Your favorite thing that people hate


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

501 to 550 of 721 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

It's really dumb because the easier answer is "well steve you can't grapple all those rats at once to throw the bag"


What if the boss had called a bunch of rats to fight on his behalf? Same result, but those rats were legitimately your enemies.

Seems like one of those points where the rules should highlight GM discretion. Like the free action rules.


Well given that 3.5 created the swarm rule this hypothetical shouldn't come up. Rats lack any special rule that allows them to share a space unless they are a swarm. As the GM you should know that this combo will sometimes help the fighter out in multi-man melees and that if you're surrounding the final boss with goblins you're effectively giving him a victory lap. Which can also work, just like the super gravity gun in half-life 2.


ryric wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:


3.0 actually had a lot of weird AD&Disms which were excised in 3.5. Such as great cleave and whirlwind attack stacking
There's no good reason they should not.

It was a Band-Aid on the "bag o' rats" "tactic."

For the uninitiated: Start round next to boss enemy. Free action drop a bag containing dozens of rats. Now Whirlwind Attack the rats, Great Cleaving onto the boss with each strike. Boss eats a couple dozen attacks in one round all at full BAB.

This is why Whirlwind and Great Cleave do not stack anymore.

Doesn't sound any worse than Wizard's equivalent tactic with the bag full of Shadows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Races: Any uncommon race. So many DM's just shoot down the idea of playing as one of them. I know they're supposed to be rare but it almost seems like they're insulted at the idea of being something other than the core races. I just think it's so close minded.

Evil Character: I love playing evil campaigns. It just opens up a lot more possibilities you don't get to do as often. But again, DM's just act like it's idiotic to do it.


Klara Meison wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
memorax wrote:
Ever have a family member going on the latest health fad.
Oh god don't get me started. A really good pie-shop in my city closed down because the whole damn city is on the "Paleo Diet" ... which by the way has now been classified as an eating disorder.
May I have a reputable source on that? That doesn't sound quite believable as an empty claim.
Try looking here.

Ah, thanks. It's not quite that, but I see how it can be called that on a tangent.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

I was just giving a history lesson, not passing any sort of judgement here. Feel free and attack the justification, but "Whirlcleave" was a thing they decided to nerf in 3.5.

Personally I would have fixed it with "extra attacks from Great Cleave can't target the same foe more than once a round" or something of that nature.

Fun fact: 25 Diminutive creatures can fit in a single 5' square, and can share a space with a medium creature. Our theoretical Whirlcleaving martial could reach up to 225 Diminutive creatures if they were packed in, allowing up 226 attacks on a single target in one round. Likely about 5% fewer as some will miss.

It jumps up to 900 if you do it with Fine creatures.

Martials might need a boost but I'm not sure they need 200+ attacks a round worth of boost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DexterLecter wrote:
Races: Any uncommon race. So many DM's just shoot down the idea of playing as one of them. I know they're supposed to be rare but it almost seems like they're insulted at the idea of being something other than the core races. I just think it's so close minded.

I have something of a love hate relationship with uncommon races. I love it when a player pitches me a weird character concept, but I also see a lot of uncommon races just used as sort of window dressing without any concern for how they would actually be you know different than humans. Like if someone came to me with a dragonborn and intended to play it like a Glorantha dragonnewt or even just dive really far into how being literally can made by a deity (Bahamut) affect you then I'd be down. Unfortunately you run into a lot of players who just treat them like races in Eastern MMO RPGS. "Well I basically just wanted to play someone who looks like a sexy lady with little bits of dragon themed cosplay on. Is there a race for that?"


Alex Smith 908 wrote:
DexterLecter wrote:
Races: Any uncommon race. So many DM's just shoot down the idea of playing as one of them. I know they're supposed to be rare but it almost seems like they're insulted at the idea of being something other than the core races. I just think it's so close minded.
I have something of a love hate relationship with uncommon races. I love it when a player pitches me a weird character concept, but I also see a lot of uncommon races just used as sort of window dressing without any concern for how they would actually be you know different than humans. Like if someone came to me with a dragonborn and intended to play it like a Glorantha dragonnewt or even just dive really far into how being literally can made by a deity (Bahamut) affect you then I'd be down. Unfortunately you run into a lot of players who just treat them like races in Eastern MMO RPGS. "Well I basically just wanted to play someone who looks like a sexy lady with little bits of dragon themed cosplay on. Is there a race for that?"

I just don't get it. As long as the character fits what you want stat wise it shouldn't matter what race it is or anything. If it's what you want then just play it. If it's Kitsune or Nagaji then NPC's might look at you weird but it shouldn't really effect the game in any meaningful way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
johnlocke90 wrote:

The recent sidebar from Paizo actually recommended 3 castings for an alignment switch.

And its not limited to Evil, you can cast protection from evil a few times and you are back to being Good.

I'm suddenly filled with the same emotions I had when I watched my friend dictate his darl/light-side alignment in Knights of the Old Republic with repeating story loop holes.

This new rule/suggestions literally makes alignment meaningless to players.


Mashallah wrote:
Klara Meison wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
memorax wrote:

Ever have a family member going on the latest health fad.

Oh god don't get me started. A really good pie-shop in my city closed down because the whole damn city is on the "Paleo Diet" ... which by the way has now been classified as an eating disorder.
May I have a reputable source on that? That doesn't sound quite believable as an empty claim.
Try looking here.
Ah, thanks. It's not quite that, but I see how it can be called that on a tangent.

Yeah sorry, I did start that line with "Oh god don't get me started" so it's probably worth taking with a little bit of salt.

But yes, as someone who has studied nutrition, all fad diets are bad (that's right, all of them).

That's not to say that one diet won't work for anyone, just that it won't work for everyone.

If you think you need to go on a diet, talk to your family about it, then talk to your doctor about it, then talk to a nutritionist about it (preferably more than one, and with your doctor present if possible) so you can get a really good long term diet plan.

Another tip is that any diet that says: "lose weight fast" is actually saying: "Lose muscle fast and teach your body to store fat".
Ooh another tip is "Fat is good for you".
Ooh and "Eating fat doesn't make you fat, it makes you feel full which means you're less likely to over-eat".
I think I'm getting off topic now =P back to reality ... or I guess the exact opposite of that on this forum.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
This new rule/suggestions literally makes alignment meaningless to players.

Alignment's pretty meaningless to a lot of players regardless...

Something I like that others apparently hate: Flavor-based rules that a GM can tweak for circumstance.

Like having spell choices directly impact alignment... but not getting so bogged down in how many castings of Hallow you have under your belt that everything else you're doing gets no weight.


MrCharisma wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
Klara Meison wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
memorax wrote:

Ever have a family member going on the latest health fad.

Oh god don't get me started. A really good pie-shop in my city closed down because the whole damn city is on the "Paleo Diet" ... which by the way has now been classified as an eating disorder.
May I have a reputable source on that? That doesn't sound quite believable as an empty claim.
Try looking here.
Ah, thanks. It's not quite that, but I see how it can be called that on a tangent.

Yeah sorry, I did start that line with "Oh god don't get me started" so it's probably worth taking with a little bit of salt.

But yes, as someone who has studied nutrition, all fad diets are bad (that's right, all of them).

That's not to say that one diet won't work for anyone, just that it won't work for everyone.

If you think you need to go on a diet, talk to your family about it, then talk to your doctor about it, then talk to a nutritionist about it (preferably more than one, and with your doctor present if possible) so you can get a really good long term diet plan.

Another tip is that any diet that says: "lose weight fast" is actually saying: "Lose muscle fast and teach your body to store fat".
Ooh another tip is "Fat is good for you".
Ooh and "Eating fat doesn't make you fat, it makes you feel full which means you're less likely to over-eat".
I think I'm getting off topic now =P back to reality ... or I guess the exact opposite of that on this forum.

Ah, okay, that makes sense.

It's just that I had a very positive personal experience with keto/paleo myself, so it was weird to see someone claim that going paleo is an eating disorder.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I liked the Allegiance system from d20 Modern better than the Alignment system of D&D & PF. Especially since it allows you to choose Chaos/Law and/or Evil/Good as some of your Allegiances.

I actually liked a lot of the features of d20 Modern. I liked the ability score-based base classes, the emphasis on advanced classes and/or multiclassing (especially if fractional BAB is used), the starting occupations, class defense bonuses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mashallah wrote:

Ah, okay, that makes sense.

It's just that I had a very positive personal experience with keto/paleo myself, so it was weird to see someone claim that going paleo is an eating disorder.

Oh yeah I actually had a positive experience with the ketogenic diet. My girlfriend went on it to help manage her epilepsy, and it really helped.

We did talk to the doctor about it though, and the response was basically: "This diet will literally destroy your liver over time" (you don't want to be on it longer than about 6 months).

A lot of those diets put you in "starvation mode" (anything that talks about ketones). This is not a healthy state to live in. This is where your body will cannibalise your own muscles to make energy, and where it learns to store fat.

This CAN be something desirable (it really did help the epilepsy) but it's not a long term solution.

Once again go talk to someone more qualified than me about this.

Also, reading up on it yourself is a good idea, it's sometimes hard to separate the useful information from all the misinformation out there.
As a rule finding academic articles that are "Peer reviewed" is more likely to be helpful than anything else.

Hmmm... this is really not the direction I was expecting this thread to take


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

The recent sidebar from Paizo actually recommended 3 castings for an alignment switch.

And its not limited to Evil, you can cast protection from evil a few times and you are back to being Good.

I'm suddenly filled with the same emotions I had when I watched my friend dictate his darl/light-side alignment in Knights of the Old Republic with repeating story loop holes.

This new rule/suggestions literally makes alignment meaningless to players.

staying lawful evil to be a necromancer(cleric) was never easier. I can now animate everything and still be a REALLY kind and helpful person.

Mashallah wrote:


Ah, okay, that makes sense.
It's just that I had a very positive personal experience with keto/paleo myself, so it was weird to see someone claim that going paleo is an eating disorder.

my 2cp

humans are omnivores and can eat almost anything and end up healthy on the other end. It's only an issue when you eat a single thing in excess.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
SmiloDan wrote:

I liked the Allegiance system from d20 Modern better than the Alignment system of D&D & PF. Especially since it allows you to choose Chaos/Law and/or Evil/Good as some of your Allegiances.

I actually liked a lot of the features of d20 Modern. I liked the ability score-based base classes, the emphasis on advanced classes and/or multiclassing (especially if fractional BAB is used), the starting occupations, class defense bonuses.

doesn't unchained have optional rules like this?

I remember reading somewhere about some loyalty system or some such.

Basically, you can still be loyal to good/evil and what not, but more than likely your actiosn are loyal to an ideal or a group.

like you;re supposed to pick 3 loyalties in order of strength.

so a character's loyalty might be
Survival/Family/good

this character will sacrifice their family to survive, but will protect their family over being good, but past those 2 points will try to be a good person.


I like high level campaigns. A lot of people think the game breaks down at around PFS's stopping point of level 12. Not only do I have a lot of games go past that, I've had more than a few campaigns go well past level 20 too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrCharisma wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Playing non-Lawful Good Paladins who are still as heroic as Lawful Good Paladins.

Yeah my first love of paladins came from playing "Umbasa the Party God". A chaotic good paladin who's power came from faith in his own abilities.

Interestingly enough he did end up becoming a fallen paladin when it turned out his companions had been lying to him and his actions had started a war between 2 cities.
I guess I'll add:
FALLEN PALADINS
to the list of things that are great (CAVEAT: A fallen paladin should be a story-point that's agreed upon by the player & the GM, not a mechanical nerf the GM forces on the player).

In practice, I found the falling to be a way for the GM to control the character more than anyhting else.

Paladin wants to do X. GM tells him doing X will make him fall. So Paladin doesn't do X.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
DexterLecter wrote:
I just don't get it. As long as the character fits what you want stat wise it shouldn't matter what race it is or anything. If it's what you want then just play it. If it's Kitsune or Nagaji then NPC's might look at you weird but it shouldn't really effect the game in any meaningful way.

Um...if it doesn't have any really meaningful effect, then what the heck is the point of playing an exotic race in the first place?

Exotic races SHOULD be stared at in awe by NPCs, or shunned, or whatever. To do otherwise not only undermines the exotic nature of such races, but also destroys any potential for immersion for many players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

yes, strange races should have a modest social effect, but that is all.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Yeah, it depends on how exotic races are. In Golarion, there's just too many races for the kind of reactions most people want, save for the most backwater locations.


Bandw2 wrote:

my 2cp

humans are omnivores and can eat almost anything and end up healthy on the other end. It's only an issue when you eat a single thing in excess.

Heh, that's probably the best dieting advice anyone's likely to find on the internet (not joking).

Squiggit wrote:
I like high level campaigns.

I honestly don't know if I've ever played above level 12. I'd love to, I just don't think it's ever happened.

I played one game back in high school where our characters probably approached epic levels (20+), but that game was so story-driven that I actually forgot we'd even made character sheets by that point. I don't think we ever officially level'd up our characters from level 1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
DexterLecter wrote:
I just don't get it. As long as the character fits what you want stat wise it shouldn't matter what race it is or anything. If it's what you want then just play it. If it's Kitsune or Nagaji then NPC's might look at you weird but it shouldn't really effect the game in any meaningful way.

Um...if it doesn't have any really meaningful effect, then what the heck is the point of playing an exotic race in the first place?

Exotic races SHOULD be stared at in awe by NPCs, or shunned, or whatever. To do otherwise not only undermines the exotic nature of such races, but also destroys any potential for immersion for many players.

I don't see why that would be an issue. Why would it matter if NPC's look at your strangely?

And also that's assuming everyone in the world you've created is incredibly racist. These NPC's live in worlds inhabited by dragons, everyone knows about goblins and how creepy they look, a place where people can shoot fire out of there hands. I think seeing a foxman or a guy who kind of looks like a lizard wouldn't really shake up anyones day.

I'm just saying if I live in a world like this and a damn Drider walked into my shop asking if I sold potions of enlarge person I probably would just think "huh guess those exist too..." then show them my supply.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Bandw2 wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:

I liked the Allegiance system from d20 Modern better than the Alignment system of D&D & PF. Especially since it allows you to choose Chaos/Law and/or Evil/Good as some of your Allegiances.

I actually liked a lot of the features of d20 Modern. I liked the ability score-based base classes, the emphasis on advanced classes and/or multiclassing (especially if fractional BAB is used), the starting occupations, class defense bonuses.

doesn't unchained have optional rules like this?

I remember reading somewhere about some loyalty system or some such.

Basically, you can still be loyal to good/evil and what not, but more than likely your actiosn are loyal to an ideal or a group.

like you;re supposed to pick 3 loyalties in order of strength.

so a character's loyalty might be
Survival/Family/good

this character will sacrifice their family to survive, but will protect their family over being good, but past those 2 points will try to be a good person.

I didn't know that about Unchained. d20 Modern was exactly like that: 3 hierarchal allegiances. :-D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
yes, strange races should have a modest social effect, but that is all.

Oh, I guess this is something I like that others "hate"

I like playing Kobolds or other races of that nature and WANT the expected social friction. I like proving a@!%+&%s wrong :3

SmiloDan wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
stuff
I didn't know that about Unchained. d20 Modern was exactly like that: 3 hierarchal allegiances. :-D

it's best feature is that paladins in this system instead get smite"opposed to highest priority" and they simply have to have good as one of their allegiances, they don't even need lawful.

So Paladin's of France can smite enemies of France. :3 (provided they're extremely loyal anyway)


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Are there any precedents for such reactions in any of the Paizo literature? Off-hand, I know Ustalov would likely run a member of the more exotic races out of their towns, thinking it a demon, ghost, or some other monster.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Are there any precedents for such reactions in any of the Paizo literature? Off-hand, I know Ustalov would likely run a member of the more exotic races out of their towns, thinking it a demon, ghost, or some other monster.

RotRLs mentions being a goblin should be avoided, but I think that's all paizo has to say about this subject.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Are there any precedents for such reactions in any of the Paizo literature?

Common sense, when strange looking things tend to be extremely powerful, don't poke the dire bear.


Ravingdork wrote:
Are there any precedents for such reactions in any of the Paizo literature? Off-hand, I know Ustalov would likely run a member of the more exotic races out of their towns, thinking it a demon, ghost, or some other monster.

I don't care if there is slight social friction. What I hate is DM's not allowing the races to be played in the first place. Limiting things like that just doesn't make sense to me.

I guess it depends what town you're in. But the idea of making everyone racist towards things like Sulis, Gillmen or even Grippli just seems so constricting and pointless.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Bandw2 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Are there any precedents for such reactions in any of the Paizo literature? Off-hand, I know Ustalov would likely run a member of the more exotic races out of their towns, thinking it a demon, ghost, or some other monster.
RotRLs mentions being a goblin should be avoided, but I think that's all paizo has to say about this subject.

Oh I'm sure there's more than that somewhere. What about the novels, comics, and splat books?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Are there any precedents for such reactions in any of the Paizo literature? Off-hand, I know Ustalov would likely run a member of the more exotic races out of their towns, thinking it a demon, ghost, or some other monster.
RotRLs mentions being a goblin should be avoided, but I think that's all paizo has to say about this subject.
Oh I'm sure there's more than that somewhere. What about the novels, comics, and splat books?

I mean't along those lines, not that particular subject. Like if we're talking about NPCs, it's clear several races are feared or hated, usually both and simply as a matter of safety are killed on sight.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

DexterLecter wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
DexterLecter wrote:
I just don't get it. As long as the character fits what you want stat wise it shouldn't matter what race it is or anything. If it's what you want then just play it. If it's Kitsune or Nagaji then NPC's might look at you weird but it shouldn't really effect the game in any meaningful way.

Um...if it doesn't have any really meaningful effect, then what the heck is the point of playing an exotic race in the first place?

Exotic races SHOULD be stared at in awe by NPCs, or shunned, or whatever. To do otherwise not only undermines the exotic nature of such races, but also destroys any potential for immersion for many players.

I don't see why that would be an issue. Why would it matter if NPC's look at your strangely?

And also that's assuming everyone in the world you've created is incredibly racist. \

Unfortunately, I've played in games like that. Supposedly it was for "verisimilitude," but it just made the DM look like a jerk.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's just hilarious to me that a half orc or human could look at a goblin, elf and a gnome sitting next to each other and go "yeah, that's normal." but replace one with a Vanara and they go "GET OUT, GET OUT! WHAT WHAT ARE YOU?!" It just makes everyone seem really stupid. Like why is a monkey person weirder than literally everything else you see every moment of your life?


HyperMissingno wrote:

Right, let's see then...10 base, plus 5 from dexterity, 5 from draconic disciple natural armor, 11 from breastplate, 5 from amulet, 5 from ring, 1 from the stone...

42 AC unbuffed at level 20, 40 if raging. 46/44 if there's a shield spell in effect. Along with a nice +9 to initiative, packing uncanny dodge, and a ton of HP because barbarian with 18 constitution.

And with a two-handed weapon and 6th level spellcasting I'm pretty confident I can keep the attention of the enemies. The only issue is that with all the multiclassing going on (this is Barb4/Soc1/DD8/EK7) my reflex save suffers a lot and having the opportunity to grab all the items might not come up.

At level 20 you can also get Sea Mantle which gives you +8AC. Also an item that gives you at will Haste for another +1 AC and of course the +6 dex belt for 3 more AC. If you are a wizard you can also alter self to small and get a +2 bonus to AC(1 from dex 1 from size bonus).

My level 15 Wizard was at about 60 AC total.


Alex Smith 908 wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
I believe there are nonevil undead, but they're all sentient and they need really, really, REALLY strong willpower to resist falling to evil. Also ghosts are a thing.

That still feeds into the problem. Why is being undead an inherently morally corrupting? The search for immortality and the process of becoming undead are easily things I could see being morally corrupting, but just existing seems backwards as a corruptive force. Like I could even see a lich or some graveknight doing the whole retired dictator thing where they try to pretend they aren't evil anymore because they've mellowed out since the whole consuming people's souls to make their phylactery days.

Like saying "becoming x kind of undead requires y evil action which stains your soul forever" works perfectly fine by me. Specifically the AD&D explanation for how liches are made, but when the method of creation is morally neutral or even selfless I don't see how that would corrupt anyone. Take mummies created by volunteers who are forgoing an afterlife they objectively knows exist to guard their king's tomb. That's noble and selfless. There isn't any reason their alignment shouldn't read "any lawful".

The meta reason is that if being undead and creating undead wasn't evil a ton of people would do it. Every nation would be like a non-evil Geb where the rulers are all undead that have been around for centuries and manual labor is done by the mindless undead.

I think they don't spell out why in game because they want to leave it up to GMs.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
DexterLecter wrote:
It's just hilarious to me that a half orc or human could look at a goblin, elf and a gnome sitting next to each other and go "yeah, that's normal." but replace one with a Vanara and they go "GET OUT, GET OUT! WHAT WHAT ARE YOU?!" It just makes everyone seem really stupid. Like why is a monkey person weirder than literally everything else you see every moment of your life?

I don't think they'd find the goblin normal.

as for undead being evil, it's because and I've only sort of noticed this, negative energy tends to stagnate things while good energy is more willing to change things.

AKA, the eventuality of creatures all becoming undead is that there will then never be new life. everything would stagnate.

most gods I think are opposed to this and thus it's probably evil.


HyperMissingno wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
A meaningless distinction.
And a wrong one with the release of...ultimate intrigue was it? Either way non-LG paladins are an official Pathfinder thing now.

To be fair, they explicitly weakened the non-LG archetype with the reasoning that " gray paladin’s loosened code weakens her connection to the power that grants her paladin abilities."


DexterLecter wrote:
It's just hilarious to me that a half orc or human could look at a goblin, elf and a gnome sitting next to each other and go "yeah, that's normal." but replace one with a Vanara and they go "GET OUT, GET OUT! WHAT WHAT ARE YOU?!" It just makes everyone seem really stupid. Like why is a monkey person weirder than literally everything else you see every moment of your life?

Well races are in universe things that actually exist. So while the ever present boogeyman and s+@!ty DM trope of "if you play as anything weird people will hate and shun you" is dumb. It isn't without merit that I the DM would want to discuss with you where your monkey guy came from, how monkey people culture fits into the campaign world, and why your monkey guy started hanging out with the rest of the party. After all races concrete things that should affect how your dude is played.


I like socks with sandals. I've got nice looking socks and it's just so comfortable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Overall: I like having actual rules for stuff. Even if those rules are incomplete or aren't really doing what they're trying to do, at least it's something. As a DM, I despise making up rulings arbitrarily when a unified mechanic is more appropriate.

Specific Feats: Leadership. I LOVE how much this adds to a campaign. I wish more players were less afraid to take it.

Specific Races: Humans. I'm tired of dwarfs and robots and dragon-people and furries and intelligent tapeworms. I would love to play in or DM a human-only campaign sometime.


Steve Geddes wrote:

I like games where magic is strictly better than mundane.

I also like campaign settings with severe restrictions on player options.

Can't decide whic is my favourite, but it would be one of them, I think.

I am with you. Its silly to expect a guy who swings a sword really well to keep up with someone who flies, teleports, summons demons and throws around fireballs.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

you sir, haven't seen enough, anime, legends, stories, myths, movies and literature in general.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
johnlocke90 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I like games where magic is strictly better than mundane.

I also like campaign settings with severe restrictions on player options.

Can't decide whic is my favourite, but it would be one of them, I think.

I am with you. Its silly to expect a guy who swings a sword really well to keep up with someone who flies, teleports, summons demons and throws around fireballs.

So just ban all non-spellcasting classes at your table. Problem solved!


Ventnor wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I like games where magic is strictly better than mundane.

I also like campaign settings with severe restrictions on player options.

Can't decide whic is my favourite, but it would be one of them, I think.

I am with you. Its silly to expect a guy who swings a sword really well to keep up with someone who flies, teleports, summons demons and throws around fireballs.
So just ban all non-spellcasting classes at your table. Problem solved!

If someone wants to play a gimped character I won't tell them no. They just shouldn't be surprised when the casters outshine them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Recently found out this is a thing people are opposed to: metals being just as magical and natural as anything else.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Soft luxurious fists.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
DexterLecter wrote:
I just don't get it. As long as the character fits what you want stat wise it shouldn't matter what race it is or anything. If it's what you want then just play it. If it's Kitsune or Nagaji then NPC's might look at you weird but it shouldn't really effect the game in any meaningful way.

Um...if it doesn't have any really meaningful effect, then what the heck is the point of playing an exotic race in the first place?

Exotic races SHOULD be stared at in awe by NPCs, or shunned, or whatever. To do otherwise not only undermines the exotic nature of such races, but also destroys any potential for immersion for many players.

Because elves, dwarves and humans are boring and done to death. For my part, I want variety and I want things that are different. My rule of thumb is: if it exists in the Core Book, then I straight refuse to play it.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Are there any precedents for such reactions in any of the Paizo literature? Off-hand, I know Ustalov would likely run a member of the more exotic races out of their towns, thinking it a demon, ghost, or some other monster.
RotRLs mentions being a goblin should be avoided, but I think that's all paizo has to say about this subject.
Oh I'm sure there's more than that somewhere. What about the novels, comics, and splat books?

I'm struggling to find anything that extreme.

The best I can think of (from the novels) is anti-tiefling prejudice in the Radovan novels and a general awareness of prejudice against half-orcs in some of the others. Neither of them are "run them out of town on sight" though.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ventnor wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I like games where magic is strictly better than mundane.

I also like campaign settings with severe restrictions on player options.

Can't decide whic is my favourite, but it would be one of them, I think.

I am with you. Its silly to expect a guy who swings a sword really well to keep up with someone who flies, teleports, summons demons and throws around fireballs.
So just ban all non-spellcasting classes at your table. Problem solved!

In my case, the disparity isn't a problem to be solved. I prefer games where the magical solution is strictly superior (although I like flavor restrictions that make it rare).

501 to 550 of 721 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Your favorite thing that people hate All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.