Since 3.5 I have often nerfed the spellcaster in various ways. Anyway for my current game I drew inspiration from the original Star Wars d20 game. In that game if you wanted to play a Jedi in the Empire (movies) era you would have to multiclass into a Jedi at level 3.
I ported that rule to my campaign world. You can only be a wizard/cleric/druid/witch etc by multiclassing into them at level 3. The Sith became the Red Mantis. Primary spellcaster (anyone with potenital level 7+ spells) is purged. Divine casters in particular are considered heretical as the gods are dead/absent and a PC would also have to find a divine power source. One can be a Sorcerer however at level 1 although they are still hunted.
Other spellcasters like Bards, Magus, and Alchemists are somewhat tolerated so any potential spellcaster PC can know identical spells and/or have a good deception (bluff/disguise) skill.
NPCs don't have to follow the same rules a'la Obi Wan and Yoda.
seems o work and the PCs are having fun although the sorcerer has Red Mantis Problems. Worlds not Golarion although I borrowed the Red MAntis:)
Are you looking for a critique or just some sharing on a similar topic?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With a title like that, nothing good can come from this thread.
In effect Star Wars D6 did. If you could not find a mentor for your Jedi/Force user (hard in rebellion era) you paid twice as many character points to improve your force skills.
And if you pulled out a lightsaber Vader himself would turn up and kill you. Thats the equivilent of a low level spell caster casting a spell and a level 18+ character comes and kills him. In my world with careful spell selection and use you can at least pass yourself off as something else. 2nd ed Darksun had a similar campaign where the Sorcerer Kings would arbitraliy kill wizards except for "pets".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here are my home rules, if they may inspire you. I made some serious changes to rogues and fighters, and banned prepared spellcasters. I feel they changes, when taken together, go a long way toward "balancing" casters and noncasters. I know a lot of people on these forums are against such restrictions, but the player knew about it, and it makes for a very interresting sword and sorcery world (I was thinking Robert E. Howard)- a flavor difficult to get when you play the "vanilla" game.
-----
No Magus, Monks, Summoners, Samurais, Ninjas or Paladins allowed. No prepared casters. No multiclassing allowed. No prestige classes allowed. Archetypes are fine as long as they don't contradict home rules. Everybody is human. There is no race restriction on feats, archetypes, traits or favorite class bonuses. You may exchange your human bonus feat for any racial trait, pending approval.
Casters:
Inquisitors stay the same.
Bards stay the same. (exept for the revised luck bonus of the archeologist archetype)
Alchemists stay the same (ok, they are somewhat prepared casters, I guess.)
Wizards := Sorcerers (some bloodlines may use wis or int instead of cha)
Witch := Sorcerer bloodline with acess to hexes and a familiar
Clerics := Oracles (some use wis or int instead of cha)
Druids := Oracles of nature, or sorcerers with a nature themed bloodline
Ranger := any archetype that does not use magic. They are not casters anymore.
The delayed access to spell levels coming with the ban on prepared casters makes for a very interresting game, and non-caster feel they are more usefull to the group as the casters can't play all roles - they have to choose spells carefully. It's still possible to scribe scrolls for utility spells.
Noncasters:
Gunslingers stays the same.
Cavaliers stays the same.
Barbarians stays the same.
Ranger := any archetype that does not use magic. They are not casters anymore.
FIGHTERS:
Fighters get 4 skills points/level.
They get combat expertise for free at first level.
Starting at first level, you gain an insight bonus equal to your Intelligence bonus on reflex saves. You also gain your Int bonus on your touch AC, even when flatfooted.
Starting at 3rd level, you gain an insight bonus equal to your Intelligence bonus on rolls made to confirm critical hits.
At 7th level, you gain an insight bonus equal to your Intelligence bonus on melee damage rolls against flat-footed or flanked opponents. This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit.
At 11th level, you gain an insight bonus equal to your Intelligence bonus on any CMB and CMD check
At 15th level, you gain an insight bonus equal to your Intelligence bonus on melee attack rolls and melee damage rolls made whenever you make an attack of opportunity.
ROGUES:
Rogues receive the scout archetype's "skirmisher" talent and normal sneak attacks at first level.
They also get a rogue talent at first level.
They also get the following:
Nimble Mind : A gets a bonus to saving throw bonus against mind-affecting spells from the Enchantment and Divination schools. This bonus is equivalent to the Fighter's Bravery bonus for level progression.
Precise strike:
- Starting at level 3 A rogue can sacrifice, as a free action, a dice of sneak attack for a bonus of +1 on his BAB. He can only sacrifice a maximum of half his dices (round down) this way and must choose to do so before the roll is made. The BAB bonus granted by Precise strike can also be used on disarm, trip and sunder attemps. If sundering, the remaining sneak attack dices also apply to overcome the hardness of the object being sundered.
Shadow Strike:
All rogues gain the feat Shadow Strike for free at fifth level, if they already have Shadow Strike, they can choose another feat instead.
Dextrous Strike
Starting at level 7, a rogue may add his dexterity bonus to damage on any sneak attack. This bonus is multiplied in case of a critical strike.
Sneaky strike:
Sarting at level 11, the rogue may choose to apply the bonus from Precise strike AFTER the attack roll is made.
It's a fun game, we're having a blast, and those choices also keep bookeeping at a minimum. I often feel getting rid of the prepared casters is the best decision I made for the game.
Your fihgter seems odd:) I just bumped mine up to 4 skill points a level and revised the skill list.
Yeah, they are Odd - they can think. ;-)
Seriously, I wanted a martial class that would rely on intelligence. If you want the sneaky type, go Ranger, for the strong intuitive type, Barbarian and for the charismatic type, Cavalier. I borrowed heavily from the ToB Warblade class.
The fighter's player also feel way more usefull out of battle, and can really shine using combat manoeuvres.
But I know it's not for everyone. Still, even with that, spellcasters still are stronger than fighters, even if we feel the gap is narrowing.
Reminds me of D20 Modern. Didn't you have to prestige into a spellcasting class after taking 5 levels of those base classes (strong, healthy, fast, smart, wise, and charismatic)
Personally I dislike low magic campaigns, but if you and your players are into it... then cool. Go with it.
Good for you!
I'd do it differently, but at least you're trying. :)
Honestly, In our 2E games we went the OTHER way. The idea that a 1st level caster walks around with 4 hp and ONE first level spell was ridiculous. We ended up giving them a couple extra spell slots per level.
There are a few classes that I have a hard time justifying at 'first' level.
Paladins... Wizards... Anything that should require YEARS of training... should start a bit higher.
That one spell could be sleep though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. You have just completely destroyed the ability to accomplish certain character concepts.Vast majority of multi-classing is just for the crunch. So nogreat loss...
No.
. . . No multiclassing allowed. . . (and lots of other stuff). . .Wow. You have just completely destroyed the ability to accomplish certain character concepts.
As that is exactly what I intended to do, I fail to see your point.
Guess he just really wanted the last word.
This thread is bad and both the OP and Mongoose should feel bad.
Bad.
The sneaksy mongoose lies in wait for over 2 months, waiting for his prey to fall into complacency, and then strikes from out of no where!
<game>
<set>
...
Or is it?
<cues the ominous music and wanders off to find some popcorn>
p.s. How one plays the game and finds fun is such a personal experience that it is hard to comment, especially since the OP said "I did this" and then the other guy said "I did this", but neither sought input in any meaningful way that registered to me. Like children parallel playing they crossed paths for a moment, took note that the other one was present and then went back to exactly what they were doing before (though they were happy to see that they both like purple vans with flames on the side).
The sneaksy mongoose lies in wait for over 2 months, waiting for his prey to fall into complacency, and then strikes from out of no where!
<game>
<set>
...Or is it?
<cues the ominous music and wanders off to find some popcorn>
p.s. How one plays the game and finds fun is such a personal experience that it is hard to comment, especially since the OP said "I did this" and then the other guy said "I did this", but neither sought input in any meaningful way that registered to me. Like children parallel playing they crossed paths for a moment, took note that the other one was present and then went back to exactly what they were doing before (though they were happy to see that they both like purple vans with flames on the side).
Pfft, forget Mongooses (Mongeese?). It's all about spiders that can cartwheel
BARBARIAN GENERALLY FIND LANCE TO FACE PERFECTLY GOOD WAY TO NERF CASTYS. NOT NEED MULTICLASS TO BE BARBARIAN, AM STILL PUNCHING SPELLS SO HARD AM EXPLODING UNDER FORCE OF AWESOME.
WHY AM THIS NECESSARY? BARBARIAN AM CONFUSED.
AM OKAY THOUGH, BARBARIAN MUDDLE THRU SOMEHOW.
Bad?
Ok, the OP asked for ways to nerf spellcasters in his game (and he may do so if he wish, it's his game) and I offered some way I achieved the same goal in my game.
Now, how is that bad? The debate never was "should you nerf spellcasters", but, "IF you want to nerf them, for a certain story, how would you proceed?"
If you don't want to nerf them, good for you, but can we not, between people who agree that it may be, sometime and for certain storytelling purposes or world flavor,a fun thing to do, ask how to best achieve this goal?
As for the thread necromancy, well, I have been very busy at work in the past two months, but I am still interrested in the OP's problem and to know if and how he achieved his goal. That's the beauty of the written word - you can come back to a discussion when you have time!
I really ment no harm, and I am rather dazzled by the reaction and rude policing you get on this board when politely discussing something.
Hey Zaardnarr, if you still want to discuss this, pm me - it seems discussing house ruling (even in the homebrew subforum) is subject to ostracism on this board, (Where RAW is LAW. ;-)
Well, anyway, happy new year everyone!
...He never asked any sort of question.
He just said "I did this."
And what's bad is that you, for some reason, ban Monks, Magi, Paladins, Summoners, Samurai, and Ninja for who knows what reason, along with limiting multiclassing, prestige classes, and any race other than human, which is approximately 75% of all the choices you can make in the game as far as character creation and customization goes.
Bad?
Ok, the OP asked for ways to nerf spellcasters in his game (and he may do so if he wish, it's his game) and I offered some way I achieved the same goal in my game.
Now, how is that bad? The debate never was "should you nerf spellcasters", but, "IF you want to nerf them, for a certain story, how would you proceed?"
If you don't want to nerf them, good for you, but can we not, between people who agree that it may be, sometime and for certain storytelling purposes or world flavor,a fun thing to do, ask how to best achieve this goal?
As for the thread necromancy, well, I have been very busy at work in the past two months, but I am still interrested in the OP's problem and to know if and how he achieved his goal. That's the beauty of the written word - you can come back to a discussion when you have time!
I really ment no harm, and I am rather dazzled by the reaction and rude policing you get on this board when politely discussing something.
Hey Zaardnarr, if you still want to discuss this, pm me - it seems discussing house ruling (even in the homebrew subforum) is subject to ostracism on this board, (Where RAW is LAW. ;-)
Well, anyway, happy new year everyone!
You'll have to excuse me. I just like poking fun of thread necromancy and yours really seemed like you were, for some reason, trying to get the last word in.
...He never asked any sort of question.
He just said "I did this."
And what's bad is that you, for some reason, ban Monks, Magi, Paladins, Summoners, Samurai, and Ninja for who knows what reason, along with limiting multiclassing, prestige classes, and any race other than human, which is approximately 75% of all the choices you can make in the game as far as character creation and customization goes.
He said it in the homebrew forum!
And yes, I did ban those options, in a game, for a specific purpose I explained. I never stated you should do that everytime. The players all knew and agreed it was a good idea to try in order to have a different flavor for a sword and sorcery world. Homebrew, remember?
If you, as a player, would not want to try this, nobody is forcing you to. And nobody is stating this is the only way the game should be played. Why is that bad? Is it bad if me and my friends install a mod on a computer game we own because we want to experience it another way?
Anyway, have it your way, man, your holier-than-thou attitude ensure I will stay away from this board, and you'll be free to spread your gaming religion all you want.
You'll have to excuse me. I just like poking fun of thread necromancy and yours really seemed like you were, for some reason, trying to get the last word in.
It is often difficult to grasp people intentions on the internet. But thanks for the apology - really decent of you.
Bye guys.
He said it in the homebrew forum!
This is the homebrew forum!
And yes, I did ban those options, in a game, for a specific purpose I explained. I never stated you should do that everytime. The players all knew and agreed it was a good idea to try in order to have a different flavor for a sword and sorcery world. Homebrew, remember?
You didn't explain it very well. You really just said it "balanced" casters and martials, and that it might be good for a sword and sorcery game.
If you, as a player, would not want to try this, nobody is forcing you to. And nobody is stating this is the only way the game should be played. Why is that bad? Is it bad if me and my friends install a mod on a computer game we own because we want to experience it another way?
Yes, and I hope you get banned forever you cheating cheater.
Anyway, have it your way, man, your holier-than-thou attitude ensure I will stay away from this board, and you'll be free to spread your gaming religion all you want.
We don't like non-believers around here anyway.
Bye guys.
Bye.
We don't like non-believers around here anyway.
Anyway, have it your way, man, your holier-than-thou attitude ensure I will stay away from this board, and you'll be free to spread your gaming religion all you want.
BARBARIAN POINT OUT BARBARIAN AM ATHEIST. NOT BELIEVE IN GODS AFTER LAST TIME CLERIC TRY CASTING MIRACLE STOP BARBARIAN.
TAKE LIKE THREE WEEKS CLEAN UP ALL DEAD SOLAR BITS, MAN. BARBARIAN NOT REMEMBER FONDLY.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As that is exactly what I intended to do, I fail to see your point.
WHO DARES TO DISTURB MY TWO MONTH SLUMBER!?
Rage Lance Pounce with a mount?
GENERALLY YES.
My prescription is yoga, tai chi, meditation or a few hours of listening to some Floyd to bring down all the grr.
I imagine that we would be hard pressed to find others that play the game the same way we do.
e.g. Why dwarfs even exist is beyond me. They're like rodentia in my game. <bats one away with his vorpal fly swatter>
It's hilarious that you try to play the victim when you clearly just wanted to one up the person who replied to you over two months ago. It's clear by the post you necro'd with that there it had nothing at all to do with a "polite discussion" or anything like that.
Oh, here comes the board's psychoanalyst who can, reading a one line comment, know your intentions better than you do and have a complete psychological understanding of who you are.
Yeah, right.
Let it die, man, I understood - you can't discuss this topic on the forum. I won't do it gain. It is not worth the hassle. No need to get insulting.
I understood - you can't discuss this topic on the forum.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you feel that addressing the perceived power discrepancy of one class (e.g. prepared spell slingers) over another is considered taboo because some of the replies on this thread are less than snuggly.
<dons therapist panties>
It appears that the negative comments stem more from the manner in which it was carried out (little to no rationalization/justification/supporting evidence, some tone things, and breathing life back into an agonal thread to ensure that everyone knew that you found no commonality with a comment made), rather than the content.
I could be wrong.
Speaking of wrong, I might be ignorant of the inability to state an opinion on the power of the magic wielders in the game.
Let me try...
<clears throat>
"Excuse me, but magi are like totally too powerful and should be hit with a nerf bat and stuff, like gag me with a proverbial spoon."
- That guy
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
GUY WIGGLEFACE, BARBARIAN APPRECIATE WHAT AM TRYING TO DO, BUT CASTY NERF GUY AM HAVING PERSECUTION COMPLEX SO TRANSPARENT AM INVISIBLE LIKE CASTYS BARBARIAN AM SMASHING SO OFTEN. AM MAYBE STEMMING FROM HAVING AVATAR WHO DIET AM PRIMARILY SNAKES. BARBARIAN GET SICK AND TIRED OF MOTHERFLIPPING SNAKES ON MOTHERFLIPPING MENU, SO BARBARIAN CERTAIN CASTY NERF GUY AM TOO.
BARBARIAN ALSO STATE FOR RECORD THAT THERAPIST NOT WEAR PANTIES, ALL THERAPIST AM REQUIRED BY LAW WEAR BOXERS. EVEN LADYTHERAPISTS.
WHAT BARBARIAN AM TRYING TO SAY HERE AM THAT MAGI NOT TO POWERFUL, AM DYING TO LANCE TO FACE MUCH SAME AS OTHER SQUISHY CASTYS. JUST TAKE LIKE ONE MORE LANCE HIT. JEEZ.
I'm giggling so f!@~ing hard right now.
I as well. It is more than worthy of a wee little Chuckle.
What's next?
AM THERAPIST?
What's next?
AM THERAPIST?
BARBARIAN TRY THERAPIST ONCE, BUT BARBARIAN ONLY HAVE INTIMIDATE, NOT BOTHER WITH DIPLOMACY. ALSO BARBARIAN HAVE STANDING RULE REGARDING CONVERSATIONS OVER 50 SECONDS AND STABBING.
TURNS OUT INTIMIDATION AND STABBING MAKE FOR VERY BAD THERAPIST, BARBARIAN ONLY ABLE GET REPEAT BUSINESS FROM CREEPY GUY NAMED NILES WHO WANT TALK ABOUT MOTHER, NOT CARE WHO GET IN WAY.
BARBARIAN SHUDDER THINKING ABOUT IT SOMETIMES. AM VERY DARK TIME IN BARBARIAN PAST. GUYS NAMED NILES AM SERIOUSLY CREEPY.
Ha! :-) Ok, I almost spilled my drink through my nose.
<dons therapist panties>It appears that the negative comments stem more from the manner in which it was carried out (little to no rationalization/justification/supporting evidence, some tone things, and breathing life back into an agonal thread to ensure that everyone knew that you found no commonality with a comment made), rather than the content.
I could be wrong.
Speaking of wrong, I might be ignorant of the inability to state an opinion on the power of the magic wielders in the game.
Let me try...
<clears throat>
"Excuse me, but magi are like totally too powerful and should be hit with a nerf bat and stuff, like gag me with a proverbial spoon."
- That guy
Ok, Doc. Why do I need to justify, rationalize or give evidence for a homeruling that aim to nerf spellcasters and restrict character choices in order to fit a setting idea and give a distinctive flavor to a campaign world?
Here is one try: Me and my players though it would be fun to play such a campaign?
Here is a interresting distinction:
Homebrew forum: You may want to experiment with the rules and offer advice how you can achieve a certain goal with some tweaks and houserules.
General forum: you discuss the balancing of the rules, not for a specific campaign, but as a whole, published and coherent game.
I would need to give justifications of the kind you seem to be searching for if I was talking on the general forum. I am not. I am not saying casters need to be nerfed in Patfinder. I am saying IF you want to nerf them, in order to achieve a game-specific goal (like a special mood for your game), here is how I did it and why it worked well enough.
My comment "As that is exactly what I intended to do, I fail to see your point." was made before I understood that most people here don't seem to make any distinction between a discussion on the homebrew and general forum. I really did not get that this guy was (wrongly) thinking I was proposing that the game should always be played this way, and that my houserules should be integrated in the core book, or I don't know. I really failed to see his point - because he was making a comment about the general game on the house ruling forum.
As this distinction is not made, it seems there is no place in the forum to discuss campaign specific ruling without being attacked by people defending that the sole way you should play the game is vanilla.
Well, if you want to discuss the vanilla game - stay away from the homebrew forum! You KNOW people there will be posting rule changes and modifications to the base game in order to achieve specific goals for their homebrew campaigns. Like PFS do, like Golarion do (if only by expanding and not by restricting), like (almost)all settings ever published do.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I didn't nerf the deputy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My comment "As that is exactly what I intended to do, I fail to see your point." was made before I understood that most people here don't seem to make any distinction between a discussion on the homebrew and general forum. I really did not...
Worry not, everything is all good. No harm, no foul.
<pats the air in a soothing manner meant to justify his billed rate of 9cp per millisecond>
You are as welcome to say what you want, foundation-filled or lacking as you choose, but keep in mind that all of this comes down to a very simple tenet:
Something you say in a casual manner can be turned on its ear with ease depending on the way the reader interprets it. You are always better, in my limited experience, to provide support to your viewpoints since it allows the reader to fully disagree with you, yet understand that you've thought it through. Otherwise it could be interpreted like you're trolling for drama.
<combs everyone's hackles down with a mithral spork>
Perhaps there are those that wend their way into such threads itching for a fight (roll initiative b$%&!es!) since this is a common refrain, and they don't want their favourite character to continue to suffer under the onsla...<insert some justification for grumpies>
Then again putting one's private thoughts out for public digestion invites all with fingers (and some without...witchcraft) to release a torrent of whatever their fingers might dream up.
Oh...Tell me about your matriarchal unit?
<has pen poised, though he's only just drawing pictures of frogs wearing lipstick>
This might not seem like a friendly place right now, but it really is. This one thread is only a moment in time. <justdon'tmentionmonks>
There has been a lot of good happy and hugging for all, though whoever grabbed my buttocks needs to stop kneading so much.
As an aside, which is really just bringing us back to the topic at hand, what is the rationale for the restrictions you put in place?
I will relay my experience with this, since no one asked. I am currently running 2 EverQuest PBPs and I find that the spell wingers are way more powerful and versatile than the melees in the game (more effective at range, some save or die sorts of spells, ability to do things that melee could never conceive of, and not enough of a gap in melee to justify the gap). Since addressing it is my norm (I tried hiding it under the sofa, but it kept giggling and distracting me whilst watching my stories) I had a choice of nerfing the casters, or boosting the melee. My plan: boost the melee. Everyone wins and it doesn't take a great deal of extra effort, or cause upset as the casters get handed a brand new puppy, only to find out that it's only a week's rental. YMMV.
That is why I always try to take what people write as casually written or at face value before infering from a few words a whole hidden agenda and complete array of sordid motives. And if people do that - I don't think I have to change myself for them. I prefer to be naive. I they so much dominate a forum that I feel I need to meta-comment everything I write, I'll simply find another forum.
[bigger]As an aside, which is really just bringing us back to the topic at hand, what is the rationale for the restrictions you put in place?
It was twofold.
First, we wanted a sword and sorcery feel (think Howard) and we felt spontaneous casters were a better fit for this, and that "oriental themed" class did not fit that mood very well. So we banned every "prepared caster class".
We also wanted to give the rogue and fighter a small boost in order for 1) - the warrior to be a "smart" martial class, the wisdom and/or brawn being held by ranger/paladin and barbarian class respectively and 2) we felt the need to boost the rogue and fighter a little because we intended to restrict the disponibility of magic items in the game, again to fit the sword and sorcery mood.
Second, we wanted to keep the bookeeping at minimum, in order to speed up combat and game preparation - we wanted a somewhat pulpy mood, and felt that by cutting the downtime (in game and IRL) needed by prepared casters, we would be able to have a somehow faster pacing. It worked very well.
As for multiclassing and prestige classes, we again felt that by restricting ourselves to archetypes, the choice was still large enough to allow for a lot of character concepts and that a clear growth path for characters was a good thing because it often allowed us to gain a level on the fly at dramatic moments.
For example, our sorceress gained a level, and a new spell level, while fighting for survival against her own son who turned bad by making a deal with a demon - she was able to pick up a new spell on the fly and cast it while raging against her son who also was the murderer of her lover. Pulpy, yes, but the player knew she would have to stay a sorceress, so it was possible to flow that into the narrative without her taking a lot of time thinking what her next class level should be, or what feat was needed for a long term build. We felt this restriction gave a more "organic" approach to character development, which was a nice fit with our play style and aim for that game.
So, as you may see, the changes were made not for argument about the perfect balance for the general game, but we took the game as a toolkit in order to craft something we wanted to experience for a specific game.
***
Would I always play the game this way? No. It worked very well for what it intended to do. I think next time we will restrict magic to psionics make the guns common and have a post-apocalyptic political/faction based campaign in a continent-large ruined city. No elves, gnome or dwarves, but human, goblins and rat/cat-people, maybe?
Maybe next one everybody will need to play a prepared caster, and every other character in the game world will be a npc class or a prepared caster, and we will make a world were different mage consortiums rules over the world. Divine magic won't exist and "gods" and religion will only be political tools in the hands of wizards and witches. Add Cthullu-like outsiders for the fun, and make being an elf or half-elf a necessity for spellcasting - adding racial tension between elven mages and a new cast of young half-elves trying to get the magocracy to treat humans better?
So, while I'm being served with the argument stating that by restricting the class selection, I'm somehow making the game shallow for the players, I think that restrictions on races/classes may be more of a way to draw a good setting and have a lot of fun that the vanilla game can't offer without restriction (even if it is a very fine game as it is).
Edit: So, why don't we play other game systems then? Simply put, because not everybody in our group have the time to get into another ruleset everytime we want to try some crazy idea, and everybody is competent enough with d20/pathfinder.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait wait, I got it. I think I know what this thread needs:
This was never the way I planned
Not my intention
Castys got brave, spellbook in hand
Lost my whole campaign
It's not what, I'm used to
Just wanna try this on
I'm homebrewing for you
Let's fix this damn gameI nerfed castys and I liked it
The taste of sweet GM fiat
I nerfed castys just to try it
I hope my PCs won't mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don't mean rocks fall, you all die
I nerfed castys and I liked it
I liked it
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: linky for the above
linky for the below
Buddy can't you see? I'm rollin'...!
A guy like you... should wear a warnin'...!
It's dangerous... I'm LOLin'...!There's no escape...! I can't wait...!
I need a seat...! Hold up, mate...!
You're hilarious... I'm lovin' it...!Too funny, can't calm down!
Losing my head... laughing out loud!
Do you hear me now?With a taste of your jokes, I'm on my side!
You're funny; I'm rolling over...!
With a click of your keys, a funny guy!
I'm lovin' this thing, don't you know that you're funny?And I love what you do, don't you know that you're funny?
I... I youtubed the first line, because I recognized something, but I couldn't come up with something in specific. Now I know why.
I... I can't tell whether this post is one of the best things I've ever seen or one of the worst.
It... feels so wrong, yet so right. I liked it.
... I liked it.
Not sure if I'm happy because that's kinda clever.
Or mad because Katy Perry's very existence makes me angry.
