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

DigitalMage's page

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber. FullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 2,053 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 6 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,053 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Having read only 33 pages of the Basic Rules (and undertaken a couple of the playtests, running a short campaign in it) I have to say that 5th edition seems to me to be the best edition of D&D yet.

It combines the best of both 3.5 and 4e whilst changing stuff that I felt was odd or didn't work well.

It streamlines things, makes loads of things optional from feats to using a grid, and supports both simple character creation and customisation.

And I love Backgrounds (sort of like 4e's Themes).

If I hadn't just started a 3.5 campaign I would likely have chosen to run it using 5e.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

The best way I can see this handled is if the GM, for each permanent magical item, simply states "Please raise your hand if anyone is interested in claiming this magic item"

Then, as long as a player isn't intimidated into not raising their hand (and if that is happening I would be more worried about whether that player even enjoyed the game), they wouldn't have to say a word other than to state the number of permanent magical items their character already has. After it is indicated that more than one player character wants an item, argument and debate doesn't come into it - its just a comparison of magic items and if necessary a dice roll.

The only other thing that could go wrong is people being bullied into withdrawing their interest in an item. But again if that is happening I would have bigger concerns.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

For those worried about a revised edition (or even 6e) coming down the line soon, this article might put some of those fears to rest:

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140623

Basically, it looks like WotC will continue with some rigor and possibly even player input into any "fixes" they feel are needed. Basically, Errata done right IMHO.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
thenovalord wrote:

Ok. Definitely not playing this having read the way treasure works

May be fine for homepage. Scary at a con!!

Good overall less magic item in the game

How does treasure work? The page linked above just said something about certificates?

It is discussed here:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/news/advleague3

But in summary:

Gold and other monetary treasure (total is divided evenly amongst surviving characters), nothing scary about that.

For consumable magic items (1 to 3 per scenario) it is up to the group how to divide them up, though it is suggested to lean towards giving them to characters that possess the smallest number of permanent magic items. So, this might be a bit scary when the consumable is one that every player wants - the shy people may not be able to put their argument forward well enough to get them.

For permanent magic items, if there is a unanimous decision on who should get the item, then that happens (this could be scary if there is peer pressure to award it to one person).

If there is not a unanimous decision, then for those who state they want it, the character with the fewest permanent magic items gets it. If there is a tie, determine randomly.

So if a DM handles this well and asks who would like this item, then as long as a shy person can raise their hand, it should then come down to number of perm magic items and perhaps a dice roll - no peer pressure or arguments.

The key thing is, once you have accepted a permanent magic item, your number of permanent magic items can never decrease meaning you are less likely to get new permanent magic items in future (even if you have a certificate that allows you to trade it, you must trade it for an item of the same rarity).

So you really only want to ask for a permanent magic item if its something your character would really benefit from. I can even imagine some scenarios where a permanent magic items goes unclaimed by any player.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
captain yesterday wrote:
i've moved on, pathfinder works for us, i can't afford 2 RPGs at the moment so i'll stick with what i have and continue investing in that one:)

If you can't afford the time, that is fair enough. But if you're talking about finances, then that shouldn't stop you playing D&D 5e as the Basic Game will be available for free.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I am not sure how this is a rip off of PFS, WotC may have learnt a few lessons from Paizo, but it largely just sounds like a regular living campaign combined with Encounters.

Andoran

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Tormsskull wrote:
If 5E has a SRD available and utilizes an OGL, I will check out the rules and make a determination at that point. If the only legal way of getting my hands on the rules is to purchase them, I won't do so.

The good news is that you will be able to get the Basic D&D in PDF for free! Levels 1 to 20 for the Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue with races of human, elf, halfling and dwarf.

More information here

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

This sounds great, especially if it means people could start playing in their Adventurer's League organised play without having to purchase a thing (something you can't do with PFS where the Core Assumption is that you have the core rulebook at minimum)!

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Pathfinder is not my main game, so it will probably not be a question of switching. More likely I will get the next D&D after it has started to see Eberron support and continue to play 3.5 and even some 4e.

If however, WotC can put together an organised play campaign that is as good as PFS and ideally doesn't rely on Forgotten Realms as the setting (I am not a big Golarion fan, but at least that doesn't have the history and baggage that FR does) then I could see myself dumping PF entirely as I only play it for PFS at conventions (which means I only tend to play maybe half a dozen sessions a year).

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Not that I am the target market for this, but I love the idea of Quest Cards. They are one aspect of computer games that D&D 4e suggested to use and work well, especially in games with complicated plots and / or where game sessions do not happen that often (e.g. once a month).

Glad to see Paizo introducing them too.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

One way you could re-introduce such a spell would be to put conditions on it, e.g. it will only work if the character has loss less than 10% of their maximum Hit Points (minimum of 1 hp loss).

E.g. Bradden is a 5th level fighter with a CON of 14, his hit points are on average (10 + 5.5 + 5.5 + 5.5 + 5.5 +(2x5) = 42.

If he has suffered only 4 hit points of damage (less than 10% of his HP) Cure Minor Wounds could be used four times to heal those four HP.

E.g. Glub the 0 level commoner only has 8 HP, 10% of that that is 0.8, but with the minimum of 1 HP loss clause, it would allow that 1 HP to be restored as long as Glub has only lost 1 hp.

I.e. Cure Minor Wounds only works when the patient has suffered only minor HP loss.

Andoran *

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
graywulfe wrote:
Mike has stated, over and over again, that a note on the chronicle referencing the ITS with how much gp spent is sufficient on the chronicle.

Unfortunately not every PFS player reads the forums, and even those that do may not have seen those posts (I haven't, though I have seen posts that speak of such posts).

But okay, so if I buy the following items after a scenario:
Sword, short (10gp)
Longbow (75gp)
Arrows x40 (2gp)
Chain shirt (100gp)
Alchemist's fire x3 (60gp)
Thunderstone x2 (60gp)
That totals to 307gp and I would record that as follows:

Chronicle Sheet Notes Section
Sword, short (10gp)
Arrows x40 (2gp)
Alchemist's fire x3 (60gp)
ITS Purchases (235gp)

Inventory Tracking Sheet
Longbow (75gp)
Chain shirt (100gp)
Thunderstone x2 (60gp)

Correct?

If so that isn't much extra effort (but it is still spreading the same info across two different pieces of paper, more if you have already filled up the four Consumables spaces on your ITS forcing you to put the Thunderstones on new ITS sheet).

Also, you do have to create a subtotal and then a final total, rather than just create a final total.

Also, would you have to add the three Alchemist's Fires to the ITS in order to track their use, even if you haven't had to add them to the ITS because they cost less than 25gp each?

Or do you track their use in some other way?

If you add them to the ITS do you put "NA" in the Cost as the cost of those items has been tracked on the Chronicle sheet?

Its a bit confusing if you ask me.

Andoran *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Please see my edit at the end...

nosig wrote:
thistledown wrote:
Nosig, the "20gp for stuff" is sufficient for the chronicle side.
But this does not list what you bought? Where are we listing the things we bought? Nowhere?

That is my understanding, and why I have an issue with the new rules for using the ITS (not the ITS itself). As I understand things, anything purchases of items that are individually under 25gp can just be written up collectively on the chronicle sheet as "Misc Purchases 200gp".

In fact I am not sure you even need to do that, you just record the GP spent on the Chronicle sheet and don't even have to highlight the fact that there is a difference between GP spent on the Chronicle sheet and that spent on the ITS.

nosig wrote:
20gp means that my PC could have a flask of Alchemist Fire, or 2 flasks Acid or a dose each of Vermin Repelant and Clearear....or two 1st level spells scribed to a spell book...

And your example shows why I think the ITS does not help with auditing small stuff, it actually makes it worse, the ITS as it stands just helps with auditing the big value items.

nosig wrote:
If you buy something for your PC, shouldn't there be a record someplace of what you bought?

Yes I think there should, my preference is to log everything on the ITS.

EDIT: Actually you are right, v5 of the PFS Guide says in relation to the Chronicle Sheet on page 35:
"Step 8: Have the player note all items purchased or sold, including spellcasting services, in the notes section (V)."

So we do have to record every purchase on the Chronicle Sheet (both stuff that costs under 25gp and stuff over 25gp.

But that does mean categorically that the ITS is extra paperwork, duplicating effort of writing down purchases of items valued at 25+gp.

Andoran *

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Jeffrey Fox wrote:
Gold spent is still tracked on the Chronicle sheets. So the price of those consumables should still be tracked.

True, but now with the introduction of the ITS there is no need to record what that gold is spent on. So basically now there is less of a requirement to record your purchases and thus less ability to audit.

Jeffrey Fox wrote:
I personally track all my purchases, down to my 2cp pair of earplugs in the Confirmation, and I wish that the rule was to record all transaction.

Yep, either that or perhaps enact a rule that items under 5gp or something are freely provided by the PFS and thus do not need to be purchased - so ammo etc doesn't need to be tracked.

Jeffrey Fox wrote:
The ITS does not allow players to ignore tracking their ammo, because just because a purchase is under 25gp does not make it free.

Yep, but now it is harder to catch a player not tracking ammo.

Andoran *

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
Jeffrey Fox wrote:
Alkali Flask are under 25gp and as such aren't required to be tracked on the ITS.
You haven't read much of the thread. I've pointed that out like half a dozen times.

Hmm, so if a consumable is under 25 gp, as well as not logging its purchase, do we also not need to log its consumption?

I had though the ITS section labelled "Wands/Ammunition/Alchemical Items/Other" was meant to be used to track all consumables?

So if a player purchases 20 arrows for his bow - you never need to show on the ITS the purchase of those arrows or their consumption. Is that correct?

So presumably the ITS does nothing to prevent a player "cheating" by using the same 20 arrows in each scenario? There is no way to audit that the player has replenished his spent arrows if there is no way to audit that some arrows have been used (especially in light of the 50% chance to reclaim arrows that miss their target).

Effectively does the ITS now effectively allow for players to ignore tracking their ammo?

Andoran *

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
The other problem with the ITS is that 25 GP limit. Love it or hate it, it will cause holes. My archerologist shoots an average of two tangleshot arrows a session. At 20 GP they don't need to be tracked. I usually buy 4 at a time.
So that's 80 gold. You don't think you should put that purchase on the tracking sheet? Because individually they don't meet the minimum?

I would be surprised if we were supposed to add such to an ITS if individually items do not exceed 25GP, but collectively they do. If that was the rule you would get inconsistency, with different results as to what is recorded depending on how many you buy in one go.

Nefreet wrote:
When I asked them why it wasn't on their ITS, they said because it was given to them as a boon on a Chronicle sheet, or they just hadn't written it down.

That is interesting - if the item was genuinely not purchased, but was simply provided to the character as a boon, then it is arguable that it shouldn't be included on the ITS.

Isn't it also a bit weird that you are supposed to track consumption of ammo on the ITS, but for regular ammo you don't actually need to record its purchase on the ITS? 20 arrows is only 1gp, even 20 Cold Iron arrows are only 2gp.

Andoran *

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Cire wrote:
I also like this feature and I put EVERYTHING I buy on it on individual lines regardless of the cost. I have some characters that are up to 2 sheets.

Hmmm, would any GMs have issue with Inventory Sheets being used to track every purchase regardless of cost? Even if that means taking up more sheets?

If not, would GMs have issue with a printout of an Excel spreadsheet that listed everything? All my characters are in Excel and I have just started to use a Log worksheet that details all purchases, sales, uses and rewards (including GP awards).

Andoran *

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Hmmm, having only played one Season 5 scenario I hadn't twigged that you didn't need to detail individual purchases on the Chronicle sheet itself anymore.

That does raise a question though - if I buy a Starknife (24gp), Longsword (15gp) and Hide Armour (15gp), those purchases don't get detailed anywhere? There would just be a discrepancy between the GP spent on the Chronicle sheet and the Purchases on the Inventory Sheet of 54 gp, with no way to reconcile it?

Could that possibly lead to a player cheating by declaring that he actually has a Heavy Flail and not a Longsword when he realises the scenario will involve fighting lots of Skeletons with DR/Bludgeoning?

Not really an issue for me as if a player really wants to cheat as long as it doesn't ruin the other players' fun I am not bothered (though I don't condone it, but I also don't waste time auditing chronicle sheets).

Personally, I like to track all my purchases (including those below 25gp) and so will continue to write on the Chronicle Sheets all my purchases and list just the 25gp+ stuff (plus ammo) on the Inventory sheet.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I use small round stickers that I put on the bases of my D&D miniatures and then number them (I also use different colours to help differentiate Emerald Claw Soldier 1 from Goblin 1).

I imagine you could do the same with the Pawn bases.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Marthkus wrote:
Saving throw is an abstract concept that requires abstract terminology to describe.

So is a Power (whether At Will, Encounter, or Daily). The same can be said for an Attack Roll, a Skill Check, Ability Score etc.

Marthkus wrote:
"wargame" is just slang, It implies that the mechanic basically assumes the game is mostly combat with adjoining sections that are just an excuse to do more combat. Which "encounter power" exemplifies this.

I think we will have to agree to disagree - "Encounter" in 4e is not synonymous with "combat" indeed you have Combat Encounters and Non-Combat Encounters. So for me Encounter is more like "Scene" and thus is no more wargamey than "Saving Throw", "Skill Check" or "Ability Score" IMHO.

Marthkus wrote:
As far as PCs being different than NPCs. Only to an extent. Part of the (overused word) verisimilitude of being a PC is knowing that you are working with the same rules as your foes. What you do is something that an enemy can do.

But in PF that isn't necessarily true if the NPC doesn't have the same build as your PC. Your Rogue may be able to Sneak Attack, but that Fighter NPC can't for example.

Also, as soon as a GM uses some resources to create NPCs that he decrees as off-limits to PCs, e.g. Evil prestige classes, Monster Races, Feats, Spells etc then you have that divide between PC and NPC creation - what the NPC does cannot be done by your PC.

Marthkus wrote:
Breaking to far away from this begins to make the tabletop feel like a WoW dungeon.

I am glad I don't get that impression; for me a tabletop RPG is a tabletop RPG (I don't enjoy computer games really so that is important).

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I am hoping this isn't an April Fools as these would be good for Star Wars d20, or any Sci Fi game that uses minis.

I would love to think that this could mean Paizo would also do some modern day map packs e.g. Office Block, Downtown, University Campus etc, however I think this map pack might be tying into the downed spaceship in Numeria (or whatever that region in Golarion is called). Didn't I hear there is going to be an AP called Iron Gods or something? That would fit with this.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Marthkus wrote:
That was just an example of how 4e tended to put the meta-wargame wording first with the thematic elements hidden somewhere in the rules.

I would hardly called the text "hidden", and whilst I agree that the term "Encounter Power" is metagame terminology I don't see how it is "wargame" terminology any more than Pathfinder's "Saving Throw" is "wargame" terminology ("Saving Throw" is also metagame terminology)

Marthkus wrote:
(for example, the great divide between the PCs and the monsters in terms of mechanics is another verisimilitude killing aspect)

I guess for some that is an issue, but it isn't as big a deal for me since I have always seen stuff like this in other games like Spirit of the Century (and other Fate games) where you have Minions and Companions, and even to a lesser extent in games like Shadowrun and M&M where you aren't obliged to use the same limits for building NPCs as PCs.

Mind you, even in PF do you give NPCs max hit points for their first level? Do you only use PC classes and not NPC classes? Even PF has different rules for PCs than for NPCs.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Marthkus wrote:

4e did a lot of things well, but it was fluffed completely wrong for a Tabletop RPG.

Case in point being encounter powers.

I get really angry anytime I see an ability in PF that last for "the rest of combat" or "once per combat".

Are there such abilities in PF? I would be curious to know which.

Marthkus wrote:
Is it really that hard to say, "after using this ability, you can't use it again until you rest for a minute."?

So its just the term "Encounter Power" you have an issue with, not how the mechanics actually worked?

I just see the phrase "Encounter Power" as shorthand - an abbreviation to save space in a stat block. But in the end, an Encounter Power in 4e is pretty much what you said (except it requiring a 5 minute rest):

D&D 4e PHB p54 wrote:
Encounter Powers [...] You need to take a short rest (page 263) before you can use one again.
D&D 4e PHB p263 wrote:
A short rest is about 5 minutes long.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Scavion wrote:
That said, skills, skill challenges, and everything outside of combat is very...sparse.

Out of interest, how do you feel PF compares (which doesn't have Skill Challenges)? Do you feel PF has more non-combat support than 4e? I see the opposite - 4e has everything PF does and more.

Scavion wrote:
Skill challenges are just "Roll X X and X. Okay well done you get to move on." Yes, I can fluff it up through description but ultimately it's kinda boring.

That isn't quite fair, players can come up with ploys that allow them to use other Skills in the challenges, and even come up with other things than Skill checks to help out.

I find Skill Challenges promote thinking of interesting ways to use your other skills, e.g. History to recall an incident and the consequences of the King failing to come to the aid of their neighbouring state, Streetwise to recall any shortcuts in town instead of an Athletics test in a chase etc.

Scavion wrote:
4e demands a grid which makes power of imagination play difficult.

I agree that whilst it can be played gridless, it is more difficult, but then I think the exact same of PF.

Scavion wrote:
That said, I like Pathfinder because it finds a nice balance between focus on combat and focus on story. Paizo's adventures rock.

I wonder, is your opinion thus based more on the adventures put out by Paizo, rather than the PF system itself?

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
MattR1986 wrote:

This is becoming a 4e discussion which treads dangerously but I'd like to add something to this that I keep hearing that's getting old.

"Well nothing says you can't RP and this and that in 4e". 4e is fine for what it is, but accept it for what it is.

What do you mean by that? For me, accepting 4e for what it is means accepting it as a roleplaying game. Maybe one that is quite crunchy, and one that has a strong focus on combat, but no more so than Pathfinder; especially when comparing to RPGs in general including games like Call of Cthulhu, Don't Rest Your Head or Fate.

I think 4e provides some great advice and tools to support roleplaying:

I have quoted the 4e DMG in discussions about Call of Cthulhu & Trail of Cthulhu and the problems creating investigative scenarios.

Having never been interested in playing Wizards in 3.5 or PF, the idea of At Will powers and always prepped cantrips immediately conjured up cool ways to narrate roleplaying actions. E.g. sitting at a table in a tavern and with a waive of a hand lighting the candles - something that in 3.5 would have required prepping and expending a cantrip, and in PF still requires prepping of the cantrip, which would probably mean that narrative flourish wouldn't take place.

I have run entire sessions of 4e with no combat,but instead challenges involving tracking, investigation and negotiations - and I got help from the mechanics that 4e provides.
Backgrounds & the Background Bonus (PHB2) means that you can play a character who has a background of being a blacksmith and have the mechanics back that up - whereas in PF putting more than a couple of ranks into a Profession skill is often seen as a sub-optimal choice (especially when there are other skills like Perception and Stealth) meaning many characters can't mechanically back up the claim of having been an accomplished blacksmith.

And despite some of the bad press it has received the Skill Challenge mechanic actually provides some extra mechanical support for stuff like investigations, explorations, social interactions etc over and above simple skill use (which 4e also has). I find Skill Challenges encourage players to come up with ingenious ways to play to their character's strengths, and have all characters get involved rather than leaving the diplomacy to the one character.

It is interesting that more than a couple of suggestions of what to do in PF2 are things that 4e actually did. Paizo may want to take a look at 4e and see what stuff it did well and perhaps learn from that.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Stormydove wrote:


That's why were dumping D&D, due to the amount of new editions coming out and why we love 3.5 but are hoping for a much cleaner experience in Pathfinder.

Whilst Pathfinder made some great improvements over 3.5, it also made quite a few changes that imho make the game worse. So be careful about "upgrading", make sure that PF fixes the issues you have with 3.5 and that overall the benefit of those fixes to you outweighs any problems you may feel PF introduces.

Personally I still prefer 3.5 over PF and as a player would not play a PF game unless it was PFS.

So I suggest checking out the free PRD and asking on these forums how PF handles some of the stuff you have issues with in 3.5.

But as for a new edition, I personally don't see it happening anytime soon, even if I believe it could do with a revision.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
phantom1592 wrote:

There's a catch 22 here.

on one hand... nobody really WANTS to blow through their whole spell list/wand/potion in the first battle. On the other hand, nobody wants to be the guy who died holding onto those resources for 'later'.

I have had similar things like this happen in PFS play - my character doesn't use a spell because I figure we might have tougher foes later that day but then we don't and we get to rest.

It hasn't led to a TPK, but I didn't get a chance to showcase my character's power by pulling out the big guns.

This is one thing I loved about D&D 4e - encounter powers; a middle ground between stuff you can always pull off and daily powers. Encounter powers allowed you to pull out some of your big guns knowing that you wouldn't be "wasting" them on a fight and leaving yourself out of ammo for a bigger encounter later that same day.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I have seen something similar in other RPGs, stuff like only having a maximum of 3 bonuses apply to a roll (so you don't have to worry about every tiny bonus, just identify the 3 best). I think it was Earthdawn that had that rule.

It can simplify things, but to be honest, if Paizo were to implement this they would be best to do so as optional "Campaign Limits". Basically just listing stuff like you have "max total bonus to a roll / stat", "max number of attacks", "max number of skills" etc.

Of course there is nothing stopping anyone implementing such campaign limits themselves in their home games.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
digitalpacman wrote:
The attacker always has to use his move action, before attacking, to approach the enemy. He never will get the chance to 5 ft step during his attack, because he has to move to begin it.

Not if, as in my example, the attacker uses a round to move adjacent to the defender but doesn't attack. The defender never gets his readied action that round and so doesn't 5 feet step.

Now when the defender gets his next go he can 5 feet step back and ready to attack when being attacked, but if that readied action triggers he cannot 5 feet step again.

DigitalMage wrote:

Round 3

Adam is 10 feet from Blaze (i.e. not adjacent)
Adam again readies to attack Blaze and 5 feet step away.
Blaze starts to catch on to what Adam is doing and moves adjacent to him and readies an action to attack Adam if he attacks her or attempts to move away (she cannot also ready to step up as she moved)

Round 4
Adam and Blaze begin this round adjacent to one another.
Adam didn't get to take his last readied action, but again readies to attack Blaze and 5 feet step away should she attack him.
Blaze readies an action to attack Adam if he attacks her or attempts to move away and to 5 feet step after him if needed.

In round 4 Blaze doesn't have to use her move before the attack unless Adam chooses to move and then ready, in which case Adam cannot 5 feet step as part of the readied action and Blaze would get her standard attack in after moving up and after Adam's readied attack.

Andoran *

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I use the PFS table tent PDF to create mine and I do use them.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Round 1
Adam is 60 feet away from Blaze
Adam wins initiative and readies an action to attack Blaze and 5 feet step away.
Blaze charges towards Adam but just before she can strike Adam takes his readied action and 5 feet steps backwards. Adam is no longer in reach and has used up his 60 feet of movement anyway, so he doesn't get his attack.

Yep, Adam has been clever here!

Round 2
Adam is 10 feet from Blaze (i.e. not adjacent)
Adam again readies to attack Blaze and 5 feet step away should she attack him.
Blaze moves (not 5 feet steps) to be adjacent to Adam and goes to attack - but Adam once again calls in his readied action and attacks Blaze and steps out of reach.

At this stage, it is debatable whether Blaze could trade in her attack as she has not actually taken it and instead move, or even continue her move action, but for now lets assume that is not possible - she committed to the attack and thus finished her move and took her standard action.

Round 3
Adam is 10 feet from Blaze (i.e. not adjacent)
Adam again readies to attack Blaze and 5 feet step away.
Blaze starts to catch on to what Adam is doing and moves adjacent to him and readies an action to attack Adam if he attacks her or attempts to move away (she cannot also ready to step up as she moved)

Round 4
Adam and Blaze begin this round adjacent to one another.
Adam didn't get to take his last readied action, but again readies to attack Blaze and 5 feet step away should she attack him.
Blaze readies an action to attack Adam if he attacks her or attempts to move away and to 5 feet step after him if needed.

This could now be a stalemate[i]

Round 5
Adam and Blaze begin this round adjacent to one another.
Adam again readies to attack Blaze and 5 feet step away.
Blaze begins to suspect Adam is going to continue this all day and so decides instead to perform a full attack and (if below +6 BAB) does two weapon fighting.
Blaze's first attack triggers Adam's readied action and he steps back. Blaze then 5 feet steps as part of her full attack and attacks.

[i]It is debateable whether Blaze's attack would be her first attack which was interrupted (but as you can take a 5 feet step during a full attack it could be argued she could take the 5 feet step and finish the first attack that she started).

But even if the GM does not allow that Blaze could get her second attack in on Adam

So, it doesn't have to be a complete stalemate, though if Adam and Blaze are in a completely unenclosed area, Adam has no motive other than stay alive and Blaze needs to defeat Adam, then it could drag out.

However, in most situations, Adam would eventually get boxed in and wouldn't be able to take a 5 feet step without staying within Blaze's reach. Also, Blaze may have allies (either present or soon to arrive). Or maybe Blaze just needs to get Adam away from the door he is guarding, or keep him at bay until her friends can disable a trap / kidnap someone / steal something.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Somehow I managed to post my reply to a different thread on Take 20!

Here is my response from yesterday:

I second the idea of promoting the idea in general RPG terms, this also gives you the option to use another system if PF doesn't work for your class.

I know Fate Accelerated has been used by teachers for example, and FAE is also much cheaper to purchase for a class ($5 per hard copy with a PDF that is pay-what-you-want including free!) and a much quicker read at less than 50 digest sized pages.

The key thing is to go into this with a goal in mind and how you will determine if you were successful, in the FAE example linked above the the goal was to "to get them [the students] thinking of characters and narrative, of using their imaginations and sharpening their improvisational skills".

So as well as playing I would suggest organising discussion groups after a scene or scenario to have students describe how they felt about the game, what they learned etc.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I second the idea of promoting the idea in general RPG terms, this also gives you the option to use another system if PF doesn't work for your class.

I know Fate Accelerated has been used by teachers for example, and FAE is also much cheaper to purchase for a class ($5 per hard copy with a PDF that is pay-what-you-want including free!) and a much quicker read at less than 50 digest sized pages.

The key thing is to go into this with a goal in mind and how you will determine if you were successful, in the FAE example linked above the the goal was to "to get them [the students] thinking of characters and narrative, of using their imaginations and sharpening their improvisational skills".

So as well as playing I would suggest organising discussion groups after a scene or scenario to have students describe how they felt about the game, what they learned etc.

Andoran *

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
W. Kristoph Nolen wrote:

The Core Rulebook also says (in the very same sentence) that "it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability."

The list of things affected by Strength is certainly not exhaustive, as ability-checks aren't listed.

Unfortunately the written rule is not clear. There is nothing to indicate that the list isn't exhaustive, note an "etc" or an "and so on" or anything.

W. Kristoph Nolen wrote:
If that were the case that would mean a Fighter making a Strength-check to batter down a door doesn't have his roll affected by Ability Drain ... and that would just be silly.

Yep, but all that does is indicate that maybe the RAW isn't RAI, unfortunately it doesn't make it clear what the RAI should be.

W. Kristoph Nolen wrote:
If the designers intended for Carrying Capacity to not be affected by ability drain, I like to think that they're a competent enough bunch of fellas that they would've spelled it out. Just because a place can be found where it doesn't specifically enumerate it, doesn't mean that it changes the rules that govern Carrying Capacity.

But if what you say is true, then how do you determine a reduction in Carrying Capacity following Strength Damage?

Does it only change for every 2 points of Strength damage like the penalties mentioned? E.g. Does a Strength 14 character suffering 1 point of Strength damage take no penalties to Strength checks and carrying capacity remains at 58 / 116 / 175 lbs?

Or does carrying capacity get recalculated for every single point of Strength Damage (i.e. calculated as if the Strength score was actually reduced)? E.g. Does a Strength 14 character suffering 1 point of Strength damage have their carrying capacity reduced to 50 / 100 / 150 lbs? If so, how come the same reasoning isn't used to determine the new Strength Modifier?

I believe the Ability Score Bonus, Penalty and Damage rules were written to be quickly calculated and were not actually designed to affect everything that a permanent Ability Score increase or drain would.

The FAQ seems to back that up by calling those rules and the exhaustive list of stats as "quick rules" but also goes on to state that implicitly there are "rebuild rules". For me though, it is in no way clear that these "rebuild rules" even exist or even implied by the RAW! Also that FAQ only talks about Ability Score Bonuses - not penalties or damage, so I am still unsure whether "rebuild rules" are implied there as well.

Basically, if I were GMing a PFS game and a Strength 14 character suffered 1 point of Strength Damage and I told the player that his Strength modifier has reduced from +2 to +1 because I am choosing to use the "rebuild rules" and not the "quick rules" - would you understand if that player complained that wasn't RAW?

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

If you're into more than just Pathfinder though, the face cards may be much more useful. For example, while I have the Condition cards which are useful when I play/GM PFS, as that is only maybe a half dozen times a year they don't see much use.

However the face cards (I bought 3 packs) have been used in those PFS games but also see use in RuneQuest, Legends of Anglerre and any D&D 3.5 or 4e games I run.

I would love for Paizo to do a set of face cards for modern and sci-fi settings!

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

The Perception skill description states that "Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check [...] Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment. "

So unless the sentries are using stealth to hide, then only if the GM considers the sentries "fine details in the environment" should he require a Perception test.

If they are moving openly on a high wall silhouetted against a clear night sky then it could be argued that they are not fine details of the environment - but rather clear & broad details - and so no Perception check should be required.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Try the Savage Worlds version of Mars by Adamant Entertainment.

Andoran *

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

In PFS? It would likely mean you fail at your mission and thus don't get the prestige point. Of course that means everyone would fail too - so you would probably be annoying every player at the table. In which case the GM could argue you are breaking the "Don't be a jerk" rule.

But either way, even if you don't return the weapon, your character would not get to have it according to PFS rules without spending the money to buy it (if it was even on the Chronicle sheet). So there is really no incentive out of game to withold the item as you're just screwing yourself (and others).

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I think I might buy a copy of this for the wild shapes my PFS Druid can use, they will also be useful in my 3.5 games.

I have to say I much prefer these stand up pawns to the "pogs" that WotC produce, I am actually selling my Monster Vault having never punched the pogs out.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Whether tiny or medium you don't get the corners in PF, though many do use the 3.5 exception.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

A moot point but I have all the MMs and recently bought them all again in PDF format.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Sarcasmancer wrote:
Or "Hey, Bob, I know your sheet says Intelligence 20 but you're actually kind of a dunce, so maybe you could roleplay something about your character that would explain why your character speaks and acts like such a dullard."

Yep, it is easier to roleplay below your own real life ability than roleplay up. In these instances the GM maybe will have to add a few words to reconcile the difference between roleplaying and stats results...

"In addition to what you have just said, you also point out that you studied at the Solar College, have cross-referenced the works great works of the wizard Greydawn and correct Borad the Astronomer on a few mistakes he has made on the charts that adorn his wall. Overall you convince him to help you in creating the new star chart"

If it becomes a real problem, I may (big "may") encourage the player to simply narrate his character's speeches rather than trying to act them out in character, e.g. "Ceyrad shouts for quiet and then points out nearly every practical flaw in their methodology, before explaining some of his latest research to impress them"

The point is, there is still potential work to reconcile the roleplaying and the mechanical results - but if the player can help with that reconciliation and not leave it all to the GM I would encourage them to do so.

I.e. where it is possible for a player to play their stats it would IMHO be beneficial to do so in order to alleviate some of the work of the GM and / or help maintain the immersion of the other players.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
phantom1592 wrote:
You can SAY you are a suave ladies man who can have any woman he wants... but the number one rule for players should be... they are the PLAYERS. The DM gets to control the npcs... and that includes the ladies in question.

If the player roleplays a confident character who tries to be smooth but always does something to screw up (saying the wrong thing, picking up an empty glass rather than a full one from a waiter's tray and trying to drink from it, mispronouncing or using a wrong term of phrase etc) than that matches the stats and as you say they are playing a character who just thinks they are "all that".

But if the player narrates a great seduction technique and gives an incredibly smooth series of lines that make all the players at the table go "Wow! With that speech I would fall for you! Remind me to take you as my wingman next time I go clubbing!" but the dice roll fails miserably (even by taking 10, i.e. an average roll) then the roleplaying really hasn't matched the stats.

And yes the GM will roleplay their NPCs and not have them succumb to the PC's charms, but the GM is going to have to strive to come up with a reason why not one of the ladies at the ball is even interested ("they are all already married", "the countess apparently has a hatred of elves", "you remind her of her long dead brother" etc).

Why should the GM have to be the one who has to come up with all the explanations to reconcile the player's roleplaying and the results of the mechanics? Isn't it better to have the player, up front, provide a few possible reasons why his seduction attempts may fail if that is what the dice roll ultimately show?

phantom1592 wrote:
If they start spouting out of character knowledge about physics and alchemy and engineering.... then the DM is perfectly in his right to say 'You have no idea'. (Though the more 'polite' way to phrase it would be 'what's your score in engineering?"

So it sounds like you would be happy "encouraging" a player to roleplay their stats, potentially even "forcing" them by satying "Your character wouldn't know that so he didn't say it!". is that correct?

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Sarcasmancer wrote:
in theory if you wanted a charming PC you wouldn't dump CHA.

But then the player would be roleplaying their stats, but that isn't what this thread is about.

Sarcasmancer wrote:
In real life there are plenty of people who are convinced that they are smart, funny, charming, etc. but lack the "stats" to back it up. So if the game models the same situation, I don't see that as a problem that needs to be corrected.

But in that case I would hope that the player would acknowledge that they aren't roleplaying a smart, funny and charming character, rather they are roleplaying a character who thinks they are smart, funny and charming but actually aren't.

In this instance I would hope the player would roleplay a character in such a way, for example being confident in talking to people but saying the wrong thing, or having a creepy stare while they talk, or maybe a childish snigger at their own jokes (that no one else laughs at).

As a GM or other player I would never dream of telling a player specifically how to roleplay their character, but I would encourage them to find some way to roleplay their character's stats.

"Hey, Bob, I know you roleplay your character as an amazingly suave and diplomatic character, but with a Charisma of 8 and no ranks in Diplomacy or Bluff your character is consistently failing at those task. Maybe you could roleplay something about your character that would explain why your character keeps failing - either that or look at investing some skill ranks in those skills"

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
How often do you see people intentionally make characters where the mechanics don't back up the character concept?

Not often, but presumably its on those occasions that the player won't be roleplaying their stats.

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
I mean, my experience is that someone who makes a suave character wants to be able to succeed at the relevant rolls.

And so if they do that by assigning a high Charisma and / or high ranks in Diplomacy, Sense Motive and Bluff they would be playing their stats. But this thread is about players who aren't roleplaying their stats.

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Now, there is a problem that certain concepts are difficult to make work in Pathfinder. [...] The thing is though, I don't think the problem here is how the player is roleplaying their character. The problem is that they weren't able to get what they want out of the system. A solution is for someone else in the group with more system mastery to help that player create a character with the mechanics that fit their character.

I still think that there are some concepts that no matter how much system mastery a player has, simply cannot be built within the limitations of some campaign. If a player wants to be a world renowned wizard, a master of the arcane arts who strides across the planes of existence at a whim - but the campaign is for 1st level characters, that concept is simply not going to be able to be built.

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
There are mechanics for lying (and not having the lie discovered) but there aren't mechanics for pronouncing words correctly or coming up with tactical decisions. It doesn't make sense to require the mechanics to match the roleplay here, because there are no such mechanics!

But it comes down to trying to reconcile the mechanics check result and the roleplaying, if how the player roleplays and the results of the character's actions are consistently at odds then it can cause a problem. It can be better to have the player roleplay in a manner that is more likely to be consistent with the characters results.

For example, if a player is trying to lie his way past a city guard and the player roleplays a sincere sounding plea, with clever details to the lie - but the player then rolls a Bluff result of just 8 (-2 Charisma, no ranks in Bluff, +0 for "lie is believable" and a dice result of 10, i.e. average roll) failing against the level 1 NPC (with no ranks in Sense Motive, just average Wisdom (10/+0) and also a dice result of 10) then it sounds like maybe the character didn't convey all that good information, or he did it in such a way as it didn't sound as sincere as the player delivered it etc.

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
tl;dr: you're arguing against a silly strawman.

To be honest, reading some more of this thread I am not sure what I am arguing against. Could we come up with an example of a player not roleplaying his stats?

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I think like with other mechanical aspects of the character I like the narrative to be consistent with the ratings.

Suppose we are playing a game of D&D where we are all starting at 1st level and one player wants to play the best swordsman in the land, a noted general in the King's army who women swoon over whenever he set foot in a tavern. Should the other players and/or GM not explain that concept is at odds with playing just a 1st level character in a world where major NPCs are routinely 6th level or more, with some of the generals in the King's army level 9 fighters?

Basically if a player continues to narrate his characters actions in a way that is inconsistent with the results of the mechanics (skill checks etc) then I, both as GM and player, will be annoyed.

Bob "Damnit Dave! You keep describing how your character is handsome, articulate, attention grabbing, persuasive and a serial womaniser able to bed any woman he raises an eyebrow at - but your character's Charisma is 7, you have put only 1 rank into Diplomacy (and as you're a Fighter you don't get a Class skill bonus) and you have no ranks at all in Bluff and Sense Motive! And because of that you keep failing miserably at all the stuff your describe your character as being good at."

Dave "But that's how I want to play my character! I see him as a dashing scoundrel"

Bob "Okay then, but then I shall start playing my Strength 7 Wizard as being powerfully muscled, able to win any arm wrestling challenge, and renowned as a famous Strongman."

Dave "But that doesn't make sense, your lifting capacity is only 60lb as a heavy load! And arm wrestles are just a comparison of Strength stats so any Strength 8 character will beat you!"

Bob "But that's how I want to play my character! And if on the odd occasion my character needs to actually lift anything heavier than 60 lb or accept an arm wrestling challenge and fail, I will write that off as a fluke or a muscular twinge."

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I have the PDF of the 4th Doctor Book (early subscriber version) and it looks lovely. I have only skimmed it but its a biggie 256 pages and has loads of pics of the adventures and even includes a write up for Shada in the Appendix (as it was never completed or aired).

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
downerbeautiful wrote:
DigitalMage wrote:
downerbeautiful wrote:
If a creature grapples something, and maintains the grapple, odds are it has no standard action left.
It could be the character grappled that then rather than trying to break free tries to grapple a third character (albeit with just one hand).

Grab is the only ability that allows characters to grapple without gaining the grappled condition, and that assumes the character takes the -20 on the grab attempt to not gain the grappled condition.

That being said, if the person maintaining the grapple chooses to attack another creature for his standard action then without greater grapple/rapid grappler, he loses the grappled target. If the grappled target wants to attack someone else instead of breaking free or attacking the character maintaining the grapple, he may do so. Hopefully his weapon isn't two-handed because then he's SOL.

I am not sure what the reference to Grab was meant in relation to my post. But basically I was saying that if Adam grapples Brad, then Brad could (rather than try to escape from Adam) initiate a grapple on Chris.

So you could get a threeway grapple even at low levels.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
downerbeautiful wrote:
If a creature grapples something, and maintains the grapple, odds are it has no standard action left.

It could be the character grappled that then rather than trying to break free tries to grapple a third character (albeit with just one hand).

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I think as long as a player strives to roleplay the stat in some manner that is fine.

For example if a player roleplays his low charisma character as being fairly good looking but painfully shy with little confidence that is fine - and will even allow for some amusing roleplaying moments if he gets chatted up by an NPC.

1 to 50 of 2,053 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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