Pathfinder Forums Memes that Grind Your Gears


Gamer Life General Discussion

551 to 600 of 1,247 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

When I come onto the forums after a while, and read like six tabs worth of updates to threads, and then go back to see if there's been any updates since I started reading, and there's not been any on my focused page, well...that really grinds my gears.

Post faster and more frequently, people; I need more entertainment with zero redeemable practical application immediately upon finishing with your already provided free entertainment!

Don't look at me I want people to post slower so I can get back to being productive.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, and talking about realism...even subjective realism given that magic exists...in a world where giant energy breathing lizards the size of multi-story apartment complexes are capable of sustaining flight speeds four times as fast as an eagle with wings that wouldn't support their weight even if their bodies were hollow...in an antimagic field, I might add, so the "because magic" argument doesn't even work.

That's always good for a laugh. Yeah, me reloading four times in six seconds is a stretch, though, so we need to houserule the gunslinger to make it "realistic", but the giant insect with an exoskeleton so heavy it would crush itself under it's own weight is just fine.

Yeah, arguing realism definitely has a place on this thread.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, flightless hollow eagles???


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheryl Tunt wrote:
Now back on topic, You're not my supervisor!!!

Am too!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Oh, and talking about realism...even subjective realism given that magic exists...in a world where giant energy breathing lizards the size of multi-story apartment complexes are capable of sustaining flight speeds four times as fast as an eagle with wings that wouldn't support their weight even if their bodies were hollow...in an antimagic field, I might add, so the "because magic" argument doesn't even work.

That's always good for a laugh. Yeah, me reloading four times in six seconds is a stretch, though, so we need to houserule the gunslinger to make it "realistic", but the giant insect with an exoskeleton so heavy it would crush itself under it's own weight is just fine.

Yeah, arguing realism definitely has a place on this thread.

Yeah right you should be able to shoot a thousand times a round because dragon flight.


Orville Redenbacher wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Oh, and talking about realism...even subjective realism given that magic exists...in a world where giant energy breathing lizards the size of multi-story apartment complexes are capable of sustaining flight speeds four times as fast as an eagle with wings that wouldn't support their weight even if their bodies were hollow...in an antimagic field, I might add, so the "because magic" argument doesn't even work.

That's always good for a laugh. Yeah, me reloading four times in six seconds is a stretch, though, so we need to houserule the gunslinger to make it "realistic", but the giant insect with an exoskeleton so heavy it would crush itself under it's own weight is just fine.

Yeah, arguing realism definitely has a place on this thread.

Yeah right you should be able to shoot a thousand times a round because dragon flight.

Dragon period, actually, even without flight defies physics in a multitude of ways. Giant insects, owlbears, and other megafauna are all nuts. Dryad can merge with trees and die if they leave their house for a few days.

You're right, the laws of physics and/or nature should have a crap taken on them only in manners we're used to, not any other way. We can belive a tree might talk and walk, but a human might be five times faster than usual? #@$* that mess![/sarcasm]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Oh, and talking about realism...even subjective realism given that magic exists...in a world where giant energy breathing lizards the size of multi-story apartment complexes are capable of sustaining flight speeds four times as fast as an eagle with wings that wouldn't support their weight even if their bodies were hollow...in an antimagic field, I might add, so the "because magic" argument doesn't even work.

That's always good for a laugh. Yeah, me reloading four times in six seconds is a stretch, though, so we need to houserule the gunslinger to make it "realistic", but the giant insect with an exoskeleton so heavy it would crush itself under it's own weight is just fine.

Yeah, arguing realism definitely has a place on this thread.

Yeah right you should be able to shoot a thousand times a round because dragon flight.

Yeah, pretty much.


Screw realism I'm going to play Exalted, with goddess hookers and dinosaurs that piss pure heroine!

*flies off in his mecha powered by manliness*


6 people marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
*flies off in his mecha powered by manliness*

Daggum, was Gurren Lagann a good series...

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
*flies off in his mecha powered by manliness*
Daggum, was Gurren Lagann a good series...

Beat me to it.


Orville Redenbacher wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Oh, and talking about realism...even subjective realism given that magic exists...in a world where giant energy breathing lizards the size of multi-story apartment complexes are capable of sustaining flight speeds four times as fast as an eagle with wings that wouldn't support their weight even if their bodies were hollow...in an antimagic field, I might add, so the "because magic" argument doesn't even work.

That's always good for a laugh. Yeah, me reloading four times in six seconds is a stretch, though, so we need to houserule the gunslinger to make it "realistic", but the giant insect with an exoskeleton so heavy it would crush itself under it's own weight is just fine.

Yeah, arguing realism definitely has a place on this thread.

Yeah right you should be able to shoot a thousand times a round because dragon flight.

My favourite response from a "guns need to have realistic loading times" thread:

DominusMegadeus wrote:

You enter the vast hoard-cavern and... there is no gold pile, nor dragon. The cave is wet and cold and you can't stop coughing. Your feet hurt. You're also late to work so you're fired. Your wife is taking the kids.

I'm glad that musket is so sensible now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Oh, and talking about realism...even subjective realism given that magic exists...in a world where giant energy breathing lizards the size of multi-story apartment complexes are capable of sustaining flight speeds four times as fast as an eagle with wings that wouldn't support their weight even if their bodies were hollow...in an antimagic field, I might add, so the "because magic" argument doesn't even work.

That's always good for a laugh. Yeah, me reloading four times in six seconds is a stretch, though, so we need to houserule the gunslinger to make it "realistic", but the giant insect with an exoskeleton so heavy it would crush itself under it's own weight is just fine.

Yeah, arguing realism definitely has a place on this thread.

Dragons existing ONLY means that dragons exist and NOTHING more..


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd rather have a FUN game than a game that focuses so much on realism.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Oh, and talking about realism...even subjective realism given that magic exists...in a world where giant energy breathing lizards the size of multi-story apartment complexes are capable of sustaining flight speeds four times as fast as an eagle with wings that wouldn't support their weight even if their bodies were hollow...in an antimagic field, I might add, so the "because magic" argument doesn't even work.

That's always good for a laugh. Yeah, me reloading four times in six seconds is a stretch, though, so we need to houserule the gunslinger to make it "realistic", but the giant insect with an exoskeleton so heavy it would crush itself under it's own weight is just fine.

Yeah, arguing realism definitely has a place on this thread.

Dragons existing ONLY means that dragons exist and NOTHING more..

Only if you're INCREDIBLY un-creative.


HyperMissingno wrote:
I'd rather have a FUN game than a game that focuses so much on realism.

Play a caster.


BigDTBone wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
I'd rather have a FUN game than a game that focuses so much on realism.
Play a caster.

I do, regularly, in fact my only non-casters are cheating with extracts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Oh, and talking about realism...even subjective realism given that magic exists...in a world where giant energy breathing lizards the size of multi-story apartment complexes are capable of sustaining flight speeds four times as fast as an eagle with wings that wouldn't support their weight even if their bodies were hollow...in an antimagic field, I might add, so the "because magic" argument doesn't even work.

That's always good for a laugh. Yeah, me reloading four times in six seconds is a stretch, though, so we need to houserule the gunslinger to make it "realistic", but the giant insect with an exoskeleton so heavy it would crush itself under it's own weight is just fine.

Yeah, arguing realism definitely has a place on this thread.

Dragons existing ONLY means that dragons exist and NOTHING more..
Only if you're INCREDIBLY un-creative.

Using the existence of fantastical elements or creatures to intimate that realism should never be a goal in game is a mistake at best.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Selective realism is okay, but who are you to define what elements should or should not be realistic?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Realism is relative.

In a universe where dragons exist, physics must be different on a fundamental level.

This implies that other fantastic things must be possible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Oh, and talking about realism...even subjective realism given that magic exists...in a world where giant energy breathing lizards the size of multi-story apartment complexes are capable of sustaining flight speeds four times as fast as an eagle with wings that wouldn't support their weight even if their bodies were hollow...in an antimagic field, I might add, so the "because magic" argument doesn't even work.

That's always good for a laugh. Yeah, me reloading four times in six seconds is a stretch, though, so we need to houserule the gunslinger to make it "realistic", but the giant insect with an exoskeleton so heavy it would crush itself under it's own weight is just fine.

Yeah, arguing realism definitely has a place on this thread.

Dragons existing ONLY means that dragons exist and NOTHING more..
Only if you're INCREDIBLY un-creative.
Using the existence of fantastical elements or creatures to intimate that realism should never be a goal in game is a mistake at best.

Using pursuit of realism to restrict ideas and gameplay can be just as big a mistake.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really dislike selective realism, it application is so skewed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

When someone has a pet peeve/"grinds my gears" thing, and so they bring it up in every topic they post in. Especially when they don't post in a thread except to talk about that one specific pet peeve of theirs, even if that isn't the topic of that thread.
For example, in this thread, when a user made their first post in that thread to hound on their personal vendetta, which was at best tangentially related to the topic, and then continued to derail the thread into his own favorite topic.

And now the same person is doin' it in this thread. But it makes more sense here, since it is a thread specifically about pet peeves grind your gears things.


Rynjin wrote:

Realism is relative.

In a universe where dragons exist, physics must be different on a fundamental level.

This implies that other fantastic things must be possible.

It does not however imply that all other fantastic things must be possible. And actually, it only implies that they MIGHT be ossicle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

137Ben, with an empowered fireball, his target rolls a 2, doesn't save, and that my friends is what we call a serious burn!

I think he'll survive, but seriously, that's gotta hurt. *casts Cure Light Pride*


137ben wrote:

When someone has a pet peeve/"grinds my gears" thing, and so they bring it up in every topic they post in. Especially when they don't post in a thread except to talk about that one specific pet peeve of theirs, even if that isn't the topic of that thread.

For example, in this thread, when a user made their first post in that thread to hound on their personal vendetta, which was at best tangentially related to the topic, and then continued to derail the thread into his own favorite topic.

And now the same person is doin' it in this thread. But it makes more sense here, since it is a thread specifically about pet peeves grind your gears things.

Except that the "fantastic elements existing anywhere justifies everything always" but was specifically brought up. If someone is using an argument you believe is fallacious to try to prove their point, you bring up the fallacy of that argument.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
137ben wrote:

When someone has a pet peeve/"grinds my gears" thing, and so they bring it up in every topic they post in. Especially when they don't post in a thread except to talk about that one specific pet peeve of theirs, even if that isn't the topic of that thread.

For example, in this thread, when a user made their first post in that thread to hound on their personal vendetta, which was at best tangentially related to the topic, and then continued to derail the thread into his own favorite topic.

And now the same person is doin' it in this thread. But it makes more sense here, since it is a thread specifically about pet peeves grind your gears things.

Except that the "fantastic elements existing anywhere justifies everything always" but was specifically brought up. If someone is using an argument you believe is fallacious to try to prove their point, you bring up the fallacy of that argument.

A fine example of the Fallacy Fallacy.

To say that "dragons can exist, and all manner of other things both magical and non magical that violate the natural/physical laws of our reality can exist, but not some other thing" is actually a No True Scotsman fallacy in action.

However given that the argument is over a fictional setting which operates under different assumptions and laws, no truth can be fully established. Therefore, logic can only take one so far in this discussion.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Arguing realism is always valid, in that a game world is about a vision of reality the DM and players find aesthetically appealing. Too realistic is boring, while too fantastical is ungrounded and surreal (and thus, ultimately, boring). Striking a balance through discussion of both adherence to and willing suspension of reality on certain points is going to be an ongoing process. When either side attempts to win with "well ... magic" or "that doesn't happen in the real world 'cause o' this," they're both missing the point, badly.

I for one cannot stand the very idea of gunslingers, unmarried paladins having sex and not being required to toe the lawful good line, attacks of opportunity and a host of other standards in modern D&D that nevertheless pump many a person's nads. These and other points must be discussed time and again, and no one is going to "win" this argument, because it ain't about cold, hard facts. It's about personal preference.

For the purposes of RPGs, whatever argument allows for the most fun and unbroken immersion is the winning one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I sure learned a lot about the formalities of argument since joining this community. Other razors besides Occam's, Strawmen, various fallacies, etc. I never took debate, so a lot of this is news to me.

I used to just call BS as BS, but since you guys have fancy names for each TYPE of BS, and I have Google, I learn so much.

I saw No True Scotsman, and immediately thought "Is...is this post making fun of the rhetoric by pulling a BS name out of it's behind? SURELY that can't be a real one, and..." Google plus time, "well I'll be danged."

Even the fallacy fallacy kinda sounds made up to a layman. It really REALLY seemed a satirical post until I googled them.

Who said internet forums had no value?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What really grinds my straw is just how many people seem to really hate me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ironically, this thread is starting to grind my gears.

And cue someone saying I used "ironically" wrong.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

*ahem*

"I used "ironically" wrong."

Waka-waka~!

*ahem*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ivan Rûski wrote:

Ironically, this thread is starting to grind my gears.

And cue someone saying I used "ironically" wrong.

It Grinds my Gears when someone posts in a thread saying that the thread Grinds their Gears.

However, it does not grind my gears if someone posts in a thread merely saying that the thread grinds their gears, without capitalizing grinds or gears. Hence, you do not grind my gears.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

I sure learned a lot about the formalities of argument since joining this community. Other razors besides Occam's, Strawmen, various fallacies, etc. I never took debate, so a lot of this is news to me.

I used to just call BS as BS, but since you guys have fancy names for each TYPE of BS, and I have Google, I learn so much.

I saw No True Scotsman, and immediately thought "Is...is this post making fun of the rhetoric by pulling a BS name out of it's behind? SURELY that can't be a real one, and..." Google plus time, "well I'll be danged."

Even the fallacy fallacy kinda sounds made up to a layman. It really REALLY seemed a satirical post until I googled them.

Who said internet forums had no value?

I know exactly what you mean. I got good marks in my Logic course due in no small part to reading up on things like informal fallacies because I kept seeing them flung around on message boards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
137ben wrote:

When someone has a pet peeve/"grinds my gears" thing, and so they bring it up in every topic they post in. Especially when they don't post in a thread except to talk about that one specific pet peeve of theirs, even if that isn't the topic of that thread.

For example, in this thread, when a user made their first post in that thread to hound on their personal vendetta, which was at best tangentially related to the topic, and then continued to derail the thread into his own favorite topic.

And now the same person is doin' it in this thread. But it makes more sense here, since it is a thread specifically about pet peeves grind your gears things.

Except that the "fantastic elements existing anywhere justifies everything always" but was specifically brought up. If someone is using an argument you believe is fallacious to try to prove their point, you bring up the fallacy of that argument.

A fine example of the Fallacy Fallacy.

To say that "dragons can exist, and all manner of other things both magical and non magical that violate the natural/physical laws of our reality can exist, but not some other thing" is actually a No True Scotsman fallacy in action.

However given that the argument is over a fictional setting which operates under different assumptions and laws, no truth can be fully established. Therefore, logic can only take one so far in this discussion.

'Can' and 'should or must' are different things. Argue whether something should exist based on whether it makes game play better, not on whether something else fantastic exists. Argue on whether something should be a deviation from a baseline reality based on its own merits, not on "well dragons exist". A certain baseline realism is needed to achieve successful suspension of disbelief: so it's safer to assume realism and then select the elements that violate it than to just throw everything in under a basis of "it's ridiculous to use realism as a criterion at all because some things in the game aren't realistic". For quite a few people magic doesn't harm their suspension of disbelief because it's an entire new system which is not an exaggerated version of anything in the real world. Wuxia fighters to use an example trigger the 'disbelief button' harder because it's an exaggerated version of things people really can do. It's sort of a belief version of the uncanny valley. Magic and fireballs falls on one side, wuxia style martials n the other. It's the same reason an alien will often look better or more acceptable to someone's mind than a human face rendered in CGI..


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I dunno, we play a game with an objective reality - that established by the conjunction of the rules and how the GM applies them. This may change, this may be odd, but it IS an attempt at making some sort of functioning, predictable setting. Thus, the physics-breaking stuff are rather finite in number. Also, humans are pretty much meant to be the same as we all are, and recognizable as such. We all try maintain a willing suspension of disbelief, otherwise we aren't going to feel that a game maintains our interest. Maybe unless we're talking about TOON, or something like that. So, no, dragons do not mean a human can attack a thousand times in a round. Dragons mean dragons.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
I dunno, we play a game with an objective reality - that established by the conjunction of the rules and how the GM applies them. This may change, this may be odd, but it IS an attempt at making some sort of functioning, predictable setting. Thus, the physics-breaking stuff are rather finite in number. Also, humans are pretty much meant to be the same as we all are, and recognizable as such. We all try maintain a willing suspension of disbelief, otherwise we aren't going to feel that a game maintains our interest. Maybe unless we're talking about TOON, or something like that. So, no, dragons do not mean a human can attack a thousand times in a round. Dragons mean dragons.

That's prefectly well and good upto about 4th level. Beyond that, limiting muggles to "realism," is complete garbage, and terrible design. By the time you get to 20th level it is writing the game intentionally with blinders on.

"Oh, no, it makes sense for that character to be able to survive a 20-story fall, but he can't climb back up because the wall face is smooth... Because ... Reasons."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Way to miss the point. I never said the realistic rules of physics couldn't be broken in any which way... they merely have to do so consistently. It may be that in your setting, a human fighter CAN make a thousand attacks in a second. My point is merely that one breakage of the rules does not justify any other (specific) such breakage. I.e. just because dragons, it certainly is not "anything goes".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Way to miss the point. I never said the realistic rules of physics couldn't be broken in any which way... they merely have to do so consistently. It may be that in your setting, a human fighter CAN make a thousand attacks in a second. My point is merely that one breakage of the rules does not justify any other (specific) such breakage. I.e. just because dragons, it certainly is not "anything goes".

I didn't miss that point, you didn't make it. Also, in light of your newly made point, my post still stands.

Liberty's Edge

In a world where realism is the exception and not the norm. Then using it as a excuse to ban certain things simply is not a realistic reason to me at least. I myself am not a fan of Gunslingers as I don't like the mechanics Paizo used in designing the class. In the end to me realism is simply used as a reason to not allow something in a game. Which is fine. But don't hide behind realism as a excuse. That's what it is a excuse. My players know why I ban something. I don't use realism as excuse because they would see right through that.

Besides Dragons. Who really should be able to fly so well let alone find enough food to survive. If one uses all 3.5 material. Beholders a floating mobile laser platform. Another is Mind Flayers Somehow everyone leaves a race whose purpose it is to eat brains alone. Instead of killing them off. Their so many elements of D&D that break realism. It's almost as bad as someone insisting that D&D as a game is a realistic portrayal of medieval life. Yeah last time I read a actually text on that subject. The peasants were not running in fear from dragons, orcs, goblins etc. Or like playing a rpg set in the future. Then complaining that warp speed, Transhumanism, sentient robots, cloning, is unrealistic.

It's not to say that one can't houserule realism into their own games. Far from it. Just as long as one knows it's not the default. The default setting in D&D is as unrealistic as possible imo.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it is silly to say that just because Rule X is broken to claim that it is now ok to break rule Y. <---That is not the same as saying that rule Y can't be broken, but the reason for it can be faulty*.

*At the end of the day it is not so much about realism as it is immersion and verisimilitude, which is subjective. What is ok/acceptable in one person's fantasy land may not be ok in someone else's.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Except the default setting for the most part is as unrealistic as can be imo.

I have no problem with someone banning something they don't like or want in their game world. Just be upfront about it being a dislike. Trying to cloak it in the realism argument is not fooling anyone. It's hard to take someone seriously when their Ok with Dragons and every other creature or element that breaks realism in a setting. Suddenly guns are not realistic. Casters of both types can summon creatures of out of nowhere to help them in fights. Which pretty much breaks apart the whole realism argument imo.

Now if D&D was built as a realistic fantasy rpg the realism argument would imo have more merit. If I tried realism as a excuse to ban something from my table my players would laugh and ask if I was feeling well. Or if I was joking and being serious. It's like some in the hobby who are against change. Thinking that by starting the sentence by saying "it's not that I'm against change" when all that does is tell everyone in the room that your not only against change. Chances are good your in denial about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"as unrealistic as can be"? Seriously... you ever played World of Synnibarr? On the contrary, the default setting takes large pains to be predictable, with geography, sociology, politics, economy, transportation, military, education, and so on, all built to make some kind of sense. When going across the Lost Coast, you don't suddenly get hit by the anvil rain. There are no intelligent areas of reversed gravity. There are no places where saying "hi" to someone turns them into a gelatinous cube. There are no festivals where people spend their time turning into ducks. And so on. It may be your view of Golarion, but it certainly never was the intended interpretation.


"This setting is sillier" is still not equivalent to "This other setting is realistic".

Golarion simply isn't. Magic makes any argument of "muh realism" moot.

Things might be CONSISTENT but they certainly aren't REALISTIC.


No, magic doesn't make any argument moot at all. Magic as defined in the game works a certain way. To some degree, you can extrapolate these rules for new effects, but casting a low-level spell that destroys a kingdom is still not going to fly. Take a look in the CRB. The entire chapter on magic is there to tell you what magic can and what it can't do. It is, in the setting, a predictable system and, while not realistic per se, it follows its own rules.

Liberty's Edge

The default setting is as Rynkin pointed out consistent. Meaning that many fantasy rpgs also have similar elements. Realistic not by a long shot. Are really going to refer to a made up setting of a rpg realistic. Of all the examples to use World of Synnibarr that rpg is imo designed from the ground up to be as unrealistic. It makes Rifts look realistic. I remember a character class a archer type I think. That could do about 10000 points of damage in one shot.

Let me tell you take ten experienced players of D&D. Completer strangers. Ask them two questions. Should a DM ban material because they don't want it in a game or because it's realistic. As well as ask if D&D is realistic. I would hazard to guess that half if not more would say ban the material because they don't want it in cases. Followed by D&D is not realistic. By it's nature a rpg is anything but imo. I'm immersing myself in a more involved version of pretend. It's a big warning sign to me at least that if a DM is throwing out realism as a excuse to ban something that chances are good we will not be able to game at at a table.

The chapter on magic details a imaginary magic system. It's consistent within the rules.Not in the least based on reality. Wiccans are not looking at the Pathfinder Core section on magic and going "I can use that to cast spells".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No, but the setting assumes the magic chapter's rules work, doesn't it? Which means, among many, many other things, that more powerful spells require more experience to cast. Someone with no experience casting meteor swarms would be expressly against these rules. See how that works? The magic system is predictable, and there is no magic involved that allows for a thousand attacks per second. Saying that because there is magic, nobody ever should complain about someone making a thousand attacks per second, that's just bull.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
as Rynkin pointed out

Huzzah! It's not just meeeeeee~!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:
memorax wrote:
as Rynkin pointed out
Huzzah! It's not just meeeeeee~!

I thought it was RonJim, Curse you Dyslexia! You've foiled me yet again!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
No, but the setting assumes the magic chapter's rules work, doesn't it? Which means, among many, many other things, that more powerful spells require more experience to cast. Someone with no experience casting meteor swarms would be expressly against these rules. See how that works? The magic system is predictable, and there is no magic involved that allows for a thousand attacks per second. Saying that because there is magic, nobody ever should complain about someone making a thousand attacks per second, that's just bull.

But by that logic, the only reason to complain about a character making 1000 attacks is the rules saying they can't. It has nothing to do with realism or whether or not its good or bad for the game.

The problem with realism in Pathfinder is that it's inconsistent and nearly always used to limit or nerf the weakest options in the game. It often gets in the way of balance, playability and fun.

e.g.: People complaining because Gunslingers don't take 30~60 seconds to reload their weapons, not caring about the fact that if that were the case, those weapons (and a whole freaking class) would be f+@&ing useless!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:


e.g.: People complaining Gunslingers don't take 30~60 seconds to reload their weapons, not caring about the fact that if that were the case, those weapons (and a whole freaking class) would be f&$#ing useless!

I always cared about the fact that PF basically enforce ranged characters to be stand still machine-guns or suck. IMHO, guns and crossbow should be slower to reload but with powerful shots, or something.

551 to 600 of 1,247 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Pathfinder Forums Memes that Grind Your Gears All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.