| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't get so defensive. I didn't say you were wrong or whatever, I said I disagreed.
Is disagreeing not allowed?
It has been my general observation that disagreement with people on these boards, and the internet in general, is frequently perceived as a direct personal attack and an affront to their personal self-worth.
Welcome to the interwebz
I lost my soul long ago, now a malevolent cyber demon stalking monk threads and alignment discussions...
Why would I shun you for that? Cyber Demons sound pretty awesome dontcha' know.
thank you, gentlemen, for reminding me why my foray into magic was so brief.
I don't shun you even a little bit for this. In fact, this probably makes you a smarter man than I.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like all the classes in D&D / Pathfinder. Let's go back to the early days of D&D and have three core classes: Warrior, mage, rogue. That's it. Everything else is a prestige class/advanced class/alternate class.
Make the spell list shorter. Is it really necessary to have 'invisibility' and 'greater invisibility'? Why can't my mage just learn how to stay invisible while attacking once she gets to be higher level? Why can't she turn a flaming sphere into a stone sphere at will?
Find a way for mages to increase their spell DCs without having to get an ability score increase. If my mage has spent her whole life learning magic, her cantrips should pack a wallop by the time she's 15th level instead of becoming mostly useless spells that she hardly ever casts because they're too easy to shrug off.
I don't like abstracted hit points. I'd prefer something that more accurately reflected actual physical damage and provided hit locations and injuries based on damage to those locations.
I also dislike the level scaling. I'd rather have lots more levels with smaller incremental changes.
I'm not entirely comfortable with Adventure Paths taking up such a large chunk of a character's usable career.
Thankfully the other 95% of Pathfinder wipes the floor with any of the alternatives I've found, to the point that I'm more than willing to live with the above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They really are intended to be a character's total career. Very few DM's run campaigns higher than 17th level.I'm not entirely comfortable with Adventure Paths taking up such a large chunk of a character's usable career.
Yeah, I just wish it were possible to run the same group of characters (without modification) through half a dozen of them consecutively :) The levelling goes so faaaast for those of us used to four or five years of real time with the same characters!
I agree with the above poster that Dreamscarred Press should be the only go-to source for psionics. A "psychic mage" will get beat up and his lunch money taken if someone tries to play such in my setting.You and the above poster are incredibly narrow-minded in trashing a concept that isn't even a concept yet. Are you that unwilling to give it even a viewing before you publicly trash it? I see no sense in Paizo redoing 3.5 psionics when Dreamscarred already has it covered. They want to do something new and different. There has been no actual discussion on what the new system would be, save that it will be completely different and new. Anything else you've heard is just wild speculation.
I thought its been stated already that it would be more vancian? Which would be more of the same...
|
A new one for me.
I don't like players making non-optimized builds. Or at the very least going out of their way to play weaker characters. It is interesting in terms of roleplaying to be sure. Yet usually the player wants to be effective like a optimized character. Imo the system does not reward that. I had a character try and play a multiclassed monk/bard. While trying to be as effective as a regular monk. Even tailoring encounters a DM can only do so much. He was much less effective than a regular monk and less powerful than a full bard. Yet the player wanted the best of both worlds. Again D&D imo does not reward that.
Players who
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love rolling for abilities. I think it's the best way to get abilities, in fact. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't use miniatures, attacks of opportunity from movement, and allow full attacks as a standard action. (This makes monks shockingly effective)
I consider Tolkien comparisons to be the Godwin's law of tabletop rpg discussion. If a person cites the Hobbit or LotR to defend their position, it generally means they've lost.
I almost always have a DMPC, and don't think it's bad. (They're never the Mary sue type, instead more like the mercenaries in guild wars were, support)
I roll for stats, 4d6 drop lowest, reroll ones and twos, assign.
I don't believe in bloat or creep.
I allow any Paizo class, and most races. I'd consider 3rd party if I can look over it first.
My gods have stats and can be killed. (Although it still takes an infinity +1 sword, divine/infernal help, or amazing luck to pull it off)
I love +dex or other stats to damage.
I despise Vancian casting, and use my own spell point system.
In fact, I houserule often, to fix problems and try new approaches.
I don't use miniatures, attacks of opportunity from movement, and allow full attacks as a standard action. (This makes monks shockingly effective)
I consider Tolkien comparisons to be the Godwin's law of tabletop rpg discussion. If a person cites the Hobbit or LotR to defend their position, it generally means they've lost.
I almost always have a DMPC, and don't think it's bad. (They're never the Mary sue type, instead more like the mercenaries in guild wars were, support)
I roll for stats, 4d6 drop lowest, reroll ones and twos, assign.
I don't believe in bloat or creep.
I allow any Paizo class, and most races. I'd consider 3rd party if I can look over it first.
My gods have stats and can be killed. (Although it still takes an infinity +1 sword, divine/infernal help, or amazing luck to pull it off)
I love +dex or other stats to damage.
I despise Vancian casting, and use my own spell point system.
In fact, I houserule often, to fix problems and try new approaches.
:)
Very cool approach there from the Scythian. A DMPc that a dm doesn't allow to take over the show can be a real asset. I like to run a few that may join and later move off.+dex to damage is good fun. It can balance out through encumbrance and characters that can't actually haul much loot because they insisted on being light skirmishers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
:)
Very cool approach there from the Scythian. A DMPc that a dm doesn't allow to take over the show can be a real asset. I like to run a few that may join and later move off.+dex to damage is good fun. It can balance out through encumbrance and characters that can't actually haul much loot because they insisted on being light skirmishers.
Thanks.
The objection I usually see raised on the boards against +dex to damage is "everybody will dump strength and go full dexterity". Having run two games with it as an easy feat (allowed dex based damage on finesseable weapons), surprisingly that didn't happen. Only the magus took it in one, and a rogue in the other. Both meanwhile were within 5 lbs of a medium load just from their armor and weapons. :P
|
I agree with the above poster that Dreamscarred Press should be the only go-to source for psionics. A "psychic mage" will get beat up and his lunch money taken if someone tries to play such in my setting.You and the above poster are incredibly narrow-minded in trashing a concept that isn't even a concept yet. Are you that unwilling to give it even a viewing before you publicly trash it? I see no sense in Paizo redoing 3.5 psionics when Dreamscarred already has it covered. They want to do something new and different. There has been no actual discussion on what the new system would be, save that it will be completely different and new. Anything else you've heard is just wild speculation.
Because then it will unofficially officially "invalidate" the precious Power Point Psionics. It's been stated since before the Core Rulebook came out that Paizo Psionics will 100% Vancian, and not be using the PP system that is one of the most major draws for Psionics over Magic. Historically it's also a major factor in the absolute love/hate for Psionics. Some people love it, some people put it at the top of the absolute ban list, fully understanding the whining that would be unendingly spewing from the first group and arguments about how truly balanced it really was, if you just knew.
:)
No it hasn't. the only thing that it has been stated is that it will be a third form of magic that will fit in with the present ones of arcane and divine. That's it... all of the rest including vancian conclusions have been coming from players jumping on the stove. Not all of the present system is vancian after all, cantrips, spell like abilities, are certainly NOT vancian.
Exactly though, its more of the same. Part of why I love binders(occultist), psionics, warlocks(invokers), martial adepts, is that they are something different. If its something that runs with the current system then its just going to be more vancian. More of the same. The last post I saw on the subject made it sound like using power points would be awful and hard to understand, something equated with incarnum magic.
Can we go back to making silly confessions like being the one who left the beer on the table but never picked it up because you totally knew the GM would do it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really even care that much about classes, spells, combat rules or magic rules. I just like getting together with my friends for an evening whenever I can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That reminds me. I miss playing 40K. (Well, I miss the good old days of theoretically playing 40k, the actual use of the rule book, figuring out "does this 1 particular model have line of site and thus enable me to roll 22 dice instead of 20 dice" and arguments over a fraction of an inch, not withstanding.)Ok. . . I actually miss having people yell burn the witch, then having my mostly naked wytches kill their metal clad terminators. Ahhhh. the good ol' days.
I miss the old, old, old days of 40K with the hardback Rogue Trader rulebook, when it was like an RPG/Wargame hybrid. I'm too scared to pick up my copy and look at the date in it because a) it'll be scary and remind me how old I'm getting, and b) the pages will likely fall apart.
|
|
I miss the old, old, old days of 40K with the hardback Rogue Trader rulebook, when it was like an RPG/Wargame hybrid. I'm too scared to pick up my copy and look at the date in it because a) it'll be scary and remind me how old I'm getting, and b) the pages will likely fall apart.
As long as it wasn't printed on papyrus you should be fine.
I miss the old, old, old days of 40K with the hardback Rogue Trader rulebook, when it was like an RPG/Wargame hybrid. I'm too scared to pick up my copy and look at the date in it because a) it'll be scary and remind me how old I'm getting, and b) the pages will likely fall apart.As long as it wasn't printed on papyrus you should be fine.
While that solves a), it doesn't solve the problem of b) as the binding has deteoriated to the point that every page turn there's a nasty cracking sound and something else falls out :( It's one of those where the pages seem to be individually bound with glue rather than in batches with stitching.
I really should look into those book rebinding kits or something.
|
|
Because then it will unofficially officially "invalidate" the precious Power Point Psionics.
:)
Invalidate it how? Dreamscarred isn't going away no matter WHAT Paizo puts out... whenever it gets around to doing so. And it's also made clear that what Paizo puts out ISN'T going to be psionics.
No, but almost always when a 1PP comes out, that will be used over a 3PP. Pathfinder Psionics might make it into PFS where Dreamscape never will. Pathfinder Psionics has a much better chance of being revisited in later material, while being another companies product, will not happen for Dreamscape unless Dreamscape adds in regular free update patches for new products. That sort of thing.
You want 3.5 Psionics? stop griping and BUY the Dreamscarred books which are HERE, AND MORE IMPORTANT READY TO GO. And did I mention that they were here as opposed to a POSSIBLE Paizo product that's years away at best?
I have all of them. Your confusing things a bit. I'm just making an observation and prediction based on what usually happens, not making a statement about what I want to happen. Personally, I could do without psionic magic completely, but I'm not going to hate other people for liking it. It's just not my thing.
No it hasn't. the only thing that it has been stated is that it will be a third form of magic that will fit in with the present ones of arcane and divine. That's it... all of the rest including vancian conclusions have been coming from players jumping on the stove. Not all of the present system is vancian after all, cantrips, spell like abilities, are certainly NOT vancian.I thought its been stated already that it would be more vancian? Which would be more of the same...I agree with the above poster that Dreamscarred Press should be the only go-to source for psionics. A "psychic mage" will get beat up and his lunch money taken if someone tries to play such in my setting.You and the above poster are incredibly narrow-minded in trashing a concept that isn't even a concept yet. Are you that unwilling to give it even a viewing before you publicly trash it? I see no sense in Paizo redoing 3.5 psionics when Dreamscarred already has it covered. They want to do something new and different. There has been no actual discussion on what the new system would be, save that it will be completely different and new. Anything else you've heard is just wild speculation.
As far as I am aware, James Jacobs is the only person from Paizo that will answer any questions about Psychic Magic and he's stated on several occasions that Psychic Magic will be vancian. It will function just like Arcane/Divine magic, but be in a category of it's own. I know James isn't a developer, but he's also one of the people that's pushing for it and the only one willing to talk about it.
:)
Very cool approach there from the Scythian. A DMPc that a dm doesn't allow to take over the show can be a real asset. I like to run a few that may join and later move off.+dex to damage is good fun. It can balance out through encumbrance and characters that can't actually haul much loot because they insisted on being light skirmishers.
Thanks.
The objection I usually see raised on the boards against +dex to damage is "everybody will dump strength and go full dexterity". Having run two games with it as an easy feat (allowed dex based damage on finesseable weapons), surprisingly that didn't happen. Only the magus took it in one, and a rogue in the other. Both meanwhile were within 5 lbs of a medium load just from their armor and weapons. :P
I've used it too (through various means in different games). I recall a rogue spellcaster took it. He did pretty well, but died during an ambush coming back from the ziggurat dungeon. He was on heavy encumbrance, since he couldn't bear to leave so much loot behind (some still got left behind). So half ogre jungle scouts took him out with harpoons, too weighed down to zig or zag. He lasted one ambush, but his AC was terrible and the second one got him. Being so weak also meant that carrying that load their trek back was very very slow, which meant more problems.
Another one I recall, a dex damage very nasty dervish char got taken out. Very strong in short engagements, a ranger out for vengeance just kept distance and tired him out. Dex for damage doesn't matter much if you can't get many hits in and are exhausted.
Dex for damage and low str also means you are very vulnerable to str drain.
He does armour brilliantly and his detail on faces is superb; the postures are however ridiculous.
|
I would like to state this with the explanation that the meaning of "overrated" isn't mutually inclusive with "bad". I would also like to state that generally I actually like his work, (outside of the oversized weapons) but...
...I think Wayne Reynolds might be the most overrated RPG/fantasy artist and Pathfinder helped to make it that way.
I keep hoping they will use other people on their major books more often.
Considering what other artists drew in the original bestiary, i prefer Wayne Reynolds over other people. Unless we can get Todd Lockwood.
Considering what other artists drew in the original bestiary, i prefer Wayne Reynolds over other people. Unless we can get Todd Lockwood.I would like to state this with the explanation that the meaning of "overrated" isn't mutually inclusive with "bad". I would also like to state that generally I actually like his work, (outside of the oversized weapons) but...
...I think Wayne Reynolds might be the most overrated RPG/fantasy artist and Pathfinder helped to make it that way.
I keep hoping they will use other people on their major books more often.
Steve Prescott would be a good choice. I always enjoyed many of his artwork in the 3rd edition books. He would be a welcome addition to the art contributors for Paizo. They can steer clear of Dennis Crabapple and Wayne England. I wouldn't mind a return of Elmore, really. Even if it was a rare occurrance.
While I do enjoy Reynolds' artwork, he is rather over used for Paizo. One thing that irks me about his art is the mouths. Just something about them seems off.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Erol Otus FTW.
Why is it so hard to simply role-play a psychic character? I mean, couldn't you just play a sorcerer, and role-play him or her as if every "strange" thing that they were able to do was a product of their mind? Add all the flavor you want, I don't get the need for a whole new system where something that does d4+1 damage is called a "psionic-dagger-of-the-mind-blow-to-the-id-of-the-weak-minded" instead of "Magic Missile"?
Largely because it's very difficult to play a 'psychic' character using available spells/abilities.
Think about all the stories of psychics, from rumors and mythcs, to movies and shows like Carrie or stuff on SciFi. A lot of them have only 1 or 2 abilities, but they can do extraordinary things with those abilities.
Granted, some abilities are a lot easier to mimic than others (pyrokinesis) while others are more difficult (telekinesis). Part of the problem is spells that mimic what you should be able to do, aren't available until higher levels. Spells like Mage Hand just don't cut it when it comes to moving objects with your mind, and Telekinesis means you don't get to play a telekinetic until level 9 at the earliest. Sure, you might be able to mimic some abilities by using Unseen Servant and pretending it's your mind, or Gust of Wind and say it was an explosion of your will, but for the most part, playing a telekinetic is difficult until 9th level or later. Even then, Telekinesis isn't a perfect substitute as you are surprisingly limited with what you can do.
There are lots of ways you could flavor yourself as a Psychic, but sometimes you might be hurting yourself and your party by doing so. For instance, a pyrokinetic might focus on Burning Hands, Flaming Sphere, Scorching Ray, Fireball, etc. but against someone with resistance or immunity to fire, and he's practically worthless.
A hydrokinetic might be possible, with all the water spells that came out, but most of them rely on maneuvers and do very little damage, if at all. Taking the Elemental Spell metamagic feat could help, but then all your damaging spells require a higher level slot. Playing a class that can spontaneously change the damage type of their spells (like and Admixture Wizard) could work in a pinch, but it's still just a mimicry.
Honestly, when I think of the elemental branch of psychics, I picture stuff more like Avatar: The Last Airbender.
I would say, that out of the common psychic affinities, Telepath/Mind Controller and Pyrokinetic are probably the two easiest to build. Anything else becomes significantly more difficult. For instance, a telekinetic as used in the movie Push would be difficult, but theoretically possible. It would require a caster to use buff spells and play it off as using his telekinesis to amplify his attacks. But this means a caster is in frontline combat. A Cleric, Bard, or Magus could do it, so too could certain Sorcerers, but none of them can do it for very long.
tl;dr Psychic Magic could be mimicked using established Pathfinder abilities to some extent. Some will work better than others, but with the exception of a Pyro or Telepath, they all will require jumping through some serious hoops to achieve that mimicry.
The 'Psychic Magic' equivalent could be something as simple as new classes (or prestige classes) that use focused spell lists, or themes to do the things needed. For instance, a Magus Archetype that gains a bunch of new telekinetic spells on his list would be a good Telekinetic.
Why is it so hard to simply role-play a psychic character? I mean, couldn't you just play a sorcerer, and role-play him or her as if every "strange" thing that they were able to do was a product of their mind? Add all the flavor you want, I don't get the need for a whole new system where something that does d4+1 damage is called a "psionic-dagger-of-the-mind-blow-to-the-id-of-the-weak-minded" instead of "Magic Missile"?
My group has been doing this since before the 3e Psionics Handbook. It works great.
I don't follow, my man.
Chemistry humor, it's always good for a couple of HAs...
I hate all of the acronym usage. Is it really that trying to have to type out the words?
|
Okay...
- I like monks.
- I like Oriental flavors in my campaign.
- I think 4E was the biggest mistake since putting Lorraine Williams in charge of TSR.
- I like kitchen sink settings.
- I like Golarion.
- I like anthropomorphic animal settings.
- I don't like people who do not bathe and then come to cons.
- My gods do not have ability scores; they look upon character stats and chortle.
- I like druids with the wildshape ability.
- I think that D&D Next has potential, but needs some spit and polish.
- I enjoyed Spelljammer and would run it again.
- I don't consider the rules to be written on stone tablets, but rather as guidelines lightly etched in pencil.
- My dwarven women have beards.
- I have statted myself as a Pathfinder character.
- I don't care for the PFS regulations, but I run and play PFS as mandated.
- I like the Adventure Paths.
- Female members of reptilian races do not need breasts, even if the race is humanoid.
- I think that drow are overrated since everyone made them available as player characters; they were better as NPC-only villains.
- I outlaw chaotic evil characters because, if played correctly, they disrupt group harmony.
- I consider railroading a challenge to be overcome.
- I like the old, classic D&D modules like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.
- I like the shadar-kai from 4E as villains.
- I enjoy PbPs more than tabletop in many ways.
- I consider using maps and miniatures to be a pain.
|
|
No, just no. That is horrible. Everything else on your list is good or understandable. But why this? Seriously, what logic does this follow? And if you say Tolkien, you lose.
- My dwarven women have beards.
Logic? Who said anything about logic? I just think that ALL dwarves should have beards (except the wee little ones).