I would recommend forgetting about it until the whole series is completed. Fire Mountain Games makes some great products, but they have terrible service because they are a small two man operation with horrendous communication skills. If you forget about trying to get information one day you will have some great adventures to play and won't have the resentment of banging your head against the wall of silence for months on end.
I have been running two mythic games. The first they started mythic at first level and the other they turned mythic at 8th level. So far I like the mythic rules and the players love them (dubbing it the new normal). The only two areas that have concerned me are mythic haste and mythic arcane strike. Mythic haste is just too good, haste did not need a buff normal haste is already mythic power level. Mythic arcane strike only concerns me because of the ability to get bane for the current battle, it is a very strong ability (it's the inquisitors class defining ability). Other than that I really enjoy it and it is fun to see the characters use mythic abilities to turn the tide of battle and feel like big damn heroes.
You need two weapons one with the 1st hand checked and the other with the 2nd hand checked. If you only have one weapon entry then by checking both boxes under that weapon you are using it two handed. So make sure you have two weapon entries and that each one has only one hand equipping (1h and 2h). Hope this helps.
I think the new classes are a great start and I love the direction they are going in. Multiclassing is a legacy weight on the system, it just doesn't work as we'll in the current pathfinder paradigm. Merging multicast concepts into single classes is brilliant. This allows the flavor of the multicast combo to have solid mechanical support. I like that they use components of the parent classes because they are familiar and understood abilities which lessens the learning curve, but they each get new mechanics to help bring them up in power with single class characters and express the unique combo of two classes.
Sure the classes need some work, but this is a play test for a reason. I love the direction and the reasoning behind it, very savvy Paizo. This new multi class single class paradigm will allow Paizo to pump out more classes without increasing unique mechanics by a metric ton. This will combat the rules bloat issue that comes along with expansion.
pres man wrote:
Yes if the GM takes that approach then I agree they are a poor GM. However having a specific idea for a setting and wanting to explore that with your players is not the same thing as believing your players are pawns.
Of course the DM should work with the players to incorporate their ideas, but the players also need to work with the GM. If the GM comes to his players with a specific idea and pitches it to them they should endeavor to work with that idea so that everyone can have fun. Not every idea will work and as the GM is the editor of the setting in the end the GM will have the final say.
This doesn't make the players the GMs slaves, it makes them contributors. Once the game starts the players get to control how they interact with the setting. Prior to the start of the game the GM controls the design of the setting. Since everyone is there to have fun the GM needs to design something the players will have fun interacting with and the players need to interact with the setting in a way that is fun for the GM. It is a symbiotic relationship and both sides benefit from cooperation in the form of having fun.
It is important to define what a special snowflake character is. To me it is someone that goes outside of the games normal character creation rules in order to support their concept. Now this can be good or bad depending on the creation. I have seen munchkin special snowflakes and I have seen cool snowflakes (and allowed them). Usually the less mechanically rigorous the snowflake the better.
As long as the concept fits within the theme of the campaign and the other players are okay with the concept I allow the snowflake, but if they happen to die I generally don't allow a replacement snowflake. I also try to have only one snowflake at a time so they can actually be sort of special. Though with my groups these types are pretty rare anyways since we all prefer standard fantasy tropes.
What is appropriate criteria for a snowflake character will vary from group to group as it really is all about that groups preferences. Allowing all snowflakes or disallowing all snowflakes doesn't make anyone a better gamer or a better group they just have different preferences. Each group must decide how their preferences align and how best to have fun playing the game. Fun isn't the most important thing, it is the only thing.
Considering that the fight for the rights of LGBT people is one that is actually going on right now today I think the inclusion of LGBT people in adventure paths is a great thing.
Is Paizo forcing them in to promote an agenda?
God I hope so. I hope the good people at Paizo are in support of basic human rights and support basic human decency and would seek to promote that in their products (from everything I have seen they do support that). I applaud their inclusion and the brave step of supporting our LGBT brothers and sisters in their products.
Though I can understand peoples concern with any forced elements into a narrative, I think the importance of the topic out weighs any story concerns (especially in this day and age). Paizo is very good about how they include the subject and the presence of LGBT characters enhances the complexity of their world and stories.
For those that are concerned with having anything forced into their narrative they can just remove the LGBT characters that they don't want present. So it can have zero impact on your game play while still having the very important role of making LGBT gamers feel included. I think it is a win win.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I agree that everyone involved in the game should have input into the game. When I ask who should win out when it comes down to the player and the GM disagreeing I agree that what the other people involved think is probably what is going to decide it, but sometimes the other players don't have a strong feeling either way. In that circumstance I think the person with the like should give in to the other persons dislike because a like can be replaced with another like where you can't just change something you dislike.
If all the other players love the character and want to play with that character then the GM should include it, and either change their setting or use a different one. Or if the other players don't like the character concept and want to play in the GMs setting as envisioned maybe that player shouldn't play in that game.
My players are all my friends and we play 2 or 3 times a week in different games so a person opting out isn't that bad. I realize others don't have this option and in the circumstance that an excluded player wouldn't get to play at all then it should be given extra consideration (by the player as well).
The process is a give and take, sometimes the player should cave to the GM, they may find that they have a great time if they roll with it, and other times the GM should cave to the player, they may find a great new piece of their setting which makes it better. In the end everyone is on the same team with a unified goal of everyone having fun. As long as everyone involved is dedicated to that goal (Player and GM) then everything else will work itself out.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
As someone who was confused as to the position you were arguing from and reacted strongly to it, I apologize for misunderstanding your position and the vitriol that misunderstanding generated. I understand now that you are not advocating for the position that allowing any player concept makes a person a better GM. This was the point of contention for me and realizing that this is not what you are arguing for changes my point of view regarding your posts. I apologize for reacting strongly to something that was not your position.
I agree that your players deserve every opportunity to express and explore the character concepts that they come up with and the GM should give due concern in evaluating their place within the game. The players are the lifeblood of the game and the entire point of getting together is to entertain each other with our imagination and some dice. While I think the players deserve consideration I also believe that the GM deserves consideration as well. In many ways the setting itself is the GM's character and some GM's put a lot of work into developing an interesting and fun setting.
Dismissing this work and not giving it consideration is what irks some GM's when a player creates a character outside the bounds of the setting. In the example you gave Kirth your player put in work and helped develop a new area of your game world. This is a great example of how it should work in that you are both collaborating on the setting and developed something you both like. The key being that you were both satisfied with the result, which may not always happen. When the two sides disagree whose like wins out, the player or the GMs?
In my opinion the dislike should generally win out, not because the GM is an authoritarian, but because the player could come up with something else they like where as the GM would have to swallow something he dislikes. While not being able to play a character you developed sucks, you can come up with another character and get to play that one where the GM would have to put up with something they do not like for the entire campaign. That is an extra burden on the GM, who already have all the pressure of leading the show so to speak (not that it isn't fun or exciting to GM, but you are the ringmaster) and having to deal with something you dislike week after week can cause negative thoughts and actions to creep into the game as GMs are only human after all.
I agree that the GM needs to realize that their setting isn't a special snowflake either and that it as an imaginary construct ultimately not as important as the person across the table from them, but because the setting is sort of the GMs character the player should extend the same consideration back. The setting purity argument is bunk in the sense that believing a player could never contribute positively to your setting is ridiculous because the whole point of making a setting is so players can play in it. However this doesn't mean that every idea a player comes up with is good and the GM isn't obligated to include every idea into their setting. In this sense the purity argument is a good one, the GM should endeavor to imagine the best setting for his players to play in that they can within the context that the setting is sort of the GMs character and they need to find enjoyment in the process to. This means saying no when the GM believes they should say no to preserve the purity of their idea for the setting which is kind of like a character for them.
The GM should do this understanding that once the game starts they need to now step back and let the players run wild so to speak and kick over their beautifully built sand castle because that is the point of the game. In my experience the more I enjoy creating a setting the more my players enjoy the process of playing in that setting. They know that if I exclude elves from being a player race for a campaign that the reason for doing it is not that I am reveling in my authoritarian power fantasy but because it will be entertaining for everyone. It will be a chance to have elves be enemies or to explore a fantasy scenario where there are no elves and to see what comes out of that. If a player and I disagree that exploring this imaginary space is going to be interesting then maybe we play another game or maybe that player doesn't play in that campaign if enough other people are interested in it. I am lucky in that my players trust me, one of the best campaigns we ever had I made the characters for them and they chose one and customized it a bit and off we went. That campaign went for two years and everyone loved it. In the end the details of how everyone ended up having fun is irrelevant as long as everyone had fun.
Having fun isn't the most important thing, it is the only thing.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
So let me get this straight. You are saying that if you are going to play Pathfinder then you should play Pathfinder as it is found within the rulebooks otherwise you are doing it wrong?
Aren't you the guy that basically rewrote the Pathfinder book for your own house rule system?
How is that any different then a GM altering the rules some to fit their setting?
So if I wanted to play a core rulebook game but you want to pile on the house rules are you still the bad guy?
Is your massive house rule system playing the wrong way because you are forcing others to accept the rules that you like?
By your logic you are the most authoritarian, my way or the highway, my interest trumps your interest, you should go find another game that suits your wants better hypocritical person on the boards.
Because he and the other players dislike the concept and its presence in the game would be an impediment to their fun.
No we do not agree on this because it is BS. Having likes and dislikes is not immature, not accepting that others likes and dislikes may differ from yours and then "looking down on them" for that difference is immature.
Yes the problem is that you aren't mature enough to accept that other people may have different preferences then you and may not find fun what you find fun.
I get it, you really like your character but your like doesn't necessarily trump the dislikes of the other people present. Everyone eats everything at the table because everyone has to imagine and interact with everything in the game, therefore everyone consumes all parts of the meal. The character you play does impact the experience of the other players as their characters have to interact with your character in a shared experience.
Is it really so hard to understand why someone would not want to spend their free time imagining something they dislike? That isn't petty, it's just common sense. You don't have the right to force other people to endure something they dislike just because it is something you really like.
No one is making anyone else eat (play) the Surf and Turf (mix and match character concept), they just have to watch you eat (play) it and getting offended over that is the definition of petty (to say the least), since they knew it was a menu item at Pathfinders before they agreed to go there.
Playing is a collaborative process and everyone at the table is playing with and interacting with all the other players. The final result is a collective experience that everyone in the group shares together. How and what character you play does impact my character and experience. Your analogy that the character is an individual entree that no one else has to experience is false because everyone at the table has to experience that character. This is why the analogy of the shared meal that everyone partakes in is better.
Likes and dislikes are not petty, they are the reason we are all at a table together looking to play a game. If those likes and dislikes don't align to everyone's satisfaction then maybe we shouldn't play a game together. It has nothing to do with ability or skill, it is all a matter of preference.
Because not everyone likes Surf and Turf and this isn't individual entrees it is gumbo that everyone has to eat. That is why when going out to eat gumbo you need to make sure everyone likes the same things in the gumbo.
It may only be a game but my time is not a joke.
I like to spend my free time doing something I enjoy. My likes and dislikes are foundational to what I enjoy. Therefore what I like and dislike is important to the game because I spend my time on it. This is not being petty, our likes and dislikes are an important part of who we are.
Since this is a group endeavor we need to try to align our likes and dislikes so that everyone can have fun. Usually this works as we all agree on playing a game using the Pathfinder rules in an agreed upon setting. Everyone has the option to opt in or out of this social contract and to request certain aspects. The group agrees upon whatever arrangement of likes and dislikes works best for them and if a compatible arrangement can be agreed upon then the game proceeds. You have to accept that the group may impose restrictions on you so that the likes and dislikes of everyone can be made compatible. This is true for players and GMs.
Imagination and experience are not necessarily involved because this is not a question of how but why. Because we are all seeking to have fun peoples dislikes are generally going to hold more weight as a single dislike, if it is strong enough, can ruin that persons fun. Where a persons likes are a bit more flexible as people generally have multiple things they like so if they have to exclude something they like as long as there is something else they like they can still have fun.
The group should endeavor to include as many likes of its members while mitigating the presence of dislikes. Again this has nothing to do with immagination, it is arranging preferences so that everyone can enjoy themselves. This is done in order to create an environment where everyone present will find value or fun in spending their time in the group activity. This process will be different for every group as each group will have their own unique combination of likes and dislikes and no one arrangement will work for everyone. Sometimes this means that certain people have incompatible likes and dislikes and they may not be able to play together. Usually a middle ground can be reached but not always, and that is okay and it is not petty.
Not everyone has fun imagining the same things.
Allowing everything is the least imaginative way to approach something. It would be more imaginative on the players part to find a character that fit into the setting. Restrictions actually enhance creativity as it challenges you to incorporate others ideas and preferences. Now this is a two way street and the GM should try to incorporate players ideas and preferences into the setting, but there is no obligation on the GMs part to sacrifice their own preferences and possibly the other players as we'll just to accommodate a single players preference. The GM makes the setting, the players make a character in that setting, and the game is the story of what happens to those characters in that setting. It isn't a matter of could, it is a matter of like. If everyone likes awakened pony wizards then it's a go, if only one does it is back to the drawing board. Personal preference is a perfectly valid reason and it is not petty. Otherwise why are you even role playing if the reason can't be because I like it.
Anyone can toss a ball up in the air and catch it, it is much harder to toss several balls in the air and keep them from hitting the ground.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Where are the robots in your setting?
Yeah I read those though there is still nothing in there about awakened pony wizards (nor are they in the bestiary). The section you refer to lists a number of possible races and warnings about using these or any other monster as a PC, still no mention of awakened pony wizards or awakened velociraptor barbarians. If the concept was core you would think it would be mentioned at least once explicitly like the racist dwarves you refer to. Maybe you just imagined it?
Except Pathfinder has those rules, you clearly don't like them BiggDawg, but they are there and high fantasy is exactly the sort of place an Awakened Pony Wizard belongs. Now if I wanted to create an awakened pony wizard from scratch rather using the conviently provided rules of Pathfinder, I would probably use HERO (5th Edition), since it has handled my Drum Island ex-patriate doctor (A REAL DOCTOR!) who has the Tick-Tock Fruit in my friends One piece campaign and allowed me run to pretty fantastic Full Metal Alchemist one shot.
I never stated that I don't like awakened pony wizards, I asked where in the character creation section the rules for making one is (since you stated it was core and since you are so experienced and imaginative I figured you knew what you were talking about).
When I realized there were no such rules I came to the conclusion that you were going outside the rules using advanced imagination and experience. Since with your advanced imagination and experience you also recommended that anyone doing anything outside the rules (such as a low magic game) should find a more appropriate game system I applied that to your situation in order to help you achieve even greater imagination and experience!
GURPS is the perfect system to utilize imagination as it can be whatever you want it to be. No need to cobble together and stretch the rules for Pathfinder, it has everything needed to harness your advanced imagination and experience.
OR I could play a game that has rules for running Awakened Pony Wizards along side Paladins and Alchemists already written up for me with no need to change anything. A game like say... Pathfinder.
That is GURPS except you could also use it to play other genres and you don't need to go outside the rules like you are forced to with Pathfinder to get your awakened pony wizard! It really is the perfect system for someone with advanced imagination and experience. No need to change anything like you have to with Pathfinder, just unlimited freedom to use anything you can think of. Just imagine it!
I never claimed Stever could play an Awakened Pony Wizard at level 1. And I would absolutely make him subtract the cost of an Awaken off his WBL.
Really sounds like you are looking for a different system. GURPS seems perfect for you, it can simulate any kind of setting with anything your advanced imagination and experience can come up with!
Hmm where does it say that you can have the awakened spell cast on you and then have it subtracted from your future WBL? Wouldn't that come out of your starting cash which would be insufficient? Can I start with level 20 WBL at 1st level cause its creative? It sounds like you are the one who doesn't like the rule that there is no option to make an awakened pony wizard in the character creation section. You are the one going outside the rules. Maybe you should try a different game like the HERO system or GURPS which is more modular and you can come up with your own rules.
Torger Miltenberger wrote:
Hmm yeah don't see that in the character creation section of the rules. Sounds like it would be playing a different game. Maybe they should look into another game that has character creation options for the awakened pony wizard since they are going outside the rules. After all if its sound advice for people that want to play low magic Pathfinder then it must be sound advice for people that want to play with awakened pony wizards.
Sounds like you don't put much work into your campaigns or settings and just like to run things off the cuff. Nothing wrong with that. When you get some more imagination and experience I am sure you will be able to put work into your campaigns and settings. Keep practicing I am sure you will get there!
Matt Thomason wrote:
Ah so it is in a book that isn't part of the Paizo core Pathfinder rules. So an awakened pony wizard character is not part of the core game rules as suggested earlier.
If one of my players came to me with this character I would bring down the wrath of Zeus on him for having the hubris to challenge my ultimate authority!
Actually I would be happy that a player put extra effort into a character and would do my best to make it work. The character RD has proposed is within the rules and is no where near as powerful as him just taking Leadership and getting another spell caster at -2 levels.
Even if he took Leadership and got a Wizard cohort who was the character RD suggested it would be fine. At the level of play that this character is at the construct is a cool addition that may provide a few highlights but is not going to further unbalance the game. The game is already unbalanced at that point because you are using high level spells, may as well have some cool stuff to boot.
The CR system has always been more art than science. The truth is no simple formula, like the CR system, can make balanced Pathfinder encounters. The CR system is one of many tools you use to make an encounter fun and challenging. If your players are big optimizers you might need to do a little optimizing of the monsters to reflect that. As always it is a balancing act between challenge and killing the party and finding that sweet spot between the two is unique to each group. I take the CR system for what it is, a useful guideline of how the numbers relate to each other so that I can easily eyeball what group of potential monsters to have in the encounter.
James Risner wrote:
Other than SKR stating that it does not affect attack or saving throw rolls, but I see where you are going and why. Allowing it to work beyond skill and ability checks is going to create a lot of probably unintended consequences, but going with RAW and SKRs comment it seems legit.
The question was How many times per round can I use this ability to heal someone. That is not the same question as how many people per round can I heal.
This still doesn't answer the question if it is once per ally per round or once period per round. The FAQ answers whether you can move over an ally and heal them, and then have them move over you and get healed again (you only get healed once per round).
It doesn't actually clarify if the ability can be used on multiple different allies, it only confirms that an individual ally can only be healed once.
I would use the squeezing rules if two people are in the same square for some reason that doesn't have another rule adjudicating the resolution (like bull rush does). If you cast create pit and two ogres fall into it for example I would rule both ogres are squeezed into the one square at the bottom. Really squares are pretty big areas that can easily fit two people, but it would restrict their movements and I think the squeezing rules reflect that well. So use the squeezing rules if the situation causes two people to occupy the same square. I don't think there is a RAW ruling on what to do this would be a table ruling/house rule.
For some added perspective this is a level 20 Ninja / Mythic Tier 10 Trickster we are talking about. This is literally a demi god of stealth and it only works when another mythic creature is nearby and all it does is effectively give you a 20 on your roll so the same contribution that invisibility grants.
RAW it works. The powers clearly state that you treat the result as if you rolled a natural 20 which is the exact wording of the Mythic Stealth power. People using semantics for the natural 20 wording may be operating under RAI, but RAW it is clear and should work.
It is a Mythic Tier 10 ability so in no way is this overpowered. Yes stealth can be hard to deal with if you have the ability to remove the observed condition and have some cover (which there are several ways to do). In the end though shouldn't the maxed out demi-god of stealth be really good at sneaking.
I do 5/10/15 (for Common/Uncommon/Rare) + CR of the monster for the DC. Achieving the DC gives one question about the monster and every 5 beyond the DC is another question. The character can ask about any of the information lines in the monster stat block (such as AC, HD, Special Attacks, Special Defenses, etc) and I tell them what that stat line says.
People who don't like E6 are just roll players who can't deal with having their OP mechanics taken away. They are always munchkin power gamers with no role playing skills and should go back to WoW and theory craft all the fun out of that game instead of trying to ruin others fun. See how much fun slinging stereotypes is!
If you ready a move you cannot attack until your next action because readying the move took your standard action. You can only ready a single action and it is the action that is resolved you don't get to take any left over actions from your last turn when you took the ready action. If you use a ready action to fall back from an advancing enemy you would move away and that will end your action and your new initiative will be set just before the enemies. There is no way to ready a move and then attack within the same turn, you have to wait until your initiative next round to attack. The only exception would be a 5ft adjust which you could do as part of a readied attack if you otherwise had not moved that turn, but you couldn't take a move action.
Melee weapons are the most prevalent weapon and everyone can wield them and afford them thus being the default combat style. Soldiers in modern warfare have standard weapons that are ranged and incredibly powerful by fantasy standards. If every soldier had a wand of scorching ray it would be more similar. The point of the post was to illustrate that while high magic warfare has many things in common with modern warfare there are still distinct differences from the base pathfinder rules assumptions.
Agreed the things you listed are reasons GMs use to nerf things. Sorry for the misreading of your statement. There are other reasons to nerf things as well, but those are probably the main ones.
Yet, the reason the GM nerfs it is because, if he sees it as OP, (which in this case he shouldn't) the options to make the game the same for all the players is 1.)Nerf, 2.)Bring in a more powerful foe for 1 person to take. Now option 1 is unliked because it can shut down a build, but option 2 leads to TPK if the 1 powerful player goes down because the fight was appropriately challenged for him, the dice got mad, and everyone else didn't stand a chance. Otherwise, a player might feel unchallenged by the game, which takes away from it.
or #3 the GM finds some of the myriad of creatures that don't rely on a single melee attack and uses them once in awhile to challenge the monk and the rest of the time he allows the monk to use his cool ability to block an attack to feel like a damn hero.
One thing to keep in mind when comparing warfare in a high magic setting to modern warfare is that while offensively magic can mimic certain modern warfare weapons magic also far outstrips defensive modern warfare measures. Counter spelling is something that has no modern warfare equivalent. Soldiers cannot dispel a mortar round in their midst nor can they shoot down enemy bullets. So while certain aspects of warfare in a high magic setting will resemble modern warfare there are still distinct differences.
With sufficient magical protection you very well could have massed groups fighting each other as hand to hand fighting is still the base mode of combat for the vast majority of people in the world. Sure magic can tear up a massed group, but it could also protect it. Whether protecting a massed group is economically viable depends on the various costs involved and whether or not the commander is considering the economic viewpoint of the situation.