I didn't get excited about it :( Unfortunately most of that lack of excitement stems from my views of the first film - I really didn't find Peter Parker to be a likeable character - he was a bit of a dick. Also I didn't hear the "With great power..." line.
In terms of this trailer - there seems too many villains so none of them get much screen time in the trailer. Also Harry Osborn looks too pantomime villain to me, almost like emo-Peter in Spider-Man 3.
I think Arikiel means that he won't be purchasing D&D Next while WotC / Hasbro own it, however I agree that he does care about how D&D Next does otherwise why comment.
If D&D Next was massively successful (it probably won't be) to the point that Pathfinder sales and player network is diminished to some extent, then I think Arikiel and many others would care about that.
I'd like to say that, in general, I agree with this sentiment. I don't agree in all cases and situations, but for the most part, I agree.
I agree with pretty much everything you said there! :)
Diego Rossi wrote:
I really think you are overestimating what we are suggesting as an option.
All we are suggesting is that it is possible to play D&D campaigns with a particular focus - mercenary based, investigative, kingdom building, magic focussed etc - and that if your players have expressed a desire to play one of those types of more focused campaigns and you as GM are willing to write your own scenarios or adjust published scenarios then it makes sense to tailor the campaign to meet the desires of the players.
That doesn't mean you can't have traps - just don't make them too common, and maybe not too difficult to defeat / disable / overcome so the players have a chance to do so.
Also make it so that the plot doesn't rely on overcoming the traps - if its a dungeon bash have another tunnel circumvent the traps but requires the PCs to scale a cliff, or cross a river of lava, or encounter monsters or something else.
Ditto for magic stuff, if none of your PCs are magic users, by all means have magical threats, but don't write a scenario that in order to progress requires a PC to dispel some magic or detect magic etc.
If the GM is using a published scenario and makes this clear to their players and also makes it clear that they won't be adjusting the scenario for the actual party's abilities, then yeah it would be smart to cover all the traditional bases.
However, if the GM is writing their own scenario, or is willing to adapt a published scenario, they should see their players choice of characters as a message saying "this is the type of game we want to play" and the smart GM will then write the scenario around that party makeup.
All these posts, including the quotes from SKR and JJ, just make me realise that this area is royally screwed up.
I really wish it had all been left as it was in 3.5 - it may not be as quick to adjudicate such temporary changes on the fly but I believe everyone would be clear what the changes would be.
Oh, well, I will just continue to GM PFS as best I can, and be thankful that I still run 3.5 outside of PFS.
James Risner wrote:
The fact that James Risner and I have completely opposite readings of the rules on this matter, both of us believe we are running it by RAW and both of us would rule like this in Pathfinder Society Organised Play (where rule variance really shouldn't happen) shows pretty clearly that Paizo could do with adding Ability Bonuses, Damage and Penalties to the FAQ.
It makes the distinction between the ability increase (ie the affect causing the increase the to the ability score, such as Bull's Strength) and the temporary bonus (the limited bonus to you modifier) clearer.
What part of that paragraph says the bonus is applied to your ability modifier? It states that the bonus is applied to the skills and statistics listed.
As it is now, people read Ability Score Bonuses and think mistakenly, as you do, that it heading is meant to cover the bonus to an ability instead of the bonus (modifier) the ability score gives.
So you feel the heading of "Ability Score Bonuses" is not meant to mean "Bonuses to the Ability Score" but rather "Bonuses derived from the Ability Score", yes?
The trouble is Paizo are quite bad for using the terminology, look at the last paragraph of that section...
PF Core rulebook, page 555 wrote:
Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours.
Here, I believe when they refer to Ability Bonus they mean Ability Score Bonus, and apart from that lack of clarity, the rest of the sentence makes it clear when it means bonus here it is referring to the bonus to the score, not the modifier.
So when they explicitly call the heading of the section "Ability Score Bonuses" I feel they are referring to "Bonuses to the Ability Score" and thus talking about the +4 that Bull's Strength gives.
Similarly the next section is the inverse and has a header of "Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain". By putting "Penalty" in that header on the same level as Damage and Drain I believe Paizo are referring to Penalties to the Ability Score, not penalties derived from Ability Scores.
So yeah, when I read the header "Ability Score Bonuses" as meaning "Bonuses to the Ability Score" I don't believe I am mistaken.
Strength has an ability score is that what you mean? And when people say that their character has a Strength of 16 they are usually referring to the score, so shorthand Strength usually refers to the Strength Score (but then if someone said their PC had a Strength of +3 I would by context know they are referring to the modifier).
But lets say for sake of argument Strength refers to the Strength Score.
B.) Does Strength bonus = a positive modifier from an ability score?
Yes, the Strength bonus is a positive strength modifier
If both those are yes, then it should be obvious that Strength bonus, by pure definition is an Ability Score Bonus.
Strength is an ability and it has a Score and a Modifier (which may be a Bonus or a Penalty or a flat +0).
If we, for shorthand, use "Strength" to mean "Strength Score", then you seem to be arguing that "Strength Bonus" could be expanded to mean "Strength Score Bonus", but I wouldn't say that is correct because when we use the word "Strength" in "Strength Bonus" we are not using it as shorthand to mean "Strength Score" rather it is simply a reference to the ability.
If I were to use "Strength" as shorthand to mean "Strength Bonus", when I then say "Strength Score" I don't mean "Strength Bonus Score" because I don't know what that means.
As I said "Strength" is an ability that has both a Score ("Strength Score") and a Modifier ("Strength Modifier") the latter being derived from the Strength Score.
I seem to be debating that I am afraid. :) But as I said lets say for sake of argument Strength refers to the Strength Score.
In terms of C, if we assume that Strength refers to the Strength score, then I would argue that is not correct, a bonus to Strength means a bonus to the Strength Score.
A positive modifier from an ability is an "ability bonus", not a "bonus to the ability" (that would be recursive thinking).
Now, you have four options for B and C. Either 1.) they are both true, 2.) they are both false, 3.) B is true and C is false, or 4.) C is true and B is false.
Okay I feel, going with the Assumption that Strength refers to the Strength Score, that B is true and C is false, so that would be case 3.
Case 3 - It is clear in this case (the one I believe to be true) that a strength bonus (an ability score bonus by definition) is multiplied by THF and OHF.
How is it clear that this means the strength bonus (i.e. the bonus to the Score as we agreed) is multiplied by THF and OHF???? The Strength Score, or any Bonus to that score (e.g. the +4 from Bull's Strength) is never multiplied for Two Handed Weapon, or halved for Off Hand Weapon.
Its the Strength Bonus (i.e. the positive modifier as we agreed in B) that gets multiplied.
I am really not following your logic at all here I am afraid - apologies if that is me being dense, but you seem to have left out how you got from A and B being true and C being false to multiplying the ability score bonus(which I don't think is actually what you mean anyway).
It is also clear by the plain logic that any of the ability score modifiers with a positive number are ability score bonuses.
Yep, I think that was what you were stating in B. Not sure what you mean by repeating this here.
Not if you read the actual section in context. The bonus applied to the ability is, in the section, referred to as the ability increase or increase to the ability. It is never referred to as a bonus in this section. The only thing that is referred to as a bonus is what stems from the ability increase.
Actually as I stated above, the section on Permanent Bonuses does refer to the increase in ability score being the bonus "Ability bonuses [...]increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours". But as I stated Paizo should have been clearer on their use of their terms and wrote that as "Ability score bonuses [...] increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours".
Every two points of increase (the +4 from Bull's Strength is the increase) gives a +1 bonus (positive ability score modifier).
That use of the word "bonus" is to me the general use as defined on page 11 i.e. "numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores".
What do you even mean by "(positive ability score modifier"? I simply don't understand what you meant by putting that parenthesised comment after "give a +1 bonus".
Again, this is basic english definitions and logic.
You speak of plain English, but I really can't see how you read that "bonus" as being applied to anything other than "the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability" - no where in that sentence or the Strength list does it say to apply the +1 bonus to the Ability Modifier.
If we look at the list for Strength it says:
So putting the general and the Strength specific list together, by my use of "plain English" (ironic because it obviously isn't plain) I get that for every +2 increase to the Strength score a PC will gets a +1 bonus to:
Nowhere in that list does it mention adding the bonus to the Strength Modifier, nowhere, literally I cannot find any mention of it, none, nada, zip, zilch.
So if someone casts Bull's Strength on my PC I read the rules as meaning I get the following:
That is it, simply +2 all around, no multiplying or halving, its a simple +2 untyped bonus to those things listed.
*It could be argued that the "(if they rely on Strength)" clause also applies to the preceding "melee attack rolls", but either way that is irrelevant to our discussion.
Please note that I am not saying that my reading of the rules is necessarily logical - it does afterall mean a Strength Score Bonus does not increase carrying capacity nor does it actually help with Strength ability checks (only Strength based Skill checks); but I am struggling to see much support for another reading of the RAW.
Personally, I much prefer the 3.5 way of doing it :)
If PF 2.0 was to happen and it was to be a small step change (like 3.5 to PF) I would like to see...
Clean up the whole Ability Score Bonus / Penalty mess - make sure its effect on all the other rules makes sense. Ideally just make ability score bonuses and penalties act as if the score has naturally changed (like 3.5).
Clean up the Grappling rules, they are a mess and counter-intuitive.
Consolidate skills further -
Get rid of Profession and Perform as skills and replace them with a Profession attribute that just indicates what profession the PC practised before becoming an adventurer, e.g. Noble, Wandering Minstrel etc. Then have such PCs gain a minor (+2) or major (+5) bonus to various ability checks when their Profession is relevant. This would avoid players putting skill points into skills that rarely get used just to justify their character's background.
For example, if attending a ball and the PCs want to impress with their dancing, the GM could call for a Dexterity check. A PC with the Noble profession may get a minor (+2) bonus because they would have been taught the dances and attended a few balls. A PC with the Dancer profession would get a major (+5) bonus as it is even more relevant to their profession.
Include some archetypes (alternate class builds) in the core rulebook, perhaps rather than archetypes just have more alternate class abilities.
Scale back the cleric's ability for magical healing in terms of channelling and maybe make it a Swift action (so the cleric can do something else in combat besides heal) and maybe ditto for other healing classes that I am not familiar with. Introduce something like Unearthed Arcana's Reserve Points to allow PCs to recover somewhat after a fight without having to resort to class based magical healing or "happy sticks".
Re-institute the 3.5 Diagonal Reach exception - it seems like most people play with it anyway (even in PFS).
Make the Trip quality of weapons do something, e.g. give a +2 bonus to Trip attempts and / or allowing tripping without provoking an AoO, rather than just allowing the weapon to be dropped to avoid the counter trip.
Drop feats that exist for backwards compatibility only e.g. Stealthy should just be dropped in favour of Skill Focus (Stealth).
Increase the minimum Skill Points per level to be 4 rather than 2.
Add an option for Mook rules.
Allow magic users to have some sort of At Will spells beyond cantrips - maybe allow a number of spells equal to spellcasting ability bonus to be prepared as At Wills for the day, but limited to those spells with a required caster level of half the PC's level (round down).
E.g. a 7th Level wizard with a +4 Intelligence bonus could prepare 4 spells with a spell level no greater than 2 (i.e. the maximum spell level a 3rd level wizard could cast, 3rd level based on half 7th level rounded down) as At Wills.
Or if that is too powerful maybe a Feat that allows one spell to be prepared At Will.
Major At Will Spell
Greater At Will Spell
That is all I can think of for now.
Okay, I agree with all this.
If the duration is less than 1 day (24 hours) the increase is a temporary bonus. Ok. That's simple. What is a bonus? A bonus is a, as defined in the rules, positive modifier to the ability score.
And this is where I feel you are perhaps reading a bit too much into the rules.
PF Core Rulebook 6th Printing, page 11 wrote:
Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
The terms bonus is broader than just referring to ability bonuses. An ability bonus is a bonus, but not all bonuses are ability bonuses (some are circumstance bonuses, some are enhancement bonuses, etc and some are untyped).
You could try to claim that this is just a random nameless bonus to rolls instead of to the ability modifier, but that ignores the context of the section and the header of Ability Score Bonuses. This temporary bonus is a positive modifier to the ability modifier. There is no wiggle room here for alternate interpretation. These terms are clearly defined.
Okay, so you recognise that the term "bonus" is broader than just ability bonuses, but are arguing that the section header of "Ability Score Bonuses" is context that makes that word "bonus" in the sentence "For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability." read as "ability bonus".
I have a couple of problems with that:
Firstly the section header is "Ability Score Bonuses", i.e. we are talking about bonuses to the Ability Score, not the Modifier. If the section were talking about Ability Modifier Bonuses then I may agree with you, but then that would mean a +4 Strength bonus from Bull's Strength would add +4 to Strength skill checks, damage etc, when actually that is not the case (i.e. the +4 enhancement bonus is to the score, not the modifier). So yeah, I don't agree that gives context for applying a type to the bonus.
Secondly if we were to interpret the word "bonus" in the sentence to mean "ability bonus" it would read as:
To match your interpretation the sentence would have to read:
The only way it is ambiguous is if you ignore part of the rules as they are laid out.
Nope, can't agree with you. You seem to feel that the rules are clear but I feel that you are conflating Ability Score Bonuses with Ability Bonuses and thus reading more into the word "bonus" then you should.
Personally it would have been good if Paizo had avoided the term "bonus" when referring to Ability Score Bonuses and Penalties, and instead referred to such exclusively as Ability Score Increases and Reductions (they pretty much do in the text anyway).
For example by changing only two words in the section (one in the header and one in the first paragraph, see how it reads:
Ability Score Increases
If it were written like that, would you be more inclined to understand the reading of the rules that interprets the bonus as being an untyped bonus to skills and certain listed statistics e.g. CMB, CMD etc?
The common sense response here is clear as good glass - more strength means you're stronger and less strength means you're weaker. It's that simple.
So basically the common sense response is to ignore the changes the Paizo developers specifically from 3.5 when they made Pathfinder and continue to run it like 3.5? And you don't think that is worthy of a FAQ?
So, no matter which side they actually rule on, the RAW in this instance can take a flying leap as far as I'm concerned, because verisimilitude makes my own approach clear.
I take it you don't play in PFS then, yes?
Andrew R wrote:
You're saying that "point-buy is entirely controlled by you and that random rolling is entirely random" or that its the random element that you don't like?
Because as Malachi Silverclaw was pointing out, point buy isn't entirely controlled by the player, e.g. the number of points you get to use to buy abilities is usually decided by the GM, for a home game that may be 15, but for PFS it is 20 points.
Equally, random rolling isn't necessarily completely random, again the GM usually determines the dice rolling formulae, e.g. 4d6 drop lowest (Standard), 3d6 (Classic), 2d6+6 (Heroic), and most of the time the player gets to choose which Ability to assign each rolled result too. And in the Dice Pool method the player even gets to choose how many dice are rolled for each score.
So, point-buy is not entirely controlled by you (the player) and random rolling is not entirely random.
However, random rolling does have an element of randomness that point buy does not - and that is what I think some people (including me) dislike.
From the way the player reacted I would have assumed something major was up - likely something from their real life. I wouldn't have got mad - after all it is only a game - and asked if they were alright. I personally feel getting mad and yelling at them was not a good move I am afraid.
I would have called a halt to the game for the night and informed the player that if they want to chat to let me know and that if they did want to return to the game they could - just give me a bit of notice.
If it was obvious there was no emotional stuff going on and that maybe the player was simply bored with the game, or had been asked to play in a different game on the same night or something I would have asked if they could do us a favour of a playing an extra session where we could write out their character and do our best to wrap up any loose ends that are tied to their PC.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I love dnd, it is very useful and mostly plausable, really the three changes I would make to it would be to go classless, add bellcurve instead of straight d20 and to use spontaneous casting instead of the misnamed vancian casting, or perhaps something truly vancian.
Whilst adding more of a bellcurve to the dice rolling may not be too big a deal (Sarah Newton elected to do that in her Monsters and Magic) I think doing away with Classes would be a dealbreaker for many people making such a game "not D&D"; and to some extent also getting rid of Vancian casting.
A lot of people said 4e didn't feel like D&D because of the rules changes it made and yet it had classes and sort of vancian casting (Wizard Daily Spells that could be prepared).
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I think the big difference here, is I want the rules and rulings to reflect the world, while I believe others want the world to reflect the rules, the suggestion of altering casting times for example is clear that the IC world is less important then their rules balance.
You are correct to some degree, however I am used to there not being a single D&D "world", rather we have Eberron, Faerun, Athas, Golarion etc, so when you say that you "want the rules and rulings to reflect the world", I would ask "which world?"
For me, changing the rules to fit a setting is pretty normal*, and to be constrained to not make any changes whatsoever would straitjacket the creativity of some writers. Sometimes I wish the writers would bend the rules even more than they have!
Straying away from D&D, all those different types of rules can be made and result in a great "world". Earthdawn is a prime example of how to take all the tropes of D&D and explain them in setting, and also bring about a bit more balance by changing how magic works (having to weave threads that takes time).
*Some examples of D&D rules changing to fit the setting:
In Eberron Clerics don't have to have the same alignment as their deity to allow for more corrupt churches and it also introduces Action Points to make play more cinematic.
In Dark Sun, arcane magic defiles the land and Paizo in their 3.5 conversion for Dark Sun made significant changes to the base races, making them all +1 Level Adjustment.
Freeport adds in Insanity Points and new Madnesses.
The 3.5 method for handling Ability Damage, Penalties and Bonuses.
The 3.5 Exception for Threatened Reach.
The 3.5 Grapple rules.
The 3.5 ruling that only tripping weapons can be used to trip (and that they mean you don't provoke).
If Pathfinder was revised to use all of the above (or an amalgam of the 3.5 and PF rules for Grapple) I would be much happier with the PF ruleset.
Casting alarm around the camp every night goes from being a regular duty of the group wizard to a an expensive thing that doesnt even require a caster at all and is prohibitivly expensive unless you actually have encounters everyday with merchants all over the place to turn loot into ritual componants.
The benefit I found with Rituals, is that you didn't have to prepare them and thus didn't have to guess what you might come up against at the start of everyday.
Also you don't have to choose between preparing a spell that would be very likely to be useful at some point in the day (e.g. a combat spell) versus one that is unlikely to be used unless you encounter a specific type of obstacle, but if encountered the spell would be very useful.
The nearest 3.x got to this was with scrolls, but you need to pre-emptively invest XP, time and money to prepare that specific scroll at some point, whereas with Rituals you can carry some generic Alchemical Reagents (the investment) and should the need arise use them to cast the ritual.
Overall I feel this encourages greater use of the more unusual spells out of combat and means that the GM doesn't have to foreshadow or telegraph to the players what is up ahead so that they can prepare the correct spells.
For example, if a GM wants his villain to teleport the PCs to the middle of a desert as a means to get them out of the way while he assassinates the prince he can do this in 4e as a complete surprise and still know that the PCs will be able to use the Endure Elements ritual to cover 5 PCs as long as they have mastered the ritual and got 20gp worth of components on them.
In 3.x the GM would have to really hint at such a fate early on for the magic user to prepare 5 Endure Elements spells or purchase / make 5 such scrolls (costing a total 125 gp / 62.5gp respectively).
That is the sort of thing that I mean by rituals supporting out of combat stuff - they are more readily available for use in 4e.
-all these ways of balanceing lightning bolts are changes to the game world itself. There is a difference between the game world, and the game system.
Yep I agree, my examples were in response to your comment that
Plausible comes from the world being consistant not the rules of the game. There is no way to have swinging asword be better then slinging lightning bolts. By the very nature of the two, lightning wins.
In a world where magic is more difficult to use, and where the system supports that, there is definitely a way (in fact several as I illustrated) for swinging a sword to be better then slinging lightning bolts, or at least more balanced.
I have never lost. Never. Not to the combat instructers, not to the 245 lbs fitness fanatic, I never lost.
Are you referring to physical bouts? If so that is very impressive as I imagine combat instructors are not exactly easy to best. But can I assume then that you have undergone some considerable martial training and that it is not just having a decent brain that allowed you to do that? If not, then perhaps you could give an example of one of the ways that you bested one of the instructors when they were better trained and stronger than you?
If the 7 stone guy has brains, he will win.
You seem to believe strongly that this is a black and white, clear cut thing. Seriously, to use an absurdly extreme example to try to get the point across - if Stephen Hawking and Arnold Shwarzenegger (in his prime body building days) were put into a wrestling ring and forced to fight one another, would you really expect Stephen Hawking to win? Even without any wrestling training I would expect Arnie to win myself.
adam and brenda, you obviously completely missed my point, there is a difference between not spending money that you have, and spending that money in a different way
No, I think you actually completely missed my point, I was responding to your statement:
People have the ability to be many times more intelligent then they commonly are. I see glimses of that intelligence on rare occasions, yet they almost never utilize it not in games nor in life, as though they themselves dont realize its there. What other word is there for not useing what is available to you?
In my example Brenda had something that was available to her; the jaw muscles to chew quicker, the teeth to bite the chocolate rather than let it melt, and the ability to cut up steak while eating a mouthful. And yet, Brenda wasn't using that which was available to her - by your definition she was being lazy. But as I hopefully showed Brenda's unwillingness to use what she had was not motivated by laziness.
Basically, your use of the term "lazy" carries with it an implication as to the motivation for the lack of action that will simply not always be true. If a player isn't applying his intelligence it isn't always because they can't be bothered with the effort:
Sometimes people are playing to the genre, e.g. in a Dead of Night con game I did "dumb jock stuff" because that was my character stereotype, I also purposely had my character get mouthy with the local sheriff explaining out of character to another player "Here is where we alienate the local law enforcement".
Maybe someone is player a barbarian with Int of 7, below average, and they feel to use their own above average intellect to direct their character's actions would be bad roleplaying.
And even when someone doesn't want to put the intellectual effort into the game because they use their brain all day and just want some mindless violence in their game to blow off steam (but wants the system to balance things out), that is not necessarily a bad thing, or something that shouldn't be catered for.
one, I never said it was bad wrong fun, to have balanced games, and even said that playing lazily (regardless of how you define the term) was a perfectly acceptable and legitimate way of playing
Not explicitly, but the content of your posts did seem to imply that, with such choice comments as:
The only time balance is noticed is when people are being lazy
well of course not everyone is like me, but they certainly have the potential to be, but instead they stick their heads in sands and complain about getting sand in ther eyes.
and I just wished that it wasnt always the center of discussion with rules.
I think this is the root of your issue, you feel that because balance isn't an issue for you, that it should not be discussed as much as it is, or be seen as the "Holy Grail" of game design.
The thing is, if so many people are discussing it, it would appear to be important, and if it is so important, maybe is should be discussed.
And whilst I think design teams see balance as important, I don't necessarily think that it is a goal that sit above all others.
By all means put forth a different opinion, an alternative to having a system balance things out, but try to do so in a way that doesn't (intentionally or unintentionally) belittle those who don't play your way - choose your words carefully. That is all I ask.
And consider the reasons why many GMs like 4e for storytelling, they like the lack of rules for out of combat things. With fewer rules they dont feel constrained to follow them.
Funnily enough I think that 4e has quite a few extra tools to support out of combat play than 3.5 or PF, stuff like Skill Challenges and Rituals.
-just because a system works doesnt make the world plausible. Plausible comes from the world being consistant not the rules of the game. There is no way to have swinging asword be better then slinging lightning bolts. By the very nature of the two, lightning wins.
Yeah, its already been said, but there are loads of ways to balance slinging lightning bolts with swinging a sword - basically by making the ability to sling that lightning bolt more difficult.
Having slinging a lightning bolt require a minute of chanting means the swordsman gets time to stab you and disrupt your magic (this method is used in Earthdawn where it can take quite a few rounds to weave the threads of some spells).
Alternatively, have slinging a lightning bolt require rare material components so you can maybe sling just one or two. Or maybe it requires sacrifice and you simply cannot move about and keep twenty virgins by your side to sacrfice in order to lightning bolt the mercenary company hacking down your door.
Or maybe you can sling lightning bolts but to have them hit a target requires you to have placed a magical item on them - then you have to know who your enemies are beforehand, find a way to slip such an item onto their person (or trick them into taking it) and hope they don't discover the item or its purpose before you can sling the lightning bolt.
Or maybe slinging a lightning bolt is severely draining and difficult to control - if you don't take out the fighter with the first bolt you are severely fatugued, and if you miss with the second you are unconscious.
So yeah, plenty of ways that things can be given an in-game reason to be balanced.
-Strength is never mighter then intellect. Never. Cant break that rope? Use something sharp. Cant lift that rock? Use ropes and pulleys. Intellect created the gun, now the very idea of warrior is so far dead most soldiers dont even understand it anymore. Intellect made the gun to defeat the sword. Intellect always beats strength.
I disagree, given enough time to plan, given enough materials or tools etc, then intellect can maybe triumph all the time (and even then it is never a guarantee).
But throw a 7 stone genius into a pit with a 16 stone ultimate fighter and tell them only one is coming out alive, then yeah I think you might find that strength may triumph over intellect there.
Your example with Adam and Brenda sucks, as Brenda isnt even remotely being lazy.
That is the point.
She does have something that she isnt using.
Yes, from Adam's perspective she isn't using her jaw muscles to chew faster, she isn't using her teeth to break the chocolate rather than allow it to melt in her mouth, she isn't multitasking by cutting up the rest of her steak while chewing the piece she just put in her mouth. From Adam's perspective, where the goal of eating is to fuel the body as quickly as possible, Brenda is being very lazy.
Adam isnt useing something Brenda isnt either.
I am not sure I am with you here, what aren't either Adam or Brenda using?
Adam eats fast to spend more time on other things, Brenda is utilyzing her time to enjoy eating.
Exactly, they get different things out of eating, they attach a different level of importance to things.
Adam would probably argue that seasoning and presentation of the food are superfluous - that you don't need those to eat your food and fuel your body; just like you feel balance isn't necessary in an RPG to enjoy the game with the goal you have in mind.
Brenda, however things plain, boringly presented food is just not a good thing - and while she could enjoy the meal to some degree without that, she enjoys it much more with.
When I say people are being lazy in thinking, its because they arent thinking, its not that they are thinking differently, its that they think less, less in amount, less in depth, less in detail.
Or maybe they are thinking in a different way? Maybe they are thinking about how cool it would be if their barbarian PC could jump out of the assembled throngs attending the evil villain's wedding to the princess and challenge him to a fight.
Maybe, they are imagining the sights and sounds of the scene being described by the GM, and composing the songs in their head that their bard character will sing about the fight later.
And maybe, some people are thinking about tactics and ways to overcome the villain without the need for a fight.
well of course not everyone is like me, but they certainly have the potential to be, but instead they stick their heads in sands and complain about getting sand in ther eyes.
Seriously? You seriously wrote that? You wrote that and can't see how your posts are coming across as seeming to imply "One True Wayism" and that others are having BADWRONGFUN with their balanced RPGs?
Seriously? I think you need to start applying some of that intellect of yours to reviewing your posts and examining them for phrases that could be taken as being very condescending and / or insulting. Because if you can't see how that last quote of yours could be taken as such you must be incredibly egocentric.
I know I preview my posts, re-review them, edit them and sometimes even delete them altogether before posting (I am considering whether I am being too harsh on you as I write this now), but by your reasoning you must be a "lazy" poster if you cannot be bothered to think as much about what you post, yes?
So really, balance is important when people are lazy, and while I can respect that some people like being lazy in their leisure, there is no reason to assume that pandering to their playstyle is somehow better or the most important thing.
I think that does a disservice to those players who feel balance is important - not everyone has the same play style as yourself, or plays for the same reasons you do.
Saying that if people aren't playing or running a game like you (where balance is unimportant) they are being lazy begins to sound a bit like "one true wayism" and that those people are having BADWRONGFUN.
Evil Dave is Evil wrote:
I believe Darigaaz the Igniter knows that, he was posting it as a Rules Misconception as the thread is requesting.
Maybe all posts to this thread should be in the form:
Misconception: Taking 10 takes 10 times longer than trying it normally.
Reality: Taking 10 takes no longer than rolling for the check, it is only Take 20 that involves taking 20 times as long.
That doesn't make sense. Pathfinder is not an Open Game License, it is an RPG that has a lot of it's content released as Open Game Content under WotC's OGL. And if you're trying to say PF is the best OGC in the business, many would disagree as you're putting it up against stuff like Traveller, RuneQuest/Legend and Fate!
So yeah, I wouldn't advise Paizo to do as you suggest.
I would put a sale on the core rule book with a message that says something along the lines " Pathfinder RPG, a game that doesnt need to be rewritten every 3 years"
I think that would be a bad idea, making Paizo seem petty and its not even accurate (I would certainly roll my eyes at it).
But putting a sale on the core book or free PDFs of the core rulebook and maybe the Inner Sea Guide would be a good idea.
This is something I have heard more than a few times and it just bewilders me. No one ever "has" to buy into a new edition, you could stick with the edition you play as long as you have people willing to play*.
But why, if you are so pissed off at the prospect of having to buy new books that you are happy to buy Pathfinder books - effectively a new set of books? Seriously, what makes one unacceptable but the other not?
*I will admit a new edition can reduce that pool of players available as others do move on. I had the very same worry about 4e myself, i.e. that it would mean very few people wanting to play 3.5. But with 4e it was so polarising that actually this didn't seem to be the case - which was great news to me.
Okay here is a repost from a previous thread, with a few more comments added in.
For context, I actually prefer D&D 3.5 to 4e, however I in turn prefer 4e over PF and PF over 4e Essentials (there are a few things about Essentials that I absolutely hate making me want to sell my Essentials stuff without even really having read it).
Here are what I consider the good stuff:
Consistent Class Structure
However, don't be fooled into thinking the same structure means characters all play the same - although most characters have the same number of At Will, Encounter and Daily powers, what those powers can do varies greatly!
For example some At Will Attack powers:
Class two (Fighter - Reaping Strike with Greateaxe): Affects one adjacent target, targetting AC and does d12 + Strength modifier damage, and even on a miss does damage equal to Strength modifier.
Class three (Warlord - Commander's Strike): Affects one target adjacent to one of your allies, the ally gets to make a basic melee attack against the target (e.g. a Rogue could make an attack with a dagger, targetting AC and doing d4 + Strength modifier damage)
Pacing of Powers
Having At Will powers (including spells for magic users) means a wizard never runs out of spells; and thus there is no need to rest for a night to continue to contribute magic support.
Encounter Powers give that extra big power that you can safely use in an encounter without having to worry about whether you should have saved it for a later encounter with toughter foes (which may actually never happen and so if you did save the spell you effectively wasted it).
Daily Powers are the big guns that you pull out when facing down a really tough foe - they are Daniel's Crane Kick at the end of The Karate Kid but restricted in their use so you don't see the player constantly using it (i.e. it supports narrative pacing).
General Competency in skills
This is great because it allows the party to try stuff as a group (e.g. sneaking into a palace) without having such a disparity in skill levels that one PC is going to succeed without breaking a sweat whereas the others simply cannot succeed.
But again, don't think that means all character look the same. Ability modifiers, Skill Training, Skill Focus and some Utility Powers can still give enough level of differentiation.
For example, a 6th level fighter with Cha of 12 will have a +4 Diplomacy bonus (half level + Cha modifier) but the 6th Level Paladin with Cha 16, Skill Training in Diplomacy and Skill Focus in Diplomacy will have a +14 bonus (half level + Cha modifier +5 for trained +3 for focus). And if he has the Diplomacy Skill Power of Haggle he can re-roll a Diplomacy check once an encounter!
NPCs use different rules
Equally if I then decide a want that troll to be able to be a sole foe in a combat I can simply apply the rules to make it a solo monster - worth extra XP but having more HP, greater attacks (an encounter power becomes At will), better defenses and action points. The rules are literally just a quarter of a page.
Also because of these different rules, apart from perhaps having to look up the odd keyword, a monster's stat block is completely self contained - no need to go looking up feats and spells ala Pathfinder, you can just look at the stat block and know how that monster works (and this is a massive boon, when I run a PFS scenario I spend a good few hours making rules booklets that list all the feats, spells and equipment that the NPCs use - in 4e I wouldn't need to do that at all).
The key thing to remember is that the monster stats are there for how they can interact with the PCs, mainly on an in-combat basis (they do have skills however) - how they interact with other NPCs is completely up to the GM.
So while a monster may only be able to Dominate a PC for a round or two of combat there is nothing to stop the GM saying that the monster can dominate the village mayor indefinately. The PCs are the heroes, they don't get dominated for weeks just for a few seconds before digging deep and shaking it off.
Skills before spells
What this does is still allows wizards to be able to solve all these types of problems but without outshining the other PCs who have specialised in such areas. So a rogue could pick a lock before the wizard gets a chance to cast Knock, but if the rogue isn't there the wizard can still do it.
This means although its nice to have a healer in the group it isn't as "essential" as many people feel it is in PF. In fact I found PF's Channelling just made the disparity in healing ability of a party with a cleric and without even greater - 4e's solution is much more elegant I feel.
This also solves the issue of clerics having to spend actions in combat healing (and thus not getting a chance to do otehr cool stuff), in 4e a PC can take an action themselves to heal a bit (and a cleric's Healing Word power is only a Minor action too).
Also by making HP more a measure of how long you can stay on your feet fighting, not just a measure of luck and health, you can have non-magic users "heal" HP by giving a morale boost (imagine an army sergeant shouting at a private to get back on their feet and stop whinging like a baby). So even if you do want a "healer" in your party it doesn't have to be a cleric.
IMHO 3.5 and Pathfinder still have too many skills (Fly? Swim still separate from Athletics), especially when it comes to Knowledges and Professions - to the point that in my experience many don't get used as the chances of a party having a specific skill (e.g. Knowledge Engineering, Professions Baker) are slim.
The layout of the books
Plus the PDFs I have of the PHB, DMG and MM render pretty quickly on my android phone and Eee PC whereas the Paizo pdfs are really poor (so much so that I ended up buying hardcopy when I hadn't planned to, though the Lite versions a better).
Non combat support
So 4e has IMHO as much support for non-combat encounters (investigation, exploration, social scenes etc) than PF does but it also has all these cool powers for combat. In terms of spells, powers are the in-combat spells whilst rituals are the out of combat spells (but even then some powers are very useful out of combat too, e.g. Invisibility that can be sustained indefinitely).
In fact it could be argued 4e has more support for non-combat activities as it has the Skill Challenge mechanic. Although there have been teething issue getting the numbers right, and the presentation perhaps doesn't explain quite how to run them as well as they can be run, they are great mechanisms for determining success or failure in prolonged tasks that require a combination of skills to succeed.
I have successfully used Skill Challenges for investigations, tracking of a fleeing person and escape from a fortress.
Luckily Skill Challenges can be used in PF pretty easily too, and if you don't like Skill Challenges you can just fall back to the way you handle such stuff in PF as individual skill checks to determine success are still there.
It depends, if the other players had had a fair crack at the puzzle but were struggling then it was potentially good meta-gaming as the alternative could have been the adventure stalling and players getting bored.
This is especially true if you have a pixel-b&%**ing GM who isn't ensuring the game keeps going by giving hints, Intelligence checks to figure the puzzle out, or simply other alternatives that don't require the puzzle to be solved.
Yep, and this is where good meta-gaming should be used; if an action that in-character makes sense, but that out-of-game would make the game less fun then the player needs to meta-game and come up with a different course of action for his character, even if it makes less sense than the original course.
Rite Publishing wrote:
Things with too many fiddly bits, 3.5 grapple (bad) vs. pathfinder grapple (good)
Funny, but I would actually have that the other way around - PF seems more fiddly to me what with having to keep track of who is the Grappler and Grapplee for example. The CMB / CMD idea is good in principal but flawed (IMHO) in practise. See the following example...
Adam is Medium sized, has BAB of +1, Dex of 16 (+3), Strength of 12 (+1) and is wearing Studded Leather armour (+3 AC).
If Adam with an AC of 16 (+3 Dex, wearing Studded Leather +3 AC) has managed to Pin Blaze what is Adam's effective AC?
AC would be 11; the grappled condition imposes a -2 to AC due to the -4 Dexterity penalty, and when pinning an opponent the pinner also loses his Dexterity bonus to AC, so a further effective -3 to AC. And yes these do stack due to the way that an ability penalty works in Pathfinder; it does not actually reduce your Ability score, but rather imposes a negative modifier to all related stats, e.g. AC. So you lose your Dex Bonus to Ac and take a -2 AC, the same penalties for being blinded!
3.5 answer: AC would be 13 (i.e. loses dex bonus) against people other than the Blaze. Against Blaze AC remains at 16. This doesn't change from if Adam was just grappling with Blaze.
If Adam with a CMD of 15 (+1 BAB, +3 Dex, +1 Strength) is just grappling Blaze who has CMB of +3 (+1 BAB, +2 Str) and an Escape Artist modifier of +4 (1 rank +2 from Feat and +1 Dex) what would Blaze roll to escape being grappled by Adam and what would be the DC?
Blaze would be best rolling +3 (her CMB) against a DC of 13 (Adam's CMD of 15 less 2 for the -4 Dexterity penalty due to grappling). Blaze could use Escape Artist but that would be at only +2 (+4 from skill rank, feat and Dex, less 2 for the -4 Dexterity penalty due to grappling).
3.5 answer: Blaze would be better off using Escape Artist of +4 (taking a Standard Action) versus Adam's Grapple check using a Grapple bonus of +2 (+1 BAB, +1 Str)
What would Blaze roll to escape if she was instead pinned?
If pinned Blaze would be best rolling +4 (her Escape Artist modifier) against a DC of 10 (Adam's CMD of 15, less 2 for the -4 Dexterity penalty due to grappling, and also -3 due to losing dex bonus to AC, which in turn is applied to CMD). Blaze no longer has the Grappled condition (instead having the Pinned condition) and so does not suffer the -4 Dexterity penalty (I assume the errata text of the Pinned condition means Dex bonus is lost for AC purposes, not for everything like Skills, but again - vagueness!), and as such her Escape Artist skill check is unaffected.
3.5 answer: Blaze would be better off using Escape Artist of +4 (taking a Standard Action) versus Adam's Grapple check using a Grapple bonus of +2 (+1 BAB, +1 Str). So no change from the situation above, however in 3.5 if Blaze breaks the Pin she is still left grappling, and must succeed again to break free completely.
Are Blaze's chances to escape better or worse if she has been pinned?
As Pathfinder changed things so that escaping whilst Pinned means you escape completely (whereas in 3.5 you escape the Pin but are then still grappling) the chance to escape from the grapple is 55% (+3 vs DC of 13, needing a 10 or more to succeed). The chance to escape whilst pinned is 75% (+4 vs DC of 10, needing a 6 or more to succeed).
So yes, its often as easy or easier to escape whilst Pinned than when just Grappled!
3.5 answer: The chances to escape from a Grapple, and to escape from a Pin to just being grappled are the same, combined with the fact that to escape completely a pinned character has to succeed twice, it is never easier to escape whilst Pinned than when just Grappled - which makes sense
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Pathfinder flourishes because:1. Wotc/Hasbro abandoned 3.5 and replaced it with something far inferior
I imagine you mean that in the sense that it is your opinion, I have heard many others say 4e is best version of D&D they have played.
What I would say is that 4e was a very different game in its mechanics and that is what I think meant many weren't happy with (especially as the shift from 3.0 to 3.5 was so minimal). The post from Alexander Augunas (see my quote below) and BPorter's seconding of that idea seems to corroborate that.
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
3. Pathfinder turned out to be an improvement on 3.5
Again, debatable. Whilst PF improved some things, it IMHO made many others worse. I (and I don't believe I am alone) still prefer 3.5 over PF, to the point that I have recently re-purchased the Core Books and Spell Compendium in the Premium versions,
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
along with great service and support by the company.
I have to agree with you there, Paizo have great customer service and really connect well with the players (apart from one rather poor Facebook incident I encountered, and no I will not go into details here).
Alexander Augunas wrote:
On a different note, one of the things that bugged me about Dungeons and Dragons was that new "edition" actually meant "entirely new game." If your core mechanics aren't staying pretty much the same and you're getting a massive overhaul, you don't really have a new edition anymore. You have a new game. A new edition should be minor tweaks and changes to the previous edition that cleans it up a little bit.
I think it comes down to semantics, some would say a new version of just tweaks and changes is a revision, not a new edition (see Star Wars D6 2nd Edition and Star Wars D6 2nd Edition Revised and Expanded).
What I will say about 4e being an "entirely new game" is that it gives me reason to play it alongside 3.5 - I get different things out of it. Pathfinder gave me no such enticement, its too close to 3.5 to encourage me to make the shift and learn all the little tweaks and changes. The Organised Play Campaign is the only reason I play PF. So while I prefer 3.x over 4e, I have a hell of a lot more 4e books than PF books.
Anyway... I just wanted to provide the other perspective.
The key thing for me is whether combat has started or not. If combat is ongoing characters have no facing as they are considered to be constantly looking around for incoming threats. So in combat, no, no sneaking up to attack someone if that involves you leaving cover and concealment. Also no moving between two areas of cover.
Before initiative is rolled however its a different story. A guard at a town gate may not be looking around constantly (that state of alertness is hard to keep up) and indeed even if alert may be focusing on the area outside the gate (and so is not observing the area behind him inside the town gate; at least not with his eyes). So in such an instance if this is how the GM describes the scene a PC could sneak up on that guard, or move across open ground behind him (assuming he makes his stealth check).
Now if a PC wanted to approach the guard from outside the town gate (i.e. the area being observed) then that would normally be impossible as it would mean leaving cover or concealment - however there rules say "If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth."
So if the guards are distracted a PC could sneak up and attack them, or move through open terrain. This distraction could be a Bluff check, but could also simply be a servant bringing the guard his evening meal and that guard turning to the servant for a few seconds, or even just one guard turning to the other to have a chat. The key thing is outside of the strict timing of a combat round PCs can wait for that momentary distraction and then act quickly (and thus have the -10 penalty).
Of course having said all that I play 3.5 mainly (only PF RPG for PFS) and 3.5 has explicit rules for moving between open areas and up on someone (from Complete Adventurer and reprinted, albeit with a slight error due to reformatting, in Rules Compendium):
Complete Adventurer page 101 wrote:
For me, the fact that Pathfinder RPG only has one official (i.e. Paizo created) setting is actually a turn off.
I got into D&D with 3.5 and I bought the 3.0 Forgotten Realms setting book thinking that would be my D&D setting (I liked the map with trade routes etc) - however I got really bored slogging through reading the book (Dale after Dale after Dale!). If FR had been the only D&D setting available I think my love of D&D would have been shortlived, but luckily there was Eberron! :)
I love how Eberron is a kitchen sink setting, but it is done in such a way that it has a cohesive theme and feel. Golarion on the other hand feels like a hodge-podge of mini-settings, and while I can like some individually (Darkmoon Vale for example) as whole it feels "bitty".
So because Golarion is the only setting for PF, and it isn't one I am fond of, my interest in PF isn't as great as it could have been.
It came up in another thread that errata had changed the Pinned condition in the following manner:
Am I right in taking this to mean the Pinned character is denied its Dexterity bonus to everything, i.e. Reflex Saves, Dex based Skills, AC, CMD, CMB (if have Agile Maneouvres or character is Tiny or smaller) etc?
Or should it actually read as "denied its Dexterity bonus to AC."?
I must admit the blog entry isn't clear on its intent in regards to the following sentences:
"The addition of a Flank trick and an Aid trick means that pets do not, by default, know how to perform these, even if they know the Attack trick. If you command your companion to attack, it will take the most direct route. If you want your companion to always flank, you now need the Flank trick."
The first sentence could be read as either:
I actually think the third sentence means the former interpretation is correct but I could see how some GMs may read that as "Without the Flank trick an animal companion will never ever seek out a flanking position unless pushed to do so".
The second sentence does worry me though "If you command your companion to attack, it will take the most direct route" - really? Even if that means moving within a few feet of several sword and fire wielding goblins? An animal companion wouldn't circle around those foes to reach its specified target? What if the animal's direct route meant leaping across a lava filled pit? Would it always risk failing the jump, or might it actually think to circle around?
What is worse is that there is no new trick to get an animal companion to move in a specific route, so theoretically animals never circumvent possible hazards if they don't physically stop their movement.
* * *
Overall my worry with the new tricks is that some (possibly overzealous) GMs will assume that if an animal is not trained in one of the new tricks it will never, ever, take that action of its own accord in order to accomplish another Trick.
For example, I fear a GM may rule that a dog successfully given the Defend command could not attempt to perform the Drag combat manoeuvre to drag a foe off from the person it is guarding because it hasn't been given the Manoeuvre (Drag) trick.
Or that a dog successfully given the Track command will never use its Stealth skill when doing so because it has not also been given the Sneak trick even if Track was taught as part of the Hunting purpose where the idea is to track and sneak up on prey.
Or that a dog told to Guard whilst the party sleep in camp will always do so in absolute silence, never barking to warn off any intruders, because such barking would also likely wake the party - and raising an alarm is part of the new Watch trick.
Hopefully GMs will be able to recognise the difference between:
David Bowles wrote:
Yes, I've rearely seen a push or any kind of handle animal roll at a PFS table.
Perhaps you have, but as you are merely an onlooker and not the person running the PC with animal companion, you haven't recognised it.
For example, in a recent PFS scenario whilst exploring some sewers I had my Druid push his dog animal companion to Stay at an intersection (as his doesn't have the Stay trick). What you as another player may have simply seen is me say "Grelow turns to Barrow holds up a finger and says 'Stay!".
However, in my own mind I had already thought "Push DC is 25, Grelow's Handle Animal skill modifier is +11 but with his companion he gets a +4 making it +15. As we're not in combat or in a stressful situation, I can Take 10 and automatically succeed."
Now of course I could have verbalised all that and explained it to the other players, but it was simply quicker to say "Grelow turns to Barrow holds up a finger and says 'Stay!"
If the GM had been uncertain as to whether I was following the rules he could ask and I would explain, or he may have already glanced at my character sheet and figured it out himself.
David Bowles wrote:
Even if animals had to eat AOOs, it's still NPC resources going to damage entities that basically don't matter.
Entities that basically don't matter? Is that how you see animal companions? I know damn well that my Druid's animal companion Barrow matters a whole lot to Grelow, and having that animal companion die would be a downer for me as a player too.
So yes, having a GM run an animal companion in a manner that forces it to "eat AoOs" when the player doesn't think that is how the animal would act can be a big deal, almost as bad as the GM running the PC to take those AoOs. You talk about it being like the player has two PCs, and yeah, it is a bit like that - the animal companion means something to the player and that is why they want to run it.
If you train your animal companion tricks that are most likely to be used in combat, and leave the non-combat tricks untrained, you can Take 10 to push for those latter tricks. I now regret training my animal companion the Perform trick, as now my druid could Take 10 and push him to perform that trick automatically.
Change that to "No character control of companion outside of the Handle Animal mechanic" and I would agree with you.
I feel that those pushing for GM control of animal companions believe players cannot be trusted not to metagame and play their character's animal companion and the character as if they shared the same knowledge, motivation and tactical ability.
Unfortunately, whilst having GMs controlling animal companions may solve the problem for those players who do metagame, it could severely spoil the fun of those of us who don't metagame and can play the animal companions in a manner that can and does sometimes conflict with the wishes of the character.
Seriously, if I turned up to PFS games and the GMs insisted on playing my character's animal companion and this resulted in erratic behaviour for the AC (e.g. portrayed as a cowardly but cute mutt by one GM and as a snarling unapproachable dog by another GM) then I would likely choose to have my animal companion stay back on the character's farm and play without him.
The alternative to the GM controlling the animal is not the character controlling it, rather the alternative is the player controlling it.
So the player can control the AC just like he controls his PC, but if he doesn't follow the rules, or has the AC act out of character or too intelligent for an animal, the GM can step in just like he would step in if the player had their PC break a rule (e.g. like ignoring encumbrance penalties) or play against abilities (e.g. make a rousing speech with eloquent use of long words when the PC had Charisma 6 and Intelligence 7).
Mystically Inclined wrote:
Using the term "pirating" might have been harsh. Might have. But I honestly don't know what else to call it.
How about "sharing" (if the players are both in the same game) or "loaning" (if the owning player is not there)? This is isn't like file sharing, where actually the original person gets to keep a copy as well as giving the other person a copy.
Mystically Inclined wrote:
The same reason that when you run a game for someone new to Pathfinder and you let them reference your copy of the core rulebook it isn't theft.
The same reason its not theft when I have friends around to watch a DVD I bought isn't theft.
The same reason its not theft when I lend a friend a CD isn't theft.
All the PFS guide says is that:
Mystically Inclined wrote:
Now if the two players want to sit at different tables, or if the table is at a convention, I don't think this is nearly as workable.
Yep, and that is why I said "you run the risk of not being able to play that character".
I would raise the issue with the group as a whole something like this:
"Hi everyone, can I discuss something with the group please? Cool, I can see that Dave is playing up the personality of his Drow Rogue by keeping some of the loot he finds to himself and lying to the party about it. In game I can see that may be exactly what his character would do, but out of game I as a player have a bit of an issue with it.
"Now if everyone else is cool with it, and the GM takes the lower level of wealth we are effectively receiving into account, I guess I will go along with it.
"But if its an issue with some of you other players maybe we could ask you Dave to alter the way your character acts a little - lets say your character realises he may be best not risking alienating the party to which he has to entrust his life every fight. Maybe then he chooses not to steal from his party, just others?
"However if everyone is cool with Dave's character effectively stealing from the party because that is what his character would do, is everyone cool with in game consequences when my and the other players' characters find out and also act in character?
"Dave are you okay with the possible outcome that the rest of the party may decide to not want to adventure with your character and so the GM may ask you to make another character? Or depending on how it all comes out is everyone okay with PC versus PC combat and potential death?
"GM, if it comes out in game, and the rest of the party are happy to allow Dave's character to remain with the party, would it screw anything up if I had my character leave and make a new one better suited to the group?"
I had a similar situation with one player threatening to kill a bound prisoner, I made it clear that I would be willing to give up my current character if he was in the minority of having an in game issue with this, and create a new character better suited for such a ruthless party. In the end the other player toned down his blood thirsty nature.
I think you can retrain an animal, swapping out tricks on a 1 per 1 basis. I'll look around for something more concrete later.
However that requires giving up a trick, so my point still stands - its not just a matter of buying the book to regain use of the things that you had before.
What worries me is whether these new tricks will change how a GM adjudicates Animal Companion movement in melee and how much leeway I get as a player to move my animal companion.
For example, say I direct my animal companion Dog (D) to attack a Goblin (G). Empty squares are shown by O. Dog moves in from the South and attacks Goblin using most direct route.
Now a Hobgoblin (H) approaches from the West with a Reach weapon and attacks Dog
On the Dog's turn I have him make a 5' Step North East to continue to attack the Goblin but get away from the Hobgoblin.
Now, I think that is reasonable and I hope a GM would see that the 5' Step is based on survival instinct of the Dog.
However, what if another PC Fighter (F) was already in combat with the Goblin when the Dog moves in from the South to attack?
And for some reason the Hobgoblin still moves in and attacks the dog...
If I the player then have the Dog 5' Step North East, would a GM disallow it saying that I was moving the Dog into a flanking position and it would need to be Pushed to do that (as the Dog is not trained in the Flank trick)?
Does anyone else share my concerns?
Does Attack now mean, attack and never move except to pursue the target?
Victor Zajic wrote:
This, absolutely this. There is no objectively right or wrong way to deal with the question of whether a cohort should get an extra share.
Rather the players and GM should discuss the situation and when they decide on the answer (e.g. he gets an equal share / he gets a lesser share / he gets no share) and any conditions (he gets no share but he will be looking out for his leader first and foremost / he gets a share but then so does my animal companion) then come up with an in character reason why that is the case.
If the player whose character has the Leadership feat gets to play their cohort as a second character some players will feel the benefit of getting extra "screen time" should be at the cost of equipping both PCs out of a single share of loot. Meanwhile other groups will be happy to split the loot equally, especially if the cohort is played by the GM. It all comes down to how that group feels.
TL;DR - this is a time when metagaming is a good thing, decide how to split loot out of game, and the come up with an in game reason for the decision.
Saint Caleth wrote:
Because the situation of having to buy a new book to regain use of the things that you had before is not really fair. (Although you should buy the Animal Archive if you can because it is one of the best of the Player Companion books so far.)
Its not just a matter of buying the book to regain use of the things that you had before though, if your animal companion is already at the limit on the number of Tricks known* you could not train your animal Flank.
I worry that adding extra tricks may mean some players will start leaving out basic tricks like Heel and Come; which GMs should then play up the consequences of (e.g. the animal not following the character into a dungeon) but more than likely will be hand waved because such a consequence is a diversion from the story and unnecessarily adding to the length of time it takes to play a PFS scenario. I can see a lot of Take 20 to push an animal companion to Heel and Come going on :)
*E.g. A 5th level Druid's Intelligence 2 animal companion would have 8 tricks, my PFS character's dog is trained for Hunting (Attack, Down, Fetch, Heel, Seek, Track) and has been taught the bonus tricks of Come & Perform.
Re the Core Assumption question...
The current Core Assumption per v4.3 of the Guide to PFS Organised Play states:
That to me basically reads as "To play in PFS you need to own the following books", indeed I have previously bought Seekers of Secrets and the Field Guide purely because they were stated to be part of the Core Assumption even though I didn't actually use any material from them. [Edit: Indeed I have learnt my lesson and at present don't plan to buy the Pathfinder Society Primer]
I would be very wary of adding extra books to the core assumption as it may put off potential new players joining PFS organised play ("I have to buy how many books? Animal Archive? My character doesn't have an animal, why am I required to buy that book????")
If you add Animal Companion to the core assumption, you should really add the APG as well for the new Combat Manoeuvres.
Personally, my suggestion is to split the Core Assumption into a Player Assumption and a GM Assumption. Players should only be assumed to own the core rulebook (IMHO) but GMs should perhaps be assumed to be familiar with the following material:
The good thing about this is that the GMs can be encouraged to get that familiarity via the PFSRD. Maybe even make the core assumption for GMs have specific sections of books and give a PFSRD alternative, e.g.
- APG Combat Manoeuvres page 320-322 (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/advancedNewRules.html#_combat- maneuvers)
Michael Brock wrote:
I have to say, I am not particularly happy about this. I only bought Seekers of Secrets because it was part of the core assumption and therefore I, as a PFS player, should have a copy. Then that got replaced by the Field Guide, which I again bought purely because it was labelled as being part of the Core Assumption. Now that is being replaced by this.
I am considering not buying this even though I am a PFS player and GM and therefore will be assumed to have it. Truth be told, although I bought the previous two because they were core assumption, I don't think I actually ever needed any information out of them during a PFS game.
The only thing I use Seekers of Secrets for is the Beast Scent item, which my character has never actually used in game so I wouldn't miss it. And the Field Guide I use for Day Job rolls - but that table is in the free Organised Guide PDF anyway - and the Farmstead Vanity (which was a GM Boon anyway, so again no big loss).
Would it not be better to label this as "highly recommended" to PFS players rather than as part of the core assumption? What information in it is so important that it should be considered part of the core assumption? Are we really saying that in order to play PFS you need to buy this?
To put it bluntly, it is lazy GMing to want to use diagonal corridors and represent them with dungeon tiles without adjusting for the implications of problems with 10' reach along diagonals. A GM could put a modicum of extra effort to abstract in a rectilinear diagonal path or a phantom square or some such tool to address the problem. If, instead, he says, "Well, sorry, it's too much trouble to deal with that so you're SOL," then he's being lazy.
Yep, you're right, it is lazy GMing to want to use game aids such as Dungeon Tiles - and that is a good thing, because it makes the game flow smoother and quicker.
I mean, by your logic, using square based movement is lazy as well and we should just be using tape measures and allow PCs to move in whichever direction they wish. But I imagine that would slow combats down somewhat and so we use the lazy approach.
Personally, if I am going to be a lazy GM, rather than go to the "extra effort to abstract in a rectilinear diagonal path or a phantom square" I would just houserule in the 3.5 rule - even easier, and probably a lot quicker to explain to players too! And I can use my dungeon tiles as is, without having to screw around with changing the alignment of the grid.
So yeah, lazy GMing is good! :)
The way I read that is that you can't deliberately target the opponent because you can't see them, however you can swing your sword into the square they are in and hope to hit them.
Their AC would still apply - their Armour doesn't suddenly become useless, they can still try to dodge the incoming blows, but in addition half of those blows may be coming nowhere near the target as the foe is swinging blindly (50% miss chance).
Gorbacz you didn't quote anyone in your post, so apologies if you weren't referring to me, however, if my overblown ego is correct and I was the subject of your post :) ...
Gee man, the lengths you go to make sure everybody gets the message that WotC is the best thing that happened to humanity since Red Cross never ceases to amaze. :)
You obviously misinterpret my posts then, I never try to make out that WotC are some amazingly good company, rather my posts try to provide a counterpoint to the lengths you seem to go to in order to paint WotC as some sort of evil villain of a company intent on causing harm and annoyance to their current and former customers. :)
The 24h window was ridiculously short, double so for people who live several time zones away (the news hit in the middle of the night for us, and I didn't notice it until I returned from work in the evening).
I am not saying it wasn't short, the point I was trying to make was that it was more than DriveThru customers got, and if anyone benefited from that small window they likely had Paizo to thank for it - and that if WotC really were deliberately intent on kicking people in the groin for buying from Paizo they could have likely refused Paizo's request completely.
It was a jerk move.
If you're talking about the original business decision to pull sale of PDFs then I am in complete agreement, I had a long list of WotC PDFs I planned to purchase as funds were available.
No amount of trying of trying to convince us that it was all customers' fault is going to change that.
I don't believe anyone was trying to convince you that someone losing access to their purchased PDFs was all the customer's fault. However, I was saying that if someone failed to download and / or back up their PDFs then they should recognise that they have some responsibility (not all) in the matter.
And that it could even be argued that Paizo (and I would argue OneBookShelf as well) should perhaps make it clearer that PDFs can be withdrawn from sale and download and encourage customers to make backups. And no, I am not saying its Paizo's fault, but rather Paizo could perhaps look to make improvements to avoid such situations in the future (hence my suggestion of adding text to the Downloads store page).
so it's a good moment for rolling eyes and poking fun at them. Again.
Ah, so WotC returning to PDF sales is just an opportunity to poke fun at them for their original business decision (again) and I guess to say "I told you so"? Okay, have fun with that.
Because stupid business practices deserve to be pointed out and laughed at.
The decision to pull PDFs was stupid and at the time I was likely one of those to also point it out. I also contacted WotC customer services a few times asking if PDFs would go on sale again, so that they at least were aware that people did still want to legally purchase rather than pirate.
However, I don't believe you or I would argue WotC's decision to start selling PDFs again (i.e. what this thread is about) is a bad business practice to be "pointed out and laughed at".
Rather it seems to be WotC's decision to do so exclusively via OneBookShelf that you seem to have a problem with. Which is fair enough, however my problem with that is that:
a) neither of us has enough knowledge of the situation to know whether that is a worse business decision than selling via Paizo as well. Like I said in previous posts, I know previously DriveThru charged less commission if they were the exclusive distributor - so maybe someone has done the maths and they don't feel any extra sales that may be gained via Paizo would offset any financial loss on OBS sales. We simply don't know. So while we could maybe display our disappointment with the decision, we perhaps shouldn't mock that decision like its an obviously bad business practice.
b) you use very emotive phrasing to describe how you feel about WotC's decision not to distribute PDFs via Paizo and do so in such a way as to imply some unethical intent on WotC's part, rather than what may actually be good business practice.
TL;DR - I am trying to present a less emotive counterpoint to your comments, which you then seem to interpret (perhaps due to your obvious dislike of WotC) as trying to make out that WotC is whiter-than-whiter when that is not the case (both in the sense that it is not what I am doing, and that WotC is not whiter-than-white!)
So I'm getting kicked in my groins for buying PDFs from Paizo just because? Well, that's low. I've backed everything up, but I can imagine somebody who's now facing the prospect of re-purchasing everything. /golfclap WotC
You did the correct thing and downloaded your purchases and backed them up.
Did Paizo promise that you would be able to download any purchases indefinitely? If so, perhaps Paizo are at fault for promising something they could not deliver?
If Paizo didn't make that promise, did they at least indicate that some PDFs may become unavailable preventing future download and that you should backup your files? If not (and I don't see such a statement / suggestion on the Downloads store page even after WotC pulled their PDFs) then perhaps Paizo should have done.
I know when I originally registered with DriveThruRPG I was informed I would get a limited number of downloads (I think it was originally 5) so I knew I had to backup my PDFs, and even now that limit has been relaxed the FAQs include the following:
That last sentence (emphasis is mine) is the clear advice that you may not be able to download your purchases in future so back them up!
So I think calling WotC "low" and implying that they have figuratively kicked you in the groin for buying PDFs from Paizo just because they now choose to go exclusively with OneBookShelf is a little unfair. I can see how it could be disappointing to those who purchased via Paizo, yes, but to make out its some evil intent on the big bad WotC is risible.
I don't believe they haven't chosen to go exclusively with OneBookShelf now "just because" or to intentionally piss of Paizo customers - more likely if they do still have any fears over PDF piracy, if they have a single retailer they have reduced the potential number of points at which a PDF could get into the wild.
OBS with its DriveThru and RPGNow sites is the main place to go for PDFs (if I could buy Paizo PDFs from there instead of Paizo, I would). The fact that they can also provide a personalised store front with just WotC products displayed (i.e. dndclassics.com) was also a great attraction (especially as existing OBS customers don't have to re-register as its just a new skin for the same back end).
Also OneBookShelf has print on demand and that is something that WotC likely took into account.