Confessions That Will Get You Shunned By The Members Of The Paizo Community


Gamer Life General Discussion

1,001 to 1,050 of 4,499 << first < prev | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Morris wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:


That's fine. I think that white d00d's complaining about minority scholarships is kind of a dick thing to do considering that the historically the deck has been grossly stacked against minorities (particularly black men) in this country since day one and still continues to this day.

But hey, this is right up there with people complaining about why should there be a BET or an African American month or a Miss Black America Beauty Pageant or the use of African American as a descriptor period. Lack of perspective, experience and I'd say in some cases lack of empathy.

*Shrug* I got a Pardon for history I'm good.

sorry, but my name ain't Walter e. Willams. I do not now, nor have I ever, recognized that pardon.


Mister Fluffykins wrote:
The Elusive Trout wrote:
I want my players to survive my dmed adventure paths.
What is wrong with you. Gary Gygax disapproves.

Odd.. he didn't seem particularly gung-ho for people to die when I gamed with him. Epic exciting deaths accomplishing a great goal are a good thing, yes - but that's different from an 'everyone must die!' attitude. Just sayin'.

For myself...

I hate rules-fudgers... people (players or GMs) who authoritatively misquote the rules saying something works this particular way - and then they just make something up instead of bothering to look up how it actually works.

I wish Paizo would put out an official set of psionics rules for Pathfinder.

The Grand Lodge is entirely too vanilla. They need some added flavor - some scandal to spice things up.


Arcwin wrote:
The Grand Lodge is entirely too vanilla. They need some added flavor - some scandal to spice things up.

The society itself you mean? Well I guess if you really wanted a scandal you could just figure out who your leaders are and what they actually want to do, or you could have someone press charges on the society for their theft/ murder/ assassinations/ extortions/ political maneuvering/ or various other illicit activities. I'm sure those all could be interesting.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed some off topic posts and replies. Also, please revisit the messageboard rules.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

*chuckles*


As a DM I do not enjoy TPK's (outside of Paranoia). As a player I usually enjoy player death in face to face play. That includes my character's death.

Shadow Lodge

The art style that Wayne Reynolds has established for Pathfinder seems to be a copy-paste from the work he did on Eberron.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
The art style that Wayne Reynolds has established for Pathfinder seems to be a copy-paste from the work he did on Eberron.

I don't like Wayne Reynolds' artwork.


Kthulhu wrote:
The art style that Wayne Reynolds has established for Pathfinder seems to be a copy-paste from the work he did on Eberron.

What exactly do you mean by that?

The way one paints and renders forms can't just be changed on a dime, unless you're talking about things like costume design and such.


Dire Elf wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
The art style that Wayne Reynolds has established for Pathfinder seems to be a copy-paste from the work he did on Eberron.
I don't like Wayne Reynolds' artwork.

I don't mind it so much, but seeing 90% of his images of characters with outstretched arms gets pretty old after a while.

Shadow Lodge

Ellis Mirari wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
The art style that Wayne Reynolds has established for Pathfinder seems to be a copy-paste from the work he did on Eberron.

What exactly do you mean by that?

The way one paints and renders forms can't just be changed on a dime, unless you're talking about things like costume design and such.

Well, I can look at some of the work he's done for 4E, and it doesn't look like his PF/Eberron stuff. But the art for PF and Eberron, at least for me, seems pretty interchangeable.


Not sure if it on the get shunned list but a few minor things I loath:

Resurrection cheapens death, it is boring and too easily available (ie. it exists).

Far far FAR to many classes have spells and spell-like abilities, spells are for wizards not everyone.

Drows should be shot on sight.

Forgotten realm is not a setting it is a tool build for the purpose of telling the characters "you are not heroes, but zeroes!"

cheating on a dice roll is okay for both players and GMs as long as the purpose is to enhance the story and/or move it along.

limited daily resources is the worst feature of Pathfinder.

Abilities/spells/etc with a duration measured in rounds is just weird and a metagaming limitation.

Alignment is a cool tool.

People that play/use with their mobile phone/ipad/etc at the gaming table are being inexcusable rude.

Just because a game takes place in a fantasy place does not mean characters need weird names, especially human characters. I really want to be able to pronounce character and location names.

Seoni is not cool OR sexy.


Zouron wrote:

Far far FAR to many classes have spells and spell-like abilities, spells are for wizards not everyone.

...

limited daily resources is the worst feature of Pathfinder.

I'm not going to shun you, but I am very confused.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zouron wrote:
Resurrection cheapens death, it is boring and too easily available (ie. it exists).

This. So much this.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Zouron wrote:

Far far FAR to many classes have spells and spell-like abilities, spells are for wizards not everyone.

...

limited daily resources is the worst feature of Pathfinder.

I'm not going to shun you, but I am very confused.

What confuses you?


I like monks.


Zouron wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Zouron wrote:

Far far FAR to many classes have spells and spell-like abilities, spells are for wizards not everyone.

...

limited daily resources is the worst feature of Pathfinder.

I'm not going to shun you, but I am very confused.
What confuses you?

That you don't like daily resources, and at the same time you're concerned about who gets and doesn't get spells, the poster child of daily resources. The two ideas aren't mutually exclusive, but I'd expect someone who doesn't like daily resources to say "Nobody should get spells" or "Spell should be encounter resources."


yes possibly :P but the reason I don't like that everyone has spells is because I feel it cheapens magic it makes magic mundane rather than magical and the idea of limiting resources to a daily amount is just silly in my head nor am I fund of the encounter resource as a limiter, I feel all such are rather artificial.

Obviously I dislike the way spellcasting is done in pathfinder as well, but that hardly is a unique thing or something the majority can't understand (even if they might disagree).


So...*scratches head*...what would be your ideal PF? Only wizards get spells, and those spells are all at-will?


I, personally, would like to see something like a mana system that is used to power all the magical abilities (supernatural, spells and spell-like). A player would be able to focus their mana in different ways to gain passive buffs (like resistances, AC boosts etc) but would represent like a tax on their mana system, depleting their over-all pool and the rate of mana regeneration.

For instance, a Wizard could activate an Arcane Shield passive that increases his defenses, maybe through AC, or miss chance, or something to that effect. In the mean time, it would give a penalty to his mana regeneration rate, and also limit the over-all strength of his pool.

Mystical classes, like Rangers, Paladins or Monks, could have similar things. Like the Paladin's Smite could be a constant ability the represents a significant tax on his mana pool, so he would switch it on and off as the situation calls for it. A Ranger could manifest many druid-like abilities using his mana, but not infringe on the druid's spellcasting. A Monk has many mystical aspects to him, that could be various sorts of different abilities.

The net result of such a system would allow heroes to have longer adventures and do more amazing deeds. In the system as it stands, most parties only play as long as their casters have spells. A fighter can fight only as long as he can stay on his feet, same as with any other martial. Most of their staying power comes from the casters healing/buffing them.

By lengthening how long a caster can stay useful, you can tell stories of heroes doing more than just having a few encounters, and resting. You could tell the story of the group of heroes facing off against hundreds, of monsters at once, without needing to create an epic (or mythic) system that allows you to 'break' the rules.


Tels, have you by chance taken a look at 3.5 warlocks(Invokers in PF) or Psionics? Quiet a few Psionic abilities are all day buffs that scale by how many powers you put into them, and warlocks have invocations that go all day, are passive and change how their abilities work, or are all day abilities? There are also binders, whom can change their abilities on the day to day and completely rebuild themselves and use a cool down on their abilities turning them into encounter based powers.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
So...*scratches head*...what would be your ideal PF? Only wizards get spells, and those spells are all at-will?

never said I knew what would be ideal for PF but the systems Mr Sin mentioned are certainly a step in the right direction.


Zouron wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
So...*scratches head*...what would be your ideal PF? Only wizards get spells, and those spells are all at-will?
never said I knew what would be ideal for PF but the systems Mr Sin mentioned are certainly a step in the right direction.

3.5 and 3rd party. Pathfinder wants to stick with Vancian last I checked. Lots of good material out there out there though.


MrSin wrote:
Zouron wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
So...*scratches head*...what would be your ideal PF? Only wizards get spells, and those spells are all at-will?
never said I knew what would be ideal for PF but the systems Mr Sin mentioned are certainly a step in the right direction.
3.5 and 3rd party. Pathfinder wants to stick with Vancian last I checked. Lots of good material out there out there though.

Warlock's also been updated by 3rd party (renamed the 'invoker' for legal reasons, though).


I have indeed looked at Psionics (3E and Pathfinder) and the Warlock (including the 3rd party Pathfinder Warlock). Problem is, the people I play with aren't very willing to use material outside of official Paizo material.

I'm a GM myself, and I could include them in my games, but that doesn't mean my GM will let me use them when I play. Besides, the ideal system I mentioned above would be a total re-write of all the classes. I wouldn't want to be forced to only play a few characters forever, because they have mechanics that are more intune with my desires.

[Edit] I should add that I loved the Warlock by Adamant Entertainment. I would love to play such a class, but, again, I doubt my GMs would let me play it. In fact, I have 3 character concepts based around the Warlock class.


I think monks are great.

I think PCs should occasionally die. Mine do, sometimes in spectacular fashion.

I think that the multitude of anamorphic PC races is stupid and distracting.

I feel that if you play a Wizard, expect to do some serious accounting.

I steal spellbooks, sunder component pouches and target animal companions.

I think games should start at level 1, advance leveling is for weak players who lack SKILLZ.

I don't believe that 5 new weird monsters are as good as the sorely neglected old beast that has been forgotten.

I like rolling for stats.

I think that SAD classes + point buy is incredibly poor game design.

I think PC paladins are completely justified in killing other PCs that are obsessed with making them fall.

I believe most people on the interwebz who argue that casters rule and Martians drool, fail to adequately follow rules for Line of Sight/Effect and somehow don't comprehend that everyform of PC flight is slow their AC is subpar and that most opponents should have ranged weapons. Also few "dungeons" have 30 foot high ceilings.


zagnabbit wrote:


I believe most people on the interwebz who argue that casters rule and Martians drool, ...

D@mn Martians! I can understand losing to Bugs, but Daffy?! It's no wonder that people think they drool... :D


Zouron wrote:

yes possibly :P but the reason I don't like that everyone has spells is because I feel it cheapens magic it makes magic mundane rather than magical and the idea of limiting resources to a daily amount is just silly in my head nor am I fund of the encounter resource as a limiter, I feel all such are rather artificial.

Obviously I dislike the way spellcasting is done in pathfinder as well, but that hardly is a unique thing or something the majority can't understand (even if they might disagree).

I dont like the spellcasting system either but I think in world where magic can be learned, only the stupidist people would not know some form of magic, even commoners would eventually learn a couple of cantrips, farmers would have a couple spelks that get passed down the family, I mean seriously, just look at technology today, even third world countries have significant knowledge of tech, why wouldnt a fantasy world have widespread magic use?

The only answers to the above question are when the ability to use magic comes from birth (the ability, not the right) or if magic just recently came into the world.

All this talk of soldiers who go straight fighter to fight armies backed by magic and spells is insane, no general is field going to field an army that hasnt even tried to gain every possible advantage and if magic is learnable, you can bet your plot that general is having her soldiers learn combat magic right along with swordplay and likely even has them learning to resist enchantments and spot illusions. There is just no good reason not to do so.

And well that is my pet peeve.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Zouron wrote:

yes possibly :P but the reason I don't like that everyone has spells is because I feel it cheapens magic it makes magic mundane rather than magical and the idea of limiting resources to a daily amount is just silly in my head nor am I fund of the encounter resource as a limiter, I feel all such are rather artificial.

Obviously I dislike the way spellcasting is done in pathfinder as well, but that hardly is a unique thing or something the majority can't understand (even if they might disagree).

I dont like the spellcasting system either but I think in world where magic can be learned, only the stupidist people would not know some form of magic, even commoners would eventually learn a couple of cantrips, farmers would have a couple spelks that get passed down the family, I mean seriously, just look at technology today, even third world countries have significant knowledge of tech, why wouldnt a fantasy world have widespread magic use?

The only answers to the above question are when the ability to use magic comes from birth (the ability, not the right) or if magic just recently came into the world.

All this talk of soldiers who go straight fighter to fight armies backed by magic and spells is insane, no general is field going to field an army that hasnt even tried to gain every possible advantage and if magic is learnable, you can bet your plot that general is having her soldiers learn combat magic right along with swordplay and likely even has them learning to resist enchantments and spot illusions. There is just no good reason not to do so.

And well that is my pet peeve.

Your run-of-the-mill soldiers probably don't have the Int for effective spellcasting, or else I am sure they would have gone for the wizard school and be in the back of the army tossing out the booms instead of in the front line dancing with the enemy soldiers.


I like Terry Goodkin's writing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I (usually, not always) like idealistic works more than I like cynical works.

Really, that seems to be something worthy of being shunned for in some circles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:


I dont like the spellcasting system either but I think in world where magic can be learned, only the stupidist people would not know some form of magic, even commoners would eventually learn a couple of cantrips, farmers would have a couple spelks that get passed down the family, I mean seriously, just look at technology today, even third world countries have significant knowledge of tech, why wouldnt a fantasy world have widespread magic.

And well that is my pet peeve.

The average person knows how to use a microwave, but does not know how to build one.


Adjule wrote:
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Zouron wrote:

yes possibly :P but the reason I don't like that everyone has spells is because I feel it cheapens magic it makes magic mundane rather than magical and the idea of limiting resources to a daily amount is just silly in my head nor am I fund of the encounter resource as a limiter, I feel all such are rather artificial.

Obviously I dislike the way spellcasting is done in pathfinder as well, but that hardly is a unique thing or something the majority can't understand (even if they might disagree).

I dont like the spellcasting system either but I think in world where magic can be learned, only the stupidist people would not know some form of magic, even commoners would eventually learn a couple of cantrips, farmers would have a couple spelks that get passed down the family, I mean seriously, just look at technology today, even third world countries have significant knowledge of tech, why wouldnt a fantasy world have widespread magic use?

The only answers to the above question are when the ability to use magic comes from birth (the ability, not the right) or if magic just recently came into the world.

All this talk of soldiers who go straight fighter to fight armies backed by magic and spells is insane, no general is field going to field an army that hasnt even tried to gain every possible advantage and if magic is learnable, you can bet your plot that general is having her soldiers learn combat magic right along with swordplay and likely even has them learning to resist enchantments and spot illusions. There is just no good reason not to do so.

And well that is my pet peeve.

Your run-of-the-mill soldiers probably don't have the Int for effective spellcasting, or else I am sure they would have gone for the wizard school and be in the back of the army tossing out the booms instead of in the front line dancing with the enemy soldiers.

Do you assume that characters build stats according to class and dump stats that dont apply? Cause that is a metagame convention of gamers not the people of the world, the people of the world have an average of 10.5, aka the majority of people can cast zero or first level spells, second soldiers and fighters (at least in the history fantasy is based on) were nobility and the best access to education and thus would be in the top half the spectrum, third, the knowledge of magic would be beneficial and make soldiers better able to handle fighting wizards even if not so skilled themselves, and fourth being able to cast even just zero or first level spells would be extremely effective in the hands of properly trained troops, fifth, people can train to raise their strength, so too can they train to raise their int, in fact the rl military does that. So if int is needed for the most effective weapons of war why wouldnt they be trained for it?


Oh I forgot, racial modifiers, humans would put that into int in the case above.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Limited Daily resources < this

And the one daily resource limitation that I hate, and is so over used? Hours

Yeah. Hours, OMG why does every single campaign limit the characters to only 24. This is so unimaginative. I just hate it.

That's why my next campaign setting will have 267 hours in every day for the first three days, and then the fourth day will have 9000 hours.


Since this was apparently rather controversial in another thread...

Modulo cheap and easy access to resurrection, I think that PCs dying to random encounters, traps, and other narratively inconsequential things makes the game less fun and pushes players towards being less invested in their characters and in the campaign. Additionally, if the player spent a long time making the character, developing the backstory, and connecting the character to the world, the campaign, and the other PCs, then by randomly killing off their PC you're making them throw away all that work for nothing.

1,001 to 1,050 of 4,499 << first < prev | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Confessions That Will Get You Shunned By The Members Of The Paizo Community All Messageboards