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

Cranefist's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 411 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 411 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Cranefist wrote:

I pumped up the Clanky fight for this weekend because the party is coming in at 3rd level. What do you think?

These are mods and select stats. I didn't recopy their whole sheet.

The priest heard the party coming so he has already popped off an Enlarge before initiative.

Do you think the damage on the explosion at half life should stay the same? Should he still explode at half life, or at the original target number?

Skizzertz Cleric level 4

AC 17 HP 31 / Fort +6 Ref +5 Will +6
MW Falchion +5 d6 18+
Negative Channel 2d6 DC 9 3 /
Concentration +6

Strength Surge +2 5 /
Copy Cat 5 / (4 Rounds)

Bless
Command
Enlarge (Spent)
Cause Fear

Invisibility
Bull’s Strength
Regenerate Construct 4d6

Wand Cure Light Wounds d8+1 20/
Feat: Knowledge Engineering

Clanky CR 4 Large and Advanced, and Enlarged by the Spell, 10’ Reach

Extra Bonuses

+2 on all rolls, excluding below
+3 on strength rolls
+5 on Attack Rolls
+12 on Damage Rolls

Furious Assault

Explosion DC REF 13
AC 20 (19)
CMD 22
HP 48 /
(Explodes at 24)

The three pcs were supplemented with a 3rd level fighter. The fighter was down 9 HP from full and selected at random by the roll of a die for Clanky's attack, which hit and critted, killing him instantly. It was really horrible.

The party was able to cut the golem down by drawing it into the hallway and then jamming shut the door to the kitchen. The priest still got off a 4d6 heal and a Bull's Strength, but not much else.


I pumped up the Clanky fight for this weekend because the party is coming in at 3rd level. What do you think?

These are mods and select stats. I didn't recopy their whole sheet.

The priest heard the party coming so he has already popped off an Enlarge before initiative.

Do you think the damage on the explosion at half life should stay the same? Should he still explode at half life, or at the original target number?

Skizzertz Cleric level 4

AC 17 HP 31 / Fort +6 Ref +5 Will +6
MW Falchion +5 d6 18+
Negative Channel 2d6 DC 9 3 /
Concentration +6

Strength Surge +2 5 /
Copy Cat 5 / (4 Rounds)

Bless
Command
Enlarge (Spent)
Cause Fear

Invisibility
Bull’s Strength
Regenerate Construct 4d6

Wand Cure Light Wounds d8+1 20/
Feat: Knowledge Engineering

Clanky CR 4 Large and Advanced, and Enlarged by the Spell, 10’ Reach

Extra Bonuses

+2 on all rolls, excluding below
+3 on strength rolls
+5 on Attack Rolls
+12 on Damage Rolls

Furious Assault

Explosion DC REF 13
AC 20 (19)
CMD 22
HP 48 /
(Explodes at 24)


Xzaral wrote:

I like the idea of saying the sun provides concealment and making it a stealth roll. Seems the fairest method to deal with.

Most of the rest of the encounter is already set. A few weak fellows with heavy crossbows and flaming bolts on shore (it's a river barge encounter) targeting the ship and crew, and a fighter (archer specialized) to throw into the mix (feats specializing on far shot/improved far shot).

It is more than concealment though. When I'm outside on a bright day, I actively avoid looking at the sun. I could go the whole day without looking up at the bright sun. I mean seriously, if something starts off too high in the sky to see, perhaps by guiding its flight by crystal ball, and then comes at you from the sun, you would never see it.

You would have to hear it coming. You are literally trying not to look at it.

I'd add a +20 bonus, and then roll again without a bonus when it is like 100' away, for like one guy working the ropes on the ship who might not be flatfooted during the surprise round.


Great job on this thread. I've always liked Solars.


18 people marked this as a favorite.

Then someone joins your game and craps color spray, sleep and glitter dust with their fairy blooded, 20 charisma sorcerer all over your NPCs and you forget all about the power creep you thought you saw.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Do we remember that this is a fantasy game? That wizard can kill a dragon with a few spells. Why can't someone get some strange by being clever and rolling some dice? Does he need to cast a charm spell to make it acceptable? Does the wizard have to roll a guilt check when he one-shots a monster?

Creeps in real life have to be clever to get laid. My character shows up in town with bags of gold and magic, rocking 12 pack abs and a new bardic tune that sounds like the greatest song ever written. Him getting laid is implied. No one has to talk about it. You could litterally just start a scene with, "ok Cranefist, your character is in some lady's bedchamber when you here a commotion from the street. What are you doing?" and no one would bat an eye.


I know you people don't role play your heroes love making, do you?

Jesus.

Here is how I handle it:

"Your heroes arrive in the glorious town of Elvindrel, where blissful sounds of laughter and music rise from the inn and many untended women catch your eye as you pass through the closing markets. After celebrating to your contentment, you wake up in a second floor room of the Drowning Inn. What are you doing?"

Then one of the players always says, "I didn't celebrate. I went straight to the temple to pray."

Then someone else usually says, "I camp outside the city with my dire tiger."

Then I say, "ok, so you meet at the inn. What are you doing?"

I can't stress this enough: you don't got to RP everything. Just because you are running a game for Biggus Dichus and Hecktor the Well-Endowed doesn't mean you have to think through the details of their revelry. That stuff is all superhero secrets.


The primary thing in adventure gaming that I've always thought was kind of stupid is when NPCs take fights they can't win, or stay in fights when that becomes clear.

Lets say you are 4 goblins and 4 guys armed to the teeth come walking through the woods. There isn't a deer in half a mile because of the noise of their walking in the woods. For some reason though, these goblins will take the fight.

Then you got the CR 5, INT 13, teleporting demon who will take on the paladin and wizard for no reason other than they are there.

How about the 10th level wizard who even fights a PC group instead of just vanishing through a portal - what's he thinking?

Modules and PFS is so funny because you always have this parade of suicidal NPCs that will happily rush into a losing battle and stay to the bitter end.

Your rogues and rangers constantly scouting ahead are way more important in a game where NPCs won't take fights unless they think they can win. If you give the vast majority of the villains in your world a healthy dose of self preservation, the party will only get an easy fight if they are somehow able to initiate it by surprise. In almost all other cases, NPCs flee unless they think they can win. Often they will flee fights they can win if they don't know who is attacking them and are caught by surprise.


"Your brain is a dry as a biscuit after a long voyage."

"There is as much fight in thee as in a stewed prune."

"I would like to meet thee, but I should infect my hand."


the secret fire wrote:


It's not like the game is even close to a simulation. If it were, nobody would try to hit someone in full plate with a longsword.

By the time you can manage it with any consistency, you are probably skilled enough to kill like 6 lightly armed dudes in a fight. I assume when my 3rd level fighter is swinging a longsword at platemail, every strike is this deadly accurate, superhuman technique of captain america level proportions, because there is no living human being, now or ever, as competent in a fight as a third level fighter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Cranefist wrote:


For the record, I think PF is the best it can be. Rule 0 lets you run it simulationist style or run it by the rule of cool. It is up to you.

Well, that argument suggests that any rpg is the best it can be -- and also the worst it can be, since Rule 0 has an equivalent in literally every game with which I'm familiar.

Quote:


It aggravates me that the sling is so weak because I want to play my unarmored Irish barbarian with his berzerker rage and his sling in his pocket, chucking stones, eating potatoes and drinking dark beer. I can't do that in PF by the book because it is terrible to use a sling in this game.

I'm not entirely sure what prevents you from doing that. The difference between a sling and a bow is 1d4 vs 1d6 (or 1d8) for a longbow, either of which will be dwarfed by the +305 damage bonus a barbarian routinely adds to his attacks.

Die Size is how you show the table who the boss is.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I never said slings took less time to train. But we're not getting into this. If you really want to discuss this, go to one of the threads I linked (or find another—there's tons). This isn't the thread for it.

Sometimes to get to the truth, you need people to hash out a specific example. Sling vs. Longbow is a perfect place to start. I'm sure over the course of the conversation, you will be able to learn more about people and why they have the preferences that they do.

For the record, I think PF is the best it can be. Rule 0 lets you run it simulationist style or run it by the rule of cool. It is up to you.

It aggravates me that the sling is so weak because I want to play my unarmored Irish barbarian with his berzerker rage and his sling in his pocket, chucking stones, eating potatoes and drinking dark beer. I can't do that in PF by the book because it is terrible to use a sling in this game.

If you want to talk about places where the rule of cool has been flipped and the writers are using the rule of uncool just to crap on me, the bard not being able to cast Gravity Bow is one of those places.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Mattastrophic wrote:

Pathfinder seems to be stuck between the simulationist design philosophy and the, well, fantasy design philosophy, which is not unexpected for a system using 15-year-old rules, rules with their own legacy issues, at its core.

It appears that we have an Old Way of, for example, longbows being Just Better than shuriken, in competition with a New Way of a style-first, any-concept-flies approach, where a shuriken-user is just as viable as a longbow-wielder.

In other words... let's hope that 2nd Ed does away with backwards compatibility, so it can jettison the Old Ways which hold the system back.

-Matt

Good post, but play that backwards. I don't need rules for anything other than simulation. If everyone is equal and everyone is badass, I'll just hash out the victory conditions with paper / scissor / rock.

They need to start kicking out more of the dumb stuff - punching dragons in the face, sword-chucks, using Performance to Stealth and all that jaz.


I've found that with Pathfinder, I end up adjusting encounters a lot on the fly. When you are running for a well optimized party, sometimes modules, or even home brewed games, can end up feeling a little like a walk in the park.

Now, I'm with everyone else when it comes to saving a player's behind from some bad rolls. For example, say a rogue does his job and hunts for traps just ahead of the party, doubles up on failed rolls, and then suffers a critical hit from the monster in the next room that was waiting for him. WOOPS!

In that case, I'll do something sneaky like look at the players sheet like I want to see if he passed his saving throw for sure, but really be double checking his HP. Then I'll just award damage that is like 4-6 off from killing him, instead of causing his head to come clean off.

That's not really an issue most of the time though. Most of the time, I'm sitting there ADDING special powers to monsters, bumping up their hit points, or secretly giving them some DR or automatically letting them pass an opening saving throw or two. No one likes to win a fight just because the wizard color sprayed the BBEG or the fighter went first and critical hit its head off.

The important part is gauging when the players feel like they are having a challenge. Most of the time, it is only coming off as a challenge if the party blew through most of their spells and spread some damage around. Dropping a PC counts as well, as long as the monster gets off two good rounds of action.

The real difficult part is deciding just how much experience you want to award. If the party was against a CR 8 when they are APL 4 and they would have trashed it in the first round without spending much, you just got to bump that down to a CR 4, because that's what it is. On the other hand, if you drop an extra 60 HP or a couple hero points and free saves on the CR 8, is he a CR 10 or 12 now?

In my opinion, no. He's just a CR 8 because you made him feel like an 8, whatever you had to do to get it there.


gnoams wrote:
The biggest issue I've found with pfs scenarios, especially the newer ones, is that the writers don't trust the GMs. If the writer trusted the GM, they'd give each NPC a set of motives and goals. Then each GM would be able to play out the encounters to react to their players' approach. Instead, scenarios are written with rigid instructions, npcs are forced to attack the players in obviously stupid situations. Only in pfs would two bandits think it a great idea to try robbing 6 heavily armed individuals, and fight to the death.

It has to be hard to write an adventure that has 4-6 encounters along with something to think about or solve. If you write in motivations and leave it up to GMs, you run the risk of NPCs acting intelligently, which will just screw the game up.

For example, PFS strawman scenario #1: A group of orcs steal a wand and try to escape back to "Orctown" with it so that they can sell it to an Orc shaman. PC's win by recovering the wand.

In a PFS scenario, the orcs would camp in a cave complex and spread out in random patches through a cave system so that the party could attack them in their sleep and have several encounters.

If a GM just had motivations, the orcs would split into two groups, each thinking it had the wand. They would ride hard, raid a farm and steal fresh horses, and then continue riding. They, working for a wizard, would bring a spell scroll that could conceal their tracks, or hell, just teleport the wand back to the wizard. Maybe the orcs would take a hostage or even hire guards. In any case, they would never split up and their would only be a single encounter with the orcs in a day, when or lose.

It is hard to shoehorn thinking NPCs into 6 encounters. I'm running Emerald Tower right now, and the first two levels are just filled full of lazy, incompetent or unintelligent enemies that are barely capable of working together. If they were men instead of goblins, they would blow a horn and fight you all at once.


Good stuff gents.

Here is my play report:

Exactly as I predicted, the party has opted to not have anything to do with the Fort. The first thing they did was free some farming slaves and kill the headman of a plantation, not giving a crap that slavery is legal in the area. Then they led the posse and the local ranger on a merry, overland chase until finally escaping into the safety of Echo Wood. If the party comes out of the dungeon at all, it will be for the rogue to disguise himself and travel to sell gear.

Don't know player characters I've ever met go along with helping anti-paladins, paying taxes, or condoning slavery.

I like the dungeon so far, but the background is silly.

The best tie in I could get was for the Seven Foxes to have an escape root for slaves to get out of country, and the party to randomly meet one of its agents on the way to the tower - an agent who tipped them off about the head of the Seven Foxes in the fort.


leo1925 wrote:
Cranefist wrote:

It is so funny to me that someone would read "one-handed slashing weapon" and think that the sickle or dagger were excluded.

Sometimes, when a rule doesn't make sense, you need to think about it the way common English speakers would.

"You can use any slashing weapon that you can wield in one hand, and add your dexterity modifier to damage."

"Oh you mean like knifes and swords and stuff?"

"Yes."

What's so funny about reading the rule correctly?

It's stupid.


Malwing wrote:
Charlie Brooks wrote:

I like the game pretty well as-is. While I have a page of house rules I make use of, I'd be willing to run or play in a rules-as-written game without any complaints.

I look forward to future innovations with the game and would like an eventual 2nd edition to streamline the rules a bit, but overall Pathfinder provides what I want out of an RPG better than any other system I've found.

Honestly I've played with zero house rules and the game isn't terrible. There's a few quirks that I'd probably do away with but a vast majority of things that people complain about online almost never show up.

The #1 house rule I like to play with is granting the bonuses of an average typical set of big six items to all characters, regardless of class, as they level up according to WBL. There are many ifs, thens and thats involved in this house rule I don't want to get into.

With that rule in place, no one feels a need to get X items for their character and it takes the stress out of the game that power gamers feel. I then ban item crafting and magic item stores and leave nothing in but item drops, mostly no bonus wonderous items or weapons and armor with special abilities and more odd ball stuff.

When I play RAW, people get excited at first about the magic item store, but then quickly realize what a piece of crap the game is when you spend your own playing time discussing treasure, passing out loot, and buying items with a group fund with optimization in mind. All that stuff sucks.


It is so funny to me that someone would read "one-handed slashing weapon" and think that the sickle or dagger were excluded.

Sometimes, when a rule doesn't make sense, you need to think about it the way common English speakers would.

"You can use any slashing weapon that you can wield in one hand, and add your dexterity modifier to damage."

"Oh you mean like knifes and swords and stuff?"

"Yes."


So, I'm getting ready to run a big adventure that is suppose to go from levels 1-13 or so.

As a part of my game prep, I rolled up the magic items for sale in the town and surrounding area. Using the suggested spread for an area a size larger, there is a 75% chance any item of 4000gps or lower is available, plus 10 minor, 7 medium and 4 major magic items.

Without getting into the nitty-gritty, I rolled up a bunch of crap. Most of it was just potions and scrolls. The stuff that wasn't, half was still just crap no character in the group would want.

By the time they are 13th level, if they start packing close to 140,000gps a piece, they won't be worrying a whole lot about their 4000gp magic items.

Keeping up rolling randomly for treasure and the outrageous tedium of rolling up the items for sale if the party were to travel, I would spend hours making lists and it would still all be crap.

My point is, if you follow the suggestions in the book, the party would never have quality gear at higher level unless they make it themselves.

The only other option is for the GM to just use the hand of god to drop the party gear they want, or to constantly roll random gear for all the towns in the campaign until the party can find what they are looking for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Cranefist wrote:
Corrik wrote:

I wish the entire internet had a downvote button.

I'm not going to explain the concept of specialized fields of knowledge, but I will humorously picture you fuming at a hospital. If you want gravity bow, take levels in a class that can get it.

Where in Pathfinder is the school of specialized knowledge? Do Bards with Spellcraft only understand Bard spells? Do Bards have to return for training to learn new Charisma based effects? Are they always studying, what, their 1st level Bard text book they got before the first session?

Bards have specialized knowledge because they know fewer spells than a sorcerer. Each Bard individually has limited knowledge. What spells they can pick from is besides the point.

Apparently not, since they're only allowed to pick from a limited list representing spells that a bard is capable of casting using whatever means a bard uses to cast spells. If you want your bard to learn to adapt spells that bards normally cannot cast, there's an archetype for that.

boooorrriiinnngggg

I don't think there is a justification for the spell lists.

"We should have spell lists cause D&D."

"How many spells go on the list?"

"You have to fit them on 7 pages."

"Got it."


Silent Saturn wrote:

I'm also pro-spell list, but I sympathize with the OP in that sometimes it seems a tad arbitrary who gets which spells. With Gravity Bow, my biggest gripe isn't that bards don't get it, it's that Sorcerers and Wizards do. A sorcerer or wizard shouldn't be pulling out their crossbow except as a last resort, much less spending spell slots to buff their crossbow damage.

I would be in favor of a general mechanic for learning spells of other classes, so that this theoretical archer bard COULD learn Gravity Bow, if he were to devote additional resources to it and perhaps get it as a higher-level spell. This way, you can indeed go "off the table" if you really want to, but there's still the idea of "this is the kind of things you're good at".

I honestly think Bards don't get gravity bow so that they make worse arcane archers. I am working towards one now, and so I've got 1 level of sorcerer and two of fighter, with true strike and gravity bow.

I would like to make a skald arcane archer, but they don't get the basic arcane archer spell either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jorshamo wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Cranefist wrote:
blahpers wrote:
To turn this around: Why should bards have it on their spell list?
Because Bards can use other level 1 transmutation spells, such as Animate Rope and Featherfall. If gravity bow were different than those spells, it wouldn't be transmutation. If it were harder, it would be a different level. Bards should have Gravity Bow, along with all other level 1 arcane transmutation spells. If a spell isn't good for a Bard, then the bard won't bother taking it. They don't need a list.
So, bards should be able to cast all 1st level transmutation spells? How is that any less arbitrary than the current approach?
What, do you think Bards shouldn't be able to cast Animate Dead? They can cast 3rd level necromancy spells, like Fear, so why not raise the dead? They're in the same school, so they obviously must be equivalent. There's no way one school could have lots of different types of spells. That'd be absurd.

A Bard should definitely be able to cast Animate Dead. The dabbling, bumbling traveler messing with powers like that is an old trope. If it were more powerful than fear, it would be a higher level. If it called on different magic or knowledge than fear, it would be in a different school.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Cranefist wrote:
blahpers wrote:
To turn this around: Why should bards have it on their spell list?
Because Bards can use other level 1 transmutation spells, such as Animate Rope and Featherfall. If gravity bow were different than those spells, it wouldn't be transmutation. If it were harder, it would be a different level. Bards should have Gravity Bow, along with all other level 1 arcane transmutation spells. If a spell isn't good for a Bard, then the bard won't bother taking it. They don't need a list.

I, in general, agree. I really can't see a logical reason why spells are so limited. I mean, it's magic. Giving all casters 0-9 spell lists and simply spreading them out if they have 0-6 or 1-4 casting would have been nice for consistency's sake.

Random thoughts ...
1. Create a feat that lets you grab a few spells of other lists, something kind of like that Paladin feat Unsanctioned Knowledge, I think it's called.
2. Allow a kind of stripped-down version of spell research, easier and cheaper because the spell already exists, you just need to translate it.
3. Let people poach of other spell lists by determining what level the original class gets it at, then letting the poaching class get it at the next level at which they learn new spells. So, f'rex, Rangers get gravity bow at 4th level, IIRC. A Bard could take it as a spell known at 7th, as that's when they gain their next level of spells known.

I think those are good and reasonable compromises if there were players that were actually split on the issue.

When I tell players that both they and NPC enemies can pick whatever, I've never had a complaint, and things that seem unfair or unbalanced have never come out of it.


blahpers wrote:
Cranefist wrote:
blahpers wrote:
To turn this around: Why should bards have it on their spell list?
Because Bards can use other level 1 transmutation spells, such as Animate Rope and Featherfall. If gravity bow were different than those spells, it wouldn't be transmutation. If it were harder, it would be a different level. Bards should have Gravity Bow, along with all other level 1 arcane transmutation spells. If a spell isn't good for a Bard, then the bard won't bother taking it. They don't need a list.
So, bards should be able to cast all 1st level transmutation spells? How is that any less arbitrary than the current approach?

It is inclusive and doesn't use metagaming story stuff like, "flavor," to justify why things are a certain way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:

I wish the entire internet had a downvote button.

I'm not going to explain the concept of specialized fields of knowledge, but I will humorously picture you fuming at a hospital. If you want gravity bow, take levels in a class that can get it.

Where in Pathfinder is the school of specialized knowledge? Do Bards with Spellcraft only understand Bard spells? Do Bards have to return for training to learn new Charisma based effects? Are they always studying, what, their 1st level Bard text book they got before the first session?

Bards have specialized knowledge because they know fewer spells than a sorcerer. Each Bard individually has limited knowledge. What spells they can pick from is besides the point.


blahpers wrote:
To turn this around: Why should bards have it on their spell list?

Because Bards can use other level 1 transmutation spells, such as Animate Rope and Featherfall. If gravity bow were different than those spells, it wouldn't be transmutation. If it were harder, it would be a different level. Bards should have Gravity Bow, along with all other level 1 arcane transmutation spells. If a spell isn't good for a Bard, then the bard won't bother taking it. They don't need a list.


leo1925 wrote:
Ehmm, gravity bow is an arcane spell, it's just happens to be on the ranger's list which happens to be divine.

Yeah, but it isn't on the Bard list because Bard's, what, could use it?

Too taxing?

Bards aren't in the woods enough?

Bards aren't good casters?

Bards don't use bows?

Rangers get it.

It is like someone just randomly picked X spells for each list, for the sake of making lists.


Complaining time - man, I hate character spell lists. I really do.

I'll sit there thinking about how I'm going to make this cool bard archer. When I finish up by writing down his spells, Gravity Bow isn't on the list.

Or when I go to make a Summoner and get level 2 spells. Well, I guess I can either take Haste or handicap myself, because I'm getting these spells later than a wizard but for some reason I have an odd ball 3rd level spell on it.

I wish that there were only 3 spell lists: Arcane, Divine and Nature, and everyone just pulled off of those.

If anything, Gravity Bow should be Arcane, because you are transmuting a random object, not Nature, because bows are used in the woods.

It would also be better if they didn't jack around with the level of spells between classes. You are basically picking spells for me when you do that.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The solution is ridiculously simple: give the classes that are supposed to be mobile (swashbuckler, monk) an ability at level 1 which says that if they take the full attack action then they can move up to their speed, breaking up that movement between attacks as desired.

What's the worst that could happen? The guy isn't getting any more attacks than usual, just getting the attacks he's earned while being, y'know, mobile!

And then everybody dips, and two handed barbars, fighters and paladins are making their full attack sequence while moving. Nevermind that they can somewhat do it everytime, now not every barbar needs beast totem to do so, fighters don't have to wait for level 11 on dervish of dawn, and paladin can now smite full attack while moving.

Right. They shouldn't have to dip to get that. It should be part of the base combat mechanics.

Meh, while I agree, I think the nature of the game might need to be changed for that. Not that it shouldn't already, but even a moderately well built martial should annihilate just about anything CR appropriate in a single full attack.

Honestly I've always felt like the game would be much better served by the removal of most save or sucks, especially any and all AOE ones, and the reduction of damage overall.

Same here. Bet that's not what happens in P2e


Sounds good. I'll make an effort to keep it going. Thanks gents.


Sorry I haven't been on.

I really enjoy this game but I got a couple new clients at work and I just can't seem to find the time to sit and think about the game or write anything intelligent that isn't work related.

I really like this game and you guys invested a lot in your characters. If someone would like to take over running it, you are welcome.

I'm not sure I'll be able to post consistently enough to make it worthwhile to you.


Sorry I haven't been posting much. I had a big uptick in my level of busy, and haven't been able to think. I'm sure tomorrow I'll be back to posting more often.

Thank you.


Drachasor wrote:
Cranefist wrote:

The new classes are goofy. I prefer games with only the core classes. I like it even better if no one is playing a monk or a bard.

The best characters in the game are fighters, rogues, paladins, rangers, clerics, and wizards. Everything else is gimmicky and extraneous.

One could say the Fighters and Rogues are also gimmicky and extraneous.

Anyhow, I'm all for classes and options that help players realize a concept that they like and be effective at it.

They aren't though. You can say anything, but that doesn't make it so.

I'm not for players realizing every concept when their concept doesn't actually make a coherent picture. Your vivisectionist ninja gunslinger from a quiet town in rural Britian is non-sense, and it ruins the flow of the game to have to cater to every crappy three color whim to pop up into someone's head because they noticed a three book combo for more damage.


I think the main reason for building a sandbox is because you personally get a sense of satisfaction out of making it, and because once it is built, it will spontaneously generate adventures as you mull things over in your mind - a living world.

Unfortunately, if you love it you have to be willing to let it go. The second a player figures out that you are attached to the boundaries of the sandbox, they will either check out emotionally because they see the edges, or they will try to get you to break it by leaving the area or killing the king.

The best way to make it work is to give it the illusion of being without boarders, but building the sandbox into a larger world map and not specifying its limits, but by adding the interesting locations within those limits, so that the boarder on the map isn't seen.

When you play it that way, you get the simultaneous living world feel mixed with the feeling that the world goes on forever, and that it is all connected together in a shared consciousness, allowing for greater immersion, which is the main goal of sandbox play usually.


The new classes are goofy. I prefer games with only the core classes. I like it even better if no one is playing a monk or a bard.

The best characters in the game are fighters, rogues, paladins, rangers, clerics, and wizards. Everything else is gimmicky and extraneous.


Have a great trip!


Thanks for the dl. Your work is beautiful. I fully respect the labor of love.


I played a rogue with those stats once. He was basically a giant freaking guy, batman villain level, with a crap ton of skills. He wasn't a do it yourself kind of guy - more of a master mind with a bunch of knowledges and magical ability.


I'd like to play. I love intro games.


thejeff wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Cranefist wrote:

The Jeff, upwards of half of my games end with the party losing. I make encounters hard enough that even approached correctly they can lose on dice. I do not think decision making is interesting unless you can pick wrong. I do not think dice are interesting unless you can fail. I will not run a game unless I find it personally engaging. Anyone who doesn't like that is invited not to play.

I know 2 gamers I don't run for anymore because they like stories where they automatically win. They don't like my games but will play anyway.

You can know the difference between a auto kill and a winnable encounter by asking to see stats after it is over and asking the GM what could have been done to win.

As a personal rule for myself, and I can manage this because I don't GM for kids that run psychos, I do not kill pcs with enemies I have not statted up and I roll my dice in the open.

In-game glory and true enjoyment, or thrill, comes from a hard struggle.

Or so I believe... *looks to dead pcs*

I've said before that I'm more interested in plot, characterization and success or failure on a larger scale than in "hard struggle" on an encounter basis.

Figuring out what the nefarious villian's plot is and how to stop it is far more of an interesting challenge than beating up one more of his minions.

Every good mystery can be solved by a reader by the clue given. Only chump novelists give you a surprise ending that couldn't be solved.

Is the game still fun for you if you can't figure out how to solve it, or do you expect the gm to let you solve it?


I buy maps with locations, npcs and story hooks, with dungeons and area maps. I don't buy choose your own adventure books with 100 pages of plot.


Nem-Z wrote:


4. Treat player wealth as a category, not an amount. If you have wealth X you can afford stuff Y on a typical trip to town, or item Z but only at the cost of reducing your wealth a step, etc.

This is a terrible rule. Exhalted works this way and it always manages to ruin a game session. How much money do I have? I don't know, you have Z money. What does that mean? No one knows. I can't picture my character.

I buy swords for everyone in town to get ready for the orcs.

You can't, or you will go down from Z to aa wealth.

Why? 100 swords cost less than a half dozen horses, but that's on the list of things I can have.

You are limited to 99 small items, 12 master craft items, or 6 horses per full moon.

Seriously, gold is easier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Jeff, upwards of half of my games end with the party losing. I make encounters hard enough that even approached correctly they can lose on dice. I do not think decision making is interesting unless you can pick wrong. I do not think dice are interesting unless you can fail. I will not run a game unless I find it personally engaging. Anyone who doesn't like that is invited not to play.

I know 2 gamers I don't run for anymore because they like stories where they automatically win. They don't like my games but will play anyway.

You can know the difference between a auto kill and a winnable encounter by asking to see stats after it is over and asking the GM what could have been done to win.

As a personal rule for myself, and I can manage this because I don't GM for kids that run psychos, I do not kill pcs with enemies I have not statted up and I roll my dice in the open.


You don't need many rules. Just make a 6th level character and play him. Take a new feat when the GM says. The most important aspect towards the feel of the game is what level npcs are and what classes they can have. If most npcs are 5-6 level, the game seems realistic if not fantastic. If most npcs are 1st level, it feels like Exhalted.


Well, can't hate on you for that. I'm running E6 right now, starting the party out at 6th level, and I like this game better than most of the one's I've run. I'm probably never going to run another Pathfinder game using the leveling up system. I love having the characters just straight established and then branching out.


AdamMeyers wrote:
You know, no one commented on my +2 feats at level 1. What do people think of that idea, as a way of letting people play their character concepts early, rather than waiting until level such-and-such to use the fighting style they were supposed to be using since they were a kid, etc.?

I personally like these sorts of things, but I think the GM should pick them for the players based on back story.

All you will actually end up with is a bunch of people taking the next best power up, rather than feats the diversify their character based on history. You aren't going to get a two handed weapon fighter who is also a shabby horse archer because he grew up on the plains. He's just going to start with Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Cleave, Furious Assault and Step Up, instead of Power Attack, Cleave, Furious Assault, Mounted Combat, Mounted Archery.

Keep in mind that the dice don't dictate flavor text. Watch this.

My first level fighter attacks. d20+5=23. Damage = 6. My first level fighter stabs you once for 6 damage.

My first level fighter attacks. d20+5=23. Damage = 6. My first level fighter dances in a circle, feints left, and then stabs you three quick times for 6 damage.

Tuh duh - I'm playing my character on no feats at first level by describing what he is doing.

If you play with this rule, don't be surprised if EVERY wizard in your game has Improved Initiative and Combat Casting at level one on top of their trick.


Alright, house rule is in.

Any character can make any combat maneuver. The target only gets an AoO if the combat maneuver isn't successful.


E6 Feels epic to me. I'm running an E6 game on the pbp forum and it is coming off as really high powered. Normal people can absolutely not touch 6th level characters or compete at their level.


Arcanemuses wrote:
Silva was taking the total defense action (sorry, I saw no crane style applied). Weidman caught him with a feint that only appeared to be a flurry of blows (see the backhand that served merely as a distraction). That's my take.

A feint? Ha. That makes him a rogue. No doubt he stole the title XD

1 to 50 of 411 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 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.