Optimizing for survival a sign of cowardice?


Advice

251 to 300 of 419 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Diego Rossi wrote:

Generic question DrDeth or you are referring a specific build?

If it is a generic question a illusionist can have plenty of spells hat will be useful for a group, if they don't charge screaming anything they see.

Yep, Nives Burer.

spells:3rd-level (4/day) – major image 2nd-level (7/day) – blindness/deafness, detect thoughts, false life, invisibilityB 1st-level (8/day) – charm person, feather fall, identifyB, mage armor, magic aura, magic missile, shield.

Now sure, Magic Missle is offensive, but most of those do nothing but make Nives harder to hit.

In other words- why would any party "carry" Nives? Basicaly our OP has done up a PC which he is forcing the rest of the PC's to play with, one that he will have fun playing- at their expense.


Baka Nikujaga wrote:

To DrDeth

That's an excellent point, for the most part, its seems like the direction of the thread has largely covered Hama over Nives.

Right, but why? Nives is the current PC. Hama is the several times previous PC. In this discussion, she's a red herring.


Ravingdork wrote:
Shalafi2412 wrote:
Also, how do you design your sheets?

Microsoft Word.

I'm also a graphic designer who's had a number of layout editor jobs, so I know a thing or two about making things look nice.

If someone would cut me in on some of the profits, I could probably design a killer third party E-book for sale here on Paizo. (Though I'd limit my involvement to layout and design, rather than rules elements.)

Great! Is the artwork in the pages yours?


I would say that the current character is rather underpowered and not particularly useful party addition. I don't even care about damage potential much, it just doesn't have much going for it to help with party offense or defense. Some neat tricks for sure, but I get the feeling that more effort was spent on powers matching back story than actually being useful or effective.

IDK, I'm probably just wary of special snowflakes or full blown M. Sue's, but it just seems too much of a fluff bunny to useful against an adversarial GM. I don't leave recommended CR for APL at all, and I've killed better PCs than that without being adversarial, a killer old school GM should make mincemeat out of it.

I think what really is going on is the party is so good that they are able to weaken the overpowered(APL+4 or more)enemies enough that even a weak minimal contribution caster can finish them off or at least manage to escape.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Shalafi2412 wrote:
Great! Is the artwork in the pages yours?

No. I generally get it from DeviantArt. Whenever possible I get permission from the artist, or at least credit them if they are unavailable.

If the artist is unknown, I link back to the site from which it came from (in some of the documents you can click the pic to get to the site).


Andrew R wrote:
Blue Star wrote:

Building for survival isn't a horrible idea and anyone who builds to get their character killed, ought to go and play what they really want to play, since they obviously don't want to play that character.

Personally, I think you should just find a better group.

Its all about how far you take it. If you max your defense until that is really all you are it is a problem for the group. Fun example, i once played in a group with a monk that literally could not hit most enemies except on a nat 20, for a 1d6-1 or 2 at level 8. His AC was nearly 40, his saves ridiculous but did NOTHING to help the party win a fight. At BEST a monster would go for him first once in a while and waste a round missing.

There are plenty of ways of forcing an enemy to only engage you. You just have to use the terrain and turn order to your advantage, having a few feats that allow you to move your allies around the field also helps. That said, it's clear that Ravingdork could actually help his party, unlike that monk.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Nives' ability to confound his foes with illusions, or blinding them with his necromancy, can go a long ways towards turning the tide of a battle for his allies.

Magic missile is mostly just a pea shooter for the occasional incorporeal creature, to ensure he has SOME reliable damage capability, and to mollify the party (since they mock any arcane caster without it).


However, I do not think that staying in the back of the group since you are a squishy is a bad thing.


Shalafi2412 wrote:
However, I do not think that staying in the back of the group since you are a squishy is a bad thing.

No, but not doing anything to help the party from back there IS a bad thing. The Tanks take the hits so that the Controler can lay down hurt upon the Bad Guys, not just posture and pose.


Many casters forget they have HPs above and beyond temp and defenses and psycologically feel their dead if they take actual damage. As a party you need to share hits across all the party to survive if you are never a viable target you may as well not be there and if every 2nd action is wasted recasting mirror image or false life again you may as well not be there.

From a DM perspective when casters realize this their more of a pain because they do about 2x as much each combat that causes headaches as opposed to just pretending their a tortise in some far corner of the map and doing little but bragging after fights howlittle they took/did..

Grand Lodge

I have seen this happen a lot in a similar situation where I was the GM. The 'coward player' was playing a blasty sorceror who would play not to defeat the enemies, but to minimise risk to himself.

He was also roleplaying a selfish, evil character, so this considerably added more motivation for him to be 100ft back, well out of the threat's range. This often got me thinking about the things he did that generally pissed people off.

Here's a quick list of five things that an arcane caster needs to be aware of in order you do not build a status as a coward.

1. Ensure your character can see the fight. If you are so far from the fight that the clouds of the sky, the foliage of the forest or the fog of the underworld would mean you're not even in sight of the enemy, then you're effectively not 'in there' and not in distance to move to your friends and feed them a potion if needs be.

2. Never, ever, EVER, make mention of how much damage you took. Do not call it to attention. It's like comparing apples and oranges in play style and it'll cause the fighters to resent you and it'll cause the GM to make a Chuul appear and grapple you. Not good.

3. Buff intelligently. I get it that you're squishy. I get it. But if your friends are being cut to ribbons while you're casting your third defensive spell, your party tactics are out of order. Discuss as a party your tactics and make sure people know how much buffing will occur.

4. A true hero has nothing but contempt for the 15 minute work day. If you are constantly whining to the party to rest to restore spells because you 'can't' fight without having all your best spells ready, that's being a coward. Be brave with resources.

5. Never, ever use the word 'meat shield.' Your party members are your friends. They're not hired muscle. They're not your sidekicks. They're your equals, whether they can cast spells or not. Respect them. They put their bodies on the line to protect you. Reciprocate once in a while.


Just make regular melee champs and run them into the meat grinder after the 4th or 5th tpk the party will realize it's actually the DM being a tool and not your fault.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

SO guilty of 2 and 5.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's always tough playing a mage at lower levels; but it's clear from your posts you enjoy playing casters. Might I suggest your next be more flamboyant and over the top (something flashy, that uses fire occasionally).

You have an image issue with your group (and you already have a lot of feedback on play-style throughout the thread).

Put together a bombastic fire wizard (or similar) a concept which outwardly different at the very least. I'd be tempted to go wishcrafter (as the concept works by those guys wishing for your spells).

Your party also needs to understand that casters and archers are second line combatants, they do not stand up the front; wear the heavy armour and take the hits.


Ravingdork wrote:
SO guilty of 2 and 5.

And it looks like 3, also.

Liberty's Edge

I have to say, reading the original post and later RD talking about how he tried to talk but no one seemed to take things to seriously...I don't actually see a problem.

Call me crazy, but that kind of group playstyle isn't uncommon in my group. My own brother plays a Bard, we have songs, buffs and saving spells, but his character is also very selfish - Heroism on himself, Mirror Image, Vanish when a big bad guy shows up - then reappears near the end when the GM tells us it's looking badly hurt and he gets the Kill! He refers to himself as the one man army.

The result is our group ridicule him, when the GM hits him we cheer and laugh, when he gets the killing blow on a monster we all roll our eyes and groan, we also grumble about no Heroism for any of us real frontliners - our Wizard has even cast grease on his weapon to stop stop him 'kill stealing' a monster. This may sound like there is some kind of tension in the party ranks, yet ask anyone who their favorite character on the table is and it's our Bard. Banter and mocking is just part of the way we do things.

If we had a member like RDs char, we'd also probably cheer when the enemy actually managed to hit him, we may even disrupt his safety buffs (if we were confident it wouldn't actually kill him) but if things went down we'd have his back, we'd still mock him in game and likely out of game to, but we wouldn't change him


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a meat shield (I may DM mostly in PnP, but I am a born and bred tank in MMOs) I can't say that the cowardly DPSer/Controller really bothers me.

It's MY JOB to get punched in the face. If a guy in a dress is getting stabbed, I am failing at that job.

And you can tank in PF, it's just a little different than MMO tanking.


I always think it is funny when players tell each other how many hit points they have after a hit. When I am asked I usually say, doing fine or not doing good at all.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I am not guilty of over-self buffing (#3).

I don't think I've ever cast three buffs back to back in the middle of combat. Heck, I've even used spell slots to heroism that whole party for half the day. Definitely not a selfish buffer.

Liberty's Edge

When I play a wizard, I avoid the "I have to cast every round" mentality. It isn't my job to shine in every combat. My job, as I see it, is to save my best resources for instances where my teammates' skill sets aren't better suited to handle the threat type.

In encounters where the martial guys should be able to handle the threat with minimal resource cost, I might cast a buff or two on my compadres, then just grab a wand of something that does damage and help it go a bit quicker. Conversely, if I'm particularly vulnerable to a threat (high SR for my level, invulnerability to any types of spells I normally carry, etc), I am going to have to rely on them to keep me alive until the time I can return the favor.

But I pay my way by being there when the bruiser is up against something with DR-/whatever, and he didn't carry a 4 iron that day. Or it's just some critter doing damage faster than they can absorb it, and the fight needs to end two rounds ago. I think if wizard players would resist the need to shine every encounter, and the front line guys understand that the wiz is conserving for when he needs to shine, and this is why you chose infantry instead of artillery in AIT, everything would go pretty smoothly.

Wizards still get to acquire more gear due to crafting costs, so there's no excuse for not having enough scrolls and gizmos to cover the basics, saving spell slots for special need situations. The fifteen minute adventure day should never happen as a routine, only as an "otherwise we were dead" occurrence.


houstonderek wrote:

When I play a wizard, I avoid the "I have to cast every round" mentality. It isn't my job to shine in every combat. My job, as I see it, is to save my best resources for instances where my teammates' skill sets aren't better suited to handle the threat type.

In encounters where the martial guys should be able to handle the threat with minimal resource cost, I might cast a buff or two on my compadres, then just grab a wand of something that does damage and help it go a bit quicker. Conversely, if I'm particularly vulnerable to a threat (high SR for my level, invulnerability to any types of spells I normally carry, etc), I am going to have to rely on them to keep me alive until the time I can return the favor.

But I pay my way by being there when the bruiser is up against something with DR-/whatever, and he didn't carry a 4 iron that day. Or it's just some critter doing damage faster than they can absorb it, and the fight needs to end two rounds ago. I think if wizard players would resist the need to shine every encounter, and the front line guys understand that the wiz is conserving for when he needs to shine, and this is why you chose infantry instead of artillery in AIT, everything would go pretty smoothly.

Wizards still get to acquire more gear due to crafting costs, so there's no excuse for not having enough scrolls and gizmos to cover the basics, saving spell slots for special need situations. The fifteen minute adventure day should never happen as a routine, only as an "otherwise we were dead" occurrence.

Not casting every round as a wiz and sorc just made me twitch.

So the next time I made an arcane caster, it was a witch. Best of both worlds :) can cast when I need to, and have unlimited hexes the rest of the time.

-S


Ravingdork wrote:

I am not guilty of over-self buffing (#3).

I don't think I've ever cast three buffs back to back in the middle of combat. Heck, I've even used spell slots to heroism that whole party for half the day. Definitely not a selfish buffer.

A little hard to do as Nives doesn't even have Heroism.

3rd-level (4/day) – major image 2nd-level (7/day) – blindness/deafness, detect thoughts, false life, invisibilityB 1st-level (8/day) – charm person, feather fall, identifyB, mage armor, magic aura, magic missile, shield

Other than MAYBE Invisibility, there's not a single party buffing spell on that list, and there's five self-buffing spells, almost half your complement.


DrDeth wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

I am not guilty of over-self buffing (#3).

I don't think I've ever cast three buffs back to back in the middle of combat. Heck, I've even used spell slots to heroism that whole party for half the day. Definitely not a selfish buffer.

A little hard to do as Nives doesn't even have Heroism.

3rd-level (4/day) – major image 2nd-level (7/day) – blindness/deafness, detect thoughts, false life, invisibilityB 1st-level (8/day) – charm person, feather fall, identifyB, mage armor, magic aura, magic missile, shield

Other than MAYBE Invisibility, there's not a single party buffing spell on that list, and there's five self-buffing spells, almost half your complement.

I'm betting RD is guilty of #4 as well. Most casters I play with are, and those that avoid combat like the plague usually invest a lot of spells in the effort and so need to restore spells frequently.

I love Kestler's list by the way. That should be in the Core Rule Book on page 1, chapter 1.

If I'm playing a spellcaster who buffs the party, I buff the party first. I'm not going to be up front anyway, so my first duty is to beef up the guys dealing with pointy sticks. If I'm buffing myself, it's usually because I expect to BE IN COMBAT for whatever reason. If I'm going to be hiding behind the party, I shouldn't need to be getting buffed first, maybe not even at all.


Its really ironic that most 'dumb meat shields' play smarter and have a better grasp of tacticts and strategy then the so called super genius casters that blow thier load at the first incling of trouble usually in very poor style ..Haste does more damage then any fireball for example.

(never mind cheating on spell durations and what they have pre-cast).

Some casters are great and get the party thing. Play some games without arcane casters is suprisingly easy, play some games without some good warriors and its a short lived hell.


insaneogeddon wrote:

Its really ironic that most 'dumb meat shields' play smarter and have a better grasp of tacticts and strategy then the so called super genius casters that blow thier load at the first incling of trouble usually in very poor style ..Haste does more damage then any fireball for example.

(never mind cheating on spell durations and what they have pre-cast).

Some casters are great and get the party thing. Play some games without arcane casters is suprisingly easy, play some games without some good warriors and its a short lived hell.

Meh, it just depends who you play with. We played through Red Hand of Doom (3.5 long module) with 2 wizards, 1 sorcerer, 2 clerics (one tanky-ish, one castery), and a fighter/rogue/mutt spring-attacker. We definitely lacked "good warriors" and while we did struggle on some encounters, other encounters were cakewalks (you haven't seen ghosts melt until you've watched them get hit by magic missiles from three different casters!).

Something to remember is that all spells are situational. Haste is excellent when there's a few things with lots of hit points, or maneuverability is going to be a problem, or even just a stand-still mano-a-mano scenario. Haste's only use when fighting a swarm is to run away ... but a fireball will kill that swarm. Being an arcane caster generally means being the best, and possibly only, source of area damage on the team.

Storytime:
Our party just fought 5 hangman trees. The cleric cast a circular blade barrier that hit all 5, failed SR on one, and one made the Reflex save. He did 45 points of damage as full, racking up an impressive 157 damage that round. I followed it up by a chain lightning (no failed SR, no successful saves) that I rolled badly on, only doing 60 points of damage to each tree (they take 1.5x from lightning, so I rolled 40 damage on 15d6) followed by a quickened lightning bolt on the tree that had swallowed the bard for another 63 damage. In one round, I did 363 damage, killing the tree that was threatening a party member's life in the process. Each remaining tree was severely weakened from the combined area spells and died in 1-2 hits from our melee line.

Does this mean one should not have haste? No, of course not. But having both, and the versatility from having both, is better than having only one or the other. As a medium (5+) to high level prepared caster, one has so many spell slots available that a good mixture of different types of spells is possible and desirable.


DrDeth wrote:
Shalafi2412 wrote:
However, I do not think that staying in the back of the group since you are a squishy is a bad thing.
No, but not doing anything to help the party from back there IS a bad thing. The Tanks take the hits so that the Controler can lay down hurt upon the Bad Guys, not just posture and pose.

I hate MMOspeech like "Tank" or Controller", it is the main reason why RPG gets corrupted even as pnp, and why 4th Edition sucks.

Just because someone is a warrior doesn't have to be a living meatshield, just because someone is a wizard doesn't mean it has to throw fireballs all day everyday.

I cringe every time when I notice such words/builds/perception of "roles" crawl more and more into normal RPG-s, and sadly I cringe too often recently.

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:

What do you think? Are they cookie-cutter characters? Could my builds/play style be considered cowardly? Or is this common sense for a spellcaster?

In short, I'm hoping to get impartial outside opinions on the matter.

Always be the one to open doors and disable traps. That 'll change your opinion.


is otomizing a sign of cowardice? (I took out "For survival" because I think the bigger question is more important, and I like a big ol soapbox) good question. I'm gonna say yes. I both gm and run with a casual group- (I've been playing D&D since 1978 and most of my group are not far behind in the Old Fart PrC ) most of us have less time to worry about charachter builds and the tactical aspects of our charachters, so talk of "builds" is oddly new to me. That said, having a charchter tweeked and maximized makes the game less fun. You are not going up a computer program but rather your (hopefully) friend you game with. As a player I feel kinda bad when I have a charachter that works well as a tactical piece but has a bland background/charachter. That adds nothing to the game (assuming the GM runs a game based on charachter goals and not "dungeon of the week") and makes the game harder to run for your friend. Let's face it, the difference between a poorly made charachter and a maxed charachter can be pretty big. Yet the poorly made charachter may be a better charachter- more plat hooks, funner to play, etc. As a GM I always wind up asking my players to shift around a few skill points or occasionally a feat (but I realize that's BIG) to reflect the charachter's background. That's the difference between P&P and computer games. i love me some MMORPGs, but it's a different game. those games are designed and almost require you to min/max. I've been in situations (like my game group now) where some charachters are tweeked, some are not. In order to challenge some of them i have to throw things that would kill some of the other charachters outright. It would be easier on me as a gm- and i beleive funner for the group- if they took a chance and played charachters and not tac pieces.


joriandrake wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Shalafi2412 wrote:
However, I do not think that staying in the back of the group since you are a squishy is a bad thing.
No, but not doing anything to help the party from back there IS a bad thing. The Tanks take the hits so that the Controler can lay down hurt upon the Bad Guys, not just posture and pose.

I hate MMO speech like "Tank" or Controller", it is the main reason why RPG gets corrupted even as pnp, and why 4th Edition sucks.

Just because someone is a warrior doesn't have to be a living meatshield, just because someone is a wizard doesn't mean it has to throw fireballs all day everyday.

I cringe every time when I notice such words/builds/perception of "roles" crawl more and more into normal RPG-s, and sadly I cringe too often recently.

Friend we were using "Tank" and "spell-slinger"* back in 1st Ed, some 20 years before MMO's and I have never played in a MMO- but I have been playing D&D since 1974.

There are and have been 4 classic roles ever since 1st Ed. They work.

* And I think "controller" is better than "spell-slinger" or just "wizard..."wizard" implies only a wizard can do it.


joriandrake wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Shalafi2412 wrote:
However, I do not think that staying in the back of the group since you are a squishy is a bad thing.
No, but not doing anything to help the party from back there IS a bad thing. The Tanks take the hits so that the Controler can lay down hurt upon the Bad Guys, not just posture and pose.

I hate MMOspeech like "Tank" or Controller", it is the main reason why RPG gets corrupted even as pnp, and why 4th Edition sucks.

Just because someone is a warrior doesn't have to be a living meatshield, just because someone is a wizard doesn't mean it has to throw fireballs all day everyday.

I cringe every time when I notice such words/builds/perception of "roles" crawl more and more into normal RPG-s, and sadly I cringe too often recently.

Those terms predate MMOs and videogame RPGs.

They've existed in pen and paper for longer than I've been alive.

It's just that they're more well known terms now.

And you're right, not every fighter is a meat shield, but SOME ARE.

Some Wizards are going to be controllers, some will be nukers, or combinations of the two.

These roles have always existed, they just weren't as well defined before.

Liberty's Edge

Baka Nikujaga wrote:

3:<

We should!
*begins writing an angry letter to the Paizo staff about how unfair life is for NPC's in PFS and to the players who participate in PFS*

To Coridan
How did your Rogue get a significantly higher AC?

Celestial chainmail. The rogue's best friend

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

@ Ravingdork: This is not the first time I've seen you relate a story which amounts to "the people I play with are a bunch of jerks." I've been around for years (nevermind the join date on this "corporate account"), and this seems to be a theme. From what I can tell, you seem to be a good player who appreciates both the mechanical and roleplaying elements and appeals of the game, and you seem to care about the fun and success of the entire group.

I have a question for you: do you enjoy Play-by-Post games?

Daron Woodson
Abandoned Arts


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Abandoned Arts wrote:

@ Ravingdork: ...

I have a question for you: do you enjoy Play-by-Post games?[/b]

Except for how they ALWAYS fall through, yes.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

Read this, evaluate the GMs other campaigns, and consider submitting something before Monday.

Daron Woodson
Abandoned Arts


Abandoned Arts wrote:

@ Ravingdork: This is not the first time I've seen you relate a story which amounts to "the people I play with are a bunch of jerks." I've been around for years (nevermind the join date on this "corporate account"), and this seems to be a theme. From what I can tell, you seem to be a good player who appreciates both the mechanical and roleplaying elements and appeals of the game, and you seem to care about the fun and success of the entire group.

I have a question for you: do you enjoy Play-by-Post games?

Of course, you have to realize that when someone complains that whatever group he's with is "a bunch of jerks ", maybe the problem isnt with the other players.

Dark Archive

DrDeth wrote:
Abandoned Arts wrote:

@ Ravingdork: This is not the first time I've seen you relate a story which amounts to "the people I play with are a bunch of jerks." I've been around for years (nevermind the join date on this "corporate account"), and this seems to be a theme. From what I can tell, you seem to be a good player who appreciates both the mechanical and roleplaying elements and appeals of the game, and you seem to care about the fun and success of the entire group.

I have a question for you: do you enjoy Play-by-Post games?

Of course, you have to realize that when someone complains that whatever group he's with is "a bunch of jerks ", maybe the problem isnt with the other players.

And sometimes, people have friends who just happen to be jerks.

Even if RD has been lying through his teeth through this whole thread, you're the one who is getting adversarial.


Seranov wrote:


Of course, you have to realize that when someone complains that whatever group he's with is "a bunch of jerks ", maybe the problem isnt with the other players.

And sometimes, people have friends who just happen to be jerks.

Even if RD has been lying through his teeth through this whole thread, you're the one who is getting adversarial.

Of course they do. But if I play with several groups, and I come out of each thinking they are all jerks, the issue may not be with them. Nor would that make RD in any way lying. I mean, if you feel that they are jerks, then how can you be lying? Even if what's going on is that you are setting the bar too high or that they are reacting negatively to your play style, to *YOU* they would seem jerks.

And of course, everyone has different play styles. I like a moderate amount of RPing, and I was in a group with 2 guys and a girl who were all very much into RPing, and 3 guys who were into optimizing and 100% combat. The DM split us into two groups, as both sides felt the other were being jerks. Of course, really neither side was actually being jerks (other than being not very adaptive) , just that the play style was so very different.

Shadow Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
All of us are friends outside of gaming.
Ravingdork wrote:
Only one of them will listen to me talk for more than a few minutes, and even then, I think it's more out of politeness than a true desire to make things better.

I've got bad news for you, RD. They aren't your friends outside of gaming.


DrDeth wrote:
Abandoned Arts wrote:

@ Ravingdork: This is not the first time I've seen you relate a story which amounts to "the people I play with are a bunch of jerks." I've been around for years (nevermind the join date on this "corporate account"), and this seems to be a theme. From what I can tell, you seem to be a good player who appreciates both the mechanical and roleplaying elements and appeals of the game, and you seem to care about the fun and success of the entire group.

I have a question for you: do you enjoy Play-by-Post games?

Of course, you have to realize that when someone complains that whatever group he's with is "a bunch of jerks ", maybe the problem isnt with the other players.

While technically true, the question has already been answered in that RD and his group simply have differing play styles.

RD likes to think tactically, and be imaginative and inventive.

RD's group like to get stuck in and hammer the enemy for as much damage as they can.

I get the impression that he finds their approach unimaginative and they perhaps think he's spending far to much time mucking about trying to be cleaver rather than getting on with dishing the hurt.

There's room for give and take on both sides.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
All of us are friends outside of gaming.
Ravingdork wrote:
Only one of them will listen to me talk for more than a few minutes, and even then, I think it's more out of politeness than a true desire to make things better.
I've got bad news for you, RD. They aren't your friends outside of gaming.

Allow me to clarify. They like talking to me just fine (as friends are want to do). However, if I'm talking about tabletop roleplaying OUTSIDE of our scheduled gaming day (as I often do) they tend to tune me out.

I guess my broken record fixation can get old and aggravating after a a decade or so.


Then talk inside your scheduled gaming day.


ImperatorK wrote:
Then talk inside your scheduled gaming day.

What? And cut into good gaming time?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ImperatorK wrote:
Then talk inside your scheduled gaming day.

Since I assume you're new to gaming, you should know there are only two settings on a clock. "Gaming time" and "talk about gaming time".


Dabbler wrote:
ImperatorK wrote:
Then talk inside your scheduled gaming day.
What? And cut into good gaming time?

What? Are you gaming non-stop, without any breaks, so you can't even talk?

Quote:
Since I assume you're new to gaming

I wouldn't assume too much if I were you, you could assume wrong. Just saying.

Quote:
you should know there are only two settings on a clock. "Gaming time" and "talk about gaming time".

Some people have life's outside gaming.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Personal attacks?
Let's avoid those.

Shadow Lodge

You're no fun.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
You're no fun.

Neither are locked threads.


Quote:
I've found that people who respond to people's facetious posts in an offended and serious manner on a gaming message board generally do not have one of those "life" things you mentioned.

Who's offended? Who's serious?

This again... Assuming too much. Don't do it, you're not good at it.

Shadow Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
TOZ wrote:
You're no fun.
Neither are locked threads.

To you.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
TOZ wrote:
You're no fun.
Neither are locked threads.

Some threads are better locked.

251 to 300 of 419 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Optimizing for survival a sign of cowardice? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.