| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I discovered something else that I'm in the minority on:
Rolling for stats. Rolling for stats is just better. No, you're wrong.
No. No.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Encumbrance, Inorite? When people carry lots they move slower, that's awesome! .... Ummm... What do you like about encumbrance rules in PF?
I'll answer that, Sissyl, if you answer what you like most about this thread.
I love the alignment system personally. In a fantasy game I like knowing who's good, who's evil, and that generally different spells react with the different alignments. Granted I also like monks, not on paper, but in games. I also like the lighting rules... you are an adventurer learn to carry a torch, hire a torchbearer, or buy an everburning torch or continual light spell on your belt buckle.
The Abjuration school!
Counterspelling people's spells, denying people their advantages from spells and magic items! My favourite part of the Abjuration school is the reactive methods of making other people's awesome just not work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I discovered something else that I'm in the minority on:
Rolling for stats. Rolling for stats is just better. No, you're wrong.
No. No.
I am definitely in your boat! It makes me sad whenever people say "don't roll for stats, use point buy". Well, maybe I like putting my fate in the hands of the dice when I create my character.
I also like charisma. When I use point buy it kills me to dump charisma in order to boost another score, even if I'm playing a class that doesn't have any mechanical needs for it other than social skills.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vital strike for anyone who cant pounce(cheese).
Die hard
Fighters
Rogues
Guns/gunslingers
Caster supremacy
I also like charisma. When I use point buy it kills me to dump charisma in order to boost another score, even if I'm playing a class that doesn't have any mechanical needs for it other than social skills.
While I can't refute your other part as it's personal preference, even though I can't wrap my head around why anyone would prefer it.
But here's where I'm confused. Unless you have a really generous rolling method, like 5d6 pick 3, reroll 1s, you're bound to have at least 1 bad roll. So what's the difference between bringing your Charisma down, in point buy vs assigning that 5 you rolled to Charisma, since you can't afford to put it anywhere else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also like charisma. When I use point buy it kills me to dump charisma in order to boost another score, even if I'm playing a class that doesn't have any mechanical needs for it other than social skills.While I can't refute your other part as it's personal preference, even though I can't wrap my head around why anyone would prefer it.
But here's where I'm confused. Unless you have a really generous rolling method, like 5d6 pick 3, reroll 1s, you're bound to have at least 1 bad roll. So what's the difference between bringing your Charisma down, in point buy vs assigning that 5 you rolled to Charisma, since you can't afford to put it anywhere else.
My group prefers to roll stats instead of point buy as well. And yes, since we've been doing it this way for most of our RPG gaming careers (30+ years for 2/3rds of the group, and 10+ for the remaining), we are generous on our rolls the best 3 out of 5, 1's don't count, roll for each stat, reroll the lowest roll (but keep it if reroll is worse). This tends to get better stats than point buy (not always).
I can understand for PFS and other organized play, this wouldn't work (probably), but I don't do organized play.
I also like charisma. When I use point buy it kills me to dump charisma in order to boost another score, even if I'm playing a class that doesn't have any mechanical needs for it other than social skills.While I can't refute your other part as it's personal preference, even though I can't wrap my head around why anyone would prefer it.
But here's where I'm confused. Unless you have a really generous rolling method, like 5d6 pick 3, reroll 1s, you're bound to have at least 1 bad roll. So what's the difference between bringing your Charisma down, in point buy vs assigning that 5 you rolled to Charisma, since you can't afford to put it anywhere else.
We do 4d6 remove the lowest, best row out of 3. For rolled stats it still bothers me to put a low score in charisma, but at least I know that some stat has to be that low, as opposed to point buy where I have to make the conscious choice between dumping one stat just that much further or have a really bland score in my main stat(s).
Honestly there isn't much of a real difference between the two when it comes to dumping, I just don't like having to actively make the choice to drop a stat below 10. It's easier to make the sacrifice when the dice made that decision for me.
|
I like AoOs, ESPECIALLY for movement. I enjoy tactical games on grids.
I also enjoy gridless playing, but I'll pick a different character for that.
I don't like it when people say that other people who like/dislike grids are doing it wrong.
---
I like the idea of encumbrance, but with a handier ruleset for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My group prefers to roll stats instead of point buy as well. ...we are generous on our rolls the best 3 out of 5, 1's don't count, roll for each stat, reroll the lowest roll (but keep it if reroll is worse). This tends to get better stats than point buy (not always).
Doesn't taking nearly all the risk out of it kind of defeat the entire point of rolling?
My group prefers to roll stats instead of point buy as well. ...we are generous on our rolls the best 3 out of 5, 1's don't count, roll for each stat, reroll the lowest roll (but keep it if reroll is worse). This tends to get better stats than point buy (not always).Doesn't taking nearly all the risk out of it kind of defeat the entire point of rolling?
Certainly, but who wants to play a PC with suboptimal stats, ever?
That said, my method is a lot more risky than our last Monty Haul GM, where all your stats are 12, now roll 6d6 and add each one to your stat, so the lowest stat you can possibly have is a 13.
Almost everyone is guaranteed at least one 17 or 18 with my existing method. Since we don't play past 16th level generally, that only ever means one stat is generally up in the 20's before their adventuring careers are done. If I were planning to take players to Epic levels (and I generally hate Epic gaming), then I would do a different method of rolling stats. Once stats get to a point that you always make your saves, the fun kind of disappears (at least for the GM.)
I play with the same 7 people over the last decade (at least, some of them longer), so new people won't be spoiled by our method - its just for our existing group and we've done this method since 2e.
As a GM I have fun watching my players succeed, but especially if there's a challenge involved. If they always win easily, then its not really fun for anybody - at least my players tell me so.
And honestly I've offered the possibility of using Point Buy, having explained all the math involved, and my players won't touch it with a 10' pole. Historically, my players love the chance to get a lucky roll for a high stat - there is no luck involved in point buy.
Kind of like, I prefer CMB/CMD, but my players prefer opposed rolls to any combat maneuver - they'd rather have the chance of overwhelming success rather than a fixed success or failure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Certainly, but who wants to play a PC with suboptimal stats, ever?
One of my favorite AD&D 2E characters was a sha'ir whose highest stat was a single 9 and whose lowest two stats were 3s. YMMV.
I've had fun with low stat PCs myself (my favorite was a barbarian with in INT of 4), but my players are quite adamant in not wanting the opportunity. They want to roleplay based on their chosen backgrounds, not feel compelled to roleplay based on what the stats suggest. I'm fine either way, they are not, so I cater to their wants moreso than my own.
Regarding that barbarian, it was using the rules from Dragon magazine, before the release of Unearthed Arcana 1e. In that Dragon article, it had a table for rolling barbarian stats - if I remember correctly it was roll 8d6 for STR (pick best 3), 7d6 CON, 6d6 DEX, and for INT it was roll 3D4, and I rolled 1, 1, 2. I think CHR was roll 3d6, and I rolled a natural 18. So I was really strong and charismatic, but dumb as box of rocks and boy that was a fun character to play!
To be fair, stats mattered vastly less in 2E.Certainly, but who wants to play a PC with suboptimal stats, ever?One of my favorite AD&D 2E characters was a sha'ir whose highest stat was a single 9 and whose lowest two stats were 3s. YMMV.
Definitely true, that. However, we were still playing 2e up until 2005, and didn't switch to 3x, until that time, then jumped over to Pathfinder during Beta - so we probably lack the time spent needed to really differentiate our way of play. We stick to what is familiar, more often than not.
Things marked "{}" aren't inherent to the PF system, and, in fact, are not supported. I still enjoy them.
Wish machines.
Rules loopholes using RAW.
Fun and unexpected powerful combinations.
Unusual readings into rules that create interesting (and unforseen) effects.
Using the rules as intended, rather than just RAW.
Giving my players templates and extra abilities.
Unoptimized characters. Optimized characters.
GMPCs (whether on the giving or receiving end.)
Level/hit dice limits.
Ways around those level/hit dice limits.
Epic levels.
Mythic power.
(As others have mentioned: psionics, the alignment system, and guns. And "rules bloat".)
Simulacrum.
Planar Binding.
Item Creation.
{Non-evil (even good!) Necromancy and non-evil (even good!) undead.}
{Non-evil (even good!) Assassins.}
Game-rules stats for gods.
{Forgotten Realms. Eberron.} Golarion (as-printed).
Alternate, home-brewed settings.
{Harpers.} Pathfinders.
Powerful, Good-aligned Organizations.
Powerful, Good-aligned NPCs.
Carefully controlling, lowering, or outright elminating the magic items my players find. Randomly rolling for magic items and letting the dice fall where they may.
A tremendous plethora of gods. Few, very specific gods.
Inherent alignments. Free will.
Highly detailed, fully-explored and mapped worlds with tremendous amounts of world-lore.
That's all I can think of now, but there're bound to be more. I'm aware that some are contradictory. That's because I like both of them, and because some things that seem contradictory aren't, and some things I like in different situations or set-ups.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
{Non-evil (even good!) Necromancy and non-evil (even good!) undead.}
I never did understand why the Raise Dead spells were taken out of the Necromancy school. It's literally magic with the dead, Necro-mancy.
Weird.
And though this can apply to most any roleplaying game, the fact that PF is more OGL friendly and very popular makes it more likely - as a professional cartographer, I love people using the maps I design in their games (and because I am only a beginner game designer - those choosing adventure products I write in their games as well!)
Of course I design all the maps for the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG), and because of that and my expertise in all things Japanese, I got commissioned to design and hand-draw the original map to the City of Kasai by Paizo for the Jade Regent AP, and got to write some of the gazetteer - so I have author credits for Paizo as well. More than likely none of that would have happened without the existence of Pathfinder.
I also helped Steven Russell's kami designs for Forest of Spirits, mostly on the fluff side of things, Steven did all the actual design.
(As a GM I have fun watching my players succeed.)Me, too. Not that I make it easy for them, mind you.
EDIT: Sorta ninja'd.
It's hard for me to imagine that not being the case. DMing means you're the guy that's going to take a dive no matter how infinitely powerful you are.
{Non-evil (even good!) Necromancy and non-evil (even good!) undead.}I never did understand why the Raise Dead spells were taken out of the Necromancy school. It's literally magic with the dead, Necro-mancy.
Weird.
I entirely agree! It's a pretty common house-rule for us. Along with all the "remove X", neutralize poison, and similar effects. In most cases, if necromancy causes it, necromancy can end it.
My group prefers to roll stats instead of point buy as well. ...we are generous on our rolls the best 3 out of 5, 1's don't count, roll for each stat, reroll the lowest roll (but keep it if reroll is worse). This tends to get better stats than point buy (not always).Doesn't taking nearly all the risk out of it kind of defeat the entire point of rolling?
Another reason why I hate rolling for stats.
Variant Channeling.
You want to channels energy and have it make corpses instantly decompose? Go for it.
Another reason why I hate rolling for stats.My group prefers to roll stats instead of point buy as well. ...we are generous on our rolls the best 3 out of 5, 1's don't count, roll for each stat, reroll the lowest roll (but keep it if reroll is worse). This tends to get better stats than point buy (not always).Doesn't taking nearly all the risk out of it kind of defeat the entire point of rolling?
I've got to clarify, that while my player's PCs seem somewhat front-loaded with better than normal stats due to my method of rolling for stats vs. Point Buy. I am quite stingy about magic items. There are no magic shops in any of my worlds. There are artificers, but they are rare, most small towns have no such facilities. Most magic items are found objects as treasure, and not bought off the shelf. So my player's PCs generally don't get stat-boosting items like headbands and such. They get magic weapons, armor, class feature specific items, rings and plenty of special purpose items or the usual potions, wands, and scrolls.
So high stats vs. no to few stat-boosting items, the play balances out in my games.
Also: Random weirdo monster races
Also also: I like some of the insane adventure modules that Paizo's put out. I generally prefer original adventures that the game makers didn't design, but Paizo does a good job adding absolute chaos, with like Russians and robots and WW1 and stuff.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
So yeah. What are things in Pathfinder that you personally love, even though you suspect you're in the minority?
Characters that act like people and for things to not break my immersion.
I like a Samurai, just a little bit better than the cavalier. I prefer Resolve to the Teamwork feats, but then I'm not really a mounted charge fan, as it often too situational in the kinds of games I run.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cheese-er... I mean... "Unintentional Rules Side Effects":Its not that I enjoy beating the system or "winning" the game, I just like looking for fun loopholes [like the ridiculousness of Shield Master RAW]
Monks:Yeah, mechanically they are seen as suboptimal by the boards, but I like being able to tank with no armor whilst punching people to death with supernatural powers and extraordinary speed.
Rogues:Again, mechanically they are sub-par, but when you get to be awesome out-of-combat and [with the right builds] roll hats full of dice, its a glorious day for you.
Evocation Magic:Its not that I do tons of damage, but that I roll tons of dice.
Vital Strike:See Evocation.
Titan Mauler Barbarian Archetype:Even if it doesn't work how it is intended, I get to swap between SnB fighting with Greataxes and smacking down characters with Large Dwarven Waraxes.
Mystic Theurge:Is my magic strong? No. But I will never run out of it. Ever.
Interesting, if suboptimal, character concepts:Its more fun to play a character with a real backstory than to pick up Nodachi Ned and start "Murderhoboing".
Coming Up With Character Concepts after Mechanics:I like taking the pieces to the puzzle [mechanics] and working backwards to create an interesting image for it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can never understand on one had wanting 3.5. backwards compiability. Then on the other banning any 3.5. material. In some cases it helps to fix some problems with Pathfinder. as a example http://dndtools.eu/spells/spell-compendium--86/scintillating-scales--4129/ A great spell that helps against Gunslingers.
The Book of Nine Swords. One of my favorite books. Never understood the dislike for the book.
Prestige Classes.
Libris Mortis, Fiendish Codex, Lords Of Madness. All books that expand on some classic monsters. I wish Paizo wouuld do something similar.
The ability to have access to a whoel bunch of material. Want to use a class from one of the Scarred Lands books with some work it can be ported in. A feat from Dragonlance the same.
More importantly I love that third edition brought me back to playing D&D. While i like and enjoy 2E I found at the time 2e to be annoying. Third edition was a breath of fresh air. Demi-Humans can be of any level. I'm in and so on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gripplis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rule 0.
Alignment and Objective Morality. No, seriously. I've never had a problem with them in roleplaying games.
Also Wounds and Vigor alternate rules. They've always had much more appeal to me than simple hit points.
Mmmm. Wounds and Vigor makes goodberry the best spell evar!
I love the fact that I can invoke this trope Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot Like so
** spoiler omitted **...
I... I...
O.o I'm totally stealing this. If I ever run/play the Shackles AP, I will introduce/beg the DM to have them in it.
It's just... WOW!
Something else I should throw on the list of things I like, knowing that some people don't.
Tome of Battle.
Oh, and lack of 'empty' levels. The fact that every class has something cool every level is awesome. Like the Cleric! Sure, all it gets under 'class abilities' is more powerful Channel Energy every other level, but the fact that you can keep getting more spells on the empty levels is nice.
Sorcerer Bloodlines: These were hinted at somewhat in 3.X, but Pathfinder actually makes it their focus.
Continuing Support: From Paizo officially and the great 3rd Party folks!
Adventure Paths: One would think this a given, but some folks where I live don't like them since they think they put too much of a stranglehold on, well, adventuring. But look at Kingmaker! Sandbox built right into it! And any halfway decent GM should be able to roll with what their players need. Like in my Kingmaker game I'm running their is an Alchemist who uses Lotus flowers. So I'm putting Lotuses in the campaign to work with his concept!
Relationship rules: I hated playing 3.X with my friends where I live whenever they tried to introduce romance in game. 99% of the time it would be 'Charisma check. Passed? They adore you! You can get married now!' With Relationship rules, you have to build up to it, and actually work at it. It makes it more meaningful in the end when you succeed (and bitter when you fail).
Arshea: Hmm...
And lastly, Cayden Cailean: Seriously, how are there not more worshipers of this guy?! He literally drank so much he ascended. Okay, maybe not, but maybe! And he may have done it to get with a goddess! Maybe! Point is, I love this deity and he is easily my favorite one out of any d20 ruleset/campaign setting.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like Summoners. Not because they can send Eidolons to pounce with upwards of three natural attacks without risking their own HP, but because, right out of the starting gates, they get a best friend forever whose very being doesn't even have to make any sense!
I haven't made one up yet, but when I do, the eidolon will have five eyes in different places, tails where its ears should be, cup-holder epaulettes, and other wacky features.
The first time he (she?) summons it in-game will canonically be the first time it has ever been summoned, at which point I will show everyone my illustration of it.
I'll have to make sure that I'd be the Designated Comic Relief Guy in the group first, and maybe as they level up, they'll come to terms with each other and figure out ways to compromise.
I won't even make the summoner a gnome.
I like Summoners. Not because they can send Eidolons to pounce with upwards of three natural attacks without risking their own HP, but because, right out of the starting gates, they get a best friend forever whose very being doesn't even have to make any sense!
I haven't made one up yet, but when I do, the eidolon will have five eyes in different places, tails where its ears should be, cup-holder epaulettes, and other wacky features.
The first time he (she?) summons it in-game will canonically be the first time it has ever been summoned, at which point I will show everyone my illustration of it.
I'll have to make sure that I'd be the Designated Comic Relief Guy in the group first, and maybe as they level up, they'll come to terms with each other and figure out ways to compromise.
I won't even make the summoner a gnome.
Make it look like the Homer