I think we may have gotten off on the wrong foot ...


General Discussion (Prerelease)

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Dear partner in playtesting,

I think, perhaps, we have started off on the wrong foot. It seems that we have seen ourselves as being at cross-purposes when our different abilities and interests should be seen as complementary. I know what I bring to this game and I believe that what I have to say during this playtest period may be valuable. I'm confident that Jason and others at Paizo will take it into account when considering what 'fixes' to make, even if they don't get back to me directly.

Now, you may have some different skills, assumptions, and expectations than I do. Actually, from reading your posts, I'm almost certain you do. Because of our differences and our strong desire to communicate our ideas, we may have seen each other as in some kind of competition. That would be wrong. I honestly believe that Jason and others at Paizo need to hear from you as well.

Therefore, if I have in some way antagonized you, I apologize. Perhaps my sense of humour doesn't translate well into print. I assure you, I respect your contribution as much as the contributions of the hundreds, no, thousands of other playtesters. I may disagree with you; I may debate you; I may even hurt your feelings unintentionally. However, as long as you respect my participation, I'll respect yours.

Sincerely,
Tarren Dei

Liberty's Edge

what are we playtesting again?

seriously, um, i haven't seen YOU as a problem in any of this, any "negative" type posting you may have committed has been REactive, not PROactive.

but, i do like the appeal for civility, so rockin' job on that :)

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

houstonderek wrote:

what are we playtesting again?

seriously, um, i haven't seen YOU as a problem in any of this, any "negative" type posting you may have committed has been REactive, not PROactive.

but, i do like the appeal for civility, so rockin' job on that :)

Regardless, I'm hoping we can bring back the friendlier tone of these boards. All this negativity is beginning to leak into my personal life. I've begun disagree with my wife again. Do you know how many years it took me to learn to stop doing that?

Scarab Sages

Tarren, always the voice of reason.

If we could all just agree to play the game our way and present our opinions as just that, opinions, and recognize that everybody wants something different from their aming, then this would be a much happier place.

Like Derek pointed out to you, I feel that my posts have been reactionary, and in an attempt to disarm perceived arrogance or dismissiveness. I would rather I did not have to do so.

I just don't like seeing people position themselves as the one true way of gaming.

But we can all use a chill pill occasionally. Thanks again, Tarren.


I'll still take the mature tone this board manages to maintain despite occasional spikes in anger, juvenalia and hyperbole. Most of the regular posters here are very concientious about their posting tone. Most amazing is the fact there are no moderators other than the occasional post by Gary. Some other boards I recently lurked could take a few lessons.


I think this forum would be more friendlier in tone if we started sharing playtesting stories; actual session being run and how the rules played out.

That's what the designers want to hear and we should leave the design mechanics up to them. No point stating what we think should be changed which will lead us into fiery arguments, proven or otherwise.

In that way, I think everyone would benefit in this forum with a little lighter, matured and enjoyable postings with maximum effectiveness in changing PRPG.

Cheers!

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I would like to aplogize to Tarren Dei for all the terrible things I said behind his back.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Callous Jack wrote:

I would like to aplogize to Tarren Dei for all the terrible things I said behind his back.

Yeah, like I couldn't hear them buzzing around in my head like flies with their wings pulled off you ... you ... what is that avatar? A robot?

Whatever, bring it Tin Man. ;-)

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I respect your opinion and your participation in the game.
Jerk.
j/k ;-)

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Callous Jack wrote:

I respect your opinion and your participation in the game.

Jerk.
j/k ;-)

heheheh.

Scarab Sages

Whoops. I just unleashed a disproportionate amount of snark on Psychic_Robot and Squirrelloid. If anybody feels I crossed the line, let me know, because it is getting harder and harder to see the line around here.

Liberty's Edge

Jal Dorak wrote:
Whoops. I just unleashed a disproportionate amount of snark on Psychic_Robot and Squirrelloid. If anybody feels I crossed the line, let me know, because it is getting harder and harder to see the line around here.

jal, your request is like a man asking if he crossed the line by throwing his hands in front of his face to block the blows of two meth addled bikers pummeling him in a barfight...

sorry, i just calls 'em as i sees 'em...

Scarab Sages

Except these bikers KNOW that Monk is useless, so they are all wizards (you can tell by the Monacles).

Liberty's Edge

Jal Dorak wrote:
Except these bikers KNOW that Monk is useless, so they are all wizards (you can tell by the Monacles).

well, the monk as the first to die at the hands of the gnoll chick cleric in maure castle when i ran it...

wait! what am i saying? no! get back! i don't even LIKE meth!!!!!!!

you know, i'd really rather not play a game that draws too much input from munchkin powergaming late 3.5 WotC splatbook loving "gamers"...

Scarab Sages

houstonderek wrote:
you know, i'd really rather not play a game that draws too much input from munchkin powergaming late 3.5 WotC splatbook loving "gamers"...

Ordinarily, that might be name-calling without evidence, but there is this:

LogicNinja wrote:
...at his request I built him a fairly optimized smashy Warforged Juggernaut...Psychic Warrior 2/Fighter 2/Barbarian 1/Warforged Juggernaut, with the Expansion power, Power Attack and Shock Trooper for feats, as well as Pushback (for synergy with his slam attack and Warforged Juggernaut armor spikes/bull rush abilities, and for shoving people around

and this.

Both were offered up freely by LN. Both show what you say.

Liberty's Edge

Jal Dorak wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
you know, i'd really rather not play a game that draws too much input from munchkin powergaming late 3.5 WotC splatbook loving "gamers"...

Ordinarily, that might be name-calling without evidence, but there is this:

LogicNinja wrote:
...at his request I built him a fairly optimized smashy Warforged Juggernaut...Psychic Warrior 2/Fighter 2/Barbarian 1/Warforged Juggernaut, with the Expansion power, Power Attack and Shock Trooper for feats, as well as Pushback (for synergy with his slam attack and Warforged Juggernaut armor spikes/bull rush abilities, and for shoving people around

and this.

Both were offered up freely by LN. Both show what you say.

i admit i made that judgement based on inference, not evidence, but it is nice to see my thoughts are justified.

that whisper gnome (10th level?) would wreck most of the games i've run...

Paizo Employee Managing Developer

You guys rock. Thank you.

Liberty's Edge

Daigle wrote:
You guys rock. Thank you.

like i said, i just call 'em like i see 'em ;)

Scarab Sages

houstonderek wrote:


that whisper gnome (10th level?) would wreck most of the games i've run...

Most, but not all. It's terrible at grappling, and affecting plants, constructs, elementals, oozes, or undead. That's a lot of monster options.

I notice more and more that despite arguments to the contrary, many munchkins view the game from the eyes of a player - they consider all abilities in how they affect their character, or other potential characters. I remember one time, just to show them why they were being jerks to the other players, I took Draconomicon and retooled a Green Dragon to be perfect. 2 player deaths in a 5 PC party (ECL 6) against a CR 8 monster. All I said was "See, I can do it too, except I get more books."

Whisper gnomes, by the way, should have a level adjustment. They are the ultimate munchkin race: +2 Dex, +2 Con, -2 Str, -2 Cha, all of the gnome abilities, plus darkvision, a speed of 30ft, +4 Hide and Move Silently, +2 Listen and Spot, and the ability to cast silence.

Scarab Sages

Daigle wrote:
You guys rock. Thank you.

If you meant this, then thanks! ;)


Jal Dorak wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
you know, i'd really rather not play a game that draws too much input from munchkin powergaming late 3.5 WotC splatbook loving "gamers"...

Ordinarily, that might be name-calling without evidence, but there is this:

LogicNinja wrote:
...at his request I built him a fairly optimized smashy Warforged Juggernaut...Psychic Warrior 2/Fighter 2/Barbarian 1/Warforged Juggernaut, with the Expansion power, Power Attack and Shock Trooper for feats, as well as Pushback (for synergy with his slam attack and Warforged Juggernaut armor spikes/bull rush abilities, and for shoving people around

and this.

Both were offered up freely by LN. Both show what you say.

You know, I don't mind being snarked at, but criticizing a particular play style in a thread which starts off with 'can't we just recognize we have different playstyles' strikes me as incredibly ironic.

Houstonderek:
A munchkin is someone who cheats at an rpg. Could you possibly be more derogatory or insulting? I certainly find the term offensive, especially when thrown around to describe an entire general style of player. Optimizers are not munchkins. Just because you don't like playing with them doesn't mean they cheat.

Paizo Employee Managing Developer

Jal Dorak wrote:
Daigle wrote:
You guys rock. Thank you.
If you meant this, then thanks! ;)

That could work, but this might work better.

Liberty's Edge

Jal Dorak wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


that whisper gnome (10th level?) would wreck most of the games i've run...

Most, but not all. It's terrible at grappling, and affecting plants, constructs, elementals, oozes, or undead. That's a lot of monster options.

I notice more and more that despite arguments to the contrary, many munchkins view the game from the eyes of a player - they consider all abilities in how they affect their character, or other potential characters. I remember one time, just to show them why they were being jerks to the other players, I took Draconomicon and retooled a Green Dragon to be perfect. 2 player deaths in a 5 PC party (ECL 6) against a CR 5 monster. All I said was "See, I can do it too, except I get more books."

Whisper gnomes, by the way, should have a level adjustment. They are the ultimate munchkin race: +2 Dex, +2 Con, -2 Str, -2 Cha, all of the gnome abilities, plus darkvision, a speed of 30ft, +4 Hide and Move Silently, +2 Listen and Spot, and the ability to cast silence.

yeah, i could tailor adventures that take advantage of the character's weaknesses, but my homebrew is very "human(oid)centric", most of the antagonists are fairly "normal". (political maneuvering and maniplulation are a big deal, straight "kill stuff/loot the bodies" is way down on the list). but, on the other hand, from their perspective, i play d&d "wrong", so i guess its a moot point...

(quick thought, though: having read the golarion CS and the "chronicles" material, particularly the "tower of the last baron" adventure, the setting lends itself nicely to my playing style. score another handful of love points for paizo!)

Liberty's Edge

Daigle wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:
Daigle wrote:
You guys rock. Thank you.
If you meant this, then thanks! ;)
That could work, but this might work better.

ok, y'all lost me...


Tarren Dei wrote:
...

You've learned how to not disagree with your wife?

We are not worthy!

Liberty's Edge

Squirrelloid wrote:

Houstonderek:

A munchkin is someone who cheats at an rpg. Could you possibly be more derogatory or insulting? I certainly find the term offensive, especially when thrown around to describe an entire general style of player. Optimizers are not munchkins. Just because you don't like playing with them doesn't mean they cheat.

"optimizer", "munchkin". you say "tomato", i say "two dimensional cut out boring *yawn* whatever go play exalted if you want to be a god"...

just sayin'

considering how much your cabal likes to throw around "you're doing it wrong/you play the game wrong/what do you mean you don't have a problem when my carefully researched trigonomic equation CLEARLY shows this to be *broken*sub-optimal*a choice for losers*", y'all sure do get a thin skin when someone else thinks YOU approach the game from a screwed up perspective...

Liberty's Edge

Kruelaid wrote:
Tarren Dei wrote:
...

You've learned how to not disagree with your wife?

We are not worthy!

man, if you could bottle that, i'd pay through the nose to get some...

Paizo Employee Managing Developer

My initial "rock" statement was regarding the levity and lack of attitude in this thread at the start. I didn't realize that thread entropy was still high. I've been out of town for the past couple of days and was happy to see some understanding falling into place.

Don't make me smurf this b+~@*. ;)

Scarab Sages

Squirrelloid wrote:

You know, I don't mind being snarked at, but criticizing a particular play style in a thread which starts off with 'can't we just recognize we have different playstyles' strikes me as incredibly ironic.

Houstonderek:
A munchkin is someone who cheats at an rpg. Could you possibly be more derogatory or insulting? I certainly find the term offensive, especially when thrown around to describe an entire general style of player. Optimizers are not munchkins. Just because you don't like playing with them doesn't mean they cheat.

To be fair, I was pointing out evidence that validated Derek's comments about splat-books and powergaming.

On the subject of Munchkins:

Wikipedia wrote:

Munchkins are infamous for various degrees of cheating, willfully misinterpreting rules that work against them while loudly proclaiming ones that work in their favor. As a matter of course they selectively obey the letter of rules while perverting the spirit blatantly. The worst munchkins will cheat shamelessly, ignoring inconvenient numerical modifiers and fouling dice throws till they get the result they want. During character creation, munchkins engage in vicious min-maxing, leading to exceptionally unrealistic or unusual characters who make no sense except in terms of raw power.

Munchkins are often accused of roll-playing, a pun on 'role' that notes how munchkins are often more concerned with the numbers and die rolls than with the roles that they play.

With the exception of the "worst munchkins cheating", which I am not accusing anyone of, the term aptly applies to several posters on the boards lately. I have highlighted the relevant sections. That is your Warforged to a T. Your Whisper Gnome Diviner? Probably less severe, but still guilty of some abuses.

EDIT: I was going to point out that "munchkin" and "optimizer" are the same thing, just used by different people, but Derek ninja'd me.

Liberty's Edge

Quote:

During character creation, munchkins engage in vicious min-maxing, leading to exceptionally unrealistic or unusual characters who make no sense except in terms of raw power.

Munchkins are often accused of roll-playing, a pun on 'role' that notes how munchkins are often more concerned with the numbers and die rolls than with the roles that they play.

A more neutral use of the term is in reference to novice players, who, not knowing yet how to roleplay, typically obsess about the statistical "power" of their characters rather than developing their characters' personalities.

sounds about right to me...

EDIT: i was going to post this quote to support my earlier post, but jal ninja'd ME!

dude, great minds and all ;)


houstonderek wrote:
Squirrelloid wrote:

Houstonderek:

A munchkin is someone who cheats at an rpg. Could you possibly be more derogatory or insulting? I certainly find the term offensive, especially when thrown around to describe an entire general style of player. Optimizers are not munchkins. Just because you don't like playing with them doesn't mean they cheat.

"optimizer", "munchkin". you say "tomato", i say "two dimensional cut out boring *yawn* whatever go play exalted if you want to be a god"...

just sayin'

considering how much your cabal likes to throw around "you're doing it wrong/you play the game wrong/what do you mean you don't have a problem when my carefully researched trigonomic equation CLEARLY shows this to be *broken*sub-optimal*a choice for losers*", y'all sure do get a thin skin when someone else thinks YOU approach the game from a screwed up perspective...

Words have meaning. I wouldn't even be surprised you knew the connotations of the term before you typed it. But apparently its ok to insult some playstyles but not others.

I have a cabal? My opinions are my own. Their individual opinions are each their own. That I happen to agree with their point of view *from a design standpoint* doesn't make them my minions, me their minion, or any other permutation thereof. I don't even know the guys except as posters on an internet forum.

And I've never said houserules or whatnot were the wrong way to play an rpg. I have said its the wrong way to test the rules as they are written down. This is kind of tautological. Not using the rules provided unfailingly leads to not testing the rules provided.

Heck, my home games are up to some 9 pages of 10pt NYT font houserules. It might be more. I'm not against houserules. I am against the seemingly common idea that using houserules lets you pretend the game as written includes those houserules.

Edit: Jal: I am not LogicNinja. And further, willfully misinterpreting rules against them sounds like cheating to me.

Wikipedia is also not a great source of anything even remotely controversial. That sounds like it was written by someone who just hates gamists in general.

And those builds of LogicNinja? Come now, they're not that bad. Powerful to the point of ridiculous is pun-pun. Those you quoted/linked are actually playable.

Liberty's Edge

Squirrelloid wrote:
Heck, my home games are up to some 9 pages of 10pt NYT font houserules. It might be more. I'm not against houserules. I am against the seemingly common idea that using houserules lets you pretend the game as written includes those houserules.

And here I thought my five pages was a lot of house rules... Beaten once again.

Liberty's Edge

Squirrelloid wrote:

Words have meaning. I wouldn't even be surprised you knew the connotations of the term before you typed it. But apparently its ok to insult some playstyles but not others.

I have a cabal? My opinions are my own. Their individual opinions are each their own. That I happen to agree with their point of view *from a design standpoint* doesn't make them my minions, me their minion, or any other permutation thereof. I don't even know the guys except as posters on an internet forum.

And I've never said houserules or whatnot were the wrong way to play an rpg. I have said its the wrong way to test the rules as they are written down. This is kind of tautological. Not using the rules provided unfailing leads to not testing the rules provided.

Heck, my home games are up to some 9 pages of 10pt NYT font houserules. It might be more. I'm not against houserules. I am against the seemingly common idea that using houserules lets you pretend the game as written includes those houserules.

i'm not even discussing houserules at this point. but i agree, there has to be a consensus on RAW for there to be a dialogue. my problem is people bringing up the latter WotC splatbooks that, in my opinion, and in hindsight, were released to "break" 3.5 to make it easier for them to "come to the rescue" with 4e.

i think that a game, RAW, needs to accomodate several playing styles, and not just focus on "fixing" things only min-maxing powergamers seem to have problems with. people (like me) who play more story driven games with people who use various spells and powers as building blocks for compelling characters don't need to have things "nerfed", since we're not inclined to abuse them in the first place, and would have to houserule things back to the way they were to make them fit our character/story concepts. imo, pathfinder should be using a scalpel, lightly, to reshape the rules a bit, like a cosmetic surgeon, not using an axe to rend like an executioner...

Scarab Sages

Squirrelloid wrote:

Words have meaning. I wouldn't even be surprised you knew the connotations of the term before you typed it. But apparently its ok to insult some playstyles but not others.

And Derek and I have showed you the accepted meaning of Munchkin. It's not an attack, it's a defence. Several munchkins on the boards lately have been advocating that if you are not being a munchkin/optimizer then you are not testing the rules properly, even going so far as to criticize Vic for his request for more active playtesting.

Please read the last sentence of the OP - mutual respect.

So far as I am concerned, I would be happy to have munchkins playtesting the rules. But don't walk around acting like it's your way or the high way, that just because you can optimize something that it is broken. It MAY be broken, but that is why the non-munchkins need a crack at it too. If it breaks for them, then there is somethine seriously wrong.

Liberty's Edge

Jal Dorak wrote:
Squirrelloid wrote:

Words have meaning. I wouldn't even be surprised you knew the connotations of the term before you typed it. But apparently its ok to insult some playstyles but not others.

And Derek and I have showed you the accepted meaning of Munchkin. It's not an attack, it's a defence. Several munchkins on the boards lately have been advocating that if you are not being a munchkin/optimizer then you are not testing the rules properly, even going so far as to criticize Vic for his request for more active playtesting.

Please read the last sentence of the OP - mutual respect.

So far as I am concerned, I would be happy to have munchkins playtesting the rules. But don't walk around acting like it's your way or the high way, that just because you can optimize something that it is broken. It MAY be broken, but that is why the non-munchkins need a crack at it too. If it breaks for them, then there is somethine seriously wrong.

dude, get out of my head!!!! ;)

Scarab Sages

houstonderek wrote:


dude, get out of my head!!!! ;)

It's about time we came clean, they will figure it out anyway. Derek and I are the same poster. I just use no capitals when typing as Derek in order to make us appear different.

;)

Paizo Employee Managing Developer

Tarren is going to be upset.

Scarab Sages

Daigle wrote:
Tarren is going to be upset.

Nuts to him, this is our thread now!

Liberty's Edge

Jal Dorak wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


dude, get out of my head!!!! ;)

It's about time we came clean, they will figure it out anyway. Derek and I are the same poster. I just use no capitals when typing as Derek in order to make us appear different.

;)

And I use proper capitalization and grammar while posting as my alter-ego to lend more gravitas to my posts.

:)


Jal , Derek : Please stop. Your posts are fast becoming irrelevant/contrary to the purpose of the thread.

Tarren , don't be sad , you tried .....

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

I have nothing against character optimizers. (Do you guys mind being called 'munchkins'?). Let's not assume though that the fact builds can be munchkinized means we have to rejig the whole game.

Anyways, let's get on with giving suggestions instead of arguing about each others assumptions. As long as we recognize that the others' contributions have value we should be fine.

The debate about the rules of debate are getting tiresome.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

robin wrote:

Jal , Derek : Please stop. Your posts are fast becoming irrelevant/contrary to the purpose of the thread.

Tarren , don't be sad , you tried .....

I think Jal and Derek are friends joking around with each other. ;-)

Just like when Sebastian called me a jerk he was kidding. ... Right, Sebastian? ...

...

Sebastian??

Scarab Sages

robin wrote:

Jal , Derek : Please stop. Your posts are fast becoming irrelevant/contrary to the purpose of the thread.

Tarren , don't be sad , you tried .....

You're right. I had a bad night, I was frustrated. I'm not retracting my position, I'm just saying that I'm giving it a break for a while. Nobody needs me pointing out when people are being rude. I'll stick to being helpful in the future.

My last few posts were indeed (as noted by Tarren) an attempt to lighten the debate with some humour shared with Derek. Irrelevant, perhaps, but I digress.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Tarren Dei wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

what are we playtesting again?

seriously, um, i haven't seen YOU as a problem in any of this, any "negative" type posting you may have committed has been REactive, not PROactive.

but, i do like the appeal for civility, so rockin' job on that :)

Regardless, I'm hoping we can bring back the friendlier tone of these boards. All this negativity is beginning to leak into my personal life. I've begun disagree with my wife again. Do you know how many years it took me to learn to stop doing that?

Well put. I see the problem as too many people trying desperately to shape things in a way they feel is best (with all good intention). The internet should have taught us by now that whenever there is more than one person involved there will be disagreement.

Honestly, the best course of action when you seen a discussion going in a way you think could be better, throw in your two cents and move on. If you really feel strongly about it start a different thread when you can outline what you are trying to achieve. Stop trying to change people...

Dark Archive

Jal Dorak wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
you know, i'd really rather not play a game that draws too much input from munchkin powergaming late 3.5 WotC splatbook loving "gamers"...

Ordinarily, that might be name-calling without evidence, but there is this:

LogicNinja wrote:
...at his request I built him a fairly optimized smashy Warforged Juggernaut...Psychic Warrior 2/Fighter 2/Barbarian 1/Warforged Juggernaut, with the Expansion power, Power Attack and Shock Trooper for feats, as well as Pushback (for synergy with his slam attack and Warforged Juggernaut armor spikes/bull rush abilities, and for shoving people around

and this.

Both were offered up freely by LN. Both show what you say.

Wow, I have spent some time around some serious munchkins and I don't even know where to find most of the stuff on that character sheet. And I though fighters sucked, so why take two levels in it. We should just stop all this fighting now and just make every class a base class and do away with presitge classes. ;p

Dark Archive

Squirrelloid wrote:


Words have meaning. I wouldn't even be surprised you knew the connotations of the term before you typed it. But apparently its ok to insult some playstyles but not others.
Words do have meaning and no one should be insulted for knowing what a word means before using it. I agree with Dereck,munchkins and optimizers are just two different words for the same behavior. If I might
wikipedia wrote:

a Munchkin is a player who plays what is intended to be a non-competitive game (usually a role-playing game) in an aggressively competitive manner. A munchkin seeks within the context of the game to amass the greatest power, score the most "kills," and grab the most loot, no matter how deleterious their actions are to role-playing, the storyline, fairness, logic, or the other players' fun. A more neutral use of the term is in reference to novice players, who, not knowing yet how to roleplay, typically obsess about the statistical "power" of their characters rather than developing their characters' personalities.

A game master who constantly awards players magical or "broken" (overly powerful) items without proper backstory or justification can also be called a munchkin master. Many on-line roleplaying games, such as Diablo II, Final Fantasy XI, and World of Warcraft, foster this sort of roleplaying due to the limitations of MMORPGs in terms of personality. The stimulus created by improving one's equipment and stats can take the place of the emotion that is sometimes attained in "real life" roleplaying.
(emphasis mine)

Nowhere does this describe "cheating" per say, only an obsesive need to amass power, most likely spawned by a percived lack of power and control in real life. I play because I enjoy taking on a role that is dissimilar to myself. However, there are a few players in my group who cannot sit down and make a new character without access to the internet so they can check the "proper boards." judging by statements like this:

squirrelloid wrote:
How is a theoretical scenario different than actually playing? All playing is theoretical too. It doesn't really happen (there is no real combat). The only distinction between what you're dividing into two groups is that in one there are a group of players (and thus multiple people who could all make errors in play), and in the other there is a single person running all of the characters.
and
psychic_robot wrote:
Are you honestly saying that the opinions of these people--these people who have playtested 3.5--are worth more than my ability to provide a mathematical analysis conclusively demonstrating that 3.5 clerics, wizards, and druids dominate the game while fighters sit on the bench and cry?

I don't think that you should be complaining about people making fun of your "play style" since your own comment makes it seem like you don't actually play.

Sovereign Court

David Fryer wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
you know, i'd really rather not play a game that draws too much input from munchkin powergaming late 3.5 WotC splatbook loving "gamers"...

Ordinarily, that might be name-calling without evidence, but there is this:

LogicNinja wrote:
...at his request I built him a fairly optimized smashy Warforged Juggernaut...Psychic Warrior 2/Fighter 2/Barbarian 1/Warforged Juggernaut, with the Expansion power, Power Attack and Shock Trooper for feats, as well as Pushback (for synergy with his slam attack and Warforged Juggernaut armor spikes/bull rush abilities, and for shoving people around

and this.

Both were offered up freely by LN. Both show what you say.

Wow, I have spent some time around some serious munchkins and I don't even know where to find most of the stuff on that character sheet. And I though fighters sucked, so why take two levels in it. We should just stop all this fighting now and just make every class a base class and do away with presitge classes. ;p

Psychic warrior, fighter and barbarian are all base classes available in the srd. Warforged juggernaut is in the ebberon campaign setting, not really a splat book I'd argue.

The fighter levels are probably taken for the 2 feats and the bab, I'd guess to qualify for juggernaut more easily. The arguement that 'fighters suck' isn't a very good summary of the optimizers position. I think most 'munchkins' would agree that fighter levels are an excellent dip or start, but their usefulness quickly dwindles compared to the reams and reams of splat book prcs out there, or a high level wildshaping druid etc..

LN hasn't gone nutso with prestige class dipping, obscure rules mongering to qualify for prestige classes early, or even cheesed out on the race (no half minotaur or half ogre). Besides the weird levels of psy warrrior (which could be fine in a psionics heavy game world), its not even that far fetched a build.

Maybe everyone should eat a cookie and cool down a bit :)

Dark Archive

Robert Hawkshaw wrote:

Psychic warrior, fighter and barbarian are all base classes available in the srd. Warforged juggernaut is in the ebberon campaign setting, not really a splat book I'd argue.

It was more the shock trooper and coligate wizard feats, and the escelation mage prestige class and some of the spells like channeled lifetheft or assay spell resistance that I was not familiar with. I have the Eberron book and EPH to refer to and have played PW before. And while I agree that he hasn't gone overboard on combos, it's still more than I would allow. I usually limit my players to thre classes, including prestige classes, unless they can prove that they need the extra class for their prestige class requirements. Of course I like to have my played have characters that are plausable as well as playable. In the real world, the person who changed jobs that often would be less skilled than the rest of the world rather than more skilled.

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

For a thread about respecting each other's playstyles, I'd like to see more respect.

If we are successful, the Pathfinder RPG will be enjoyed by tens of thousands of gamers.

Not all of them enjoy the same elements of the game that you do, and this is not the place to berate each other over things you will never agree on.

As Bill and Ted said, be cool to yourselves, and each other.

Please.

Dark Archive

A great post and gesture Terran. This community could use a whole lot more tolerance and good will and a whole lot less of the bad mojo going on here abouts. Let me say thank you for posting it and here's hoping we all take some notes on what you are trying to do here in this thread and apply it ourselves everywhere else on these boards. I miss the days when the Paizo boards were a friendly warm place where for the most part the sorts of bitter sniping that is happening now seldom occured. Back then our only real problem was Sebastian.

Seriously though, I'm kidding I love Sebastian....

But only in that platonic gamer man love kind of way....

Actually, love is probably not a good word. How about appreciate?

That's it... I appreciate Sebastian

Well at least his personality, that Bela Sara fetish though....

No really, I do appreciate him...

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / I think we may have gotten off on the wrong foot ... All Messageboards