The Gaming Den

DSMatticus wrote:Summary of findings: there are numerous edge cases which cause blood to change colors. If you poison yourself with a bunch of specific chemicals, your autopsy will be pretty and festive. SKR is an idiot.

Not as festive as if you were poisoned, tarred and tissue-papered, and your organs were surgically removed and replaced with chicle and sweet tarts.

And SKR is an idiot for many, many reasons.

FrankTrollman wrote:Carbon Monoxide poisoning turns your blood bright orange.

Even if orange is your favourite colour, I still wouldn't recommend it.

Pathfinder is still bad.

But is it a bad enough game to save the President?

TOZ wrote:It's not you. But he does make sense at times.

Everyone makes sense at time. Even Shadzballs. Even SKR.

Even me.

What matters is the ratio (times you make sense)/(times you don't).

Well... my time with Pathfinder is apparently done.

After six months of games every other week, we came to an turning point. The game was a trifecta of suck even before we touched the Pathfinder rules:

The DM was playing favorites with loot & story focus, ignoring half the party

The DM brought in a player who literally has to be instructed how to attack every single round.

The DM couldn't be bothered to prep, and combat consisted of one single creature at a time that we'd rape in one round, two at the most.

So myself and the player who had the "star" character that the entire "plot" centered around objected to the concept of devoting an entire day to the game. We listed our issues, and explained that if one or two of those three items changed, we'd be down for it.

We just heard through a third friend that we've been "written out" of the game. We aren't upset per se, but it seemed kind of immature.

Oh well. How the party will deal with eliminating the two damage dealers entirely (I was averaging 75-100 points or so a round and the fighter was doing 40 or so per successful attack) is not my problem any more. Damage per round though is going to drop from around 120 or so to about 15-25 points per round (and this is for level 9 characters). So maybe that single-creature combat will become interesting again. I dunno.

How does this equate to Pathfinder sucking? Well, apparently it's really fucking easy to make completely worthless and inefficient characters, which was the main complaint in 3.x. I mean, in a party of six, four of them were combat ineffective. Of those four, one was forced by the DM (summoner), one is playing a diplomancer bard, one is an idiot when it comes to games like this, and one loves to come up with weird character ideas that rarely are very efficient (In this case, a force mage that only casts force spells).

TheFlatline wrote: How does this equate to Pathfinder sucking? Well, apparently it's really fucking easy to make completely worthless and inefficient characters, which was the main complaint in 3.x. I mean, in a party of six, four of them were combat ineffective. Of those four, one was forced by the DM (summoner), one is playing a diplomancer bard, one is an idiot when it comes to games like this, and one loves to come up with weird character ideas that rarely are very efficient (In this case, a force mage that only casts force spells).

If that mage sucks he built it wrong. I'm pretty sure I could build a force/telekinesis themed sorc that would make your DM cry.

Even in Pathfinder?

...
...no.

It might be possible, I just never bothered to learn Pathfinder as anything but a bunch of splats for 3.5. So my sorc has a bunch of 3.5 spells.

The hell is that summoner sucking? Those guys kick ass if built right. Pouncing eidolon with a fuckton of natural weapons, rend, and other things should be owning face.

I have no other place that I found appropriate to post this: Apparently someone in my college D&D club is playing Pathfinder with the UA sanity mechanic because "Pathfinder and the sanity mechanic simulate realism more than regular 3.5".

I raged hard.

CapnTthePirateG wrote:The hell is that summoner sucking? Those guys kick ass if built right. Pouncing eidolon with a fuckton of natural weapons, rend, and other things should be owning face.

Actually, I think a summoner is better if he take the master summoner archetype, use a skill-based eidolon (eg a face eidolon or a trap-disabler eidolon) that he doesn't summon except when he needs the skill, and spams standard actions augmented summon monsters.

...You Lost Me wrote:I have no other place that I found appropriate to post this: Apparently someone in my college D&D club is playing Pathfinder with the UA sanity mechanic because "Pathfinder and the sanity mechanic simulate realism more than regular 3.5".

I raged hard.

Funny things make you angry?

hogarth wrote:Funny things make you angry?

I don't consider that to be the funny kind of stupidity.

ModelCitizen wrote:

TheFlatline wrote: How does this equate to Pathfinder sucking? Well, apparently it's really fucking easy to make completely worthless and inefficient characters, which was the main complaint in 3.x. I mean, in a party of six, four of them were combat ineffective. Of those four, one was forced by the DM (summoner), one is playing a diplomancer bard, one is an idiot when it comes to games like this, and one loves to come up with weird character ideas that rarely are very efficient (In this case, a force mage that only casts force spells).

If that mage sucks he built it wrong. I'm pretty sure I could build a force/telekinesis themed sorc that would make your DM cry.

Yeah that was my friend's original intent, then at level 5 the DM ruled that he couldn't use any 3.x books, and had to pull out any 3.x material used in his character. We never actually got a reason why beyond "Well, I don't want to play 3.5, I want to play pathfinder". So he got kneecapped there, but instead of saying fuck it and making an effective mage he kept on the theme.

Actually, I think a summoner is better if he take the master summoner archetype, use a skill-based eidolon (eg a face eidolon or a trap-disabler eidolon) that he doesn't summon except when he needs the skill, and spams standard actions augmented summon monsters.

Actually, this is the conclusion the summoner, fighter, and myself came to. The eidolon is at it's best as an odd utility creature (we figured in a city/multilayered/dense environment it'd actually kick 12 kinds of ass), but in a barren room with a straight up fight it's just not that useful compared to the rest of the party. Once we got to sit down and actually *read* the summoner class (because there was only one copy of the book and the DM bull rushed the summoner down the eidolon path), we respecced his character to an equal level with the master summoner path and his efficiency went up by about 500%. I mean, his summons last minutes per level instead of rounds, allowing you to basically quickly become an armchair general. However, it still was overkill because the DM apparently can't run combat with more than one NPC/monster. It's just too much to keep track of or something.

Remember those sketchy Japanese Pathfinder videos? I checked out the channel today.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_U5NEVE ... ideo_title

Is a rouge 17 harf elf better than a cat ear maid prostitute?

Only time will tell!

If there is something better than a cat-ear maid/prostitute then I simply do not want to know it.

Give her levels in Ninja.

There's a thread on Paizo's forum about "ZOMGbroken if a gunsmith crafts guns, he can earn money !"

Yet I'm sure more than half the board agrees with him.

Fuckwits.

Fun fact: Fuckwits tries to correct itself to "Kiwifruits" if Firefox has a say in it.

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:Yet I'm sure more than half the board agrees with him.

You misspelled "harf".

And threads about "if you do work, you can get rewarded => BROKEN!!!" are totally retarded. Even the ones on The Gaming Den. Especially the ones on The Gaming Den.

I always liked the old "Buy ladder, break, sell two poles and firewood, PROFIT!" or "Buy cauldron, smash, sell as scrap, PROFIT!" ones on the old WotC boards.

"Holy shit! You can get money by working for a living. That's broken!"

Koumei wrote:I always liked the old "Buy ladder, break, sell two poles and firewood, PROFIT!" or "Buy cauldron, smash, sell as scrap, PROFIT!" ones on the old WotC boards.

"Holy shit! You can get money by working for a living. That's broken!"

The problem is that anything in 3.x or pathfinder that earns you money that is not adventuring is BROKEN.

There is however, a disconnect between what is broken and what makes sense. It makes sense that if a player works for a living doing Non-Adventuring things they should get paid. If they can think of a service they can provide that is in need for a community they can make considerable money on that.

However, because of the wealth = power relationship of the game every method of crafting really needs to result in a net loss of wealth (because it is a gain in power). Therefore if you can crafting something that would nominally result in a gain in power and sell it for a profit (thus allowing you to gain wealth which can also be turned into power) that craft/skill/action is by defintion broken.

I guess the main point is that something can be obvious and make sense, but still be broken because its impact on the game.

souran wrote: The problem is that anything in 3.x or pathfinder that earns you money that is not adventuring is BROKEN.

You mean it's BROKEN if you don't give experience for that activity.

Which would all be solved if wealth didn't give such a 1:1 correspondence with power. Yes, it gave XP in older editions of D&D, but that was for gold earned adventuring rather than making craft checks.