I am trying to play every class, (well except for Psionics), so I never fit in here. I do enjoy playing sortof undead types. I use the name “Andvari” for a dwarf whenever I can, and “Kane” for a human warrior type, so I guess those are quirks.
But we do have one guy who always plays a very powerful glass cannon build, focusing everything on damage. He complains a lot about how squishy his PCs are, but of course all feats are directed towards dealing maximum damage. He also rarely does battlefield control spells, even tho he actually does pretty well done builds otherwise.
I removed a popcorn post.What's a popcorn post?
When you say *gets popcorn* or something like it every time something controversial gets posted.
|
Bad rogues fall into two categories; I covered the first type (strength-based lunkheads) on the last page; the second type is the uber skills type who would be exceptionally competent if he weren't being run by a glory-hog player always running off solo (which works for him -- until it doesn't, in which case he's all alone and up the proverbial creek). Rangers, bards and other sneaky and/or charismatic types also pull this.
If the GM puts up with it, the rest of the table is left drumming their fingers and tapping their feet, secreting hoping their annoying colleague rolls a couple 1s.
Bad rogues fall into two categories; I covered the first type (strength-based lunkheads) on the last page; the second type is the uber skills type who would be exceptionally competent if he weren't being run by a glory-hog player always running off solo (which works for him -- until it doesn't, in which case he's all alone and up the proverbial creek). Rangers, bards and other sneaky and/or charismatic types also pull this.
If the GM puts up with it, the rest of the table is left drumming their fingers and tapping their feet, secreting hoping their annoying colleague rolls a couple 1s.
Yeah, What I do when I DM and this happens is simple. To the solo guy “You encounter nothing of interest”. Then run a encounter for the main party. Back to the solo : “You encounter nothing of interest.”. Back to the main party with exiting combat, loot etc. Repeat until he gets the idea. Go ahead and suggest this to your DM, it works like a charm. Soloists mean twice the work for the DM and half the fun for the players.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole "Asian character in a European world" idea reminds me of TESV: Oblivion, which is your standard middle-ages fantasy setting, but one of the classes you can choose is the monk. The game gives you an illustration of each class, the art style looking like something you'd see in Chaucer. The picture for the monk? A Franciscan friar poised and ready for Marquis of Queensbury fisticuffs. I can't decide if it's ridiculous or awesome.
That said, Europe and Asia are closer to each other than people realize, and i can see how even in the Middle Ages there would have been an Asian influence present, so I don't mind a few traces of other cultures in a setting mostly dominated by one culture. I just wish they didn't corner the market on fighting with fists. Are we expected to believe that Europeans don't understand unarmed combat? Now I'm tempted to make a monk and roleplay him as an Irish dockworker-turned-brawler, and rename all the monk's class abilities. Or make a fighter and roleplay him as a samurai.
Gunslingers, in high fantasy settings...
We have 3 in a 5 person party.
I wish the DM wasn't so lax about this.
OK, yeah, I have to agree with this. Guns in high fantasy are like shrimp in my jelly beans. I mean I love shrimp! But seriously?
The whole "Asian character in a European world" idea reminds me of TESV: Oblivion, which is your standard middle-ages fantasy setting, but one of the classes you can choose is the monk. The game gives you an illustration of each class, the art style looking like something you'd see in Chaucer. The picture for the monk? A Franciscan friar poised and ready for Marquis of Queensbury fisticuffs. I can't decide if it's ridiculous or awesome.
I vote for awesome. I want to distribute that picture to all players to make a point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, yeah, I have to agree with this. Guns in high fantasy are like shrimp in my jelly beans. I mean I love shrimp! But seriously?Gunslingers, in high fantasy settings...
We have 3 in a 5 person party.
I wish the DM wasn't so lax about this.
I love the idea of guns in high fantasy, but I don't always want them. I like the solution of playing without guns most of the time, and jumping a couple centuries into the future where everybody has a gun other times.
I am guilty of this. My 3 characters have been a Blaster sorcerer focusing on blasty and buffing; a verdant sorcerer/Paladin/EK Gish; and an elemental (Primal)/Rogue/Arcane trickster ray-caster. Even though the 3 have different playstyles, everyone in my table still sees it as me playing "a sorcerer". Hell, I want to make a Dragon Disciple Gish for the next campaign.
Also, there's a guy who always plays paladin.
The DM told me we're going to have to choose a different class to mix it out, so I was thinking about a Summoning Evangelist Cleric Who focus on summoning monsters and buffs with the occasional healing,
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the idea of guns in high fantasy, but I don't always want them. I like the solution of playing without guns most of the time, and jumping a couple centuries into the future where everybody has a gun other times.OK, yeah, I have to agree with this. Guns in high fantasy are like shrimp in my jelly beans. I mean I love shrimp! But seriously?Gunslingers, in high fantasy settings...
We have 3 in a 5 person party.
I wish the DM wasn't so lax about this.
Jumping a couple centuries into the future to a world of guns, to me, means you've left high fantasy and entered cyberpunk. I've got no issue with playing cyberpunk, and I don't even mind the occasional cross-genre experiment.
But in my mind, just my opinion here, but it's a strongly held one, once you introduce guns, you've left high fantasy behind.
I disagree. If you've got dragons, wizards, sorcerers, and so on, it's high fantasy. It doesn't matter that you're shooting muskets at each other instead of arrows and sword blows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. If you've got dragons, wizards, sorcerers, and so on, it's high fantasy. It doesn't matter that you're shooting muskets at each other instead of arrows and sword blows.
It's a flavor thing. Gandalf running around with the Two-gun Kid just doesn't do it for me.
So far nobody has wanted to play a gunslinger in any of my PF games. That day will likely come, but so far, so good. For now most of my game partners have the same basic attitude I have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole "Asian character in a European world" idea reminds me of TESV: Oblivion, which is your standard middle-ages fantasy setting, but one of the classes you can choose is the monk. The game gives you an illustration of each class, the art style looking like something you'd see in Chaucer. The picture for the monk? A Franciscan friar poised and ready for Marquis of Queensbury fisticuffs. I can't decide if it's ridiculous or awesome.I vote for awesome. I want to distribute that picture to all players to make a point.
Can you find it for me? I would love to see it! :D
Can you find it for me? I would love to see it! :DThe whole "Asian character in a European world" idea reminds me of TESV: Oblivion, which is your standard middle-ages fantasy setting, but one of the classes you can choose is the monk. The game gives you an illustration of each class, the art style looking like something you'd see in Chaucer. The picture for the monk? A Franciscan friar poised and ready for Marquis of Queensbury fisticuffs. I can't decide if it's ridiculous or awesome.I vote for awesome. I want to distribute that picture to all players to make a point.
Gunslingers in high fantasy example.Counter-example.
Well, you guys have me in one way. Dudes with swords fighting equally with dudes with guns is definitely "high fantasy" in the purest sense of the words...
|
|
Can you find it for me? I would love to see it! :DThe whole "Asian character in a European world" idea reminds me of TESV: Oblivion, which is your standard middle-ages fantasy setting, but one of the classes you can choose is the monk. The game gives you an illustration of each class, the art style looking like something you'd see in Chaucer. The picture for the monk? A Franciscan friar poised and ready for Marquis of Queensbury fisticuffs. I can't decide if it's ridiculous or awesome.I vote for awesome. I want to distribute that picture to all players to make a point.
|
Well, you guys have me in one way. Dudes with swords fighting equally with dudes with guns is definitely "high fantasy" in the purest sense of the words...
Also dudes with magic fighting dudes with guns. And being threatened by them! (The guns, I mean. The magic is pretty advantageous, unless the enemy has overwhelming fire superiority.)
|
That's because there are no rules for all the ways guns would wreck their users faces with magic in the picture.
Just like there are no rules for all the ways magic would wreck everybody's faces if there wasn't a considerable amount of suspension of disbelief on all accountable sides of the discussion.
Guns are superior to previous weapons. That's why they made previous weapons obsolete. In a magical world, magical guns would be just as superior to magical bows, crossbows or slings as mundane guns are superior to mundane bows, crossbows or slings.
So to make gunslingers work, they have to gimp guns so that they aren't outperforming other ranged weapons.
Which is just as silly as the concept of guns in high fantasy in the first place.
ugh characters in my games: mixing opposites - halfling barbarian, 1/2 Giant bard, that kind of thing. It sounds cool and the theory is sound, but in execution it always turns into "hey, look at how unique and cool I am" and the rest of the party suffers.
I don't get druids; never played one and no one in my game has ever played one, except my first AD&D campaign ever where one of my players was a Fighter/Druid/Magic User. That was a truly weird bunch of games...
Me? When I play it's not so much the same class over and over as much as it is style. I'm always the Mom of the group; overprotective and judgemental. Case in point: last 2 NPC's I ran consistently over 5 levels of gaming were both clerics; one was a kindly old parish priest who was always there to lob some healing, a buff, or just a friendly "attaboy" to the party. The other was a cheesed off kid that made comments like "well if you WANT to go down that halway to your death that's fine; don't let ME stop you."
I even had a character in a 'Nam game that spent the entire Tet Offensive running back and forth, shooting and evacing, and screaming at the top of his lungs "ALL my boys are goin' home! You hear me? ALL my boys!" Nickname assigned at the end of the game? Big Mama.
Play nice.
|
|
Guns are superior to previous weapons. That's why they made previous weapons obsolete. In a magical world, magical guns would be just as superior to magical bows, crossbows or slings as mundane guns are superior to mundane bows, crossbows or slings.
So to make gunslingers work, they have to gimp guns so that they aren't outperforming other ranged weapons.
Which is just as silly as the concept of guns in high fantasy in the first place.
Not so sure whether guns should or should not belong in a fantasy game at all... I'll say I'm leaving that open, still.
However, "guns are superior to other weapons"-- depends on how advanced your guns are. If your tech-level is still on early matchlocks, not necessarily. If gun tech has advanced far enough to introduce flint-locks, then yes, guns are superior-- and the other things should be out of use as common military ranged weapons, although there are going to be special applications where bows, crossbows, and slings may still be better for the player's purposes-- and peasants hunting for food will still use the older weapons because they'll still be cheaper to acquire, use, and maintain-- not to mention having cheaper ammo costs.
And, magic-users are still going to out-class guns when they get the ability to cast "fireball" and "lightning bolt". :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summoners. Mere words cannot express the depths of my hatred.
Top spot on my loathing list, however, belongs to anyone who creates an unarmed warrior. I hate them. They make me so angry.
And, magic-users are still going to out-class guns when they get the ability to cast "fireball" and "lightning bolt". :D
A world with guns that doesn't have rockets and grenades is insane since both of those were invented before guns. I'll say that at least evens the score with fireball and lightning bolt.
|
Edit; Finn took my point and said it much more elegantly than i ever could.
but wizards are also far more advanced than our best tactical munitions. it's going to be difficult to replicate the portability, precision, reliability and range with field weapons. and we still catch a few allies in our blasts as accidents.
whether missile, grenade, or deployed bomb, we are still a long distance in time from catching up to the D&D/PF wizard's fireball and lightning bolt spells.
Gunslingers in high fantasy example.Counter-example.
Oh snap trap card.
|
|
A world with guns that doesn't have rockets and grenades is insane since both of those were invented before guns. I'll say that at least evens the score with fireball and lightning bolt.
And, magic-users are still going to out-class guns when they get the ability to cast "fireball" and "lightning bolt". :D
Eh, doesn't really even the score. Magic-users are still so much more flexible, so much more portable (one guy/gal and his/her spell components), so much closer to weather-proof-- and as you get to ever increasing levels of spells, still have so much more destructive potential....
However, it does make the score a little closer than it was before, doesn't it? ;)
(because you're right about the existence of grenades and rockets-- if you've got guns at all, you really should have them too)
|
Summoners. Mere words cannot express the depths of my hatred.
Top spot on my loathing list, however, belongs to anyone who creates an unarmed warrior. I hate them. They make me so angry.
I can agree with that. Summoners are frowned on (well any of the archtypes) by 3 of the 4 DM of my group. I allow them but you have to Plan for them... lol
I enjoy playiing the characters that I think I will dislike at first. Also, after studying the gun feats, I don't feel that it is really that powerful, especially if it is just a back up weapon for a bard, tucked in a belt or a boot somewhere.
Mechanically, I've grown to hate the summoner, and think the eidolon needs some nerfing.
I've played halfling barbarians and had a wonderful time with them. Nobody takes the 3'7" 40 lb berserker seriously...up until he cleaves someone in half.
I also played him as illiterate, and vengeful of anyone who took advantage of this!
I tend to like full BAB classes or 1/2 BAB classes; I've never been tempted by a 3/4 BAB class other than a Monk, and even then, when it's flurrying, it's effectively full BAB.
I am reknowned for pumping up "cross archetypal" skills. The Paladin with Disable Device. The Monk with ranks in Linguistics. The fighter with sky-high Diplomacy skills.
|
|
Yeah, What I do when I DM and this happens is simple. To the solo guy “You encounter nothing of interest”. Then run a encounter for the main party. Back to the solo : “You encounter nothing of interest.”. Back to the main party with exiting combat, loot etc. Repeat until he gets the idea. Go ahead and suggest this to your DM, it works like a charm. Soloists mean twice the work for the DM and half the fun for the players.Bad rogues fall into two categories; I covered the first type (strength-based lunkheads) on the last page; the second type is the uber skills type who would be exceptionally competent if he weren't being run by a glory-hog player always running off solo (which works for him -- until it doesn't, in which case he's all alone and up the proverbial creek). Rangers, bards and other sneaky and/or charismatic types also pull this.
If the GM puts up with it, the rest of the table is left drumming their fingers and tapping their feet, secreting hoping their annoying colleague rolls a couple 1s.
Teleport wizards also fall into the category.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, "guns are superior to other weapons"-- depends on how advanced your guns are. If your tech-level is still on early matchlocks, not necessarily. If gun tech has advanced far enough to introduce flint-locks, then yes, guns are superior-- and the other things should be out of use as common military ranged weapons, although there are going to be special applications where bows, crossbows, and slings may still be better for the player's purposes-- and peasants hunting for food will still use the older weapons because they'll still be cheaper to acquire, use, and maintain-- not to mention having cheaper ammo costs
Actually guns were still crappy until the advent of breech-locks and encased ammunition -- what they did do was enable people without any exceptional martial skills to simply point and pull a trigger. I.e., you didn't need extensive training with, say, a Mongol composite bow.
(Mongol archery was terrifyingly effective, slaughtering entire armies of European knights and infantry while taking only light casualties in return. Historically, they were only stymied by opponents with similar ranged equipment; and could arguably have defeated any army of the near-present prior to modern artillery and the Gatling gun.)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually guns were still crappy until the advent of breech-locks and encased ammunition -- what they did do was enable people without any exceptional martial skills to simply point and pull a trigger. I.e., you didn't need extensive training with, say, a Mongol composite bow.
Gotta disagree with you.
By the time you get to reliable flintlocks, bows still have rate of fire over the gun (in the hands of a trained user). Guns from that point on, have range, accuracy, and impact (damage dealt by the bullet & armor penetration) over bows-- by the mid-1600s, there was more reason to go with guns than just ease of training and use. Go another century forward (still well short of the age of breech-loaders) and you get rifled barrels... at which point, rifled guns really have a much longer effective range than any bow, no matter how good the archer.
By the mid-1500s, gunpowder is definitely the way to go for artillery also-- cannons were pretty quick to supersede trebuchets, catapults and ballista as soon as they figured out how to cast cannon barrels.
Currently. A friend that plays nothing but Gish casters. Not magus. Not iniquistor. Not even cleric, or paladin, or bard. Or things that could be considered gishy. No. He goes Wizard. And Fighter/ranger. Then goes into eldritch knight. This has happened since 3.5 started. The same concept. He may change into other things. Like.. used to be warlock. Currently, he isn't very effective. Has alot of blasting spells, and save or die spells. So things don't always work out. So I offered him the chance to reroll as something, as long as its different from this concept and.. He refuses.
By different, I mean he can do some sort of magus type thing, but not Eldritch Knight path wise.
He is also the source of our Mysterious Stranger meme in the group.
But that is the Ugh class. The same concept executed the same everytime.
Doesn't help that he keeps begging me to use 3.5 feats and classes and spells.
Can not say -no- enough times.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
Its old school D and D.
gish
- Wikipedia
Gish (slang)
- Etymology
The term originates in the Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) game, where it originally referred to a Githyanki fighter/wizard combination.
gish (plural gishes)
(role-playing games) A magician, or character that is skilled in both physical combat and the use of magic. Most gish characters use their magical abilities to increase their own personal combat abilities (known as "buffing").
|
The buffing mage/fighter is a good way to run the gish, but there are plenty of bad ways, too.
Many players are attracted to the idea of a character that can do anything--cast like a wizard, fight like a fighter. This can cause two problems. First, the game is set up so that you balance effectiveness and breadth of capability; you can easily end up sacrificing power so that you can do everything. That makes you generally ineffective. Second, part of the allure of the gish is that you can do everything, without the support of your team. The bad gish can easily become like the soloist rogue, trying to do everything himself, usually getting into trouble and/or making things worse for the team.
I have a player that, no matter what game system we play, always makes a character that I call the "professional liar."
He maxes out charisma and bluff in order to BS his way through the game world. It is annoyingly effective.
I have a player that, no matter what game system we play, always makes a character that I call the "professional liar."
He maxes out charisma and bluff in order to BS his way through the game world. It is annoyingly effective.
Circumstance modifiers.
"Hey, I've heard of you!" (+4 circumstance modifier on sense motive check...)
Doesn't beat the +20 from Glibness. :)
Maybe not, but bluff, diplomacy and intimidate have their limitations. There are some thing you can't talk people into doing. Except in extraordinary circumstances that should include not violating their alignment, vows or class requirements.
Keep your guns. I just want the ability to make gunpowder with my mage.
King: "Grand Magus, My enemy to the south has a nicer castle than I do."
Grand Magus, "I thought this might come up. I've taken the liberty of preparing. If you'll look out this window. I have an agent in place."
--Cast wispering wind--
***BOOM***Mushroom cloud in the distance
Grand Magus: "What castle, Sire?"
Knowledge engineering + Large invisible or strategically hidden barrels of Gunpowder + Someone close enough to cast spark to start the chain reaction.