Why Are New Things Always Called Cheese?


Gamer Life General Discussion

351 to 400 of 581 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Rele-vant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
edit: I would like to say that no class in the game is more "anime" than a Sorcerer. You get "special powers" that grow and progress with you. You make special secret hand signs while shouting magical words to unleash powerful juts-I mean "spells." You fly and rend reality and logic easily and without remorse.
Sounds a bit like Super-Sentai... >.>

No, that's Synthesist Summoner.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SAMAS wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
edit: I would like to say that no class in the game is more "anime" than a Sorcerer. You get "special powers" that grow and progress with you. You make special secret hand signs while shouting magical words to unleash powerful juts-I mean "spells." You fly and rend reality and logic easily and without remorse.
Sounds a bit like Super-Sentai... >.>
No, that's Synthesist Summoner.

RIDER KICK!

Sovereign Court

Arnwyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Depends on what you want. You could neuter the casters to get a grittier more human game.

Or you could boost the martials to get a more wild super powered game.

They're both valid approaches.

Possibly - depending on how it works within the CR system.

(It's my opinion that one is more valid than the other, needing fewer CR changes.)

Probably the easiest way to drop caster power level (besides getting rid of a few of the most problematic spells - like all polymorphing) is to increase casting time for a caster's highest spells.

Something along the lines of -

1 point = standard
2 points = full round
3 points = full round + standard
4 points = 2 full rounds
5 points = 2 full rounds + standard

Casting time is [spell level*spell level/caster level] points rounded up. Of course - there would be a table for those who dislike math.

This would make 1st level casters unchanged. 3rd level spells would take a full round to cast until 9th level. At 13th level, a wizard would take 2 full rounds for 7th level spells, a full round & standard for 6th level spells, a full round for 4th & 5th level, and standard for 1st-3rd.

This would allow casters to keep all of their raw power - but make having martial buddies to keep foes off of them etc far more important or the damage they take will cause their spells to fizzle.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DinosaursOnIce wrote:

I find it a real shame that Pathfinder Characters can't turn into Super Saiyan God Super Saiyans (or something like that) O_o

I take it you've never seen a high level caster?


Anzyr wrote:
DinosaursOnIce wrote:

I find it a real shame that Pathfinder Characters can't turn into Super Saiyan God Super Saiyans (or something like that) O_o

I take it you've never seen a high level caster?

Ka-me-ha-me-DISINTEGRATE!!!

... I think that's how it goes, right?


Ventnor wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
DinosaursOnIce wrote:

I find it a real shame that Pathfinder Characters can't turn into Super Saiyan God Super Saiyans (or something like that) O_o

I take it you've never seen a high level caster?

Ka-me-ha-me-DISINTEGRATE!!!

... I think that's how it goes, right?

More along of the lines of "stack metamagic on evocation until it is a wave motion gun".


Aelryinth wrote:


Lastly, a well built gunfighter will trample the DPR of anything into the Dust, because they can target Touch AC. The resulting auto-hits will nicely trounce any archer in a DPR contest.
==Aelryinth

Wasn't this conclusively proven wrong in the DPR contest thread? Gunslingers aren't even in the top 5.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Anzyr wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
DinosaursOnIce wrote:

I find it a real shame that Pathfinder Characters can't turn into Super Saiyan God Super Saiyans (or something like that) O_o

I take it you've never seen a high level caster?

Ka-me-ha-me-DISINTEGRATE!!!

... I think that's how it goes, right?

More along of the lines of "stack metamagic on evocation until it is a wave motion gun".

but... why did you comment like a month and a half later?


... It updated as 1 new and I responded without looking at the time stamp. Whoops.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

lol

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sapient wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:


And yes, it gets misused, just like the OP misused it in his example.
The OP didn't not say that new things were cheese. The OP objected to new things automatically being called cheese.

And like many people trying to defend an untenable position, he starts with a lie for a premise.

I don't label "every new thing" as cheese. I do wait to see if it smells first.

The OP doesn't help his argument by trying to present cheese as lettuce.


Blakmane wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:


Lastly, a well built gunfighter will trample the DPR of anything into the Dust, because they can target Touch AC. The resulting auto-hits will nicely trounce any archer in a DPR contest.
==Aelryinth
Wasn't this conclusively proven wrong in the DPR contest thread? Gunslingers aren't even in the top 5.

Well dual weilding gunslingers do really well, and they do equally well with a double barreled gun. However, not every gunslinger is using those tactics, and those that do not are not DPR kings.

Maybe Aelry was assuming those types of gunslingers otherwise they are not ahead.


A Gunslinger abusing 2wf and double barrel is scary, but thats more because Paizo didn't pass the double barrel rules through an editor.

Also they never want to touch Guns again lol


Dotting because this pertains to other discussions. Also, magic is anything that can be shut down by a dead magic zone. Guns are science, but possibly mad science in Pathfinder.

In game, anyone looking at something they don't understand, will say, "Oooooh magic!" Not, "Hey, that's cheese! Where's my cheese!" Your average gunslinger might have grown up in a dead magic zone and never realized it was there.


Norgrim Malgus wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The problem with that is that the Evoker does evocations better.

Which was my point ;)

Now as far as it being cheese that a Wizard has knowledge about all schools of magic, that, I disagree with. Being apprenticed at a young age and mentored through various disciplines has been a thing for more years than I care to mention. It doesn't mean that said Wizard has mastered a thing, but working knowledge of each discipline? Absolutely.

Considering how ludicrously specific any form of weapon training is, I don't think i could disagree more strongly with this sentiment.

A number of weapon tricks you learn in this game just plain don't work, period, no, no even if you do this other thing, if you are not using the specific weapon you learned it for.

The fighter can know everything there is to know about how to get the absolute peak performance out of a spear and have no clue how to apply half of that training to a lance or halberd. Does that make ANY sense if you consider it's equally easy for the wizard who comes from the school of divination to learn how to turn himself into a dragon, or open planar gates and call upon aid from the creatures that dwell on the other side, or create and control the living dead despite none of those having ANYTHING AT ALL in common with the thing HE studied?

Magic is either stupidly easy to learn in Pathfinder for how powerful it is for that to be the case, or a Wizard is like a movie scientist, where being an expert biologist also means you have PhD level understanding of astronomy, quantum physics, and computer programming because you're a scientist and those are all sciences.


Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Norgrim Malgus wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The problem with that is that the Evoker does evocations better.

Which was my point ;)

Now as far as it being cheese that a Wizard has knowledge about all schools of magic, that, I disagree with. Being apprenticed at a young age and mentored through various disciplines has been a thing for more years than I care to mention. It doesn't mean that said Wizard has mastered a thing, but working knowledge of each discipline? Absolutely.

Considering how ludicrously specific any form of weapon training is, I don't think i could disagree more strongly with this sentiment.

A number of weapon tricks you learn in this game just plain don't work, period, no, no even if you do this other thing, if you are not using the specific weapon you learned it for.

The fighter can know everything there is to know about how to get the absolute peak performance out of a spear and have no clue how to apply half of that training to a lance or halberd. Does that make ANY sense if you consider it's equally easy for the wizard who comes from the school of divination to learn how to turn himself into a dragon, or open planar gates and call upon aid from the creatures that dwell on the other side, or create and control the living dead despite none of those having ANYTHING AT ALL in common with the thing HE studied?

Magic is either stupidly easy to learn in Pathfinder for how powerful it is for that to be the case, or a Wizard is like a movie scientist, where being an expert biologist also means you have PhD level understanding of astronomy, quantum physics, and computer programming because you're a scientist and those are all sciences.

This is probably more a problem with the fighter than with the wizard, though. The Wizard is a master magician and can perform all sorts of magic with a reasonable degree of competancy. The Fighter is a master of arms and...can't use most forms of weapons better than a warrior. Yep, sounds like a problem with the Fighter to me.


Cheesy can have a lot of different meanings. It doesn't have to be powerful or over powered at all.

Example: The Half-Vampire Vampire Hunter who struggles against their own bloodlust is cheesy. It's cheesy because it is over done.

Monkey Gripping two great swords is cheesy because it is silly. It's utterly absurd.

Fey Foundling on a Paladin is cheesy now because its simply over done in Pathfinder.

Cheesy simply has so many definitions.


HWalsh wrote:

Cheesy can have a lot of different meanings. It doesn't have to be powerful or over powered at all.

Example: The Half-Vampire Vampire Hunter who struggles against their own bloodlust is cheesy. It's cheesy because it is over done.

Monkey Gripping two great swords is cheesy because it is silly. It's utterly absurd.

Fey Foundling on a Paladin is cheesy now because its simply over done in Pathfinder.

Cheesy simply has so many definitions.

Cheese and cheesy are two different things. The former, at least in gaming context, implies sleazy rules exploit. The latter either means gamer cheese or being campy.


I see cheese as just rules exploitations.

For example, the Lucky trait with +1 to all saves and the trait that doubles all luck bonuses for +2 to all saves from level 1, to me is cheesy.


Cheese is a pejorative. At first people used it to mean unfair advantage. It's been misused so much, against new things or misunderstood things, that many gamers insist on cheese.

Usually accompanied by, "It's my word now, I'm owning it!"

Lets roll things back to where fighters have proficiency with all weapons not restricted to another race or class. A warrior has proficiency with one melee and one ranged weapon they were trained or raised with. Some warriors were not trained at all.


thorin001 wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Cheesy can have a lot of different meanings. It doesn't have to be powerful or over powered at all.

Example: The Half-Vampire Vampire Hunter who struggles against their own bloodlust is cheesy. It's cheesy because it is over done.

Monkey Gripping two great swords is cheesy because it is silly. It's utterly absurd.

Fey Foundling on a Paladin is cheesy now because its simply over done in Pathfinder.

Cheesy simply has so many definitions.

Cheese and cheesy are two different things. The former, at least in gaming context, implies sleazy rules exploit. The latter either means gamer cheese or being campy.

Mmmmm. Ham and Cheese


Opuk0 wrote:

I see cheese as just rules exploitations.

For example, the Lucky trait with +1 to all saves and the trait that doubles all luck bonuses for +2 to all saves from level 1, to me is cheesy.

Look... Fate's Favored is good, but it's not double your luck bonus good. That would be truly overpowered. However, Fate's Favored does not double luck bonuses, it merely adds +1 to them. A much more reasonable if still very powerful ability.

Scarab Sages

I don't think new things ARE always called cheese - rather, there's a subset of players who, every time new material comes out, make a ritual of asking themselves, "how can I break it?"

These people seem to think they're doing the game a service by doing this, too.


Anzyr wrote:
Opuk0 wrote:

I see cheese as just rules exploitations.

For example, the Lucky trait with +1 to all saves and the trait that doubles all luck bonuses for +2 to all saves from level 1, to me is cheesy.

Look... Fate's Favored is good, but it's not double your luck bonus good. That would be truly overpowered. However, Fate's Favored does not double luck bonuses, it merely adds +1 to them. A much more reasonable if still very powerful ability.

Out of curiosity... What's the Lucky trait? Do you mean the Sacred Tattoo half-orc racial feature?

Liberty's Edge

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

I don't think new things ARE always called cheese - rather, there's a subset of players who, every time new material comes out, make a ritual of asking themselves, "how can I break it?"

These people seem to think they're doing the game a service by doing this, too.

They probably aren't doing the game any great service, but I don't think they are hurting it either. Everyone has the right to have fun their own way, right? ^_^

Scarab Sages

Personally I prefer older cheeses anyway. Something aged a good year or two, a good Parmigiano-Reggiano for instance. The sort you need to grate up real fine and let do magic on pastas.

For me personally though, it's the bleu cheeses that are king. Gorgonzola, Stichelton, or just a good classic buttermilk blue from Wisconsin.


@Anzyr: Ah okay, I wasn't remembering it properly it seems. Still, I feel like RAI was probably meant for temporary bonuses only, unless there was a FAQ about it I'm unaware of.

@Kudaku: And yes, Lucky is just the name for it under the custom race creator.


I actually can't think of any temporary luck bonuses other than Divine Favor. Would be kind of odd to make a trait that is fantastic for low level divine casters but underwhelming to useless for anyone else.


I love that the cheese discussion thread is still going :-)

My son discovered the most wonderful frozen mozzarella sticks, Farm Rich I think, comes in a huge box, surprisingly delicious, and they heat up in five minutes.


The wife loves a good spicy pepper jack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
The wife loves a good spicy pepper jack.

Chipotle pepper-jack with summer sausage... c'est magnifique!


Arachnofiend wrote:
I actually can't think of any temporary luck bonuses other than Divine Favor. Would be kind of odd to make a trait that is fantastic for low level divine casters but underwhelming to useless for anyone else.

Archaeologist's Luck is another one. It's pretty amazing for Archaeologist Bards too.

Scarab Sages

Two more:

fresh buffalo mozzarella with just a dash of salt.

deep-fried cheese curds. Every time I'm in Wisconsin I had straight to a bar and order some.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DinosaursOnIce wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

I don't think new things ARE always called cheese - rather, there's a subset of players who, every time new material comes out, make a ritual of asking themselves, "how can I break it?"

These people seem to think they're doing the game a service by doing this, too.

They probably aren't doing the game any great service, but I don't think they are hurting it either. Everyone has the right to have fun their own way, right? ^_^

They do, but my interpretation of IHIYC's point is that, if those people can use said new thing to break the game, a lot of people tend to look at it as if that was the game's fault. They'll then complain that the designers made said thing "breakable" in the first place rather than acknowledging that munchkins, optimizers, and mix-maxers will always be present, that they're going to do what they're going to do, and that there's no set of rules that can stop them.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:
DinosaursOnIce wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

I don't think new things ARE always called cheese - rather, there's a subset of players who, every time new material comes out, make a ritual of asking themselves, "how can I break it?"

These people seem to think they're doing the game a service by doing this, too.

They probably aren't doing the game any great service, but I don't think they are hurting it either. Everyone has the right to have fun their own way, right? ^_^
They do, but my interpretation of IHIYC's point is that, if those people can use said new thing to break the game, a lot of people tend to look at it as if that was the game's fault. They'll then complain that the designers made said thing "breakable" in the first place rather than acknowledging that munchkins, optimizers, and mix-maxers will always be present, that they're going to do what they're going to do, and that there's no set of rules that can stop them.

That's really allowing the Devs off the hook for making something that could be broken.

Really, I believe there's a scale to something being 'broken', and that's how much effort is required to make it 'broken.' If you can take the option and use it as intended (blood money), that's bad design. If it takes let's say 3-4 steps (I'd say most conductive weapon abuse), that's not really the creator's fault since it's hard to see 3-4 steps into someone else's creative process.

Part of it is what I like to call the 'no rotation' issue. When a game stacks options on top of other options without any real 'banning' of previous ones like the block format for cardgames, it becomes harder to avoid unanticipated problems with older content.

There is value in 'stress testing' new options too, it can lead to early onset errata for them or at least put them in the sight of the developers for things that simply don't work the way that they're intended. I know for content I've made for 3p, having people tell me 'This doesn't work or works too well due to X or Y ability' has been helpful, and I appreciate the thought that went into it. I didn't go off the handle and blame them for finding combinations of abilities that were more powerful than I'd originally thought.


N. Jolly wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
DinosaursOnIce wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

I don't think new things ARE always called cheese - rather, there's a subset of players who, every time new material comes out, make a ritual of asking themselves, "how can I break it?"

These people seem to think they're doing the game a service by doing this, too.

They probably aren't doing the game any great service, but I don't think they are hurting it either. Everyone has the right to have fun their own way, right? ^_^
They do, but my interpretation of IHIYC's point is that, if those people can use said new thing to break the game, a lot of people tend to look at it as if that was the game's fault. They'll then complain that the designers made said thing "breakable" in the first place rather than acknowledging that munchkins, optimizers, and mix-maxers will always be present, that they're going to do what they're going to do, and that there's no set of rules that can stop them.

That's really allowing the Devs off the hook for making something that could be broken.

Really, I believe there's a scale to something being 'broken', and that's how much effort is required to make it 'broken.' If you can take the option and use it as intended (blood money), that's bad design. If it takes let's say 3-4 steps (I'd say most conductive weapon abuse), that's not really the creator's fault since it's hard to see 3-4 steps into someone else's creative process.

Part of it is what I like to call the 'no rotation' issue. When a game stacks options on top of other options without any real 'banning' of previous ones like the block format for cardgames, it becomes harder to avoid unanticipated problems with older content.

There is value in 'stress testing' new options too, it can lead to early onset errata for them or at least put them in the sight of the developers for things that simply don't work the way that they're intended. I know for content I've made for 3p, having people tell...

I think you are letting some GM's off way too easily to be honest. Things like Blood Money were never intended for PCs. It was intended for high level NPCs in Rise of the Runelords. The fault of PCs getting their hands on it is the GM's for not saying no... The second fault is when PCs stack ridiculous amounts of buffs to use it for levels of Strength drain that were never intended in the first place.

One of the rules I put in place in my campaign that fixed blood money right off the bat.

"Casting blood money nullifies any temporary bonuses to a character's strength. If the drain reduces the strength to 0 or below, discounting any temporary bonuses, the spell automatically fails."

Bam. Never have a problem with blood money again.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

I think you are letting some GM's off way too easily to be honest. Things like Blood Money were never intended for PCs. It was intended for high level NPCs in Rise of the Runelords. The fault of PCs getting their hands on it is the GM's for not saying no... The second fault is when PCs stack ridiculous amounts of buffs to use it for levels of Strength drain that were never intended in the first place.

One of the rules I put in place in my campaign that fixed blood money right off the bat.

"Casting blood money nullifies any temporary bonuses to a character's strength. If the drain reduces the strength to 0 or below, discounting any temporary bonuses, the spell automatically fails."

Bam. Never have a problem with blood money again.

To be fair, for a good while, 'certain GMs' included PFS.

Blood money in and of itself was broken, and shouldn't have been listed like an actual spell. It shouldn't have been allowed in PFS to begin with if it was the intention to keep it rare.

But this isn't just about blood money. It's about every new option that gets to see itself ran through the wringer. Sometimes you have to see how far the system can be pushed. And sometimes a developer doesn't notice a very simple combination of abilities that makes something far more powerful than intended (remember flagellant and the kineticist?), and having people out there willing to kick the tires as it were can be helpful to make a more balanced product.


Arachnofiend wrote:
I actually can't think of any temporary luck bonuses other than Divine Favor. Would be kind of odd to make a trait that is fantastic for low level divine casters but underwhelming to useless for anyone else.

Prayer spell. +1 luck bonus to attack, damage, skills, and saves.


Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I actually can't think of any temporary luck bonuses other than Divine Favor. Would be kind of odd to make a trait that is fantastic for low level divine casters but underwhelming to useless for anyone else.

Prayer spell. +1 luck bonus to attack, damage, skills, and saves.

Create greater empower spell. Doubles all variables but takes a spell slot 4 levels higher. Now make a rod of it. Boom, 3 doubled prayers a day.

You know if every evil cult leader has one, the PCs will follow that plot hook. :)


N. Jolly wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

I think you are letting some GM's off way too easily to be honest. Things like Blood Money were never intended for PCs. It was intended for high level NPCs in Rise of the Runelords. The fault of PCs getting their hands on it is the GM's for not saying no... The second fault is when PCs stack ridiculous amounts of buffs to use it for levels of Strength drain that were never intended in the first place.

One of the rules I put in place in my campaign that fixed blood money right off the bat.

"Casting blood money nullifies any temporary bonuses to a character's strength. If the drain reduces the strength to 0 or below, discounting any temporary bonuses, the spell automatically fails."

Bam. Never have a problem with blood money again.

To be fair, for a good while, 'certain GMs' included PFS.

Blood money in and of itself was broken, and shouldn't have been listed like an actual spell. It shouldn't have been allowed in PFS to begin with if it was the intention to keep it rare.

But this isn't just about blood money. It's about every new option that gets to see itself ran through the wringer. Sometimes you have to see how far the system can be pushed. And sometimes a developer doesn't notice a very simple combination of abilities that makes something far more powerful than intended (remember flagellant and the kineticist?), and having people out there willing to kick the tires as it were can be helpful to make a more balanced product.

PFS isn't fully overseen by Paizo. PFS is also NOT the primary way that these kinds of games are meant to be played. These games were intended for players to sit around a table, one guy to make up a story, run the game, and stop it there.

PFS makes up a VERY small portion of the Pathfinder players.

There are a number of reasons but the first is monetary reasons, PFS can get much more expensive than a normal tabletop game.

I don't know how many tabletop games I have been in/ran where the group pooled from a collection of books or used things off of the PFSRD. When Paizo charges pretty high prices for these things and they become a necessity it gets pretty insane. I mean my character in our basic tabletop game has a price tag in the triple digits alone.

The second is the rigidity of PFS which turns people off to it. My town, for example, has currently 22 active Pathfinder games in it. I know because we have a games board at the local shop.

We have 0 PFS games. There is a much larger town north of mine Valdosta, and as far as I know there is 1 PFS game and well over 3-4 dozen normal Pathfinder games.

So, while it might suck for PFS, PFS should never be the primary concern for the designers. I'd really be shocked if the total number of PFS games made up more than 10% of all Pathfinder games.

It is unrealistic, not to mention unfair, to expect the devs to build everything to spec so that, without GM oversight, the game can work without issues.

The PFS has the exact same problems the RPGA did. They are uptight and make game mastering a nightmare that strips all creativity out of the process and turns the DM into a drone. The RPGA was a terribly executed idea and so too is the PFS in that regard.

There also is no need for it. With services like Fantasy Grounds and Roll20 readily available if someone wants to find a game they can find one. There is no need for the PFS in truth.

However rule 0 has existed, and has been needed, by every RPG that has come out ever and ultimately the books have always been intended to be nothing more than a tool for the GM to use to run a game... The GM is supposed to modify, alter, change, whatever they want because what is balanced changes from group to group from GM to GM and even from story to story.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"It's okay to make a stupidly broken game, the DM can fix it."

-Oberoni Fallacy

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

@Hwalsh, seems you really hate PFS. Although that was only part of what I was saying. To quote the above poster:

DominusMegadeus wrote:

"It's okay to make a stupidly broken game, the DM can fix it."

-Oberoni Fallacy

Also in reference to your homerule for blood money:

Spoiler:
Magic Jar a great white whale (strength 50), problem solved. That's not a magical increase to your strength, that's a new creature's strength, so it easily ducks your rule. Custom make a colossal sized Ring of Inner Fortitude and you can cast wishes (Anthropomorphic animal gives it fingers so it can use it.)

Now via my rules, let's check that out on the 'is it broken?' spectrum:

Requires 1 creature (Bestiary 2, so it's not too far from core)
Requires 2 spells (magic jar/Anthropomorphic animal), one being non core (it's in ultimate magic, so it's a hardback spell)
Requires 1 non core magical item in a specific size (in ultimate equipment, so it's a hardback)

I'm going to consider this 3 steps in total due to lacking the need for any paperback material, but finding a whale could be tricky (not subduing it, the thing's will save is trash.) To me, the free wishes thing isn't 'broken' just due to effort that goes into it and the limited scope of said wishes due to the situation. If you'r 17th level, you're already broken, stealing a genie's job won't make this any worse.

Note, this is only for free wishes. For cheaper spells, magic jar works fine on really any other creature, so that's barely a step, and still broken. Note this is using your homerule, nothing stops a player from using any other magical boost.

Really, there's the adamant defiance towards anything new that changes the game, and it's amazing how many people are just hardwired to hate anything new. The amount of people who decide to hate on the players for finding problems with something and shifting the blame from the Devs who MADE the content that was broken continues to boggle my mind. Blaming players for finding new and interesting ways to use content is so counter productive to how thing should work that it boggles my mind. And it comes up in every debate like this, like the players are somehow to blame for content like this making it into the game.

In the debate about Divine Protection getting nerfed, you can see people blaming the players for it when anyone could see that the feat was incredibly powerful. If I get some time later, I'll go check it out to see if I can find direct examples, as it was pretty bad with people blaming other players for using the feat AS INTENDED.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

DominusMegadeus wrote:

"It's okay to make a stupidly broken game, the DM can fix it."

-Oberoni Fallacy

Actually, the Oberoni Fallacy says "Since the GM can fix it, the game must not have been flawed to begin with."


My bad. I think my point stands that it's kind of dumb to say a company can put out anything they like, even if it's bonkers, just because a DM can adjudicate it. Not a fallacy, but a stance I have trouble seeing as valid.

Scarab Sages

I'm always reminded of the old joke where a guy goes to the doctor and says, "Doc, it hurts when I do this," and the doctor goes, "Well then, stop doing it!"

It's impossible (or at least, stiflingly impractical) to conceive of every possible permutation and perversion new material might bring. As I keep hearing people say, the game is supposed to be about having fun, right? If you CAN do something that you know will break the game, DON'T. You have free will.


But breaking s%&* is the fun part!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

I'm always reminded of the old joke where a guy goes to the doctor and says, "Doc, it hurts when I do this," and the doctor goes, "Well then, stop doing it!"

It's impossible (or at least, stiflingly impractical) to conceive of every possible permutation and perversion new material might bring. As I keep hearing people say, the game is supposed to be about having fun, right? If you CAN do something that you know will break the game, DON'T. You have free will.

This is a completely valid point... so long as what it takes to "do something that you know will break the game" is to dig through multiple disparate sources and put together complicated combinations of things that were never meant to be put together to orchestrate a bizarre result.

However, when all it takes to break the game is to use a given spell/item/whatever in exactly the method it was intended, then fault does not lie with the customer who purchased a product and used it for its intended purpose in good faith. In such a case as that, the fault lies instead with the company that produced a faulty product and charged the customer money for it.

Look at it this way:

If I crack open my microwave and look up some internet guides to electronics so I can re-wire it in an attempt to create a ray-gun and it blows up in my face, it's my own fault for trying to do that. If I buy a microwave and pop in a frozen burrito and press the start button and it blows up in my face, then that's the fault of the manufacturer.

Your post is relevant to the former, but not to the latter. And if you think that the former situation is the only (or even the most common) time that the Pathfinder-microwave blows up, then I'm afraid you don't have a very well-informed understanding of people's complaints (or the discussion thereof). If you're interested in understanding, then I'm sure there are plenty of folks who would be happy to explain in careful detail for you. :)


So we're down to microwave ovens, what was wrong with the car analogy!


Yes yes, um aware of your "whale" solution. A good GM would tell you no and move on. Why? In the house rule version its because you are intentionally attempting to circumvent a limiter. Then there are logistics.

Can a whale do Somatics?
Can the Whale complete the Verbals?

Me? I'd say no and move on.

That is what rule 0 is for.

-----

Jiggy, the issue is most of these AREN'T used as intended. I promise you, no dev sat back, looked at blood money and went:

"Ya know, with a ton of stat boosting items, form of the Dragon, wish spell boosted strength scores, or if they possessed a whale, they could get free wishes."

Why? Because it's a well known fact that the GM is supposed to exercise common sense and stop power gaming without hesitation.

351 to 400 of 581 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Why Are New Things Always Called Cheese? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.