Why? Players do it; catching people perfectly in cutout of spells or planning movements and such based on each other's (in-game) abilities. You have to fiat that all players/monsters tend to have an understanding of how the mechanics of the world affect them. If someone is getting knocked over each time they try to punch a guy, there's a good chance that people start to realize that it's a bad idea and the guy is taunting them on purpose; one may even make the relatively low DC to realize Panther Style.
I can see it being done sometimes, especially to challenge a player and differ how they face combat, but metagaming as a matter of course to intentionally marginalize a character concept in an already gimped class is pretty cheap DMing.
I agree. I kind of find the idea that NPCs and monsters will look deeply into the cause and effect of game mechanics to make a decision that *may* be otherwise counter-intuitive as a bit off-putting and heavily meta in a negative context.
Best to talk it out with a GM before hand or, in PFS roll your dice and take your chances.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
I'm trying to make sure my own PCs match the canon perfectly so they fit in the canon and I don't get anxiety for it.
Good luck, but it sounds like a recipe for massive headaches down the line. Obsessing over details that are subject to change is building expectations on a sandy shore.
I work in the color business (yes, there is such a thing), and let me tell you I have a horrible eye for color.
That said...the Paizo Golem is a type of purple, those shirts are a type of blue.
What RGB values are you using for your branding in print and web media? Pantone codes?
Sounds like some really great ideas! I'd consider adapting some of these for future home games.
What's powergaming and what is over the top in the sense of building a character is all a matter of opinion. A majority of this thread is a heaping pile of generalizations built on a negative premise.
* Why do so many people play to "win" nowadays?
Most games are, and historically have been, played to be won. In our case, an open ended game played for the sake of enjoyment still usually involves a desire for a good showing on the part of the player, and most people want to understand the pitfalls of the system to at least meet whatever their minimum performance expectations happen to be, this is usually so they can match performance to concept.
* Where did the flavor and imagination go to?
The question is based too much on personal taste and assumption for me to really answer, and being a loaded question was designed to be answered in a way to affirm your preexisting idea of what entails proper role play. However....3X has given players options that 20 or 30 years ago in OD&D/AD&D were only in the realm of DM fiat and house rules, so you see a heavy emphasis of working within the rules to meet player concepts and expectations. You also see so many conversations about it here because rules and a venue to discuss and further understand them work hand in hand.
* When did people stop building for concept(s)?
It never stopped. I see it all the time on these forums. Why are you not seeing it?
* Is ____ really that broken if played RAW?
Purposefully obtuse and rhetorical.
It's great that it will be funded, but I hope the next time you guys consider using Kickstarter you take a closer look at how your tiers and pricing are set up. You guys added some extra value after the fact, but I think you lost a lot of consideration from people early on who were initially turned off by the pricing structure. But I can only imagine how delicate a task figuring out the pricing for reward tiers must be.
Now, let's knock out that last $1,450.
Awesome, guys! So cool to see the tiles being added as an option for people. Many thanks.
I disagree that new feats are the answer, that is until Paizo stops publishing feats that should be combat actions/maneuvers. Feats should do something cool, or at least outside of the box. We don't need a feat for every little corner case that may pop up in combat, or that cover a generic combat trope that a relatively well trained warrior should be able to attempt.
I love Kirth's ideas he listed a few pages ago, but before I even added those I'd add (the ubiquitous)4+INT skills and do away with all feat prereqs (other than class, class features, level and +BAB) on bonus combat feats. That will end useless chains for the fighter, allow him to retrain into a better version of a feat as he goes up in level without carrying deadweight on his feat list and at least open up feats for the sake of diversity and rounding out the character. It will produce some spiking in power at low levels, but I don't think that's too big a deal, nor would outweigh the value it would bring to getting the class closer to par.
Out of curiosity, please (re?)state your opinion on what would be a good way to "beef" up the fighter, if you don't mind. I looked up your recent posts in the thread and may have missed it...though in my defense there were an inordinate number of posts concerned with perception.
Nope. Never would I bribe a GM, or solicit bribes as a GM.
I generally make an effort to extend common courtesy and a general level of appreciation to whoever provides something to the game (hosting, food etc.), and the GM for running the game, and make an effort myself to reciprocate/add something useful to the experience, but that's just decent manners.
I'm not at all concerned about the quality of the final product with the talent involved.
I see there has been some pushback on the PDF pricing, however, and I definitely agree it's a bit high. I assume you guys are looking to preserve value on what you consider inevitable, or at least likey, stretch goals.
I'll keep an eye on things and try and decide whether I need/want a hard copy version, or not.
Bearded Ben wrote:
But, yeah, as I said above, I think RAW and RAI are pretty clear on this.
If you get Paizo to comment on it, I'd assume, the likeliest response will be a flat out no and, maybe if you're lucky, they'll just dismiss the concept with a charitable "That would make a fine house rule, if you choose to do so." The latter being my opinion, as the most likely beneficiary of this would be a class where a little help on their attack rolls wouldn't hurt.
Cheesy? Sure, but hardly dual-wielding lances from horseback sort of cheese.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
SKR, the writer of the masterwork transformation spell and game designer, says that it will not work. How can this be ignored?
So true! By RAW and RAI you are dead right. However...
This is a clear contender for Rule of Cool status and also qualifies for the FCaOP rider, and that proviso states if it helps anything less than a full caster a majority of the time without breaking the game it's A-okay. But that is a topic for a different subforum...
^He gets it.
I love this! One of my main goals is not to get in the way of the PCs having fun and whatever plots and plans they come up with, so if a PC wants to be some sort of trade mogul, black marketeer or the group wants to be wealthy land magnates this would be a great way of not penalizing them. I know there are some newer other options in UC, which I am still processing, that allow some more flexibility in what PCs can reach out and control, but your method seems like it could be popped right onto a campaign fairly easily and do a great job at expanding options for the PCs.
I actually think this sort of thing is generally bad for busy webboards for a few reasons:
1) "I know you're online, why are you not responding? Did I hit a nerve?" If staff do not go invisible, as mod/admins can do under these sorts of board options, they will eventually get called out by people on why they're not responding to their particular concern-of-the-moment. Big deal? No, this happens already with the really insistent and incessant types, but it could very well have the reciprocal effect of prompting more staff to go invisible and not respond to other threads on the hours they are not responsible for being online. So, we could see a general, albeit slight, downturn in the transparency and downright folksiness we enjoy from Paizo.
2) "I see you're responding, dance for me my puppets!" The ability to see your hated nemesis is responding, or, even better, 8 different regular posters are typing a response to your flamebait feeds that atavistic, attention-whoring rush common among so many trolls. No need to fuel the sense of brinksmanship some of the more adversarial posters already enjoy.
Minor things, but those are the sort of little things that add to an atmosphere of negativity I've seen on other boards.
I'd love to give this a shot! I haven't done a PBEM in ages.
I see there are already four characters chosen...how many slots are you looking to fill?
I'll take a look at the link provided, re-read the above and come up with a character proposal over the weekend if it looks like you're not full up by end of the day. I can never just bang out a character concept off the cuff, so I usually miss the recruitment window, but, either way, I'm glad to see you will be taking your time working things up from concepts to finished characters.
Dude, you need to try some baked brie with a puff pastry exterior, an apricot jam glaze and a few shaved almonds to add texture. Like all the best things in life it's quick, easy and decadent.
You're welcome =p
It's real simple. Limit all posting accounts to a dozen posts a day. Make people be parsimonious with their communication. Take the time sink away from the regulars and who knows? Maybe we'll see some pyramids get built.
And, no, I'm not being serious right now, but it'd be interesting to see some people try and pack their quotas into 12 posts a day.
I know this is kind of a broad topic with a lot of variables and conditionals, but I did some searches here, other forums and google in general and the data was hard to group up.
I was just wondering: any thoughts, or any place I can find preexisting data/discussion on a good rule of thumb by level for what a standard attack bonus should be for martial characters? I figure there must have been a lot of discussion leading to some benchmarks for characters as to what to aspire to as a minimum and I just don't know enough about how the game scales past mid-level. Maybe a better question is how does target AC scale by CR on average?
Sorry if this is a silly question.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Not going to fault this line of reasoning as long as it's not carried out too far to justify ridiculous expectations or behavior, but there's a more pressing expectation of common courtesy that should apply to all participants who sit down at a table with strangers or people that they only know through public play.
I just see a real lack of perspective all over this thread.