It's orsm.And eerily similar to your campaign world, from what i've heard/read.
Orsm? Yeah the player told me the same thing. I have heard of it, but don't really play video games. So I know the name and have seen some of the art, but that is all I know. I have had this setting since 06 or late 05 so I do know it predates the game.
Orsm? Yeah the player told me the same thing. I have heard of it, but don't really play video games. So I know the name and have seen some of the art, but that is all I know. I have had this setting since 06 or late 05 so I do know it predates the game.
It's orsm.And eerily similar to your campaign world, from what i've heard/read.
I prefer pen and paper myself, but occasionally break out a computer rpg to get my fix.
DragonAge is definitely my favourite so far for roleplaying and character development (not that there's much competition).
06' huh? Too bad you didn't copyright it.
Also, we gave him the opportunity to clarify his requirements, to make it clear what he meant. He insists on being a douchebag.
No you gave me a set of traps.
If I went back and made it more clear {which I find it clear as is} then you could claim I changed the set up.
If I went back and used in game names for effects {something you guys are doing} You would claim I am meta gaming the requirement.
You have chosen to ignore that it has three parts. I am not the one trying to rewrite the requirements and trying to use loop hole tactics here.
If you are unclear on something you ask. Once your explained just what the unclear part means then you know. But no ya guys argued over what it meant even after it was explained to you.
I am not the one being pigheaded here.
|
Okay seriously guys?!? You guys are spending PAGES on discussing a set of made up requirements to a fake prestige class...really?
1) seeker does make a point with the three requirements listed from a RAW stand point. The third requirment would be redunant if the cure spells worked for it...and as such by RAW, it would be more inclined towards his PoV (assuming good rule writing...which I know is a strech).
2) or do as prof and ToZ and VV do and change the rules anyways however you want as a DM.
3) psionic fans still suck. Had somebody who wanted to join one of my on going games. Requested to play a psion. I told him that there would be full magic transparency and I would be using stuff from dreamscarred beta (seemed like a good chance to give it a whirl). One game in, he saw the inkling of an option for seperation and he pounced on it...the game is now over (the wizard and sorcerer players got pissed and quit the game because of percieved inbalance of psions, the rogue player got sick of the arguments that insued and quit...and all this happened as i was kicking the psionic player out of the group). I will not be getting dreamscarred psionics as long as there is even the slightest hint of magic and psionics being seperate. So...that is 19 attempts now and 17 games that got ended. Yeah not a happy camper right now.
|
|
One requires a spell. The other requires a spell like ability. I fail to see how that could be such a vast difference FLAVOR wise that anyone could really tell without metagaming.This isn't that difficult to understand.
He said "heal with a touch", by which he clearly meant the touch is the instrument by which the heal occurs. You all read it as meaning that a touch simply needed to be involved.
Both interpretations are legit and one simply has to decide which of the two interpretations the writer intended - for which I'd start by asking the writer.
This is all pretty clear. What is not so clear is why this created a multiple paged arguement. So, let me ask, are you all high?So is that it, then? You don't believe in in-game character can tell the difference between when a spell is cast and a spell-like ability is used?
Am I misremembering that a spell like ability doesn't have components?
Stop making me agree with you...it's un-natural. I should normally be on ToZ or prof's side damn it.
I prefer pen and paper myself, but occasionally break out a computer rpg to get my fix.
DragonAge is definitely my favourite so far for roleplaying and character development (not that there's much competition).
06' huh? Too bad you didn't patent it.
My head eye coordination sucks due to nerve damage, can't track the combats fast enough so I watch but rarely play video games.
I ran a fun game back in 06, that group fell apart due to work and one guys drug habit. I ran it again in 07-08 a short game last year and plan to start the new group on it soon as well. One of the players was taken with the dwarven sailors.
The game is far, far from genaric fantasy, but I have those settings already.
Stop making me agree with you...it's un-natural. I should normally be on ToZ or prof's side damn it.One requires a spell. The other requires a spell like ability. I fail to see how that could be such a vast difference FLAVOR wise that anyone could really tell without metagaming.This isn't that difficult to understand.
He said "heal with a touch", by which he clearly meant the touch is the instrument by which the heal occurs. You all read it as meaning that a touch simply needed to be involved.
Both interpretations are legit and one simply has to decide which of the two interpretations the writer intended - for which I'd start by asking the writer.
This is all pretty clear. What is not so clear is why this created a multiple paged arguement. So, let me ask, are you all high?So is that it, then? You don't believe in in-game character can tell the difference between when a spell is cast and a spell-like ability is used?
Am I misremembering that a spell like ability doesn't have components?
A silent stilled spell with eschew materials looks just like an SLA. Now you can go back to the other side. :)
Trying to loophole 1 into 3 is something I will not accept as fulfilling part three. And that is simply all there is to it.
Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.
Its a spell, which meets part one. Casting a spell to meet part three, does not meet part three.
You have three requirements meeting two is not enough. It is that simple.
Edit: Guys ya might as well drop it. I am not gonna move on this. I gave three requirements. If you can meet all three cool, casting a spell meets 1. Then showing you have knowledge of the healing arts is 2. Healing with a touch is the third.
Trying to loophole 1 into 3 is something I will not accept as fulfilling part three. And that is simply all there is to it.
Basically the DM has decided you will have these 3 mechanical requirements or else is what is boils down to.
Its a spell, which meets part one. Casting a spell to meet part three, does not meet part three.
You honestly can't answer this question without referring to the first requirement, can you?
You honestly can't answer this question without referring to the first requirement, can you?
Honestly what is the point? I have explained a spell would not meet part three as there would be zero point to having three requirements if the first auto passed the third. You can't ignore part one as it invalidates using a spell as part three. Which seems to be why you want to ignore it.
You honestly can't answer this question without referring to the first requirement, can you?
Honestly what is the point? I have explained a spell would not meet part three as there would be zero point to having three requirements if the first auto passed the third. You can't ignore part one as it invalidates using a spell as part three. Which seems to be why you want to ignore it.
Or you could just kill the third requirement.
I mean, by your own logic, the third requirement is a circle. You already clear it by clearing the first requirement.
Your own argument is that the third requirement, lacking a metagaming response, is not needed.
So kill it.
No the third would only be a circle if it could be filled by the first requirement. As I listed three and using a spell does not meet healing by a touch there is no circle, only folks trying to bypass the third requirement by claiming the first pass it when it does not.
From what I listed yes it would. I would note however that could not count for part 1, as its a spell like ability and not the ability to cast healing spells.
Yeah, which is why I only asked about the third req.
Gives me the idea of a character using silent still cure spells to trick the order into thinking he has an SLA to get admitted.
As far as that goes its not a PRC or anything. You could do that and as long as ya was never found out. If however they found out however, ya would prob be kicked out.
Isn't it obvious, JM?
I was just checking to see if I should actually care.
Its a spell, which meets part one. Casting a spell to meet part three, does not meet part three.
"You're shooting a rifle, which meets part one. Shooting a rifle to kill someone with a bullet to meet part three does not meet part three."
You've yet to address this blatant hole in your logic.
Trying to loophole 1 into 3 is something I will not accept as fulfilling part three. And that is simply all there is to it.
It's no loophole, anymore than shooting a rifle to kill someone with a bullet is a loophole.
You're the one revising your setting to oppress players here. You can't even point to your setting to blame it; you're outright changing the ruddy thing. And you've yet to explain why in the world those two separate requirements would even make one lick of sense.
Okay seriously guys?!? You guys are spending PAGES on discussing a set of made up requirements to a fake prestige class...really?
No, an organization. This is a very old and very central discussion that's directly relevant to... damn near everything. Including psionics.
1) seeker does make a point with the three requirements listed from a RAW stand point. The third requirment would be redunant if the cure spells worked for it...and as such by RAW, it would be more inclined towards his PoV (assuming good rule writing...which I know is a strech).
No, he doesn't, and no, it wouldn't be. There are non-touch healing spells, after all. The cure spells just meet the "spell" and "touch" requirements as separate aspects of the spell, just as shooting a rifle and killing someone with a bullet can be two aspects of the same singular action.
If a PrC required the ability to cast third-level spells and the ability to cast Fireball, a 6th-level Sorcerer can meet both prerequisites by just knowing Fireball. The only time Fireball wouldn't meet that prerequisite is if you somehow acquired it as something below a 3rd-level spell.
2) or do as prof and ToZ and VV do and change the rules anyways however you want as a DM.
We're not the ones changing the rules.
(the wizard and sorcerer players got pissed and quit the game because of percieved inbalance of psions, the rogue player got sick of the arguments that insued and quit...and all this happened as i was kicking the psionic player out of the group)
Wait, you're blaming the player for two PCs' blindness and your own lack of communication skills or ability to effectively manage a discussion? I ain't saying the player was in the right, but if that's all it took to end your game, then either you've got some serious management issues or there were major problems under the surface already.
Honestly what is the point? I have explained a spell would not meet part three as there would be zero point to having three requirements if the first auto passed the third. You can't ignore part one as it invalidates using a spell as part three. Which seems to be why you want to ignore it.
Except it isn't auto-pass. There are ranged healing spells, and those would not meet the requirement for part 3 just as gaining Fireball as a 2nd-level spell somehow wouldn't meet the "Be able to cast Fireball and 3rd-level spells" requirement.
I learned psionics (complete with all the XPH classes and enough feats, powers and items to get a firm grasp of it) on my own in an afternoon well enough to dissect the thing, and that's a one-time investiture of effort that lasts the rest of my gaming career. And there were a lot of distractions that afternoon.
*applause* Good for you!
I learned psionics (complete with all the XPH classes and enough feats, powers and items to get a firm grasp of it) on my own in an afternoon well enough to dissect the thing, and that's a one-time investiture of effort that lasts the rest of my gaming career. And there were a lot of distractions that afternoon.*applause* Good for you!
Her point is not that she's so awesome for being able to do that. On the contrary, she's pointing out that just about anyone could do the same, if they could be bothered. Instead of saying, for example, "Ooh! New rules! They're so big and scary, I better not even look at them!"
Her point is not that she's so awesome for being able to do that. On the contrary, she's pointing out that just about anyone could do the same, if they could be bothered. Instead of saying, for example, "Ooh! New rules! They're so big and scary, I better not even look at them!"
I know that's her point - and it's not relevant in any way (a bit of a trend for some people in this thread, I see). Good for her that she did that. Assuming that everyone else can/will do that in the same amount of time and pull the same amount of understanding is patent nonsense. (And really, that goes for all the other ridiculous posts that say "it's not that hard", "I did it easily", "there's no work for me", or any other garbage along those lines. Individual people will come to their own conclusions on what's 'work' for them, thankyouverymuch, and no internet wanker's [patronizing] comments are going to change that.)
It's so subjective that it's nothing more than a poor anecdote, and hurts her position more than helps.
(Reposting to remove it from the earlier 2 pages of nonsense.)
As a GM, I find that my primary objections fall into two categories.
1) Psionics is always created as a seperate system (in both 2nd Edition and 3.X). It isn't even referenced in any of the Core Rulebooks, and most extra books don't mention it, even after the Psionics Handbook came out. Thus, it is not always clear how the psionics rules interact with other rules. Also, it leaves you with psionic-less campaigns that suddenly have psionics available (or banned) when it comes out. This also would have been the easiest issue to fix when Pathfinder was first created. It was not.
2) Psionics is often complicated as a system, when set beside the magic system. With the exception of Unearthed Arcana variants, that is. Using 2 systems of casting makes things more complicated in general, which can frustrate new players or weak/time-starved GMs. A smooth system that is similar in mechanics to the current magic system would greatly smooth over this issue.
As a GM, I usually leave it up to my players whether or not psionics will be in play. If I have a player with a psionic character, I use psionics. Otherwise, it's farly easy to just ignore it.
"You're shooting a rifle, which meets part one. Shooting a rifle to kill someone with a bullet to meet part three does not meet part three."
That example if I recall was shooting an target then shooting an enemy. your changing the wording. And we are not talking about rifles, but the three requirements I gave. Three as in the number that comes after two.
Your not using logic at all, if part one auto passed part three there is no call to have part three.
Why is must be three thats is simply the order wishes it. They wish you to both be a spellcaster, be skilled at the arts of healing and have be gifted with another form of healing.
I gave ya just what yall asked for and now you whine like a child going out of your way to try and not understand even after it's been explained to you.
You're the one revising your setting to oppress players here. You can't even point to your setting to blame it; you're outright changing the ruddy thing. And you've yet to explain why in the world those two separate requirements would even make one lick of sense.
And there ya went with the oppressing players non sense yet again.If your gonna make off the wall random claims at lest use the info I have said about my setting.
There are no rifles there so your argument is invalid. The healing order was made up for this thread and ya know that, which also makes it invalid when ya bring my setting up. You are making bold claims on something You simply are ignorant of.
I am amazed by your arrogance.
Your not using logic at all, if part one auto passed part three there is no call to have part three.
Correct!!! That's exactly what everyone has been saying for six pages! And yet you insist on keeping part three, even though there's no call to have it.
Maybe if you defined parts (1) and (3) in such a way that one thing would not auto-pass both of them, then maybe we'd be getting somewhere. As it is, you've defined them in such a way that you've rendered your own third part moot.
Your not using logic at all, if part one auto passed part three there is no call to have part three.Correct! That's exactly what everyone has been saying for six pages! And yet you insist on keeping part three...
I insist on part three as part one does not meet part three. It is y'all who have the issue not I. You want to get rid of part three as it makes the group more open. The group likes being more elitist so they made three parts so just not anyone with the ability to cast a clw could join.
Part 1 does not meet part three if it did I would not have had a part three. As it does have a part three logic tells you part one must not then meet part three.
I know that's her point - and it's not relevant in any way (a bit of a trend for some people in this thread, I see). Good for her that she did that. Assuming that everyone else can/will do that in the same amount of time and pull the same amount of understanding is patent nonsense. (And really, that goes for all the other ridiculous posts that say "it's not that hard", "I did it easily", "there's no work for me", or any other garbage along those lines. Individual people will come to their own conclusions on what's 'work' for them, thankyouverymuch, and no internet wanker's [patronizing] comments are going to change that.)
It's so subjective that it's nothing more than a poor anecdote, and hurts her position more than helps.
And many of those conclusions are based not on the rules themselves, but intimidation that has nothing to do with the rules, and everything to do with their own mental roadblocks.
I went in under the most averse conditions. I went into it alone, stone cold, I went through the vast majority of it in considerable detail, I went in with all manner of biases and presuppositions against it, and I came out at the end of the afternoon with three drafts of a character across two classes and a rather thorough understanding of psionics, and I only needed to do that once, ever to have the understanding required to integrate it seamlessly and with great contribution to the game as a whole.
Now, if I'd had someone helping me, taking me only through the important parts, going over the highlights and cutting out the crap to get straight to the point? It could easily have taken less than an hour to learn psionics more than well enough to use it or run it.
The point is not, "It was easy for me." It's that it doesn't take much time or effort to incorporate. My point is, if a player is asking to run something with psionics, you say no because you don't know it, and next campaign they ask again and you give the same answer, and it repeats every campaign, you're literally telling your player that you refuse find ten minutes here, fifteen minutes there, just a few times ever, time that is positively normal to spend in character creation anyways, in order to work with them. You're saying that player isn't worth one hour in the course of the entire gaming group's life cycle. That's just sad.
Your not using logic at all, if part one auto passed part three there is no call to have part three.
Except part 1 doesn't even auto-pass part 3. I've already said that.
Part 1: Healing spell.
Part 3: Healing touch.
A ranged healing spell (and there are ranged healing spells) is not a healing touch and thus would not qualify for part 3.
A touch healing spell, however, such as Cure Light Wounds does meet both criteria through separate aspects of itself in the way that handing someone your state ID simultaneously provides your address, meeting both the requirement for a form of identification and the requirement to provide a valid address simultaneously.
I am amazed by your arrogance.
From the man who declares his own baseless preconceptions to carry greater weight than the written rules in determining the contents of those very written rules. Clerics are still warriors, after all.
I insist on part three as part one does not meet part three.
The problem is that you phrased your conditions for the parts so poorly that a spell does meet both one and three. If you wanted a simple cure light wounds not to pass part three, then you should phrase part three in such a way that it doesn't pass. Simply giving it a different number doesn't cut it.
Example: "Heal with a touch, without speaking, and without the use of a holy symbol" has requirements that can't be fulfilled by a simple cure light wounds spell. "Heal with a touch" is fulfulled by a CLW, even if you don't want it to be.
The problem is in how you defined your conditions -- you have to state them in such a way that you do what you intend them to do, not just state them any old way and then argue when people fulfill exactly what they say. The number of condions, and the order they're in, are both irrelevant if you can't be bothered to spell out what the conditions really are.
Form the man who declares his own baseless preconceptions to carry greater weight than the written rules in determining the contents of those very written rules
Ya know that one was not baseless, and most folks know that. If you have a need to inform players "I am not using the normal names for hat they normally mean in game" such as not calling a cleric a cleric so they won't be confused, then yeah the word is dead for general use.
Ya can use it if ya wish but as a whole those words have far to much in game baggage for general use. Home games are not what I would call general use.
Ok guys on the order of healing. You have been told what the three requirements are. You have asked if a spell could fill number three and told No. Honestly that is the end of it. As the one who wrote it I can clearly tell you a spell does not meet number three, even if ya think it should.
If the wording is unclear to you, ask. But once it is explained then ya can't claim "Oh well I thought it meant this" At this point you all know what it meant and that the spell does not meet the third part. You can't keep claiming ignorance once it has been explained.
It is not the intent that a spell meets the third requirement , nor does allowing it to do so make any sense as it would render the third point moot. As the third point is there it is clear the intent then was it not be meet by part one.
There is no way I can explain it any simpler then that.
wow VV... and people wonder why psionics fans are so hated. A player disregards the rules I set at the start that he agrees with, picks a fight with the two other players while constantly ignoring what I said and it's not the psionic player's fault but mine and the groups...yeah BS.
I never said the player was blameless. However, that alone should not be nearly enough to destroy a game unless you have some serious management and communication problems going on that he cannot be used as a scapegoat for.
If your bridge collapses to the two-year storm, you can blame the lowly two-year storm all you want, but something clearly went seriously wrong when you designed and build that bridge.
If the wording is unclear to you, ask. But once it is explained then ya can't claim "Oh well I thought it meant this." At this point you all know what it meant.
No -- we asked, and you said "not a spell," and then we had to guess what did count, and people put forth a lot of suggestions (like lay on hands), and you shot those down, too, and eventually, by playing twenty questions, we figured out that you specifically meant "the granted power of the Healing domain," and that's all you'd accept. And that's a lousy way to run a game world or a conversation -- by forcing people to guess what the hell you're talking about because you can't be bothered to be clear about it up front.
Now for my own example: "The Order of Zodd in my game world requires you to own a piece of equipment." The player says, "I have a mirror -- that's a piece of equipment!" and I say, "NO! Idiot! You have to guess what specific piece of equipment I'm thinking of. And I won't tell you what it is!"
No -- we asked, and you said "not a spell," and then we had to guess what did count, and people put forth a lot of suggestions (like lay on hands),
Umm Lay on heads counted. I said to heal with a touch, as long as it was not a spell and it healed by a touch then yeah it passed. TOZ asked lay on heads ages back, on the page this all started on.
He has said a good amount of other things that also meet the requirements, meatrace had one as well. The rest of you got caught up on "A healing spell is a healing touch" even after ya was told it was not.
I stated on the first page of this, a cleric with the healing domain is the easiest route. You guys simply lost sight of the goal when I said the spell did not meet part three.
|
|
wow VV... and people wonder why psionics fans are so hated. A player disregards the rules I set at the start that he agrees with, picks a fight with the two other players while constantly ignoring what I said and it's not the psionic player's fault but mine and the groups...yeah BS.I never said the player was blameless. However, that alone should not be nearly enough to destroy a game unless you have some serious management and communication problems going on that he cannot be used as a scapegoat for.
If your bridge collapses to the two-year storm, you can blame the lowly two-year storm all you want, but something clearly went seriously wrong when you designed and build that bridge.
So you don't think very harsh words between good friends can never ever drive a rift big enough on it's own?!? Who said the argument was a two year storm? I mean honestly, these threads should tell you how bad it can get...especially once civility is left behind.
wow VV... and people wonder why psionics fans are so hated. A player disregards the rules I set at the start that he agrees with, picks a fight with the two other players while constantly ignoring what I said and it's not the psionic player's fault but mine and the groups...yeah BS.
Every <minority> I've met was rude and picked a fight. Ergo, all <minority>s must be this way.
I know that's her point - and it's not relevant in any way (a bit of a trend for some people in this thread, I see). Good for her that she did that. Assuming that everyone else can/will do that in the same amount of time and pull the same amount of understanding is patent nonsense. (And really, that goes for all the other ridiculous posts that say "it's not that hard", "I did it easily", "there's no work for me", or any other garbage along those lines. Individual people will come to their own conclusions on what's 'work' for them, thankyouverymuch, and no internet wanker's [patronizing] comments are going to change that.)
It's so subjective that it's nothing more than a poor anecdote, and hurts her position more than helps.
I've yet to meet a single person who had trouble understanding psionics rules after reading them.
Not.
One.
The problem is that people don't read them and instead just throw their hands up and declare it broken. Hell, look at how many people here have claimed that 3.x psionics must be the same as 2e psionics because they never bothered to give them a look? I mean, seriously, more then once I've explained the psionics rules completely in one paragraph. A small one, at that!
Ok guys on the order of healing. You have been told what the three requirements are. You have asked if a spell could fill number three and told No. Honestly that is the end of it. As the one who wrote it I can clearly tell you a spell does not meet number three, even if ya think it should.
If the wording is unclear to you, ask. But once it is explained then ya can't claim "Oh well I thought it meant this" At this point you all know what it meant and that the spell does not meet the third part. You can't keep claiming ignorance once it has been explained.
It is not the intent that a spell meets the third requirement , nor does allowing it to do so make any sense as it would render the third point moot. As the third point is there it is clear the intent then was it not be meet by part one.
There is no way I can explain it any simpler then that.
Your reasoning is literally "There is a part three because there is a part three and healing spells don't work because it is part three." You've yet to give any reason outside of that. It's not just metagamed, it's strange
So you don't think very harsh words between good friends can never ever drive a rift big enough on it's own?!? Who said the argument was a two year storm? I mean honestly, these threads should tell you how bad it can get...especially once civility is left behind.
Harsh words that drive a rift in a friendship do not do so on their own; they tear at the existing rifts and weaknesses in the relationship that run far more deeply than those words could ever hope to reach on their own. In healing the relationship, you must address the long-standing problems that had been festering within the relationship, not just the one spat that was the final straw.
Your reasoning is literally "There is a part three because there is a part three and healing spells don't work because it is part three." You've yet to give any reason outside of that. It's not just metagamed, it's strange
Heh, dude how is a religious order, sect, cult or elitist group having strange ideas and requirements to join out of the ordinary?
As for in game reason, ok simple and off top of my head.
The order wished to keep themselves as a best of the best kind of group, As we can see they are not just one faith as there is no god requirement. But they put down three simple requirements each harder to meet then the next. As those who take the oath of the orders are not mere healers they are the greatest Order of healers the world has ever known, they stop plagues others can not, heal kings and sway empires, walk the land healing the sick and the wounded n ways that make the ordinary healers seem like untrained goblin barbers.
So they set three requirements.
1: The power to cast healing spells. As they are an order of healers this is the core of that order, the ablity to command magic to heal, any buffoon can wrap a wound a true healers can command the wound to close with but a word or a prayer.
2: Next is the working knowledge of healing, after all not every spell caster can heal. And healing is important as it is the foundation of the order, all those who met the first most have knowledge of the art of healing as well.
3: The ability to heal with a mere touch, The ability to heal with but a touch is a rare and special thing. truly this is what separates the healers blessed by the gods and fate from the rest.
Therein game reasoning. They sound like right a#+%%&#s though, but eh many doctors do.
I went in under the most averse conditions. I went into it alone, stone cold, I went through the vast majority of it in considerable detail, I went in with all manner of biases and presuppositions against it, and I came out at the end of the afternoon with three drafts of a character across two classes and a rather thorough understanding of psionics, and I only needed to do that once, ever to have the understanding required to integrate it seamlessly and with great contribution to the game as a whole.
*applause* Good for you!
My point is, if a player is asking to run something with psionics, you say no because you don't know it, and next campaign they ask again and you give the same answer, and it repeats every campaign, you're literally telling your player that you refuse find ten minutes here, fifteen minutes there, just a few times ever, time that is positively normal to spend in character creation anyways, in order to work with them. You're saying that player isn't worth one hour in the course of the entire gaming group's life cycle. That's just sad.
Still nonsense. It may or may not take x amount of time to maybe learn the rules to a relative degree of satisfaction, variable for each and every person. And it's certainly not you who decides that time nor the degree of satisfaction that will work within a particular group.
Blah blah blah
You still haven't given a non-metagame difference between 1 and 3.
You can babble all you want about priviledge or about religious orders and whatnot, but at the end of the day, the only difference between requirement 1 and requirement 3 is "I want you to take this domain." That's not an in character or in game reasoning.
|
wow VV... and people wonder why psionics fans are so hated. A player disregards the rules I set at the start that he agrees with, picks a fight with the two other players while constantly ignoring what I said and it's not the psionic player's fault but mine and the groups...yeah BS.
Hey just a quick question, which part of the rules on the beta documents implied that non transparency was possible? this is not a challenge or anything, I am just curious, as one of their main goals was to completly erase any signs of non transparency existing.
Still nonsense. It may or may not take x amount of time to maybe learn the rules to a relative degree of satisfaction, variable for each and every person. And it's certainly not you who decides that time nor the degree of satisfaction that will work within a particular group.
For someone with sufficient intellect to learn D&D and Vancian in the first place, the amount of time is going to net out to "not long" and shooting your player down without even bothering to try on the grounds that you think you're an idiot not only brings into question why you're DMing in the first place, but is most certainly mistreating your friends.
Lay on heads
wut
Blah blah blahYou still haven't given a non-metagame difference between 1 and 3.
You can babble all you want about priviledge or about religious orders and whatnot, but at the end of the day, the only difference between requirement 1 and requirement 3 is "I want you to take this domain." That's not an in character or in game reasoning.
I just gave you a pure fluff reason. You dislike it. It really does not matter. I gave you three, your trying to use 2, two does not work so around your circle we go.
The domain is the easy way to meet three yes, but as been shown not the only way to meet three. You guys are causing your own headache here.
And ya know if an order like this way in a game, no one is forcing you to take it. You have chosen to make your PC a part of that order, so if ya don't like the order don't make your PC a part of that order.
*applause* Good for you
Still nonsense. It may or may not take x amount of time to maybe learn the rules to a relative degree of satisfaction, variable for each and every person. And it's certainly not you who decides that time nor the degree of satisfaction that will work within a particular group.
The problem is not how "hard" or "easy" it is to learn the rules. The problem is that the vast, vast majority of people who say the rules are too hard to learn never read them in the first place.
Again, refer to how many people in this very thread talked about 2e psionics and then didn't realize that 3.5 psionics were different.
Lay on headswut
Some paladins have a wild side ya know.
Blah blah blahYou still haven't given a non-metagame difference between 1 and 3.
You can babble all you want about priviledge or about religious orders and whatnot, but at the end of the day, the only difference between requirement 1 and requirement 3 is "I want you to take this domain." That's not an in character or in game reasoning.
I just gave you a pure fluff reason. You dislike it. It really does not matter. I gave you three, your trying to use 2, two does not work so around your circle we go.
The domain is the easy way to meet three yes, but as been shown not the only way to meet three. You guys are causing your own headache here.
And ya know if an order like this way in a game, no one is forcing you to take it. You have chosen to make your PC a part of that order, so if ya don't like the order don't make your PC a part of that order.
This isn't difficult, man.
Give me a non-metagamed reason that Cure Light Wounds can't work for number three. Don't refer to requirement 1, that's metagaming big time. Don't talk about the domain, that's a purely mechanical thing. Just say why Cure Light Wounds doesn't work for requirement three.