Your favorite thing that people hate


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 721 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
As for the good/negative channeling thing, that only applies to clerics. Paladins for example, have no issues channeling negative energy if they gain the ability to do so in some way, such as having a magic item that uses inflict spells.

?

Positive channeling clerics can prepare and cast inflict spells just fine, or were you talking about something else?

Merely pointing out that channeling/using positive or negative energy is not innately aligned, merely that the cleric's unique class feature is restricted by alignment. Trying to take that restriction and use it to justify some sort of universal truth is as asinine as trying to suggest that because druids can't cast in chainmail means that chainmail is antithetical to divine magic (demonstrably false) or nature magic in general (also demonstrably false).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
As for the good/negative channeling thing, that only applies to clerics. Paladins for example, have no issues channeling negative energy if they gain the ability to do so in some way, such as having a magic item that uses inflict spells.

?

Positive channeling clerics can prepare and cast inflict spells just fine, or were you talking about something else?

Merely pointing out that channeling/using positive or negative energy is not innately aligned, merely that the cleric's unique class feature is restricted by alignment. Trying to take that restriction and use it to justify some sort of universal truth is as asinine as trying to suggest that because druids can't cast in chainmail means that chainmail is antithetical to divine magic (demonstrably false) or nature magic in general (also demonstrably false).

-_-

Aligned spells being aligned acts weren't co-opted from the cleric's class abilities, that's a great amount of ignorance there. Aligned spells have been aligned acts for as long as there's been alignment.


Horror themed adventures and plots. I really like Lovecraftian stuff and horror in general and Strange Aeons is a dream come true for me, but unfortunately none of my players have any interest in playing it. :(


Flamephoenix182 wrote:
The cleric example was just to show that it's tied into the mechanics of alignment... if it wasn't they would have just made all clerics choose their spontaneous casting like a neutral cleric at character creation

Except that it isn't. Except for Clerics. Hence my parallel drawn with special class restrictions. A similar thing is how a Paladin's code of conduct has restrictions not associated with alignment.


Flamephoenix182 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

Something to point out is that negative energy is inherently less destructive to creatures powered by it. The negative energy plane is like living in a continuous paradise for creatures powered by negative energies. Each round you simply heal 1d6 hit points worth of damage and are never at risk of death by awesome.

Amusingly, despite it saying the plane is super hostile, the plane itself actually transforms living creatures that die on it into undead creatures that thrive on it thereafter.

As for the good/negative channeling thing, that only applies to clerics. Paladins for example, have no issues channeling negative energy if they gain the ability to do so in some way, such as having a magic item that uses inflict spells.

Trying to suggest that a cleric's alignment restrictions on their class features plays a part in the morality or ethics of a force of nature is about as dumb as suggesting that wearing chainmail makes divine magic stop working, when that is only true for druids.

If you are trying to argue that the alignment system is dumb, I agree I wish alignment didn't tie into mechanical effects at all... it causes weird situations and makes it harder to get character personality to develop naturally as the story progresses and makes some classes unplayable in certain campaigns if your Gm is stickler for alignment restrictions and codes.

But it's clear in the rules Paizo (mostly just because 3.5 did) that positive energy is associated with good and Negative associated with bad.

The cleric example was just to show that it's tied into the mechanics of alignment... if it wasn't they would have just made all clerics choose their spontaneous casting like a neutral cleric at character creation

>If you are trying to argue that the alignment system is dumb, I agree I wish alignment didn't tie into mechanical effects at all...

No. No no no. No. I will start chanting catholic exorcisms at you two if that's what it takes to nip "Allignment thread №32984" in the bud.

Things I like that other people hate:allignment discussions. Note the word choice. Discussions. Not useless disputes where both sides chant the same arguments at one another.


Rysky wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
As for the good/negative channeling thing, that only applies to clerics. Paladins for example, have no issues channeling negative energy if they gain the ability to do so in some way, such as having a magic item that uses inflict spells.

?

Positive channeling clerics can prepare and cast inflict spells just fine, or were you talking about something else?

Merely pointing out that channeling/using positive or negative energy is not innately aligned, merely that the cleric's unique class feature is restricted by alignment. Trying to take that restriction and use it to justify some sort of universal truth is as asinine as trying to suggest that because druids can't cast in chainmail means that chainmail is antithetical to divine magic (demonstrably false) or nature magic in general (also demonstrably false).

-_-

Aligned spells being aligned acts weren't co-opted from the cleric's class abilities, that's a great amount of ignorance there. Aligned spells have been aligned acts for as long as there's been alignment.

Thats why devil binders are good aligned!

He's not saying aligned spells aren;t aligned acts (in this case). What he;s saying is that negative energy=evil because only evil clerics or neutral clerics can channel negative energy is wrong.


Rysky wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
As for the good/negative channeling thing, that only applies to clerics. Paladins for example, have no issues channeling negative energy if they gain the ability to do so in some way, such as having a magic item that uses inflict spells.

?

Positive channeling clerics can prepare and cast inflict spells just fine, or were you talking about something else?

Merely pointing out that channeling/using positive or negative energy is not innately aligned, merely that the cleric's unique class feature is restricted by alignment. Trying to take that restriction and use it to justify some sort of universal truth is as asinine as trying to suggest that because druids can't cast in chainmail means that chainmail is antithetical to divine magic (demonstrably false) or nature magic in general (also demonstrably false).

-_-

Aligned spells being aligned acts weren't co-opted from the cleric's class abilities, that's a great amount of ignorance there. Aligned spells have been aligned acts for as long as there's been alignment.

We aren't talking about alignment subtype spells, we're talking about positive and negative energy and the channeling of such being aligned, which is only a thing in the case of the cleric's class feature.


Klara Meison wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

I would have to say my favorite thing that people hate is badass over the top mid to high level martials.

When a level 17 or better fighter not only can slice open the veil between dimensions but must do so prior to a fight if he doesn't want to risk damaging the fabric of that particular material plane.

My sarcasm sense is tingling.

100% sincere


Ventnor wrote:
Playing non-Lawful Good Paladins who are still as heroic as Lawful Good Paladins.

Then they are heroic holy warriors. What they aren't, is Paladins.

Grand Lodge

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

A meaningless distinction.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
A meaningless distinction.

Not at all. A paladin is a lawful good holy warrior. By definition. So a non lawful good paladin is a contradiction in terms.

"Good dogs who are not canines"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The term Paladin predates Lawful Good by over a thousand years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
The term Paladin predates Lawful Good by over a thousand years.

And some of those actual paladins were definitely not good, OR lawful!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
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.

You speak truth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And I think it's somewhat detrimental to give in like that. But oh well.

I don't see why the non lawful good holy warriors just HAD to have the paladin chassis.


Thousand years trumps fourty.


Because it's selfish to keep all those cool abilities to itself and selfishness is a trait of evil alignments.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Are they cool though, I've never been all that impressed with Paladins.


They're 4 level casters, so they're at a nice level as far as balance goes. They absolutely shred evil foes, as you might imagine, but even against non-evil people they're pretty great thanks to their spells. They also gain immunity to a lot of really annoying status effects, divine grace means you don't have to keep blowing your money on cloaks of resistance, and lay on hands allows you to heal yourself without sacrificing full attacks.

Just don't dump Wisdom if you're starting at level 1. You're gonna have a bad time.

Also, they're kind of hurting for both feats and skill points, so keep that in mind if you want to play something besides a human.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Blech! No thanks!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Two things I like that others do not:
DMNPC and "Special Snowflakes"

As a constant DM, I find that having a tagalong, sidekick, or mercenary type that can help cover a role the party either missed or wasn't interested in covering is really helpful. I give them the same complexity as any of the player characters, but keep them out of the way/spotlight. DMs that have overbearing, overpowered, or ex machina NPCs foisted onto the party are a strike against poor DMing, not the tools they use.

In regards to snowflakes, I wouldn't mind if all of my players were trying to make a unique and interesting character, and I'm quite willing as a DM to work with players in figuring out how to bring a concept into the game.


LizardMage wrote:

Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Planescape, and Eberron have all been kitchen sink settings.

I don't have a problem with kitchen sink settings, in general though, I prefer a setting that is willing to say, "ALL the gnomes are dead...ALL of them." or "Lycanthropes don't exist here". For me, I tend to work better with some limitations. That encourages the imaginative process for me. If a DM says, we are running Curse of the Crimson Thorne, please make characters only from Kosova and neighboring areas, I will have a better time making my character vs the option to pick anything from Golarion.

Though, that's just me. Everyone creates in their own way.

Despite generally coming down on the side of player empowerment I completely agree. Settings are defined just as much by what they do not have as what they do have. Though I also think it is important to have both hard and soft limitations in a setting. Hard limitations are things that you flat out define a setting around. It's something you should inform your players of at the outset and explain how they affect the world. Soft limitations are basically everything you did not explicitly include in an outline. Make sure to let your players know that they should ask about anything outside of the outline. That way if your players want to do something outside of your explicity outline the two of you can work out if it does fit into the setting and if so how. If it doesn't fit into the setting this sort of one-on-one allows you to explain why it doesn't work.

Though a quick thing is that Eberron is only technically a kitchen sink due to the dumb contest rules. There are numerous things that stand out as "this is pushed into a corner here to technically allow everything from 3.5 in the setting even if it doesn't fit". Outside of such things the setting is very well considered and geared toward a very specific roaring/interregnum mood.


Scythia wrote:

Two things I like that others do not:

DMNPC and "Special Snowflakes"

As a constant DM, I find that having a tagalong, sidekick, or mercenary type that can help cover a role the party either missed or wasn't interested in covering is really helpful. I give them the same complexity as any of the player characters, but keep them out of the way/spotlight. DMs that have overbearing, overpowered, or ex machina NPCs foisted onto the party are a strike against poor DMing, not the tools they use.

In regards to snowflakes, I wouldn't mind if all of my players were trying to make a unique and interesting character, and I'm quite willing as a DM to work with players in figuring out how to bring a concept into the game.

I think special snowflake is sort of a word that has mutated beyond usefulness in many ways. I have heard people use it for players with any sort of non-Core class or race but just as often it is for something trying to substitute adjectives for character development and generally trying to draw attention to themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

DSP content seems to get a lot of hate in these parts, but I love it and can't play Pathfinder without it to the point I ban a lot of Paizo stuff such as the Wizard class when DM'ing, offering Psions and the like as replacements to my players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mashallah wrote:
DSP content seems to get a lot of hate in these parts, but I love it and can't play Pathfinder without it to the point I ban a lot of Paizo stuff such as the Wizard class when DM'ing, offering Psions and the like as replacements to my players.

I really like DSP products as well. I find their classes just have so much more flavor than Paizo classes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
DSP content seems to get a lot of hate in these parts, but I love it and can't play Pathfinder without it to the point I ban a lot of Paizo stuff such as the Wizard class when DM'ing, offering Psions and the like as replacements to my players.
I really like DSP products as well. I find their classes just have so much more flavor than Paizo classes.

I agree that they make good stuff. I can't agree that people dislike it, given that I only checked it out because of people on here constantly talking them up. :P


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Even people who shy away from 3PP usually speak well of Dreamscarred Press...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
DSP content seems to get a lot of hate in these parts, but I love it and can't play Pathfinder without it to the point I ban a lot of Paizo stuff such as the Wizard class when DM'ing, offering Psions and the like as replacements to my players.
I really like DSP products as well. I find their classes just have so much more flavor than Paizo classes.
I agree that they make good stuff. I can't agree that people dislike it, given that I only checked it out because of people on here constantly talking them up. :P

Yet in every thread I have seen where high-level fighters were discussed, Path of War is shunned as a solution.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
DSP content seems to get a lot of hate in these parts, but I love it and can't play Pathfinder without it to the point I ban a lot of Paizo stuff such as the Wizard class when DM'ing, offering Psions and the like as replacements to my players.
I really like DSP products as well. I find their classes just have so much more flavor than Paizo classes.
I agree that they make good stuff. I can't agree that people dislike it, given that I only checked it out because of people on here constantly talking them up. :P

Yet I've seen people diss PoW quite a lot everywhere almost every time it's mentioned.

And, I suppose, another thing that I love which many others hate is tier limitations - only tier 2-4 classes are allowed in my games, meaning druids, wizards, unarchetyped fighters and many other classes are simply banned.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mashallah wrote:
Scythia wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
DSP content seems to get a lot of hate in these parts, but I love it and can't play Pathfinder without it to the point I ban a lot of Paizo stuff such as the Wizard class when DM'ing, offering Psions and the like as replacements to my players.
I really like DSP products as well. I find their classes just have so much more flavor than Paizo classes.
I agree that they make good stuff. I can't agree that people dislike it, given that I only checked it out because of people on here constantly talking them up. :P

Yet I've seen people diss PoW quite a lot everywhere almost every time it's mentioned.

And, I suppose, another thing that I love which many others hate is tier limitations - only tier 2-4 classes are allowed in my games, meaning druids, wizards, unarchetyped fighters and many other classes are simply banned.

And in mine the concept of tiers is banned, so it doesn't come up and somehow the games seem to work just fine with an eclectic mix of character classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To each their own, RDM42. After all, look at thread name.


wow the top tier only post wins cause i truly hate that i would literally stop playing the game all together if i could only find DM's like that. so if your goal was to like something that people hate you got me head over foot. I mean i'm having to use every bit of my reasoning telling myself its their game they can play it how they want to not go on some rant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
wow the top tier only post wins cause i truly hate that i would literally stop playing the game all together if i could only find DM's like that. so if your goal was to like something that people hate you got me head over foot. I mean i'm having to use every bit of my reasoning telling myself its their game they can play it how they want to not go on some rant.

My players enjoy it. *shrug*


you just play a vastly different game then me. thats all (i keeping telling myself this it helps.) but as long as your group all agrees to it then i can't really say there is anything wrong with it. it is just your way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We vote on rules democratically in my group. If the players dislike a rule, it gets booted, if they want a houserule not yet present, it gets voted in. Tier-based class bans, if I recall correctly, had 100% support after some discussion.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand it but by dog i support your right to do it.


Klara Meison wrote:
Scythia wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
DSP content seems to get a lot of hate in these parts, but I love it and can't play Pathfinder without it to the point I ban a lot of Paizo stuff such as the Wizard class when DM'ing, offering Psions and the like as replacements to my players.
I really like DSP products as well. I find their classes just have so much more flavor than Paizo classes.
I agree that they make good stuff. I can't agree that people dislike it, given that I only checked it out because of people on here constantly talking them up. :P
Yet in every thread I have seen where high-level fighters were discussed, Path of War is shunned as a solution.

Some shun it as a copout. A viable solution for our own tables but something which doesn't help PF itself become better...

...and then I gave up on PF and made my own 3.P inspired game.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
wow the top tier only post wins cause i truly hate that i would literally stop playing the game all together if i could only find DM's like that.

Didbyou misread the post? (S)he isn't running top tier only, only the very top and very bottom tiers are banned in that poster's games.

Something like 80-90% of classes remain available.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Where did the "tier" crap come from anyway.


captain yesterday wrote:
Where did the "tier" crap come from anyway.

It comes from ranking classes on their ability to overcome a wide myriad of challenges. Prepared Full Casters when well played (either by a veteran or on accident by beginner's luck) completely violate the expectations of this game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

But where did it come from.

Not why, it has to originate from somewhere, it wasn't in any DnD book I ever read.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

But where did it come from.

Not why, it has to originate from somewhere, it wasn't in any DnD book I ever read.

Arithmancy and some basic analysis performed by experienced members of the community.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

So it's all made up then.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
So it's all made up then.

Just like Pathfinder.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
So it's all made up then.

That is a rather dismissive way to look at an idea that hundreds of people find to be true after much thought on the matter.

Things I like that othe rpeople don't: using mathematics in particular and science in general to analyse Pathfinder(really, all games) mechanics. Analysis and careful study has never in the history of the universe made any medium or hobby worse, and they frequently make them better.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I just don't see any reason to take it seriously. :-)

To each their own though. :-)

I'd rather see things in practice, rather than in analysis.

If you find that dismissive, so be it.


captain yesterday wrote:

I just don't see any reason to take it seriously. :-)

To each their own though. :-)

Then... What reason do you see to take Pathfinder seriously?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Lol! I don't take pathfinder seriously, it's a game I play to have fun and bond with my wife and children. :-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
So it's all made up then.

Same could be said about math and many sciences yet we be going to the moon and thinking about Mars. Black holes weren't a thing just 50 years ago either. We really need to stop fooling with "made up" numbers.

351 to 400 of 721 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 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.