|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Justin Sane wrote:
I'm not the least bit against a martial power boost, or a caster nerf, I was just replying to a very specific point. This guy said that no one likes having wizards start off weaker and end up stronger than fighters and I'm just saying I know people that enjoy that. I am someone who enjoys that.
Power=/=fun is and isn't true as much as the inverse. Fun is completely subjective. I have a player in my group that likes to weaken all of his characters through some means that adds to his enjoyment of role playing just as others like to optimize and post big numbers. To each their own and no one has a right to say otherwise.
Right that is what I meant to say.
Rynjin I get the distinction and that nuance in your original comment and yes it's more despite of than because of in my wizard case, but not entirely, because at times I was enjoying that wizard because of the way the power differences and how they scaled modeled a type of character and helped me get into character.. I don't know of I'm explaining this right, but yes, for me those differences are part of the charm of d&d. And then when the wizard gets more power, I like how the fighter can't do such spectacular feats but he can keep doing what he does around the clock.
Sorry for getting sarcastic, but seriously "blank is fun for no one" is too blanket. I have players in my group who like a serious handicap for rp purposes. More than one. I have seen it come off annoyingly or hilariously, but they really like to do that sometimes.
I have met a lot of players who want to lower the overall power level because it feels too superhero-ey. Yes, that is an overall global change and doesn't result in a disparity, but I have also played and enjoyed games where the very disparity was a feature not a bug for us.
Rifts. That game had no semblance of balance. Since we gave up any hope of being on even ground we had a blast just seeing where the game took us without obsessing about how we were "performing".
Fine you guys are right. The great times I had roleplaying my wizard at low levels in ad&d must have never happened and there must have been an increase in fun when I got to higher levels that I just failed to notice. I will try to get more in touch with my own feelings.
Also being a starving artist in the city with awesome friends must have sucked more than I'm remembering and when I got a high paying job and spent all my time with shallow people I couldn't relate with I guess my misery then wasn't real either.
How frequent of posts do you expect? And how much rules knowledge is required?
I want to try 5e but I have never played it before, even in the playtest.
Also I have a bunch of other pbp commitments and work has been slammin lately so I would only be good for like 5-7 posts a week.
I would want to play a human fighter/thief or an elf fighter/wizard.
Joana it's a very atypical module. It was the first third edition adventure ever published I think, definitely the first 3pp one at least. It was getting played at conventions just as third edition was breaking. It's meant for first time DM's and first time players, and to be able to be run without any prep at all.
I have run it several times and just omitted the boxed text that dictated players actions because that rankled me quite a bit.
True it is cheating but even this comes down to a social contract and gamer culture that not everyone will share. My little cousin did this when he played with us for the first time, googled a monster for vulnerabilities. He had no idea it was wrong, he was thinking of the game like a video game where you might google a certain level of you get stuck.
My confidence is bolstered by oceanshield wolf. I'm going to expose myself too.
I would not play with these guys. Period, full stop.
Doesn't mean they are bad players or bad people, just not for me.
BTW I thought your thread title was fine.
I like the idea of minions. I like "bloodied". I like how you get variant monsters right in the monster manual (instead of just "goblin" you have a few different ones so you can make a nice little squad without loads of prep.)
Encounter design in general looks pretty inviting.
I like the art direction towards the end (essentials books for example).
But it makes sense you would want to compensate for the fact that they don't get the full mileage out of the advanced simple template right?
I mean the template is there for convenience, but the goal is to end up with an appropriately CR'd monster after you apply it.
If the effectiveness isn't going up as much as it should for the added CR cost it makes sense to bring it back in line.
I would so much love to join this game as FGG is my favorite 3PP, and I'm really intrigued by the format of using VTT in conjunction with PbP... but sadly I have way to much meta knowledge of Rappan Athuk :/ I'm running it at home and in PbP.
Wish you all happy gaming though!
Don't go down the well!
Regarding the OP...
The thread title leaves me predisposed to thinking that yes, you did do bad.
Nothing that follows is as bad as I expected it to be. I think this would have gone differently if you guys had played through to high levels organically, starting somewhere more reasonable like 7th level or lower.
Even after years of playing loads of pathfinder and frequenting the messageboard's I'm not really comfortable as a player or a GM in encounters above, say, 14th level.
Someone pointed this out to me. Might have some bearing.
Incidentally, I do take advantage of some vagary in the rules to interpret the "create a diversion to hide" use of bluff as a free action. (I guess most people call it a standard using Feint as a precedent.)
So when a PC is being observed but has concealment wants to use stealth, I call for a bluff check but I don't charge any action cost for it.
(My players like to fluff this as simply waiting for a moment in battle when all eyes are turned.)
I dunno, this is my way of making sense of some confusing rules without feeling like I'm too far out in house-rule territory.
I'd love to know if there's any general consensus out there though. PFS people, how do you see this being handled in society play?
I guess it comes down to what is observing?
For me, if someone is talking to me, looking at me, swinging a sword at me with only a 20% chance of missing due to my concealment, they are most certainly observing me.
Sure they might be more likely to lose track of me looking away for a second if I have concealment, but that is exactly what I use the bluff check to represent.
Here's how I parse that:
Concealment makes it possible to make a stealth check, but what does a stealth check represent?
Stealth is for avoiding detection. You make a stealth check when you have not been detected, and you wish to remain undetected. Concealment makes this possible. If you have already been detected, concealment does not change that fact.
If you are not being observed, you can go from concealment to concealment, using stealth, to remain unobserved. Concealment in itself does not make it possible to suddenly become unobserved.
It sounds to me like if people are aware of you, and you want to use concealment to make a stealth check, it's time for a bluff check.
This all seems fair and makes sense to me.
A dumpster is a good place to hide from a bully, but if the bully watches you climb in the dumpster, then a dumpster is a terrible place to hide.
Remember playing "hide and go seek"? The seeker always closed his eyes while you hid. The game would have been short if he hadn't.
Note: The rules fail to define the action cost of "creating a diversion to hide". I've been told that it's comparable to a feint and therefore is a standard action. I rule that it is a free action performed as part of the move. Don't try to pass this off as legal in PFS, but it is how I run stealth ;)