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

BigDTBone's page

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber. 1,406 posts (1,417 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. 2 wishlists. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,406 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
The dead condition unlike being paralyzed does not state that you can no longer take actions, and it is possible to go directly to dead without gaining the "dying" condition which also stops you from taking actions.

I think Godwin's law needs a PFRPG variant which replaces Nazis and Hitler with "the dead condition doesn't say you can't take actions."

Double points if you are using that reference to demonstrate that the rules should be read with "common sense" when you really mean "but, I want to!"


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Ay! I'll stick me fumb en ees b@~@!!##! Dat'll really piss em off!


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

It's only ever as high as 4 spells for the wizard because specialty schools aren't doubled. And in either case they are WAY better than pearls of power. Pop requires you to 1) retrieve the item 2) use the item 3) stow the item (unless you just intend to drop your magic bauble on the ground like a hooligan).

Rings of Wizardry just give you more slots, available all day, right now, and in a hurry.

Also, I find that there are many items which are better for characters that can make better use of them, like every item in the game.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

According to Chef from South Park it is not ok to be racist, but it is totally ok to hate someone because of what country they are from.

I get most of my subjective morality from South Park so I'm feeling pretty ok about making fun of someone's accent.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
seebs wrote:
Hmm. What about a male human wearing a kilt?

Don't joke. Apparently there is some sort of mech-tail item that was a major bone if contention for like 500+ posts in that thread.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
chaoseffect wrote:

I'm not entirely sure how much I would like full attack as a standard action, but I think something like being able to trade one attack for say 10 or 15 feet of movement (perhaps based on which attack you give up, so full BAB gives the most movement?) that could be taken any time in the attack rotation could be interesting and would definitely make things less static and more mobile.

Like you have 15/10/5 as a 15th level fighter. The fighter could sacrifice the full BAB for 20 feet or movement, next for 15, and last for 10. Random idea.

I recently made this a house rule in my games. Any attack in a given full attack may be substituted for 10ft if movement. You can use it a number of times up to your full movement. Movement provokes as normal.

It has really given martials a nice set of options without tipping the scales that much at all.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

You would probably have more luck with this in the "gamer connection" forum. I've flagged it to be moved.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Ed Reppert wrote:
MrRetsej wrote:


In the case of Wonderous Items, they most certainly do. Take for example anAmulet of Natural Armor crafted by a 5th level Wizard with Craft Wonderous Items. The Wizard wants the finished item to give a +2 bonus.

The crafting requirements for a +2 Amulet of Natural Armor would be,
- the Craft Wonderous Items feat
- 6th level caster (creator’s caster level must be at least three times the amulet’s bonus)
- the Barkskin spell
- 4000 gp
- 8 days

So long as the wizard has the time, the gold, the feat and can make a Spellcraft check with a DC of 21, the amulet is made. The DC breaks down as follows;

Base DC to craft an item: +5
Caster level required: +6
Wizard does not meet minimum caster level: +5
Wizard does not have Barkskin spell: +5
DC: 21

No spell needed.

Okay, fair enough. Doesn't make sense to me, but so be it. :-)

The only items that absolutely require the spell be available at creation are spell trigger and spell completion items.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
This seems like the kind of product someone with an abundance of wealth might buy.

The die or the printer to make it?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Sent you an email.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
"Sean K Reynolds" wrote:

And perhaps someone should actually read up on the context of something instead of speculating and assuming things that support their negative preconception of someone. I mean, this info is in my Wikipedia page. And a Google search of "Sean Reynolds most hated man" turns up an informative result from 1997.

Fair enough, I retract my comment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
This is not quite accurate. Sean was the mouth of the message boards for a long time, so it was him out defending some decisions that were made by the Design Team.

I really wish this was more widely appreciated. Being the most visible defender of a group decision doesn't mean you're responsible for the decision.

Since I joined the paizo community, it seems to me there has been a decline in engagement of the sort we're discussing*. It's hard not to think that the "shoot the messenger" approach often taken with Sean has been responsible for that.
** spoiler omitted **

At one point SKR (self?-)claimed the title of "most hated man on the internet" in his Paizo profile (he removed that from his profile sometime in the past.) If I remember correctly he was referring to his time with TSR. Perhaps someone with that reputation (presumably earned) isn't the best choice for the "mouthpiece to the boards" position?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

here you go

Edit: note that getting access to a spell early or acquiring from another list is not the same as modifying it down from meta magic cheapeners. Also, I can't think of a single example (read: there isn't one) of a time where you could "choose" to cast fireball from a second level slot because you "wanted" to lower the DC.

Edit again: SR has nothing to do with spell level.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

No, you can never reduce the spell level lower than the original spell level. There is an FAQ on that. D20pfsrd calls wayang spell hunter "meta magic master" because wayang is part of Golorian. Archives of Nethys May gave it listed under the original name but what you saw us the actual text. You can tell if you go back to the page and look at the URL.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Spellstoring weapon, and I would second the dip into crossblooded sorcerer Orc/draconic. Dip into admixture wizard is probably also a good idea.

The nova way to go is to precharge a shocking grasp and hold it, have one in you spell storing weapon. Roll into combat and make your regular melee attack first which will drop the held charge plus the one stored in the weapon, then using spell combat cast shocking grasp again.

3 times in one round. Much pain.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

BOOM


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Henry Southgard wrote:

I think I'd enjoy Star Trek a hell of a lot more if they didn't jump from system to system, but instead settled in one place and fleshed out a whole planet.

Dude. Deep Space 9. You should watch Deep Space 9.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

T-Rex


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
EvilPaladin wrote:
Neo2515 wrote:
It's actually more like, "comparable to a low-damage melee weapon wielded by a character who devoted almost nothing to melee damage."
I'd say it is comparable to what you might expect from a commoner defending his home from intruders with a dagger. Do you rob commoners because they "tickle" you?
LazarX wrote:

Like hell there isn't. Magic requires special circumstances, blessings, or training to operate and it's results tend to be idiosyncratic.

Technology is consistent, repeatable, and can be operated by any idiot who can flip a switch.

So, can said idiot who can flip a light switch operate a Nuclear Power Plant? Magic is [IMO] merely highly complex and intricate technology. Some people[sorcerers] are born with a talent for it, some people study it, and some learn it as part of their religion[clerics]. Its not as simple as turning on a light switch[A move action at best], but more its as complex as trying to find the right light switch on a wall full of light switches that are invisible, and each do a separate thing, relying on instinct, or instruction to guide you to it.

Also, the light switch is more aken to a command word or use activated wondrous item. Any idiot can use it. The system in place behind that item to get it in working order into the hands of that idiot is quite complex, similarly to the light switch.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
FuelDrop wrote:
Crossbows are perfectly good alpha strike weapons and are good if you have to arm peasants or other people without martial weapon training.

Definitely a perfectly valid NPC option.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:
Jay the Madman wrote:


Of course a magic Missile is situational. All spells are situational.

Wizard:"We need to get out of this deep hole, what spell should I use? Magic Missile!"
GM: No effect
Wizard: "Fireball! That is my go-to spell"
GM: Still no effect
Wizard: "ooo I know. Haste! That spell is perhaps the most useful spell available"
GM: ugh

Yeah, well that's one thing about the Optimizers here on these boards.

Toughness isn't the VERY VERY best feat evar, so it's useless. The rogue niche can be filled by other classes, so the class is worthless. The crossbow isn't quite as good as the Longbow for dedicated archers, so it's there as a trap. Or maybe just there because SKR hates crossbows or some other silly reasoning.

Everything must be the very very best in ALL situations and the way THEY play or it's worthless crud, and a TRAP! by the devs.

I think we can all be honest with each other here and admit that crossbows really are a trap option. At the point you decide to take rapid reload you should just take MWP: longbow and you are already ahead.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Faq'd


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Man, I would think the natural choice would be cleric1/magus2/MT4+.

The real shame is that you are playing it in PFS because a harm spell in spell strike would be teh awesomes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
:-/ when you bring up "rules about something" then you generally have to accept that "something" doesn't happen unless there is a rule for it.

Bull. No rules for breathing.

Some things are just up to the players to describe.

I just refuse to describe a dagger wound as 'tickling'.

Rules don't have to be long or descriptive. There are definitely rules for breathing, even if they are as short as "it happens" in creature type/subtype descriptions.

Edit: the issue isn't "saying" that being stabbed by a dagger hurts. The problems is saying that "the wolf got stabbed and so it should run away because it is in pain."


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Avh wrote:
It tickles, and you need a day or two to not feel it anymore. But it doesn't hurt you that much.
I fundamentally disagree with that statement. There are no rules for how much pain a character feels.

:-/ when you bring up "rules about something" then you generally have to accept that "something" doesn't happen unless there is a rule for it. There is no rule about feeling pain, so we have to assume characters don't feel pain.

Particularly given that we have rules for pain via the Symbol of Pain Spell. Since no amount of HP damage gives you the penalties of Symbol of Pain then within the rules we must assume that characters feel no pain.

It's dumb, but I think it helps prevent more shenanigans than it causes problems.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Ughbash wrote:
thebigragu wrote:
So, with three Smites up, using MM against multiple targets, only one of those MMs deals Smite damage?
Point 1 changing the goal posts since the orignal perosn saying smite and MM was good for one shotting an evil outsider cause each MM did smite damage to the outsider.

It isn't moving goal posts, it is challenging an assumption of smite damage is "once per spell" instead of "once per damage roll." Generally, abilities that work only once per spell say exactly that. This is definitely a corner case because it is doubtful the smite ability was written with spells in mind.

For what it's worth, I agree that it probably only works once per spell (even with multiple smites up and firing at multiple targets,) but it is ambiguous enough to warrant further discussion. The line of questioning though is completely apropos and doesn't move the goal post at all.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rapanuii wrote:
Bnw, I find it reasonable to make exceptions for the attitude change, and gather info I see being acceptable as a general roll. Making exceptions to adapt to new players I give leeway, but for some, it's time to learn the game, and give me some vague specifics at least.
For which diplomacy check you're doing there's nothing to learn, there's no skill involved, and there's nothing the player can do to get the right answer. Its whatever the mod says it is, and can include any of those three answers or for some scenarios, even their own subsystems.

Not every NPC has a yellow question mark above their head. What do you do when the module doesn't have diplomacy options for an NPC but the player still wants to use diplomacy?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
It's because BNW is running NPC's like they are in a video game RPG.

No, that's exactly what the other side is proposing. "Oh, you tried to use the key on the lock, it didn't work. You needed to JIGGLE the key in the lock to get it to work". Its DMing like you're a computer that can only interpret options off of a menu.

Dude! That is EXACTLY what you are saying!

Quote:
The mod in front of me has that information, and they're (mechanically) no different on the players end. He has a diplomacy roll of x.

It doesn't get anymore video gamey than that! Also, the fact that you keep assuming only one objective per interaction is evidence of your video game mentality. Folks aren't trying to get players to say "I jiggle the handle" they are trying to determine if with your diplomacy check you want to 1)get through the door, 2) ask the guard information about a) his master b) the activity in and out of the door lately c) where to get good coffee nearby, 3) borrow his uniform, 4) etc etc.

It is NOT a single opportunity objective.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:

And really, even mechanically, the difference between "improve his attitude" and "ask him to let me through the door", isn't a particularly subtle or arbitrary one.

Its incredibly arbitrary on two fronts. For one, I'm pretty sure I've seen that exact situation done both ways. Secondly they're mechanically the same , the player is rolling a diplomacy check either way.

So it plays out "I chat with guard and try to improve his attitude towards me. Diplomacy = 35"

"Success. He lets you through the door."

And then the player is like "I didn't ask to go through the door. I didn't even want to go through the door. What just happened?"

Quote:
Quote:
Or do you ever get a response from the player of "Oh. That's not what I was asking for at all."?
It happens on occasion. Sometimes because the roll wasn't high enough and I threw something irrelevant into the conversation, more often because that particular NPC doesn't know the information they're looking for, sometimes because I forgot what that PCs faction mission was.

I was thinking more of getting the a piece of information or a favor that the player didn't know he was asking for. He thought he was questioning the NPC about something else entirely, but that's the result of successful Diplomacy on this NPC, so you get this result.

But really I think your approach to the game is just so far off what I'm used to that I just can't grasp it.

It's because BNW is running NPC's like they are in a video game RPG. They only have a preplanned single thing you can do with them. The guard guards the door. That's it. The only possible objective you can resolve with the guard is go through the door. Your choices are "I use weapons" or "I use diplomacy."

He is completely lost at the idea that someone might want to interact with an NPC for a reason other than he has a yellow question mark above his head. That's why he doesn't understand what people mean when they say "what are you trying to accomplish?" He thinks it is a purely mechanical value. "I am trying to accomplish diplomacy" is the only answer he sees to that question and so he views it as redundant.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Hendelbolaf wrote:

It is the part of the sorcerer charging in to tickle the big baddie, not the run away part that scares me. I just do not usually build my sorcerers to be the ones who ever charge into melee.

With me it is just an ability that is way down the list on my chart of effective tactics. If I was grappled, then maybe, but would I be able to make the concentration check becomes my new concern. If I could make it for that, could I not just make it for one of my more powerful effects. Hence, I have yet to use it in combat.

There is no concentration check.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Nothing in the world is scarier than 4 dragons flying through the air carrying a boat filled with 100 1st level kobold sorcerers that all have a magic missile readied for when lieutenant says, "NOW!"

^Actually happened in a game I ran. Devistation and disbelief swept across the faces of my players. SQUEE!

The very next action went to the party wizard, and looking at the obliterated corpse of his buddy the fighter, said as quickly and worriedly as you can imagine, "quickened shield"


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Enough people with high intelligence spend years of their life dedicated to the study of magic. People who have intelligence and experience far beyond what people in our world have. Entire colleges and guilds are dedicated to unlocking the mysteries of their craft. Experimentation is done, over and over ad nauseam.

And you are telling me that they can't figure out spell level x caster level x (certain amount of stuff roughly equal to 12.5gp) = how much a scroll costs?

Dude, we have atomic super-coliders and found String particles. No one on earth has a 30 INT. The idea that millennia of study by entire societies can't come up with a simple axbxc+m=d formula is ridiculous. THAT is immersion breaking.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Wouldn't spells with expensive material components mess up the system?

I think they are the exception that proves the rule. Expensive material components are well known to spell casters. Their addition to the price of items would be easily predictable and noticeable.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
DM Livgin wrote:


3. Payroll; the crafter and owner will have decadent lifestyles, sales staff will take hefty commissions.

I think you overestimate the amount of sales you'll be making. The crafter and owner will probably not have decadent lifestyles, since the number of potential customers able to plop down 16,000 gp for a +4 belt of strength will be very small. Even the number of customers able to plop down 50 gp for a potion of cure light wounds will be fairly small, when you consider that a typical person earns 1 gp per day or so. That potion is two months salary, and that's one of the cheapest things in the shop.

To put it in perspective, think of a new car dealership. There are about 20,000 new car dealership in the United States, and new car sales average about 15 million per year, so call it 40,000 cars per day. That means that your average dealer sells two cars per day. According to the department of labor, those 20,000 dealerships employed about 220,000 people, so that's 11 people per dealership.

E.g. a typical car salesman sells one car per week.

Although the profits on individual items may be high, the actual return on invested capital is relatively low. This is true for car dealerships and would also be true for magic item shops.

A person who made items full time would be able to supply a consortium of shops.

Not everyone working for a car dealer is a salesperson.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
Why do you have to ask about a first level spell? Ask about a specific spell.

I've got 25gp burning a hole in my coin pouch and I want to see what scrolls I could afford. And before you say "why not just ask about what he has for 25gp?" Because 1) maybe I want to negotiate. 2) maybe I don't want to tell the npc how much gold I'm carrying. 3) I don't want him to tell me about all the stuff he has for 25gp that isn't a scroll. 4) I wanted to ask the question the way I did and why do you care?

Edit: asking about a specific spell isn't any better anyway. Unless spell level and caster level have meaning in the campaign world then the difference between cure light wounds and cure moderate wounds is nonsensical.

7 points of damage for a level 1 commoner is a critical wound, but could be healed by cure light wounds spell.

20 points of damage on a level 10 barbarian would be a light wound but would need a cure serious wounds spell (on average) to patch up.

If the characters or campaign world really have no concept of level (spell/class/caster) then the very idea that a series of spells called cure xxx wounds is dumb.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

If my character rolls a d100 to figure out what the weather is like today then he would be metagaming.

If my character goes to a hedge wizard and asks, "do you have any first level scrolls?" He is not metagaming.

I do not accept that metagaming is a necessary evil of gameplay, but I also (apparently) don't define it as broadly as you do. It is safe to say that when 90%+ of players/gm's talk about metagaming that they see it as a bad thing. Also, the original point was brought up in a thread called "ways to annoy your GM."

2nd example above is metagaming.

The game rules are not what the characters understand.

And again, just because you are trying to redefine what metagaming is, doesn't suddenly mean that you aren't metagaming anymore.

That's how our financial system collapsed a few years back.

The investment firms and insurance underwriters didn't want to make sure they had a certain percentage of their policies in immediate capital, so they just decided they'd create the policies by calling them something else.

Still didn't make it not insurance.

You don't get to redifine something just because you, yourself, have assigned a negative connotation to what that means.

If you can tell me how characters refer to the scalability of power within the magic system then I will happily use those terms. Until then I assume that characters use the same terms that I do because that's all the game gives us.

It seems that you are suggesting that using a precise term or technical term is metagaming. Are real-world physicists metagaming the real-world?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

The analogy isn't apropos to the situation. The vehicle analogy would be:

PLAYER IN CHARACTER: "let's take my car because it gets better gas mileage and we won't have to stop as often for gas, we need to get to McGuffin as quickly as possible"

GM: "cheat! Metagame cheat! Just because your vehicle sheet says 20 mpg doesn't mean your character knows that! There is no rule for your character to know that! Look at all these shadowrun novels, no one ever talks about MPG! Stop cheating meta gamer! Now take the car that gets 5 mpg or you're a metagame cheater!"

PLAYER: "my character knows that his car goes further on a tank of gas, because he drives it and stuff."

GM: "no, your character (nor the entire rest of the campaign world) never bothered to figure out miles per gallon. All you know is that the when the gas light comes on you need gas. Stop trying to justify your metagaming."

PLAYER: "that doesn't make any sense and this just stopped being fun."

And you accuse him of a false analogy? <blink>

The original complaint was that DM's get annoyed when the guy with a +8 to diplomacy makes a skill check instead of the guy with a +5. The players were called meta gamers and we're accused of doing something bad/wrong.

My reply was that certain mechanical things must be known to characters because they are core functions of their universe. To suggest that characters haven't figured out stuff like caster level/spell level is dumb.

Someone then said that characters don't know about caster level and spell level because: books.

I said that was completely ridiculous (both the argument AND the conclusion)

Then Ross said that I was wrong because: vague perceptions that yield exact results.

I would say my analogy reflects all of that pretty closely actually.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

If my character rolls a d100 to figure out what the weather is like today then he would be metagaming.

If my character goes to a hedge wizard and asks, "do you have any first level scrolls?" He is not metagaming.

I do not accept that metagaming is a necessary evil of gameplay, but I also (apparently) don't define it as broadly as you do. It is safe to say that when 90%+ of players/gm's talk about metagaming that they see it as a bad thing. Also, the original point was brought up in a thread called "ways to annoy your GM."


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Ross Byers wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Daedalaman wrote:
Once again I point you towards the Pathfinder Tales novels for examples of how people in the game world describe things. A particularly good example would be Nightglass.

You are saying that if someone doesn't role play just like the characters in the novels act that they are metagaming?

I think the entire idea is silly. I severely doubt that the authors of those novels actually took time to think about how mechanics of the game would influence the world they are writing about. And if the characters don't notice how structured their universe is then the author of the book is wrong. There is absolutely no way people with extremely high intelligence who spend time studying their world would not discover the equations that govern their universe.

Also, I'm not sitting around a table telling a story (only) I'm also playing a game with mechanics. Discussing and using those mechanics is definitely part of the game.

That's fine, but it doesn't make someone who plays differently wrong.

I didn't say that it did. I'm not the one accusing people of metagaming.

Edit: if you are playing without mechanics then you aren't really playing pathfinder. Which is fine, but pathfinder is a game of mechanics and they belong in discussions of how the game is played.

You misunderstand: I play with mechanics, but I understand they are approximations of a fantasy world.

To use an analogy, if you were playing a 'modern' RPG that had a section in the rule book defining that a 'large sedan' gets 15 miles per gallon, would you consider that a law of physics? That a Lincoln Towncar and Honda Accord have the same mileage, regardless of being different cars, and regardless of how they're being driven? Or would you think that it's a simplification and an approximation to make the game playable and the rule book of finite length?

The analogy isn't apropos to the situation. The vehicle analogy would be:

PLAYER IN CHARACTER: "let's take my car because it gets better gas mileage and we won't have to stop as often for gas, we need to get to McGuffin as quickly as possible"

GM: "cheat! Metagame cheat! Just because your vehicle sheet says 20 mpg doesn't mean your character knows that! There is no rule for your character to know that! Look at all these shadowrun novels, no one ever talks about MPG! Stop cheating meta gamer! Now take the car that gets 5 mpg or you're a metagame cheater!"

PLAYER: "my character knows that his car goes further on a tank of gas, because he drives it and stuff."

GM: "no, your character (nor the entire rest of the campaign world) never bothered to figure out miles per gallon. All you know is that the when the gas light comes on you need gas. Stop trying to justify your metagaming."

PLAYER: "that doesn't make any sense and this just stopped being fun."


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
You don't actually get more XP for being a level lower in Pathfinder. You will level up faster, but you will always be behind.

It seems fair to note that these items were designed for a system that did behave that way and that converting them for use in pathfinder should include someway to deal with that.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Ross Byers wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Daedalaman wrote:
Once again I point you towards the Pathfinder Tales novels for examples of how people in the game world describe things. A particularly good example would be Nightglass.

You are saying that if someone doesn't role play just like the characters in the novels act that they are metagaming?

I think the entire idea is silly. I severely doubt that the authors of those novels actually took time to think about how mechanics of the game would influence the world they are writing about. And if the characters don't notice how structured their universe is then the author of the book is wrong. There is absolutely no way people with extremely high intelligence who spend time studying their world would not discover the equations that govern their universe.

Also, I'm not sitting around a table telling a story (only) I'm also playing a game with mechanics. Discussing and using those mechanics is definitely part of the game.

That's fine, but it doesn't make someone who plays differently wrong.

I didn't say that it did. I'm not the one accusing people of metagaming.

Edit: if you are playing without mechanics then you aren't really playing pathfinder. Which is fine, but pathfinder is a game of mechanics and they belong in discussions of how the game is played.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Daedalaman wrote:
Once again I point you towards the Pathfinder Tales novels for examples of how people in the game world describe things. A particularly good example would be Nightglass.

You are saying that if someone doesn't role play just like the characters in the novels act that they are metagaming?

I think the entire idea is silly. I severely doubt that the authors of those novels actually took time to think about how mechanics of the game would influence the world they are writing about. And if the characters don't notice how structured their universe is then the author of the book is wrong. There is absolutely no way people with extremely high intelligence who spend time studying their world would not discover the equations that govern their universe.

Also, I'm not sitting around a table telling a story (only) I'm also playing a game with mechanics. Discussing and using those mechanics is definitely part of the game.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Daedalaman wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Daedalaman wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Meta gaming is using out of character knowledge to gain a benefit in game. I happen to believe that my characters should be able to express their level of expertise with their in world understanding.

I'm not privy to how characters conventionally speak about HP, spell levels, character levels, skill bonuses, etc. So I use the only vocabulary available to me which are the numbers on the page. That doesn't mean that those characters don't have a way to be precise and specific about those things. It seems what is really bothering some folks is that preciseness and specificity. Some folks want players to to make mechanical checks (a completely out of game world exercise) based on in character vagaries about how good they are at something.

Guess what? In character making a check or aiding another doesn't really happen either. "The two of us work cooperatively to break down that door" who's aiding? Who's rolling the "real" check. It's already an abstraction. Trying to suggest that how players make that decision is metagaming is ridiculous unless you are prepared to say the entire pathfinder rule set is a "metagame" and the "real" game is "adventures in Golarion" I doubt most people are prepared to make that statement.

I find it completely ridiculous to say that characters don't have any knowledge of character levels, classes, or spell levels because their world's function depends on that understanding.

Their world's function doesn't actually depend on that understanding. If you want a good example of that read any of the Pathfinder Tales novels. All of those characters exist in the world of the game and none of them think in game mechanics terms.
You cannot scribe a scroll unless you know how much it will cost. You cannot know how much it will cost unless you understand spell level and caster level. This is particularly true knowing you can artificially lower the caster level below your own to make items
...

In our world we would call that science and would very very quickly determine the exact measurements involved. Why doesn't a world with equally intelligent beings do the same? Because they like vagueness? Because spell casters are known for "just kinda guessing?"

These folks spend year and years in research. They know the exact formulas. They know how to talk about it in their world. I don't know what they say so I use the terms available to me. It's not metagaming.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Daedalaman wrote:
The thing that annoys me most about the use of numbers as in character knowledge (mostly hp, but not limited to) is that it makes certain in game things meant to overcome these difficulties completely useless, ie deathwatch, a spell designed to tell a healer how close to death his teammates are can be rendered null and void by saying "I'm down 15 of 20 hit points." Essentially making it a spell that no one ever prepares because "why would I ever prepare that if I can just ask what your hp is at?"

The game has a bunch of bad spells that no one would ever prepare. However, deathwatch is great if you don't want to let your opponents know who on your team is the closest to dying.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Daedalaman wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Meta gaming is using out of character knowledge to gain a benefit in game. I happen to believe that my characters should be able to express their level of expertise with their in world understanding.

I'm not privy to how characters conventionally speak about HP, spell levels, character levels, skill bonuses, etc. So I use the only vocabulary available to me which are the numbers on the page. That doesn't mean that those characters don't have a way to be precise and specific about those things. It seems what is really bothering some folks is that preciseness and specificity. Some folks want players to to make mechanical checks (a completely out of game world exercise) based on in character vagaries about how good they are at something.

Guess what? In character making a check or aiding another doesn't really happen either. "The two of us work cooperatively to break down that door" who's aiding? Who's rolling the "real" check. It's already an abstraction. Trying to suggest that how players make that decision is metagaming is ridiculous unless you are prepared to say the entire pathfinder rule set is a "metagame" and the "real" game is "adventures in Golarion" I doubt most people are prepared to make that statement.

I find it completely ridiculous to say that characters don't have any knowledge of character levels, classes, or spell levels because their world's function depends on that understanding.

Their world's function doesn't actually depend on that understanding. If you want a good example of that read any of the Pathfinder Tales novels. All of those characters exist in the world of the game and none of them think in game mechanics terms.

You cannot scribe a scroll unless you know how much it will cost. You cannot know how much it will cost unless you understand spell level and caster level. This is particularly true knowing you can artificially lower the caster level below your own to make items more price/benefit efficient.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Ross Byers wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Every time a character buys a scroll and asks "how much" they are talking about character level in character.

I think characters can have a perception of some magic being more complicated than other magic without knowing there are 9 levels of spells and 20 levels of casters.

Unless everyone in your game world is from the Order of Red Mages.

PC: "Why is it that the cure light wounds, magic missile, mount, and identify spells all cost exactly the same amount and this scorching ray and cure moderate wounds cost exactly 6 times more?"

SCROLLMONGER: "There is a vague perception about the complexities of magic that allows us to understand this cost exactly 6 times more"

PC: "???"


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Every time a character buys a scroll and asks "how much" they are talking about character level in character.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
andy mcdonald 623 wrote:
nosig wrote:


Bolding mine...
"...you need to know what a character is going to say when using a social skill...." this is not true.
Example given here, in this thread.

It is no more needed than we need to know what a character is going to do to disable a device, or climb a wall, or...

I just ran a scenario ** spoiler omitted **

So, yes, I do need to know what you're saying to whomever and what you hope to achieve.

I think I said this only applies to the social skills of diplomacy, bluff and intimidate.

And yes, I treat experienced players different from newbies.

Andy

DM: "With your knowledge checks you know it would be a good idea to include information x and not mention information y when you make your diplomacy check"

PLAYER: "ok, I do that."


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Many scenarios do give either bonuses, penalties, or shifts in attitudes depending on what the person does or doesn';t say.

Then if the player "doesn't say" the GM can apply the bonuses, penalties, and attitude shifts based on "doesn't say."

This is completely acceptable. Applying a general circumstance bonus beyond that isn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Some folks here are having a difficult time with the idea of sarcastic analogy.

Of course you shouldn't give someone a penalty for saying "I use disable device" and similarly you should not give someone a penalty for saying "I use diplomacy"

If you want to encourage role play in that fashion then do so by role playing yourself. Ask questions in character, describe the actions of other NPCs. People who are upto interacting with you in that fashion will do so.

Side note: I find the idea that "bad role play" gets a +0, while "good role play" gets a +2 to be far more troubling than -2 for no role play.

1 to 50 of 1,406 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.