Taking a level in xx sucks in all instances but one.
That one is taking a level in Badass. You can't go wrong there.
Amen.
@Kirth: I like Theurge in concept - frankly the idea of "Wizard-Priest" to me is badass - but I've never actually tried to play one. I sort of always assumed yeah you'd be a bit gimped at the low levels but you eventually catch up once you get into the PrC a bit. Nowadays we mostly play Gestalt so it's not as much of an issue.
If a player can properly role-play that scene, then you can still have a die roll, but I would set a minimum acceptable result, if I thought the player did well enough so that there would be no chance of failure.
I always kind of felt like that penalized the players who are maybe a bit introspective. "Well, Bob played out the scene so well, he can't fail. You said the same words, but you've got a stutter, Pete, so you have to roll." That's not right. A character's charisma shouldn't be dependent on the player's -- not any more than a weightlifter player's PC automatically succeeds on Strength checks.
If a player can properly role-play that scene, then you can still have a die roll, but I would set a minimum acceptable result, if I thought the player did well enough so that there would be no chance of failure.I always kind of felt like that penalized the players who are maybe a bit introspective. "Well, Bob played out the scene so well, he can't fail. You said the same words, but you've got a stutter, Pete, so you have to roll." That's not right. A character's charisma shouldn't be dependent on the player's -- not any more than a weightlifter player's PC automatically succeeds on Strength checks.
True, but I would award a circumstance bonus and possibly bonus XP for really roleplaying it out. Not enough to make it an automatic success/failure, but enough to make it worth doing. Encouraging roleplay is a good thing.
If a player can properly role-play that scene, then you can still have a die roll, but I would set a minimum acceptable result, if I thought the player did well enough so that there would be no chance of failure.I always kind of felt like that penalized the players who are maybe a bit introspective. "Well, Bob played out the scene so well, he can't fail. You said the same words, but you've got a stutter, Pete, so you have to roll." That's not right. A character's charisma shouldn't be dependent on the player's -- not any more than a weightlifter player's PC automatically succeeds on Strength checks.
Depends heavily on the group.
I'm glad the whole scene has come to a point where both techniques are available. Picking the right balance is still mainly up to the GM, but then again so is everything else, and if he can't do it right here, there's not much of a game anyway.
Also: my term? "Broken"
Comes out like a knee-jerk response from my players when things are not going their way. Also "overpowered", especially when it's abbreviated to "OP" and more especially when it is abbreviated verbally.
The sad part is, they know it's not broken or overpowered, it is just a verbal tick picked up from reading forums like this one. Sigh.
On die rolls for diplomacy:
I give bonuses to the die rolls for what you describe you're doing.
If your die roll succeeds, the GM gets to describe how it succeeded.
If your die roll fails, YOU get to describe what you did that caused it to bollux up...and if your description is good enough, your players can nominate you for an XP award.
One of the problems of the Fickle Die of Diplomacy is that unlike combat, where luck gets munged out over multiple rolls, Diplomacy is a single roll, win or lose on one chuck of the icosohedron.
As to gamer terms I've come to dislike:
"Twiffing" as a term for Two Weapon Fighting
"Twiffing" as a term for Two Weapon Fighting
I've never actually heard that before. It's also too close to "whiffing" which essentially means "missing", would sound to me like you're under the impression that no one using TWF could be accurate. :P
I want them to play one. Sometimes experience is the best teacher.Better yet, YOU play one. When everyone gets tired of having to carry your dead weight around the adventure no matter what you do, someone will eventually get wise that your playing isn't the problem.
LOL, an excellent Idea. Volunteering such an "awesome" NPC is something they would be more than happy to accept the next time a player can't make it to a session.
I remember one now.
Underpowered.
I was once told I had to bring something broken to the table in order to play a Healer(the argument was I couldn't nerf myself until I could break something).
If I want to to play something, it doesn't matter if others think it is underpowered.
I'm sorry, this is incorrect. I mean, sure, it doesn't matter if I, some random guy on a message board, thinks something is underpowered. If your DM or fellow party members think that the character you are considering is incapable of being a full contributor to the game, that's a problem, because you're hurting the enjoyment of others.
Remember - this is a collaborative effort. If the power level of your character is detracting from the enjoyment of others, that's when its a problem - and that's true regardless if you're making Superman or Jimmy Olsen.
And from what I've read, the Healer class (at least the one in the Minis Handbook) was so bad that it probably is too weak to contribute meaningfully to a lot of adventuring parties.
That is pretty much the exact opposite of the way I run my games.
I pretty much tell my players "Play what you want. I will -make- it work."
Can I have some examples of Traps then, and how they qualify as such?I would consider the 3.5 Mystic Theurge a "trap" for most of your career, because a wizard 2/cleric 3 (for example) can in no way contribute equally to a 5th level character of any class. Your enemies are lobbing 5d6 (or better) fireballs at the entire party, your response is a 2d4 burning hands, and then you can maybe channel 2d6 hp of healing afterward. In essence, you're two cohorts who only get half an action each. You personally might have fun with it, but your fun in this case actively robs the other players of theirs -- because keeping you alive requires a LOT of babysitting on their parts, and in the meantime you're not doing anything that meaningfully boosts their chances of survival.
I don't agree with this. Yes, on one hand, at early levels Mystic Theurges are a pain, but I've played a couple with staggeringly positive results. Sometimes in a small party where you need at least some kind of access to arcane/divine magic, like if the players are finding lots of wands in the loot, this is a great class. I am actually rolling one up for a campaign I am in where the party has no spellcaster whatsoever; their Ranger is their healer at the moment if that tells you anything(can use cure wands). This is a very niche character that, under the proper conditions, can be really powerful.
hmmm... none of the terms mentioned has ever bothered me. if it's descriptive, then what's wrong with it?
the only thing that bothers me is "rouge." if you're a gamer, you've obviously got a desire to think, so learn how to spell, ok? :-)
take a level of xx
Would you prefer to hear "dip into xx for one level" instead?
True, but I would award a circumstance bonus and possibly bonus XP for really roleplaying it out. Not enough to make it an automatic success/failure, but enough to make it worth doing. Encouraging roleplay is a good thing.If a player can properly role-play that scene, then you can still have a die roll, but I would set a minimum acceptable result, if I thought the player did well enough so that there would be no chance of failure.I always kind of felt like that penalized the players who are maybe a bit introspective. "Well, Bob played out the scene so well, he can't fail. You said the same words, but you've got a stutter, Pete, so you have to roll." That's not right. A character's charisma shouldn't be dependent on the player's -- not any more than a weightlifter player's PC automatically succeeds on Strength checks.
For me, this it is the sincere attempt at role-playing. I realize Bob may seem better at storytelling then Pete, but I'm actually more likely to give Pete the pass if he is pushing the envelop on his personal regular level of gaming. Even if it's not the best, I'd rather 3 players who try to get into the game and get better at it than 5 power gamers who aren't trying to do anything new.
I don't agree with this. Yes, on one hand, at early levels Mystic Theurges are a pain, but I've played a couple with staggeringly positive results. Sometimes in a small party where you need at least some kind of access to arcane/divine magic, like if the players are finding lots of wands in the loot, this is a great class. I am actually rolling one up for a campaign I am in where the party has no spellcaster whatsoever; their Ranger is their healer at the moment if that tells you anything(can use cure wands). This is a very niche character that, under the proper conditions, can be really powerful.
+1 This is invaluable with a three character party. I played this with a rogue and a fighter/ranger. The DM allowed wands to be purchased at 1/5 cost with only 10 charges on them. Good stuff.
I hate when everyone cries railroad just because the DM is moving the story along. I can understand this in some games, but I think the term is abused and thrown in a lot of DMs faces.
I also hate when a DM calls their campaign a sand-box and it turns out to ACTUALLY be a railroad, which they run as a "the novel they never got a chance to write" and they force you into their preconceived notion of that particular class.
'S' is for 'suck'.
|
The problem with the Healer class is that healing is all it does for the most part, although it does it VERY well. Fact is however, it's hard to find people who enjoy that role, or interestingly enough parties that value it, as some like Treatmonk apparantly think healing characters in general are "a waste of space" which is the major reason that many of the changes that were made to the cleric starting with 3.0.
And from what I've read, the Healer class (at least the one in the Minis Handbook) was so bad that it probably is too weak to contribute meaningfully to a lot of adventuring parties.
I've actually considered making a healer for my game but the damned unicorn keeps getting in the way ;)
....then I roll a one.
Why bother with all the crap before the roll, if all that matters is the stupid die roll?
Sometimes I really miss 1e and DM fiat...
;)
In my groups, we often roll the d20 first and then base our speech on puppies and dragons based on how well we did on the roll. Someone who rolled a 1 will purposefully stammer a lot, ramble off into tangents, and trail off, and grab their sword, muttering, "Aw, Screw it."
And everyone laughs appreciatively at their good roleplaying.
Someone who does decent or awesome has the chance to go off into a big speech, (and might get a circumstance bonus if they think of something compelling.)
|
|
If I want to to play something, it doesn't matter if others think it is underpowered.It matters to your poor GM, who's trying to balance the spotlight between Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit.
Ha ha ha, oh wow. Seriously. Watching that was like reliving a few of the games I've played in the recent past. That said, my most hated terms:
"Free-Form Roleplaying character creation/development" - For many of the above-listed reasons; I've never seen someone realize their character concept free-forming, plus, more often than not, people will hide behind a puritanical "roleplayan, not rollplayan" curtain to defend their decision making process (or lack thereof). More or less, the entire concept puzzles, then frustrates, and then infuriates me.
"Grimdark" - We get it, the world is pretty much a GWAR show, except the weapons, hatred, and various bodily fluids are real. Stop saying "grimdark."
[/bitter dislike of things that don't make sense to me]
Now it's my turn...
Frankly, I'm tired of it whenever someone quotes Syndrome from the Incredibles and tries to use it as a weapon against class balance, or 4th edition, or anything in general.
Anytime I hear "When everyone is special, no one is." the voice in my head says, Shut up. Just... please... shut up. If you're going to make an arguement, don't base it on quoting a twisted-up, bitter, psychopathic, villain character who wants to drag people down, not uplift them.
|
Now it's my turn...
Frankly, I'm tired of it whenever someone quotes Syndrome from the Incredibles and tries to use it as a weapon against class balance, or 4th edition, or anything in general.
Anytime I hear "When everyone is special, no one is." the voice in my head says, Shut up. Just... please... shut up. If you're going to make an arguement, don't base it on quoting a twisted-up, bitter, psychopathic, villain character who wants to drag people down, not uplift them.
Give them a cape and put them next to a aircraft's engine.
Give them a cape and put them next to a aircraft's engine.Now it's my turn...
Frankly, I'm tired of it whenever someone quotes Syndrome from the Incredibles and tries to use it as a weapon against class balance, or 4th edition, or anything in general.
Anytime I hear "When everyone is special, no one is." the voice in my head says, Shut up. Just... please... shut up. If you're going to make an arguement, don't base it on quoting a twisted-up, bitter, psychopathic, villain character who wants to drag people down, not uplift them.
NO CAPES!
scnr
|
Broken is the only one that irritates me.
I agree with Mystic Theurge being somewhat of a trap. I say somewhat because from level 1-7 you are a liability. Once you get to 8+ the choice is more viable (especially if your DM makes the Practice Spellcaster feat available to you), if a group always stops around level 8 and restarts it can be a trap, if you play above this level I think it is a great class. I played a character out to 21 with a Mystic Theurge and it was pretty potent 8-21.
Off-topic, but I think my fix for that in my home games is going to be making the entry requirements lower. I'm pretty sure that won't unbalance things (due to economy of actions still be a liability), and it might make multi-class casters more useful again (I'm of similar feelings about eldritch knights being a useful "fix" for those poor fighter/MU characters of yore).
|
|
I believe he means rolling dice to determine factors of a character beyond ability scores. Roll x and leave them where they lie, roll to determine race, roll to determine class, roll to determine feats...
That can be an aspect of it. But my beef is more with the idea that people are willing to disallow themselves the rights to their characters' development as a whole. Be it during creation (and subsequently, class selection), or progression in class levels (for any reason). Part of it is that I'm a character optimizer, and part of it is that as a roleplayer, I usually see using the "I'm roleplaying" card to justify any suboptimal decision (when considering the concept) as poor form.
character optimazation
defenders
strikers
controllers
"Grimdark" - We get it, the world is pretty much a GWAR show, except the weapons, hatred, and various bodily fluids are real. Stop saying "grimdark."
Wait, what do you mean except they're real?
Now, what the heck does GISH mean, anyway?
Ooooooooooooh boy, here we go again.
Original meaning: Githyanki Fighter/Wizard.
Common Current Usage: Any form of melee fighter with high levels of arcane spellcasting, such as Caster/Fighter/Eldritch Knights or Spellswords, Duskblades, and similar concepts.
Most people who have problems with "Gish" see it as only ever meaning the first and refuse or dislike to acknowledge that the term has taken on the meaning of the second.
|
the only thing that bothers me is "rouge."
Yup. The rest is just shorthand. 'Specialized language' as it were that gives us (us, as in gamers) something in common.
'Gish' does describe a fighter / magic-user, even if it originally applied to a Githyanki, and, by now, has been used *more* to mean non-Githyanki anyway.
'Toon' is a great sign, that MMO players are playing tabletop games, despite online gaming being heralded in parts as the death of tabletop games (or role-playing in general). Similarly, seeing other MMO terms, like DPS or build, used in tabletop is, to me, reassuring, as it indicates that MMOs aren't 'stealing' away tabletop RPG gamers, just diversifying them.
'Enchantments' on weapons works fine for me, because that's the term we've used since the late '70s. Just because third edition came along and removed the item enchantment spells from the enchantment / charm school doesn't mean that I need to start calling magic weapons 'enhanced weapons,' which sounds like I used Viagra to make my sword hit harder. (Leading to jokes about my intelligent magic sword saying, 'I'd hit that!' to the Succubus.)
If 'enchantment' was good enough for Gygax, it's good enough for me. Then again, I'm also fond of words like 'dweomer' and 'cyclopean' and 'cthonic.'
But 'rouge' gets on my nerve because it's just wrong.
'Enchantments' on weapons works fine for me, because that's the term we've used since the late '70s.
Yeah, I never liked it then, either. When I saw the language clarification in 3.0 -- well, actually, that was my favorite thing about 3.0, I'll admit. "Enhanced" is a pretty poor choice, too, though; I'd've picked "imbue" for adding magic properties to items.
|
|
'Enchantments' on weapons works fine for me, because that's the term we've used since the late '70s.Yeah, I never liked it then, either. When I saw the language clarification in 3.0 -- well, actually, that was my favorite thing about 3.0, I'll admit. "Enhanced" is a pretty poor choice, too, though; I'd've picked "imbue" for adding magic properties to items.
There was a neat thread on that sort of thing around here, calling a +2 sword a 'twice-forged blade' or a +3 warhammer 'thrice-blessed' or something.
Director of Narrative
|
I don’t dislike the terms as much as I dislike how they are commonly used. As with any specialized, shared language, and the tendency for people to use the easiest analogy/comparison/term, it often gets in the way of understanding more than it helps. It’s worse here on the internet where tone is a difficult thing for many people to immediately get from common text, and most of it is dismissive without giving any real contribution to the conversation. In many cases, people throwing out “gamer speak” either use the terms wrong, only slightly hit on the full meaning, or lump all kinds of slightly related things to the usage.
Most of my problem with this kind of thing isn’t necessarily from the gamer terms out there as much as the message board usage of the terms and terms used to discuss them. I dislike the terms fallacy, kneejerk, and strawman for that reason.
Kirth, thank you for this thread. I’d actually started a list a few weeks back of stuff I hated seeing time and time again on gamer message boards, and I have to say, by the time I got to this thread, I’d seen all the ones on my list.
|
|
In many cases, people throwing out “gamer speak” either use the terms wrong, only slightly hit on the full meaning, or lump all kinds of slightly related things to the usage.
There is that. I've seen munchkin, twink, power-gamer, min-max and roll-player all used to slam gamers whose only similarity is that the speaker doesn't like the way they play the game.
To an extent, labels like 'gish' are a useful shorthand, rather than say 'someone who uses magical abilities and / or spells to synergize with moderate melee utility to function as an effective frontline combatant,' but at the other end of the spectrum, there are people who see only the label, and stop using language as a tool, and start becoming tools to the language, who end up missing the point.
Min-maxer, or whatever, shouldn't be seen as a perjorative, but as a simple descriptor, like [Fire] or [Mind-Affecting]. It describes someone who has chosen to spends their characters points in such a way as to pump up the attribute(s) they consider most important to their 'build' (more shorthand for a process of planned character development that doesn't have a word of its own, and would take a sentence to describe), while taking points out of their 'dump stats' (and yet more specialized language, for something for which there isn't a specific English term).
It's no more an anathema to role-playing than it was for Andre the Giant to play a character that had pretty clearly put all of his points into Strength and Constitution and 'dumped' Intelligence in The Princess Bride, but some people see the word 'mix-max' and don't see 'someone who maximizes core abilities at the expense of minimizing others' and instead sees a totally different definition that may or may not have anything to do with the min-maxing player, 'anti-roleplayer who has missed the whole point of the game.'
Short version? The words and terms aren't bad, it's the negative baggage we misattribute to them.
Terms I hate...
+1 (if you agree, say so, and say why. If all you're saying is "I agree" you're not contributing to the conversation)
Gish (especialy in the context of "Paizo, we really really need a gish class (god I hate that term) cuz I really really want to play a gish (I really hate that term)" If you don't like it, don't use it.
Pwned (as well as all other "new" words created by miss pronouncing "real" words)
Barb, Pally (or any other idiotic cute term for a game concept)
I can go along with dislike of constantly using Optimization and Build and whatnot...though on the other hand, I really hate gaming with people who don't think you can truely roleplaying a character unless they have poor stats and their only feats are skill focus (tragic background writing).
Edition war (play what you like and stop caring about what others are having fun with, I think 4th is crap too, but if someone enjoys it, let them)
Backwards compatability (I could likely write pages on just how silly I think this concept is)
Edition war (play what you like and stop caring about what others are having fun with, I think 4th is crap too, but if someone enjoys it, let them
Word war (say what you like and stop caring about what others are having fun with...)
'Enchantments' on weapons works fine for me, because that's the term we've used since the late '70s.Yeah, I never liked it then, either. When I saw the language clarification in 3.0 -- well, actually, that was my favorite thing about 3.0, I'll admit. "Enhanced" is a pretty poor choice, too, though; I'd've picked "imbue" for adding magic properties to items.There was a neat thread on that sort of thing around here, calling a +2 sword a 'twice-forged blade' or a +3 warhammer 'thrice-blessed' or something.
Heh, a Neverwinter Nights server I played on did this with all the items in their loot tables.
+1 weapon/armor/other item: Enhanced+2: Dweomered
+3: Enchanted
+4: Ensorcelled
+5: Imbued
I've also seen on other servers and sometimes in PnP a +2 item referred to as "spelled to the second circle/second tier".
I'm curious - what is it about "Enchanted" that bugs people?
