When did making sense become wrongbadfun?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 569 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

I know that when I begin a game, I ask people for their class concept and what challenges they hope to face. I ask about builds all the time, sometimes even make suggestions myself. I find that because I have that concept in place, multiclassing decisions my players may take don't really bother me as I understand the flavor quite well.

I do have someone who gets overwhelmed building characters, paradox of choice and all that. I, or another player, ask what he would like to play, build a character and let him tweak it. He is fun to play with in game and roleplay off of.

I find that because there is this dialogue, I never have the whole, why'd ya take a level of that.

Liberty's Edge

In my experience, players usually discuss what they are planning to do in advance.

And the process of leveling isn't instant.

If a player says I want to multiclass, 99 times out of 100 I don't have to ask why, because I know why. They have been talking about the concept and playing the concept, so it makes perfect sense.

When the 1 out of 100 times it doesn't, I ask "why".

I don't say "GOD NO, OUT DAMNED HEATHEN!"

I simply ask "Why?"

If they give even a halfway decent answer, I go "Oh"

If they don't, I go "Dude, that is the best you can come up with" and we try and work it out.


ciretose wrote:
littlehewy wrote:


As stated, I think it just offends ciretose's sense of politeness. He's already stated how simple it is to justify - how does the lack of that injure his sense of immersion.
=** spoiler omitted **...
Please don't make absurd analogies. You are better than that.

See, that's the thing. I don't think my metaphor was so absurd. A little, perhaps, but still pertinent.

Which is perhaps a demonstration of our fundamentally different views.

To reference your analogy, what if I was fun, told good stories, brought some excellent food to share, beers, but I wouldn't help with any preparation or cooking? Would that one deficiency kill my chances of getting an invite back to your party?

I love story in RPGs. But other people love other stuff, and if they're not into story, we can still find areas of common enjoyment that make gaming together fun.

Can you dig that at all?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some "players" are not as creative as others. I won't tell player A he can multi-class but say no to player B. There have been times when I will suggest flavor for a player to use so it does make sense within the story. If means tweaking his background story then so be it.

PS:I will also admit I have not had anything so crazy suggested that I could see no way for it to make sense on some level. In that case there might need to be major revision to a player's background story.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

What people can convince themselves "makes sense" differs from group to group. That doesn't change the fact that it's all hand-waving to one degree or another.

I understand what ciretose is saying, but he keeps saying "I just want courtesy" and I keep hearing "I just want some control."

Fair enough, but whether or not it's control I still think the level of explanation stated is not an unreasonable requirement if the gm's fun is dependent on it.


ciretose wrote:

In my experience, players usually discuss what they are planning to do in advance.

And the process of leveling isn't instant.

If a player says I want to multiclass, 99 times out of 100 I don't have to ask why, because I know why. They have been talking about the concept and playing the concept, so it makes perfect sense.

When the 1 out of 100 times it doesn't, I ask "why".

I don't say "GOD NO, OUT DAMNED HEATHEN!"

I simply ask "Why?"

If they give even a halfway decent answer, I go "Oh"

If they don't, I go "Dude, that is the best you can come up with" and we try and work it out.

Which leads to my next question: Have you ever had a player that, when face with, "Dude, come on, try a little here. What about [sketchy explanation]," said, "No ciretose, there is absolutely zero explanation I'm willing to agree to. It just IS"?


Aurumaer wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

What people can convince themselves "makes sense" differs from group to group. That doesn't change the fact that it's all hand-waving to one degree or another.

I understand what ciretose is saying, but he keeps saying "I just want courtesy" and I keep hearing "I just want some control."

Fair enough, but whether or not it's control I still think the level of explanation stated is not an unreasonable requirement if the gm's fun is dependent on it.

Especially if the DM made that preference clear from the beginning and the players accepted it by still sitting down at the table after learning about it.

Liberty's Edge

For me it isn't a simple deficiency. It is like bringing beer, drink, cleaning up, than taking a dump in the punchbowl.

Sure you did lots of good things, but there is the matter of the turd in my punchbowl.

Having a player who is not even trying to make sense ruins the game for me and the people I play with. I have had it happen at our table (as I described in on of these threads) with a girlfriend who came in with Booshzilla the Raping Barbarian, and now, years later, we still reference how much that sucked when we discuss screening new people.

We get into our characters and the setting. We aren't big role players, but we are big into having lasting canon for campaigns. It matters to us, not me, us.

If you don't care, it reflects in the game and ruins it for us. Other games, it doesn't matter. I've got a wall full of board games and a projector to play computer games on. I don't care at all if you aren't invested in your Mii.

I do care if you can't even bother to try, when I'm investing 4 hours of table time, and probably almost as much in prep.


littlehewy wrote:
Which leads to my next question: Have you ever had a player that, when face with, "Dude, come on, try a little here. What about [sketchy explanation]," said, "No ciretose, there is absolutely zero explanation I'm willing to agree to. It just IS"?

That would raise potential red flags for me. I wouldn't stop them, but if they did it consistently, I would definitely start suggesting they reconsider whether their playing style is truly compatible with the campaign and/or rest of the group. I don't mind the occasional random thing, as they can interesting, but as a routine thing, it usually doesn't work all that well unless the campaign really is designed around that idea of being random.

Liberty's Edge

littlehewy wrote:
Which leads to my next question: Have you ever had a player that, when face with, "Dude, come on, try a little here. What about [sketchy explanation]," said, "No ciretose, there is absolutely zero explanation I'm willing to agree to. It just IS"?

Yes. As I outlined, friends girlfriend, worst 4 hours of gaming I ever had, nearly broke up the group.

Edit: Also, that was the response on the other two threads, and by some people in this thread.


ciretose wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
Which leads to my next question: Have you ever had a player that, when face with, "Dude, come on, try a little here. What about [sketchy explanation]," said, "No ciretose, there is absolutely zero explanation I'm willing to agree to. It just IS"?

Yes. As I outlined, friends girlfriend, worst 4 hours of gaming I ever had, nearly broke up the group.

Edit: Also, that was the response on the other two threads, and by some people in this thread.

Well, I can see how that would suck a big fat one.

Booshzilla the Raping Barbarian? Catchy name at least :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

For me it isn't a simple deficiency. It is like bringing beer, drink, cleaning up, than taking a dump in the punchbowl.

Sure you did lots of good things, but there is the matter of the turd in my punchbowl.

Having a player who is not even trying to make sense ruins the game for me and the people I play with. I have had it happen at our table (as I described in on of these threads) with a girlfriend who came in with Booshzilla the Raping Barbarian, and now, years later, we still reference how much that sucked when we discuss screening new people.

We get into our characters and the setting. We aren't big role players, but we are big into having lasting canon for campaigns. It matters to us, not me, us.

If you don't care, it reflects in the game and ruins it for us. Other games, it doesn't matter. I've got a wall full of board games and a projector to play computer games on. I don't care at all if you aren't invested in your Mii.

I do care if you can't even bother to try, when I'm investing 4 hours of table time, and probably almost as much in prep.

I don't know, Booshzilla seems like it would have been a horrible disruptive character even if there was a great backstory to it. Wasn't the problem more the character's behavior than origin?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
ciretose wrote:

For me it isn't a simple deficiency. It is like bringing beer, drink, cleaning up, than taking a dump in the punchbowl.

Sure you did lots of good things, but there is the matter of the turd in my punchbowl.

Having a player who is not even trying to make sense ruins the game for me and the people I play with. I have had it happen at our table (as I described in on of these threads) with a girlfriend who came in with Booshzilla the Raping Barbarian, and now, years later, we still reference how much that sucked when we discuss screening new people.

We get into our characters and the setting. We aren't big role players, but we are big into having lasting canon for campaigns. It matters to us, not me, us.

If you don't care, it reflects in the game and ruins it for us. Other games, it doesn't matter. I've got a wall full of board games and a projector to play computer games on. I don't care at all if you aren't invested in your Mii.

I do care if you can't even bother to try, when I'm investing 4 hours of table time, and probably almost as much in prep.

I don't know, Booshzilla seems like it would have been a horrible disruptive character even if there was a great backstory to it. Wasn't the problem more the character's behavior than origin?

Yes, I must say, there seems to be far more serious issues here than "won't justify multiclassing"...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
littlehewy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
ciretose wrote:

For me it isn't a simple deficiency. It is like bringing beer, drink, cleaning up, than taking a dump in the punchbowl.

Sure you did lots of good things, but there is the matter of the turd in my punchbowl.

Having a player who is not even trying to make sense ruins the game for me and the people I play with. I have had it happen at our table (as I described in on of these threads) with a girlfriend who came in with Booshzilla the Raping Barbarian, and now, years later, we still reference how much that sucked when we discuss screening new people.

We get into our characters and the setting. We aren't big role players, but we are big into having lasting canon for campaigns. It matters to us, not me, us.

If you don't care, it reflects in the game and ruins it for us. Other games, it doesn't matter. I've got a wall full of board games and a projector to play computer games on. I don't care at all if you aren't invested in your Mii.

I do care if you can't even bother to try, when I'm investing 4 hours of table time, and probably almost as much in prep.

I don't know, Booshzilla seems like it would have been a horrible disruptive character even if there was a great backstory to it. Wasn't the problem more the character's behavior than origin?

Yes, I must say, there seems to be far more serious issues here than "won't justify multiclassing"...

Did Booshzilla even multiclass?

I suspect it's really just a warning sign for "will be a disruptive player"

Liberty's Edge

Booshzilla...it isn't complete on target for the convo, but I'll tell the story because it has some context.

So this was before I got married and got a house, and we had a scheduled game at my buddies house I was running.

RoTRL, first book, right after it came out, I think still using the playtest rules. (I'll try to avoid spoilers). When I show up, my Buddy asks if his Girlfriend (maybe fiance at the time...long story there too...) can play, and we are only like 2nd level, it's his house, and I think someone didn't make it, so I say sure, what does she want to play. She says "I don't know, I wanna hit stuff"

So my buddy rolls her up a barbarian. Fine, cool. I ask about the character and she just keeps saying "I don't know, I just wanna hit stuff" so my buddy steps in and says she is chaotic neutral, don't worry about it, and it ain't my house and I drove 45 minute to get here (and others even father) so I figured it will all work out, and we start to play.

She proceeds to hump everything we kill. She gives no reason, just decides that is who she is. When she isn't humping, she messing with other players in the game, in character. We had a Cleric of Cayden, a Shoanti Cleric/Barbarian, and I think my buddy was an Angelic Sorcerer of some sort, I know he was LG.

My LG buddy isn't playing his character as he had been, because he can't really be the Lawful Good Angel Sorcerer with his girlfriend humping everything we kill. The Cleric of Cayden is trying to go with it, and the Shoanti already had his concept include judging non-shoanti as heathens...which actually worked. The party can't even try to interact with anyone with her character around, because she will try to do something to them, explaining "I'm chaotic!"

We stopped gaming at his house after that (which sucked as he had a great gaming table and room). The game went underground for a few levels without him, for fear he would bring her. They eventually broke up, but we still reference it as "The Booshzilla" incident.

We've had lesser problems with new players (mostly significant others) coming into games, but always sins of misunderstanding not...well...being a jerk.

Which is why I am saying the bar should be "trying". My wife's first backstory for her mechanics wasn't the best, but she was learning and she was trying.

Trying counts. But so does not trying.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The main problem I see is the fact that unless the book tells you you have to come up with a reason, it does for PrC's, then people are going to argue that you don't have to, even though it is the nature of the game and has been for a long time.

Ignoring fluff all together is actually ignoring half the game itself.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, man you'll start a s$~$ storm saying stuff like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:

The main problem I see is the fact that unless the book tells you you have to come up with a reason, it does for PrC's, then people are going to argue that you don't have to, even though it is the nature of the game and has been for a long time.

Ignoring fluff all together is actually ignoring half the game itself.

Some people don't like that part of the game. Others like it, but like to change it (such as refluffing the ninja so it is not oriental) - just like how some people like the mechanics, but want to change it a little bit (such as creating a low magic world using a high magic rule set). I've even seen some people play without mechanics at all - they completely removed the mechanics. The entire game was the GM telling a story and the players stating what they want to do, and the GM would describe what happened as it best fit the storyline.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
Ignoring fluff all together is actually ignoring half the game itself.

So is ignoring the instructions for your Legos.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Again, the rules of the world go far, far, far beyond the rules of the game. An action or character choice can fall squarely and undeniably within the PFRPG rules ... and yet still be prohibited by the environment and situation within the game world.

The continuing statements that "if it's allowed by the rules, the GM can't stop me from doing it" is patently ridiculous. Illuminating, but ridiculous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a shame there's only one right way to play Pathfinder. Can someone post a new thread when you all figure out which one it is?

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Ignoring fluff all together is actually ignoring half the game itself.
So is ignoring the instructions for your Legos.

Using this analogy, if a group wanted to build something, and one person in the group decided they personally didn't want to build that thing, is that group always supposed to say "Well, I guess we'll build what that one person wants"?

Shadow Lodge

redward wrote:
It's a shame there's only one right way to play Pathfinder. Can someone post a new thread when you all figure out which one it is?

Here you go.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

littlehewy, you made my point better than I did.

ciretose keeps saying "do this because it's a courtesy I demand".

That's not a courtesy. That's a demand. How courteous is a demand?

"It's common courtesy!"

Well, you can't piss on hospitality, now can you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OiD6IlBmtk

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
Using this analogy, if a group wanted to build something, and one person in the group decided they personally didn't want to build that thing, is that group always supposed to say "Well, I guess we'll build what that one person wants"?

No, you're supposed to have enough Legos for everyone to build what they want.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Using this analogy, if a group wanted to build something, and one person in the group decided they personally didn't want to build that thing, is that group always supposed to say "Well, I guess we'll build what that one person wants"?
No, you're supposed to have enough Legos for everyone to build what they want.

Sorry, we are all stuck working at the same table with what we have in the box kiddo.

I mean, you can go to another table if you like, one that may be interested in building what you want, but I'm often told that is an unreasonable request as well.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Or you could buy more Legos! Everyone likes more Legos!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

All about the Funky Space Pyramid of the People.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well there is something I have learned from this thread.

There is obviously a few people here that sit all alone at one gaming table while the rest of the group sit another table and play their own game


Gee. That's odd. I don't remember anyone mentioning solo gaming.

If there's anything I've relearned from this thread it's that people have different gaming styles, emphasize different things and care about different parts of the game.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've removed some posts.

Remember the most important rule of the Paizo message boards: Don't be a jerk.

It's right there under the "submit" button.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing with gaming is people have become entitled wanting everything their way and are not interested in what others want or care about but if you take a sec. to think about it. How hard is it to take a minute and think about "it". To you it may not matter but to someone else at the table it matters and by taking a minute to make someone else happy is not a big request


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will weigh in and every body will skip my comment like usual. I think the Ops problem isn't with "you have to justify it" I think it is with play style.

I always play a masked wrestler it is my "thing" I always come up with some back story. and usually about half way through the build I realize that a level of lets say Barbarian would raise my strength and give me some speed and such... I make the case using the guise of "father issues"
that is me. I shouldn't have to justify it at all. the only restrictions are the nonalignment and stat restrictions. My dm never even asks what my next level is really it is none of his business what character I play. has long as I do not:

1. cheat
2. be disruptive to the game
3. overshadow the party with my masked wrestling and tears of father anxt.
4. is rules legal

now another example is the player who just plays what he thinks is "cool"
every level he just does what "feels" right when he sees the part wizard kill a charging t-rex with magic missiles he thinks to himself that would be cool so the next time he levels up he takes a level of wizard because he has no CHA. he just wants to shoot magic missiles I dont think he has to justify it, I under stand the OPs point really by RAW he can be a fighter /wizard he doesn't have to explain his magic missiles into existence.

Now a good DM would sit down with him and work with him on a back story if it is important to the story line or the DM think arthur the tv show. sounds like it is more a DM issue than a players.


Lobolusk wrote:

. My dm never even asks what my next level is really it is none of his business what character I play. has long as I do not:

2. be disruptive to the game

----------------------

Now a good DM would sit down with him and work with him on a back story if it is important to the story line or the DM think arthur the tv show. sounds like it is more a DM issue than a players.

First, it's not just a DM issue, it's a communication and expectation issue which falls on both parties, not one side or the other; you are correct that the DM should make every effort to provide help, but the player has to be willing to receive it and work with the DM to find a middle ground. Simply saying "I don't have to" doesn't go very far in finding a workable solution that satisfies everyone when one side has already made it clear that the a better solution is required.

Second, the key is what defines "disruptive" and who is causing it. If the DM said nothing until halfway through the game and suddenly started demanding reasons, then the player has every right to question it, but if the DM has from the very start required at least some kind of explanation for anything unexpected, crazy, or potentially headache and work inducing, than the player has very little ground to stand on if they suddenly start saying "I don't have to give a reason," after playing and accepting the conditions for multiple previous levels. In the former case, it is the DM being disruptive; in the latter case, it is the player causing the problems.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

When i read this thread i'm hearing a lot of "the DM should do this or he should do that". Basicly the DM should do everything and go out of his way to make me the players happy and if thinks that i as a player have to left a finger and take part of something he wants well screw him! who does he think he is?

I'm thankful that someone has taken the time to put together a game for us to play.

Liberty's Edge

Not the player"s" plural.

A Player, singular.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
So is ignoring the instructions for your Legos.

Aww man, this lead to a bad choking incident. Let me just warn everybody here that those thin 1x1 blocks are made from murder plastic of the damned.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Anyone who has ever stepped on one can attest to that fact.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:

Well there is something I have learned from this thread.

There is obviously a few people here that sit all alone at one gaming table while the rest of the group sit another table and play their own game

Well, I've been a pretty strong advocate for letting players make player decisions, but in fact I'd guess that ciretose and I would run a similar style of game, and enjoy playing in each others'.

Baseless comments aren't really useful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

While I don't mind the idea of characters making sense, the problem is that "making sense" tends to be a pretty vague sort of thing that can vary from person to person.

To toss out an example from my own gaming history:

Long, rambling story

Spoiler:
In one long-running game I played in back in the days of 3.5, I had a character who started off as a Lawful Evil Fighter. She generally wasn't outright malicious, but had a nasty temper, a vengeful streak, and tended to start leaving behind lots of corpses once she got mad.

A couple sessions in, a Paladin joined the group. Thankfully, we had a good roleplayer who didn't immediately cause problems, beyond restraining a few homicidal urges. Instead, the Paladin tried engaging my character, and trying show her a better way of doing things.

Over the course of about a year of playing, the Paladin managed to start slowly bringing my character up by example, showing her a better way of doing things. My character rough edges and nasty tendencies were gradually smoothed out, until finally the DM bumped her up to Lawful Neutral.

So, at that point we had a pretty cool redemption story, and my character had formed a nice bond of friendship with the Paladin. Things go along for a bit, until we hit one of those final confrontations with a Big Bad. When the dust settles, our Paladin has pulled a heroic sacrifice.

In the aftermath of that, my character makes a decision. She's going to honor her friend's memory and complete her journey to becoming a better person by obtaining Paladinhood herself.

So, I start roleplaying that out. She keeps working at the whole "being a better person" thing, goes to NPC Paladins for advice and guidance, eventually swears fealty to high ranking noble Paladin NPC, etc.

After working at this for a while and getting the alignment shift up to Lawful Good, I decide it's finally time. We hit our level up, and I take a level of Paladin. Next session, My character uses her first Paladin ability, and DM explodes.

"It makes no sense for a character who's done so many evil things in her past to ever be able to become a Paladin."

I futilely explain my character's background and long-running story arc. The other players chime in supporting me. All arguments are shot down by the DM. As far as he's concerned, it makes no sense, and I'm not allowed to do it.

So yeah, the whole "Make Sense" thing can lead to problems. Thankfully, there was a happy ending to the whole mess, since the DM in question was a relatively new one after our last one left, and wound up not DMing for long. Our next DM was much more reasonable.

The bottom line, having a "make sense" requirement can get thorny because people won't always agree on what makes sense. Nothing's going to kill a player's interest faster than being told the character concept they like is stupid, and they're not allowed to use it. Personally, Personally, I'm inclined to give my players the benefit of the doubt when it comes to exploring their characters.

Liberty's Edge

And few things kill a group faster than a disruptive player.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Yes, damn those paladins and their disruptive players!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've pointed out that not having a "good" reason to multiclass that "makes sense" is not automatically the same as being disruptive.

Though it can be part of the same situation, I'm sure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm confused how "nonsensical multiclassing" = "disruptive player."

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

It's perfectly logical as long as you remember that "geological survey" = "tuba."

Sovereign Court

Vorduvai wrote:
Erosthenes wrote:

I have a real world job that is very stressful. I have a mortgage, bills and children which are now on their own, but I still worry about them.

I play games to get away from that and prevent myself from throttling someone at work. THAT would be a BAD THING!

You see Erosthenes, I get what you are saying in principle. It's a game and not work. Absolutely I get that. However, in my games the players want the immersion factor and for the game to "make sense" and play like an interactive fantasy story out of a good novel. So if I had one player throwing that all to the wind like it was unnecessary and didn't matter, it would not only mess with my GM attempts to make the story as strong as it could be, but would also mess with the other players' expectations and ruin their fun.

A few years ago I had a weekly group similar to what AD talks about with his game, and as GM I had to 'know my audience' and tailor it that way. I knew though that I couldn't mesh a D&D campaign with their desire to go episodic and/or one-shot with low drama and high combat, so I spun up a Talsorian Cyberpunk 2020 game for them, which was a perfect setting for them.

Thank you for grokking what I was trying to say. Look, I think that you have to play to your party as a GM. If they want "realism", then thats what you should do. If you have thought ahead about training regime's for characters changing classes, then thats what you should stick too. As long as it feeds your players the "fun" they want, then that is great.

I do not like playing an evil character, and I prefer not running with groups that want to run evil characters. That is my personal taste, so I avoid campaigns focusing on evil characters, unless the group of players is too good to resist. I once had a Call of Cthulhu game where the GM focused our investigation on a child abuser, I got to blast his head off with a double barrel shotgun. It was wonderful! He laughed his head off, telling me "I figured you would enjoy that!" That was an "evil" campaign but it was tolerable because they understood the nature of evil and I got to choose the lesser of two evils. Anyway - my point is that your group decides what is right for them. If they want a realistic explination for how a Fighter suddenly has a level of Wizard, that is fine. I don't have a problem with that kind of campaign. I have been around long enough that the silliness of that scenario, in the middle of a dungeon, does not stop me from enjoying the game. Apologies for the long post.

Liberty's Edge

bookrat wrote:
I'm confused how "nonsensical multiclassing" = "disruptive player."

I'm confused how "trying to making sense" = "to much to ask"...

301 to 350 of 569 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / When did making sense become wrongbadfun? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.