|
Here's the thing about that, one person's unqualified generalizations are another person's gospel truth.
Their is a difference imo. Two plus two equals four. No matter how some deny or it insist it's five and they can prove it.
Gamers complain about the math in the Hero System to be hard. It requires a degree in physics etc. Those are generalizations. The math for hero is simply addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Now I can understand that some don't want to have to deal with that kind of math at a gaming table. I still does not mean it's hard math. That means that one cannot play Pathfinder or any rpg that involves addition or subtraction then because its "too hard". It's simply not true. I find the math in Pathfinder while not hard. Annoying to remember as bonus of similar types don't stack not difficult by any means.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure if this has been said yet.
What I call the double standard. As a DM they disallow all kind of options. Often giving long and unwanted dissertations on why they ban it. Suddenly as a player the options they ban they want to take. For example telling me that "guns don't belong in fantasy, a their tables etc". Then as a player they not only want to play a Gunslinger. They deny hating guns. Sorry no guns for you pick another class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the cleric should have been in Pathfinder Unchained.
Testify.
Despite having the power of 9 level casting, and the versatility of spell preparation, cleric is (in my opinion) the most boring class in Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They have no interesting class features whatsoever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not all of us rely on class features in order to unleash awesome.
-I do not believe the Monk has MAD.
-Science fiction and fantasy never have a 100% solid barrier between them in any of my games. (Although given the success of Iron Gods, I guess I'd only be shunned by a part of Paizo's community :P)
-Ramsay Snow did nothing wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's kind of the point Rynjin, a Cleric is pretty much what you make it, between selection of options among a gigantic list. 2 domains out of a ton, 10 feats and 9 levels of spellcasting with a surprisingly diverse list more potent than is usually given credit.
A lot of other classes manage to have a ton of options and still be interesting.
The Cleric has three class features: Channel (both boring and largely useless), Domains (A mixed bag with very few being interesting), and spellcasting.
They might be powerful, but they're not INTERESTING.
Give me an Oracle any day.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's kind of the point Rynjin, a Cleric is pretty much what you make it, between selection of options among a gigantic list. 2 domains out of a ton, 10 feats and 9 levels of spellcasting with a surprisingly diverse list more potent than is usually given credit.A lot of other classes manage to have a ton of options and still be interesting.
The Cleric has three class features: Channel (both boring and largely useless), Domains (A mixed bag with very few being interesting), and spellcasting.
They might be powerful, but they're not INTERESTING.
Give me an Oracle any day.
Not only is everything Rynjin said spot on, but also the domains only having two effects over 20 levels make leveling far less exciting.
It doesn't matter if you condone it, it is what it is. The fact you don't agree with discriminations doesn't make them go away, and everyone discriminates about something. Reality is more subjective than objective.Thus is born racism, gender superiority, etc. All these discriminations come from this, except applied to real people instead of a game. I therefore can't condone or accept a generalization as valid as a gospel truth under the excuse of subjectivity. If they do it in one aspect of their lives, then they are prone and vulnerable to similar thinking in other aspects of their lives.So I also blame the gamers who make unqualified generalizations as if they were speaking gospel truth.Here's the thing about that, one person's unqualified generalizations are another person's gospel truth.
Yes, yes, even the gospel truth itself isn't objective truth. Doesn't change the fact that people who walk around preaching their own opinion without qualifiers share the responsibility for creating more uninformed opinions.
|
|
I will amend this to: "I hate GMs with the double standard 'guns don't belong in fantasy so you can't have them, but all the enemies you ever face are gunslingers and NO you can't pick the feat up to use their loot.' "
Luckily I have never come across this type of DM and hope never to do so. I would either quit the game. Or buy a weapon like a mace and proceed to smash each and every gun a npc would leave behind. When a opportunity presented itself. Would it be petty on my part as a player possibly. No less petty then a DM disallowing guns for pcs yet allowing npcs and only npcs to use them. Something tells me that your also not allowed to sell the guns for loot either because of "reasons".
That's kind of the point Rynjin, a Cleric is pretty much what you make it, between selection of options among a gigantic list. 2 domains out of a ton, 10 feats and 9 levels of spellcasting with a surprisingly diverse list more potent than is usually given credit.A lot of other classes manage to have a ton of options and still be interesting.
The Cleric has three class features: Channel (both boring and largely useless), Domains (A mixed bag with very few being interesting), and spellcasting.
They might be powerful, but they're not INTERESTING.
Give me an Oracle any day.
So much this.
Though I must confess I actually have the same issue with the druid. I know it's really strong.
But the last time I tried to write up a druid, I realized I'd be bored out of my mind and made a nature oracle instead.
That was fun. Especially once undo artifice came online...
Aside: I don't actually have that issue with wizards, and I think a bit part of that is that the wizard spell list is actually fun, making "you're a 1 to 9 spell list with a couple class features tacked on" significantly more appealing =P
@ Toz: I find that class features can help immensely with inspiring a character.
(And I cannot in good faith ever recommend playing a character if you don't like the character's underlying mechanics.)
My character creation process usually starts with "what class do I actually want to play" and from there goes "now, what would be a neat character who uses this class?"
Or in other words, I start with wanting to play a class, and then I shape the class into a character that fits with the campaign and party.
If the class itself isn't fun for me, then that's going to prove detrimental to whatever character I'm trying to play that has that class.
No qualifiers on "the fact that people who walk around preaching their own opinion without qualifiers". :)
...I see what you did there. :D
That's kind of the point Rynjin, a Cleric is pretty much what you make it, between selection of options among a gigantic list. 2 domains out of a ton, 10 feats and 9 levels of spellcasting with a surprisingly diverse list more potent than is usually given credit.A lot of other classes manage to have a ton of options and still be interesting.
The Cleric has three class features: Channel (both boring and largely useless), Domains (A mixed bag with very few being interesting), and spellcasting.
They might be powerful, but they're not INTERESTING.
Give me an Oracle any day.
We have found Channel to be EXTREMELY useful. To the point where I took a Hospitaller Paladin to get better channeling.
Mind you, yes, oracles are more fun. Sure.
|
|
I don't find the Clerics class features boring at all. Some do become of limited use after a certain point. Like Channel Energy which should scale better. The core domains on the other hand are sometimes very underwhelming. Great my bonus domain spell for both domains is Obscuring Mist. With some of the domain abilites just not worth it imo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Along the lines of my puzzlement at the popularity of the Tengu, I don't get what's so special about Kitsune.
Along the lines of my puzzlement at the popularity of the Tengu, I don't get what's so special about Kitsune.
How many other full on shapeshifting PC races are there?
Being the only race that can fake being Human while being very distinctly not Human is pretty cool. Plus they get some feats that augment it. Realistic Likeness is a gamebreaker in some campaigns when used well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I especially hate being the only one who actually thinks about the game when we're not playing.
This. Sooooo much this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Along the lines of my puzzlement at the popularity of the Tengu, I don't get what's so special about Kitsune.
Combines kitties and foxes and Japanese. Appealing to no less than three groups.
Not to mention they are fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Toz: I find that class features can help immensely with inspiring a character.It was my confession to be shunned for.
Shun him, SHUN HIM!!!
;-)
That's kind of the point Rynjin, a Cleric is pretty much what you make it, between selection of options among a gigantic list. 2 domains out of a ton, 10 feats and 9 levels of spellcasting with a surprisingly diverse list more potent than is usually given credit.A lot of other classes manage to have a ton of options and still be interesting.
The Cleric has three class features: Channel (both boring and largely useless), Domains (A mixed bag with very few being interesting), and spellcasting.
They might be powerful, but they're not INTERESTING.
Give me an Oracle any day.
We have found Channel to be EXTREMELY useful. To the point where I took a Hospitaller Paladin to get better channeling.
Mind you, yes, oracles are more fun. Sure.
I actually like the Hospitaler (mostly because it gives me more LoH, and I love LoH) but the thing that makes me scratch my head is that Hospitalers actually have a WORSE Channel. It's level-3 instead of full level, though it being a separate pool makes up for it a little.
But I've never found Channel to be good after like 3rd level. The healing it gives doesn't keep up with HP scaling at all. You end up burning all your uses just to heal up after one fight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For us, the best part of channeling energy was that it hit everyone - a couple of uses goes a long way for five PCs, two cohorts, and an animal companion.
A channel energy burst can be the difference in saving a character or watching him bleed out while you're too far away to help otherwise.
If you're too far away to help otherwise, Channel won't reach either. It's a 30 ft. radius.
Unless we're talking Channel Ray, which is a pretty cool Feat.
Unless we're talking Channel Ray, which is a pretty cool Feat.
Yep. Got it. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love playing lycanthropes who are not evil, particularly weretigers.
I think lycanthropes should have more support and options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I base my character builds on the needs of the party, and then optimize to the point of trivializing the things in the game my character is designed to be good at.
I am an unabashed Power-Gaming, Min/Maxing, Munchkin (see above).
I cannot stand to play at a table that doesn't role play heavily.
I love the Kineticist as a class, and I LOVE the burn mechanic.
I have no problem with inter-party conflict, provided there is a good in-character reason for it.
I LIKE Mythic.
I enjoy Gestalt games.
I think Alignments work.
I tend to ignore Alignments.
I enjoy playing Evil Characters in a Good-Aligned party; if only because it can be fun to tempt others into doing bad things for a good cause.
I miss THAC0.
I hate Vancian magic.
I like the Savage Worlds system better than any existing D20 system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doctor BEEEEEES could probably help with that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I demand werebees.
Well that idea has some sting to it. Hive seen worse, though. Still, I'd need to be pretty buzzed to play such a character. I'm not sure which books I'd need to comb through to create it, however.
Oh yeah- my confession: I enjoy puns WAY too much.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I especially hate being the only one who actually thinks about the game when we're not playing.This. Sooooo much this.
Along with this, I hate being the only one who actually thinks about the game WHILE we're playing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate seeing humans in fantasy settings, books and movies.
Furries rule and I love them being 'mostly' in Pathfinder.
I like point buy
Wrath of Khan sucked compared to Into Darkness.
I hate humans as a race
The best villains are humans and elves.
Unchained was completely unnecessary.
The Rogue is a ton of fun to play.
Brawlers are kind of dumb.
The Belt of 'Giantess' Strength is my favorite magic item/cursed item.
I hate humans in RPGs
I like to play Pathfinder and D&D alone sometimes.
I've designed a lot of silly items I never used.
One was pants of giant strength. They give the wearer a bonus to strength, and also make them smell like the giant. It makes tracking and "spotting" them much easier.
Silly Goth, everyone knows adventurers don't wear pants.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think with each edition the game became more of a tabletop minis wargame and less of an RPG.
I think that the more feats we have, the more people believe they need a specific feat to be able to do anything.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am extremely unhappy with the absurd limits in the race builder. I have a setting with intelligent octopi and intelligent quadrupeds (with wings but no arms) and a race with a snake body with arms but no legs, none of which is buildable due to tbe requirement of all races to have a minimum of two arms, two hands, a head, and two legs, and all the magic item slots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Toz: I find that class features can help immensely with inspiring a character.
(And I cannot in good faith ever recommend playing a character if you don't like the character's underlying mechanics.)
My character creation process usually starts with "what class do I actually want to play" and from there goes "now, what would be a neat character who uses this class?"
Or in other words, I start with wanting to play a class, and then I shape the class into a character that fits with the campaign and party.
If the class itself isn't fun for me, then that's going to prove detrimental to whatever character I'm trying to play that has that class.
Interesting take on it. I know several players using the same approach.
I can't get into it. I just can't see the attraction, personally. For me, character generation always starts with a mental image. A person. A situation that helped define them. Perhaps then a race, to fit the mental image. I add at least the rudimentary outlines of a personality and some history to that character and as that happens, I usually end up with two or three classes that seem logical, and I end up choosing from those.
The only times I start with a class, it's usually because a specific need has to be filled in a group, but it always seemed awkward to me and like I'm going about the character creation process the wrong way.
Mind you, wrong way for me, not necessarily for anyone else.
I think we all get used to creating characters in a certain way after a while, and stick to it. But one thing I do see an awful lot of with your method, is dithering. A player comes up with what they think is an amazing character concept, based on mechanics and class features with bells and whistles on. Two days later, after declaring that THIS is the character that player is going to make, and everyone else in the group starts preparing for playing with such a character, the same player comes back with a NEW character with bells and whistles on, that he or she wants to play because wow, awesome. And two days after that, it's a NEW character ... and ... so ... on.
It's a bit like the boy who cried wolf, in that respect, and after a while ... and this is something I've seen many, many times over the decades ... people stop listening to this player's ideas and answer mostly in monosyllabic expressions of "yes", "no" or "Erh?". The rest of the group starts planning future, possible synergies and perhaps even teamwork feats or how their characters might know one another, interact or get along, but the ditherer is excluded from this, not out of spite or malice but because the other players feel "Meh, two days from now, it's going to be another character anyway, so I'm not going to commit my character to anything."
In the end, the game is about to start and all too often, this type of player ends up having to go with their latest idea, thought up within a few days of the compaign starting, meaning they have very little time to prepare and think up personality and character depth, compared to players who may have spent several weeks slowly building up a full personality for their characters.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, because whatever works for each of us is what we have to go with. But it's an observation I've made, and it does tend to lead to much less fleshed out and complete characters, based less on "who" and more on "what".
The up-side is that many such players, of course, are far more familiar with the mechanics of their character and will therefore be better prepared for anything involving rules.
So ... both methods probably work, with different people.