Confession: So far I really haven't gotten into archetypes. I still like base classes better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sunday always feels like the end of days, with a sense of impending doom hanging over the entire day. Even on three day weekends or at the beginning of a vacation week.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Confession: So far I really haven't gotten into archetypes. I still like base classes better.
I've used archetypes since 2nd edition, when they were called kits. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Exalted 3e is a better-designed game than Pathfinder in every possible way. Even the crafting rules, which are generally understood to be terrible.
So, why arent you playing that game??
I am not being snarky, just curious. I dont play systems I dont like.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Confession: So far I really haven't gotten into archetypes. I still like base classes better.
Archetypes replaced those incredibly broken PrC's, which was a great way to go. I knew high level PC's in 3.5 with six PrCs, mostly dips.
Confession: So far I really haven't gotten into archetypes. I still like base classes better.I've used archetypes since 2nd edition, when they were called kits. :P
Funny how things come full circle.
I think Exalted 3e is a better-designed game than Pathfinder in every possible way. Even the crafting rules, which are generally understood to be terrible.So, why arent you playing that game??
I am not being snarky, just curious. I dont play systems I dont like.
I've found a couple of systems I like at least a little better, but it is almost impossible to form a group. I find 1 guy willing to give it a try. By the time I find another, the first guy has joined some other group (probably playing PF or DnD) so doesn't have the time.
{shrug}
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And a few rounds of "Sweet Adeline"Fake mustaches all around, I hope.I sing in a Ladies Barbershop Chorus...Do you wear the spiffy hat, vest and bow tie, because that would be awesome :-)
Neil Diamond?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bro! Ye need gander hither at the fine lass bringing alcoholic nourishment over yonder, I shall call to her verily and seek carnal discourse... Dude! Prithee! she said nay!...I confess I read past the first definition in a dictionary, and am capable of identifying that ironic has more than one proper use, regardless of what people may think due to English being an evolving language.
Until I see those exact same people only ever saying prithee, ye, nay, yonder, verily, and every single archaic word that has since evolved into newer ones such as please, yes, no, there, truly, etc, I will continue to use ironic to mean "wryly amusing due to an unexpected poetically just scenario", because it's a lot shorter to type.
Forsoooooooth!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neil Diamond?And a few rounds of "Sweet Adeline"Fake mustaches all around, I hope.I sing in a Ladies Barbershop Chorus...Do you wear the spiffy hat, vest and bow tie, because that would be awesome :-)
No, that would be "Sweet Caroline" completely different girl...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Confession: So far I really haven't gotten into archetypes. I still like base classes better.Archetypes replaced those incredibly broken PrC's, which was a great way to go. I knew high level PC's in 3.5 with six PrCs, mostly dips.
Or played by dips.....?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Confession: I don't find that archetypes replace PrCs. There are many archetypes that should be PrCS, and several PrCs that should be archetypes; but overall I feel that each one should get its own design space and be used well.
Good indication that a PrC should have been an archetype: has a class feature prerequisite that only one class can fulfill.
Good indication that an archetype should be a PrC: Alters class features that can be obtained in multiple ways OR alters no class features.
Why should I be forced to play a wizard to be a spell slinger?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or played by dips.....?Confession: So far I really haven't gotten into archetypes. I still like base classes better.Archetypes replaced those incredibly broken PrC's, which was a great way to go. I knew high level PC's in 3.5 with six PrCs, mostly dips.
"You Double-Dipped?!"
No, that would be "Sweet Caroline" completely different girl...Neil Diamond?And a few rounds of "Sweet Adeline"Fake mustaches all around, I hope.I sing in a Ladies Barbershop Chorus...Do you wear the spiffy hat, vest and bow tie, because that would be awesome :-)
Sorry. Right after I read that, my mind played "DUN DUN DUN".
I think Exalted 3e is a better-designed game than Pathfinder in every possible way. Even the crafting rules, which are generally understood to be terrible.So, why arent you playing that game??
I am not being snarky, just curious. I dont play systems I dont like.
I've found a couple of systems I like at least a little better, but it is almost impossible to form a group. I find 1 guy willing to give it a try. By the time I find another, the first guy has joined some other group (probably playing PF or DnD) so doesn't have the time.
{shrug}
During the heyday of new systems, that often occurred; five guys would get together, each would prefer a different system, so they settled on D&D. I mean when you have one dude wanting Chivalry & Sorcery and another wanting T&T, and then another wanting Runequest, then another prefers Fantasy Hero and then GURPs- you pretty much play D&D.
My self, I actually would like to play AD&D, but it hard to get a group. But of the current games out there, PF is the best and best supported- best supported being important.
Every try and play a game which just had the rulebook, nothing else, and there's no support for the rules? No Errata, nothing? Man I hate that.
Why should I be forced to play a wizard to be a spell slinger?
You're not- you can play a Sorc or a witch or a Oracle or a Arcanist or a Shaman or a ....
My self, I actually would like to play AD&D, but it hard to get a group.
I imagine if you were willing to do an online campaign, you could find others also willing to do AD&D.
I actually convinced my live group to do AD&D a couple of years ago. It was a bit of system shock (pun very much intended) as some of the players brought their 3.x mindset with them. Ended up being a decent campaign however.
I think Exalted 3e is a better-designed game than Pathfinder in every possible way. Even the crafting rules, which are generally understood to be terrible.So, why arent you playing that game??
I am not being snarky, just curious. I dont play systems I dont like.
I've found a couple of systems I like at least a little better, but it is almost impossible to form a group. I find 1 guy willing to give it a try. By the time I find another, the first guy has joined some other group (probably playing PF or DnD) so doesn't have the time.
{shrug}
During the heyday of new systems, that often occurred; five guys would get together, each would prefer a different system, so they settled on D&D. I mean when you have one dude wanting Chivalry & Sorcery and another wanting T&T, and then another wanting Runequest, then another prefers Fantasy Hero and then GURPs- you pretty much play D&D.
My self, I actually would like to play AD&D, but it hard to get a group. But of the current games out there, PF is the best and best supported- best supported being important.
Every try and play a game which just had the rulebook, nothing else, and there's no support for the rules? No Errata, nothing? Man I hate that.
Kinda like that. Friend of mine really wanted to play the Dresden files. I didn't think the 'rules' such as they were, sounded very good. But I was reluctantly willing to give it a try with him, if he could find a group. Lucky for me, he was never able to get more than one person at a time.
The one that I really remember trying to recruit a group for was the old d6 version of star wars. A friend and I mock gamed through a module and several sample combats. It seemed to work pretty well (even once you started having capital ships mixed up with snubs). Especially if you had a dice roller program, just so you didn't have to add up 37 dice every turn. I suppose we should have tried starting when we had 3 people (GM and 2 players) then maybe it would have crept along until we got a 4th. But we never did. We always tried to find that 4th person. By the time we did, the 3rd was on to something else.
You're not- you can play a Sorc or a witch or a Oracle or a Arcanist or a Shaman or a ....
Why should I be forced to play a wizard to be a spell slinger?
Those classes don't have the archetype for shooting spells out of a magic gun, though. And there's not really another way to get that ability without homebrewing something.
Which I believe is what Big's talking about.
I'm vary glad that archetypes are a thing, but I agree with Big that the system has room for archetypes AND PrCs - they serve different purposes.
You're not- you can play a Sorc or a witch or a Oracle or a Arcanist or a Shaman or a ....
Why should I be forced to play a wizard to be a spell slinger?
Those classes have a Spell Slinger archetype?
Those classes have a Spell Slinger archetype?You're not- you can play a Sorc or a witch or a Oracle or a Arcanist or a Shaman or a ....
Why should I be forced to play a wizard to be a spell slinger?
It's "Spellslinger", not being a spell slinger, which is a term meaning a guy who slings spells around.
And yes, of course you have to be a Wizard to be a Spellslinger as Sorcs dont have Scribe Scroll and Arcane School. etc
That doesnt mean they wont have other spellcasting classes that use guns- they have one for Investigators, Paladins, etc. Actually there might already be one. somewhere.
Or you just create your own using the existing one(s) as a starting point. What Paizo has provided is a beginning, but not the entirety.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm gonna unleash a small salvo here, starting with this one:
I like memes. I think they actually do offer some insight into current culture. However, memes are not "stupid political ideas that the nut jobs on the other side believe." Using the word that way makes you look like a fool.
I recently saw one that I thought was funny:
What if deja vu means you died and had to restart from a previous save?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been collecting and creating various ways to say "I see what you did there".
Example: I espy what you caused to happen there.
Same thing with ways to say "I don't give a +^#@".
Example: Look upon the field where I grow my +^#@s. As you can see, it is bare and thus I have no +^#@s to give.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I literally cannot live without salt and sugar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My parents were telling me about mimeographs once. I couldn't figure out why anyone would want to listen to a record with no sound.
I get the impression that would suck.
|
I dislike the drunken, hammer-and-axe swinging, ale-drinking dwarves with an annoying Scottish accent. That's why I replaced them in my games with drunken, sword-and-pick swinging, bourbon-drinking dwarves with an annoying Southern accent.
I have only played RPGs for under 2 years.
I enjoy optimising.
I can't help offering assistance to people in order to build a stronger characters.
I cringe every time someone uses a class name as an excuse of his actions.
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been collecting and creating various ways to say "I see what you did there".
Example: I espy what you caused to happen there.
Same thing with ways to say "I don't give a +^#@".
Example: Look upon the field where I grow my +^#@s. As you can see, it is bare and thus I have no +^#@s to give.
Those classes have a Spell Slinger archetype?You're not- you can play a Sorc or a witch or a Oracle or a Arcanist or a Shaman or a ....
Why should I be forced to play a wizard to be a spell slinger?
It's "Spellslinger", not being a spell slinger, which is a term meaning a guy who slings spells around.
And yes, of course you have to be a Wizard to be a Spellslinger as Sorcs dont have Scribe Scroll and Arcane School. etc
That doesnt mean they wont have other spellcasting classes that use guns- they have one for Investigators, Paladins, etc. Actually there might already be one. somewhere.
Two things:
1.) That first bit's not really relevant. Remember, it was a complaint that it was a single class archetype, rather than a Prestige Class. "Well yeah it's an archetype, it trades X class feature!" misses the point.
2.) It's not a matter of a spellcasting class that can use guns. It's a matter of a class that can fire spell bullets. Anybody can use guns with Exotic Weapon Proficiency.
In essence, what was being discussed is "Why isn't Spellslinger the gun version for Arcane Archer?".
I cringe every time someone uses a class name as an excuse of his actions.
So true. And CE alignment, amirite?
I've always had the feeling i would get stuck in a time travel event someday. I have a password for identifying myself , and memorized the plans for a telegraph in case i wind up in rome.
I've always had the feeling i would get stuck in a time travel event someday. I have a password for identifying myself , and memorized the plans for a telegraph in case i wind up in rome.
Bah. That's just proper preparation. Can't shun you for that.
Because the only time he ever really came up for me was in Bill and Teds excellent adventure, that greek philosopher guy will always be So Crates in my head.
Beware, you might infuriate all the Philosophy 101 folks.
They never shut up.
I know because I'm one of them.
Rabble Rabble.
|
|
I'm gonna unleash a small salvo here, starting with this one:
I like memes. I think they actually do offer some insight into current culture. However, memes are not "stupid political ideas that the nut jobs on the other side believe." Using the word that way makes you look like a fool.
I recently saw one that I thought was funny:
What if deja vu means you died and had to restart from a previous save?
.....have you asked me that before....?
Those classes have a Spell Slinger archetype?You're not- you can play a Sorc or a witch or a Oracle or a Arcanist or a Shaman or a ....
Why should I be forced to play a wizard to be a spell slinger?
It's "Spellslinger", not being a spell slinger, which is a term meaning a guy who slings spells around.
And yes, of course you have to be a Wizard to be a Spellslinger as Sorcs dont have Scribe Scroll and Arcane School. etc
That doesnt mean they wont have other spellcasting classes that use guns- they have one for Investigators, Paladins, etc. Actually there might already be one. somewhere.
Two things:
1.) That first bit's not really relevant. Remember, it was a complaint that it was a single class archetype, rather than a Prestige Class. "Well yeah it's an archetype, it trades X class feature!" misses the point.
2.) It's not a matter of a spellcasting class that can use guns. It's a matter of a class that can fire spell bullets. Anybody can use guns with Exotic Weapon Proficiency.
In essence, what was being discussed is "Why isn't Spellslinger the gun version for Arcane Archer?".
Hmmm, archetypes for PrCs. Interesting!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm, archetypes for PrCs. Interesting!
No! Don't do it! It'd be like dividing by zero or putting a bag of holding in a portable hole! Horrible things!
:)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer to watch bad commercials or movies on TV so I can yell at them.
"Geese do not have cell phones!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I literally cannot live without salt and sugar.Making you no different than any other animal.
THAT'S THE JOKE!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aren't those supposed to be, you know, funny? ;)THAT'S THE JOKE!I literally cannot live without salt and sugar.Making you no different than any other animal.
I was amused. I guess there's just no accounting for taste.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was amused. I guess there's just no accounting for taste.Aren't those supposed to be, you know, funny? ;)THAT'S THE JOKE!I literally cannot live without salt and sugar.Making you no different than any other animal.
You just need a little seasoning and a bit of sweetener.
This joke is getting better and better.
Confession: So far I really haven't gotten into archetypes. I still like base classes better.I've used archetypes since 2nd edition, when they were called kits. :P
Never really used kits either. I always liked rangers and druids, which I think have always been pretty solid classes. I did use some 3.5e PrC's for the ranger, Darkwood Stalker, Order of the Bow Initiate, but didn't multiclass much, because I wanted those high level abilities, (not counting 1e of course) until D20 Modern, where that's more the rule rather than the exception.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or played by dips.....?Confession: So far I really haven't gotten into archetypes. I still like base classes better.Archetypes replaced those incredibly broken PrC's, which was a great way to go. I knew high level PC's in 3.5 with six PrCs, mostly dips.
I even hate the term. :-P
Dips, builds, DPR, some folks are all about that, and that's fine, but all that just isn't me. I still "roll up" or "make" characters, even when I am using point buy. I guess 37 years of gaming does that to you. Not that I don't usually plan out all 20 levels for feats, abilities, etc., of course I do, I want to make an effective character, I just do it more old school. Give it up for the old timers, woot! :-P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or played by dips.....?Confession: So far I really haven't gotten into archetypes. I still like base classes better.Archetypes replaced those incredibly broken PrC's, which was a great way to go. I knew high level PC's in 3.5 with six PrCs, mostly dips.I even hate the term. :-P
Dips, builds, DPR, some folks are all about that, and that's fine, but all that just isn't me. I still "roll up" or "make" characters, even when I am using point buy. I guess 37 years of gaming does that to you. Not that I don't usually plan out all 20 levels for feats, abilities, etc., of course I do, I want to make an effective character, I just do it more old school. Give it up for the old timers, woot! :-P
...So what you're saying is you make a build, but you don't call it that.
...So what you're saying is you make a build, but you don't call it that.Or played by dips.....?Confession: So far I really haven't gotten into archetypes. I still like base classes better.Archetypes replaced those incredibly broken PrC's, which was a great way to go. I knew high level PC's in 3.5 with six PrCs, mostly dips.I even hate the term. :-P
Dips, builds, DPR, some folks are all about that, and that's fine, but all that just isn't me. I still "roll up" or "make" characters, even when I am using point buy. I guess 37 years of gaming does that to you. Not that I don't usually plan out all 20 levels for feats, abilities, etc., of course I do, I want to make an effective character, I just do it more old school. Give it up for the old timers, woot! :-P
Exactly!
I believe you can have characters that are technically adept and fun to roleplay, it's just I work in a highly technical field with enough regulations, rules, and TLA (three letter acronym) references already, and don't really get into the technical terms gamers are using now. It's true, you do get somewhat set in your ways as you age.
Confession: I don't plan characters. The only time I know a character will get something later on is if I can't have it at the level I'm starting but it is something that makes sense for the character already.
Also, I have never needed to worry about making my characters effective. They are always effective, they just use tactics that suit what ability they have.