Pathfinder Superscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 1,490 posts (1,567 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 3 aliases.
The player only controls their character. Everything else, including animal companions, familiars, hirelings, cohorts, mounts, and so on are controlled by the GM. Most of the time though, its just easier to let the player control them, as the GM has enough to worry about just with the monsters.
(Druids even receive a bonus on Handle Animal and Wild Empathy checks with their animal companions. If the druid was totally in control of their companion, that would be totally unnecessary, implying the at least some of the time the companion does as it wishes not how the druid wants it to.)
The key to Gygax's attitude was "withdrawal". Attempting to "nova and rest" as people put it would have created major problems in Gygax's dungeons, because he used wandering monsters as a matter of course, and random enocunters occurred regularly in the wilderness.
I doubt seriously if Gygax would have tolerated serious attempts to indulge in a 15-minute day.
I like Conan, but he was still protected by plot armor.
As for Gandalf that boils down to "if the easy path were taken it would be a short movie".
You give me Gandalf, and let me write that story, and the ring will be taken from the hobbit and dropped in the volcaneo. Give me Sauron, and those hobbits die by the end of book two. After your minions mess up so many times you need to handle things on your own.
"Plot armour" is your term for [i]deus ex machina[i/]. "Magic" is my term for "deus ex machina". What makes you think that Gandalf casts like a high-level wizard in D&D? I'll tell you - your expectations of playing D&D. Which is a game, not a literary requirement. You are presumably one of these people who tries to work out what level characters in novels are. There are no "rules" as to what magic in a novel can do, so it is down to the whim of the novelist. Gandalf couldn't fight off Saruman, and had to be rescued by a big eagle - so now he's teleporting to Mount Doom? I'm glad you're not writing this stuff - The Lord of the Rings trilogy (all three pages of it). It also demonstrates why casters in D&D are stupidly over-powered. If they can screw up the plot of a novel, why suddenly aren't they screwing up the game?
I'll say it again - "magic" in novels does not demontrate the intrinsic superiority of magic in every way, shape and form and why it should be so in D&D. D&D has instead filtered backwards into fantasy literature and created the expectation that magic is all-powerful among impressionable readers.
Actually as both GM and player, I like actions to have meaningful consequences, both negative and positive- while i'm not sneering down over my glasses at your play-style, its certainly not one I enjoy.
Even in Kingmaker, a delay on my players part cost them a pretty brutal attack on their capital. An attack which I fully rolled out with their NPC's defending the castle walls and in which major allies died. If the NPC's hadn't been so successful in defending it for so long, the place would have been sacked by the time my PC's arrived back. I ran the mass combat out in the open for my players to read as they raced home, right up until the last mass combat round (to preserve a little suspense).
If your playstyle involves there never truly being an incentive to hurry or knowing OOC that you won't be 'too late' for anything, of course the advantage goes to wizards and their ilk...
Even in Paizo AP's, I have my villains be pro-active. They aren't simply sat in a dungeon room, waiting to be killed off, waiting to start their ritual just as the PC's burst in.
Now that is simply my preferred playstyle; but I can tell you that the gap between Wizards and the other classes does not seem nearly as vast as you imply it is in such a playstyle. I often do not even see a disparity until 10th level +, due to a variety of reasons I am sure. Here are a few i'm fairly sure about-
1. Reactive world/playstyle and a sense of player urgency. It becomes fairly clear in my games that if your going to try and clear a dungeon or enemy stronghold bit by bit, novaing every encounter, that bad things are going to happen. This isn't just limited to counterattacks or reinforcements.
2. Intelligent tactics. A wizard has a very mighty toolbox. But there are counters to their spells and encounters do not occur on their terms in my games nearly as much as seems to be implied. Illusion magic in particular can make a wizard blow a significant portion of his payload on a minor threat and readied actions to shoot the spellcaster as he casts remain significant as long as the damage remains reasonably competitive.
3. Perception checks. I mean, seriously. The DC is not particularly high to hear your allies being slaughtered through the next door, or hear the wizard insisting everyone waits while he casts an endless series of buffs on himself.
Adequately prepared and armed with foreknowledge, there is no denying the Wizard in my games is always a force to be reckoned with; the most potent force in fact- when he gets everything on his terms. Villains and adversaries allowing this to happen is, in my eyes, some pretty poor DMing and quite possibly metagaming, depending on their intelligence and the resources available to them.
So: You've naturally concluded that people who find the terms of the contract less concerning than you see to must be morally bankrupt.
Make perfect sense.
Sure seems that way. I better go to church sunday and confess my sins. I get it not everyone is thrilled with the legal terms of the playtest. Yet calling people who disagree morally bankrupt kind of a stretch putting it mildly.
I dont find the legal stuff awkward or unreasonable at all. Nonetheless, to be fair, Epic Meepo was responding to the implicit suggestion that it didnt matter if he did have a problem with it ("...does anyone really expects to be brought before a court if he plays with his homegroup where people have not agreed to the terms of the playtest?!") - the suggestion presumably being that someone with his concerns could just sign it and then break it with impunity.
He wasnt suggesting that anyone who was willing to sign the agreement and stick to it was morally bankrupt - merely implying that signing the agreement with the express intention to not honour it was not something he was prepared to condone.
...does anyone really expects to be brought before a court if he plays with his homegroup where people have not agreed to the terms of the playtest?!
I like to think my word actually means something. When I enter into a legal agreement, I abide by that agreement, even if the other party has no means of confirming or enforcing my compliance. That's part of the reason I don't enter into legal agreements lightly; when I make a commitment to something, I mean it.
I suppose things are different for people who are sitting around saying, "WotC doesn't know who I am and won't ever take me to court, so I don't really have to follow the rules I just promised to follow." If my word was only as good as the ability of the other party to enforce compliance, I guess I'd be just as nonchalant about entering into legal contracts as the next guy.
Realistically, very few dungeon crawls involve more than an hour of adventuring.
I really must ask where this realistic value comes from?
Dungeons are not huge environments. They are, as presented in your typical D&D adventure, fairly compact.
Where do you get this stuff from? Undermountain, Castle Ravenloft, Harrowstone, Dragon Mountain, The Tomb or Horrors, all say Hi just to rattle off a few. But then 4th edition is all about short encounters. So that makes more sense coming from you. But please... the statement that Dungeons are not huge environments is totally your opinion.
Those dungeons are all remarkable for their size. They are the exception rather than the rule. Go open a Pathfinder adventure path, and flip through the dungeons. Most of them would only take a few minutes to walk through.
Which is, of course, why I couched what I said with "typical". Those that are larger are designed for multiple days of adventuring, and so are much more accurately viewed as multiple periods of adventuring stretched out over multiple days. So, again, casting Mage Armor from a scroll (or, even better, a wand!) before you head out is a smart idea. It's insane that you're trying to argue against this.
Again - this is because D&D seems to have (d)evolved into 'encounters' rather than what I would call 'adventures'. This I put forward allowed the 15 minute adventuring day, and even modern DM's are convinced that you have an 'encounter' and then you 'rest' and then you have another 'encounter' - everyone on full hp and full spells is a MUST before letting players near another 'encounter'.
My opinion of this advancement in D&D... Hogwash.
Players need to harden up, boo-hoo you died because your fall back position was 'the rules make this encounter balanced' so thinking/planning/or running away is not required.
Bring back a Finger of Death that actually causes death!!!
They want 5e to be old school feel then they should do it and stop pandering to the bleeding heart balance brigade.
High level Wizards being a problem are the fault of 3e (and started in 2e).
1) Hitler references are getting very tired. To reference anything to Hitler other than WWII is quite tacky and detracts from the horrible things that happened during that War. The lessons of that war should denigrated by comparing them to opposition politicians.
2) There are @$$holes in every group. This guy why i don't think he is n the right by any means is at most ignorant of the issue at hand and not evil or mentally disabled.
3) If you want to create social change you need to be the better person. You need to live by example, you need to reach out to those with opposing views. You need to let others know that if you are a LGBTQ person that most importantly you are a PERSON first. Most people fear and hate what they don't know or don't understand. By making inflammatory remarks you are only being divisive, you are not helping a situation. At best when you make inflammatory remarks you are not trying to start a conversation for change you are trying to create a shout out to all of those who agree with you in an attempt t create a crowd of noise to try and shame your opposition. This does not sway those neutral on the issue in your direction if anything it turns them against you because you look aggressive. So in future maybe you should try to be less dramatic with your comments.
I'm not hopeful, but they are remarkably frank about their business from time to time. It's always interesting to hear why something's impossible, even if it seems it would "obviously" work.
The absalom book is one of the very few pathfinder products I was disappointed by. What was in it was great, but there just wasn't enough room to do the city justice, in my view. (I'd actually love a boxed set detailing the dungeons under kaer maga too, but I'd guess that would be even more economically risky - plus I'm holding out for a mega dungeon AP some day... )
People are stupid. Being also bored, they have nothing better to do than to think of ways to ruin others' fun. Being also irresponsible and inconsiderate, they do not worry over the ramifications of being stupid, bored and interested in ruining the fun of others. That settles the issue as to why so many people come here looking for advice on how to destroy their friends' paladins.
Now, consider how stupid, bored, irresponsible and inconsiderate people are (see above). Imagine those same people deciding they now want to play a paladin. Lacking all of the qualifications for understanding what a paladin is, and the pitfalls of playing one (being themselves the antitheses of courtly courtesy and compassion), you can quickly understand why so many of them come here seeking advice on the most insignificant and trivial of moral quandaries, and why some are boggled by what to the rest of us appear to be clear and obvious moral choices.
I would talk to them and ask what works best with them. They have experience in this area and will appreciate you asking how to help them enjoy the game.
Mainly I just want to give you some money and get the book. I'm an old fart. Extra whatever should either be included with the purchase of a book or should be an add-on pack. While I understand what kickstarter is, I think that's great for projects that are having trouble getting off the ground, not viable products. I'm far, far more likely to mosey on over to the FGG web site and slap still more money down than wade through a kickstarter page. But again, I'm an old guy. As long as I don't need to visit Facebook, I don't much really care what you do.
Oh, and $100 for what you're describing is fantastically awesomely delicious. I'd expect to pay much more. Of course... I will, but only because of shipping.
In my opinion, you're in a fantasy world! Why be something you can be in real life when you can be something fantastical. I play RPGs to escape from reality, not just dive in further.
For example, Sargava. There are tons of adventure ideas about the tension between chelish colonists and mwangi natives, but I don't want to play an RPG that is essentially colonial africa with crossbows instead of muskets. I want to play adventure with dwarf/orc wars or tension between giants and elves, stuff like that.
There are dozens of settings s that cater to your expectations. Golarion is one that's for those who enjoy themes that are inspired by history and myth of our civilization. Orcs vs. dwarves was done to death thousand times, white colonists vs black natives is something you don't see often in fantasy worlds.
I am really not a fan of the whole wealth by level system. And the OP here is a good reason why. If the game is fun and challenging, who the heck cares about the wealth?
I'll become a fan of the wealth by level system the first time a player comes up to me as a GM and says "um.... well, the thing is... you see... my character has too much wealth according to the wealth by level guidelines so I need to give some back...."
Just enjoy the game, get by on your wits. If you really want something... speak up in-character and seek it out. There are ways to acquire treasure that don't involve spending money or crafting. For decades players focused much more on their characters than on the trappings of wealth anyhow. I'll respect your right to find it "unfun" but have you really explored the alternatives already? I find great enjoyment by just scraping by, making the most of everything, especially due to scarcity.
Because you rolled a 20 diplomacy and got someone to work with you for 1d4 hours doesn't mean that person perceives you as a charismatic person. It means you convinced them to work with you, for a limited time.
I agree.
Quote:
I keep asking the question, why wouldn't a GM consider the personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance of a player when considering NPC interactions?
I need examples. That is why I asked the question in my last post about how it would manifest mechanically.
Quote:
Where I do have an issue is with players who come to the table with a low charisma and say "I am suave, people love and follow me, and I'm drop dead gorgeous." and then get mad when the Bard who actually has the scores to back up that description gets the due benefits of having those kind of scores during conversations and general social interactions.
I have never seen anyone get upset about that. I am assuming the bard picks up the ladies, as an example, and the low cha character does not. If that example is correct then the high cha guy should be the one taking women back to his room.
If all other things are equal.
This is the key. It is a factor, but not the factor. If the high charisma guy does something to offend, it doesn't matter. But all things being equal, the high charisma guy has advantages over the low charisma guy.
I have seen people argue that it is cruel to not let a low charisma character be just as suave as a high charisma character if they put points in diplomacy.
All I am saying is that since charisma is supposed to reflect factors that would be important in social interaction, the GM should consider those factors, along with all other factors they would consider.
I personally don't know why this is controversial.
"and if you look to your right, you'll see the same inane Edition War."
*photos snap*
"Oooh...listen closely. You can hear the call of the Angry Hasbro Conspiracy Theorist, and the answering cry of the Hardcore Defender."
True Story: Hasbro executives monitor the amount of toilet paper in the Men's room on the 3rd floor of WotC HQ. They routinely vote on whether to give the employees two-ply or single-ply (the chapped asscheeks of the employees on that floor are evidence of management's decision thus far).
Truer Story: There's a stockholder meeting next month in which the Hasbro executives plan to spend approximately 3 hours explaining the D&D brand in extreme detail, including running an improvised game, because the product is so essential to the company's operations. To not disclose such things would be to commit fraud on the stockholders.
Ever since the announcement of 5th edition DND. Many roleplayers speculate that it is going to be a pathfinder clone. Many believe the product will fail. I for one hope that happens. If it does,and the company has the funds and the retained earnings you should look into acquisitioning the DND brand from WOTC. I believe the Paizo staff out of any group in the roleplaying industry is the most competent to hold that brand.
Posts like this can't help but add to the general impression that gamers, especially fan gamers make lousy buisnessfolk.
Dude, if you've been around long enough, all of these threads cover ground that has been trampled into infertility long, long ago. After a while, you can predict just about every comment made three posts before someone makes them.
Honestly, the 1% of people who find this all new and exciting should just ignore the rest of us who are having fun and goofing on each other, arguing to argue, or being dicks just to be dicks and have your own conversation between it all.
And, seriously, anyone who thinks anything on a gaming forum is Serious Business, tm, is hilarious. Unless you're actually getting paid to take it seriously and it puts food on your table, that is.
You know what, several of us here are deeply offended at the title of this thread. If you want to engage in discussion about how Paizo represents women in our products, please take a minute to read some of the previous threads about this topic, and start a new thread with a less inflammatory title. (And if your excuse is "it's the best that came to my mind", think harder.)
I guess the counter to the 'golf bag' is the 'one size fits all'. Monster A, use Sword Y and Spell Z. Monster B, use Sword Y and Spell Z. Monster C, use Sword Y and Spell Z, etc. The only challenge is the moving the little plastic miniatures about the game board and thinking what Sword Y and Spell Z will be replaced with when you go up a level.
Save or Die spells/effects. When you have an opponent capable of such dire magics there are the dead and cautious. That aside at the level these spells appear Raise Dead also is available so it's not the end of the world (well depending on your CON based res. roll*). Everything in D&D has headed towards a 'you slap - they slap' type of affair in battle. For me, as both DM and player, walking into a room and suddenly either you or another party member is a fine mist of grey dust really makes you think about the events that lead to this happening (usually consisting of blaming the party leader, assuming they aren't the grey mist). Hard to build a sense of danger/suspense when the only outcome of an encounter is hit point damage.
3.5e+ promotes individualism, even 4e used a tagline to show it was trying to reverse this consequence of the 3.5e+ rules. None of the 1e/2e specific forums bother doing DPR competitions, why, because that stuff really doesn't matter when working as a team.
As for Vamps and Werewolves - hurting them to the point of death by hitting them really, really hard just doesn't line up with the mythology they are based on. Damage reduction just means players focus on more damage output, because it's ALL you need in EVERY situation - back to DPR competitions. Unless we want to start having angst virgin Vamps sparking in the sunlight like in the Twilight series - in this case I'm all for hitting them really hard and having them die.
So in brief DR = I need more damage output, +x to hit without +x available = How do we do this? Perhaps a trap or other weaknesses? No sword for that Vamp, running water trap, sunlight trap, other cunning arsed plan. All more fun and rewarding for players and DM than, collect 1000's gold, make weapon, beat up vampire.
If by meta-gaming you mean in-game research, where PC's may have to understand their foe after perhaps a failed frontal assault, then I agree with you. In 3.5E+ if you can bring enough DPR to bear you win, full stop. In 1e/2e (actually 3e also I seem to remember) this was not the case.
When I first saw 3e I thought this was great that players could adapt to the adventure, picking new skills (read as classes) as made sense. By the time 3.5e hit I was jaded, players weren't looking at the rules in this way. They were meta-gaming to the extreme, pre-making characters from levels 1 to 20. Suddenly becoming Wizards or Fighters when there was no logical way they could have trained these skills in the middle of nowhere (and going up levels so fast they never really get to 'be' there character). So for me d20 D&D failed because it didn't have a enough DM hand-brakes. The D&D Cyclopedia for example states 100% that the DM chooses spells that Magic-Users & Elves have in their spell books. Even stating, if you as DM don't want Charm Person in the game - don't give it to a player. Try that these days and there will be a DM-buring out back.
As you say, depends on the game wanted. I liked the Nancy Drew / Scooby Doo of 1e/2e vs the A-Team of 3.5e+. In 1e/2e running away was a good thing, in 3.5e+ it seems if you need to run away the DM buggered up the CR of the encounter and should be stoned to death.
But if done right WotC may make us all happy campers.
S.
*Can we at least bring back -1 CON every time you are brought back from the dead?
Characters at 20th level are still human beings. Conan and Drizzt don't go jumping off cliffs and swimming in lava just because they're "high level". They're still constrained by real world physics barring magical assistance. I don't think it's too much to ask that the rules reflect that.
I believe that there would be only one reason that it would matter to a player that a DM has made changes to an AP/module, and that is because the player has read that AP/module, and is expecting it to have specific traps/encounters/treasures, etc.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that upsetting those expectations is part of a DM's responsibility to give his players a new and exciting experience. If you already know the plot, then you're not going to be surprised. If they need to know if changes have been made to the text, they can find out after it's over.
I had a player ask me why I don't allow rings of sustenance in my game. My response was that I want to be able to catch the characters sleeping. He was shocked by that, until another player pointed out that a game where you're always ready for the encounter is bo-o-o-ring.
Maybe others don't have a problem with reading ahead, but I don't run boring games. My players will attest to that.
And I will make changes to APs and modules that are "the greatest RPG supplements of all time". Because, since they're so famous, at least one of my players will have read them.
And I'm planning to catch that player by surprise.
In 1/2E, casters went straight to super-hero territory, because they kept getting more and more powerful spells, while non-casters got into more trouble.
I don't see a way to balance the traditional power and spell lists of (Pre-4E) D&D without making everyone magic.
The spell casting system in 1e was a equalizer, if a 18th level Archmage ever stood before an 18th Fighter - my money is on the fighter. Now at range I'll side with the Magic-User. Casting in combat was something unlikely to end in you ever reaching high levels as a Magic-User. You required 'team work' with a Fighter taking the front and stopping the nasty getting behind the lines. Rogues perhaps staying hidden at the back waiting to pounce on the enemy who does get through. I'm with Jerry 110% on this. 3e+ seems to have instilled a competitive streak in people. It's like damage output is the penis-length of the D&D world.
A blacksmith in 1e had a maximum of 9 hp - now with the 3e+ Expert NPC they can have LOTS. How can I as a DM make a scary dragon if the local baker can take multiple breath weapon attacks and has a better to hit than the dragon?!
I have had to play by these inflationary rules for the last 12 years, perhaps now under 5e I don't have too. But I do hope they leave in the bits that you obviously enjoy, those who started D&D under 3e perhaps don't get why I would want to 'nerf' all the classes. For me I have massive difficulty justifying the campaign worlds under 3e+. They make no sense - I extrapolate to a world filled only with high level individuals.
If you do end up doing something with a GM map and a Player's map, please make sure that the Player's map removes more than just the S for secret doors. If you see a passage that doesn't connect with anything else, but two ends are against two other corridors, it doesn't take a genius to think "Maybe I should search for a secret door right about...HERE!" Hide ALL the things that should be secret, not just the things that tell you that the (for example) door itself should be secret.
I love to read modules. They give me ideas for my campaign world. But I try to restrict my reading to modules I've already played or I am planning to run.
Beside that, our constitution creates a separation between church and state. Religious reasons aren't valid in the US.
That is a very crude and inaccurate statement. Religious reasons are perfectly fine for people in the US to decide things. If someone's religion teaches them that all people should be treated fairly, then they can use those religious reasons to support policies that treat people fairly. The constitution does not require people to shed their religion at the church/mosque/temple/whatever door. The constitutional issue is more about having the government come in and force religions to teach specific policies, not about forcing people to abandon their faith when discussing social policy. You can't have a state religion, but that doesn't stop individuals from using their own religious beliefs to decide what they can and can not support policy wise.
EDIT: Reminds me of people that think that Paizo shouldn't be able to delete their posts because they have the freedom of speech.
I can't imagine a game where appearance doesn't play a part. Determining what a character is wearing, and how he keeps his appearance (bright and shiny, unshaven, ill-kempt, neat but not fancy, dressed to the nines, etc.) can make a big difference, even in combat.
A bunch of goblins might attack the big guy in the shining armor while their bugbear leader goes after the scruffy guy in the back because he's more likely to sneak attack, and the good-looking, well-dressed character might be targeted for capture instead of death because he (or she) would fetch a fair price in the slave markets.
My campaigns are big on intrigue, and a bar of soap can go a long way toward helping a character seduce the ambassador, or get a chance to dance with the princess at the centennial ball in order to find out her father's plans in the event of war. What a character looks like might be more important than what skills he has in such situations.
And, while I'm not a stickler for keeping track of every little penny, what the characters are buying and how freely they spend their money can determine the course of action for the local thieves and bandits. Not to mention how the local populace looks at them. An open purse goes a long way towards making the villagers welcome you with open arms.
I don't consider it fluff. It's roleplaying, pure and simple, and it's just as important as how many attacks per round you have, or what weapon you wield.
I have always had problems accepting (not that I can argue that there is any real flaw with this approach) combat "To Hit" rolls that use modifiers to the dice derived from ability scores other than Dex and Strength. I don't know why, but it really bugged me when I tried to explain to players how it was that a Bard got to add his Charisma bonus to a to hit roll with a bow and arrow. I know, in the long run, it isn't relevant how the action is resolved, things hit or they don’t, do damage, produce cool effects, yadda-yadda, but it just felt weird to me.
So I am sort of on the fence about this as far as any development of 5e is concerned. I don’t think I would like to see this aspect of 4e carried over, but then again I understand a lot of players liked the diversity it opened up in battles.
I guess I like the idea of combat being the domain of the physical ability scores, Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, and Magic being the domain of the mental ability scores, Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma.
See, I liked how I didn't have to be MAD (multiple attribute dependant) for characters that can cast a bit and are supposed to fight on the front lines. A most prime example of this is the Paladin. By having him use Charisma for his attacks, he doens't have to put a TON of emphasis on Strength and Charisma fueled a lot of his Mo-jo too. I love that sort of synergy.
I also think the only reason physical wepaon attacks are only done through Str and Dex was just to simulate real-world physics (something that is a bit controversial, so I'll steer clear) and that when you force classes to use them AND have a resonable amount of points in other attributes to their other stuff well....it causes problems. The 3E paladin needed high Strength for his attacks, moderate Constitution for HP due to him being on the front lines, moderate- to high-Charisma that fuels ALL of his class features, and moderate-Wisdom because it's what his spells were pulled from. PF made his spellcasting tie...
This is one of the things I could not get to work out in my head. I like the separation of physical stats from mental statistics. Maybe it is because of real world physics, but I never liked the idea of any other stat controlling physical attacks other than strength or Dexterity. It might make playing a character easier, but I don't think common sense should be sacrificed for ease of rules.
I was just listing for myself what a magic system should have/address for a game, and something dawned on me:
The removal of Vancian magic isn't about eliminating memorization. It's about the role of spellcasters in combat. The ability of casters to throw a spell every round, effectively reducing magic to nothing more than a weapon like a sword or a club.
When a Vandcian caster stands at the back of the party, relying on the fighter to hold off the charging enemy while he gathers the energies necessary to release a spell, this is an event, something that goes beyond merely swinging a sword; casting spells is not casual. That's why we call it magic, with all the connotations the word has.
Rendering what spellcasters do to just another means of knocking hit points off the monster cheapens that.
I would like to point something out to the 4e fans. Very few people NOT in the 4e fold are clamoring for WotC to do anything. We weren't asking for 5e, we may have speculated on how long it would take WotC to scrap 4e and change editions, but we weren't asking WotC to do anything. They are pandering to US. We moved on. We play Pathfinder. We have a game that feels the way we want it to, has enough of the sacred cows we like to play like the D&D we know. We don't need 5e.
WotC seems to think 5e needs us, however. You want to complain about them taking a "step back", go complain to them. We're telling you why we don't play 4e. It doesn't matter if you accept our opinions, the fact is, your stridency and demands for "logical" opinions isn't going to sell one book for WotC. Not enough people liked/bought 4e for WotC to continue making it. It was the most divisive edition, by far, ever made. Our hobby is smaller than it was in the '80s (sorry, it's true, people who have actually seen the sales numbers from WotC 3x and TSR 1e have spoken, on these boards, on the matter), so dividing the base basically in half had to be devastating.
They need us back, we don't need them, so they're going to pander. That's how life works. Deal with it.
Again, apparently 4e fans aren't making them enough money. I'm not sure that this element that wants "fire and forget" eliminated is, as most people still playing D&D that isn't 4th are still playing with fire and forget wizards, druids and clerics. So your "imo" is basically a projection based on, well, nothing.
"If they're going to keep 4e players on board"? I don't think that is much of a concern of theirs really. Y'all have nowhere to go. The GSL eliminated any possibility of a "Pathfinder" for 4e coming from a disenfranchised 3pp, and, frankly, I doubt many 4e players really care about the magic system as much as the vocal whinority here lets on. Most of the people I know that play 4e also play Pathfinder, 3x, and older editions. And they have the books, so they'll probably still play all of them.
This isn't going to be 2008 redux. People who didn't like 4e had a place to go for new "what they considered D&D" product. There were options. 4e players might have an alternative magic rule in the new edition. But 5e isn't going to be a continuation, it's going to be an attempt at a reconciliation with all the people who decided to not follow them to 4e. I wish them luck, and, as it will be an "odd" numbered edition, and history follows suit, I might like it.
But, really. It's over. The dollar has spoken. 4e lost. Get over it.
First off can we drop the whole "if you don't like Vancian magic play something else" cop-out. That is what it is. Some posters like Vancian magic and I respct that. Some like me don't respect that to.
Nope. Not going to happen. Again, D&D is a game. Invented by Gygax and Arneson. There are elements that make it distinctive from other games. Vancian style spell casting is one. It's pretty obvious to everybody except hard core 4e fans that WotC realizes they dropped the ball big time, since they're not revising 4e, they're scrapping it after the shortest edition run in the history of D&D. One of the biggest "4e isn't D&D" complaints? Getting rid of the iconic spell casting system.
So, if the market is saying they want something, and the people who don't like that very iconic aspect of the game want something else, the market wins. So, yeah, no offense, but go play something else.
memorax wrote:
For every person who says the 15 minute adventure does not exist I have run across 9 more that say it does. It slows the game down too much when once the arcane casters run out of spells they have to rest. Speaking for myself having to fire my measly crossbow over and over again well it gets boring. Telling me to play another class is yet another cop-out. Why it does nothing to address the problem. Sorry but I don't subscriobe to the "shut-up and suck it up and play your damn class" mentality.
For every person who doesn't see a problem, there are nine that have no clue about resource management and need to be spectacularly uber every round of every combat. Most games when I play my wizard, I rarely come close to running out of spells. I'm not wasting my resources on opponents the martial classes are supposed to be handling for me. I save my mojo for when it is really needed. Maybe understanding a D&D party is a team, all specializing in something, and not always needed in every situation to be successful is too unselfish for some people, but it's how the game was designed to be played pretty much from 1974 until 2008.
memorax wrote:
Stuff about sacred cows
Why, you ask? It may have a lot to do with the fact their big move away from the sacred cows failed, and another company stole their mojo. You may have to resign yourself to understanding you are in the minority when it comes to what people think D&D is. Smart companies don't market to the minority of their fan base.
I disagree with most of what you've said. It's been my experience that the majority of spellcasters in a typical D&D game seldom run completely out of spell usages, even in dungeon situations. But then that's because most spellcasters in games I've played in don't bulk up on combat spells. Combat is best handled by those characters designed for it, like fighters and barbarians.
I don't accept the notion of the 15-minute adventuring day. That's poor planning on the party's part. Spellcasting isn't intended to replace fighter types. It is intended to provide support. Treating wizards as artillery or expecting the cleric to cast a cure light wounds spell on every hangnail is what depletes spell usages so that casters have to rest 6-8 hours before the next encounter.
A single day in D&D can result in multiple encounters; in AD&D, there were up to six chances per day, and in 3E there's a percentage chance every hour. That should tell you that Vancian spellcasters were meant to be circumspect in what they cast, since their spells were meant to last through multiple encounters.
Making a selection of specific spells exceptionally powerful while giving casters at-will uses of less-powerful spells does not help the problem of power creep (IMO, it would make the problem worse). While I admit that the number of spell usages a caster has tends to overwhelm the restrictions of Vancian magic, having to carefully select those spells provides some control.
As far as magic items being hard-wired into character advancement, I don't remember whether it was Mearls or Cook who mentioned that wasn't going to be the case in 5E. Apparently, magic items are going back to what they were originally - bonuses, not necessities. (Controlled by the DM, undoubtedly.)
I always liked the 'Vancian' (or what I call it the D&D) magic system. It limits casters in a interesting way. I mean with limited resouces why should the cleric take the spell Find Traps or the Wizard take Knock if there is a rogue in the group? Sure if there is not having those spells is pretty awesome...
I don't think we need to hash out a whole Vancian-vs.-non-Vancian war here, but there are interesting ways to limit casters that don't involve the false dilemma that Vancian casting presents. There are a lot of very good reasons to support other sorts of spellcasting systems - spell points, spontaneous casting, 4e's AEDU system, etc. - and precious few in favor of Vancian beyond the nostalgia and tradition factors.
Again, if D&D's magic system were developed, today, from scratch, there's almost no chance it would look anything like the Vancian memorization system the game was raised on. I don't think it would survive a pros-and-cons design roundtable discussion when put up against the other roads that can be taken.
And the beauty part is, there are tons of games out there that don't use Vancian magic that you can play since it's so inefficient and just pointless pandering. Heck, I hear there's even a version of D&D that doesn't use it. You might really dig it.
The game isn't all about perfect mathematical ratios and efficiency, it's about role-playing fantasy. Even in imagination-land, the numbers aren't always perfect. Vancian spellcasting is viewed by a LOT of players as a very "Sacred Cow," and should have some place in the new iteration if they are really vying for uniting fans of all editions.
But, take another look at the team making 5e; many of them were responsible for alternate systems within other editions. So, even though Vancian is back, I have a very, very strong feeling it's not going to be the only way to use magic. Heck, Monte even says in the seminar that magic is going to be about more than just spells. If Vancian spellcasting is just one kind of spellcasting, I am perfectly ok with that, and I welcome all the other options.
For me, the removal of Vancian spellcasting made about as much sense as removing Lightsabers from Star Wars; who really sword-fights when everyone in the galaxy is carrying firearms? It's part of the package. Not everything in the game has to be efficient and perfect to "fit." Vancian spellcasting always just felt (to me, not speaking for a crowd) like a part of the game. By removing it, I might as well just go play something else.
While, as I have already said, I still use xp and only player's that are present get xp, let me make clear where I deviate from some of the others that do this as well.
I give everyone the same xp that was present. It doesn't matter if your rogue did all kinds of cool crap and the monk player hung back and tossed shuriken when it was convenient. Both get the same xp. I don't want to promote spotlight hogging, and so players can't advance faster than anyone else by trying to do a bunch of stuff solo.
Also, I am not avoiding giving xp to people that aren't there due to not wanting them to "mooch off of" the people that were there (did that make sense to you?). Frankly, I don't think the players really care if anyone else gets xp for them doing things. As many have said, much of the fun is by getting to adventure.
I know some have said if a player has a "valid" reason for being gone, then they give them xp and if they don't then they don't. Frankly, I am not the school truancy officer who is making sure that people aren't "skipping". I game with adults and I leave it to them to decide if their reason is valid or not. Maybe they just aren't in the mood to game that day, who am I to say that is not a valid reason? And would I really want someone there that would rather be doing something else that day? I'd rather have them there when they want to be. The fact that their character may not advance during the absence may be a factor to motivate them to show up but I seriously doubt it has ever been a deciding factor.
So, why continue to use it? We use xp as a measure of the personal growth of the character. If one week we have 5 PCs and the next week we have 3 PCs, and each time they faced roughly the same difficulties, then those that were present both times are going to grow more during the time there were less PCs. How do I measure that if everyone gets the same xp? Also, how can your character experience personal growth when they didn't personally grow?
I guess I would say that I see it more as the story of the characters and their development as well as the narrative of the journey they are on. While the development of the story is important, the development of the characters is more. That is why I'm a bit against just leveling everyone up at the same time when the story hits a certain point. As if the story was driving character development and not the other way around.
Now if you have a group that thrives on being competitive and likes one-upmanship, no problem.
Here's the thing, you see games with characters with different amounts of XP and other rewards as showing an inter-player competitiveness. I don't. I can accept when someone's PC has done well (or been played more) and gotten rewarded more than my PC has. He was there, he got the benefit of being there. No problem. I can be happy for him.
I see problems with disparity as stemming from a certain degree of competitiveness... one that can't handle jealousy issues. It's been an element in online RPG discussions for some time now and I'm not fond of it. It's the implication if a player isn't having the same fun as that other player is at the same time, there's something wrong with the game. The game is bad, broken, DM is bad, whatever. It's like nobody can stomach watching someone else have fun for a little bit without needing to participate in it.
I recognize there may be a problem in handling groups if players are blocked from participation for long stretches. There are plenty of horror stories of players traveling to distant games only to be stiffed on the side by a DM not willing to accommodate an early entrance. But the trend has been for everybody to have their hands in everything all the time because nobody seems to be willing to be happy for anybody else getting spotlight time without them. There's a middle ground here in which we don't have to sweat differences in rewards, XPs, short term differences in spotlight time, or fun.
While I agree that the main negative consequence to not being present at a game session is you miss out on the fun of the game, I also don't give out xp for players that are gone (note I still pay 3.5ed, so xp has additional uses in that system besides merely leveling). The missed xp isn't that much of a deal that someone that really doesn't want to be there will make it just to get the xp, it is really the fun of playing that they don't want to miss.
Yet, a part of the fun of D&D/PF/d20 is seeing your character develop and gain new abilities. The putting off of those gains can also be a motivating factor to regular attend a game session. Again, not the biggest factor (the fun of playing and seeing the story unfold is that) but a factor none the less.
Now I don't allow more than three levels difference between the highest and the lowest character (usually all characters are within one level of one another). Because if there is too much of a difference between characters it starts to feel like the lower characters are dead weight. But a level or even two isn't going to be too bad. Also, as I noted above, I play 3.5, which means that lower level characters get more xp than higher level characters. In fact in very rare cases they could even over take the higher level character. So it is not like a player that misses a session here or there is going to end up as a permanent side kick or something.
Also, I only give group (for everyone present) xp awards, rogues that sneak off to rob people don't get extra xp for such. The group gets rewarded since it is the group's time being used to roleplay it.
I know some have mentioned that not rewarding xp is metagaming since the character is not being rewarded/punished for the player's ability to play or not. I don't disagree, but xp, class level, etc, are all metagame concepts. A character develops more slowly than their companions within the game setting is not something unusual. We all know people that have picked up something faster than ourselves. And there are times when we pick something up faster than another.
But since when is lack of a reward considered to be a punishment?
XPs aren't so much a reward, they're a mechanical part of the game representing the advancement of a character. In that light, they are similar to gold pieces; fast-tracking or slowing down the allowance of XPs (or gp) as a whole (ie. equally for all player) is fine, but targeting a single character at being less experienced (or poorer) than its companions is a punishment for its controlling player.
Since XPs and gp (and the resulting gear that it can buy) are an expected, mechanical part of the game, I prefer more punctual mechanics as rewards, such as action points or equivalent.
'findel
Considering XPs are something you get in return for overcoming challenges or advancing the story, I think I'm going to have to stick with them being a reward rather than an entitlement.
Lawful Good Old Testament God is Lawful Good, a rebuttal, but off topic:
Uriel393 wrote:
I'm surprised that people mention Paladin,when the OT God is clearly NOT LG... I'd give him LN, the very definition, even 'Worship me or Else...'
Eh... no. You're confusing Law (and it's natural attendant strictures and enforced repercussions) with morality in general. Lawful Neutral doesn't even fit the definition of "worship me or else" - look at Abadar or Aroden as a perfect examples of this. Also, this view is born of the D&D conceit that morality is defined separately from High Divinity (what the Hebrew God claims to be).
The Biblical presentation has it that the God of the Hebrews was the only non-evil divinity that existed - that all others were, in fact, evil - and was not only good, but the source of all goodness - Good was not possible without Him. In much the same way as it's generally justified for a paladin to go around smiting the devotees of evil deities - even entire societies - it was the acceptable thing because all other deities worshiped were evil by default. Further, there was never really an "or else" clause, except to those that actually worshiped Him already (most others were left alone unless they specifically went against Him or His chosen people). You may certainly debate the morality of specifics based off of other moral creeds, but given its own code of ethics and morality as-presented, it's pretty clear that it's a Lawful and Good deity demanding lawful and good things.
Further:
* as far as origins go, God showed up to Abraham and said "Hey, here's the deal, follow me and I'll bless you." and then he did and He did.
* when the family was later betrayed by a paranoid Pharaoh who enslaved them and their descendents for a while, He showed up in response to their prayers, freed them (again by smiting those who worshiped evil deities) and gave them a deal: 1) Follow Me, 2) Or Else, 3) Or Go Elsewhere. The latter was a very real option, just not accepted (everyone wanted to claim a part of/blessings from the Big-Scary-Shiny-Thing-That-Is-Obviously-God-Manifest).
* when punishing the inhabitants of Canaan, it calls them out as worshiping evil things, ergo deserving of smiting
* when the Israelis didn't go through with the smiting-as-ordered the negative consequences were exactly as predicted i.e. they fell away from the only good deity and into worship of evil deities, ergo opened themselves up to smiting later
But really, all this is an aside. Point being the morality of the Old Testament God doesn't mesh with your view of what morality should be, and that's an understandable position to take.
I'd suggest, similarly to some others, that Moses might be an Aristocrat with the flaw (Stutter), who perhaps became a Ranger (perhaps with some tactician-style archetype not yet seen) during his wanderings as a shepherd, and perhaps picked up a level or two of inquisitor or oracle. I'd tend to think inquisitor, but I can certainly see Oracle as a debatable point.
As others have said, the staff was very blessed, and many things were basically God telling Moses "tell him to do X for Y or else Z" and then the party he speaks to not doing X, so Z happens and everyone wonders why they never got their desired Y result.
Very rarely was it Moses himself doing anything - the staff to a big snake, the parting of the waters, the holding his staff to turn the tide of battle, striking (or theoretically speaking to) a rock to get water, or building the snake were all his work... but each of them were directly in response to being told "Do this" and he did more than him saying "hey, can I do this?" and being allowed.
But, again, as has been mentioned, most miraculous things just kind of happened around him whether he was into it or not. In fact, just as often he totally would have preferred for it to never have occurred and begged off a few disasters that would have otherwise happened if not for his prayers. If anything, in game terms, its more often like he either chose to (or chose not to or failed to) counter-spell things God was doing than him actually working miracles himself.
Man, heh, that's a lot of people who've pointed out the exact same thing about his level spread in Testament.
Posts
