|
This really is a non-issue, at least setting wise (Golarion). The whole point in a setting as ludicrously diverse as Golarion is that you or your GM doesn't HAVE to include these elements in his game. Don't want firearms? No Alkenstar, or no characters from there. Uncomfortable with futuristic tech and strange automatons? Nope, no Numeria. Dinosaurs? Run the game in Avistan rather than Garundi...
The setting includes so many elements so that you can cherry pick the elements you want and the elements you don't.
. You simply aren't going to have Mack Truck sized carnivores unless you have herds of building sized herbivoresYou mean like a dragon?
Indeed, if an environment can support a predator as large as a dragon it can support a dino. And every major setting I know of has at least one region where dinos are common including golarion the base setting for Pathfinder? So what are we arguing exactly? If the character is from the part of the world where they are common, why wouldn't there be druids with the apex predator as their animal companion? That just makes sense.
. You simply aren't going to have Mack Truck sized carnivores unless you have herds of building sized herbivoresYou mean like a dragon?
Dragons can fly and presumably have a vast feeding range. T-Rexes not only can't fly, but many paleontologists still maintain that they actually couldn't even RUN.
I've been building up a world where dinosaurs are a very regular thing, so much to the point that they are regularly used as beasts of burden and mounts. It's been met favorably by those wanting to try it.
What it boils down to is personal preference and player type. Everyone has their preferences for the game. I like dinosaurs in general and double check with and DM if I take a dino companion or mount, since it could cause problems in their game. If it does, alas no dino, if it doesn't rock on.
. You simply aren't going to have Mack Truck sized carnivores unless you have herds of building sized herbivoresYou mean like a dragon?
Indeed, if an environment can support a predator as large as a dragon it can support a dino. And every major setting I know of has at least one region where dinos are common including golarion the base setting for Pathfinder? So what are we arguing exactly? If the character is from the part of the world where they are common, why wouldn't there be druids with the apex predator as their animal companion? That just makes sense.
Look, I've said all along my beef isn't with druids who were born and raised among dinosaurs. I do have issues with such campaigns that don't take the environmental impact of herds of house-sized herbivores stampeding over the local viallage, but that's a whole different discussion. My beef is with druids who have no plausible connection with dinosaurs in their local area wandering around with armored T-Rexes. That includes druids who happen to be in a world setting that includes dinosaurs who actually live thousands of miles away or on an entirely different continent. In the case of Golarian, my understanding is that the dinosaurs are in a relatively remote area, and yet every druid seems to come from there. It's just silly.
As to the feeding and breeding habits of dragons vs. tyrannosaurs, dragons are magical beasts. How much food they actually need is totally arbitrary. In many cases they are rumored to be able to eat and metabolize dirt, rock or minerals. Tyrannosaurs are plain old Laws of Thermodynamics obeying ANIMALS who have to eat enough to keep a Mack Truck sized body at warm-blooded temperature. That means eating a LOT of MEAT. Comparing dragons to tyrannosaurs in terms of meat consumption is quite literally comparing apples to memory chips. They aren't even in the same (literal) UNIVERSE. So don't give me the "dragons can survive, so should tyrannosaurs" argument. It simply doesn't (pun intended) FLY.
So what if my druid finds a large, abandoned egg in the...
See my background in my profile. Not quite the same, but he still got the egg.
I suppose a deal could be worked out where local villagers provided the tons of meat necessary to support old Rex if in return he could be expected to liberally fertilize their fields on a regular basis....
Yes it does. I am currently playing a Ranger(beastmaster) from the ares surrounding Tolguth in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords. I would love to eventually get some kind of Mammoth or possibly a dinosaur or 2 but I will roleplay the selection of my animal companion either accepting the animals for the chosen area I am in or possibly not taking anything at all. If I really want a Dino themed companion I might be forced to travel back to his homeland to get one if the campaign permits. But I agree with the line of thinking that taking one because you can and they are bad@ss is crap.The Realm of the Mammoth Lords has dinosaurs too. Fun for Kellid druids of a primitive bent.A background can be as simple as "I'm a druid from the Mwangi Expanse".
+1
I for one am all for dinosaurs in Pathfinder. I like the thought of them being rare and remote. Also, I see people complaining about firearms and I'm all for them as well. Heck, the thought of magical airships is also appealing to me.
As well as dragons, the average fantasy realm has rocs, dire crocodiles and purple worms, all of which surely need to eat, and to exist in sufficient numbers to provide an adequate gene pool.
My GM recently banned all dinosaurs, mid-campaign. (No more 'summon anklyosaurus'...) I don't think there's any logical reason why a dire crocodile (a made-up gargantuan meat-eating animal) is more acceptable than a tyrannosaurus (a gargantuan meat-eating animal that really existed). I think the problem is that for some people dinosaurs trigger the 'science' part of the brain, which believes in realistic ecosystems, rather than the 'fantasy' part of the brain, which doesn't worry about things like that.
Anyway, a GM is entitled to tell a druid what animals exist in the local area and restrict companion choices appropriately.
Look, I've said all along my beef isn't with druids who were born and raised among dinosaurs. I do have issues with such campaigns that don't take the environmental impact of herds of house-sized herbivores stampeding over the local viallage, but that's a whole different discussion. My beef is with druids who have no plausible connection with dinosaurs in their local area wandering around with armored T-Rexes. That includes druids who happen to be in a world setting that includes dinosaurs who actually live thousands of miles away or on an entirely different continent. In the case of Golarian, my understanding is that the dinosaurs are in a relatively remote area, and yet every druid seems to come from there. It's just silly.
The DM controls where 'every druid' comes from. The players control ONE druid. There is nothing silly about one druid in a specific situation to come from any region of the world. Its a common trope in fact in the fantasy world, the outsider, the foreigner. There isnt anything wrong with that. I think the two issues you say are separate are in fact one in your mind. If a player turned up with an animal companion that was a very exotic bird that only lived in a far flung part of the world, would you still think it is silly? If no then you are unduely biased against dino's for some reason.
As to the feeding and breeding habits of dragons vs. tyrannosaurs, dragons are magical beasts. How much food they actually need is totally arbitrary. In many cases they are rumored to be able to eat and metabolize dirt, rock or minerals. Tyrannosaurs are plain old Laws of Thermodynamics obeying ANIMALS who have to eat enough to keep a Mack Truck sized body at warm-blooded temperature. That means eating a LOT of MEAT. Comparing dragons to tyrannosaurs in terms of meat consumption is quite literally comparing apples to memory chips. They aren't even in the same (literal) UNIVERSE. So don't give me the "dragons can survive, so should tyrannosaurs" argument. It simply doesn't (pun intended) FLY.
Thermodynamics? Seriously? Why is it that people are willing to accept wildly unrealistic things in their world but for some very specific things they want ultra realism. How many dungeons have monsters just kind of parked in stone rooms with no indication of food sources, or water sources? I'll give you a clue, its a lot. Ecology isn't a major sticking point in this game or the worlds created out of it.
That said, ESPECIALLY in the case of animal companions this is a friggan non-issue. AC t-rexes dont ever get bigger then large sized. Large sized animals can be supported by just about every climate. It certainly wouldn't eat much more then a bear or tiger of similar size category, and those suckers pop up all over the place.
Personally,
I just find Dino's wandering around fantasy forests jarring, so they don't, in my homebrew world. That's not to say they don't exist in the world, they do. But they are on island chains, vast but remote 1000 square mile island chains that allow them to exist relatively unmolested. Most of my world's continents are one half of the globe (the main 3, the 4th is a floating island chain that floats 12,000 feet up in the jet stream). There are a series of islands on the opposite side of the globe that have been kept apart from the main continents for all of history, and the original experimental animals of the First Gods still exist there. It's very Jurassic, giant ferns, oversized insects, dino's, etc.
Keeps the dino's available for summonings (nobody knows where they come from), and gives me a good place to have people find in game when they get up to the 12+ levels (where they can explore the old ruins built by the first people, who died off after the great schism).
Sigh... someone pops up with "Hey dragons can live in an area so (logically) so should tyrannosaurs!"
So I respond with "Dragons are flying, widely ranging mythical beasts with magical innards and can eat dirt, rocks and minerals whereas tyrannosaurs are actual animals who have to deal with thermodynamic realities of actual animal digestion and can't fly, have limited range and may not have even been able to run" and I get criticized for bringing "science" into the equation? Seriously? Look, if you don't want a logical response, then don't pretend to introduce logic into it in the first place. I didn't bring up dragons vs tyrannosaur dietary needs, did I? If someone tries to make a "logical argument" don't be surprised when I provide a "logical" response.
Whether an animal companion T-Rex is large sized or not, actual Tyrannosaurs (which is where the animal companion would be SUMMONED FROM) are colossal warm blooded predators who can't eat dirt, rocks or minerals and don't have magical metabolisms. If you don't have a sustainable population of actual colossal sized T-Rexes to pull your T-Rex animal companion FROM, then you can't have a T-Rex companion at all.
I think you will find that my dungeons consider ecology and don't have ridiculous concentrations of environmentally incompatible monsters stuck into rooms waiting for adventurers to come kill them and take their stuff.
And besides NONE of this is really relevant to the central issue of this discussion, which boils down to the ridiculous notion that a druid who grew up in a temperate forest surrounded by wolves, bears, mountain lions or other "normal" animals, would somehow end up with a friggin T-Rex as their animal companion when we all know that the ONLY REASON THEY DO is because the player is metagaming the system.
'nuff said.
Why can't your druid have rescued it from someone abusing it in captivity but it would not survive in the wild and did not want to leave you. That is another solution. Aren't there zoo equivlents in golarion but I forget what it was called.
Why can't your druid have rescued it from someone abusing it in captivity but it would not survive in the wild and did not want to leave you. That is another solution. Aren't there zoo equivlents in golarion but I forget what it was called.
Sigh.. make up whatever bizarre rationalization you like. We all know it's pure metagaming to get the AC you want, and has little or nothing to do with your druid's actual life history except as you've deliberately contorted it so you can get that snazzy, shiny T-Rex you want so badly.
Knock yourself out.
Why can't your druid have rescued it from someone abusing it in captivity but it would not survive in the wild and did not want to leave you. That is another solution. Aren't there zoo equivlents in golarion but I forget what it was called.Sigh.. make up whatever bizarre rationalization you like. We all know it's pure metagaming to get the AC you want, and has little or nothing to do with your druid's actual life history except as you've deliberately contorted it so you can get that snazzy, shiny T-Rex you want so badly.
Knock yourself out.
I'm sorry man, but you are being quite close minded about it. I will not disagree there are people that will take it as a metagame choice that is a solid fact. On the other hand though there are just as many people that will take it because they actually want one for their character that works for their back story.
If I make a Dragon Shaman Druid from a tribe that worships the giant lizard god of the lake, Bokrug, who takes a T-Rex or some other dinosaur because he feels it repersents Bokrug that should be no different the then eco-terrorist druid that broke into the royal zoo and stole their T-Rex along with freeing all the animals.
Some gamers just want the bonus and damage. Some gamers have their character concepts and run with them, and some do both. It's all good if the all the table agrees it's cool.
I've been building up a world where dinosaurs are a very regular thing, so much to the point that they are regularly used as beasts of burden and mounts. It's been met favorably by those wanting to try it.
What it boils down to is personal preference and player type. Everyone has their preferences for the game. I like dinosaurs in general and double check with and DM if I take a dino companion or mount, since it could cause problems in their game. If it does, alas no dino, if it doesn't rock on.
I agree it boils down to preference.
@Brassbaboon, a few things to be said about your last post.
1. the central issue in this thread is the discussion on why so much Dinosaur hate, not that a druid having a dinosaur in an area where dinos aren't having one.
2. The back story of every character can be construed as a "bizarre rationalization" to get some kind of item they want or animal or mount they want.
3. It was also noted earlier, by yourself even, that the Mountain Lion companion your druid has is next on the list after the Deinonychus as an abusable companion, so why are you unfairly biased against dinosaurs when almost all published settings have them and you yourself use optimal companions?
edit: kind of ninja'd on #2
edit2: @Hama, he explains that every time a person takes a dino AC, they have a twisted and contorted back story just so he can have it. That's an issue with fluff as well
Nobody is reading what he says...as i see it, he has no problem with fluff reasons for having a dino companion, but he hates the fact that everybody seems to take a dino companion because they are the strongest.
Yes. In a nutshell my problem isn't that some unique druid somewhere in some campaign managed to work out a reasonable backstory where they ended up with an exotic animal companion.
My problem is that EVERY FRIGGIN DRUID has one, just like EVERY FRIGGIN DRUID had a proto-human ape in 3.5.
The odds that YOU are the ONE PLAYER who actually has the reasonable, non-metagaming, plausible backstory that integrates in a believable fashion with the overall campaign world and ends up with a T-Rex animal companion recedes exponentially with every other player I encounter who also has the same T-Rex and a virtually identical implausible obviously metagamed "backstory" to support their desire to have the coolest, most mechanically advantageous animal companion in the game no matter how obviously unrealistic it is from an actual role playing sense.
So it's not that YOU have one and nobody else does, it's that EVERYBODY HAS ONE and uses the same lame excuse you did.
I really, really hate that. It's so much like online MMORPG worlds where every single raiding rogue has exactly the same armor, same daggers, same gloves...
Interchangeable characters with virtually identical builds are the very antithesis of the concept of "role playing". So it bugs me. That's all.
Nobody is reading what he says...as i see it, he has no problem with fluff reasons for having a dino companion, but he hates the fact that everybody seems to take a dino companion because they are the strongest.Yes. In a nutshell my problem isn't that some unique druid somewhere in some campaign managed to work out a reasonable backstory where they ended up with an exotic animal companion.
My problem is that EVERY FRIGGIN DRUID has one, just like EVERY FRIGGIN DRUID had a proto-human ape in 3.5.
The odds that YOU are the ONE PLAYER who actually has the reasonable, non-metagaming, plausible backstory that integrates in a believable fashion with the overall campaign world and ends up with a T-Rex animal companion recedes exponentially with every other player I encounter who also has the same T-Rex and a virtually identical implausible obviously metagamed "backstory" to support their desire to have the coolest, most mechanically advantageous animal companion in the game no matter how obviously unrealistic it is from an actual role playing sense.
So it's not that YOU have one and nobody else does, it's that EVERYBODY HAS ONE and uses the same lame excuse you did.
I really, really hate that. It's so much like online MMORPG worlds where every single raiding rogue has exactly the same armor, same daggers, same gloves...
Interchangeable characters with virtually identical builds are the very antithesis of the concept of "role playing". So it bugs me. That's all.
So, you would accuse a first time druid player who doesn't optimize at all of being a metagaming jerk because he wants a deinonychus AC? He doesn't know it's the optimal choice, he just sees dinosaur and goes "awww yeah"
And no, not "EVERY FIRGGIN DRUID" has one. One of my players took the fire domain and another, different player, took a bear, oh and another, even more different player, took a hawk. So no, not "EVERY FRIGGIN DRUID" has one. oh, btw, the last one was 3.5. No proto-human ape, there, is there?
So, you would accuse a first time druid player who doesn't optimize at all of being a metagaming jerk because he wants a deinonychus AC? He doesn't know it's the optimal choice, he just sees dinosaur and goes "awww yeah"
If the druid is in a campaign set in a typical temperate deciduous forest surrounded by wolves, mountain lions, bears and populated with elk, deer, squirrels etc... and the only reason the druid player wants a dinosaur animal companion is because he/she saw one in the bestiary?
Yeah. Pretty much. Of course if I was the GM I'd have a long talk with that player and try to educate them about verisimilitude, consistency, role playing and ecology.
If they still wanted the dinosaur companion would I allow it?
Probably not.
...why a dire crocodile (a made-up gargantuan meat-eating animal) is more acceptable than a tyrannosaurus (a gargantuan meat-eating animal that really existed).
Ahem... dire crocodile. Sarcosuchus
I'm curious, why did your druid select a mountain lion instead of one of the numerous other animals that were an option?
I'm curious. Why are you asking a question that I've answered at least twice already on this thread?
I role play my characters. When my druid's wolf was eaten by a crocodile because my druid had to choose to save the wolf or the party sorcerer and heartbreakingly chose the sorcerer, once the party completed that portion of the quest she wrote a song of sorrow and sang it at a burial ceremony for her wolf, cried herself to sleep and then performed the AC ritual to replace her AC the next day. The GM provided a list of AC candidates in the area close enough to heed her call, the list was basically bear, mountain lion, crocodile and wild pig.
Of those the one that was most thematically appropriate to her character was the mountain lion. At that time I had not even looked up the mountain lion's stats, and in fact didn't realize that mountain lions actually weren't even in the monster manual. I had to have an off line conversation with my GM to ask what stats to use and we agreed on the leopard as the closest match.
She actually is without an animal companion again due to an encounter with a hill giant who could not hit the party tank's buffed AC and decided to go after the mountain lion because it looked squishy and critted it with a giant club.
At this moment my druid has imposed a penance on herself for losing two animal companions and will not summon a new animal companion until she has performed some heroic sacrifice that she feels will make up for her poor stewardship of her now dead animal companions. How long that will take is up to the GM who is on board with the penance story line.
See, to me role playing is all about the character and the story. It's not about having the shiniest toys in the playground, or doing the most awesome damage possible in the fight. No matter how much damage you do the GM is going to scale the encounters to compensate so the whole encounter damage arms race is completely and totally pointless in my opinion.
See, to me role playing is all about the character and the story. It's not about having the shiniest toys in the playground, or doing the most awesome damage possible in the fight. No matter how much damage you do the GM is going to scale the encounters to compensate so the whole encounter damage arms race is completely and totally pointless in my opinion.--Brassbaboon.
I don't think you are trying to come off as "my way is better then yours" but your last post sounded like that.
Anyway, your last sentence seems a touch on the hypocritical side. If a person has a valid RP reason and is actually devoloping his character in the story through use of dinosaurs then how is that any different then your wolf or mountain lion?
This is a fantasy setting with unicorns, dragons, and demons. Why are dinosaurs so unusual?
I know it's silly, but mythology and dinosaurs occupy two seperate boxes in my brain. Maybe it's the timeline: medieval fantasy is based on the concepts and beliefs developed during the middle ages or early rennaissance. Dinosaurs, meanwhile, didn't come into the popular eye until the 1800s.
Or maybe it's because fantasy beasts like unicorns and vampires are based on myth and the occult while dinosaurs are founded in scientific discovery.
All I really know for sure is that even when dinosaurs do succeed in appearing in D&D worlds (the Talenta dinosaurs in Eberron are okay, and I really like the 'Lost World' premise behind Golarion's dinosaurs living in the Darklands), it still really bugs me that they're called by their Latin names.
I'm curious, why did your druid select a mountain lion instead of one of the numerous other animals that were an option?I'm curious. Why are you asking a question that I've answered at least twice already on this thread?
I role play my characters. When my druid's wolf was eaten by a crocodile because my druid had to choose to save the wolf or the party sorcerer and heartbreakingly chose the sorcerer, once the party completed that portion of the quest she wrote a song of sorrow and sang it at a burial ceremony for her wolf, cried herself to sleep and then performed the AC ritual to replace her AC the next day. The GM provided a list of AC candidates in the area close enough to heed her call, the list was basically bear, mountain lion, crocodile and wild pig.
Of those the one that was most thematically appropriate to her character was the mountain lion. At that time I had not even looked up the mountain lion's stats, and in fact didn't realize that mountain lions actually weren't even in the monster manual. I had to have an off line conversation with my GM to ask what stats to use and we agreed on the leopard as the closest match.
She actually is without an animal companion again due to an encounter with a hill giant who could not hit the party tank's buffed AC and decided to go after the mountain lion because it looked squishy and critted it with a giant club.
At this moment my druid has imposed a penance on herself for losing two animal companions and will not summon a new animal companion until she has performed some heroic sacrifice that she feels will make up for her poor stewardship of her now dead animal companions. How long that will take is up to the GM who is on board with the penance story line.
See, to me role playing is all about the character and the story. It's not about having the shiniest toys in the playground, or doing the most awesome damage possible in the fight. No matter how much damage you do the GM is going to scale the encounters to...
Ooh, I get it. You're in the camp that "I role play, so it's ok I have an abusable companion, but you just want something cool for your character concept, so you can't have it" school of thought, right? Well, as has been pointed out earlier, the list of companions in the core rulebook includes the deinonychus, so why can't I have one if my back story fits it? It's been stated multiple times that there are places in almost every published setting that dinosaurs would thrive, the Mwangi Expanse being one of them. So if my druid is form the Mwangi Expanse, a place teeming with dinos, he can't have one? Not even if his back story permits it?
You really didn't give much detail as to why you picked it earlier in the thread. You said the wolf died and you got another one. You didn't provide the fluff. I'm well aware of your stance regarding "proper" role play....
Yes, I did. I said her wolf died and the GM gave a list of which the mountain lion was the most reasonable choice and that wolf was not on the list. I think that was deliberate by the GM because he was tired of the "Fido" jokes the rest of the party applied to the wolf (which they insisted on calling her "dog").
At the time I don't think either the GM or I knew that mountain lion was not an actual option by RAW.
This is a fantasy setting with unicorns, dragons, and demons. Why are dinosaurs so unusual?I know it's silly, but mythology and dinosaurs occupy two seperate boxes in my brain. Maybe it's the timeline: medieval fantasy is based on the concepts and beliefs developed during the middle ages or early rennaissance. Dinosaurs, meanwhile, didn't come into the popular eye until the 1800s.
Or maybe it's because fantasy beasts like unicorns and vampires are based on myth and the occult while dinosaurs are founded in scientific discovery.
All I really know for sure is that even when dinosaurs do succeed in appearing in D&D worlds (the Talenta dinosaurs in Eberron are okay, and I really like the 'Lost World' premise behind Golarion's dinosaurs living in the Darklands), it still really bugs me that they're called by their Latin names.
Weren't dragons believed to existed because of dinosaur skulls? or am I thinking of something else?
I honestly get the "I'm tired of back stories that look like a cross between a mobius strip and a politician's explanation of why he voted A 10 years ago but votes B last week but really is still for A this week."
They get old after awhile for the GM, you feel like you're running a circus freak show rather than an actual RPG game after awhile.
Fortunately, the new game I just started is fairly light on such things. I have a fetchling who was simply just orphaned when his parents disappeared. No weird gyrations or anything. I was orphaned, I have no idea what happened to my parents, I got adopted by some nice halflings who took me in. I like halflings, I speak halfling and common. I ran around as a kid with halfling kids, and they taught me to be acrobatic and good at sneaking around. Boom, done. All hangs together nicely. No weird gyrations to explain how they have an ancestral drow sword handed down to their halfling adopted parents who then gave it to them.
Another is a half-orc, raised in a border half-orc clan. His mother took a liking to a cute human slave. She kept the sword the slave had when he was captured and gave it to the half-orc when he got grown up. When she died, he left the clan, since he never fit in and the orcs didn't really like him (he ended up being good, as a way of rebelling against the neutral/evil clan that persecuted him as a young half-orc). Then he went to a big city and worked hard as a caravan guard, then got a job on a ship as a cargo guard. All fairly straight forward, nothing that doesn't fit perfectly with my homebrew world.
The other 3 are fairly typical too. A halfling monk (not at all unusual, based on racial preferred class), a half-elf wizard, and a gnome Dark Tapestry Oracle (his background is a little strange, but, being an Oracle of the Dark Tapestry, that's actually normal).
|
|
Having PCs be special and having them have some bizarre backstory in order to justify optimization are NOT the same thing.I'm saddened that some people don't understand this.
THIS...oh, so this.
The basic dinosaur companion (the deinonychus) is in the Core Rulebook. There's no reason that it couldn't operate in a temperate or cold forest/plains, at least not if the druid is willing to spend a 1st level slot to give it Endure Elements daily.
So, if it's in the rules, i can use it no matter what my GM says? I don't think so. Every GM has a right to impose restrictions on his game. And players can't complain.
See, to me role playing is all about the character and the story. It's not about having the shiniest toys in the playground, or doing the most awesome damage possible in the fight. No matter how much damage you do the GM is going to scale the encounters to compensate so the whole encounter damage arms race is completely and totally pointless in my opinion.--Brassbaboon.
I don't think you are trying to come off as "my way is better then yours" but your last post sounded like that.
Anyway, your last sentence seems a touch on the hypocritical side. If a person has a valid RP reason and is actually devoloping his character in the story through use of dinosaurs then how is that any different then your wolf or mountain lion?
LOL, I don't care one bit if I come off as "my role play is better than your role play." If I didn't think that, I wouldn't role play the way I do. I absolutely do, in fact, think that role playing the way I do is more rewarding than the "I want my cake and get to eat it too" attitude I've seen from many folks here on these forums. I'm not one of those "Oooh I better not tread on anyone's hyper-sensitive to being offended toes" people. Get offended if you like. I don't care. I find the profusion of nearly identical builds by players who all come up with rationalizations to have that nearly identical build to be quite amusing, no matter how you want to excuse it. That's just my point of view. I'm not going to sugar coat it because someone might get their feelings hurt by some random post on a public board by someone who has a different opinion than them.
Yes, I think people who play the game that way are missing out on the richness and depth of experience that role playing was originally meant to provide.
That's why I play that way.
Play how you like. I don't care. But when someone asks "what's your problem with dinosaur companions" I will tell them.
I find your rationalization of why you dislike the rationalizations of others to be amusing. A refreshing lack of self-reflection is always good for a laugh.
I find your lack of self-reflection just as humorous.
I am reminded of the time I was in High School and one of my bell-bottom, tie-dyed t-shirt wearing classmates made some snide comment about the boring conformity of the suit-wearing business person and I said:
"Yeah, I agree totally and love to see how you yourself are so unique, just like all your friends."
That's how I feel about all those dinosauar AC druids (and their proto-human ape predecessors in 3.5). Yep, such unique concepts, all totally identical.
Ever seen the starting credits of Weeds?
LOL, I don't care one bit if I come off as "my role play is better than your role play." If I didn't think that, I wouldn't role play the way I do. I absolutely do, in fact, think that role playing the way I do is more rewarding than the "I want my cake and get to eat it too" attitude I've seen from many folks here on these forums. I'm not one of those "Oooh I better not tread on anyone's hyper-sensitive to being offended toes" people. Get offended if you like. I don't care. I find the profusion of nearly identical builds by players who all come up with rationalizations to have that nearly identical build to be quite amusing, no matter how you want to excuse it. That's just my point of view. I'm not going to sugar coat it because someone might get their feelings hurt by some random post on a public board by someone who has a different opinion than them.
Yes, I think people who play the game that way are missing out on the richness and depth of experience that role playing was originally meant to provide.
That's why I play that way.
Play how you like. I don't care. But when someone asks "what's your problem with dinosaur companions" I will tell them.
It's this attitude that makes you come off like a jerk, dude. You don't role play better than we do, it's a game, and everyone has their own play style. you seem to hate cookie cutter druid builds. I can get behind that. Personally though, I've never seen a "cookie cutter" build of any class. Why don't you get off your high horse and discuss this in a way that doesn't come off as "I role play better than you, that's why I don't like dinosaurs"
It's this attitude that makes you come off like a jerk, dude. You don't role play better than we do, it's a game, and everyone has their own play style. you seem to hate cookie cutter druid builds. I can get behind that. Personally though, I've never seen a "cookie cutter" build of any class. Why don't you get off your high horse and discuss this in a way that doesn't come off as "I role play better than you, that's why I don't like dinosaurs"
LOL, I'm a "jerk" because I say "I role play better than you." But you are a warm and compassionate human being because you call me a "jerk"?
LOL, this world is highly amusing to me. It really is.
Matt, you ASKED THE QUESTION. I am quite certain that you asked the question in DIRECT REACTION to a post I MADE on another thread, so I considered this to be a DIRECT REQUEST TO ME of why I don't like dinosaur companions.
I don't like them because I think the vast majority (99.9%) of players who play druids this way are metagaming munchkins who want the shiniest toy in the playground.
I didn't bring this up. You did. You asked. I answered.
If you don't want to know the answer to a question. Don't ask.
Now, I'm a "jerk" because I think I role play better, but you are a warm compassionate human being who goes around calling people "jerk" when you disagree with them.
What a warm, wonderful world we live in, isn't it?
|
That's how I feel about all those dinosauar AC druids (and their proto-human ape predecessors in 3.5). Yep, such unique concepts, all totally identical.
Have you been dipping in the DPR Olympics thread? Because if not the halfling druids I've built with pteranodons would like a word.
No, I don't have backstories for them. Yes, I could make one and, also yes, they could just as easily be riding a Roc instead but pteranodons are cool.