|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:
Huge creature? Other than a few odd spellcaster variants, there's nothing anyone could do to escape.
That bard with DD would be trapped as surely as you were.
Elder Basilisk wrote:
It's up to the players to figure out what their characters want to do..... and then die.
However, if they run into a Chimera at level 2, a couple ogre warbands at level 3, a legendary vampire at level 4... they will then die.
How do you flee from a Chimera at Level 2? So, the DM engineers that encounter, right? Well, they cant outrun a chimera. Fly 50, remember? So what would be the purpose of that encounter? To show the Players that the DM is boss? Why not "rocks fall, everyone dies"? Negotiate? CE remember?
If the DM lets them get away or talk their way out, it's DM fiat as much as not having the Chimera encounter in the first place.
1 & 2. This is more or less how I play. No "Ye Olde Magik Shoppe" but plenty of Phat Lewt drops, including personalized ones ("wish list). Indeed, WBL often exceeds guidelines, but since it isnt optimized it isnt over powering.
5. Too open to abuse. Just have something where the spellcaster takes continuous damage and he is now a poor Crossbow archer. Boring.
6. Just slows the game down.
If a Paladin has a Phylactery, and the DM thinks that their action will result in their falling or similar, then the Phylactery will warn the PC and Player. Whereupon if the PC continues, the DM is well within his rights to have the Paladin face consequences. There's never a surprise or argument.
Actually, I think it's more like 20%.
How your table works is HUGE part of it. Some players have a lot of fun finding rules to exploit. At other tables such a thing is really frowned upon.
What level your games get is also important. If your games rarely get into double digits- or at best you finish a AP then retire the character- you won't see issues with high level play.
Theorycrafting is also a issue- while theorycrafting is important and helps stress test, if only a tiny % play that way, it's hardly worth spending a couple weeks fo a devs time to 'fix" something only 1% of players will ever notice.
I think someone posted a wizard with a STR so high he could cast Wish for free using Blood Money. How many games would this actually occur? How many games even actually use Blood Money? How much time should be spent fixing this, then?
What RPG designers have you played with?
I played with Arneson, but he was notorious for making stuff up on the fly. Hargrave knew his system better than anyone. Jay Hartlove knew Supergame! better than anyone. Steve Perrin knew Runequest better than anyone I ever played with. Ken was a master of T&T. M.A.R. Barker knew his world really well, but not the nitty gritty of the rules.
Pretty much every designer I have played with knew their rules better than any player. Sure, even they could be surpried by a occassional odd corner case that the rules lawyers had memorized.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Many DM's have come to these boards complaining that their Rogue is breaking the game with it's Sneak Attack. Around level 5, the Rogue can really be a killer.
Mind you- it doesnt last. But many campaigns and a lot of APs are played in the low levels. The weakness of the rogue isnt really apparent until higher levels.
Well, Ninjas are a rogue archetype so...
But anyway, Sorc & witch can do as well as wizards, oracles as well as Clerics etc, so this is not a big deal. PF has about 30 classes, so sure the four basic niche roles will be filled by more than one class.
Now yes, the basic rogue has a couple of issues: it was a early redesign. The Devs likely didnt realize how weak some of the talents were and how useless the "once a day' talent were.
Next the basic rogue is optimized for skills and trap-finding, not combat. But Paizo APs have few of the diabolical Gygaxian traps that occurred in the OD&D and AD&D days. That's what the Thief was designed for, and believe me friend- you needed a Thief in a old-school dungeon crawl. That why we invented it.
But more AP's are set up for combat,and the basic rogue is not best at that. Mind you, some of the rogue archetypes- ninja, scout, sapmaster- are decent.
So there's the following issues:
The devs didnt realize how weak many of the talents were.
Right, Give them quests. Give them several quests, and let them pick and choose. They can even ignore one.
This way they are on a path, but not a railroad.
Dont punish them. Talk to them like adults.
I saw one board flip, maybe 40 years ago.
Mostly, it helps to play with adults- no matter how old they are.
Quark Blast wrote:
For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.
Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”
Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."
The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.
The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?
See, that's the problem. D&D has never been about "killing things and taking their stuff". If people run/play it like that, sure, you'll have issues.
Have more encounters, fewer combats.
It is up for debate, since that's not the way D&D has been played at any table I have been at for forty years.
You get exp for defeating encounters. Not "killing things". And if you turn evil (in a non-evil campaign) you "lose' as your PC becomes a NPC.
And in many pre-written adventures it's not expected that you go around and massacre peasants and shopkeepers. You dont "kill creatures indiscriminately"- perhaps you kill "monsters' on sight in some (but in others that turns against you) but after all- what is a "Monster"? Perhaps "killing monsters' is simplistic, but it *IS* a *GAME* not a realistic recreation.
So yeah, the Alignment system in D&D has always been a bit simplistic, but that's to make it a fun GAME. You can, of course, make it "more serious" or "more realistic" by adding nuances to morality if you so choose.
1. One or two uses of a Evil spell doesnt make you evil.
2. It's hard to tell if Dresden "animated dead" or just make the skeleton move like a puppet. In D&D terms- Was it "animate dead' or "animate object"?
Is this really helping? OK, you want to play a Slayer rather than a Rogue. So, go ahead- play a Slayer. Why does the existence of the Rogue stop you?
Some did some didn't. RedBox, eh? Get off my law, kid. ;-)
Still, back in those days of fiendish Gygaxian traps, you NEEDED a Thief in a dungeon crawl.
This is one issue with the rogue today, lack of fiendish Gygaxian traps in most PF AP's. You can often just take the hit from the occasional trap. Sad, really.
It made noises and gestures- spellcaster? It reached out to touch= touch attack!
And like we said detect evil doesn't always work. It also could provoke an Attack of Opportunity.
MYTHIC TOZ wrote:
And then very often in these sorts of threads- ignore it unless it is validation of what they wanted to hear. ;-)
(Not saying the OP is ignoring us, but that does happen- a LOT).
Matthew Downie wrote:
The Paladin threw himself into the (evil) wizard's trap. He didn't Detect Evil on the mysterious thing in his room,
Bugbears dont detect as evil, unless they have several levels. And you're allowed to defend yourself from attack, even if your foe is not evil. Touch attacks are common.
This was a complete dick move set up.
Yeah. I dont complain often about PF, but this was a bad idea, and the whole class was poorly thought out.
Playing a race which could shift into a dog. Went and scouted the enemy camp in dog form. But I could only change once a day.
Came back to camp, was about to tell them what I found, then the DM reminds me "You cant speak in that form'. ooops
So I said "Bark, bark, bark!".
One of the other players said "What is it girl, did Timmy fall in the well?"
Campaign where the DM was really into niggling details like rations. Co-DM was his GF, who was also a PC (dont get me started) and a horse expert.
So we had GREAT horses, but we had to provide grain, mash, etc for them. Sure we had iron rations, but we didnt bring that stuff. Thus, horses not happy.
We see a castle on the hill. I ask "Do you think they will have grain and stuff for our horses?"
"Ok- Yonder lies the castle of me fodder!"
Actually, I think few games of whatever level of magic are played a lot beyond 14th level.
Our main game got to 15th, then ended.
I did have a 3.5 game get to 18th, and a 3.0 game get Epic.
And of course some of our early AD&D and OD&D games got crazy high.
This is why I am not terribly concerned there are some issues with very high level games.
There's a bit of talk about how other editions did it better - I'd love to know what the wording was in those editions. Can someone quote them?
http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2010/04/spells-through-ages-haste.html(AD&D spell) Haste: ... When this spell is cast, affected creatures function at double their normal movement and attack rates. Thus, a creature moving at 6" and attacking 1 time per round would move at 12" and attack 2 times per round. Spell casting is not more rapid. The number of creatures which can be affected is equal to the level of experience of the magic-user, those creatures closest to the spell caster being affected in preference to those farther away, and all affected by haste must be in the designated area of effect. Note that this spell negates the effects of a slow spell (see hereafter). Additionally, this spell ages the recipients due to speeded metabolic processes. Its material component is a shaving of licorice root. [1E AD&D PHB, p. 74]
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Right- Haste is a perfect spell. It is critical, yes. But it boosts martials far more than casters.
Haste is one of the reasons why the "Caster/Martial" disparity" is (at many tables) not a significant thing as the group plays as a TEAM.
Haste is one of the reasons why our Fighter in a 14th level is still by far the most dangerous member of the team
Take away Haste, and you get rid of a critical part of Caster/Martial teamwork.
Casters are back to Fireball.
Actually, a lot more than that, depending on how Low you go.
Ultra-Low magic is more different from PF than PF is different from OD&D.
Well, to some extent. I mean, some modifications to the PF magic system can be done without making it "Iron Heroes in Golarion". I dont like "ye Olde Magik Shoppe", but I tend to hand out cool specialized loot. I have put some nerfs on spells and spell casters. I agree that D&D breaks down when casters can do 9th level spells.
I wouldn't mind seeing a PF version of IH.
Bot too often "Low magic' means a DM who is over-reacting to some super-optimized build with some kludgy "fixes" that are worse than the problem.
Or DM's that want to run Iron Heroes type game but when they advert for the game they get no players, so they say "Low magic E2 Pathfinder' instead. To them I say- be honest. Or just try a few small fixes.
No, without ready access to healing even random orcs or bandits are "the entire adventure"
I have done this. Boring as hell.
It goes like this:
Qakisst Vishtani wrote:
Simple, just dont let him run a a rogue. Some newbs are just incapable of understanding that it's a team game, and a rogue isnt supposed to use his skills vs the party.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lgcs?A-Tale-of-Two-Covers"And to be clear, the misprint concerns about three square inches on the front cover. The logo on the spine is correct. The logo on the cover page is correct. The logo on the back is correct. The logo on every spread in the book is correct. One image link broke, to one logo. Yes, it's the most important one, and yes, that's very embarrassing, but ultimately it makes no difference to the book's content. Many folks I've shown the book to did not even notice the difference, as the logos are very similar."
Wow, gee, gosh, that sure is a terrible, horrible error that stops that supplement from being enjoyed!
A few people. Most either dont care or are happy just to buy and use Dreamscarred Press's products as is.
We can't have "another Advanced Class Guide disaster " as there was no disaster in the first place.
Unless you are holding Paizo to such a high level that anything short of perfection is "a disaster".
Note there's a large difference between a NPC and a GMPC (which is a special case of NPC, true).
Generally, when GMPC is used, what is meant is a Character similar to or more powerful than the PC's and who adventures with the party on a more or less constant basis. This can be REALLY annoying and is often abused.
prominent & interesting NPCs= Good
(drags body away to join the others)
Liz Courts wrote:
Good point, Liz.
I dont get the hat hate. There's no reason to hate a person based upon their choice of headgear. That's quite superficial.
And I have been wearing fedoras for forty years, and I never bring up "a discussion on men's rights or Linux." I think your sample size is too small.
Fedoras are cool. They keep the sun off you face, protecting you from skin cancer. They keep your head worm in the cold and dry in the rain.
Hating hat wearers is like hating people who wear shoes based upon the fact that one of them was a jerk once.
This term should be shot dead, and it especially doesnt apply to the Nine Walkers.