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. 5,937 posts (5,938 including aliases). 18 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,937 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
So, TOZ, in your games, casters dominate play? No use playing anything but a full caster? Or have you "fixed" it?
I haven't run anything but organized play in three or four years, so yes, yes, and no.

OK, then, good example.


Jiggy wrote:


DrDeth, should we add to this list the 15-20 people from when you made a thread specifically asking for gameplay experiences, or were they already counted in the "very few" you were talking about?

Tormsskull "I haven't noticed it in actual play, only heard about it on forums."

PIXIE DUST sez a beastbound witch outdoes the rogue at scouting. That does not mean casters dominate play. That menas one caster in one game is better at one thing.

7thGate sez " I had it happen once, in a 3.0 game" are you counting that?

Create Mr. Pitt sez "Also if I am facing something with a ton of SR and DR and immunities the wizard needs the fighter almost as much as the fighter needs the wizard.

There's never good to be a perfect power parity between classes; but a fully-leveled martial is sometimes the only thing that can actually take down an enemy, even if you hire warriors or summon a ton of creatures."

Lemmy sez "Well... It haven't happened to me, specifically in Pathfinder,..." and goes on to give times when it happened to others. Still, not in his game. I asked for "what actually happened in your games."

MMCJawa " I didn't really encounter caster martial disparity. BUT..."

and so forth.

Yes, you did list a game where you fighter got sidelined at high level, but your cleric ruled. You only played in two games? Great- does this happen all the time, or do you know always play nothing but full casters?

I saw no one admit that in the games they play, casters always dominate. I saw examples of a time they did dominate, sure. But I have played thousands of games, i can give you an example of everything. In fact, in my OP there, I gave an example of when casters did dominate. It happens.

But does it happen consistently in all the games you play?


TOZ wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Then when somebody says "I know there's a C/MD because [ACTUAL GAMEPLAY]", you reply that their experiences don't matter;
I have seen very few people actually claim that in their games, casters dominate in actual game play.
I'm right here.

So, TOZ, in your games, casters dominate play? No use playing anything but a full caster? Or have you "fixed" it?


Matthew Downie wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
I have seen very few people actually claim that in their games, casters dominate in actual game play.
I have seen 45 people claim that casters dominate play except at very low levels, 47 claim that casters dominate play outside of combat, and 23 claim that the game seems balanced between martials and casters. Even if we assume the first two groups are exactly the same people, that's still around two-thirds of forum users who have that problem in actual gameplay.

I have seen the same thing. But there's a HUGE difference between claiming that "casters dominate play" vs "casters dominate play IN MY GAME".

When confronted they usually say their houserules or way of playing prevents casters from dominating play at their table.


Jiggy wrote:
Then when somebody says "I know there's a C/MD because [ACTUAL GAMEPLAY]", you reply that their experiences don't matter;

I have seen very few people actually claim that in their games, casters dominate in actual game play.


1974.


thejeff wrote:
there are arguments against "non-transgender" as well, generally that identifying people specifically by what they are not isn't usually a good idea.

That is Brynn Tannehill wiring that article.


thejeff wrote:
I'd also add that when minorities ask others "please dont use that term, it offends me", they can usually point out either specific linguistic reasons it's offensive or a history of prejudice and discrimination attached to the word.

That article includes such.


thejeff wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Look, I agree with Rynjin! ;-) It's not so much that "cis" is horrible nasty and always a pejorative. It's that us caring and progressive people have learned that when a group tells us "Hey, please dont use that term" we now respond with "Sure, if that's what you want, Ok by me." Often with a qualifier like "Do note, we didn't mean anything pejorative by that term, we used it without meaning offense, sorry."

So then when we ask others to "please dont use that term, it offends me", we expect everyone to be on board with it- with a qualifier, sure.

So then we are shocked when the reply is "you have no right to be offended and we'll keep using that term whether you like it or not- and the fact that you're offended by it means YOU are intolerant" !!

We expect to be treated like we have tried to treat others- and if you're part of a majority group, it doesnt happen.

This just leads to more anger and intolerance.

Thanks for starting this thread, TacticsLion.

It helps though if you've got a replacement for the supposedly offensive term. If you're telling trans people not to use the term "cis" because you don't like it, you really need to be able to say "We think X is preferable." Not "We don't need a special term because we're just regular folks" or even "Just call us normal".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/the-new-c-word_b_5617913.html

"There are perfectly good substitutes as well. In public discussions I frequently use the term "non-transgender" instead of "cisgender." The meaning is apparent without being specifically diminutive of any group. It also doesn't carry the baggage of seeming like academese or being offensive to some.

Often the words don't need to be used at all. When describing someone's sexual orientation, do you really need to use "transgender" or "cisgender" as a prefix to it?

As a result, "cis" and "cisgender" should be used sparingly in public discourse. There are a limited number of circumstances in which they are necessary, appropriate, and ultimately beneficial to the community as a whole."


Andrew Roberts wrote:
Curious if there are any rules governing how masterwork tools work in Core campaign. For example, there is an item called "Training Harness" that gives you +2 to handle animal, but it isn't Core. Would you be able to buy a masterwork tool that does something similar?

This came up, which leads to some silly ideas- the list of mundane gear in Core is not all inclusive. Does this mean that twine, frying pans, marbles and such like dont exist in a Core World?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lissa Guillet wrote:
Privilege is weird. It specifically involves many things you probably aren't aware of. Many little things; tiny little bits that on their own don't amount to much if anything but over the course of a lifetime can have a profound affect or none at all.

Sure. But all of us who live in the USA- or in any First World nation- are "privileged" beyond the fondest hope of someone in Bangladesh or Sudan can even hope for.

And, even those of us who are white, "cis', middle classed, etc have issues- like being overweight or a Senior Citizen or health issues or many other things.

Can I, a overweight "senior" with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Prostate cancer say "Check your Privilege" to a 20-something with perfect health?

"privilege" is so very relative that saying "Check your privilege' is pretty darn insulting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:


The thing about the whole "cis good or bad" debate that gets me all rustled is people like Lazar acting like turnabout is fair play there.

The term "cis scum" is fine to use because trans people have had slurs thrown at them for a long time...and somehow that makes it okay?

That kind of double standard makes communication difficult as well. I don't call black people the N-word or gay people the British word for cigarette because those are appalling words to call people, and they just help to promote racial and social tension among groups.

So deciding that, for some reason, that standard doesn't apply to the other side is baffling to me. It's still a terrible thing to do, and promotes that same social tension.

There's too much of this attitude that payback is inherently righteous in these social justice conversations. Yes, someone called you a bad word. That doesn't give you a chit you can cash in to call someone entirely unrelated a bad word for every time you've heard it.

A lot of these Tumblr blogs and whatnot seem to operate entirely on this principle.

Saying "F&%! all trans people, kill 'em all" is clearly f~#&ing horrendous.

"Die cis scum" and "Kill all men/white men" are somehow then rallying cries, not only acceptable but LAUDABLE (and as many are saying right now in regards to that second, my mere bringing up of this fact merely reinforces the idea that it is a necessary and good idea to spread.).

This is far more of a problem when it comes to these issues than "Talking past people". Talking past someone merely prolongs the discussion, sending it in circles. No progress is made.

The double standards, meanwhile, regress the discussion instead. Negative progress is made. Everyone comes out of the discussion MORE convinced for LESS REASON that their side is right and the other is insane.

Look, I agree with Rynjin! ;-) It's not so much that "cis" is horrible nasty and always a pejorative. It's that us caring and progressive people have learned that when a group tells us "Hey, please dont use that term" we now respond with "Sure, if that's what you want, Ok by me." Often with a qualifier like "Do note, we didn't mean anything pejorative by that term, we used it without meaning offense, sorry."

So then when we ask others to "please dont use that term, it offends me", we expect everyone to be on board with it- with a qualifier, sure.

So then we are shocked when the reply is "you have no right to be offended and we'll keep using that term whether you like it or not- and the fact that you're offended by it means YOU are intolerant" !!

We expect to be treated like we have tried to treat others- and if you're part of a majority group, it doesnt happen.

This just leads to more anger and intolerance.

Thanks for starting this thread, TacticsLion.


Xenre the Vague wrote:
This is a pretty hot topic and has been since 3rd edition (in my experience). Personally, though the wording is a bit fuzzy - because let's be honest, if the wording of the RAW wasn't so muffed up, this would be a very, very short discussion -

No, there is no rule that so worded can't be mis-understood.


Sneaky McSneak wrote:
Can we get an official ruling/faq entry/ errata on this? Infinite casting of anything seems rediculous. By one threads Calculations a lvl 4 caster could create minimum 11,520 gallons of water a day. A half dozen threads are stating the Spells Per Day table does not limit the number of times a cantrip can be cast in a day, only how many you can have prepared.

There already is- it's called "The Rules".


HawaiianWarrior wrote:
Besides, cantrips are so paltry it shouldn't break anyone's game to be able to cast them all day long.

True.

But it really freaks out some of the 3.5 DMs who hate you 'can cast Detect magic all day long". Generally they also banned Warlocks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover wrote:
Everyone reading this thread that is frustrated with loot remember: crafting mundane items may be slow and boring, I get it, but it's still a decent way to get loot.

Well, maybe. But if your DM is into WBL and cuts back loot as you craft, then why bother?


InVinoVeritas wrote:
ElterAgo wrote:

C) Player is upset that his PC's constantly fails will saves, his builds always dump wisdom, 2-3 classes with poor will saves, and never spends the money for anything to protect his mind.

Oh, I've seen this a few times. Unfortunately, it's usually a sign that the player has a low Wisdom. They honestly don't understand that what they're doing doesn't work. Some guidance--and occasionally some flat-out designing the character for them, in extreme cases--is necessary.

Or he dumps everything into offense. In either case, bad designing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This article by the well known author Brynn Tannehill should finalize the debate on the use of "cisgender":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/the-new-c-word_b_5617913.html
"The use of "cis" and "cisgender" should be carefully examined. There are people who strenuously object to these words being applied to them, even if the words come from an academic background. Just as my feelings on certain subjects should be respected, so should the feelings of people who dislike these labels.

It also needs to be asked what using the words gains us....The conclusion of many organizations is that you should not use either "cisgender" or "cis" in any sort of public narrative. ...Even inside the LGBT community the words have a very negative connotation. When someone is referred to as a "cisgender lesbian" or "cis gay man" by a transgender person, it is often in a negative way. The addition of "cis" or "cisgender" is used to imply a certain level of contempt and a desire that they leave discussions on transgender issues. It also implies that they don't, can't, or won't ever understand transgender issues.

...However, using the word "cis" or "cisgender" is not necessary to do so. Just as no one ever called me "tranny" and meant it in a nice or affectionate way, many LGB people have never been called "cis" or "cisgender" in a way that wasn't accusatory. Therefore we find common ground in disliking a word because its context has always been nasty and demeaning when applied to us personally.....As a result, "cis" and "cisgender" should be used sparingly in public discourse."

I agree with the author "The conclusion of many organizations is that you should not use either "cisgender" or "cis" in any sort of public narrative." and I think it's time the Paizo boards joined this movement.


Jiggy wrote:

^Ironically, a situation that only occurs in a system using Vancian casting.

(Also, you're assuming the guy even has haste in his spellbook.)

EDIT: Ninja'd, this was a reply to Redjack_rose.

Or spellpoints. Or mana. Or Power. Or.....

Is there a system where a wizard know every spell there is and only the amount of mana stops him from casting them?

CofC has spells Known. Tunnels & Trolls. Runequest.


voideternal wrote:

I think you disagree because your idea of fun is progressing through the AP.

I've played in a group with a lot of optimal teamwork. 'Teamwork' was the entire party buffing me (the Fighter) and me killing whatever encounter that appeared. We played through an entire AP, very fast.

Every turn was basically the same thing. I hit things, and everyone else used whatever buff was appropriate. It was the most repetative, boring Pathfinder experience I ever had. There was lots of teamwork and lots of wining and lots of boredom.

More or less what we did, and it was HUGE fun.

So, umm, if by game three you werent having fun, why not discuss it with the others and stop?


Redjack_rose wrote:


1st. A simple calculation, is your 1 round of fireball equal to or greater than an entire party under haste for 5+ rounds? If the answer is no, yes you should cast haste.

2nd. Does the buff on you do more for the over all party than on the martial? If no, then cast that buff on the other person.

Why is teamwork such a bad thing. This is honestly a two way street as well. The fighter/martial/whatever receiving a benefit from you should either pull their weight with the gift you gave them, or cede the buff/action to you.

D&D is a team game, not a one on one game. Too many discussion here are focused on what a class or character can do on his own, rather than part of a TEAM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

How are you guys coming along with Simulacrum, etc FAQs?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

Old school gamers know what a kender is and thus know instinctively not to take anything I say seriously....and to hide their valuables....

New School gamers don't get it

New School gamers welcome their kender friends.
Who wouldn't?

We "welcome" them into the whirling blades of death, followed by the lava pits.

;-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
everyone wanted to play the Thief

Oh come on!

You're just saying that because you're more than a little biased... :-P

So very true.<g> Oddly, I usually played the Cleric.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


Excellent points.

And, since each class has a niche, there hardly any issue about 'class balance". Since the Thief does his job, it isn't important if he's less powerful than the Wizard, as he still pulls his share of weight.

No. They just bongoed about having to play the thief or the cleric, since somebody had to. Granted we usually had someone playing a mage/thief or fighter/thief, so they were more fun.

Clerics didn't have as many multiclass options and were stuck being healbots far too much of the time.

Might not be "class balance", but causes a lot of the same problems. But worse, since you still needed them.

Naw- everyone wanted to play the Thief, or some variation. Cleric was pretty good at hitting things and could whup on Monsters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
patriarchus wrote:

I see two big differences between 'Old School' and the current ethos:

1) In the Old School, the creativity in the game before you sat down at the table was all in the hands of the DM. ...
2) In the Old School, the 'balance' in the game was calibrated for the party as a whole versus the intended encounters in a gaming session. A DM was expected to put challenges in front of the party that the party could handle by letting each character shine in specific situations (some traps for the thief, something requiring magic for the magic-user, some brutes for the fighter, and no chance to rest/an undead challenge for the cleric). That led to party composition ALWAYS having at least one of the major four classes and exotic parties were those that had the sub-classes while parties that didn't hit the main tent posts were usually annihilated. ...

Excellent points.

And, since each class has a niche, there hardly any issue about 'class balance". Since the Thief does his job, it isn't important if he's less powerful than the Wizard, as he still pulls his share of weight.


Digitalelf wrote:

I tend to run my games RAW, and prefer to participate in such games over those that are heavily houseruled; but then, I agreed with Gary Gygax when he often mentioned that there comes a point where if one changes or alters the game rules too much, that one is no longer playing D&D, but some alternate fantasy RPG. I realize that is not a very popular opinion to agree with/hold, but so be it...

But what I do NOT do, is "cry foul" when a DM/GM has a lot of houserules, and/or a lot of changes to the RAW; I just tend to opt not to play in that particular game.

I agree- at a certain point it's what we used to call "Vardy" (Variant D&D).

And I'll even play with a lot of houserules- if the DM and the group make it worthwhile.


There's actually a backpack you can but that has "Handy Haversack' embroidered on it!


Orthos wrote:
ftf?

Face to Face. Old School!


Kthulhu wrote:
Brother Fen wrote:
Characters were rarely planned out from day one

That's kind of a necessary evil in 3.x, given the fact that so many prerequisites exist, as well as so many trap options.

It's kind of a wonder that 3.x sparked an upswing in the RPG market, given that the system is purposely designed to be unfriendly towards beginners.

There are no trap options, except a few errors, like "Prone shooter". Some are more powerful than others, but sometimes you want one for RP and other reasons.

Nor is 3.x "purposely designed to be unfriendly towards beginners". Some people think that due to a misreading of "Ivory Tower Game design".


Tin Foil Yamakah wrote:
I confess that the first homebrew rule I ever concocted was removing level limits.

Did you allow humans to see in the dark? How about an extra 10% or so to many skills? etc. Demi-humans were simply better than humans- except for the racial limits.


captain yesterday wrote:


Also a lot of that was having DMs with adversarial views of GMing, which led to immense character turnover.

It was no more common then that it is now. Except for special "killer dungeons".


137ben wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Game balance. The demihumans all were more powerful than humans.

Heh heh, funny story about that:

1st edition PHB, pg 13 wrote:

Each racial stock has

advantages and disadvantages, although in general human is superior to
the others for reasons you will discover as you read on.
Turns out your old friend Gary disagreed with you:)

Umm, yes- precisely because humans had no level restrictions.


captain yesterday wrote:

I love the third edition/3.5/pathfinder system, I always hated racial restrictions for classes, no one could ever legitimately explain why my dwarves couldn't be Druids or Rangers or why my Halfling couldn't get above 7th level as a fighter.

Sure it's not perfect, but it's still pretty sweet :-)

Game balance. The demihumans all were more powerful than humans.


Devilkiller wrote:
@DrDeth - I basically agree with much of what you said, but I'd honestly like to know more about why people feel martial classes aren't satisfactory outside of combat. It seems to me like anybody can put some ranks into social skills and participate in roleplaying, and that's how most of the out of combat time in my groups is spent. Maybe other people have some different experiences which can help me understand the problem though.

Well, if you dump Int (as suggested in several Guides) and get a racial subtype that dumps the extra Skp/lvl, and spend your level all on HP or something, then @ 1 Skp/lvl, you dont have much, then if you dump CHA (as also suggested), well, see you have no social skills. (sarcasm) Obviously, this is because the devs designed the class poorly, not because of your choices. (end sarcasm)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Note the OP didnt ask about Fighters, he asked about Martials.

A Ranger is certainly a Martial and has scads of Skills and other stuff to do, besides combat. Even has spells.

A Paladin is a great healer and can remove conditions- besides being a mighty Smiting machine.

Bloodrager, Swashbuckler, Slayer, Cavalier, Brawler & Gunslinger are all certainly Martials and can do other stuff.

Magus, Warpriest, are also arguably martials, despite their spellcasting.

So, that leaves just the Fighter. Yep, he can pretty well do one thing really really well- Kill. (Sure- a human with a measly int of 12 does get 4 Skp a level, which means he's not totally left out skill wise, and there are some interesting archetypes, like the Eldrich Guardian).

And you know what? That's exactly what some players want and like. There's like three dozen classes now. Why can't just one- [b]ONE![b/] be the plain vanilla killing machine that a good number of players want to play?


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Chainmail wrote:
I remember starting in a setting called Dragonlance. The story begins where clerics do not get to have any spells at start until the Disks are found in the adventure. I do not think this would fly today.

I can tell you now it totally would fly today.

The key thing is that the GM would be expected to announce before people made characters that clerics would start without spellcasting and it would have to be earned mid-game.

This might mean that none of your players choose to take clerics and that's ok.

Lots!!!! of fun, if you consider resting for days after every little combat= "fun".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trigger Loaded wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Trigger Loaded wrote:

I confess that I think Murderhobo is taken way too seriously, and that I am quite certain that most groups are practically murderhobos anyways.

Not in my experience.

Everyone always likes to deny it.

How many campaigns feature adventurers with no place of residence?
How many campaigns feature adventurers equipped, prepared, and often called upon to solve problems with violence?

Tell me this isn't the norm, and I'll say you're idealistic at best.

Are Knights Errant's Murderhoboes? US Marshals during the Wild West? Special agents of the Crown? Monsterhunters? How about pest control? Do you call the Orkingman a "murderer"?

Muderhobo means CE characters that murder anyone and everything as long as it brings eps or gold or fun. Unlawfully.

It doesnt mean adventurers who go around saving towns from ravaging monsters.

You have to get both the "murder" and "hobo" in there.

Your definition does include adventurers, but few adventurers "murder".

Last Campaign was RotRL and the PC's live in Sandpoint. Duly authorized, too, as official "Heroes of Sandpoint". Not hobos, not murderers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trigger Loaded wrote:

I confess that I think Murderhobo is taken way too seriously, and that I am quite certain that most groups are practically murderhobos anyways.

Not in my experience.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cerberus Seven wrote:

Currently, a lot of things about the combat maneuver system bug the hell out of me.

"Say, GM, I wanna grapple that guy!"

"Okay. You don't have Improved Grapple, so he gets an attack of opportunity aaaaand rolls a 1." *curses*

"Oh, right, I forgot. Well, do his buddies next to him miss me too?"

"No, they don't get to AO you."

"But...I'm not trained in this technique and it's happening right next to them. I'm not focusing on them with my sloppy maneuver attempt, I'm focusing on this one guy. Why does the guy I'm actually attacking get to AO me, but his bodyguards within arms reach don't?"

"Oh look, the wizard cast dominate person, fight's over! Moving on."

T

The whole system is just bonkers on close inspection.

And yet- the PF system is so much better than the 3.5 system.


Bluenose wrote:


The Unseen University has discovered the Thaum, the basic unit of magic (enough to conjure *one* pigeon). I don't see much evidence for Vancian, certainly not in the D&D sense (though arguably it's more like Vance's magic that way).

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VancianMagic

In the Discworld, wizards are sometimes shown using this form of magic, and the series takes the third rule to an extreme — for the first two books, Rincewind has one of the eight spells of the Octavo in his head, and it's so powerful that other spells just don't fit (or are too scared to stay). Although once it's ejected, it turns out he still can't learn any useful magic.

In addition, spells follow the law of conservation of energy: with few exceptions, a wizard must expend as much energy learning or preparing a spell as it uses to do its task. Therefore, impressive spells could take many lifetimes to prepare and simply aren't worth it. And once a wizard finally finds out how to summon nubile virgins, he's way too old to remember why he wanted to do that.

This is demonstrated with the various transportation spells used in the series: In one book, a character who wants to ascend to the top of the tower first has to use magic to knock loose a stone from the top, and use its energy and momentum as a lever in the spell. In Interesting Times, they teleport Rincewind to the Aurient, but have to exchange him with something from his landing spot and of approximately the same weight. At the same time, in Equal Rites, levitating a staff a handful of feet is extremely physically taxing because there isn't anything nearby to use as a counterweight, so the wizard in question has to do all the heavy lifting with his mind. "


Zhangar wrote:

See, I'd argue Pratchett uses mana points or something like FATE's magic system (casting spells inflicts stress), but I guess it really depends on which book you're reading too.

While Granny Weatherwax is always prepared, there's no way in Hell she's a vancian caster =P

She does very little real magic, however. But yes, the Witches dont use Vancian, the Wizards do.


Bluenose wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

Um... spell point is very commonly used..

It usually goes by its other name... mana

In Games. But in Novels? Not much. I have never heard any protagonist say anything like "I only have 6 points of mana left". It's usually "I was tired".

In novels, "mana" is usually tied to physical or metal energy- it makes for a better story.

Now in the Niven fantasies he actually uses the term "Man" but it's drawn from the surroundings or items.

Can anyone show me a award winning & best selling Fantasy novelist that uses spell points?

Where they dont drain themselves in a notable way? or they cant pull more magic out when they really, really need it?

Terry Pratchett. Also Larry Niven and Brandon Sanderson, who are certainly both award winning and best selling. While James Clemens is probably neither, his The Banned and the Banished series is one of the best examples.

Terry Pratchett uses Vancian. Larry Niven does use mana, but in his work, you drain mama from the surroundings.


Crimeo wrote:

You could do Moorcock magic =P

Mortals simply can't cast spells at all -- sorcery is merely making deals and bargains with immortal spirits. Every time you want to cast a spell, it is up to you to have established a contract prior to that that made the relevant spirit owe you a favor, or it ain't gonna happen.

And each one may ask different things of you at their whim to agree to any such contracts.

It's essentially as if the only spell in pathfinder were "summon planar ally", you could cast it pretty much whenever you felt like, and the allies were less boring in what they wanted than just "plz giv gold"

Pretty much, except for Minor cantrips, yes. Magic was also physically draining.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
hiiamtom wrote:


I think most Vancian magic hates comes from spell slots. Vancian casting (as I understand it in fiction) operates more like a 5e Warlock who knows a certain number of spells and can use that pool of spells, like RQ6 theism where a priest prepares their spells with a holy sumbol and then can relearn them after casting them.

Nope. A Mage would literally force the words and symbols into his brain(usually by reading a spellbook), then once he uttered the spell, they were gone. He'd prepare his spells, just like a Wizard does.

The Jack Vance Dying Earth novels are quite good, everyone should read them.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

Um... spell point is very commonly used..

It usually goes by its other name... mana

In Games. But in Novels? Not much. I have never heard any protagonist say anything like "I only have 6 points of mana left". It's usually "I was tired".

In novels, "mana" is usually tied to physical or metal energy- it makes for a better story.

Now in the Niven fantasies he actually uses the term "Man" but it's drawn from the surroundings or items.

Can anyone show me a award winning & best selling Fantasy novelist that uses spell points?

Where they dont drain themselves in a notable way? or they cant pull more magic out when they really, really need it?


Tin Foil Yamakah wrote:
I confess that I have never required the use of spell components.

Not even 5000 gps diamonds?

Once in a great while we have a game where the Wizard loses his pouch and has to scramble, but it very rare.

Oh, and for me, you just need 5000gps. In pretty much anything.


Knitifine wrote:


Vancian casting.
This system of magic is clunky and doesn't follow naturally from the fiction any of my players have ever consumed.

Neither do Spell points. Oddly, I have not found any well known fantasy book that uses spell points. I am sure there are a couple.

A system where the Mage runs out of personal energy and gets tired, sure (Gandalf for example). This is hardly ever used in gaming.

I mean, it's only Zelazny, Sir Terry Pratchett,Lawrence Watt-Evans,Diane Duane, Glen Cook,Patricia C. Wrede,Mercedes Lackey and James Mallory- and others (Not to mention Vance) that use Vancian. And your players have read NONE of them? I can't even count the awards those authors have received and the number of books they have sold are legion. Pretty much those are some of the best known names in Fantasy.

Basically you dont like any thing that makes D&D the best selling FRPG ever.

And, I cant think of a single FRPG that doesnt have at least one of those things.


Knitifine wrote:

Magic Items

Uncapped Ability Progression
The word "race".
Racial penalties.
Vancian casting.
Magic Items.
Intelligent Magic Items.
Fighter as a class.
Fighter as a name for a better Warrior.
Adept as a class.
Critical hits.
-10 points till death.
Divine magic.
Creature types having default traits.
Fey as a creature type.
HD targeting spells that aren't relative to caster level.
Saving Throws.
Multiclassing.
Prestigious Classes.
Ability score increases by level.
Death and Dismemberment.
Alignment subtypes.
Alignment targeting abilities.
Alignment restrictions.

I... think that's everything. Oh right, I'm supposed to say why... geeze, give me a couple days.

Perhaps... another game is right for you. Actually I can't think of any FRPGs that dont have at least one of those.


Ssalarn wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
MeanMutton wrote:
Revan wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
1) DCs that don't scale, like with poisons, alchemical items, and most magic items. A 95,000 gp item that imposes a measly DC 19 saving throw (mindmaster's eyes, for example) just sort of makes me cringe.
Good lord, this. So much this. And DC 19 is actually on the high end for those saving throws. I swear, I see way too many endgame level items with DC 14 saves.
The biggest problem, though, is you've got characters with poor saves and a dump stat so that at 20th level they only get a +6 or +7 to a will save alongside the cleric with the 34 Wisdom who has a +19 or so.
How did they ever survive to 20th level without being dominated into murdering their party?
They survived, it was just the rest of their party who kept being killed and replaced. All of the enemies who use mind control and possession powers have a vested interest in keeping WIS-dumped murder machines alive and functioning in every population of adventurers.

True, which is why those other PC's/players need to put their foot down. "Dude, if you dont get something to stop you from being dominated, either you're out or I am."

1 to 50 of 5,937 << 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.