|
Actually, yes, TSF does represent the majority. We all had a meeting.... We sent you an e-vite, but I guess e-vites don't exist in your world.And who are these "most" people you speak of?
Do you represent the majority of gamers out there?
PS: Those few that frequent the boards don't count I'm afraid.
And then you woke up.
|
It's true that every forum has a community with some particular general opinions, and that one is not an exception. I personally agree with a large amount of them (like the underpowered rogue) but disagree with some of them (wizard is powerful, but on my personal experience not nearly overpowered).
But that does not mean that my personal experience is more meaningful that other. My play style is really different from ShallowSoul, but both are equally acceptable if there is fun at each table. ShallowSoul, on the other way, seems to think that everyone who doesn't agree with him is wrong. That is nothing new, but telling that the forum "does not represent the Pathfinder community" is incredibly offensive. Of course is not the One True Community, but is a representative sample of it, and as such deserves some respect.
Being harsh accomplish nothing to defend one position, and only devalues your position. If ShallowSoul wants some respect, first have to earn it; now the abrasive nature of his posts are withdrawing that respect.
My issue Alaryth and it's not just with Shallowsoul but some posters on this forum in general. Is that a some of them start a thread say for example "Is power attack broken". Making it seem like they want to hear from both sides. Wanting to hear from those that agree or disqgree if the feat is broken. When more often than not it's the side that disagrees that a feat or anything rlse is broken they get angry and frustrated about that. Not because the op wanted to have a debate. The op wanted validation of his position that Power Attack is broken. Nothing anyone says will change that even when it's numerically proven it's not. James Jacobs could chime and say 'no it's not broken" and the Op would still say it's broken.
I'm all for having different play styles. That being said no play style is perfect. Too many posters approach this forum with that thinking in mind. While also wanting validation and a echo chamber to that affect. Hell having RAW written to match their play style because if it nots RAW and the devs are wrong. I'm also not saying that one can't question RAW or the devs. Take a look at what happened with the Monk because it was imo one of the rare times the Devs imo were wrong.
Having a debate on a forum is interesting and fun. Coming on a forum as a poster and expecting to just hear what you want to hear, ignoring anything that you disagree with even when it's factually wrong well that poster is not interested in debating anything contructively. I have had my fill of posters who come on a forum expect to hear what they want to hear in fact sometimes demand it. Not to mention write in a very abrasive style coupled with their posts coming across as their opinion is the one true way to play D&D and the only way take it or leave it. While denying they don't post that way.
Shadowsoul likes to cone on this forum and doing the equivalent of posting away with both barrels ablazing than acts like he can't understand why his posts cause such a negstive reaction. If one comes on a forum and writes in such a manner that it's going to cause a reaction well as a poster one can't get offended if it causes a negative reaction. Which applies to myself as sometimes I have been in a few verbal sparring matches and said a few things I should not have said. Except I was never crazy enough to come to this site and say that this community is not a majority and they don't count. We do actually. This forum has the imo the largest concentration of Pathfinder players. I could understand if this topic had shown up on say rpg.net or another forum. Posting on Pathfinder central so to speak and saying what Shallwsoul did was kind of insulting to everyone here. Including himself imo.
|
|
It's true that every forum has a community with some particular general opinions, and that one is not an exception. I personally agree with a large amount of them (like the underpowered rogue) but disagree with some of them (wizard is powerful, but on my personal experience not nearly overpowered).
But that does not mean that my personal experience is more meaningful that other. My play style is really different from ShallowSoul, but both are equally acceptable if there is fun at each table. ShallowSoul, on the other way, seems to think that everyone who doesn't agree with him is wrong. That is nothing new, but telling that the forum "does not represent the Pathfinder community" is incredibly offensive. Of course is not the One True Community, but is a representative sample of it, and as such deserves some respect.
Being harsh accomplish nothing to defend one position, and only devalues your position. If ShallowSoul wants some respect, first have to earn it; now the abrasive nature of his posts are withdrawing that respect.
My issue Alaryth and it's not just with Shallowsoul but some posters on this forum in general. Is that a some of them start a thread say for example "Is power attack broken". Making it seem like they want to hear from both sides. Wanting to hear from those that agree or disqgree if the feat is broken. When more often than not it's the side that disagrees that a feat or anything rlse is broken they get angry and frustrated about that. Not because the op wanted to have a debate. The op wanted validation of his position that Power Attack is broken. Nothing anyone says will change that even when it's numerically proven it's not. James Jacobs could chime and say 'no it's not broken" and the Op would still say it's broken.
I'm all for having different play styles. That being said no play style is perfect. Too many posters approach this forum with that thinking in mind. While also wanting validation and a echo chamber to that affect. Hell having RAW written...
Try actually reading posts.
|
|
As usual it's never Shadwosoul fault on anything.
Apparently others and I can't read his posts. We can read fine actually.
Next he will say he was misquoted.
After that it's not his posting style it's us for reading between the lines.
It's just anything and everything to shift blame when he goes too far in a thread.
As I said if a poster wants to post in a agressive style guranteed to get a neative response that same poster needs to man up and take responsability for what he posted. Sorry but no it's not everyone else. It's bad enough he insulted the entire board imo now we are to blame for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is clearly unproductive. Lets all just agree to stop feeding the trolls.
|
|
This is clearly unproductive. Lets all just agree to stop feeding the trolls.
You're right.
Anyway, I'm not mentioning homebrewing because this is the wrong thread for that. If you are going to bother with listing spell components in the stat block of the spell then there needs to be more to it.
What happens if a certain creature in your world is extinct, along with pieces of the creature, but a caster finds a tome containing a description of the creature. Now by RAW, even though the creature no longer exists, the pouch would still contain pieces of the creature and a caster would still he able to cast that Polymorph spell.
And then you woke up.Actually, yes, TSF does represent the majority. We all had a meeting.... We sent you an e-vite, but I guess e-vites don't exist in your world.And who are these "most" people you speak of?
Do you represent the majority of gamers out there?
PS: Those few that frequent the boards don't count I'm afraid.
I was wondering who's been Shallowsouling my dreams of late :)
Last night I was following the yellowbrick road only to find out that Emerald City didn't exist. Was a sad day in OZ indeed.
This is clearly unproductive. Lets all just agree to stop feeding the trolls.You're right.
Anyway, I'm not mentioning homebrewing because this is the wrong thread for that. If you are going to bother with listing spell components in the stat block of the spell then there needs to be more to it.
What happens if a certain creature in your world is extinct, along with pieces of the creature, but a caster finds a tome containing a description of the creature. Now by RAW, even though the creature no longer exists, the pouch would still contain pieces of the creature and a caster would still he able to cast that Polymorph spell.
You're mostly correct. The part where you think there needs to be more to it is the point of contention. By all appearances most people disagree with your view, including devs. Some appear to think that the flavor is reason enough without adding a mechanic. However, if you want to run it differently in your games more power to you.
This is clearly unproductive. Lets all just agree to stop feeding the trolls.You're right.
Anyway, I'm not mentioning homebrewing because this is the wrong thread for that. If you are going to bother with listing spell components in the stat block of the spell then there needs to be more to it.
What happens if a certain creature in your world is extinct, along with pieces of the creature, but a caster finds a tome containing a description of the creature. Now by RAW, even though the creature no longer exists, the pouch would still contain pieces of the creature and a caster would still he able to cast that Polymorph spell.
The Homebrew forum is also the Suggestions forum, which is where this belongs. If the creature is extinct, you have two options:
1) the components still exist because there was a time the creatures weren't extinct2) the components no longer exist so the spell can't be cast
If you go with option 2, which it seems you're inclined to do, you've backdoor houseruled the spell out of the game.
Why do you need Paizo to codify this for you?
This is clearly unproductive. Lets all just agree to stop feeding the trolls.You're right.
Anyway, I'm not mentioning homebrewing because this is the wrong thread for that. If you are going to bother with listing spell components in the stat block of the spell then there needs to be more to it.
What happens if a certain creature in your world is extinct, along with pieces of the creature, but a caster finds a tome containing a description of the creature. Now by RAW, even though the creature no longer exists, the pouch would still contain pieces of the creature and a caster would still he able to cast that Polymorph spell.
I get a kick out of your "I'm not mentioning homebrewing because this is the wrong thread for that" then immediately follow it up with "What happens if a certain creature in your world is extict"
Look, if you homebrew extinct creatures, then you need to homebrew your spell components too. In fact, I suggest that this whole thread be moved to homebrew since a sizable portion of it is suggestions of homebrew to fit your world.
The rest of us all enforce the component rules as written, meaning no need to track components without cost. Anything suggested otherwise is homebrew.
|
|
My question is why would their even be a tome detailing a extinct creature in the first place. It's like here is this creature and how you can use it as a component. Yet no way to use it a a component since it no longer exists. Kind of like a bait and switch move on the DMs part. Never ever saw a game table where this was ever a issue in all my years in the hobby.
|
|
This is clearly unproductive. Lets all just agree to stop feeding the trolls.You're right.
Anyway, I'm not mentioning homebrewing because this is the wrong thread for that. If you are going to bother with listing spell components in the stat block of the spell then there needs to be more to it.
What happens if a certain creature in your world is extinct, along with pieces of the creature, but a caster finds a tome containing a description of the creature. Now by RAW, even though the creature no longer exists, the pouch would still contain pieces of the creature and a caster would still he able to cast that Polymorph spell.
I get a kick out of your "I'm not mentioning homebrewing because this is the wrong thread for that" then immediately follow it up with "What happens if a certain creature in your world is extict"
Look, if you homebrew extinct creatures, then you need to homebrew your spell components too. In fact, I suggest that this whole thread be moved to homebrew since a sizable portion of it is suggestions of homebrew to fit your world.
The rest of us all enforce the component rules as written, meaning no need to track components without cost. Anything suggested otherwise is homebrew.
I think you are misunderstanding "homebrew". I'm not talking about homebrewing rules but creature placement. There is no rule that says every creature in the beastiary has to be in your game to play RAW, just like a metropolis. Now if you are playing in Golarion and a creature normally exists but doesn't in your game then that would be "homebrew".
I can still play by RAW in someplace else besides Golarion.
|
|
If a creature is extinct in a homebrew then that means a arcane caster has no access to the extnct creature as a compnent. If purple worms don't exist in a game world no reason to have it a part of a spell component puch. As well any spells requiring some sort of purple worm component either no longer exist or have to be houseruled by the DM to use another. It's also not the fault of RAW. If your going to start houseruling certain creatures and by extension their components it needs to be addressed at the table before the game exists.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are misunderstanding "homebrew". I'm not talking about homebrewing rules but creature placement. There is no rule that says every creature in the beastiary has to be in your game to play RAW, just like a metropolis. Now if you are playing in Golarion and a creature normally exists but doesn't in your game then that would be "homebrew".
I can still play by RAW in someplace else besides Golarion.
Yes, you can. You can also play in a world without air, and all the characters will immediately suffocate and die. Do you even know what you're arguing anymore?
There are rules in place.
You are free to change those rules.
Some of those rules make assumptions about the environment, for example, that people and dragons and imps exist.
You are free to change that environment.
Doing so may require some work.
Paizo is not responsible for this work.
|
|
My question is why would their even be a tome detailing a extinct creature in the first place. It's like here is this creature and how you can use it as a component. Yet no way to use it a a component since it no longer exists. Kind of like a bait and switch move on the DMs part. Never ever saw a game table where this was ever a issue in all my years in the hobby.
Ever read a book about dinosaurs?
Ever been in a world where there's more to it than just mechanics?
Some of us don't always run games where you only find out information that you need for the specific task at hand. Some people find out obscure and bizarre information only to turn it into some side quest or something.
|
|
Ever read a book about dinosaurs?Ever been in a world where there's more to it than just mechanics?
Some of us don't always run games where you only find out information that you need for the specific task at hand. Some people find out obscure and bizarre information only to turn it into some side quest or something.
Here the thing though the extinct creatures alive before the written word in a homebrew. After. The extinction happned when the books was being written. it's something that needs to be taught of before character creation. IF i know some sort of catacylsm wiped out angels I'm not going to take spells that include any celestial compnents. Or be remtely interested on a book on celestials. Unless it allows me to bring them back from extinction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People, clearly many of you disagree with Shadow. Just as clearly he's not changing his views.
The topic has been exhausted. So why don't we stop poking each other with pointy sticks? Nothing good will come of it. Thanks.
My 2c.
I think you are misunderstanding "homebrew". I'm not talking about homebrewing rules but creature placement. There is no rule that says every creature in the beastiary has to be in your game to play RAW, just like a metropolis. Now if you are playing in Golarion and a creature normally exists but doesn't in your game then that would be "homebrew".
I can still play by RAW in someplace else besides Golarion.
I understand homebrew quite well. I have a corny of drifter pale ale clone on tap right now.
Homebrew is a modification of the original design, or a unique creation. If your world does not include creatures that are common enough to be listed as spell components, then you need to homebrew a different component for the spell or homebrew the spell doesnt exist.
Trollin, Trollin, Trollin, keep that Shallowsoul a Trollin, Troll Thread!
Well Eschew only takes care of components up to 1 gp.The game assumes that the correct spell components are always in the spell component pouch, so unless they cost money I don't track them. The beauty of the Eschew Materials feat is not that you don't have to track anything. It is that you don't have to worry about the spell component pouch being sundered.
Yes I will sunder that bag, even though I have not done it yet. As a player I make sure to carry more than one in case a GM ever does it to me.
False Focus will take care of components up to 100gp(but requires a Holy Symbol).
False Focus will take care of components up to 100gp(but requires a Holy Symbol).Well Eschew only takes care of components up to 1 gp.The game assumes that the correct spell components are always in the spell component pouch, so unless they cost money I don't track them. The beauty of the Eschew Materials feat is not that you don't have to track anything. It is that you don't have to worry about the spell component pouch being sundered.
Yes I will sunder that bag, even though I have not done it yet. As a player I make sure to carry more than one in case a GM ever does it to me.
I want to play a necromancer with that who creates 1hd undead at every opportunity and just sends them to wander the countryside.
"The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards to be a fun and friendly place."
This thread is full of failure regarding that most important rule. Stop it.
|
We can infer that, given the text of the spell component pouch, any material component that doesn't have a listed price is supposed to be easy to procure. If your universe is such where that isn't the case for some materials and you're worried about this, then I believe the proper action is to change the spell's material component to a different thematic easy-to-procure item for your own game, not try and change the entire core rules for everyone playing Pathfinder.
Spells with negligible material components are balanced around having a spell component pouch at hand. The actual kind of material component is thematic, not mechanical. Not every single piece of text in the spell's description need be mechanical.
|
|
Wht have a mechanic that can be negated with a simple one time cost of 5 gp?
You're labled a jerk if you do anything to the pouch so what else is there?
This also comes down to why I believe knowledge checks should be enforced when it comes to the identity of creatures imstead of flipping through the bestiary to see what creature you can Polymorph in to.
|
|
Wht have a mechanic that can be negated with a simple one time cost of 5 gp?
You're labled a jerk if you do anything to the pouch so what else is there?
Because there exist situations where a player does not have access to his pouch. It's the entire reason for Eschew Materials.
I don't think it's a jerk move to put players in those situations, unless the GM is consistently doing it to screw over arcane spellcasters.
Isn't Shattering enemy spellcaster pouches/foci a viable player tactic?
