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


Gamer Life General Discussion

3,551 to 3,600 of 4,499 << first < prev | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | next > last >>

Oh, and I love the moment in my last campaign where my Tiefling Vanguard (3pp spontaneous Magus basically) betrayed the rest of the party and killed them all. If it wasn't for DM interference, they would have stayed dead. And the moment was scripted with the DM so totally legit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

And how did the rest of the party feel about that?


DekoTheBarbarian wrote:

I wish there was a Sticky somewhere on the forum that gave a list of the various phrases such as "MAD" and "SAD" and others plus their meaning. I've only really been reading the forums frequently for a few days and it confuses me.

I like making characters with low Int because I find them fun to play.

I love the new Unchained rage mechanics. And the new stance rage powers are awesome.

Just ask away. No harm in asking.

SAD and MAD refer to Single and Multiple Attribute Dependent classes.

Some classes only need a single attribute to function, such as the wizard (intelligence). This is a SAD class. Other classes need several attributes to function, such as the paladin (strength and dex for combat, charisma for abilities). This is a MAD class.

Whenever you see something that you don't know, just ask and others will be happy to explain. :)

Shadow Lodge

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
bookrat wrote:

So, um... I apparently have a confession that will get me shunned, because I was shunned for it just today here on these boards:

I am perfectly fine and regularly create characters with a maximum starting ability score (after racial adjustments) of 16 or 17, even with a 25 point buy. I don't feel like I need an 18 or higher at level 1 to make an effective character.

I'm with you. I very rarely go above 16. In my 12 PFS characters I have only once gone as high as 18.

I think of 14, 14, 14, 13, 12, 10 (before racial adjustments) as the perfect stat array.

I've only had two PFS characters. The first had pre-racial stats (highest to lowest) of 17, 16, 13, 12, 7, 7.

My last character had 18, 18, 8, 7, 7, 7.

I hate point buy.

I came to Pathfinder after 15+ years of GURPS. I hate anything that *isn't* point buy.


Tormsskull wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
This is one of the reasons that I despise starting at 1st level!

I don't understand why people try to warp the game requirements to the character's backstory. It seems that you should write a backstory with full knowledge of the game - if the game starts at level one, your character shouldn't be a grizzled vet.

If the only backstory that you can think of that fits a level one characters is farmboy, I'd say you're lacking creativity.

Because grizzled vet is a common and fun trope that they'd like to play? But can't if their games always start at first level.

Level based games push pretty strongly against anything like that, since power is so strongly tied to experience - it makes little sense to have a high level novice or a low level veteran. Other systems don't necessarily have this trouble - it's quite easy in a point based system to build an experienced veteran (lower stats, lots of skills) and a promising youngster (high stats, not a lot of skill) and have them be on the same power level.


pH unbalanced wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
bookrat wrote:

So, um... I apparently have a confession that will get me shunned, because I was shunned for it just today here on these boards:

I am perfectly fine and regularly create characters with a maximum starting ability score (after racial adjustments) of 16 or 17, even with a 25 point buy. I don't feel like I need an 18 or higher at level 1 to make an effective character.

I'm with you. I very rarely go above 16. In my 12 PFS characters I have only once gone as high as 18.

I think of 14, 14, 14, 13, 12, 10 (before racial adjustments) as the perfect stat array.

I've only had two PFS characters. The first had pre-racial stats (highest to lowest) of 17, 16, 13, 12, 7, 7.

My last character had 18, 18, 8, 7, 7, 7.

I hate point buy.

I came to Pathfinder after 15+ years of GURPS. I hate anything that *isn't* point buy.

I also like stat arrays.

And dice are fine for one-off games.


thejeff wrote:
Because grizzled vet is a common and fun trope that they'd like to play? But can't if their games always start at first level.

So why not simply say "I'd like to play a character that is a grizzled vet. I'm thinking starting at level four would work for that. Level one certainly won't."

If the group/GM agrees, you're all set. But if the group doesn't, and wants to start at level one, why try to still force your grizzled vet idea into the game? Come up with something else. Or talk with the GM, perhaps you can play a novice until the group hits level four, then you can retire your character and bring in your level four grizzled vet?

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
This is one of the reasons that I despise starting at 1st level!

I don't understand why people try to warp the game requirements to the character's backstory. It seems that you should write a backstory with full knowledge of the game - if the game starts at level one, your character shouldn't be a grizzled vet.

If the only backstory that you can think of that fits a level one characters is farmboy, I'd say you're lacking creativity.

Because grizzled vet is a common and fun trope that they'd like to play? But can't if their games always start at first level.

Level based games push pretty strongly against anything like that, since power is so strongly tied to experience - it makes little sense to have a high level novice or a low level veteran. Other systems don't necessarily have this trouble - it's quite easy in a point based system to build an experienced veteran (lower stats, lots of skills) and a promising youngster (high stats, not a lot of skill) and have them be on the same power level.

It does if you don't view level/XP as some objective aspect of the universe rather then a game mechanic.


Tormsskull wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Because grizzled vet is a common and fun trope that they'd like to play? But can't if their games always start at first level.

So why not simply say "I'd like to play a character that is a grizzled vet. I'm thinking starting at level four would work for that. Level one certainly won't."

If the group/GM agrees, you're all set. But if the group doesn't, and wants to start at level one, why try to still force your grizzled vet idea into the game? Come up with something else. Or talk with the GM, perhaps you can play a novice until the group hits level four, then you can retire your character and bring in your level four grizzled vet?

Because I'm tired of having to come up with a different character concept than the one I want to play for the sixth campaign in a row, and the group still wants to play starting at first level - primarily because we play APs and those start at 1st level.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I don't see why you can't start as a grizzled vet at first level, most default guards or soldiers or what have you are warriors not PC classes


Krensky wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
This is one of the reasons that I despise starting at 1st level!

I don't understand why people try to warp the game requirements to the character's backstory. It seems that you should write a backstory with full knowledge of the game - if the game starts at level one, your character shouldn't be a grizzled vet.

If the only backstory that you can think of that fits a level one characters is farmboy, I'd say you're lacking creativity.

Because grizzled vet is a common and fun trope that they'd like to play? But can't if their games always start at first level.

Level based games push pretty strongly against anything like that, since power is so strongly tied to experience - it makes little sense to have a high level novice or a low level veteran. Other systems don't necessarily have this trouble - it's quite easy in a point based system to build an experienced veteran (lower stats, lots of skills) and a promising youngster (high stats, not a lot of skill) and have them be on the same power level.

It does if you don't view level/XP as some objective aspect of the universe rather then a game mechanic.

It really doesn't. Because there's no good mechanical way to distinguish. Sure, I can make a 1st level character and call him a grizzled vet and you can make one and call him a wet behind the ears farmboy, but other than maybe a trait or two, there's nothing in the mechanics to reflect that.


bookrat wrote:
Because I'm tired of having to come up with a different character concept than the one I want to play for the sixth campaign in a row, and the group still wants to play starting at first level - primarily because we play APs and those start at 1st level.

Maybe you need to find a different group? There seems to be a ton of games forming online at all times of the year. Or take my earlier suggestion and make a temporary character for levels 1-4, and then retire him when the group hits four and let the new guy come in. That seems like a reasonable solution that most GMs would go for.


captain yesterday wrote:
I don't see why you can't start as a grizzled vet at first level, most default guards or soldiers or what have you are warriors not PC classes

Because grizzled vets, even if they're warriors, aren't first level warriors. And you're not starting as a warrior anyway.

Sure, you can call yourself a grizzled vet if you want. You can also call write in your background that you "cut the One Ring off of Sauron's hand / slam the gate shut on Rovagug's prison / be the vital part of Asmodeus' plan to overthrow Lucifer".


You could reflect the grizzled vet with skills in tactics, and also explain his low bab as being rusty from lack of practice recently.

Also a trick I sometimes use is to sometimes RP knowledge before I can actually do something, then once I pick some ability up, it is like I had it all along, just never had the chance to use it. For example, my Tanya character was taught how to make Spell Cards, which requires Craft Wondrous, which of course requires level three, so I'm playing her like she already knows, but she won't have the chance to use it till after she hits level three and mechanically gains the feat.

Silver Crusade

Tormsskull wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Because grizzled vet is a common and fun trope that they'd like to play? But can't if their games always start at first level.

So why not simply say "I'd like to play a character that is a grizzled vet. I'm thinking starting at level four would work for that. Level one certainly won't."

If the group/GM agrees, you're all set. But if the group doesn't, and wants to start at level one, why try to still force your grizzled vet idea into the game? Come up with something else. Or talk with the GM, perhaps you can play a novice until the group hits level four, then you can retire your character and bring in your level four grizzled vet?

Because starting at level 4 not only allows me to play a grizzled vet (and infinitely more 'experienced' possibilities), but also allows the others to play talented farmboys.

If the want to play un-talented farmboys, then sub-optimal choices will do that just fine.


thejeff wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I don't see why you can't start as a grizzled vet at first level, most default guards or soldiers or what have you are warriors not PC classes

Because grizzled vets, even if they're warriors, aren't first level warriors. And you're not starting as a warrior anyway.

Sure, you can call yourself a grizzled vet if you want. You can also call write in your background that you "cut the One Ring off of Sauron's hand / slam the gate shut on Rovagug's prison / be the vital part of Asmodeus' plan to overthrow Lucifer".

Be that as it may, I definitely helped Asmodeus overthrow Lucifer. Now, I wasn't exactly there, per se. I was his prisoner. And he would talk to me about his plans and I would give pointers and ideas here and there. And it must've worked, because he rules Hell now.

Why did he talk to me and listen to me? I don't rightly know. Maybe he was bored. Maybe I intrigued him. Maybe my ideas were good. But there you have it. Believe it as you will, but I helped Asmodeus overthrow Lucifer.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
Krensky wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
This is one of the reasons that I despise starting at 1st level!

I don't understand why people try to warp the game requirements to the character's backstory. It seems that you should write a backstory with full knowledge of the game - if the game starts at level one, your character shouldn't be a grizzled vet.

If the only backstory that you can think of that fits a level one characters is farmboy, I'd say you're lacking creativity.

Because grizzled vet is a common and fun trope that they'd like to play? But can't if their games always start at first level.

Level based games push pretty strongly against anything like that, since power is so strongly tied to experience - it makes little sense to have a high level novice or a low level veteran. Other systems don't necessarily have this trouble - it's quite easy in a point based system to build an experienced veteran (lower stats, lots of skills) and a promising youngster (high stats, not a lot of skill) and have them be on the same power level.

It does if you don't view level/XP as some objective aspect of the universe rather then a game mechanic.
It really doesn't. Because there's no good mechanical way to distinguish. Sure, I can make a 1st level character and call him a grizzled vet and you can make one and call him a wet behind the ears farmboy, but other than maybe a trait or two, there's nothing in the mechanics to reflect that.

There nothing in your other example to mechanically reflect it either.

Liberty's Edge

bookrat wrote:


And unless you're my parent or spouse, when I say, "Thanks for the input, but I'm fine with my body and my health," I dang well expect the conversation to be dropped. And if you can't, then you probably won't be invited to my shindigs anymore.

Now, let's go get a beer. :)

That works both ways though. If your not going to do anything about your health. I don't want to hear any complaints about how bad your feeling. If one keeps telling me their knees hurt well either put up with the pain in silence. Or expect to be told to lose weight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Because starting at level 4 not only allows me to play a grizzled vet (and infinitely more 'experienced' possibilities), but also allows the others to play talented farmboys.

If the want to play un-talented farmboys, then sub-optimal choices will do that just fine.

That's your opinion - why should it be valued higher than the other player's opinions?

Someone else could easily make the case that the character concept they want to play can't be done below level 7 and with incredibly high stats.

The answer should be the same regardless - if the group decides to start at level one, bring a character that is suitable for a level one game or opt out of that game and look for one more to your liking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
bookrat wrote:


And unless you're my parent or spouse, when I say, "Thanks for the input, but I'm fine with my body and my health," I dang well expect the conversation to be dropped. And if you can't, then you probably won't be invited to my shindigs anymore.

Now, let's go get a beer. :)

That works both ways though. If your not going to do anything about your health. I don't want to hear any complaints about how bad your feeling. If one keeps telling me their knees hurt well either put up with the pain in silence. Or expect to be told to lose weight.

People do that?

Yeah, in that case, I'd be fine with it.

Stop complaining to me about your health problems. If you want to discuss it in an academic sense or in an advice sense, I'm happy to discuss your issues with you, explain why they occur, and give advice for how to fix it.

If you're just complaining for complaining's sake, then either do something about it or shut up. Or be prepared to hear unsolicited advice since you're giving unsolicited complaints.

The only people I'll complain about my health issues to is my wife or my parents. Anyone else, they will only come up if the conversation guides it that way, and it will be explained academically, it won't be a complaint.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I vastly prefer Spontaneous to Prepared casters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

People who write a backstory for their brand new, 1st level, 0 XP characters that level 20 / mythic 10 characters would be hard-pressed to duplicate.

No, your 0-level character didn't cut the One Ring off of Sauron's hand / slam the gate shut on Rovagug's prison / be the vital part of Asmodeus' plan to overthrow Lucifer. You grew up on a farm.

This right here is the one and only thing I miss about having legitimate Level Loss in the game.

One could have a legitimate level-inappropriate backstory and handwave it away as either a few too many Raise Deads or narrowly surviving a nasty encounter with level-draining undead.


RDM42 wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
bookrat wrote:

So, um... I apparently have a confession that will get me shunned, because I was shunned for it just today here on these boards:

I am perfectly fine and regularly create characters with a maximum starting ability score (after racial adjustments) of 16 or 17, even with a 25 point buy. I don't feel like I need an 18 or higher at level 1 to make an effective character.

I like to aim for max primary stat at level one, that way I can use my 4 level increases to take feats. Of course, I play 5e where stats max at 20 and feats are awesome.

Oh, don't get me wrong. It's perfectly fine to do that. It's just something that I don't typically do.

However, I was shunned for it. I was told, literally, "I'm sorry - but I can't think of any class where that [not having an 18 at level 1] would be a good idea even if you don't dump stat. Even the most MAD classes should have a post-racial 18 with a 25pt buy. The lack of dump-statting just prevents a 2nd 18."

So, if we are talking pathfinder here, they thought that being plus one behind in your primary stat was such a crippling move that the character would not be playable?

and if I was going to be going full 1 - 20, I would think a seventeen would be a more efficient place to start. It still gets you to the same maximum plus with the stat increases, but gives you an extra four points of improvement to use in secondary useful stats.

In a 1-20 game [incredibly rare though they may be] your primary stat gets +5 Inherent Bonus from Manuals/Tomes or Wishes. This stacks with the actual increases from levels.

At level 20 your bog standard Wizard has between a 34 and 36 Intelligence, assuming they started with at least an 18. A 17 will never reach 34.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Confession: I hate the entitled number crunching b&+++&#+ that seems to have infected D&D related games since 3.0 pulled new people into the game.


Krensky wrote:
Confession: I hate the entitled number crunching b*&!!$%~ that seems to have infected D&D related games since 3.0 pulled new people into the game.

Weirdly enough I don't hate them per se.

I hate when they want.to play their way when I am GMing and it is specifically not a Mathfinder situation - to wit, roleplay. I have days where I want to roll dice and hack and slash, but it isn't always the mood.

I prefer the math be brought to bear in esoteric was that make me laugh before I issue forth a FFS and take everything off the rails.


DekoTheBarbarian wrote:
Oh, and I love the moment in my last campaign where my Tiefling Vanguard (3pp spontaneous Magus basically) betrayed the rest of the party and killed them all. If it wasn't for DM interference, they would have stayed dead. And the moment was scripted with the DM so totally legit.

Was it Oked by the rest of the group? This betrays a pretty big RPG social convention, and can get you shunned.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

In a 1-20 game [incredibly rare though they may be] your primary stat gets +5 Inherent Bonus from Manuals/Tomes or Wishes. This stacks with the actual increases from levels.

At level 20 your bog standard Wizard has between a 34 and 36 Intelligence, assuming they started with at least an 18. A 17 will never reach 34.

Start with 18, add 5 from levels and 5 from wishes= 28 +6 item= 34

Start with 17, add 5 from levels and 5 from wishes= 27 +6 item= 33

How do you get 36??


DrDeth wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

In a 1-20 game [incredibly rare though they may be] your primary stat gets +5 Inherent Bonus from Manuals/Tomes or Wishes. This stacks with the actual increases from levels.

At level 20 your bog standard Wizard has between a 34 and 36 Intelligence, assuming they started with at least an 18. A 17 will never reach 34.

Start with 18, add 5 from levels and 5 from wishes= 28 +6 item= 34

Start with 17, add 5 from levels and 5 from wishes= 27 +6 item= 33

How do you get 36??

Start with 18, add 2 from race and 5 from levels and 5 from wishes =30+6 item=36


Yar, it's possible, though given its main benefit don't show up until 20th, perhaps overkill (starting with a bought 18 never seems worth it to me).

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Cranky Bastard wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Confession: I hate the entitled number crunching b*&!!$%~ that seems to have infected D&D related games since 3.0 pulled new people into the game.

Weirdly enough I don't hate them per se.

I hate when they want.to play their way when I am GMing and it is specifically not a Mathfinder situation - to wit, roleplay. I have days where I want to roll dice and hack and slash, but it isn't always the mood.

I prefer the math be brought to bear in esoteric was that make me laugh before I issue forth a FFS and take everything off the rails.

No, its not a rollplay/roleplay false dichotomy elitism thing.

Its that I remember when Manuals, wishes, heck, magic items and boons in general were special rewards, not things that you were entitled too like level based stat increases or getting more HP or skill points when you level.

You do not just get +5 to a stat from wishes because you leveled up. You may encounter magic to get you inherent stat boosts, but you and not fsckig entitled to it!

Liberty's Edge

Also, what the hell do you need a 36 Int for anyway? Wizardly pissing contests?

Gah.

This is part of why I don't play Pathfinder.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Confession: I'm slowly coming to despise these comments of "Yeah man I hate the people who play Pathfinder. I don't even PLAY Pathfinder."

So stop posting about it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, wait, I have something to confess...If I have to settle, I mean settle, for a 33 in my main ability score and cannot have a 34, I don't see how the game can be worth playing at all


Krensky wrote:

Also, what the hell do you need a 36 Int for anyway? Wizardly pissing contests?

Gah.

This is part of why I don't play Pathfinder.

Because it's nice to have your spells work against things actually dangerous to you.

Liberty's Edge

Rynjin wrote:

Confession: I'm slowly coming to despise these comments of "Yeah man I hate the people who play Pathfinder. I don't even PLAY Pathfinder."

So stop posting about it.

I welcome your emnity.


Zhangar wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Also, what the hell do you need a 36 Int for anyway? Wizardly pissing contests?

Gah.

This is part of why I don't play Pathfinder.

Because it's nice to have your spells work against things actually dangerous to you.

So missng a single plus one is going to make your spells not work? Really?


RDM42 wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Also, what the hell do you need a 36 Int for anyway? Wizardly pissing contests?

Gah.

This is part of why I don't play Pathfinder.

Because it's nice to have your spells work against things actually dangerous to you.
So missng a single plus one is going to make your spells not work? Really?

A single +1? Certainly not.

A +3 (not having Inherent from Wish/Tomes)? Starts adding up.

Another +3 (not having a +6 Headband because you're not "entitled" to have it)? Yeah, you better hope you specced into buffs and no-save spells.

Liberty's Edge

I forgot PF not only didn't fix the save issue, they made it worse.


I think that having to roll a 16+ to succeed, at anything, is a seriously good challenge


DrDeth wrote:
DekoTheBarbarian wrote:
Oh, and I love the moment in my last campaign where my Tiefling Vanguard (3pp spontaneous Magus basically) betrayed the rest of the party and killed them all. If it wasn't for DM interference, they would have stayed dead. And the moment was scripted with the DM so totally legit.
Was it Oked by the rest of the group? This betrays a pretty big RPG social convention, and can get you shunned.

Technically it was a surprise, but I think they knew something like that was happening. My character was an NPC from a previous campaign that was evil but ended up losing his memory. The only thing they didn't like was how easily I was beating them two-on-one, but it was all cool with us.


Krensky wrote:
Cranky Bastard wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Confession: I hate the entitled number crunching b*&!!$%~ that seems to have infected D&D related games since 3.0 pulled new people into the game.

Weirdly enough I don't hate them per se.

I hate when they want.to play their way when I am GMing and it is specifically not a Mathfinder situation - to wit, roleplay. I have days where I want to roll dice and hack and slash, but it isn't always the mood.

I prefer the math be brought to bear in esoteric was that make me laugh before I issue forth a FFS and take everything off the rails.

No, its not a rollplay/roleplay false dichotomy elitism thing.

Its that I remember when Manuals, wishes, heck, magic items and boons in general were special rewards, not things that you were entitled too like level based stat increases or getting more HP or skill points when you level.

You do not just get +5 to a stat from wishes because you leveled up. You may encounter magic to get you inherent stat boosts, but you and not fsckig entitled to it!

See, to me, it's not a matter of elitism at all - it's a matter of methodology and when it is apt to apply raw math fun versus using other tools in the kit. I try to supply plenty of opportunities for both, but some people, given a hammer, refuse to use anything but a hammer, when a screwdriver or a wrench would be more apt.

Though I am right there with you on the entitlement front.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Confession: The phrase "martials can't have anything nice" makes me sleepy. It also makes me wonder who has been playing these classes for the last 40 or so years if they suck so bad.


knightnday wrote:
Confession: The phrase "martials can't have anything nice" makes me sleepy. It also makes me wonder who has been playing these classes for the last 40 or so years if they suck so bad.

It still astonishes me after all this time that so many people conflate "This sucks compared to X" with "Nobody uses that".

The iPhone is the most popular smart phone on the market despite being utter s+!~ compared to Android phones or even the Windows phone, lacking features those phones had several years prior, and then adding them with the fanfare you'd expect for a true innovation three years too late.

Popularity and functionality are not the same thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's a twofer.

NASCAR is not a sport.

Using the word "we" when talking about your favorite sports team makes you look like an idiot.

Also, I think it's funny that my tablet almost wrote that second one by itself.


We are all very proud of the USA women's Soccer team (neener neener neener!)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:

Here's a twofer.

NASCAR is not a sport.

B-b-but muh left turns!


I don't think it should be required to give player's what they ask for. I think it should be right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
We are all very proud of the USA women's Soccer team (neener neener neener!)

That's cool, but if you were parading around today saying "We won! We won!" at least give us your jersey number so we can congratulate you properly.

3,551 to 3,600 of 4,499 << first < prev | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Confessions That Will Get You Shunned By The Members Of The Paizo Community All Messageboards