Freedom of movement works pretty well.
Grease is also fairly effective and it's only first level.
Still Spell (if necessary) plus any damaging spell that requires a touch.
Am I the only one who googles stuff?
and check this out: Walmart
I did -- I just meant that I couldn't find them on paizo.com (but I probably should have said that explicitly).
Still Spell (if necessary) plus any damaging spell that requires a touch.
I miss the Sudden metamagic feats from 3.5, like Sudden Still Spell that let you apply Still Spell to any spell prepared/known once a day.
For emergencies.
A caster's tattoo will take care of that.
Grease is also fairly effective and it's only first level.
And just about impossible to cast if you are already grappled
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Caster classes that complain about things, while Style feats that make monks suck less get nerfed again and again.
Grease is also fairly effective and it's only first level.And just about impossible to cast if you are already grappled
Yes, but why wouldn't any self-respecting wizard constantly coat themselves in grease like olive oil slathered on Greek atheletes of old?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or just use actual olive oil. It works in antimagic zones.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate effects on characters that change players from participants to observers (sleep, stun, paralysis, petrification, etc.).
This is easily the worst thing. I was recently slapped with panicked, and my GM ruled that since it said ‘use everything you can to escape’, that meant using my only casting of dimension door to remove myself from the fight...as a fighter, that just...sucked. I walked out to go get lunch...
(to be fair on the GM, when he did it again later on he didn’t pull the dimension door on me, and I’ve since more thoroughly prepped for fear effects and other things by handing out scrolls to the casters with the explicit instructions to use them on me when I cannot save or when I ask them to. Also, the spell is on that monster’s list, its not like it wasn’t going to use it, and it only affected one character. Sadly, the only character who can actually harm the monster. Shadow Demons suck.)
I’ve used similar save or lose spells myself, but usually when the PC’s can remove the effect quickly or the session has already been running for a while and short of a fully party wipe, without any lasting consequences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As pictured here: http://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/scryingdevice
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a huge opponent of anything that stops the game to rewrite a character sheet. Dispel, Anti-magic, disjunction... anything that debuffs for the battle that I now need to spend 10-20 minutes digging through every item, every feat,spell, gear, weapon and try to determine where, how and why I have an AC of 32 and which ones still work... all in the middle of a combat is insanely frustrating.
Hit me with a trap or something at the end of the night.. and fine, I'll re-audit the character for next week... but in the middle of the combat? I don't care how thematic or logical or story driven it is, mechanically it's a pain in the neck.
I'm a huge opponent of anything that stops the game to rewrite a character sheet. Dispel, Anti-magic, disjunction... anything that debuffs for the battle that I now need to spend 10-20 minutes digging through every item, every feat,spell, gear, weapon and try to determine where, how and why I have an AC of 32 and which ones still work... all in the middle of a combat is insanely frustrating.
Hit me with a trap or something at the end of the night.. and fine, I'll re-audit the character for next week... but in the middle of the combat? I don't care how thematic or logical or story driven it is, mechanically it's a pain in the neck.
I hate this too, but i've since started keeping 3X5's with the characters HP, saves, and Various Ac's on them and for my character when i'm playing just as a condensed info packet and i mind it less since then.
I'm a huge opponent of anything that stops the game to rewrite a character sheet. Dispel, Anti-magic, disjunction... anything that debuffs for the battle that I now need to spend 10-20 minutes digging through every item, every feat,spell, gear, weapon and try to determine where, how and why I have an AC of 32 and which ones still work... all in the middle of a combat is insanely frustrating.
Hit me with a trap or something at the end of the night.. and fine, I'll re-audit the character for next week... but in the middle of the combat? I don't care how thematic or logical or story driven it is, mechanically it's a pain in the neck.
Antimagic Disjunction Field of Dispelling should give you a -10 to AC & CMD, Attack Rolls and CMB, Ability Checks, Skill Checks, and Saving Throws for one hour, then at the end of that hour, you do the Disjunction Function or whatever rolls would normally be done.
I hate this too, but i've since started keeping 3X5's with the characters HP, saves, and Various Ac's on them and for my character when i'm playing just as a condensed info packet and i mind it less since then.I'm a huge opponent of anything that stops the game to rewrite a character sheet. Dispel, Anti-magic, disjunction... anything that debuffs for the battle that I now need to spend 10-20 minutes digging through every item, every feat,spell, gear, weapon and try to determine where, how and why I have an AC of 32 and which ones still work... all in the middle of a combat is insanely frustrating.
Hit me with a trap or something at the end of the night.. and fine, I'll re-audit the character for next week... but in the middle of the combat? I don't care how thematic or logical or story driven it is, mechanically it's a pain in the neck.
Related to this, I have been trying to make my character sheets so that they have my base stats, and then bonuses for whatever listed afterwards, so if something doesn't apply due to an adverse condition, it's easy to figure out. It means that more stuff is on the character sheet, but easier to make sure everything is right.
Also related to this, I hate how both stat blocks (found online) and character sheets apparently generated by commercial software (HeroLab, etc. -- these seem to have distinctive formats) don't show their work as I just described above, so that when they mess up (as is known to be the case for several Bestiary stat blocks), it's hard to detect, and even if you manage to figure out that something is wrong, it's hard to figure out just what is wrong, and a real pain to check everything else to make sure something else isn't messed up.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've said this many times before but magic items that just cast X spell Y times per day as their only function are infuriating and a waste of page space. Every wondrous item should have some unique or continuous function. We already have a pricing formula for X spell Y times per day, there is no need to continue giving examples.
^Now that you mention it, I miss the Potions, Rods, Scrolls, Staves, and Wands of 1st Edition AD&D that weren't just storage devices for spells or Metamagic applications . . . .
Completely agreed
Hey, at least we've got the rod of giant summoning!^Now that you mention it, I miss the Potions, Rods, Scrolls, Staves, and Wands of 1st Edition AD&D that weren't just storage devices for spells or Metamagic applications . . . .
Strange that the spell requirements for the construction don't go up for the middle and Greater versions of this . . . .
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't remember if this has been mentioned yet, and I'm not going to reread the thread to check: I hate when DMs punish players for being bad at talking. I'm talking DMs that force you to roleplay diplomacy checks and punish you for not being as charismatic as your character that has a +18 to their diplomacy check. I don't see you forcing the Barbarian's player to actually break down a door. Yeah, it's fun to proper roleplay, but not everyone is good at it. In fact, people who aren't good at it might be drawing to charismatic characters for that reason, to pretend to be someone who is witty and socially adroit.
Same goes for DMs that punish their players for not being as intelligent as their characters.
I can't remember if this has been mentioned yet, and I'm not going to reread the thread to check: I hate when DMs punish players for being bad at talking. I'm talking DMs that force you to roleplay diplomacy checks and punish you for not being as charismatic as your character that has a +18 to their diplomacy check. I don't see you forcing the Barbarian's player to actually break down a door. Yeah, it's fun to proper roleplay, but not everyone is good at it. In fact, people who aren't good at it might be drawing to charismatic characters for that reason, to pretend to be someone who is witty and socially adroit.
Same goes for DMs that punish their players for not being as intelligent as their characters.
I am guilty of this....but I want to emphasis that despite their pretty decent roll, role play is an important aspect of the game and comes first and foremost. Decent roleplay can even not even necessitate a roll with me.
I use rolls to determine that whatever they are gonna say, so long as it isn’t the worst possible thing they could say in that moment, is good enough and gets them their result. I feel that is the fairest thing I can do with people who clearly aren’t that good at talking. I definitely don’t put this pressure on brand new players or really uncomfortable roleplayers (like people who describe what they say rather than act it out). If the player has been in my group for a long while, or one of the many actors I seem to be friends with, then I do expect some effort to make their character shine through in how they approach reflecting their rolls to their roleplay.
So if that player does say the worst possible thing in that situation, then I’m gonna make that an instant failure. I’m talking ‘admit to the thing you were just lying about to the guards you are trying to bluff’ kind of scenario.
Yes, this has happened. A scenario like this went from an angry mob slowly calming down, to suddenly hearing that the PC just accidentally ‘admitted’ to having a hand in the terrible things happening lately to them, to what would have been a slapstick routine by a bunch of peasants throwing rotten tomatoes at the player and embarrassingly failing to harm him through his magical protections with garden tools had it not ended in terror, a double homicide and a fallen inquisitor as he quickly lost control of the situation in a way I haven’t ever seen in a game before in my life....
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a solution to this is to describe what your PC is saying instead of quoting what your PC is saying. For example "Palin the Paladin compliments the ambassador's grace and beauty." as opposed to Palin the Paladin's Player saying "You are as pretty as dog. You smell like one too. But with perfume. A flower dog. Do they have those? You should do that."
I am guilty of this....but I want to emphasis that despite their pretty decent roll, role play is an important aspect of the game and comes first and foremost. Decent roleplay can even not even necessitate a roll with me.
Do you have your Barbarian hack down a lot of doors?
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am guilty of this....but I want to emphasis that despite their pretty decent roll, role play is an important aspect of the game and comes first and foremost. Decent roleplay can even not even necessitate a roll with me.
I'm not going to say I've never rewarded a player for good RP rather than a roll, because I totally have, but it's metagaming. Mechanically, roleplay really shouldn't matter, rewarding a player for RP rather than making them roll a bluff check (or punishing them for bad RP regardless of their bluff skill) is no different than a player knowing where the traps are because they've played the AP before or knowing monster stats when their character would not.
It's tough, because (in my opinion) the game is greatly enhanced by good role play and it should be encouraged, but I also think it's unfair to give a mechanical advantage or disadvantage based on something that isn't mechanical in nature.
I can't remember if this has been mentioned yet, and I'm not going to reread the thread to check: I hate when DMs punish players for being bad at talking. I'm talking DMs that force you to roleplay diplomacy checks and punish you for not being as charismatic as your character that has a +18 to their diplomacy check. I don't see you forcing the Barbarian's player to actually break down a door. Yeah, it's fun to proper roleplay, but not everyone is good at it. In fact, people who aren't good at it might be drawing to charismatic characters for that reason, to pretend to be someone who is witty and socially adroit.
Same goes for DMs that punish their players for not being as intelligent as their characters.
If the Barbarian's player actually could break down the door, you probably wouldn't want them to . . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People related peeves...
1) People (especially couples) that bring their real-life problems and drama to the game table. Some people game to escape their real world troubles for awhile, not be subjected to everyone else's.
2) People that show up drunk/high to a game session. If that's what you wanna do in your house, on your time, that's cool and I have no problem with it. But don't bring it to my game table.
3) People who are constantly on their phone/mobile device during the game. As others have mentioned, this ends up disrupting the entire session and can ruin everyone else's fun.
Game related peeves...
1) The fact that practically every new class Paizo makes is better at being a Rogue than the actual Rogue.
2) That there's so much cool 3rd party stuff for pathfinder, but most DM's won't even look at, let alone allow it, based off the bad taste that 3.0 3rd party stuff left it everyones mouth.
It's been touched upon already, but my least favourite thing has definitely gotta be the solo section. Whether it's a rogue rogueing or whatever, I'm never thrilled at waiting an hour or even just 20 mins with absolutely zero agency in a shared game with 5-6 people involved.
I love playing or running solo stuff in between sessions, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe they made the rogue suck so they don't wander off and do solo stuff!!
Game related peeves...
1) The fact that practically every new class Paizo makes is better at being a Rogue than the actual Rogue.
I'm sorry, but that has nothing to do with new classes - the Rogue got outclassed at being a rogue in the CRB! The entire class concept is simply an utter failure.
Be happy that people who want to play a rogue can actually do so - they just got to know not to use the Rogue for that.
It's been touched upon already, but my least favourite thing has definitely gotta be the solo section. Whether it's a rogue rogueing or whatever, I'm never thrilled at waiting an hour or even just 20 mins with absolutely zero agency in a shared game with 5-6 people involved.
I love playing or running solo stuff in between sessions, though.
When this happens in games I run, I try to switch back and forth between the soloist and the rest of the party every 5 minutes or so. Ideally, every minute or so.
I once ran a game where the party split into 3 different groups, and I just made each group take turns as they explored, like in combat. I think it worked out OK.
...or use the Unchained version.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a personal peeve of mine, though I'm sure those who commit it generally have good intentions:
On the forums, sometimes people ask for suggestions or advice on how to fluff something, or ask about how something should work storywise. What always grinds my gears is a common reply: "It's role-playing, just do whatever you like!" No extra input, clarification, or ideas, just a rebound of the question back at the OP.
It's a technically correct answer, and it's good to keep in mind, sure. But often it assumes that a DM or player must be led by the nose to creative thinking. With most questions, it seems quite obvious to me that people aren't roboticly asking for the "right" answer, but are simply admitting that their creative well is a bit dry on the subject. As such, they don't need a blithe reminder that fluff is customizable, but ideas and suggestions that they can then spin off into their own unique solutions.
Just as we are all inspired by other media, sometimes people come to the forums hoping to be inspired by other games and posters. From this perspective, telling somebody to "Come up with whatever you like," can sound like a saccharine command to "Just figure it out yourself!" It's dismissive, it doesn't move the conversation forward, and sometimes it's borderline insulting.
This gets a bit more infuriating when somebody asks about how something works specifically in Golarion or another setting and gets the same response. It cannot get much clearer that such posters are interested in a shared canon, and are after concrete answers or sound community theories over establishing their own rules, but all the same, someone will likely show up to remind them that it doesn't matter, do what you want, believe in yourself!
I hate effects on characters that change players from participants to observers (sleep, stun, paralysis, petrification, etc.).
This is easily the worst thing. I was recently slapped with panicked, and my GM ruled that since it said ‘use everything you can to escape’, that meant using my only casting of dimension door to remove myself from the fight...as a fighter, that just...sucked. I walked out to go get lunch..
To be fair:
A panicked creature can use special abilities, including spells, to flee; indeed, the creature must use such means I'd they are the only way to escape.
Panicking people do stupid things. An unfortunate turn of events, but I don't think you DM did anything wrong here.
I can't remember if this has been mentioned yet, and I'm not going to reread the thread to check: I hate when DMs punish players for being bad at talking. I'm talking DMs that force you to roleplay diplomacy checks and punish you for not being as charismatic as your character that has a +18 to their diplomacy check. I don't see you forcing the Barbarian's player to actually break down a door. Yeah, it's fun to proper roleplay, but not everyone is good at it. In fact, people who aren't good at it might be drawing to charismatic characters for that reason, to pretend to be someone who is witty and socially adroit.
Same goes for DMs that punish their players for not being as intelligent as their characters.
I grant a bonus for good roleplay, but never a penalty for bad. However, I conversely don't like when a DM requires a roll even when the roleplay was so above and beyond it shouldn't be required.
EXAMPLE: We were in the Council of Thieves AP and had to audition for a play. The director asked each character for an insult. The other players said things like, "You're a jerk," or, "You're an idiot." That's really what two of them said.
I was second-to-last and I said, "You're a load your mother should have swallowed."
The table was stunned and then broke out into laughter. The last player just waved off the DM, "I can't top that!"
But we still had to roll an Intimate check. My wizard got a 10 and everyone else rolled higher. So one of the other checks should have won. The DM really awkwardly paused as he realized the pickle he'd put himself into. I'd clearly earned the part, but hadn't rolled it. But I'd he gave it to me, what was the point of the roll?
This is a personal peeve of mine, though I'm sure those who commit it generally have good intentions:
On the forums, sometimes people ask for suggestions or advice on how to fluff something, or ask about how something should work storywise. What always grinds my gears is a common reply: "It's role-playing, just do whatever you like!" No extra input, clarification, or ideas, just a rebound of the question back at the OP.
It's a technically correct answer, and it's good to keep in mind, sure. But often it assumes that a DM or player must be led by the nose to creative thinking. With most questions, it seems quite obvious to me that people aren't roboticly asking for the "right" answer, but are simply admitting that their creative well is a bit dry on the subject. As such, they don't need a blithe reminder that fluff is customizable, but ideas and suggestions that they can then spin off into their own unique solutions.
Just as we are all inspired by other media, sometimes people come to the forums hoping to be inspired by other games and posters. From this perspective, telling somebody to "Come up with whatever you like," can sound like a saccharine command to "Just figure it out yourself!" It's dismissive, it doesn't move the conversation forward, and sometimes it's borderline insulting.
This gets a bit more infuriating when somebody asks about how something works specifically in Golarion or another setting and gets the same response. It cannot get much clearer that such posters are interested in a shared canon, and are after concrete answers or sound community theories over establishing their own rules, but all the same, someone will likely show up to remind them that it doesn't matter, do what you want, believe in yourself!
Hear, hear!
Also it annoys me that I always want to reply to them to point some of that out, but can never come up with a way that won't come off as a mean ol' rant.
This is a personal peeve of mine, though I'm sure those who commit it generally have good intentions:
On the forums, sometimes people ask for suggestions or advice on how to fluff something, or ask about how something should work storywise. What always grinds my gears is a common reply: "It's role-playing, just do whatever you like!" No extra input, clarification, or ideas, just a rebound of the question back at the OP.
It's a technically correct answer, and it's good to keep in mind, sure. But often it assumes that a DM or player must be led by the nose to creative thinking. With most questions, it seems quite obvious to me that people aren't roboticly asking for the "right" answer, but are simply admitting that their creative well is a bit dry on the subject. As such, they don't need a blithe reminder that fluff is customizable, but ideas and suggestions that they can then spin off into their own unique solutions.
Just as we are all inspired by other media, sometimes people come to the forums hoping to be inspired by other games and posters. From this perspective, telling somebody to "Come up with whatever you like," can sound like a saccharine command to "Just figure it out yourself!" It's dismissive, it doesn't move the conversation forward, and sometimes it's borderline insulting.
This gets a bit more infuriating when somebody asks about how something works specifically in Golarion or another setting and gets the same response. It cannot get much clearer that such posters are interested in a shared canon, and are after concrete answers or sound community theories over establishing their own rules, but all the same, someone will likely show up to remind them that it doesn't matter, do what you want, believe in yourself!
yeah... that's a lot like whenever someone asks a question, there's always SOMEONE who gives the really clever answer of 'THAT's what Google is for!!"
It's really just annoying and ignorant answer because... 1) Everyone knows that google knows everything... and 2) Obviously the asker is looking for some human interaction/opinions/etc.
It's really just a wonderful example of why so many people shun human interaction in the first place.
For the charisma RP thing, I tend to give competence bonuses for really good RP at the table, which makes up for a character not having a lot of ranks in the skill that the PLAYER aced.
{. . .}
2) People that show up drunk/high to a game session. If that's what you wanna do in your house, on your time, that's cool and I have no problem with it. But don't bring it to my game table.
{. . .}
2a. Even worse: They want to smoke there. I ran into this when I was playing 1st Edition AD&D in college. Incidentally -- and maybe NOT coincidentally -- the worst offender among the smokers was one of these Chaotic Evil players with a character labeled Chaotic Neutral. The other Chaotic Evil player with a character labeled Chaotic Neutral didn't smoke at game sessions, but he often liked to brag about what he did when he was drunk or high or both, and about his reckless driving habits . . . .
What is your least favorite thing that happens while playing, either in the game or out of it?Players not working together.
I hear that. I ran a game some time ago for new players and its like they refused to interact with each other. I had to teach them that they could talk to each other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally enjoy a drink or two during an evening hanging out with my friends. Those who cannot do this in reasonable moderation, and hence cause people to give me a hard time, stink.
On a related note, lack of courtesy for the person willing to host the game drives me nuts. Played a couple of great campaigns hosted by a staunch member of AA, in that case I respectfully skipped my drink.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had some friends that were pretty sure changeling the lost would be amazing "drunk"... it was not.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have been guilty of this myself (to a lesser extent than the examples below, but I am certainly contrary by nature, and nothing piques my interest like being told that my barbarian can't be lawful, or whatever), but one of my big pet peeves is players who don't want to play the game that's on the table.
"This is going to be a very political game, more intrigue and scheming and power plays than combat." "Oh cool!" <Game starts> "I'm bored, I pick a fight with the city ruler!"
"We've got seven clans of vampires to choose from." "Can I play a clanless vampire?" "Can I play a werewolf?" "Can I play a highlander immortal, like Conner McCloud?" "Sigh..."
"It's a superhero game. You'll be playing superheroes." "My character robs a bank." "..."
I have been guilty of this myself (to a lesser extent than the examples below, but I am certainly contrary by nature, and nothing piques my interest like being told that my barbarian can't be lawful, or whatever), but one of my big pet peeves is players who don't want to play the game that's on the table.
"This is going to be a very political game, more intrigue and scheming and power plays than combat." "Oh cool!" <Game starts> "I'm bored, I pick a fight with the city ruler!"
"We've got seven clans of vampires to choose from." "Can I play a clanless vampire?" "Can I play a werewolf?" "Can I play a highlander immortal, like Conner McCloud?" "Sigh..."
"It's a superhero game. You'll be playing superheroes." "My character robs a bank." "..."
Hmm ok yeah that is a very reasonable thing to be irritated by.
anecdote:
I had one player (HAD) who would do that played a ninja in a superhero game (which right there was one strick) and assasinated a mind controlled superhero and it cause ssoooooo much trouble.
Five out of the six party members take pains to make sure that opponents that can be injured non-lethally can have that done/stabilize opponents... and then when all the opponents are down, the sixth attempts coup de gras on the downed opponents...
DM: "After 3 days of trekking through the bug-infested forest, you finally emerge onto the king's road and see a small city in the distance. As you approach to within 50 yards or so the gate guards snap to attention. What do you do?"
Party: "Forked Lightning Bolt the guards."
DM: -shakes head and sighs, "not again."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Five out of the six party members take pains to make sure that opponents that can be injured non-lethally can have that done/stabilize opponents... and then when all the opponents are down, the sixth attempts coup de gras on the downed opponents...
-_-... Id be coup de gras-ing someone after that...