This makes me wonder: what does the "K" stand for? Kilometerage?Your mileage may vary.
Or YKMV to euros. And just about everyone else who hasn't been to the Moon.
Yep. I may or may not have made up that acronym on the spot.
That a Witch is a better version of a Mystic Theurge.
I originally said if a character has low abilities, and they expect a magic item to make up for them, they have to rely on random roles. No where is that the concept of King Arthur.To be more precise, it was the "hope for random" part of your following sentence "If a player builds a character with a magic item in mind, I tell them they will never find it in a magic shop, so hope for random" that my comment was aimed at.
I am quite happy that further discussion allowed you to clarify what your stance was.
However, I must say that I have never seen a character buy a magic item to make up for a low ability score. What I have seen in spades is a character buying a magic item that boosts his HIGH ability scores.
No worries, fair enough.
|
I actually wish items were used more to raise stats. I think +2 items / stat bumps should be "9 points", meaning buy points. So someone with a 7 in the raised stat goes to a 14, someone with an 18 becomes a 20, and someone with a 20 effectively doesn't benefit (becomes a 21). But much of pathfinder is locked into some of the issues with 3.5.
I removed a post. Be nice.
Huh, it took surprisingly long for a post to be removed. I guess "Be civil" works pretty well.
King Arthur did not buy Excalibur in a magic shop.If a player builds a character with a magic item in mind, I tell them they will never find it in a magic shop, so hope for random. They then usually change their idea.You realize that you just obliterated the concept of King Arthur, right ?Oh, that reminds me. Another meme I hate. People who take the wrong half of your argument and beat on that relentlessly as proof you are wrong.
No, King Authur did not buy Excalibur in a magic shop, but he is a great example of a character who is built around a specific magic item.
Which is also incorrect. He was not built around a magic item. The concept of King Arthur is much more that.
The original poster did not prove I obliterated the concept of king arthur. They simply were wrong.
I originally said if a character has low abilities, and they expect a magic item to make up for them, they have to rely on random roles. No where is that the concept of King Arthur.
Also in my response I addressed Excalibur as being a PLOT element which is something completely different from a character expecting a stat boost item.
Really the meme of starting a post as You realize or you Do realize, is very often turned around because it often appears as a post that was made after one jumps to a conclusion rather than thinking something through.
You actually responded to the relevant half of the argument and show how it was wrong. I don't think anyone in this thread thinks King Arthur got Excalibur from a Magic Mart, yet the first responses to the OP were focused on that.
The meme of dogpiling on the irrelevant parts of an idea and then considering it to be refuted is one I could live without.
> That myself, Trinam, and TOZ aren't mixed up as being the same people as much as we used to be.Oh gods yes. You can't ALL be Cayden.
But he's so delightfully swarthy!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thirded.Seconded.But he's so delightfully swarthy!> That myself, Trinam, and TOZ aren't mixed up as being the same people as much as we used to be.Oh gods yes. You can't ALL be Cayden.
Damnited.
You actually responded to the relevant half of the argument and show how it was wrong. I don't think anyone in this thread thinks King Arthur got Excalibur from a Magic Mart, yet the first responses to the OP were focused on that.
The meme of dogpiling on the irrelevant parts of an idea and then considering it to be refuted is one I could live without.
Agreed:)
YKMVYep. I may or may not have made up that acronym on the spot.
Luckily it's not a TLA.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Pathfinder/Golarion is meant to be medieval Europe."
EDIT: I want to go on record as saying: people who want a game that accurately represents "medieval Europe" seem to have only a skewed understanding of what that really means. Mostly, it boils down to a less-literary but equally-idealized version of England from Ivanhoe, with nary a Turk, Moor, Livonian, Pagan, Cathar, Jew, Mamluk, Assassin or Tartar to be seen. It's all terribly white and Anglo. How very dull.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"The only way to play a gunslinger is with a 'wild west' flavor, and therefore the class has no place in any setting which lacks trains and factories."
Additionally Swords an Sorcery is the only REAL fantasy.
I disagree with everything everyone before me has said.
|
"I don't like X thus it is objectively bad."
X = Gunslinger/Rogue/Monk:Cavalier/Ninja/Samurai.
"I don't think X should be in my game, so it should never have been published and I should denigrate it every time it's mentioned." (x = guns/Asian fantasy)
Philosophies of exclusion only hurt the community, please don't mistake taste for facts.
One to grow on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Magic eliminates the need for technology, castles, or any other such trappings. It also single handily ruins economies, destroys all fear of death, and removes the need for mundane people all together."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That gunslingers.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The meme of dogpiling on the irrelevant parts of an idea and then considering it to be refuted is one I could live without.
Hells yes.
Examples are my bane. I try to illustrate a point, and the illustration gets ten times more attention than the point.
It's like trying to have a conversation with Dora, from Finding Nemo. "Something shiny!"
|
The meme of dogpiling on the irrelevant parts of an idea and then considering it to be refuted is one I could live without.Hells yes.
Examples are my bane. I try to illustrate a point, and the illustration gets ten times more attention than the point.
It's like trying to have a conversation with Dora, from Finding Nemo. "Something shiny!"
That would be Dory.
|
|
That would be Dory.The meme of dogpiling on the irrelevant parts of an idea and then considering it to be refuted is one I could live without.Hells yes.
Examples are my bane. I try to illustrate a point, and the illustration gets ten times more attention than the point.
It's like trying to have a conversation with Dora, from Finding Nemo. "Something shiny!"
Finding Nemo was a children's movie, because it wasn't directly aimed at me it is Objectively Bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That Pathfinder must be medieval, or to a lesser extend Eurocentric, to be "real" Pathfinder.
"I don't like X thus it is objectively bad."
X = Gunslinger/Rogue/Monk:Cavalier/Ninja/Samurai.
"I don't think X should be in my game, so it should never have been published and I should denigrate it every time it's mentioned." (x = guns/Asian fantasy)
Philosophies of exclusion only hurt the community, please don't mistake taste for facts.
One to grow on.
This. Monks and Cavaliers often end up being big no-nos with me as a GM, and Gunslingers rarely fit into my campaign worlds, so will also likely get banhammered a great deal, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been published or that they suck. It just means they don't fit what I have in mind.
The Rogue, however, got totally nerfed by Pathfinder. It really needs some new abilities.
"I don't like X thus it is objectively bad."
X = Gunslinger/Rogue/Monk:Cavalier/Ninja/Samurai.
"I don't think X should be in my game, so it should never have been published and I should denigrate it every time it's mentioned." (x = guns/Asian fantasy)
Philosophies of exclusion only hurt the community, please don't mistake taste for facts.
One to grow on.
This. Monks and Cavaliers often end up being big no-nos with me as a GM, and Gunslingers rarely fit into my campaign worlds, so will also likely get banhammered a great deal, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been published or that they suck. It just means they don't fit what I have in mind.
...You'll have to explain yourself on this one.
...You'll have to explain yourself on this one."I don't like X thus it is objectively bad."
X = Gunslinger/Rogue/Monk:Cavalier/Ninja/Samurai.
"I don't think X should be in my game, so it should never have been published and I should denigrate it every time it's mentioned." (x = guns/Asian fantasy)
Philosophies of exclusion only hurt the community, please don't mistake taste for facts.
One to grow on.
This. Monks and Cavaliers often end up being big no-nos with me as a GM, and Gunslingers rarely fit into my campaign worlds, so will also likely get banhammered a great deal, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been published or that they suck. It just means they don't fit what I have in mind.
I don't set up much mounted combat in my campaigns, and without the mount a Cavalier is somewhat at a disadvantage.
I don't set up much mounted combat in my campaigns, and without the mount a Cavalier is somewhat at a disadvantage....You'll have to explain yourself on this one."I don't like X thus it is objectively bad."
X = Gunslinger/Rogue/Monk:Cavalier/Ninja/Samurai.
"I don't think X should be in my game, so it should never have been published and I should denigrate it every time it's mentioned." (x = guns/Asian fantasy)
Philosophies of exclusion only hurt the community, please don't mistake taste for facts.
One to grow on.
This. Monks and Cavaliers often end up being big no-nos with me as a GM, and Gunslingers rarely fit into my campaign worlds, so will also likely get banhammered a great deal, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been published or that they suck. It just means they don't fit what I have in mind.
Ah, so it's just a mechanical thing. Have you tried looking at the Houndmaster Archetype? It's not an official archetype it was an entry in RPG Superstar that had quite a bit of popularty.
Ah, so it's just a mechanical thing. Have you tried looking at the Houndmaster Archetype? It's not an official archetype it was an entry in RPG Superstar that had quite a bit of popularty.I don't set up much mounted combat in my campaigns, and without the mount a Cavalier is somewhat at a disadvantage....You'll have to explain yourself on this one."I don't like X thus it is objectively bad."
X = Gunslinger/Rogue/Monk:Cavalier/Ninja/Samurai.
"I don't think X should be in my game, so it should never have been published and I should denigrate it every time it's mentioned." (x = guns/Asian fantasy)
Philosophies of exclusion only hurt the community, please don't mistake taste for facts.
One to grow on.
This. Monks and Cavaliers often end up being big no-nos with me as a GM, and Gunslingers rarely fit into my campaign worlds, so will also likely get banhammered a great deal, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been published or that they suck. It just means they don't fit what I have in mind.
Can you link me to it?
That's pretty much the crux of it. I'm just not a big mounted GM. If others are, and they like the Cavalier, good for them. Play what you want. It gets really irritating when banning for campaign suitability reasons turns into "THIS THINGS SUCKS AND SHOULD HAVE NEVER EXISTED AND SCREW PAIZO FOR COMING UP WITH STUFF OTHERS MAY LIKE BUT NOT ME!!!1!1!1!!!!1!" The first is a justified GM prerogative, the second is just nerdraging douchebaggery.
Can you link me to it?Easily the best thing to come out of the last RPGSS.
Can you link me to it?Easily the best thing to come out of the last RPGSS.
Thanks.