|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
You cannot solve a OOC problem IC.
David knott 242 wrote:
No, the dwarf player will only learn that being rude gets him exactly what he wants- more attention, more time in the spotlight.
Andre Roy wrote:
Look, I have been in parties where one guy always mouths off. Short of keeping the Player muzzled, you can't stop him by giving the PARTY consequences, since he is fine with that, all he wants is attention.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Was Narsil even an artifact? I never saw any indication it was more than a really well-made and important sword.
According to the books, when wielded in battled it was bathed in white flame, and could tear through shields and armor with incredible ease. (They took that out in the films)
"But even as the orc flung down the truncheon and swept out his scimitar, Andúril came down upon his helm. There was a flash like flame and the helm burst asunder. "
Not to mention it took out Sauron.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Phial of Galadriel was at least a gem of Brightness, with added Morale bonuses.
And since the Elves did trade in lembas at times and used to sell their wares before they shut themselves in, yes, you could buy "magic items" in Middle earth. The Dwarves would also make items on command.
According to MERP, other items, like Gimlis Ax, chainmail, etc were also "magic" but so low power they were unremarkable.
I mean, Aragorn (Or Bombadil) didnt make a big deal of the bane daggers handed out to all the hobbits, "but but feared to keep the, knowing them for what they are: work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor" " and only blades with special spells could harm him". so forth. Pretty strong stuff to hand out like party favors. And there were four of them. Not one of the Fellowship mentioned how powerful and old they were, they were not remarkable, despite their obvious age and power.
Sting was considered totally unremarkable by Gandalf and Elrond, but it detected orcs and was thrust into a solid oak beam like a knife into butter. And was well over 6000 years old. But of no real note.
So, just like adventurers might note they had a Vorpal sword or a Staff of Power, no one talks about their +1 sword.
Yeah, sit them down and talk to them like adults. Tell them that this makes the game less fun for us, as the DM.
The Fellowship had three artifacts, several powerful named weapons, a chain shirt that was unique and more or less the Invulnerable Coat of Arnt (another artifact), elven cloaks all around, a staff of power of some sort, some sort of Gem of Light Holy item, 4 bane weapons, a magic horn, ropes,The walking sticks Faramir gave to Sam and Frodo, Aragorns sheath, ...
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Well, it's how he sets up and does Golarion, not just his own games.
Only for rules questions. I mean if asked about some bit of history of background on Golarion, he is the Source. And, since no one else is, since the rules guys only officially answer rules FAQ, what your saying is that no one has the say of what Golarion is like.
Of course, you can play there are hundreds of thousands of adventurers on Golarion if you like. No one will tell you "thats against the rules". Because it isnt.
But Golarion and the APs were set up more or less as if your party were it. If you fail, Elminister or the Circle of Eight or whoever wont ride in and save the village/kingdom/world. At best you can bring in another party.
So what were talking about is the general campaign setting guidelines for Golarion.
Which you are free to ignore.
But still for many of us, it's nice to read and hear from the Creative Director what their assumptions are in writing APs, etc.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
No, he's not a RULES source. He's *THE* setting source. That is a setting question. As long as he is talking about Golarion, he is THE Source.
I saw that.
Where did I say "always go after with no way of coercion"? In a narrow dungeon corridor, they have to get past him. Enemies who arent so smart will hit the front guy first. And with a tiny bit of smarts on the part of your spellcasters* and party, no one will know that they are casters until they start casting. And arguably, with some spells, you need the Spellcraft skill, which few foes have.
In any case, the term "tanking",in D&D doesnt mean 'aggro making the foe attack". It means what you called "Power turtle". And D&D came first, before MMOs.
You asked for advice, not just for validation.
Either take it or dont.
* spells and armor that make you look like armor but arrn't or armour that looks like clothes. Spellcasters can certainly carry weapons- not to mention, there's little to pick from a Cleric of Iodemae and a Paladin of same.
Yes, we know Rincewind wore a pointy hat that said "WIZZARD" on it, but it's not really a such a good idea.
I really dont like the idea that you must make your Fighter a drooling moron or uncouth loser.
if the only way a guide will work is by dumping, then IMHO the guide doesnt work.
Maybe you can not recommend dumping but just suggest it as a alternative?
Also "As far as Pathfinder RPG is concerned, the only real way to tank is with a silly feat called Antagonize" is incorrect. Yes, in MMO, there is a role called "tank". the role is not the same as in D&D where the Tank role (which existed before there were MMO games) is a heavily armored high HP guy who can block corridors, and being in front in combat, often get the less tactical foes to hit him first.
You are writing this guide for PF, not for MMOs. The term "tank" doesnt mean the same. What you call "power turtle" is in fact the D&D/PF "tank".
Well, sure. "ex".
No it was a response to a question i asked him a year or so ago, about whether or not the standard 4 PC party of wizard, cleric, rogue, Fighter was common enough that bandits etc would KNOW to hit the wizard first. The answer was no, they wouldnt not without knowledge ranks, since adventurers are so rare your party is the only one they have ever encountered.
So, the answers dont really contradict one another. Adventurers, as in a party of heavily armed multiracial people, all with class levels- is very rare or unique.
Adventurers= a party of heavily armed often multiracial people, all with class levels, willing to do quests for glory and loot. Not usually on a payroll.Usually fairly independent. Usually mostly Good aligned.
It's just not common for a elf wizard, a dwarf fighter, a halfling rogue and a human cleric to join together for this sort of stuff.
Murderhoboes are not adventurers.
Yes, the Infamous Tomb of Horrors was designed as a challenge game, not really as a killer dungeon.
Well, do they have any real Old School writers? because some of this is wrong.
Happy endings were quite common.
High Mortality rate? Not so much. I mean yes, some DM and Dungeons were killers. But my very first character didnt die until 9th level, and he went into a solo just to die and become a martyr.
You did have hirelings if the party wasnt big enuf, yes. That's how the Thief was born.
But PF has more "hirelings" in a way with animal companions, Leadership feats and what not.
So, I am not sure if WotC knows what they are talking about.
I will play a weird race when everyone is playing the basic six, and i will play a human when everyone is playing a weird race.
why do you hate me? :-(
well, it hasnt effected me any. They even let me use the computers here at The Home. Nothing sharp, tho....;-)
Lady Ladile wrote:
Yes, it does.
I got emotional once that I remember. It was a campaign game with lots of politics. You had to have a very detailed character backstory. We were lvl 8 with that set.
The DM announced some new critical rules he was trying. First combat, some low level mook fires a arrow. 20. Confirm 20, confirm another 20! Auto kill. two weeks of work wasted in 5 minutes due to a stupid new rule.
So, let us take your orc vs a 1st lvl fighter. 10 HP, +2 con +1 favored class= 13. Ac 10+ 4 +2 =16. +6/+5 to hit, with greatsword.
The orc hits 45% of the time, doing 8 pts.
Let's assume they both hit first round.
The fighter hits 60% of the time, doing 14pts, the orc would drop , except it gets a second chance with ferocity.
Let's assume they both miss round 2.
Orc dead, fighter wounded.
The wizard drops two with color spray or sleep. (will -1, right?)
Leaving one more orc to fight the cleric and the rogue.
Hits the rogue, doing 8 pts of 11. Rogue hits doing 7pts. the orc would drop , except it gets a second chance with ferocity.
Cleric heals rogue, doing 6 pts*. Even if orc hits round 2, rogue is still not dead.
Orc misses. Dead orc.
Rogue CdG two colorsprayed orcs.
No PC dead.
*Or channels, healing fighter and rogue each 4pts. If so, then even if orc #1 hits Fighter round 2 for another 8 pts, fighter is still up, but hurting.
Note also the fighters 15% higher chance to hit and 6 more damage.
David knott 242 wrote:
Nope. Your belt supports it too. Chain is by far the most comfy armor to move around in, even better than leather.
The PRD still lists four mirror as 45.
Actually the worst item on the list is scale mail, which stopped being worn around Roman time- in fact the Romans only used it ceremonially.
Perhaps they meant Brigandine?
I object to critical fumbles as 1: they are not realistic and2. I wanna play a hero not one of the Three Stooges.
We have also all gone to leveling up, not XP.
Dire Elf wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I have played so many games in so many systems over so many decades it gets hazy. But I do know this- it's not the system. A great DM and good players will make ANY system into a fun game. I have had lots of fun playing T&T.
buying multiple +10 weapons costs a martial 200-600k gold while buying multiple spell books costs like 20-60k the price difference is massive
Never owned a +10 weapon, never saw one even. Sure, I played only up til lvl 16 in RotRL, but I dont think they are very common.
My Fighter did spend extra $$ on a +5 weapon in a 12th level game, yes.
What does your comparison to other editions have to do with my post that you quoted?
To quote your post with added bolding :" It's a fundamental pillar of how Pathfinder is structured. ......
Cutting out wealth-as-progression from Pathfinder isn't like banning a feat,......"
So, you are completely wrong. It's not in any way shape or form limited to Pathfinder. It's part of D&D.
I know you dont like Pathfinder, you dont play Pathfinder, but perhaps maybe you could scale down your constant attacks on the Pathfinder game in the Pathfinder forums?
I don't know, but I think a key element to grognardism is stating, repeatedly, that things that were done in the past, by folks like you, were in some way more poignant, rewarding, meaningful, than similar things done by similar people today.
Not quite. Not that they were BETTER, it's just that D&D was just as much fun with the Three Volume set as with all the myriad complexities of 3.5, 4th and PF.
(To a extent of course, Gygax and co did do stuff more meaningful, as we all have built on their foundation)
And of course, that by and large Players are about the same today. So when some "Richard" plays a CN and steals from the party and ruins the set ups, you know it has nothing to do with them putting "CN" on their sheet (even those they claim "I was just playing my alignment)and everything to do with the fact they they are a immature jerk. And that you cant solve OOC issues like that IC.
That sitting down and talking about it, in a non confrontational way, like adults, is what works.
Ten years? No. But if someone has forty years moire, then perhaps he or shee might have seen more tables and odd behaviour, no?
Well, yes, you're right, which is why even the Gronardiest of us should never say anything like : "I was there before you, so I know more, am more and you better keep your mouth shut when I'm talking."
But saying that perhaps, maybe you should CONSIDER our advice in light of our experience, that's not being arrogant. I can be wrong, James Jacobs can be wrong, the newest newb can be right.
However, you also have to remember that posts on a MB are hard to read. You cant read a tone of voice, the grin, the twinkle in a eye, etc, so it's far too easy to assume a post which is posted with all those things is arrogant and condescending.
if you don't have a 18 in your primary before racials and a 16/ two 14 in your secondarys with out crippling the entire rest of your character attributes that character is basically a commoner and would be better off staying at home
I disagree. I think a 17 after racials and a couple of 14's is fine- with little or no dumping.
So, 15, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10 is a great built to me, that's about 20 pts. Maybe make that 10 a 9 to come out even.
Well, I probably wouldn't want to gestalt at a low point buy - I feel like that would push someone towards the kind of min-maxed specializing I try to avoid. XD I like to build broad, making a character reasonably competent in several areas instead of epic in just one. (As a rule of thumb, I try to avoid gestalting classes with the same BAB or spellcasting level.)
IIRC, it was something like we got a 15pt buy and they got a 25 pt buy. So, no, not super low.
Wealth as progression has been part of the game since the three volume set. It was critical in 3.5, 4th and to quite and extent, even earlier editions. If you didnt have a magic weapon, you were screwed past a certain level- it was assumed you'd have one.
Magic items are also critical in 5th Ed also.
The difference is that the Pathfinder Devs have been nice enough, open enough and forth coming enough to actually spell out what the expectations are. (And to some extent this also occurred in 4th Ed, too)
But they were always there. (and some AD&D modules even said what kind of magic items the party shoudl have to survive the module).
However the expectations are just guidelines, we played thru RotRL without the strict WBL and it worked fine. Sometime we had more, sometime less, not much chance to "Christmas tree", but a few super items, too.
My campaigns where there were no Ye Olde Magic Shoppes as expected, but really nice customized loot drops also worked fine.
Sure, if you wanna play super low magic then play Iron Heroes, magic is a integral part of D&D.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Plenty of Crunch, trust me. Especially with added houserules and everyone had added houserules- that's how Fafhrd lost his hand.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
My GM had a interesting twist on that. The 2 experienced players got to play Gestalt, while the two newbies got super point buy and max HP.
Leiber played D&D with those two characters, so indeed, they do work.
Edition wars are silly, any edition of D&D can be a great fun game with the right DM and a good bunch of players. Conversely, with the wrong DM and a bad bunch of players, it is gonna suck no matter which Edition you play.
I have played them all, they all have good and bad points.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
You have to move more than 10'. Not 10'.
So, you move 15' in and then 15' out. If the foe takes a 5' step, you're out of range (for their full attack, with 5' reach)
Even with a 10' move back, If the foe takes a 5' step, you're out of range (for their full attack, with 5' reach).
Scout best uses a big nasty two handed weapon, not two smaller weapons.
And of course with shadowdancer, you Hide in plain sight then.
just being old DOES make you deserving of an badge of honor. You have survived. Hardly arrogance.
Also, playing for a long time is a honor too. Of course, as I have said, just because I was playing D&D back in Year 1 doesnt make me any more of a expert on the PF rules than someone who has been playing just a couple of years.
BUT it does give one a unique set of experiences to draw on when talking about PLAYER behavior.
Rogues just miss with their iterative attacks anyway. I suppose at lvl 20 or so you are missing out, but since games dont go much beyond 12 in most cases, I dont see you losing much.
and it usually stops your foe from doing a Full attack on you, which is very nice.
pH unbalanced wrote:
I thought he was talking about AH's Powers & Perils*, which sucked. So did Lords of Creation .
* wiki "Powers & Perils was an unfortunate failure for Avalon Hill, despite their reputation for their high-quality productions; this failure was indicative of the company's lack of experience in the roleplaying field. Powers & Perils included stolen art traced from fantasy artist Frank Frazetta. Avalon Hill had no previous experience with role-playing games, being primarily a producer of strategy and war games such as Tactics II, Blitzkrieg and Squad Leader, and Powers & Perils died before its time. Overpricing and strong competition from first edition Dungeons & Dragons saw P&P on store shelves at two to three times the price being asked for its contemporaries."