| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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
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
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...
Dude, totally. Swords are chosen so regularly, with their clearly superior critical hit ranges and such. I think people only use them because they're the obvious mechanical choice. Same with bows. Stupid over powered things have no place in my fantasy setting. If you have a longbow, why should I care if you crafted it yourself? Those are only available in *insert far off reaching place*. People in this region only use pilums and javalins, you metagaming jerk, you.
That's why if you're any kind of roleplayer, you'll do the noble, morally upright thing, and fight with clubs, slings, and quarterstaffs, 'cause that's the way real roleplaying is done.
*fifteen minutes later, after seeing the sheer asskickery that is a Fighter specializing in fighting with staffs*
Which is why I hate quarterstaffs because people just use them because they're two-handed weapons that can function as double weapons, and get bonuses with Power Attack, and they're free at first level, and they don't weigh much, and they don't cost a feat like double-bladed swords, and you can get 9 attacks per round with them plus rend. Why, every Fighter I see makes up some stupid backstory about how he picked up a stick during his journeys. Not like us true roleplayers with our clubs and slings.
*thirty minutes later, after seeing that slings are amazingly powerful in the hands of a high-strength character*
That's why I hate slings. They're just automatically what every Fighter belo 6th level carries because they're free, weightless, and let them get their huge strength modifier to damage, and they're so utilitarian in their usefulness. It's not because they like the weapon (unless it's for the weapon's finer features, in which case it is and they're wrong). That thing about the Fighter making it out of some scraps of leather and cloth is just munchkin excuses for the mechanical power that he secretly desires.
That's why real roleplayers like me use clubs.
*45 minutes later, after seeing that clubs are free, can be thrown at full strength damage, 2 handed for 1.5 strength damage, are easily replaceable, fairly light, and can be carried by anyone to break skeletons*
All these darn munckins everywhere. Fighters left and right picking up clubs and carrying them as off-weapons, just because they're so much better than fighting unarmed. Forget picking up sticks, or the warrior just having the brains to hit something with a blunt object. That's just min/maxer false-roleplayer poppycock invented to justify their obvious munchkin tendencies.
That's why real roleplayers like me play monks.
EDIT: *some time later after seeing some of the new monk feats and the DPR olympics*
Monks are a munchkin class. Fortunately, my superior roleplaying has saved the day. I simply made a monk that has vow of poverty and is a pacifist, and focuses entirely on Charisma. I am a good roleplayer, not like those dirty munchkins.
Go ahead and assume what you like. It's no skin off my nose. I'll play my character as I like.
Um...actualy I don't assume anything about people that I only know via the internet. Did you not read my post?
I'll leave assuming to you.
Again, I did not volunteer this opinion out of the blue.
I was ASKED DIRECTLY why I had a problem with animal companions.
I answered the question truthfully and provided as much support for my opinion as I felt was necessary.
Actualy I agree with your reasoning on why not to allow certain AC choices. Likewise if I was running a game in the dino part of the world I would disallow polar bears.
But I won't judge somebody for asking to be a min/axer
And as a result I get called a jerk now by two people on this thread who apparently consider their calling someone a jerk to be superior social behavior than someone answering a direct question truthfully.
As one of them says, "Haters gonna hate."
Where did I call you jerk? I did not mean to and if you took it that way I spologize.
All I did was hold up a mirror.
|
"Vanilla is better than chocolate, it's more fulfilling. I feel sorry for people who eat chocolate ice cream".
A truer statement has never been made.
But like I stated before in this thread i have no issues with people taking dinosaurs as a AC I do have problems with people taking one "Because they are cool and awesome" but i am like that with a lot of things in the games I run. Just tonight a player in the RotRL games I will be running starting next Sunday asked if he could play a Dhampir Bard and I said no. My only real reason for not allowing it is because I personally do not like the idea of people using that race.
No you can't get dire wolf companions I was asking because dire wolves are prehistoric creatures as well but not quite as old as dinosaurs.
I actually see the zoo example as a way to get a non native creature rather than getting a common animal stelaing it from a zoo. I still think rescueing an animal from captivity is a good way for druid that do not want to disrupt nature or animals and using an animal that is already disrupted by being in captivity helps that. Heck yuo could have even crossed backstories and met the rouge with the zoo example and worked together to steal it. Also since people do not see dinosaurs everyday seeing them might be a new expirence people are willing to pay money for. I think it owuld make less sense to have something common to the area that most people have seen or heard many stories of and stealing one from a zoo if commoners see them often.
I still think this works better than found an egg in the jungle. First off how did the egg get there also suspends disbelief. I doubt there will be two way out of their habitiat is even more unlikely to make the egg that way.
First, I think it's really weak.. I might allow it if I had the feeling that the player across the table thought the idea was cool.. and was trying to have fun by doing it. If he's the type of guy to run with a subpar character based on how much he likes it, his odds would go up.But creating a backstory using a bunch of improbable events that the GM has not orchestrated for you isn't what I would be rewarding in my players
I think the problem that I have with it is it.. again, is too much like an adventure. The same as "I wandered into the rainforest and stumbled upon the dinosaur egg" it's now, "I decided that I happened upon a circus, which HAPPENED to have a BABY dinosaur with it, which was MISTREATED badly enough that I had to rescue it (and some or all of the other animals). And make it my animal companion." For a level one character, this would be a stretch for me. A big stretch. For a level 3 character... *shrug* If you're starting at level 3, you did some things to get that way. You know... Not crappy.
So....If I am a druid from the Mwangi Expanse which, wouldn't be a stretch, with a deinonychus animal companion, which again isn't a stretch both for the area and the rules of the game which say a druid can choose it at level one, you wouldn't let my druid have one just because it's "too much like an adventure?"
|
No you can't get dire wolf companions I was asking because dire wolves are prehistoric creatures as well but not quite as old as dinosaurs.
Actually, when the wolf companion evolves at 7th level, its stats match a dire wolf's with only very subtle deviation. It basically is a dire wolf (including large size)
Arguing that something doesn't belong in a fantasy game has always been a tad silly IMHO. For me, it all depends on the flavor that the GM wants for his campaign world.
Not every GM wants an Asiatic flavor, so ninjas, samurai, and monks might go straight out the window.
I know for sure a lot of them wouldn't want a Jurassic Park in their campaign world either.
So you're complaining about predictability in a fantasy world with genies and dragons? Is an imp, quasit, or pseudo-dragon familiar ok in old-London? Or a Paladin on his unicorn mount? So what if a druid has a T-Rex AC...is that "optimized?" Rexy can't go into most dungeons, pirate ships, fit through most portals, nor attend the kings masquerade ball? If your players always do the same thing and always pick the same AC, that's the DM's fault for not varying things more...if you think a T-Rex is optimized or unusual / setting-inapprpriate, you may need to think more creatively.
I vote ok for Rexy as an AC.
I don't use dinosaurs in my games simply because there are far, far too many cool prehistoric animals that are constantly overlooked in favor of something that is, for lack of a better term, "mainstream". I have thrown in some of the very small feathered maniraptors such as those found in Chinese fossil beds, though.
I don't use a lot of actual monsters in my games, so I prefer to populate my homebrew settings with extinct fauna as a means of adding flavor to them. For example (and I've used beasts like these before PF ever statted them), arsinoetheres aren't uncommon in marshy plains areas. Indricotheres (18 foot tall rhinos) have been used as warbeasts in my settings before. Large predators such as saber toothed and scimitar toothed cats are common (they just replace similar "modern" felines). Gorgonopsids make great monsters for low level encounters. Being mammalian-reptilian transition creatures makes them just weird enough.
Also, and this is silly, I don't use dinosaurs because the way they are illustrated in the creature books. I mean, how hard is it to research the appearance of extinct species to get the proper look for them? And the giant gar in the Pf Bestiary 2.....that looks nothing like a gar. Nothing!!! I'm from the south, and I know gars. And let me tell you, that is no gar. So it's just my petty way of throwing an imaginary "screw you" at the artists by not using their animals...lol
Anyway, I've rambled again. Vicodin and Flexoril will do that to a feller. Carry on.
http://vimeo.com/23095746
Saw this today and it made me laugh. I might actually try to fit this into my dinoworld I've been working on.
Reminds me abit of Dino-Riders only less lasers and more vikings.
|
|
....So which ended up being cooler?:)
"I've got a wolf!"
vs
"I've got a raptor!"
Ironically, the last time I played a druid I started with a raptor until about 8th level when he rolled a 1 on a save vs cloudkill.
That companion (trogdor) was so loved, the party ponied up 1000gp from our at that time meager resources to reincarnate him.
He came back as a wolf.
So we've played a few more times since I posted this. Now at 9th level, I discovered a VERY interesting new twist to multiattack. I had assumed that multiattack was the same as 3.5, but Paizo added a clause that states if a companion does not have the requisite 3 attacks, they gain an additional attack with their primary natural weapon, at -5 (basically a standard iterative attack format).
That means the wolf (and any other 1 attack creature) still gets 1.5 strength damage bonus, but now gets more than one attack during a full attack action. Trogdor has the benefit of a +2 Str due to the alternate human feature 'eye for talent' and at 9th level (str 27), attacks at +14/+9 for 2d6+12 damage with no buffs.
With greater magic fang and power attack, you're looking at the same chance to hit but 2d6+20 damage, and a free (+15 CMB) trip with each hit. If I hit him with Animal Growth on top of his long duration buffs, you get +17/+12 for 3d6+26 on each power attack hit. The free trip is a 20 during the duration of AG. I officially like the wolf more than the dinosaur.