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

DrDeth's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 5,554 posts. 17 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 893 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Green Tea Gamer wrote:

In science, a traditional study is more valid than a case study.

Similarly, the opinions of 40 people who played 1 year are more valid than the opinion of 1 person who played 40 years.

That doesn't mean your opinion is invalid, but you can't disregard dozens of people saying stuff contrary to your opinion just because they haven't played as long as you have.

Sure. As long as they have played both as DMPC running DMs and as Players in several campaigns with DMPCs.

I can disregard those who have only run DMPCs and have never seen it from the other side.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

If you praise empirical evidence so strongly, how do you respond to the empirical evidence of the other side?

If there is a whole other course and a series of observable events from multiple people with experiences entirely different to your own, that you claim cannot happen because they didn't happen to you, how do you respond to that empirical observed evidence?

Well, since in most cases it's DMs who say "I run DMPC's and my players love them!" I respond with "I have personally observed, thru forty years of playing and DMing, that in the cases where the DMPC was a bad idea, that the DM was always clueless and had no idea it was annoying the heck out of his players, or that was why so many were leaving.".

So, I get to dismiss the biased evidence of DMs praising their own use of DMPCs, since I did it , and I found out I was deluded myself.

But again, like I said: I have also seen a few times where they were no big deal, and added to the DM's fun- which means they made the game more fun for everyone.

So, by no means are DMPCs always bad. Just dont think that just because your players aren't complaining TO YOU about your DMPC that they love it.

It costs nothing to discuss the issue with your players. Also, think about games where you were a player and the DM ran a DMPC- did you like it?

As I once posted:

"Confessions of a repentant DMPC running DM.

Hi, I have been DMing since around 1975 or so. And, like many of you, I used to run DMPCs. Funny, most of the time, when other DM’s did it, I didn’t much care for it, or even actively hated it. But I never said anything about it to my DM. I did complain to my fellow players and once I even stopped showing up for the games.

Then, I got into a conversation with one of my players, and we’d both been playing in another DM’s game, where he ran a DMPC. The other player & I were complaining about this. Then, I thought smugly to myself- “But of course, everyone likes it when *I* run a DMPC…” …then it hit me. No, they didn’t. It was just that I wasn’t obnoxious about it like the guy most of us walked out on.

Then I thought, well, maybe sometimes the party needs another PC (Usually a healer)- then I thought about seeing others introduce a NPC, which was roleplayed by the DM during the introduction, then handed over to the players to run- with the DM stepping in if the players got silly or stupid.

I then thought back about the ONE DM I had where we all loved her DMPCs- then realized her DMPCs never did anything- well maybe healed us after battle or said things like “Hmm, I wonder what the Elvish word for “friend” is?”. Sure, she roleplayed, but the party was always her protector, not the other way around, and during combat or adventuring she did almost nothing. In fact many times we had no idea of what class she was- and of course, it didn’t matter. Her DMPC was just a Macguffin.

I then swore off the bad habit forever. Now, if the party needs another PC, I give them a real NPC- as above, one they run."

Again- by no means are DMPCs always bad. Just think about it, talk about it with your players. Dont assume.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

This entire thread is full of personal bias being represented as empirical data. Which is what I was mocking.

"Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation." wiki.

I have personally observed, thru forty years of playing and DMing, in dozens of groups, with dozens and dozens of DMs- that DMPCs are usually a bad idea. This includes the times when I ran the DMPC, and found out later- it wasn't a good idea.

I have personally observed, thru forty years of playing and DMing, that in the cases where the DMPC was a bad idea, that the DM was always clueless and had no idea it was annoying the heck out of his players, or that was why so many were leaving.

I have also seen a few times where they were no big deal, and added to the DM's fun- which means they made the game more fun for everyone.

So there's "empirical data" for you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:

After announcing every little thing wrong with the character to the entire group the player got mad at me for doing something that was the job of the GM. He didn't like that another player would look at his character sheet.

Yeah, he was right, you were wrong. First, you should have discussed it with him. Then the DM. Once the DM did nothing- that's exactly what you should have done. Or- walked.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:

Related to my exchange with the good doctor above ...

Here's something else to consider, one and all: What if one player has an issue with it, while the other players think the DMPC is great and that the complaining player has brain damage and/or an axe to grind?

I do think some players would never complain out of friendship, loyalty, or the fact that they don't want to blow the only game in town, either literally or figuratively.

But I also think there are players, some of whom have posted in this very thread, who'd complain about a DMPC with whom they'd not had an issue just because they have a bug up their ass about the very idea of it the size of a scarab beetle.

Good Doctor? "GOOD"!?! I didn't put myself thru eight years of Evil Dark Lord Necromancer School to be called "Good".

;-)

The thing to do- in that case or in any case with a DMPC running DM (you're exempt Jaelithe, since you run a solo campaign, so that's special) is to discuss the issue with all the players, sit down like adults and talk it out. The objecting player can explain he has had bad experience in the past, the DM can explain why, the other players can say they dont really mind, etc.

I actually have no huge objections to a DMPC if the DM in question just admits he/she is doing it to add to his/her enjoyment- since of course the DM gets to have fun also. AND they don't abuse it and make it a Mary Sue or the spotlight PC. (and we all agree on that, yes?)

In fact one of our DMs, a rather famous Game writer, did run DMPCs almost always. But they were just macguffins or roleplaying guides they didnt participate in Combat, they cast no significant spells, they didnt take a share of loot, in fact often they didnt even really have a set of stats. When combat came they'd just go into a corner and be defensive, maybe stabilizing a PC if it came to that. She often had her DMPCs have relationship with another PC or be the "Princess in need of escort" or something like that. Not a full fledged PC, a walking, talking plot point.

But anyway- just sit down and discuss it like adults. The DM should bring it up. That's all I am asking- ask yourself "WHY" and discuss it with your players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

I have yet to actually encounter a real life impartial GM...

Ashiel wrote:
Hi there. :D

I have never been impartial. ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok there's two reasons not to do this:

1. You are violating & taking advantage of a meta-rule. Honestly, if the other PC's saw your PC doing stuff liek that (even just hanging back in combat) they'd ask you to leave the group. The meta-rule is that we dont do that except in extreme cases as we want everyone to play.

2. Even if the Pc's might not notice, the players might, and you might lose friends and lose a game over acting like that.

It's a jerk move.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:


So... all the grognards

You rang?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:


Unfortunately, before heal comes online status removal doesn't happen much in combat.

Also, some of that stuff (restoration, break enchantment) is out of combat casting. Out of combat stuff is usually best handled by just leaving slots open. There is little reason to prepare it before hand.

Most PCs that would describe their role as "healers" cast cure X wounds in combat and little else.

Well, sure- it can be done after the battle, but it has to be done, unless your party always Tports back to the Temple and pays the price.

Not mine. First two rounds they buff or fight. Only when a PC has been hit to the point where another hit will down them do they heal- in which case, you're gonna need something better than a CLW wand. Of course, sometimes in combat a perfectly placed Channel can do a lot of good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Healing is not just damage repair.

Restoration, remove curse, break enchantment, dispel magic, remove fear (panicking and cowering suck), remove sickness (nauseated f***s up teams), and the rest are way more important to me than a measly cure spell.

No tot mention, Bless, Aid, Remove paralysis, Magic vestment, Prayer, Divination, Planar ally, Commune.....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ooh, ooh, Mark has indicated this MAY just be the topic of the new FAQ!
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r7kg&page=44?Ask-Mark-Seifter-All-Your-Que stions-Here#2169

Let's hope!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:


Will simulacrum get an answer next week?

ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohp leaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplea seohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseo hpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpl easeohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleas eohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseoh pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohple aseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohp leaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplea seohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseo hpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpl easeohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleas eohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseoh pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohple aseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohp leaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplea seohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseo hpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpl easeohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleas eohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseoh pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohple aseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohp leaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplea seohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseo hpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpl easeohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleas eohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseoh pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohple aseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohp leaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplea seohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseo hpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpl easeohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleas eohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseoh pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohple aseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohp leaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplea seohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseo hpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpl easeohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleas eohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseoh pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohple aseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohp leaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplea seohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseo hpleaseohplease.....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Nobody appreciates the healer. My group votes MVP for extra exp every week, I have breath of life'd a guy 2x in one fight and removed feeblemind from the sorcerer and hit remove fear on cowering players all in the same session...

Nope, sorcerer gets it every f***ing week. Or the meat shield. All they care about is the deathblow.

Hmm, I was in a 3.5 Age of Worms campaign, went all the way to Epic. After a nigh TPK at around 4th level, I then started playing a Healer- yes, from the Miniatures' Handbook, a class widely regarded as the weakest in the game.

We had a larger party, sometimes as much as eight players. I healed & buffed like crazy- and was almost always voted MVP after each game.

They party also handed me the best protective items. They knew I kept them alive.

So- groups differ.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:


From my experience, that isn't how it goes down though. Instead you have the most experienced and/or aggressive players pressuring the least experienced and/or passive players to play the support roles.

P1: I'll play the wizard, P2 you should play the cleric and keep us all healed.
P2: Well, I was actually thinking of playing a rogue.
P1: Look, P3 is already playing a rogue. We all need to play our part. I mean, look, I'm going to play the wizard. We need you to play the cleric, don't you want to be a team player? Stop being selfish.
P2: Ah, sure I guess.

I am personally opposed such and if I can avoid it or minimize it by possibly including a party NPC, I have no problem doing that.

Maybe that's why I have been playing the healer since 1974- I am obviously lacking experience! ;-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Tacticslion is one of the voices* of reason and reasonableness one this board. He helps keep it on track.

TL- don't favorite this post.

* but I am surprised he isn't hoarse. ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

Off-topic: Every time I see "1 person marked this as a favorite", I have to check to see if it's Tacticslion.

Nine times of ten. ^_^

H-hey! There's a whole thread for that, now missy! You don't go slipping that kinda OT discussion just anywhere!

There is?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:


It seems "lost" because your point isn't a point - it has no weight whatsoever when actually examined without 5-inch thick Nostalgia Goggles on.

The system since 1st edition has always been horrendously skewed towards casters.

Every time someone says "well, if a caster was hit during the casting, the spell ended", they're assuming that the spellcaster was on the ground, in the thick of things, and didn't have some defense up.

Fly was always between 10 minutes and 60 minutes, even if they didn't know the exact time; that means that once they got their Fly spell on, they were more than able to stay in the air and cast spells safely away from any non-flying enemies. If you weren't flying and casting, or some other means of protecting yourself from interruption, you were doing it wrong.

The changes made from 2nd to 3rd Ed didn't suddenly, "magically" make spellcasting broken - spellcasting was broken for decades before WOTC took hold of things; you're/we're just old enough now to identify it.

Ever since the original Boxed Set, spellcasters have always ruled at the highest levels and martials ruled at the lower levels.

In the best variants/editions, they came together in a "sweet spot" of about 5 levels, say levels 5-9*. Since most games started level 1, and stopped around lvl 12 or so, this made martials quite balanced and useful.

But the more stuff that comes out, the easier it is to make a broken spellcaster that can dominate earlier. Most folks didn't/don't do it*, but it COULD/CAN be done.

Mind you, in IRL table-top play, I have not seen it done*- but the theoretical potential is there.

Even in AD&D there were plenty of ways to get around having your spell disrupted, and in fact it rarely happened- at least in the dozens of games I played in*. If you were hard pressed you'd just cast a 1 segment spell.

* ymmv


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

There are different types of Pathfinder 2.0 systems that they could potentially put out:

1 A polished republication. This involves a re-organized Core Rulebook with a selection of the many existing classes, clarification of unclear rules, etc.

That's what I am looking forward to- not soon, but someday.

Like the change from AD&D 1st to AD&D 2nd, or the change from 3.0 to 3.5.

NOT like the change from AD&D to 3.0 or D20 or the change from 3.5 to 4th or 4th to 5th. I think some of those changes were just to invalidate the older books so as to sell all new stuff.

A refresh, bring Unchained to more classes, fixing all the typos and adding in all the FAQs, and fixing some things like Scry & Fry and The Snow-Cone Wish machine aka Simulacrum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

I've seen some of these threads for a while now, and I have some on-topic questions for all of you.

Is this a thing now? Is this a trend? Are we meant to hate recurring helpful npcs now?

Why do the recurring helpful npcs need to be run by the DM?

The DM has a lot to do, let the players run the NPC.

Um, you're kidding, right?

Why not? We have been doing that since 1974. Henchmen, Hirelings, etc. There's absolutely no reason why the players can't run a party henchman healer or whatever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:

Also, never had Cheetos in my entire life.

Peers suspiciously at Hama... how about Mt Dew, then?

Never had Cheetos? Get off my lawn!

;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Usual Suspect wrote:
I have at least one character doing the kilt with no skivvies underneath. Proper kilt wear is important. Getting caught with skivvies on under a kilt is a punishable offense you know.

Actually, the Scots wore a shirt with very long tails that were rucked up into a sort of breechclout. Wandering around with wee willie winkie going free is a rather modern idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Keegan Btutters wrote:

Im looking for somthing more in depth than that. I dont want resurrection to be a commodity that only a few gp away...that cheapens both the gravity of death in game and the act of having ones life restored.

Yes, requiring some roleplaying is an excellent idea.

But dont hinder the spell. As I posted before:
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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:


Finally, I'll re-submit that when DrDeth and I actually agree on something game-related, that something can probably be taken as gospel.

We agree with a lot of stuff Kirth, just that we both like to argue too much. We both love gaming, roleplaying, Pathfinder, and bunches of stuff. I respect your opinion on many things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:


The last straw was when I was grappled by a huge creature, and realized that there was literally nothing I could do to escape. Even rolling a 20 on my substantial escape artist skill wouldn't get me out, and I couldn't do enough damage to kill it before I died, because you can't TWF in a grapple.

I was rescued by the bard, who by this point could dimension door.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a rather easy fix. Heck, you can just say that Simulacrums dont get SLA.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elder Basilisk wrote:

1. Out of game, preferably before the campaign, make it clear that not all encounters are adjusted based on the PCs' level. Level 20 PCs will occasionally run into level 1 bandits who don't recognize them (especially if the PCs are in disguise). Level 1 PCs could come across giants, dragons, and tribes of ogres which are beyond their ability. It's up to the players to figure out what their characters want to do.

2. Make it happen more than once. If every encounter is winnable from level 1 to 10 but you drop a "you must flee" encounter at level 11, it's likely the players won't get it. After all, the world just changed the way it worked. However, if they run into a Chimera at level 2, a couple ogre warbands at level 3, a legendary vampire at level 4, and a single kobold scout at level 5, then they should be accustomed to the idea that they need to evaluate each situation to see whether they should fight, hide, flee, or negotiate.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

A few ways to get a lower-magic feel to a campaign without restricting spellcaster levels or monsters encountered:

1. In general, magic items are pried from the hands of your dead enemies, found as parts of a long-forgotten treasure, or found in other similar ways.
2. The only item creation feats allowed adventurers are Scribe Scroll and Brew Potion.
5. There is no concentration check for damage taken while attempting to cast a spell. Even a single point of damage disrupts the spell.

6. Spells take 10 minutes per spell level per spell to prepare. Cantrips take 1 minute to prepare each. The arcane discovery...

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shekaka wrote:


Dr. Deth, quick question, what do you mean each paladin should have a Phylactery? Not sure how that would be useful/reasonable/logical…probably being dense here ,but please enlighten me…sorry to derail ya'll

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:


In many cases the community, who collectively have more playtime and can notice these things in actual play more readily and in greater numbers have more knowledge of how all the pieces interact (which is 80% of what determines the actual power level of an option).

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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

I think in literally every game I've ever played, veteran players tend to know the game better than the designers... The difference is not as obvious in tabletop RPGs as it is in video-games, but it's still there.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The corner exception to reach weapons was always one of the things where I thought PF was wrong.

Nice fix- thanks!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
rungok wrote:
I was wondering why people are complaining about rogues. I thought as 3/4 BAB classes are concerned, they seem to have a few things going for them. So does anyone have any other reasons behind 'they suck' for them to, well, suck?

Because, those that obsess over damage insist they don't do enough damage (I've out-damaged everyone else in the party with a rogue, but I love them). Two-handed weapon rogues are a joy to play.

...In games without skyrocket ACs, or against average to low AC opponents (yes they still exist) rogues are good value. In beginner dm games where not everything is ultra-powered, the rogue won't seem so weak in combat and they have all of that out of combat versatility. So choose your games wisely rogue player.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oly wrote:

I won't go too far into this, but:

1) It's rogue "love" much more than "hate." People (correctly) want to see the class improved.

2) Anything a rogue can do other classes with more abilities can do as well or better, and get some additional goodies as well. The clearest example is with the alternate ninja class, which can do all that rogues can do but also a few added things. Not that ninjas are all that powerful, but they come closer to the power curve than rogues.

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.
The devs dont care for diabolical Gygaxian traps and have mostly excluded them from the APs. APs are mostly very combat heavy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

I think most people are happier on a "sandpath" adventure than in either a sandbox or on a railroad.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:

I have never once in all my 29 years of gaming seen anyone get into a screaming match table pounding, wall hitting, or table flipping. I've seen disagreements and people get a bit heated over something, but stories about the former just boggle my mind.

I saw one board flip, maybe 40 years ago.

Mostly, it helps to play with adults- no matter how old they are.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
3catcircus wrote:
Low-magic is desirable because it brings a different kind of resource management. What it does is force players to think more strategically in the long-term and more tactically in the short-term. Perhaps it'd be better to sneak past the guards rather than carry on a frontal assault? Gee, I'm still in the process of recovering from that fight with that orc and I'm not back up to 100% - I think we'll need to plan on attacking from a distance and then running to a new spot, picking off these goblins when their patrol ranges away from their lair.

You could get this effect simply by denying resurrection or making it cost prohibitive. That would be easier and not have unplanned side effects across the 3.PF system.

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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
3catcircus wrote:

I don't know if it has been expressed how I'm going to say it:

Pathfinder is a game about killing things and taking their stuff,

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WPharolin wrote:


I'm not saying that you can't play without being murder hobos. In fact, I hope that isn't really the case. But every edition of D&D that has ever existed inherently promotes this style of play through mechanical benefits for murder and looting. That isn't even up for debate. You measure you're characters power in his ability to fight. You get exp for killing things. You get more powerful by looting things. Pre-written adventures since the dawn of pre-written adventures have included encounters that expect players to kill creatures indiscriminately. Pathfinder is no different.

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 person marked this as a favorite.
kestral287 wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Part of the problem is that "sketch" is kind of a flexible term. For example-- Animate Dead. If a character uses it to revive a T-Rex (a wild animal-- is desecrating its corpse really significant to anybody?) to use as a mount, in what way is it evil?
Been reading Jim Butcher? :P
While I have read the book, and it was one of the more awesome moments of the series, actually not where that idea came from. Was something I'd considered doing for a Magus of mine, who could get Animate Dead, but only at a high level and without most of the support stuff. So the strategy turned into "find the best thing to animate for its hit dice", and that pretty much went "Holy carp a Bloody T-Rex Skeleton is awesome".

Two things:

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"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, the flour back then wasn't ground fine enuf.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Phasics wrote:


If you could change one thing about the Rogue what would it be.

Its existence.

Remove it from reality, replace it with the Slayer retroactively.

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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why do these threads always get into a heated debate over whether or not the Rogue oe Fighter sucks?

Can we just do the OPs question, and not rehash the same arguments again?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Guys, maybe we could cool it down some?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pupsocket wrote:


GreyWolfLord wrote:
...but if you run a REAL dungeon with a REAL day (at least 8-12 hours)...where you'd actually NEED a Rogue (so none of this one or two trap stuff, the dungeon is LOADED with traps and locks and other things), they run out of these types of spells within the first hour or two...and then...they are back at the square where a Rogue with a high Dex is better at many of the skills.

Your neckbeard doesn't impress me, i used to DM with the red box edition. Even back then, the giant dungeons had places to rest and recover spells.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saldiven wrote:

I'm curious why the Paladin never considered detecting evil when the monstrous beast made no attempt to attack him.

At the one right above me who ninja'd me :P

I don't think so. It's an illusion, correct? Unless the spell had an Evil indicator, I don't believe the spell itself would detect as any alignment at all, at best, and shouldn't impact the alignment of that beneath the illusion. At least, not unless it's a pretty powerful illusion.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MYTHIC TOZ wrote:
Cylyria wrote:
Why do people make these threads?
People seek advice and validation. They want to know that what they are doing is the proper way to do things. So they seek the experience of people who have dealt with the same situations.

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).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:

Haste is powerful as is, it's pretty borked on the Summoner's list since he gets it as a 2nd level spell and has access to it before any other class in the game.

It probably never should have been given to the Summoner at reduced level, but its usefulness is situational enough that I don't know that I could see it as a 5th level or higher spell. Those spells include straight up single action encounter enders, and haste is more of a team-oriented expediter.

Yeah. I dont complain often about PF, but this was a bad idea, and the whole class was poorly thought out.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

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?"

1 to 50 of 893 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.