Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Red Dragon

Auxmaulous's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 2,516 posts (2,587 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 15 aliases.


1 to 50 of 310 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

I guess now we have appointed posters to decide who's white or a person of color,and based off of that who can or cannot experience racism (even if they have experienced racism).

Yeah, this thread jumped the shark. Just not sure if it was a great white shark or a shark of color.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Back to the OP and original posts/link

Outside of government everyone is on their own to determine the level that a culture/counter-culture, scene or in this case a hobby is inclusive.

If you are black and want to see more black Punk bands - start a punk band with black bandmates, want to see more black gamers - promote the game among the people of your race (if that's your desire or agenda).

Gaming doesn't owe you squat - if there's a predominantly white following it's because of the genesis of gaming back in the day (and continued interest) was primarily with white people - specifically geek culture, though that has been changing over the last decade.

You want to change it - become part of it, put your face on it. This isn't a special club or union.

The AA George complaints would be akin to a white guy going to a local inner city hip-hop concert/event and complaining about the racial makeup of the fans (lack of white representation, etc).

I could understand Mr. George's complaints if he was stopped at the doors at GenCon or was given looks but that wasn't the case. Also the symbolism he's complaining about in gaming isn't institutional, it's artistic - its the people who made the game stamping it with their faces and influences as human beings (not just white people) are known to do.

You are not owed representation beyond public institutions -
You decide your level of attraction and involvement and subsequently how that "X" is going to change over time if it doesn't look or act the way you want it to.

You want to see LGBTQ people represented in gaming, create that content (see Paizo.com) - the hobby doesn't owe it to you.

If AA George wants to see more Black people represented at GenCon maybe he should consider securing a booth/write a product/create a game.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
haruhiko88 wrote:
Never heard from or of the guy since.

Don't worry - I'm sure he made the news somewhere.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
No, but it's not really carried over from 4E either, since it was carried from 3.x to 4E. It's not a new design philosophy. It's something like 14 years old at this point.

Actually no on this also.

3e = healing be UMD/Wand of CLW
4e = healing is triggered internally/tied to character
5e = healing is tied to character via HD

Eliminating the need for a dedicated healer was a side affect of the terri-bad, class ability stomping UMD. It could have been a deliberate design consideration - but considering how badly 3rd ed was designed without any long term considerations/repercussions of 2e-3e changes I seriously doubt this (hp outpacing damage, terrible save paradigms, DC abuse, skills being useless class features and easily gamed, meta/numerical spikes taking characters wildly out of CR for each encounter, etc).

Self-healing in 4e was a deliberate design consideration.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
JoeJ wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Malaclypse wrote:
Logan1138 wrote:
As an old-school devotee, it "ruffles my jimmies" to see a party with no cleric in it. I know that was an intentional design philosophy (carried over from 4E, I believe) so no one would be "forced to play the cleric" but it just feels so strange and "wrong" somehow.
It's not like you need one in 3e or Pathfinder.

Mal - you need to look at the "old-school devotee" part of what you quoted.

3rd =/= Old-school

No, but it's not really carried over from 4E either, since it was carried from 3.x to 4E. It's not a new design philosophy. It's something like 14 years old at this point.

And frankly, despite my preference for older systems in many ways, it's a good choice. I remember arguments about who'd get stuck playing the cleric back in the old days. Healbot really isn't a fun role for many people. It's not good game design to force people to play things they don't like.

That's why a lot of clerics were NPCs.

That's why I never heard of it before the internets.

Everyone has a different experience/YMMV/insert Internetism

also

14 =/= Old-school

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Malaclypse wrote:
Logan1138 wrote:
As an old-school devotee, it "ruffles my jimmies" to see a party with no cleric in it. I know that was an intentional design philosophy (carried over from 4E, I believe) so no one would be "forced to play the cleric" but it just feels so strange and "wrong" somehow.
It's not like you need one in 3e or Pathfinder.

Mal - you need to look at the "old-school devotee" part of what you quoted.

3rd =/= Old-school

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Not at the gaming table per se, but playing Arkham Horror on one of our off-game cycle weeks.

Well, being gamers we snack and drink soda while gaming - this goes for RPGs, Board Game night or Poker.

One of my players was eating his Hostess Apple fruit pie and had bitten into the end of it, so there was a hollowed out part of the pie (as those pies are known to do on the first bite). No problems.

The next thing I know, he puts up the end of the apple pie for another bite but missed his mouth by a few inches - he put the end of the pie in his eye socket.

I laughed, he was upset.

IDK - maybe the Stars were Right that night or maybe it was a spell cast by Carl Sanford (jerk cult leader from the Silver Twilight lodge)?

No reason was given - he was wide awake when it happened and in just as much shock as the rest of us when the ocular incident occurred.

To this day I will send him pics of Hostess products to get a reaction or I will even buy him an Apple Pie before we start gaming and hand it to him.... only to get a vile and ungrateful expletive laden response - every time.

He always still eats the free apple pie though.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Troodos wrote:
Mikaze wrote:

Next Summer hardcover: Occult Adventures

Six new psychic magic classes

Finally psionics!!

Hopefully that will finally get us a Vudra AP in what ....2016?

LOL, better late then never I suppose.

Edit Damn, even though mine list first I was ninja'd by a Slaad

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Obsidian Link

If it wasn't already posted somewhere.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Some ideas

Stuff:
If you are going with an owner/defender or herald of the artifact you could build it up like so:

(Since this generic I will try to provide specific examples as a point of reference you your situation)

Let's say that the artifact is an Ancient Crown of Evil - something that belonged to the worst tyrant the world has ever seen

* Small almost imperceptible reality changes (with build-ups).
- Couple of previously empty rooms are found to have shackles in the walls
- Then, old bloodstains
- Then, fresh bloodstains
- Maybe some old torture gear starts popping up
- Audible screams of torture can be heard - faint at first, then louder (near the end of the scenario)
- Fleeting glimpse of an emaciated figure (starved) or a short haunt/phantasm of a man trying to scream with his tonged ripped out.
- Smell of something burning, or phantom smells of rot that come and go (in set critical places).

* Reality changes (part II)
- PCs or NPCs start feeling phantom pains. On their backs, bottom of their feat - the sensation of pressure on the chest and the inability to breath.
- Failed Will or Fort saves may result in physical manifestations of torture.

* Minions/Defender/Thrall or Herald (Conversion)

A well loved NPCs could be a good vessel for the defender of the crown (my example I'm going with).
- Slow changes in demeanor
- Starts acting upon information that he shouldn't posses (knowledge, language, etc).
- Minor changes (I know there's no handedness in PF, but may switch favored hand, sleeps in when used to get up early, or vice versa#. Perceptive characters may notice - and informed characters who know the history of the artifact may put 2 and 2 together.
- Full transformation - may be preceded by death, slow physical changes or the host may hide/disappear (assumed dead if PCs don't put the earlier 2+2 together).
- Multiple NPCS (guards, aids, sages, etc) could also be possessed or transform. This can be a simple as demon-zombie horde, or they could #using my Crown example# all turn into the Tyrants court, acting out bizarre behavior as they adopt court roles - Jester, Council, Executioner, etc.

* Minions/Defender/Thrall or Herald - Part II (Arrival)

Spot in dungeon or Fortress has some kind of draw to it. Small changes that build up.
- Physical change (changes composition, oozes blood, etc)
- Attracts vermin
- Radiates negative light/absorbs light
- Absorbs heat
- Makes people feel ill
- Makes people feel weak (saps life force)
- Physical change part II - So for my crown example a part of the complex could start to form a stone stump, which in turn changes to a malformed chair, which near the end turns into a throne.
- Herald starts to form or gate begins to open. Too many ways for this to happen to list. Scratches on walls eventually become runes, runes begin to glow, walls begin to breath or weep, etc.
Or more dramatic - a gate fold occurs where another plane starts to spill out onto the prime. Meaning that the PCs are already in between two worlds. Marked by series of small changes - and of course, it's growing.

All the small stuff I've listed (attracts vermin, feel weak, etc) needs to played up very slowly with little information or explanation given upon examination. Once everything is falling apart it won't be needed to downplay it. Unless you have a big phase II reveal.

Anyway - just some ideas

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Arn, maybe I did - I can re-mail it out to you if so. I don't want to burn the Froggies margin on this.

They didn't send out mailing notices on this one (at least, I didn't get one) besides the general comment last week that the books came in and they were going out.

I will make sure that I limit your tome to any ichor and chocolate stains while it's in my possession.

----

Well, I will try to at least limit the ichor stains.....

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

I have no problem with complex or simple games or games with increased or limited choices as long as the focus is on actual game play and not the mini-game of character option management.

And more choices doesn't always equal good.

I'd rather have my Fighter take a broad Brawler Training/Feat that covers all aspects of brawling/unarmed rough combat (punching, pushing, tripping, etc) than to a have a game that offers micro options that each require a single Training/Feat for all the components of brawling, i.e. a feat to give +2 to pushing, a feat to give +2 to tripping, etc - where the latter is presented as "advanced", more complex or presenting more "options".

So the above an example of when more is not always better.

More options are good if they (imo)
- don't override focus from game play
- do not create a micro game
- don't create a dire need for system mastery
- don't create a drastically uneven play experience by picking choice B over choice A. Different play experience should be expected, radical differences in success rates based on build choices should not.

Again, - options are good, options for the sake of having more options are not. IMO (assume this disclaimer if I don't mention it at the end of every statement).

Players and GMs need to look at systems and ask themselves if the options work, and to what end all those options are serving their game play expectations or to enhance their game play.

Anyway

Cheliax

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

And we lost another gamer.

Godspeed you sweaty toothed madman.

Cheliax

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
People who defend religion are usually not big on discussing the practices of what they call NSMs, New Spiritual Movements, to distinguish them from the older power structures they cherish, no.

And people who equate secular economic or political systems like Communism and National Socialism as religions for the sake of not looking wrong are self deluded and I should avoid having a conversation with them.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Orthos wrote:
There are so many things wrong with that statement in so many ways that I'm just going to cut my losses and do something more productive with my evening.

I should have read this one twice.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Hama wrote:
Also, I don't see protecting people from religious indoctrination until they are old enough to make the choice themselves as intolerance. I see it as my duty.

And you can raise your kids how you see fit in that regard. But it would be sad if said kid wanted some kind of faith experience and you took it upon yourself as your "duty" to "protect" them from it.

Just saying that maybe you should be careful that you don't become a variation of the thing you hate.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
Aranna wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Aranna wrote:

So much intolerant atheism in here, sad.

More like intolerance if intolerance. And the source of that intolerance has been identified (correctly) as religious doctrine.

Nonsense, the source of that intolerance is intolerant people with crazy ideas, not religion. They may like to pretend it's something else but it's all on them.

I would VERY much like to see data on that. It is an interesting claim, but I am afraid it really has very little to do with reality. In every such case (the satanist scare we're discussing, remember?), the offered excuse for the perpetrator is the same: RELIGION. There are official religious leaders preaching this kind of behaviour. Ask a random religious person if doing this kind of thing is wrong, what answer do you think you're likely to get?

No, you don't get to make that claim unsubstantiated, Aranna.

IDK - Does Communism and National Socialism count as secular belief systems that preached intolerance? Or intolerant people with intolerant ideas and notions?

I think those systems took more away from people than their right to play AD&D or read the latest Leomund's Tiny Hut article in Dragon magazine. Body counts are well documented.
Bad people will find the tool that works: new economic systems (that purge), racial ideologies (that purge) and religions (that purge).

----------

And back on topic - while many fears were stoked by "Satan taking your soul" courtesy of the 700 club, I would say the majority was stoked by incredibly bad journalism.

Fear of suicide/murder/mind control didn't need satanic overtones to get parents excited. I saw the same terr-bad and ignorant news pieces on Punk rock and Punk rock violence in the early 80's you would have thought the world was going to be overrun by extras from the Road Warrior (I wish!). Some of those pieces were so ill-informed that they are laughable now if you watch them.

It wasn't the bible or the devil, it was ignorance. That religion was just a vehicle and method to extol concerns in some venues doesn't make religious intolerance the sole bad guy here - there were plenty of people who were afraid of gaming due to: bad press (see above) and Zero understanding of RPGs - "what, you don't have a board? It's all in your mind????" (eyes widen and while it doesn't sink in).

You don't need to be a bible thumper to be afraid of mind-control and cult behavior - keep in mind how many weird groups were flourishing in the late 60's and throughout the 70's. My cousin's cousin (so - not related) was also a gamer - his dad was very casual about faith and he was a brilliant engineer and he kept a sharp eye on his son's game and gaming habits. Why? Well because of the news.

-----------

When I was young I remember being very concerned when I would hear about a shooting (they didn't happen as often) or a strange attack (sword) on the news. It would be a "here we go again" moment. The media loved this stuff because they knew people didn't understand it.

Also according to the media of the day we should all be dead by now from Africanized Honey Bees.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
If anyone were to take my stuff to burn it for religious reasons, and this was someone I cared about, I would give them one chance to make full restitution twice over and a written and verbal apology before witnesses, along with written promises it would never happen again. I would also take the extra money and donate that to an atheist organization. Otherwise it would become a police matter with no further questions asked. Theft is bad, and doing it for religious reasons needs to be stamped out hard.

Big talk - I wish I had that level of control and influence when I was 12 and my books were periodically purged (until I got wise and hid them). In the real world burning an adults tv or any other property in response would result in a beating, a visit by the cops or being put out the house for the night.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With a little tweaking this module will run well for my Gamma World game. Just need to switch out a few beasties and it will easily drop into the Wasteland.

I might change the title to "Do Androids dream of Iron Gods"

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:

So...don't play it.

Problem solved.

Or I can try to fix it if I want to

Problem solved part II

Having choices beyond like/dislike or yes/no is such an amazing thing.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Adjule wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Kagehiro wrote:
The Basic rules probably aren't a prime example of the system's alleged modularity. We'll probably be waiting for the DMG until we see that sort of changing power.

The DMG is where I am getting the greatest indication of modularity and dial control. I'd be curious to see how they handle each system "setting" when it comes to published modules.

I think the DMG can turn off or offer some alternate power uses - but if those variances are not mentioned in the PHB there is going to be a big disconnect between GM expectations and player expectations. Ex: in a harsher game the DMG may define death threshold differently than the basic/PHB version - if this "setting" is only previewed and featured in the DMG it could cause a major communication problem in some groups.

I hope the PHB at least glosses over the various DMG levers - or that it strongly indicates that DM will have levers that will change the way the game plays to minimize confusion in play expectations.

You mean similar to houserules? Not every game is the same, and anyone who goes in thinking they are deserves to be blindsided when it turns out different. Just because it says something in the PHB doesn't mean that is absolute.

Take your desire to change the evoker wizard's Sculpt Spell ability. I don't think there will be alternatives in the DMG or any other book for that. Even with the different rules modules that could be in the DMG, it doesn't matter if they are previewed or referenced in the PHB. Just tell the players what is different from in the PHB, like people have done for the past 40 years.

Well, no the difference in house rules will be that I will be making a change from the existing rules based on something I want and create for the game.

System modularity (the alternate rules in the boxes in 2nd ed for example) isn't going to be a problem in my home game, but if any number of players out there want to play in a public game there could be some disconnect as to what rules are being used since they won't be previewed or listed in the PHB. The PHB is the default and the DMG is the change - if every player picks up the DMG and studies the modular styles then their won't be an issue. If most players focus on the player content and not the DMG settings (since they won't be in the PHB) then I can see this causing some confusion in casual games, games at game stores, people who game in clubs, etc.

Adjule wrote:

The DM has always had levers that change the way the game plays, whether officially published or written down on notebook paper. Don't take this post as being hostile towards you. Just your last paragraph doesn't make much sense to me, as games play differently depending on who is running it. Whether anything in the DMG is mentioned in the PHB or not, it shouldn't really matter.

I see the DMG, just from what people have heard about what could be in there, as a book of premade houserules. A houserule for those who want spell/mana points instead of vancian spells/day. A houserule for those who want THAC0 and bring back the confusion so many people felt towards it from pre-3rd edition. A houserule for firearms. Sounds like a fusion of the DMG and Unearthed Arcana.

Sure the DM has - and if playing amongst a group of friends that works ok. But in in mind the level of rules lawyering, RAW vs. RAI discussions and general Player vs. DM play style expectations and conflict posts that get tossed around the boards.

Got it?

Ok, now throw out a system where the players have a book with one set of rules and the DM has those rules and then a whole other set of rules to change the way the game plays.

Do you see the potential problem when running pick-up games at the FLGS?

It isn't a deal breaker for me - I do think that assumed play expectations in public or casual play is going to require a lot more communication than simply "I'm running PF or PFS using all the rules".

I don't know how these dials are going to be set up - a bunch of micro changes to make it run like 1e or a suite of changes that affects the entire game play experience like patch.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Odraude wrote:
I accept that people have alternate styles of play, but I don't believe that options take away from a game. I believe that as long as they are fun and balanced, more options can enhance a game more than disallowing them. That's why a lot of these rules lite games bore me. Sure, they are simple to run for the GM, but the lack of cool options and abilities (or simplifird options that only give a numerical bonus) leads to characters that all feel the same.

Mechanically older edition characters were very similar - but we always remembered the characters because the way the player played those characters. Quirks, desires, attitude and foibles go much further to a unique character than having a wider menu of feat choices - with everyone in the end taking the same optimal feats. Same goes for rolled up characters - my pally has terrible stats, but I think that's still much better than every 3rd ed pally having the same stat array via PB.

Anyway - this is subjective.
I don't get a red flag when I hear low-magic game unless the DM in question proves to me that he doesn't understand what that means. That would also go with softball DMs where I hear stories of casters run rampant with shenanigans due to ref's poor understanding of the mechanics, and so on.

Low magic (relative to 3rd ed) was the default for most older edition low to mid level games for a few decades of the game, even some high level games. And it worked fine.

Again - YMMV

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

I wanted to start this thread as inspired by this current one for Slumbering Tsar.
So this can be a forum for DMs who are running Rappan Athuk are considering running it or if you have any ideas or questions about running an RA campaign or anything associated with RA (Expansions, Lost Lands, etc) or even stories.

This thread is for DMs so if you plan on playing in this adventure/campaign you should probably stay out. Due to the nature of this thread putting spoiler tags on stories and exchanges won't work - so players would be best advised to not continue past this point.

---------------

One of the 1st questions I have would be how people are managing or plan on managing the wilderness encounters for starting (level 1 PCs). Are you going to start them at Zelkor's Ferry or do they have to get there? Will you steer them to the Mouth of Doom or the Tunnels of Terror or will you let them wander around the RA environs hoping they don't get killed?

Also, do you plan on running this in Golarion - if so, where? Or maybe the Lost lands (not heavily detailed as a campaign world as of yet) or somewhere else?

I want this to be a thread to share ideas about this meat-grinder of a mega dungeon.

All ideas are welcome!

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Dominic Amann wrote:
I am probably replicating someone elses idea, (or worse yet, missed it in the rules), but I could see a neat way of "old-schooling" disadvantage: have the player roll one die, and I roll the other. That way, if they succeed, they won't really know if they succeeded.

That's a pretty good idea for secret rolls. Say a character has disadvantage when moving silently - he rolls and sees his result (which can be a success) but he knows that he's making a check under duress or suboptimal condition so the DM hides the second roll.

Hmmmmm

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Sorry to hear of your loss Comrade

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Starting to have flashbacks as to why so many people were turned off of 4e - and it wasn't because of the system.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
It sounds like the warhammer fantasy rpg would be closer to the feel you're looking for.

Nah, just 2nd edition. That will do the trick.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Buri wrote:
You guys saying PCs are too high powered should peak at the Starter Set campaign. Yes, PCs awesome but all enemies of the same kind activate on the same initiative. It makes goblin ambushes actually scary especially when they can move up, attack, and back away in the same round without provoking. There's also a dragon you can face... in a campaign for 1-5 level characters. Combat can be brutal. You almost need the awesome to win depending on the situation. And that dragon? Nothing you get by level 5 makes him any kind of easy. It's a b##$+.

No, I get it Buri - the power of the PCs is relative to the challenges they may face. I just don't like that "locked in" power and intensity.

To clarify - I've run many high powered games before - mostly in other systems - namely Gamma World. PCs were decked out in gear to 9's, Powered attack armor, mutants with tremendous powers, R&D weapons - and they fought insane and sometimes impossible foes. So their power was relative to what they had to face. But it was intense - always intense because to provide a level of challenge to that party needed 100% crazy levels of threat to keep it interesting.

The issue I have is the "default" power assumptions they seem to be running with. I would like to have more control over the mood and pacing and much of that is currently removed from the game (2nd wind, short and long rest recharges and heals).

So how easy/difficult is a factor (and I'm hearing from multiple sources that the game is more deadly than 3rd and 4e) but it isn't just that. I don't want to run a low-level game that feels like everything needs to be redlined to make it feel scary: getting the PCs low in hp after several fights, then they are up again to full next day. Have multiple encounters per day - just to tax their resources so they feel some risk and feel threatened. Older ed games did that with one or two encounters - I would like to have that level of "scary/gritty" as an option.

I think they could have done a better job on the base setting. I think the problem though is that if they set them to 0E or 1st ed levels of power as a baseline for the Basic doc many modern gamers wouldn't play because the characters would be too weak.

IDK - honestly this is all riding on the DMG at this point. Some good stuff has come out of this but as I've said before - that DMG is going to make or break this for me and other DMs.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Logan1138 wrote:
Adjule wrote:
Oryou can do like so many others, and not allow rez magic if revivify is not something you like.

Yeah, I know, I could do that but the number of things I would have to change (if I even ran a session....I don't DM much) is starting to mount to an undesirable level IMO.

I am just getting an overall vibe of "too powerful, too easy" from 5E at this point. I like gritty, low-fantasy in my D&D and 5E (at least what I have seen so far and it is still early days) is looking like 3.X/PF/4E in terms of PC power and non-lethality. Plus, as I stated earlier, I don't really run games as DM that much (I kind of suck at DM'ing), so I wouldn't have control over which elements are removed.

I was really hoping that 5E would be the system that allowed me to get back into gaming in a serious way. Finding people who want to play "old-school" rules (B/X Basic and 1E AD&D) in face-to-face settings is pretty difficult so I was hoping that 5E could allow me to game F2F (I don't like PbP gaming) using rules that I enjoyed. The more I see of 5E, the less I think that is going to happen. Maybe the DM's guide and its "dials" can save this situation (for me).

This is why I'm going to dodge the PHB - but yeah, it is starting to look like too many core components are default very high power or sets the game at very easy mode. This goes to my earlier posts concerning design philosophy. If Wotc is assuming that people want at will cantrips and full overnight healing as a default, then how are they going to lay out the rest of the game as the systems unfold?

Looking like I will be waiting on the DMG - and now at this point I don't think they will come through with what I want. Again, it's looking more like it won't be an option to run this like an older system with a system overhaul, but more likely a new system that has some trappings or "old-like" or "old-ish" but not the same. I don't think the DMG is going to provide us old-schoolers what we are looking for. At this point the DMG would have to have a bunch of strike-throughs or omit this from the Basic/PHB books since the big issues are not what the DM has as a guide but the core rules the players are using to make characters and play the game (spells, healing, etc). If the players are using the PHB (with default high power) with the DMG has optional overrides it is going to create some major confusion and conflicts in groups. Player A is going to see X feature and want it, while Player B sees Y feature and want it - while the DM using his new DMG has both of those overridden by a side-box.

Maybe the way they will manage something Revivify is to not change the spell, but to change the rules in the DMG about handling negative hp or Death?

Haven't had time but I really need to read all the spells. They were what broke 3rd ed for me (and by extension - all the magic items, buffs, stat boosts, etc) so this is where some core system problems may lie.

--------------

I'm with Logan, it is starting to look more and more like it will be too much work and too many minor changes to track. Lucky for me I have C&C and all my 1st and 2nd ed books. Too bad, I was going to run a 5e version of L1 - The Secret of Bone Hill.

I really wish FGG/Necromancer would put out a rules mod book for 5e in addition to more spells and monsters book for the new system. I think with that crew creating a formal book of mods it would be easier to use instead of the upcoming PHB. By easier - I just mean a printed hardcover I can hand to my players instead of the PHB or a redacted printed Basic doc.

I'm leaning more towards not supporting this as a system - I still think some of the features are very good ideas: Bounded Accuracy, no x-mass tree, limited buffs - they just should have started with a lower powered baseline and worked up from there.

Ah well


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Give me your pump, the oil, the gasoline, and the whole compound, and I'll spare your lives.

Just walk away ....and there will be an end to the Horror.

Cheliax

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
You did state earlier up thread that you (personally) did not feel that Wotc did anything wrong with the pdfs (a sore spot for many people here) and that they (Wotc) were in the right both legally and morally. You have to understand that while you feel this way, many people here do not.
I certainly do understand that. But people get upset at a wide range of things. It's not always reasonable or fair to get upset (or worse, hostile) at a given person/event/company, but I feel like that idea isn't given the time of day in the gaming community. When someone questions whether a certain hostile reaction is reasonable, it tends to be met with additional hostility. I'm not surprised by this, but that doesn't mean I think it's appropriate. It's unpleasant, and it makes actual discussion very difficult (if not outright impossible). I don't feel like the gaming community tends to have stronger emotional reactions than other communities, but I do feel like the gaming community tends to react with those strong emotions to relatively minor issues. It's a matter of proportion.

I agree it isn't fair because it isn't based in rational thought.

Gamers take an edition of what they like very personally, maybe even as a reflection of who they are, how they like to play, what gaming means to them in their lives - when in reality the games are just a sum of rules to guide us in an experience. We are after all talking about a game here - but again, it's more. That game and collection of rules, numbers and design in various incarnations is what we do to pass the time away. I remember many a tough day - losing someone I love, having some kind of life crisis - so much so that I don't want to game..and then a week or two later while the problem is on my mind I DM and for a few hours I forget my problem - or I give my mind a break to get perspective.

Gaming is our lives. I know it's my life and I'm not ashamed to say that.
That's the reality - so you are going to get very human (re: irrational) responses when aspects of it/our lives are being perceived as being attacked, slighted, challenged or changed. Involve an investment of money (all those edition books I paid for) or a perceived loss of money (I was cut off from my pdfs by X) and you are going to get some very agitated and opinionated people.

I get your motivation in trying to scale this back to a like/dislike format sans attacks, rage and rhetoric. I just think you might not realize that these games are a integral part of our lives and the way some people may feel about their game and the parent company is on par with a sports fan and his support of his team and their owners (love/hate). I wish people could step away from the emotional approach - but I also see the source and reason why it's such an emotional and irrational subject.

Trying to fight the irrational with appeals to rationality is both admirable and futile effort. The more emotional investment people have, the greater the bias they are going to have - I just don't see this having a positive or productive outcome for such a charged subject - if you agree or disagree with how "charged" it actually is not going to matter to those who do. Asking people why they are so upset may force some introspection or questioning, but if they source it as X, Y and Z reason they are probably not going to go much further than that because they already have their answer and now they see you as challenging their X, Y and Z experience and reasons.

Anyway - had a better post that got et by the boards. Need to get to work.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
I don't think you are being uncivil Scott - but you are being dismissive and showing a considerable lack of empathy on the matter and that's what seems to be causing the problems.

It's difficult (for me, at least) to be particularly empathetic to the sort of person who refers to an entire company (a number of employees of which I have met, gamed with, and shared drinks with, and who struck me as genuinely cool people) in a hostile or insulting manner. You can call the decision shortsighted or whatever, that's fine, but "savages"? You may view a lack of empathy on my part as the root cause of hostility in this thread, but I don't - this thread's tone was hostile well before I started posting in it. The only difference is that the hostility became personal, rather than simply being directed at a company people don't like, once people realized it could be directed at people disagreeing with them instead.

That said, I appreciate the support, as it were.

Fair enough - I think that this being paizo's forums with many people initially coming here during the early edition wars may factor into the bias against Wotc and any of their post 4e offerings. So it was probably hostile coming in - and I don't think you should be blamed for the actions and slights (real or imagined) of a company.

You did state earlier up thread that you (personally) did not feel that Wotc did anything wrong with the pdfs (a sore spot for many people here) and that they (Wotc) were in the right both legally and morally. You have to understand that while you feel this way, many people here do not.

But I agree - the edition warring and excessive bashing/rhetoric need to stop or this thread is going to get shut down. People can express how they feel but the guidelines of this specific sub-forum dictates that people need to make sure their feelings are not veiled attacks. It's just counter productive.

Cheliax

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

I don't think you are being uncivil Scott - but you are being dismissive and showing a considerable lack of empathy on the matter and that's what seems to be causing the problems.

Your posts are in-effect telling people how they should feel and that they were not wronged and that they are incorrect or misguided in their feelings that they were betrayed. When they feel betrayed.

As long as you take that approach while posting here the acrimony isn't going to go away.

That being said I don't think this should become a "turn Scott Betts into a Wotc pinata" thread where people can project their anger at Wotc/4e on one poster. It's not right and it isn't fair.

--------------

People who supported Wotc during the 3e/4e transition are going to be biased to defend, while people who didn't transition (for various reasons: ogl, pdfs, didn't like the new game) are going to be biased against.

Since this is a subjective issue maybe instead of bickering about feelings people should instead state how they feel (without restriction), give their reasons why and then leave it at that.

Just a suggestion.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

I'm hoping so - on one level or another they have fixed some big issues: layers of numbers, stacking buffs (bleah, hated that), item dependance, etc. I hope I can pick this up and make a few system changes to get the game emulator I want.

My concern and the concern of others is if some of the default power levels in the basic doc are considered the starting baseline and foundation with little room for change their could be some problems. EX: At this point if they put SLA cantrips in the game then they are assuming that everyone likes at will cantrips. Same goes with healing - they are assuming people want per combat and next morning healing as a default.

All easily changed on my part - but it goes towards their mindset and core gameplay philosophy. I am getting no indicators that my playstyle will be addressed or supported in upcoming products.

Not saying I can't make the tweaks, I just don't think based on what I've read that they are really looking to support older style play as a full published option but instead they seem to want to present a game that is "kind of older style play" but a different animal entirely.

Former is good, latter - not so much.

I'm looking forward to the DMG, not the PHB.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Buri wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

That's extremely disingenuous of you. There's a big difference between "decide who distributes their products" and "make unavailable something that has already been paid for."

Furthermore, this is precisely the sort of argumentation for which you're constantly taking others to task.

It is technically, financially, and practically untenable to expect a resource to exist forever. Paizo and/or Pathfinder won't always be around, and neither will the PRD. I guarantee it.

Anyway, for some comparison here's a timeline of editions:

d&d: 1974 (3 years)
ad&d: 1977 (12 years)
d&d2e: 1989 (11 years)
d&d3e: 2000 (3 years)
d&d3.5e: 2003 (4 years)
d&d4e: 2007 (7 years)
d&d5e: 2014

pf: 2009 (5 years)

If the time that a company keeps a product available and supports it determines how much trust that company has, then Wizards is still way above Paizo with an average product lifespan of 6.7 years and two whole editions for lasting over a decade. Since 3.5 worked with 3 that shifts their average produce lifespan to 8 years counting them together. The actual problem is a perception and entitlement one.

Where do you get 6.7 from?

You only get to count 2000 and up as full editions which Wotc controlled. Prior to that it was TSR.

And when did full product support end for 4e, last month or 2012?
Also again, Essentials should be considered a .5 since it requires a transition doc. That breaks that edition down even more.

d&d3e: 2000 (3 years) (last product in 2003)
d&d3.5e: 2003 (5 years) (last product in 2008)
d&d4e: 2008 (4 years) (last product in 2012)

Using these ranges on average its 4 years, It you're counting Essentials as a .5 to 4e it's much closer to 3 years per new edition/.5/half step.

Cheliax

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

I forgot to mention the Satan Seller incident.

Went to a new middle school, made some new friends and we started gaming in the school library during lunch break (yes, nerds). One of the older librarians saw my Greyhawk maps (1st ed boxed set, had that and the earlier gazette - crown jewels in my gaming collection) and the rest of my meager gaming stuff and she expressed her concern and disapproval of gaming and she gave me a book to read call the Satan Seller, which wasn't about gaming per se - but about a guy who got into drugs and rock n' roll and eventually became a high priest of a powerful cult. At one point he gets out, gives his life to Christ and tells people the horror of human sacrifice. This was a few years before the Satanic Panic hit full swing.

Suffice to say, years later I found out that Mike Warnke made it all up for the greater good of making sure people were not seduced by Satan. Ah well, and those cults sounded so interesting....

On the upside, the other librarian (who was more reserved and quiet) pulled me aside to complement me on the beauty of the Greyhawk maps. She liked them so much that she felt I should protect them and she had them both laminated for me at the school - secretly mind you, so the other librarian wouldn't know. For a kid without money or resources or even the notion to get them laminated in the first place this was a very nice gesture and I cherished those maps for a very long time.

Cheliax

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

If only they'd never gone to 2nd Edition and just kept putting out exciting new books for AD&D!!

Oh wait. If only they'd never put out AD&D (or BECMI) and kept putting out exciting new books for the original Chainmail version.

Funny thing is that for the most part BECMI, OE, 1st and 2nd are mechanically all the same and I can run any module from those systems for any of those rule sets on the fly. Chainmail is a different animal.

Poor comparison/false analogy. Those editions were more like variations of the Call of Cthulhu editions than the big system change over from 2nd to 3rd.

Cheliax

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

I think alot of the old school DMs are looking for a very challenging game for their players. Old school challenges were:

- Spell selection (smart choices)
- Spells being limited resource
- Casting having risk (being hit = failed spell, hitting your friends, spell consequences: aging, risk of death, etc)
- Hit points being a resource which required players to play very cautiously and not assumed that they will be easily recovered.
- Magic items and magic consumables being very limited in availability.

That's just a small sample list - when I see "workarounds" a red flag is raised because now you are affecting the challenge level of the game.

Each of these small things in 5e hit those concerns so they need to be houseruled or the game needs to be passed over if it doesn't work for the DM in question.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

I had several of my books destroyed by my aunt. When you have little to no money as a kid this is devastating.

Frequent interrogations by my mother and aunt. Got to the point that I just hid my gaming books to prevent them from being put in a burning trashcan (where they were supposed to scream as they died in the flames -that was the legend of the day).

Things didn't really calm down till I got older and the mid 80's rolled around.

I remember that 700 club featuring the phb cover - the Demon Idol on the front was supposed to be Moloch. And it was Moloch.

What numbnutz on the show couldn't figure out was what was going on in the foreground of that picture - Moloch's lizardmen servants: slain, Moloch's temple: being sacked.

Ah well

Oh yeah
Mazes and Monsters - boy oh boy did the phone calls fly around when that was going to be on. I hated Tom Hanks for a very long time.

At least until he was on Bosom Buddies. Then he was ok

This was all in So Cal, not exactly the hotbed of conservatism. Wasn't so much the religion aspect (it was for several of my friends) as it was the cult/suicide/murder concerns. So I heard it from all sides.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

I probably won't be picking up the PHB, since I don't like the current default power level of some of the offerings of the basic pdf to increase - and from the ToC it looks to be more of the same, just greater in power/detail.

I will probably pick up the DMG and MM and see how I can use those to mod or enhance the existing basic game framework. From the looks of it (and I could be wrong) the PHB is going to just be an increase in player power (feats) and options for power - something I do not want for my game. If they present more player class options on par with the basic doc then I might pick it up, but if the basic doc adds in these classes as a "basic" version when it gets updates as they have stated - than no, I see no need for the PHB in my game besides something for my players to hold in their hands.

The content of the PHB based on previews of some feats makes me cringe actually and from the looks of it, it seems like this book is being presented as a power baseline and will not have the adjustable dials (could be wrong about that).

People here may not get all of that - I just want to have and run a game that focuses less on character options, running the maze of options to maximize every choice and complex mechanical character options for the players to gain mastery over. Do not want that. I just want a game that focuses on gaming and less on PC details and progressing planning/system & CharOp master.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Buri wrote:
The trust argument is blown way out of proportion. The basic rules are available for free and gives a very good impression of the core game. Look at them and see if you like it or not. There have been many, many articles written on the theory and decisions into Next for all to see. You can accurately see where they're going. Whether or not you like their implementation of those ideals is secondary but is where the trust part comes in. But, again, I would point you to the free basic rules PDF so you can see what that implementation can look like.

I don't think a free pdf of the basic game is the be-all-end-all of gaining trust back from customers. How they manage the brand over the run of this edition and how they treat their clientele is going to be the factor. The free pdf was a good idea and a good gesture, but also I have concerns about wotc that isn't directly tied to the D&D brand.

For me right now it's just a wait and see thing.

If they provide more options for me as a DM to run the game I want to run and they try to stick with some levels of modularity (as they have pitched) than I will buy some of their releases. If they pull the rug out/make a direction change/producing crud early on or mid-way .5 during the life cycle of the edition then I will not "deal with it" or ride it out like I did for 3.5......I will just be gone.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
I1 - Dwellers of the Forbidden City (Iconic lost city in jungle adventure with some mythos overtones)
This is what The City of Seven Spears was trying to be.

"Try" being the operative term. That ap was too much focused on grind and not enough on theme or atmosphere.

Good of them to try though.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

But what if they were masterwork and made out of...mithril?

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

A few less referenced mods - but excellent just the same

N1 - Against the Cult of the Reptile God (good low-level investigation)

I1 - Dwellers of the Forbidden City (Iconic lost city in jungle adventure with some mythos overtones)

I2 - Tomb of the Lizard King (interesting BBEG, pretty tough mod)

X4 - Master of the Desert Nomads (good wilderness adventure, great creatures and set piece encounters)

Cheliax

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Alan_Beven wrote:
Spammable damage cantrips are not breaking my game at all. YMMV.
Just don't want casters to have that level of flexibility with magic in my games.

What flexibility is that, exactly? The ability to consistently contribute meaningfully to combat encounters?

I've seen this bandied about a few times now, and I'm having a lot of trouble accepting that it's anything more than, "In my day Wizards couldn't cast cantrips at-will, so that's how it should be!" I'm not a fan of tradition for tradition's sake, especially when it comes shackled to a host of headaches and awkward asymmetries.

LOL

The ability to "consistently contribute meaningfully to combat encounters?"

Where have you been in the last 14 years of d20 gaming?

It isn't a case of "in my day". I ran 3rd ed (since 2003), I run PF - I went back to play in a 2nd ed game after 30 years - superior in almost every aspect for an older and non-modern system.

Your awkward asymmetries and headaches are contrived and were told to you by other people, so please spare me the "1st/2nd ed/older systems were only good because of nostalgia" nonsense.

Older systems - less problems. I'm looking to replicate that. That's my motivation.

Older systems - less character power/reliance on power/less break in verisimilitude. I'm looking to replicate that. That's my motivation.

Please stop telling me how older editions ran or what my motivation is for looking at and possibly tweaking 5e to emulate older editions and I will continue to not talk about 4e.

Cheliax

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Alan_Beven wrote:
Spammable damage cantrips are not breaking my game at all. YMMV.

Just don't want casters to have that level of flexibility with magic in my games.

The fact that varied selection of spells exist so they can re-write their powers every day is enough. Cantrips should follow the rest of the spell casting model, X times a day.

For me that is - keep in mind that this is supposed to be a modular system that has an appeal to older edition players and DMs. That's what I'm looking to recreate.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

I wasn't planning on reducing the raw power (damage) of the cantrips, the houserule works more on frequency use in a day which leads to factoring how many encounters they have between breaks and how hard the day is.

So I want all the limits of a 15 minute workday (limited spells/resources/hp), while NOT letting them play (nor have I ever allowed) an 15 minute workday. I want one of the challenges of my game to be resources and resource management - at all levels. Players should make choices beyond using X spell for A problem. It should always be "should I use X spell for problem A, when I sill may have B, C, D problems down the road.

5e is expressly against that in it's most basic document and at it's most base level - overnight healing, spammable decent attack, short rest healing/recharges. If this is their design consideration as a foundation, then I may not be switching after all as this will NOT emulate the feel and game play philosophy of 1st/2nd ed games.

And while my houserule limits cantrip use, it doesn't change a core game assumption - no touch AC. So unless that wizard has a high DEX - he still may only be using his base proficiency to hit with that SLA fireburst. So long range, decent damage (no bonus) but with a success rate on par with using their sword they are proficient with.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Wow Snorter - excellent post.

Can I improve upon it?

You even covered Harryhausen and why to this day I would want a Vudra AP/Campaign support.

Nope - can't improve upon it, post is perfect.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Beholders & Beholder-kin, Carrion Crawlers, Displacer Beast, Mind Flayers, Githyanki, Umber Hulks, Hook Horrors, Myconids, Kuo-toa, Slaad, Thri-kreen and Yuan Ti.

Demogorgon. Was my favorite Prince of Demons when I was a little kid.

Actually - I covet most of these from the TSR days, wotc did a poor job in replicating these creatures in 3rd ed. Same name and stats, didn't feel the same under 3rd ed rules.

All of that being said I do think that Paizo's the Serpent Folk are a good replacement for the Yuan-ti (which the latter was based on). Skum =/= Kuo-toa (Deep Ones).

1 to 50 of 310 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.