Is 3.5e bloat coming back?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 592 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

shallowsoul wrote:


What is "decent" is actually subjective depending on your playstyle. I personally don't choose options just for their mechanical benefit, I choose options that go with my character's story, background, or concept.

Why need it be either-or? DreamscarredPress has options with lots of flavor which are ALSO mechanically interesting and not just "+2 to a skill".

Shadow Lodge

shallowsoul wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I'm a weekly player of PFS and we don't encounter this problem.

Good for you. But for those of us who do, the point is that we can't "not allow it."

I repeat: Just because a problem doesn't exist for you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Well how about you list the problems you are having?
Basically what they are saying is that in PFS, the problem is that as a DM and as a player, there is no option to disallow something that broken/over-powered/disruptive if it is a legal source. In home games, the DM can just say no, it's not allowed, but in PFS, if it is legal and the individual can show that they own the products it comes from on the spot, the DM and other players are powerless to do anything about it in the game, and also can not switch the adventure at all to make it more challenging or fun for everyone else. Summoners . . . Not saying I agree, just explaining, I think.
There is actually a list of what is allowed in PFS and I can't remember seeing Summoners on that list.

From the Additional Resources page:
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Player's Guide

All playtest versions of the six new base classes from this book are no longer legal for play as of 8/3/10. Anyone playing the playtest version of one of the six new base classes must have updated his or her character as of 8/3/10. Updating your character means adjusting only the things that have changed, but not rebuilding the character.

The following parts of the Advanced Player's Guide are NOT legal for play:
craftsman alternate Dwarven racial trait
practicality alternate Halfling racial trait
heart of the fields alternate Human racial trait
Alchemist's Brew Potion class ability (he receives Extra Bombs instead as a bonus feat)
Cavalier's Expert Trainer class ability (he receives Skill Focus [Handle Animal] instead as a bonus feat)
Witch's Cauldron hex
Antipaladin alternate class
Cooperative Crafting feat
all cursed magic items and artifacts
the Hero Point new rule and associated feats, spells, and magic items

Equipment: All staves in Chapter 7 are not legal for play from this source. If you purchased these prior to Aug. 16, 2012, they are grandfathered into the campaign.

Traits: hedge magician, natural born leader, and rich parents traits, and all of the Campaign Traits.

The Master Alchemist feat may only be selected by Alchemists and Poisoners.

Summoners are allowed. But note I was simply using that as an example that I have heard people complain about in regards to PFS and being a legal source. In the case of the Summoner, the complaints are that the Summoner gets to basically play two full characters, where the Eidolon is so much more versatile than similar pets like Animal Companions, and also that the Eidolon can be more powerful, by itself, than entire other characters on their own. I'm not making a judgment call, just pointing out (in relevance to the idea of in PFS DM's can not say no if it's legal and can not alter the scenario around it either), an example of one of the larger issues I've seen on the subject. Gunslingers (for a billion reasons) are up there too.

Silver Crusade

137ben wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


What is "decent" is actually subjective depending on your playstyle. I personally don't choose options just for their mechanical benefit, I choose options that go with my character's story, background, or concept.

Why need it be either-or? DreamscarredPress has options with lots of flavor which are ALSO mechanically interesting and not just "+2 to a skill".

Some player's aren't concerned with both to be honest. Some people don't allow 3PP products in their games.


shallowsoul wrote:
137ben wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
What is "decent" is actually subjective depending on your playstyle. I personally don't choose options just for their mechanical benefit, I choose options that go with my character's story, background, or concept.
Why need it be either-or? DreamscarredPress has options with lots of flavor which are ALSO mechanically interesting and not just "+2 to a skill".
Some player's aren't concerned with both to be honest. Some people don't allow 3PP products in their games.

That doesn't really explain "Why not both!" so much as say "Some people don't care about both".


12 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
What is "decent" is actually subjective depending on your playstyle. I personally don't choose options just for their mechanical benefit, I choose options that go with my character's story, background, or concept.

And you shouldn't have to put up with bad mechanics for it. When my players have a concept that isn't well supported, I'm usually very supporting with homebrewing things that actually work.

However, it would be very nice if I didn't have to homebrew solutions to stuff that is already covered in Paizo products just because the mechanics are bad. And by bad I mean both underpowered and overpowered or just literally do not work (some don't even understand the core mechanics of the game, like the infamous Prone Shooter pre-errata).

But since you don't choose options based on their mechanical benefit, here's a present for you Shallow.

You're Awesome (General)
Your character is good at a thing that they do.
Prerequisite: Character level 1st
Benefit: Pick a thing about your character. They are good a little better at that thing, because you took this feat. While this feat grants no mechanical advantages, you can take this feat to represent your story, background, and concept.
Special: You can take this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you choose a new thing for this to fail at representing your character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
137ben wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
What is "decent" is actually subjective depending on your playstyle. I personally don't choose options just for their mechanical benefit, I choose options that go with my character's story, background, or concept.
Why need it be either-or? DreamscarredPress has options with lots of flavor which are ALSO mechanically interesting and not just "+2 to a skill".
Some player's aren't concerned with both to be honest. Some people don't allow 3PP products in their games.
That doesn't really explain "Why not both!" so much as say "Some people don't care about both".

The thing is, why even pick an option at all if you don't care about what it actually does to your character?

I mean, if I want my character to be sneaky, I'm going to invest in things that make her sneaky, like putting ranks into Stealth. If I want her to be better at interacting with people socially I'm going to invest in Bluff, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive. Why? Because those have a mechanical effect, a benefit even, to doing what I want to do.

Honestly, when people say things like that, I just seems like a lot of lies and dishonesty to me.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
I personally don't choose options just for their mechanical benefit, I choose options that go with my character's story, background, or concept.

Me too. But because "being ineffective" is rarely the story/background/concept I want to play, I also optimize.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

A friend of mine who is an avid Pathfinder enthusiast, buying lots of pdfs and such, scouring rules all over the place to find cool magic items and the like, expressed to me what was my feelings of 3.5 only recently.

"I feel like in most of the books there's only like 20% of content that's actually decent and usable and stands up well next to the CRB + APG + Bestiary. The other 80% is just bloat that's usually either false options, or just badly written"

I'm inclined to agree. That's not saying that I dislike Pathfinder or anything, but having seen the path 3.5 took, Paizo is definitely heading down that road. It was the same way in 3.5. I could go to my shelf right now, tear out about 20% of the pages of each book up there barring the core books, put them in a binder, and throw everything else away, and I'd essentially have everything.

I'm not ripping my books up though. *hiss*

What is "decent" is actually subjective depending on your playstyle. I personally don't choose options just for their mechanical benefit, I choose options that go with my character's story, background, or concept.

Exactly, more often my players or I choose mechanical bits for flavor reasons - we are not min/maxers in any way. So just because a given feat tree offers some superb fighting prowess in one particular weapon, doesn't mean anyone is actually doing that. Most of my players don't deliberately gimp their characters with all suboptimal choices, but mechanical advantage isn't necessarily the only reasons they make the choices they do. I prefer flavor reasons to mechanical reasons on most things. There are a ton of decent options made in our games, but my version of decent and your player's are completely different, I think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
MrSin wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
137ben wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
What is "decent" is actually subjective depending on your playstyle. I personally don't choose options just for their mechanical benefit, I choose options that go with my character's story, background, or concept.
Why need it be either-or? DreamscarredPress has options with lots of flavor which are ALSO mechanically interesting and not just "+2 to a skill".
Some player's aren't concerned with both to be honest. Some people don't allow 3PP products in their games.
That doesn't really explain "Why not both!" so much as say "Some people don't care about both".

The thing is, why even pick an option at all if you don't care about what it actually does to your character?

I mean, if I want my character to be sneaky, I'm going to invest in things that make her sneaky, like putting ranks into Stealth. If I want her to be better at interacting with people socially I'm going to invest in Bluff, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive. Why? Because those have a mechanical effect, a benefit even, to doing what I want to do.

Honestly, when people say things like that, I just seems like a lot of lies and dishonesty to me.

It is. Aparently if you buy a book filled wih 1000 options, the act of reading it and caring about what those optiosn actually do makes you a bad person.

Shadow Lodge

For my part, I don't generally pick options for their flavor, particularly when it's Golarion flavor. The way I see it, adding the flavoring to options is my part, not Paizo's, Golarions, or the DM's.

I look at the mechanical benefits, the neutral and basic flavor, and then add/subtract from it along the theme and flavor I'm going for. The existing and setting flavor is 100% irrelevant in my opinion. If an option gives a +2 Diplomacy, maybe the character was born a natural negotiator, or maybe they underwent a ritual that imbued them with a natural leadership quality. Maybe the studied with Dwarves, took a lot of notes, and decided to live by the code of NOT doing everything they do as a culture in social situations. Perhaps Rovagug personally saw something cool in the individual and decided to bless them with a special gift, or maybe they are pretty world travelled, and decided to study the diplomatic techniques of the elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, and various human cultures.

I'm more likely to not take an option due to far too restrictive (or pigeon-holed) flavor.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm with MrSin. Why can't we just have our cake and eat it too? Everyone likes options. Most of us, I think, would like meaningful options though. I mean, seriously, picture this...

If given the option between Power Attack and any of the following feats, which would you choose for your martial character?

Fierce Retaliation
Your counter attacks are fearsome!
Benefit: When you take damage from a melee attack, you gain a +1 damage bonus on your next melee attack against the attacker that struck you. Your next attack must be made before the end of your next turn or the bonus damage is wasted.

Cleaving Whirlwind
You have learned to attack multiple foes in a whirlwind of blades!
Prerequisite: Two-Weapon Fighting
Benefit: Once per round when making a full attack with two weapons, you may take a 5-foot step between your attacks, but only if you haven't otherwise moved this round.

Roxxors Teh Boxxors
You roxxors teh boxxors!
Prerequisite: Fighter level 18th, Str 19, Dex 17, Int 24, Cha 33, Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Two Weapon Fighting, Mounted Combat, Dodge, Mobility, Whirlwind Attack, Critical Focus, Improved Grapple, Improved Disarm, Improved Dirty Trick, Improved Trip, Improved Overrun, Improved Dirty Trick, Improved Sunder, Wind Stance, Snake Style, Monkey Style, Crane Style, Dragon Style, Kirin Style, Dimensional Agility, Improved Initiative, Catch-Off Guard, Blind-Fight, Disruptive, Endurance, Dodge, Mobility, Improved Unarmed Strike, Deflect Arrows, Stunning Fist, Nimble Moves, Extra Lay on Hands, Point Blank Shot, Farshot, Manyshot, Combat Reflexes, and Skill Focus (Profession: Warlord)
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on combat maneuvers, damage with your favored weapon, Initiative, and Will saves against spells cast by other Fighters.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Obviously no one is going to take Roxxor's The Boxxors.

Seriously, you could have just stopped at
"Roxxors Teh Boxxors
You roxxors teh boxxors!
Prerequisite: Fighter level 18th"

<which is what I read before even bothered with the name or descripton, or got to what it actually did>

Str 19, Dex 17, Int 24, Cha 33, Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Two Weapon Fighting, Mounted Combat, Dodge, Mobility, Whirlwind Attack, Critical Focus, Improved Grapple, Improved Disarm, Improved Dirty Trick, Improved Trip, Improved Overrun, Improved Dirty Trick, Improved Sunder, Wind Stance, Snake Style, Monkey Style, Crane Style, Dragon Style, Kirin Style, Dimensional Agility, Improved Initiative, Catch-Off Guard, Blind-Fight, Disruptive, Endurance, Dodge, Mobility, Improved Unarmed Strike, Deflect Arrows, Stunning Fist, Nimble Moves, Extra Lay on Hands, Point Blank Shot, Farshot, Manyshot, Combat Reflexes, and Skill Focus (Profession: Warlord)
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on combat maneuvers, damage with your favored weapon, Initiative, and Will saves against spells cast by other Fighters. It could be "you just pick how much damage you deal with any weapon you pick up, no limit", and that initial prereq just kills it.

:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*falls over laughing*

Silver Crusade

Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I personally don't choose options just for their mechanical benefit, I choose options that go with my character's story, background, or concept.
Me too. But because "being ineffective" is rarely the story/background/concept I want to play, I also optimize.

Being "ineffective" is subjective as well. I don't always need a numerical mechanic to ensure my effectiveness.

Shadow Lodge

Now, to be fair:

Fierce Retaliation
Your counter attacks are fearsome!
Sure, if I'm building a tough tank type that wants to get hit a lot and then counter back with even more, might take this. Probably looking at Warpriest or Barbarian only.

Cleaving Whirlwind
You have learned to attack multiple foes in a whirlwind of blades!
Red Drizzt flags going off!!! Warning!!! Warning!!! Wait, did you some how interpret, "NO!!! to mean, "sure go ahead" when I answered about you playing a Kitsune cardboard cutout ripoff of your favorite anime that's actually 43,000 years old and blah, blah, blah. . .

Roxxors Teh Boxxors
description uses itself to define itself
See above.


For those that missed the joke, each of the above feats is an example of several problems that crop up in PF products constantly, and make 80% of the material worthless.

The "Fierce Retaliation" is really cool in concept. However, it's mechanically bad. It's a feat that requires you to get hit by a melee attack (not be the target, but actually hit by), and then the benefit you get is +1 to damage on your next attack against the guy that hit you. And to add insult to injury, it only lasts until the end of your next turn.

Let's think about this. You get hit, and you get a +1 to damage for 1 attack. That's pretty bad at 1st level, but it only gets worse as you level up. Total waste of a feat. Anyone who knows what they're doing is going to avoid this feat like the plague.

This feat represents all the crap we get that could have been cool but just falls flat compared to just being the same "Power attack" guy as we've been since core.

The "Cleaving Whirlwind " also sounds like a cool feat. It just sounds so cool. It even gives what looks like a sweet effect, allowing you to take 5 ft. steps even while full-attacking with your swords!

Except...

CORE RULEBOOK - COMBAT CHAPTER wrote:

Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.

Let that sink in. What does this feat do? NOTHING. This feat represents all the crap that we get that is just so badly written that it's broken right out of the gate.

The "Roxxors Teh Boxxors" feat sounds awesome, or should if it wasn't silly, but the phrase generally equates to "Power Overwhelming" or something to that extent. The thing is, this feat is bad. It has horrible prerequisites that just mean it will never, ever, eeeever get taken. EVER. And the worst part is that the effect is very underwhelming and highly situational.

This feat represents all the crap we get that could have been a gem, or even just alright, except for the fact it's buried under a steaming pile of prerequisites that ensure you'll never take it. It's also a jab at the Fighter, because the Fighter suffers from this s~%@ worst of all.


Also, there's some hidden jokes in the prerequisites of Roxxors for those who can spot them. :P


Ashiel wrote:
Also, there's some hidden jokes in the prerequisites of Roxxors for those who can spot them. :P

Combat expertise should've been in there twice, for emphasis, imo.

Spoiler:
A lot of the feats had little tonothing to do with the bonus. Combat expertise right out of the game is a requirement for a good number of feats. Takes improved versions of every maneuver in the game. Dodge and mobility are references to whirlwind. Endurance and diehard are requirements for feats that have nothing to do with fighting past death and endurance has nothing to do with combat. Lots of references to list!

My favorite one was lay on hands near the bottom after Fighter 18th at the top.


Heehee. The Lay on Hands thing was indeed one of the jokes. And while it wasn't combat expertise, I did pull that joke with...

Spoiler:
Fighter level 18th, Str 19, Dex 17, Int 24, Cha 33, Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Two Weapon Fighting, Mounted Combat, Dodge, Mobility, Whirlwind Attack, Critical Focus, Improved Grapple, Improved Disarm, Improved Dirty Trick, Improved Trip, Improved Overrun, Improved Dirty Trick, Improved Sunder, Wind Stance, Snake Style, Monkey Style, Crane Style, Dragon Style, Kirin Style, Dimensional Agility, Improved Initiative, Catch-Off Guard, Blind-Fight, Disruptive, Endurance, Dodge, Mobility, Improved Unarmed Strike, Deflect Arrows, Stunning Fist, Nimble Moves, Extra Lay on Hands, Point Blank Shot, Farshot, Manyshot, Combat Reflexes, and Skill Focus (Profession: Warlord)

Shadow Lodge

Ashiel wrote:
For those that missed the joke,

I was mostly hoping to come off as sarcastically comical.

:)

But I noticed a few I assumed where intentional (Str 19/Cha 33/Profession, a lot of ranged attack only feats + unarmed strike feats, etc. . .)

Also wasn't clear on:
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on combat maneuvers, damage with your favored weapon, Initiative, and <also>Will saves against spells cast by other Fighters. +2 to Combat Maneuvers, Init, and Damage with Favored Weapon <not from other fighters casting spells> isn't all that bad, actually, if it stacks as an untyped bonus. wait, am I being sarcastically comical or am I serious

Now, on the other hand, we are talking about Paizo here. So a bunch of inconsistent, unrelated prereqs is not all that out of the norm.

:P


Heh, that was also intentional. Part of the benefit actually sounds pretty cool, and would be awesome. If it weren't buried under that mountain of crap. :P

Shadow Lodge

Whatever, a Warpriest 18/Monk 2/Paladin 2 is totally working towards the Feat now. Just need to work on a new name and flavor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:
Whatever, a Warpriest18/Monk 2/Paladin 2 is totally working towards the Feat now. Just need to work on a new name and flavor.

Hahaha, good luck. ^_^

EDIT: You'll be the bestest roleplayer ever. :P


I actually misread Cleaving Whirlwind as "you may take a 5ft step between EACH attack" and was confused about why it was supposed to suck.


chaoseffect wrote:
I actually misread Cleaving Whirlwind as "you may take a 5ft step between EACH attack" and was confused about why it was supposed to suck.

Moving and attacking at the same time? Now that's crazy.


chaoseffect wrote:
I actually misread Cleaving Whirlwind as "you may take a 5ft step between EACH attack" and was confused about why it was supposed to suck.

That would actually be pretty unique and cool.


shallowsoul wrote:
Being "ineffective" is subjective as well. I don't always need a numerical mechanic to ensure my effectiveness.

I assumed we were talking about PF, not some storytelling game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I sure hope we will have many more classes (especially prestige classes) to look forward to. Hundreds or more being great to me.


Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Being "ineffective" is subjective as well. I don't always need a numerical mechanic to ensure my effectiveness.
I assumed we were talking about PF, not some storytelling game.

Well, He used the wrong word "subjetive", the right one is "relative".


Ipslore the Red wrote:

Specifically, PrCs being the best options forever, 100 base classes and 500 PrCs, a zillion special materials, and so on.

I ask because of the paper-bound abomination known as Inner Sea Gods and the monstrosity known as Evangelist. From what I have seen of the book, namely Walter's guide to it, it seems to be almost universally terrible from a balance standpoint. Especially evangelist. You lose one level- one fricking level-of your class, and it's easy to get a feat to bring class features back to hit dice. Then you get 100% free features for another 9 levels.

And then exalted has straight spellcasting progression, permanent protect from ______, AND a free domain.

Sentinel is disgustingly cheesy as well. Bonus feats, free +1s to hit and damage, fricking LEADERSHIP for free, +4 to initiative DR, Diehard, and cure critical wounds as a swift action on yourself?

Am I overreacting or should this book never have been written and its authors terminated posthaste?

1) Pathfinder is not suffering from any bloat whatsoever. Prestige Classes have been kept "rather low" in the base game's books; Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat didn't have ANY PrC at all. Sure, Paths of Prestige added several PrCs, but those are often setting-specific, same goes for the other PrCs presented here and there, which aren't much numerous.

2) Archetypes are new concepts that actually avoid bloating the system with too many PrCs. In fact, MANY PrCs could have been replaced by archetypes. Right now, there is a nice balance between the two.

3) The Evangelist PrC is fine, I kinda wished that PrCs would allow you to pursue your base class instead of halting it dead.

4) The book itself is great, quit complaining...


shallowsoul wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I'm a weekly player of PFS and we don't encounter this problem.

Good for you. But for those of us who do, the point is that we can't "not allow it."

I repeat: Just because a problem doesn't exist for you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Well how about you list the problems you are having?
Basically what they are saying is that in PFS, the problem is that as a DM and as a player, there is no option to disallow something that broken/over-powered/disruptive if it is a legal source. In home games, the DM can just say no, it's not allowed, but in PFS, if it is legal and the individual can show that they own the products it comes from on the spot, the DM and other players are powerless to do anything about it in the game, and also can not switch the adventure at all to make it more challenging or fun for everyone else. Summoners and Magus's come up a lot for this, especially the Dervish Dancing + Shocking Grasp one that one-shot the BBEG. Not saying I agree, just explaining, I think.
There is actually a list of what is allowed in PFS and I can't remember seeing Summoners on that list.

Alot of the lists actually say what isn't allowed in the books rather than what is. Vanilla summoners are allowed. Master and synthesis are banned last i checked.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I personally don't choose options just for their mechanical benefit, I choose options that go with my character's story, background, or concept.
Me too. But because "being ineffective" is rarely the story/background/concept I want to play, I also optimize.

This. Flavor is important...but I get invested in my characters, and want them to succeed. I enjoy competence in my protagonists, and in a game like Pathfinder that means a certain level of optimization.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Flavor and optimization don't have to clash....regardless of what people may think.

Just like optimization has nothing to do with ones ability to RP.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I personally don't choose options just for their mechanical benefit, I choose options that go with my character's story, background, or concept.
Me too. But because "being ineffective" is rarely the story/background/concept I want to play, I also optimize.
Being "ineffective" is subjective as well. I don't always need a numerical mechanic to ensure my effectiveness.

I just...what.

What. Clearly you don't even need a character sheet to ensure your effectiveness. Skills literally do not work unless you have the proper ranks and bonuses to them. You don't get a better attack bonus by describing it better. Your saves aren't magically higher because you described your character as having a strong will despite his poor will save from his class.

Basically, for that statement to be true, you have to play the game without using the rules. At which point, it doesn't even look like Pathfinder anymore.


Scavion wrote:
At which point, it doesn't even look like Pathfinder anymore.

You can't roleplay without pathfinder! That'd be silly. Its not like there are other games out there or that your core rule book is a pile of mechanics.


MrSin wrote:
Scavion wrote:
At which point, it doesn't even look like Pathfinder anymore.
You can't roleplay without pathfinder! That'd be silly. Its not like there are other games out there or that your core rule book is a pile of mechanics.

Ok now you are being obtuse...

This is a PATHFINDER roleplaying game MESSAGEBOARD. As in, descussing PATHFINDER and answering questions with respect to how pathfinder does things, and the way pathfinder does things is that it has rules and a mechanical system. Want to do something? Put ranks into it. Otherwise, if your just going to go all "Well you described it pretty awesomely so SURE! Go ahead and do that!" then you are no longer playing Pathfinder, and therefore, not subject of this messageboard. Simple as that. Don't like it? Go to a GURPs message board or something.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why do I have to take Improved Dirty Trick twice?!?! Nnnnnoooololoooo!


K177Y C47 wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Scavion wrote:
At which point, it doesn't even look like Pathfinder anymore.
You can't roleplay without pathfinder! That'd be silly. Its not like there are other games out there or that your core rule book is a pile of mechanics.

Ok now you are being obtuse...

This is a PATHFINDER roleplaying game MESSAGEBOARD. As in, descussing PATHFINDER and answering questions with respect to how pathfinder does things, and the way pathfinder does things is that it has rules and a mechanical system. Want to do something? Put ranks into it. Otherwise, if your just going to go all "Well you described it pretty awesomely so SURE! Go ahead and do that!" then you are no longer playing Pathfinder, and therefore, not subject of this messageboard. Simple as that. Don't like it? Go to a GURPs message board or something.

You may have failed your Sense Motive.


Scavion wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Scavion wrote:
At which point, it doesn't even look like Pathfinder anymore.
You can't roleplay without pathfinder! That'd be silly. Its not like there are other games out there or that your core rule book is a pile of mechanics.

Ok now you are being obtuse...

This is a PATHFINDER roleplaying game MESSAGEBOARD. As in, descussing PATHFINDER and answering questions with respect to how pathfinder does things, and the way pathfinder does things is that it has rules and a mechanical system. Want to do something? Put ranks into it. Otherwise, if your just going to go all "Well you described it pretty awesomely so SURE! Go ahead and do that!" then you are no longer playing Pathfinder, and therefore, not subject of this messageboard. Simple as that. Don't like it? Go to a GURPs message board or something.

You may have failed your Sense Motive.

Not at all! What would give you such a pupostrous idea as that! I would never fail to sense motives and objetives! xD


People on here put ranks in sense motive? We can do that?


K177Y C47 wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Scavion wrote:
At which point, it doesn't even look like Pathfinder anymore.
You can't roleplay without pathfinder! That'd be silly. Its not like there are other games out there or that your core rule book is a pile of mechanics.
Ok now you are being obtuse...

Does sarcasm qualify as being obtuse? I mean its not opaque, but I'm not sure if its obtuse.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
People on here put ranks in sense motive? We can do that?

I got them from living with a compulsive lier


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Scavion wrote:
At which point, it doesn't even look like Pathfinder anymore.
You can't roleplay without pathfinder! That'd be silly. Its not like there are other games out there or that your core rule book is a pile of mechanics.
Ok now you are being obtuse...
Does sarcasm qualify as being obtuse? I mean its not opaque, but I'm not sure if its obtuse.

well lets check your angles to find out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
christos gurd wrote:
MrSin wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Scavion wrote:
At which point, it doesn't even look like Pathfinder anymore.
You can't roleplay without pathfinder! That'd be silly. Its not like there are other games out there or that your core rule book is a pile of mechanics.
Ok now you are being obtuse...
Does sarcasm qualify as being obtuse? I mean its not opaque, but I'm not sure if its obtuse.
well lets check your angles to find out.

This is too a-cute


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cant I go anywhere without it devolving into physics or programming jokes? Oh logistics too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Cant I go anywhere without it devolving into physics or programming jokes? Oh logistics too.

Geometry! Is not physics.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Cant I go anywhere without it devolving into physics or programming jokes? Oh logistics too.
Geometry! Is not physics.

True, sorry when i look at this joke I see radiation and angle of refraction in light. Must be the opaque part starting it off.

Edit: and why did you put a factorial on your geometry? Do you realize how quickly that will become insane?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I personally don't choose options just for their mechanical benefit, I choose options that go with my character's story, background, or concept.
Me too. But because "being ineffective" is rarely the story/background/concept I want to play, I also optimize.
Being "ineffective" is subjective as well. I don't always need a numerical mechanic to ensure my effectiveness.

What exactly are you effective at sans stats? I'm curious.

I mean, ingenuity and such can help with some things but not beating people in a straight fight or several other areas of competence.

301 to 350 of 592 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Is 3.5e bloat coming back? All Messageboards