I adore reach weapons (the rest of the players in my local community sneer at me for using them) - the Dorn Dergar has a special place in my heart.
I refuse to allow my players to min-max/'optimize'. They'd better have a fairly convincing reason for why those stats've dipped into the negatives.
I die a little inside every time I see a character who's parents died tragically at a young age.
They can sneer, on the end of the reach weapons.
The AP characters that are the most loved really rub me the wrong way. I find the minor character the most interesting.
I've a sheet where I've assembled houserules to horribly nerf PFRPG spellcasters, and take back control of the story as a DM.
I look at it sometimes and giggle with supernatural glee.
And I'm absolutely convinced that my players - even the ones playing spellcasters PCs - will love me when I'll enforce those uber-nerf houserules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really hate the very notion that any warrior worth his salt would not use magic in a world wheore magic can be usyed by anyone who studies it. That notion is akin to a soldier refusing to use guns and grenades in modern times.
If you want a guy that fights without magic in a world with magic, add a really good reason for it, such as only 1 in 1000 have the capacity to weild magic, or absolute fanatical religious intolerance, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate min/maxing and generally think that players who resort to it turn their fellow players who don't do so into bit players or supporting cast for their own glorious story.
I think rules are often severely overrated, and that the RAW/RAI-debate is enough to give me a damn headache.
Consequently, I like to minimize the need for rules, although I grudgingly admit that there are situations where they are necessary.
I detest rules lawyers but have a great affection for rules advocates, as in rules lawyers being the type who will always try to point out every rule that works in their favour but conveniently forget to do the same, when the opposite is the case, whereas rules advocates are fairminded and at least try to point out both.
I am a big fan of not always allowing the most vocal, experienced or, gods help us, skilled player take the lead in a group, but instead allowing a comparative newcomer to the hobby get a shot at the role (sometimes the dice determines this, and at other times steering the story in that direction may help).
I get sick to my stomach every time I read a background where the character was orphaned in some horrific way. But I love backgrounds where the character's family or friends may have been abducted, estranged from the character or had their livelihood ruined in some way, which allows for interesting side-plots to be developed.
I also love backgrounds where the character's family is alive, happy and healthy.
I don't let my players pick their own animal companions, except if they have them from before the game begins. Otherwise I'll come up with something as the game progresses, and it's not always what the player would expect or like ... but such is the fickle nature of nature.
I'm a fan of "if it ain't broke, don't even think of fixing it!" and consequently thoroughly disapprove of beloved game systems that are re-released in new versions that are incompatible with previous material. Example: when D&D moved to D20, it all but wrecked the use for the hundreds of books one of my mates had invested in. From one day to the next, his entire library of books, taking up a considerable amount of space and representing thousands of dollars worth of material painstakingly collected over many years, was rendered largely useless. Sure, the setting-related fluff was still useful but everything rules-related would have to be reworked by himself if he ever wanted to use it again, which seems to me to be an unreasonable demand to make of GMs. The same can be said for WoD when they moved from pre-götterdämmerung to post-götterdämmerung, which to me instantly destroyed the nerve of one of the most widely played and beloved systems in existence.
I'm not above vindictiveness as in I will kill off characters in as gruesome, demeaning, humiliating and heartbreaking ways as I can possibly think up, if I get rock-solid proof of the player cheating in some way. If the player chooses to leave the game group, I will shed precisely no tears over it, and if they stay, they'd better have learned their lesson.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate min/maxing and extreme optimization.
I'm not a fan of Golarian (or any kitchen sink setting), and because all the APs are of Golarian, I am not interested in most of the APs either. I don't want to play analog Earth.
I hate generic fantasy, if it looks similar to Middle Earth, I vomit.
I love theme games: Carrion Crown and Iron Gods to me are the only APs thus far that interest me.
While I wanted to like Jade Regent, because I was contributing author, the fact that Asia doesn't get played until the end of the AP was disappointing. I don't want to run a travelog across the top of the world, unless that's the destination. I'd rather start at 1st level as an eastern-flavored PC in an eastern flavored world.
I created the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) becasue I like Asian based games - I don't care that many members don't like Asian games, I already stated, I hate like Euro-based/Middle Earth-ish settings.
I'm not a fan of PFS, agreeing with many of the points of view across this thread about PFS.
I think paladins are underpowered. In my opinion, they should be demonstrably more powerful than any other martial class, and even strike fear into casters, because, well ... they're paladins. They should be lawful good only, chaste (unless married) and godly.
I find Paizo's refusal to stat up deities laughably absurd. Either they're omnipotent, or they should have statistics.
Alchemists seem to me like the dip-sh!tty brainchild of someone who saw League of Extraordinary Gentlemen one too many times.
Anti-paladins should be lawful evil, not chaotic evil. They're so much more interesting as potential adversaries.
I think true gods, not lesser deities, are omnipotent unless dealing with other deities. They can slap around CR 30 and lesser creatures easily enough.
I do find the chaotic evil thing for anti-paladins silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have zero interest in adventure paths.
I adore 3pp content but I think the 3pp publishers have tunnel vision.
I think there is far too much "you are playing the game wrong" attitude on the boards.
I have seen enough "you are playing the wrong game", and enough people take things out of context to interpret it that way, that I may not agree, but I understand with the way some people only deal in absolutes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think true gods, not lesser deities, are omnipotent unless dealing with other deities. They can slap around CR 30 and lesser creatures easily enough."Omnipotent unless" is an interesting phrase.
Call it "effectively omnipotent".
They're so far above even the most powerful mortal that a mere wave of their hand could wipe said mortal out of existence.
However, other gods are on an even playing field.
Demigods, on the other hand, are within the realm of mortal possibility to take on. Achaekek, for example (though I think he should be stronger. They statted him up before Mythic and CR 30 could be a thing).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the fact that, for at least SOME things, they've avoided triggering the Lord British Postulate.
The problem is, that the second you give gods stats, someone, somewhere, will find a way to kill them and probably with relative ease. The only way for this to not happen, is to make their stats so batshit bonkers high, nothing can kill them except a God, which puts them in the same place they were before they had stats.
I mean, look at the CR 30 Demigod and related beings that have received stats so far. Cthulhu has the most HP of any creature ever printed in Pathfinder, and yet people have figured out ways of killing Cthulhu even without Mythic because PCs really are just that powerful.
Demigods are supposed to be on a level that allows them to possibly, if only just so, maybe threaten a God itself. But it's not easy.
Lamashtu, for existence, threw every single demon in her realm in the Abyss at the god Churcannus until he was weak enough for her to have the chance to kill him. She ripped the domain of godly domain of Beasts from him, which was just enough to elevate her into being a Deity and even then, it was only a small part of Churcannus' power and she was very nearly killed by Pazuzu when he learned of it, because, while she was now a God, she as not a God of the same calibre that Churcannus was and Pazuzu was probably a more powerful Demigod than she was.
As a GM, I would imagine that some Gods are within the realm of being killed by PCs, but only after extreme cases. For example, the PCs would need to go after one of the "weaker" gods like Lamashtu, possibly in a similar vein. Even then, they would need to be a full party of Mythic Heroes with some sort of plan and trump card in order to bring Lamashtu down to their level for them to have a chance.
But that goes against Paizo's canon. Paizo doesn't want Gods to be able to be killed by PCs because, otherwise, it tends to go the way of the Forgotten Realms with anyone being able to challenge anything. It also puts a hard cap on power levels.
You know that Level 20, Mythic Rank 10 is the best a mortal can ever really achieve. There is nothing beyond this except for becoming a Demigod, and then, possibly, a true Deity.
In Forgotten Realms and D&D, this became a joke. Level 20 was the max, and then Level 30, and then it just became infinite. In such a system, if you ever gave stats to an 'omnipotent being' you would have to set a level for that being. If the level cap is infinite, than the omnipotent being will get outleveled at some point.
Personally, I look at Gods in the similar vein of the Cold War with MAD; Mutually Assured Destruction. The Gods can do minor things like express disapproval on their servants, or grant them small blessings, but direct Divine Intervention? That's a no-no. If one God intervenes, then other Gods will intervene and it becomes a flustercluck of Gods fighting each other.
Plus, you have the three top tiered gods of Asmodeus, Sarenrae, and especially, Pharasma to deal with in such a case. James Jacobs has stated that, with the exception of Rovagug, Pharasma is the most powerful god (also the oldest), with Asmodeus and Sarenrae likely being tied for the next strongest.
So there definitely is a hierarchy of which Gods are stronger, but it's beyond mortal comprehension. It'd be like saying Lamashtu has Infinite Power, where as Sarenrae and Asmodeus have Infinite Power cubed (Infinity^3). All three gods have infinite power, but Sarenrae's and Asmodeus' power is 'more infinite' than Lamashtu's.
I think the problem lies in the idea that a mortal pc can reach any level that is printed.
If you look at the noncombat parts of 3.5, no human is or will ever be above lvl 5, yet because the mere existance of lvl 20, suddenly every mortal and their mother can achieve it if they fight enough monsters.
I think it shouldn't be too hard to say that at a certain point, mortals just don't live long enough to ever achieve a certain level, or their physical bodies are incapable of going beyond lvl X, but those lvls are there for the other races, monsters, immortals, demigods, and lich like things that can achieve those lvls, or which just have different maximums.
Hm, why not?Variety of reasons ranging from "I doubt Paizo would change it how I like" to "I really don't need another system I won't use". But I still prefer change.
Ah, gotcha. Same here. :)
I actually might be interested in a radically changed PF. But to be honest, I'm looking for pretty particular things,What's the list?
Top of the list is adding some kind of level-related bonus to AC instead of the traditional suite of AC-booster items, and relatively balanced MCing that doesn't require patch-on rules like xp penalties or favored class bonuses. That second one is somewhat of a holy grail for me, and would almost be enough of a draw for me to buy any game even if the rest of it were garbage.
There's also like a thousand pet peeves I have with the D&D traditionalisms that are still holding out. I'd like point buy to be standard, and to replace the 3-18 stat range with a simple range of modifiers. (Also eliminate other random elements in chargen, as you might guess.) I'd like to see all alignment restrictions dropped, except cleric-like restrictions for divine classes, if the game wanted to retain a hint of traditionalism. (Paladins would look something like this.)
And spells...well, spells are the primary reason that casters are so crazy. So I'd like to see the spell chapter gone through with a fine-tooth comb. For example, I'd like to stop beating around the bush with spells like rope trick; instead of adding cute provisos like "the rope can't be removed or hidden," just say that spell slots can't be regained in extra-dimensional spaces! 'Extra-dimensional spaces are filled with discordant energy that prevents gainful rest,' whatever. If invisibility can have an obviously metagame proviso like "ends if you attack," it's perfectly reasonable to add fluff-justified provisos to other spells in the interest of balance.
Oh, and move healing spells back into Necormancy!
Really though, I could go on and on, and still forget some of the things I'd like to see. The bottom line is that I need to finish the fantasy heartbreaker I've been working on, and then play it. ;)
Paladins are devotees, and devotion by it's very nature is a lawful quality, though I don't see any reason for good to be a requirement.
I'd like point buy to be standard, and to replace the 3-18 stat range with a simple range of modifiers.
While I'm not a fan of point buy, I do like the idea of just the modifiers w/out the "parent numbers" being present. Didn't the Blue Rose game do something like this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are devotees, and devotion by it's very nature is a lawful quality
...No, it isn't. It literally isn't anywhere in the description of Lawful.
And it doesn't make any logical sense either. Chaotic Clerics are devoted to their deity?
Even though the class description says otherwise?
"Devoted to the tenets of the religions and philosophies that inspire them, these ecclesiastics quest to spread the knowledge and influence of their faith."
Yeah, no.
Confession: Not a fan of "friendly local gaming stores."
The ones I've run across either aren't all that friendly (or are WAAAYYY too friendly), aren't as local as I'd like, or in most cases carry less RPG books than I have on my shelves.
I appreciate that M:TG and Warhammer and whichever other minis games are what are paying the bills for a lot of these places. However, it's sort of hard to buy gaming books and supplies when you are tripping over Magic players or the six gaming books they have are buried behind the tables where people are playing.
There are a few good places I've run across, but mostly it is pretty depressing.
James Jacobs' opinion on the relative power of the gods is simply that: An opinion. Until their powers are measurable and documented in game, that's just his speculation and preference. (If it has been documented, well ... then I stand corrected.)
Considering his 'opinion' is what makes the rules for Golarion until such a time that he is no longer employed by Paizo, I wouldn't disregard what JJ has to say on any world building topic. Remember, a huge percentage of Golarion as it exists today comes directly from JJ's own homebrewed world that he's been making for 20 years. So what JJ has to say is as close to 'Word of God' as you can get on the subject of how things work in Golarion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah.
Unlike rules questions posed to designers on the forums, James Jacobs' word IS law when it comes to setting stuff.
When it comes to world building questions like "How powerful are the gods" (immeasurably) or "Will we ever find out what happened to Aroden" (probably not), he's the best source there is.
Paladins are devotees, and devotion by it's very nature is a lawful quality...No, it isn't. It literally isn't anywhere in the description of Lawful.
And it doesn't make any logical sense either. Chaotic Clerics are devoted to their deity?
Even though the class description says otherwise?
"Devoted to the tenets of the religions and philosophies that inspire them, these ecclesiastics quest to spread the knowledge and influence of their faith."
Yeah, no.
Lawful is someone who is devoted to a particular way of things, often called a code, and a devoted person is someone who is absolutely focused on something and strays only as necessary and sometimes not even then.
Calling someone devoted and chaotic is practically an oxymoron. Being chaotic basically excludes any such absolute focus.
A cleric can be a believer and have a job/role in life without it being the end all be all of their life. Look at Cadderly from the cleric quintet, he wasn't lawful nor devoted. He was constantly looking into other things, ideas, inventions, and whatever else to relieve the boredom. He was a cleric, yet was neither lawful nor devoted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are devotees, and devotion by it's very nature is a lawful quality...No, it isn't. It literally isn't anywhere in the description of Lawful.
And it doesn't make any logical sense either. Chaotic Clerics are devoted to their deity?
Even though the class description says otherwise?
"Devoted to the tenets of the religions and philosophies that inspire them, these ecclesiastics quest to spread the knowledge and influence of their faith."
Yeah, no.
Lawful is someone who is devoted to a particular way of things, often called a code, and a devoted person is someone who is absolutely focused on something and strays only as necessary and sometimes not even then.
Calling someone devoted and chaotic is practically an oxymoron. Being chaotic basically excludes any such absolute focus.
A cleric can be a believer and have a job/role in life without it being the end all be all of their life. Look at Cadderly from the cleric quintet, he wasn't lawful nor devoted. He was constantly looking into other things, ideas, inventions, and whatever else to relieve the boredom. He was a cleric, yet was neither lawful nor devoted.
Well except for the part where I showed you you're wrong, I guess you're right.
...
Well except for the part where I showed you you're wrong, I guess you're right.
You referenced two things, only one of which was even applicable (devotion is not some mechanical keyword that requires explicit reference, therefore, a lack of explicit reference tieing a word to lawfulness is not proof that they aren't tied.) and I replied that I think it was poor word choice and why I thought that.
You didn't prove anything, only implied a belief that it wasn't a poor word choice, and a belief that the specific words used trump the concepts the text as a whole present.
If you read carefully, the core rulebook is filled with contradictions, poor explainations, and poor word choice. (not saying I don't make the same mistakes.) You have to use a bit of logic and try to text the book as a whole, not just individual sentances.
(That last paragraph is another thing to get me shunned. (: )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using logic and assuming only a specific personality type can be devoted to something are mutually exclusive.
Devoted is a descriptor, therefore, it only applies to personalties that can be described by it.
Kinda like how humanoid is a descriptor, therefore, only things that fit that description can be refered to as humanoid. Therefore you can't logically apply humanoid to things that don't fit the description. Devoted is the same way, it doesn't apply to every personality, because it defines a limited set of possible personalities.
Regardless of the words actually used, my original point still stands, paladins make sense being limited to lawful characters.
Things that could merit shunning around here? Okay, I've got a few.
You're implying that extreme loyalty or emotional attachment (aka devotion) is something only a Lawful person can experience.
As this is CLEARLY untrue (almost everybody in the world has something they're devoted to. A loved one, a hobby, work, or a religion, or anything else), I'm not sure why you keep claiming it is, unless you're unaware of what exactly "devoted" means.
The Lawful portion of Paladins is meaningless. Their entire description, and the meat of their code is about them being shining paragons of Good, not Law. The only thing mechanically or conceptually tying them to Law is the bit about respecting legitimate authority, and MAYBE not lying (it could be argued that lying is an evil, however small, act).
I think point buy is a bad idea.
Why?
I'm hoping this means you like Stat Arrays rather than *shudders* rolling.
Did you forget that have to adhere strongly to a specificly defined code?
What is considered good kinda depends on their church, but their absolute adherence to a strict code is not dependant on their church.
Neither legitimate authority, nor truthfulness are in of themselves lawful, though including those things as part of a code can make them so for a character following that code.
They are supposed to be shining examples of their church's values, and as examples, must adhere to them more strongly.
As for point buy, it entirely depends on what I'm looking for in that character. Though I generally consider point buy as enabling and encouraging minmaxing. Honestly, the ability scores aren't so important as to make point buy a nessecity. If I have some specific idea I want try, then point buy can be nice, otherwise, I prefer to just roll and be done with it, rather than spending a bunch of time picking and choosing points. Therefore, I support having both options available. Also, rolling can be more fun, but then again I don't need to be a superhero character with ever increasing numbers to enjoy myself in an RPG.
I should really flag that as abusive, if only because any passive-aggressive mention of how great a roleplayer somebody is because "they don't need numbers" like those dirty filthy min-maxers is starting to cause me real, physical discomfort. I gag every time I see it.
I think that counts as a confession.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Devoted is a descriptor, therefore, it only applies to personalties that can be described by it.
Kinda like how humanoid is a descriptor, therefore, only things that fit that description can be refered to as humanoid. Therefore you can't logically apply humanoid to things that don't fit the description. Devoted is the same way, it doesn't apply to every personality, because it defines a limited set of possible personalities.
Regardless of the words actually used, my original point still stands, paladins make sense being limited to lawful characters.
Your point does not stand. Chaotic people can be devoted(dedicated, committed, etc). You have given your opinion, and no hard rules or facts that prove otherwise.
It makes sense to you, so if you are saying it only has to make sense to someone then a lot of things make sense, and in that case this sub-topic is pointless. If you are saying it has to make sense to most people then I doubt you will get most people to agree with you, so by that version of "make sense" your argument fails.
As for point buy, it entirely depends on what I'm looking for in that character. Though I generally consider point buy as enabling and encouraging minmaxing. Honestly, the ability scores aren't so important as to make point buy a nessecity. If I have some specific idea I want try, then point buy can be nice, otherwise, I prefer to just roll and be done with it, rather than spending a bunch of time picking and choosing points. Therefore, I support having both options available. Also, rolling can be more fun, but then again I don't need to be a superhero character with ever increasing numbers to enjoy myself in an RPG.
There are dump stats in no matter if you roll, use PB, or use a stat array. Neither stops min-maxing. Also dont go around insulting people. It is jerkish. What you said is no better than if someone said only people who cant' understand the game use RP as an excuse to build a weak character.
Personally I know people who can build a stronger character than they normally do and RP well so if someone said that, it would be just as untrue as you insinuating that someone preferring PB needs ever increasing numbers.
I'm not sure why you thought that was insulting, but it was not intended to be that. I wasn't even saying that minmaxers are bad. So I apologize for that.
I have noticed that some players get enjoyment from being superpowered and ultra killing machines. They like manipulating the system to maximize their ability, and enjoy seeing their creations succeed. Usually, such players find any rule that impedes their ability to minmax as annoying or even extremely unlikely. Not all minmaxers, just a general trend (somewhere around 95% of minmaxers I met, though limited sample size of course).
Some players don't find those aspects fun, or at least not the focus of their fun. Some can have as much fun playing weak or unfocused characters as minmaxers have in playing overpowered characters.
All I really meant was that I was latter type. I don't find minmaxing fun, not in the slightest, and using point buy feels like minmaxing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate GMs who encourage the players to make real characters rather than power game. Then do nothing to enforce it, so the players who were fool enough to listen to the GM have pathetic characters.
I hate being interrupted when I finally get to do something by a player who is take up three times as much time as I am. I hate it even more when the interruption is a waste of time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) I really hate elves. I seriously do.
2) I dislike playing spellcasters and all that nitty gritty management of spells, rules around the spells, components and all of that hullabaloo.
3) I am not a fan of Drows either. Too much of a "Unique Snowflake" feel to it for my taste.
4) I dislike evil campaigns.
5) I dislike Eastern stuff too in fantasy games tho I can´t really say why, it just bothers me. I guess it´s how some people hype it up that makes me think "meh" about it.
6) I love rogues and always will.
7) I love ROLEplay instead of ROLLplay. Hell yeah character driven RP is the best ever!
8) Most of Paizo´s Adventure Paths don´t catch my interest.
9) I hate the character designs for the Gnome and the hafling. And I really do mean HATE it. I love Wayne Reynolds art, but those two designs makes me so annoyed. I liked the old D&D designs better. If I make a Gnome or Hafling, I draw them as seen in 3.0 and 3.5.
10) I love Dwarves.
11) I have never multiclassed and never will. Dislike the idea.
12) Don´t really care much about other races than the core races.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) I really hate elves. I seriously do.
*points to ears in profile picture*
But ... but ... but ... but we're so fluffy and tree-huggy and awesome and cool and FAAAABULOOOOUS!
Also, our sweat is clean enough to drink, we always land on our feet, the same as cats, and we're generally just awesome and fantastic and can do no wrong.
And I couldn't even write all that with a straight face ...
I hate playing martial characters. I can do things in the real world that lvl 20s can't do, and I always feel stupidly constrained and pathetic compared to the real me, so I don't play martial characters.
I also hate classes, though I like several of the other mechanics in d20.
1) I really hate elves. I seriously do.*points to ears in profile picture*
But ... but ... but ... but we're so fluffy and tree-huggy and awesome and cool and FAAAABULOOOOUS!
Also, our sweat is clean enough to drink, we always land on our feet, the same as cats, and we're generally just awesome and fantastic and can do no wrong.
And I couldn't even write all that with a straight face ...
Confimed! GM is an elf, now I have to kill. Guess there will be no Legacy of Fire tonight.
I am sorry, Alken, but I´ll have to put you down, girl.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) I really hate elves. I seriously do.*points to ears in profile picture*
But ... but ... but ... but we're so fluffy and tree-huggy and awesome and cool and FAAAABULOOOOUS!
Also, our sweat is clean enough to drink, we always land on our feet, the same as cats, and we're generally just awesome and fantastic and can do no wrong.
And I couldn't even write all that with a straight face ...
Confimed! GM is an elf, now I have to kill. Guess there will be no Legacy of Fire tonight.
I am sorry, Alken, but I´ll have to put you down, girl.
NOOOOO! I'll go ally myself with my lovely trees and they shall keep thee away from my elfy selfy, beer-breathed and stumpy knave! I shall then proceed to frolick. Because elf. Also, I shall endeavour to swoon. And probably sigh in a consumptive way.
I hate GMs who encourage the players to make real characters rather than power game. Then do nothing to enforce it, so the players who were fool enough to listen to the GM have pathetic characters.
I guess I'm lucky then, as no one at my table power games, though at the same time the characters are not pathetic (just because they don't power game, doesn't mean they do the complete opposite). However the encounters are generally balanced to the character's power levels, as we homebrew our games, and generally don't run APs.
I hate being interrupted when I finally get to do something by a player who is take up three times as much time as I am. I hate it even more when the interruption is a waste of time.
I completely agree.