Wow.
We need to add a new internet rule.
All threads on Paizo mention monks, rogues, summoners, or gunslingers at some point.
From now on, all discussions are banned. All of them.
Is this a bad time to bring up that I'm unhappy that my synthesist knife master is having trouble with traps?
Why can't you discuss alignment do you want your car to go into a ditch? Also I would hate to be stuck driving behind a paladin.
We should ban all political discussions. They just breed arguments and have nothing to do with the hobby. Besides its not like a government think tank is gonna scroll the boards here looking for advice. Unless the government wants to regulate DPS.
Case in point my polite request above spawned a lot more grief than I predicted.
We should ban all political discussions. They just breed arguments and have nothing to do with the hobby. Besides its not like a government think tank is gonna scroll the boards here looking for advice. Unless the government wants to regulate DPS.So what's t
he big deal? They stay in the Off Topics forum where they belong.
because somebody always gets gets butt hurt when they get called out and the a moderator has to step in to sooth the wounded butt.
Why can't you discuss alignment do you want your car to go into a ditch? Also I would hate to be stuck driving behind a paladin.
Beats being stuck behind a Cavalier!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, let's talk about Rogues!
You mean the rouge?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me regale you with how much I hate the Vancian prepared casting system and would never dream of playing any prepared caster because it is the worst magic system ever created.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You mean the rouge?
Hey, let's talk about Rogues!
*Monocle Eye Twitch*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
100) "Is it a evil act to ..... "
101) " can I vital strike with..."
Answer is always
100) yes
101) no
the following 10 commonly recurring topics need to be banned on at least a temporary basis
1. monk bashing threads of any kind
2. martial vs. caster disparity threads of any kind
3. antagonize is broken threads
4. synthesist is overpowered threads
5. alignment threads of any kind
6. guns and gunpowder hate threads
7. oriental hate threads
8. threads pertaining to how melee combatants can't do anything to fight ranged or flying foes
9. threads complaining about entitled players or adversarial DMs
10. threads complaining about the existence of dervish dance or agile weapons
1. Thread accusing people of bashing monks when they are just being honest. There is a difference. While we are here we might as well put the rogue in for a bid also.
2. True. Most of the issues are only existent in theorycraft land anyway for most groups.
3. There have only been 3 of those that I have seen. It is still a padawan in the world of controversial threads.
4. These should be changed to "don't play the class unless both the GM and player have read over it in detail.
5. These are normally due to paladin threads.....
6. They, much like number 7 don't happen all that much.
8. There was only one of those, and the poster kept moving the goalpost. They can't fly. Arrows don't count. What you are flying? I meant to say that if you have to use a standard action to do it that also does not count. Who cares if flying is no longer a valid defense, which is a good reason to use it.
9. Some of these have some truth.
10. I have not seen any of these. The dex builds needed some love anyway. I will make one eventually.
Also, do you consider the Aasimar and Tiefling to be Monsters as well, despite the Advanced Race Guide giving guidelines on how to play them as well as many other races? If that's the case, then I pity your players and am happy to not be playing at your table.I'm GMing for a party consisting of an Aasimar, two tieflings, an ifrit, a suli, a catfolk and a drow.
No, the only race I hate are Dhampirs.
And that is aggravated by all those threats about ppl who want to play them but don't want to accept the drawback of not being healed by normal healing spells. With the worst of all being that some GMs seem to be willing to accept that and ignore this drawback.
But if some player came and asked to be allowed to play a dwarf with 30ft base speed every gm would decline that.And thus my first posting in this thread that I'd like to see such topics banned.
So you're butthurt about some stupid player whining once or twice about the Dhampir, and decided that's reason enough to ban them forever? I've never seen anyone demand the DM to let a Dhampir heal normally. All the threads so far that I've seen have just asked about the effects of certain spells and effects (Lay on Hands and Holy Water) on them and then moving on after getting the answer. Most players with a brain know that they can just heal their characters with Inflict spells, and maybe ask a Cleric to take the Selective Channel feat if said Cleric happens to channel Positive Energy. As for you, I suggest you do a better job as a DM since that's something you're not doing when you skewer the canon of Pharasma and punish players who happen to like the Dhampir, especially because your only reason for doing so (a very poor one if you ask me) is "because this one player ticked me off back in that one forum/table" and not something legitimate like the race being overpowered.
PS. Though I sound harsh, I hope you are able to see my point here.
The reason why I'm a bit heated is because your ban is needlessly arbitrary and completely unfair to some players.
And as a DM who believes the game should be fun and the DM should be competent enough to allow multiple options, I find that unforgiveable.
1) Any thread talking about bannign things.
Huh? What on Earth are 'bannign things'?
Something akin to 'benign things', but with more restrictions?*scnr*
No topic should be banned, IMO.
It's nicer talking to real people who understand stuff than trawling through old threads reading what they said months ago. If you're sick of a topic, just don't open it and it will go away pretty quick unless there are people who still want to talk about it. (Or want to talk about it again).
103. threads where people ask James Jacobs questions that he answers on a regular schedule
104. threads about the forums being too big
105. threads where Ashiel and Ciretose get into a fight (also me)
106. threads that... *shudder* use things like words to relay their problems.
107. psionic threads
108. epic rules
109. magic item creation
Also, since no one else has done it, I shall go ahead and say that someone wishes to be a forum Nazi, just so I can get the Law out of the way.
Thanks ShuNeko, this thread is hilarious :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jack Chick wants to post a new banned topic list
Let me regale you with how much I hate the Vancian prepared casting system and would never dream of playing any prepared caster because it is the worst magic system ever created.
Do go on =D
(I exempt Witch from this list because really you don't need to do a whole lot of casting with one. ;])
Let me regale you with how much I hate the Vancian prepared casting system and would never dream of playing any prepared caster because it is the worst magic system ever created.
Let me once again patiently explain the mental gymnastics I perform so that I may fully enjoy the... oh wait, I see what you did there...
So you're butthurt about some stupid player whining once or twice about the Dhampir, and decided that's reason enough to ban them forever? I've never seen anyone demand the DM to let a Dhampir heal normally. All the threads so far that I've seen have just asked about the effects of certain spells and effects (Lay on Hands and Holy Water) on them and then moving on after getting the answer. Most players with a brain know that they can just heal their characters with Inflict spells, and maybe ask a Cleric to take the Selective Channel feat if said Cleric happens to channel Positive Energy. As for you, I suggest you do a better job as a DM since that's something you're not doing when you skewer the canon of Pharasma and punish players who happen to like the Dhampir, especially because your only reason for doing so (a very poor one if you ask me) is "because this one player ticked me off back in that one forum/table" and not something legitimate like the race being overpowered.
First: I disliked the shampir before I read all those silly threads about them.
And on those threads I mentioned:
I remember at least 2 threads I read about dhampir Palas, one from a player, one from a gm that where at least partly about letting the pc either completely ignore the heals/hurs as an undead or about letting his own healing abilities work as if he wasn't a dhampir.
The reason why I'm a bit heated is because your ban is needlessly arbitrary and completely unfair to some players.
And as a DM who believes the game should be fun and the DM should be competent enough to allow multiple options, I find that unforgiveable.
I am of the opinion that a gm, too should have fun. And when it is arbitrary to his fun to have some race around I see it as fully normal for him to disallow them. Same as a player. If some other pc would make the game no fun for me why can't I just leave the game and let them have fun with something I don't like?
p.s. I didn't think you are harsh or heated. All in all I can understand most of your arguments. But the Start of your Posting about me being butthurt was rather childish. :)
And why exactly do you hate the Dhampir, then?
Letting that hate affect your judgement as DM is bad form, dude.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like Elves, but that doesn't stop me from letting other people play them.
I blame it mostly on overdose exposure to snooty Elf style play on NWN servers. I make a point of when I do play an Elf to make them as un-Elven as possible. My longest-standing Elf character was a feytouched pyromaniacal sorceress who perceived the world in metaphorical concepts rather than literal sight. She was a little crazy.
Usually I just go with something else though ;)
In my homebrew setting I gleefully arranged the timeline so they had a failed takeover versus their neighboring human kingdom in recent history, and were now viewed as worse than orcs by that region.
Ever checked out how certain Elves behave in Eberron?
They seem rather un-Elven in some regards, from what I recall.
Not all that familiar with Eberron, heh. Something about it just never tweaked my interest.
I did steal some monsters from them though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I cannot tolerate the intolerance of tolerances.
Orthos, do you know Witcher books or games? You might be interested in fate of elves there.
Not all that familiar with Eberron, heh. Something about it just never tweaked my interest.
I did steal some monsters from them though.
As this thread goes nowhere anyway...
You basically got three variants:
1. City elves; can be dandies or hardened guttersnipes, depending on their upbringing. Not much different from humans, just with a different outlook because of their long lifetime.
2. Death worshipping necromancer types. "Gods? My gods walk among my people. They are deathless. And I will join them some day. Oh, you belong to the Emerald Claw? Suck on this, zombie lover!" *Enervation to the face*
3. Ancestor worshipping warmongers. Will ride you down if you either cross into their lands (even if they gave them up 10.000 years ago and only just recently reconquered them), cross them (by doing any number of things: insult their forefathers, insult their horses, insult them, step on their toes...), or for no better reason than you and your friends seemed to be able to offer some good sport.
Happy days.
And don't get me started on the gnomes. They are frightening.
And don't get me started on the gnomes. They are frightening.
Orthos, do you know Witcher books or games? You might be interested in fate of elves there.
It's been on my to-get list for a while. But not yet sadly.
@Fabius: #2 sounds like Warlord elves. Me like. I do like that they've gone well away from the "happy forest loving better-than-humans" elves that most tend to be. I kept the forest thing and the ties to nature with the Wood Elves in my setting, but made them very insular, very reactionary, shamanistic, focused on ancestor worship, and very social-Darwinist "only the strong survive".
Orthos, do you know Witcher books or games? You might be interested in fate of elves there.It's been on my to-get list for a while. But not yet sadly.
@Fabius: #2 sounds like Warlord elves. Me like. I do like that they've gone well away from the "happy forest loving better-than-humans" elves that most tend to be. I kept the forest thing and the ties to nature with the Wood Elves in my setting, but made them very insular, very reactionary, shamanistic, focused on ancestor worship, and very social-Darwinist "only the strong survive".
That would be Valenar - Fabius #3.
The only bad thing in implementation of #2 in my opinion was needless introduction of Deathless as separate type from Undeads, powered by positive energy instead of negative, which cheapened the idea of elves culture revolving around necromancy and undying ancestors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orthos, do you know Witcher books or games? You might be interested in fate of elves there.It's been on my to-get list for a while. But not yet sadly.
@Fabius: #2 sounds like Warlord elves. Me like. I do like that they've gone well away from the "happy forest loving better-than-humans" elves that most tend to be. I kept the forest thing and the ties to nature with the Wood Elves in my setting, but made them very insular, very reactionary, shamanistic, focused on ancestor worship, and very social-Darwinist "only the strong survive".
That would be Valenar - Fabius #3.
The only bad thing in implementation of #2 in my opinion was needless introduction of Deathless as separate type from Undeads, powered by positive energy instead of negative, which cheapened the idea of elves culture revolving around necromancy and undying ancestors.
And that is why I still have the houserule that Undead can be of any alignment despite usually leaning to Evil.
I cannot tolerate the intolerance of tolerances.
Yes, this is known as the Paradox of Tolerance - the fact that tolerance needs to be intolerant of intolerance.
The monk class is the exhaust port in Paizo's DeathStar.
I thought he was the guy working in the DeathStar canteen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think threads that want to limit the freedom to express one's opinions should be banned, and not just on a temporary basis.
Me too. But then, paradoxically, I think everybody needs to shut up and stop whining.
Thus, all threads should be banned, unless I personally approve of them.
Incidentally, what the heck is so great about everybody's opinion? We all know we each have one of those, and one of something else that smells equally as foul. Nobody here really has anything so mindblowingly amazing to say that any of the rest of us can't live without it.
It's like hanging out at the sandwich forums and watching as people in New York lose their minds when they find out people in California like more than just mustard on their pastrami. People pull their hair out about nothing.
From now on, all discussions are banned. All of them.
Agreed. This is the only solution to this problem we are facing.
I cannot tolerate the intolerance of tolerances.
The only thing I can not tolerate is intolerance... And the Dutch.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, do you consider the Aasimar and Tiefling to be Monsters as well, despite the Advanced Race Guide giving guidelines on how to play them as well as many other races? If that's the case, then I pity your players and am happy to not be playing at your table.I'm GMing for a party consisting of an Aasimar, two tieflings, an ifrit, a suli, a catfolk and a drow.
No, the only race I hate are Dhampirs.
And that is aggravated by all those threats about ppl who want to play them but don't want to accept the drawback of not being healed by normal healing spells. With the worst of all being that some GMs seem to be willing to accept that and ignore this drawback.
But if some player came and asked to be allowed to play a dwarf with 30ft base speed every gm would decline that.And thus my first posting in this thread that I'd like to see such topics banned.
I'm unclear why any GM would allow (or need to allow) the damphir to exist without the penalty. We have a character in our party who is a black blooded oracle. Which is voluntarily the same disability, and to some degree even worse, because their isn't a mitigating magic item, and she has -4 to everything dex based. The character is just fine, and the player enjoys the confusion that is caused by it. The party has adjusted, both the Witch and the Alchemist keep at least one "stop her from dying" inflict wounds spell. The alchemist was also able to via role playing wise convince the zelous paladin that the black blood was from her monstrous nature and not because she was undead. (Nature vs. Unnurture?) (It didn't hurt that she considers herself a vessel for Pharasma's power.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*springs in*
This thread is now about pancakes vs waffles!
*springs out*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Waffles all the way. We even get a Mithral Waffle Iron thanks to Ultimate Equipment!
That's not to say that Pancakes aren't delicious, they are, I, however, was raised on Pancakes, so I desire Waffles more. Plus, I like the texture and consistency of Waffles more than Pancakes.
I'm unclear why any GM would allow (or need to allow) the damphir to exist without the penalty. We have a character in our party who is a black blooded oracle. Which is voluntarily the same disability, and to some degree even worse, because their isn't a mitigating magic item, and she has -4 to everything dex based. The character is just fine, and the player enjoys the confusion that is caused by it. The party has adjusted, both the Witch and the Alchemist keep at least one "stop her from dying" inflict wounds spell. The alchemist was also able to via role playing wise convince the zelous paladin that the black blood was from her monstrous nature and not because she was undead. (Nature vs. Unnurture?) (It didn't hurt that she considers herself a vessel for Pharasma's power.)Also, do you consider the Aasimar and Tiefling to be Monsters as well, despite the Advanced Race Guide giving guidelines on how to play them as well as many other races? If that's the case, then I pity your players and am happy to not be playing at your table.I'm GMing for a party consisting of an Aasimar, two tieflings, an ifrit, a suli, a catfolk and a drow.
No, the only race I hate are Dhampirs.
And that is aggravated by all those threats about ppl who want to play them but don't want to accept the drawback of not being healed by normal healing spells. With the worst of all being that some GMs seem to be willing to accept that and ignore this drawback.
But if some player came and asked to be allowed to play a dwarf with 30ft base speed every gm would decline that.And thus my first posting in this thread that I'd like to see such topics banned.
Isn't inflict not on the alchemist spell list. Although if you made an all dhapmir black blood oracle party you could just have inflict light wounds wands.
*springs in*
This thread is now about pancakes vs waffles!
*springs out*
I believe waffles are much better. They hold the toppings with their small indents much better than pancakes do.
Of course if you are buying I will eat either. :-)