good at the skills we want as rogues are".
Opinion 2: D&D is a game where you should never quite be satisfied with your current character. There should always be feats that you would really like, equipment that's out of your reach, and --yes-- skills that you'd love to be better at.