Kyle Baird wrote:
Well there was the whole section about strong women breaking his suspension of disbelief. Not sure what gym his local PFS meets at but the idea of any of us playing characters with positive STR or CON modifiers is a lil suspension of disbelief breaky*.
* Unless you've got a Cheetos based metric, then we're champions. OM NOM NOM.
First off, I think it's awesome that they even thought to try that. As a GM your job is to a) make sure everyone at the table (including you) is having fun and b) make sure that everyone at the table is having fun. You're not running Pathfinder Society so you have carte blanche to rewrite, reorder, add/drop encounters as you see fit. Instead of random encounters that are balanced for a full group with their armor on you could have, for example, add an encounter involving Shadows tied to a specific location. Players fear ability damage and it would be thematically appropriate to the swamp. I'm imagining a crew of pirates that hid their ship in the swamp during an unusually rainy season but were overcome in the darkness by shadows from a temple to a lost cult underneath where they beached the ship. That would be fun and deepen the story (maybe when the full group gets together they'd be interested in pursuing that lead?).
As for character death, I think regardless of how it happens you need to make it memorable and epic.
1) Great idea! I'm imagining a document that is a completely goblin-manufactured mess that only works because the human looking at it is drunk.
2) I was thinking that if the humans suspect a plot is a-foot having one of the tavern owners put a sign on the vinegar casks that says "Hard Cider" (in goblin) and a sign on the hard cider cask that says "Vinegar" (also in goblin).
3) The village has made a deal with the goblins: They get all the village's garbage as long as they don't make any trouble and perform a "few" minor janitorial chores. Rotfoot (the organizer) sweeps the floors for the three taverns.
4) Good idea. I'm seeing a defective wand that always makes the same illusion (maybe a wizard bending over and saying "testing 1, 2, 3..." or similar).
5) Definitely in the works.
The hard part will be letting the PCs come up with their own schemes so most of my prep work will be having a good idea of who the relevants NPCs are and how they'll react once the PCs start the ball rolling.
What do you all think? How do you deal with your PCs death or how does your DM/GM deal with it?
Two over-arching ideas:
1) Don't over-penalize a character death in terms of XP and wealth. Ultimately, Pathfinder is a game and games are supposed to be fun.
2) Make the death meaningful in terms of story. Pathfinder is also a story and stories are supposed to be interesting.
- Don't encourage the PCs to simply loot the body and toss it into a ditch. The character was a hero and his/her life touched on many others - find a suitable way to remember them in game. If the PC helped save a village have the townspeople ask about him/her next time they're in town. The next day the party might notice a number of villagers wearing black armbands.
- I suggest setting XP so that the new PCs are half a level behind the most advanced PC. That way the survivor PCs will have a few sessions at the next level before everyone else catches up but most of the time everyone is more or less on par. If you get too heavy-handed with XP penalties you'll start seeing PCs built more to survive than to help out the party (e.g., high defense monks that can't hit worth a damn).
- A villain that steals some of the party's gold or sunders a magic weapon will be much more hated than someone who kills PCs.
Patrick Renie wrote:
Thanks Patrick! That was just what I was looking for - now the next trick is to write material that allows the PCs to come up with their own strategies for stealing the cider kegs without being to railroad-y on the one hand and but still have consequences for failure on the other.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Same here. Over the years I've just kind of tuned it and Christmas out. Now my girlfriend is a HUGE Christmas fan. This morning I was reading an article on how much it sucks to have a Christmas birthday when *out of nowhere* she sighs and starts listing all the fun Christmas activities we have to do this year.
Are there any human towns where goblins are tolerated, perhaps having formed a relationship where the goblins are allowed into the town to take the garbage away?
Where I'm going with this:
I'm writing up a one-shot adventure in which a group of 11 goblins band together to steal 155 gallons of hard cider from 3 taverns on the night before the town's Hard Cider festival.
I'm basing it loosely on Ocean's Eleven and trying to work in as many heist movie tropes as possible. However, I want the idea of open warfare completely off the table. At worst the goblins might use a poison that induces nausea or knock out humans and leave them tied up.
Ideally, the town will be on a hill to allow for a chase scene where the goblins ride an out of control wagon out of town, chased by humans on their terrifying horses, while the real heist takes place in the form of a hot air balloon that escapes while the humans are distracted.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
But Christmas (a.k.a. my birthday) is coming, and all we want for the holidays is some playtest.
Your birthday falls on Christmas? That's rough, I'm a 12/23 myself. All I want for Christmas is to have a half-way decent party for once and for people to stop wrapping my birthday presents in Christmas paper.
The reason the rogue is not completely overhauled is because, as mentioned, he can handle CR appropriate challenges if he's played well.
The design decisions that went into the Core rogue almost certainly have much more to do with backwards compatibility with 3.5 OGL material. I thought Paizo did a credible job of updating the rogue within that rather strong constraint. However, the fact remains that for most campaigns the rogue is an 'expert' class in that you need to be an expert to contribute meaningfully in combat and expect to survive.
I'm surprised I haven't seen any outrage yet over the non-standard probability of Daring Do. Adding a couple of points to a d20 roll is old hat for D&D and its descendants. Adding one or more d6 to a d20 roll seems pretty bold to me.
For those of you who are interested, it's not hard to calculate the expected value of daring-do:
E.V. = sum of results/no. of different outcomes.
Here the expected value is:
E.V. = (1/6)*(1+2+3+4+5+6 + (1/6)*(1+2+3+4+5+6 + (1/6)*(....)))
So it's similar to a d8 roll but skewed towards 1-5 but with a really long tail.
The histogram is also quite interesting:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I suggest we return to the topic at hand as opposed to forecasts of doom.
Reading through this thread I'm reminded of the scene from Life of Brian with the prophets. For what it's worth I'm enjoying reading through the new classes and sketching out how to implement a few of my existing ideas with them. Then again, I'm the weird guy who really digs the cavalier so take my compliments with a grain or five of salt.
As it's written now only the AC Bonus ability doesn't work with medium/heavy armor or while carrying a shield.
I'm thinking that starting with a level of barbarian and going brawler for the rest might be an interesting way to go (at later levels you could get a mithral breastplate and get the benefit of the AC bonus after all). Alternatively, you could pick up a level or two of a martial class with heavy armor proficiency (Sword Saint Samurai Order of the Ronin?) and drastically reduce your need for DEX.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
nate lange wrote:
I say that it would be a great campaign not just because of what rogues are but also because of what they're not. In my experience a lot of mid to higher level Pathfinder games becomes a superhero story. PCs have awesome powers in their hands and the sessions can tend towards a 15 minute adventuring day - stomp through a dungeon and teleport away to rest.
On the other hand, rogues stay humble. This allows you to tell an entirely different story. Encounters that a balanced party (to say nothing of an optimized one) would laugh can be absolutely terrifying to a party of rogues. If you have a good group then these PCs will be thinking outside the box and coming up with inventive solutions all the time.
doc the grey wrote:
So for those that haven't heard yet the last 2 classes for advanced classes have been announced and I again have some worries about one in particular. Apparently we will be getting a new class called The Brawler which is meant to be a class that, "blends the fighter and the monk, creating a warrior whose sole focus is unarmed combat and martial maneuvers, without any of the mysticism of the monk. This class is designed specifically to beat up monsters, with a full base attack bonus progression (like a fighter) and improved unarmed strike damage (like a monk). To top it off, the class is also very skilled at making combat maneuvers."
So they finally fixed the monk? Cool.
I think the other PCs would (in character) rightly decide that the traitor can't be trusted in dangerous situations and kick him out of the party.
Out of character the players might also wonder if this is a player that they want to continue gaming with. If the answer is yes then a new, more trustworthy character for that player is in order.
For most combats we'd usually say the NPCs fought their own battle against enemies not shown on the table. Saves the GM a lot of dice rolling and still keeps the NPCs around for narrative moments. Remember to make sure to adjust your descriptions of the NPCs after combat (Jakardros pulling arrows from dead ogres, Shalelu using her wand to heal an injured Vale).
I say let him try. It's these kind of epically bad ideas that make for stories that you'll be talking about years from now:
"Remember that time when Jim's cavalier tried to tame a greater barghest?"
or it's possible he might succeed:
"Remember that time when Jim's cavalier tried to tame a greater barghest?"
I think it comes down to a misunderstanding of what kind of game you want to run vs the game they think they're in.
You: Running the grittier version of reality presented in the AP. "Front brain" thinking is important here.
Both are fun but if you superhero when you're in the grit you're gonna have a bad time. Next time the out of game complaining gets bad sit down with the group and explain why the module is hard - that the writers expect certain core competencies (covered by the standard fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard party among many other possible instantiations). Explain that you're going to allow character rebuilds using the rebuilding rules in the Ultimate Campaign book. Work specifically with the "Some of everything" guy to identify a few things for him to specialize in. If necessary you can work out a way to make certain aspects of rebuilding cheaper, perhaps due to interested NPCs.
When it comes to expendables are they holding back because of WBL issues?
Without a sorcerer or wizard casting Teleport, without a cleric casting Wind Walk, we're talking Level 13 for the druid for Wind Walk. Encourage the bard to get Shadow Walk, or else everyone needs to invest in some really comfortable masterwork riding saddles.
The bard also gets that spell at 13th level. I kind of like that this party won't have easy access to teleport - the spell always seemed like an easy out to me. That said bags of holding are admittedly pretty key here.
DM Dad in FL wrote:
Thinking now of changing the Gunslinger to an Arcane Duelist Bard and the Rogue to a TWF Ranger.
I really like this party, especially if either the bard or the ranger focuses on ranged combat. All of your characters will be able to use a wand of cure light wounds and the paladin has lesser restoration and restoration on his spell list. With a druid as your primary caster you'll have a very different approach to mid- to high-level battlefield control magic and the bard provides some much needed arcane capability. I expect the paladin to be in the front lines mixing it up with the ranger and companion animals flanking. The bard song will turn them into a meat grinder.
For skills, the ranger and druid will cover all kinds of outdoor skills and knowledge and the bard will handle most everything else (social and knowledges).
Level 1 Commoner wrote:
Besides giving the guy with 8, 12, 10, 10, 10, 6 the name 'almost mediocre mike', no. But it's refreshing to see that rolled stats can result in something different than 50+ point buy.
If I were stuck with stats like that I'd make a character that focuses on buffing, maybe a bard.
Human Bard "Mediocre Mike" - focus is on casting buffs, social skills, and knowledges. Not the brightest and doesn't make the best decisions, but *gosh darn it* people like him.
INT/WIS could be switched at your preference (bards have a good will save and lots of skill ranks, I put the 6 in WIS to avoid penalizing your knowledge skills too much).
I think Taldor resembles Spain in a lot of respects and there are parts of the the Mwangi Expanse that are similar to the new world. For mechanics look to re-skin existing archetypes - have a look at the Mad Dog barbarian (barbarian that gives up a number of rage powers for a Druid Animal companion).
Can you give us more insight as to how you'd like your character to act in combat and outside of combat?
Right, but the problem is that reloading a flintlock is a free action in the first place, not that PCs are using too many free actions in a round.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
That's what gets me off. Giving people good game material so they can have fun. Screw authority. :)
Yep. Every RPG rules set breaks down at some level of granularity. Clearly Pathfinder, as written and FAQed, doesn't resolve free actions well - either we allow certain game breaking behaviors (double barreled, two weapon fighting gunslingers) or specify the free action rules in such a way that we get unintended consequences to existing rules. For home games this is less of an issue as these issues can be papered over with home rules. For PFS games we really would like to have a clearer ruling to allow for uniformity of play experience between tables and GMs.
I think the main issue that many commenters have with the FAQ is that if the developers wished to curtain gunslinger exploits a more sensible approach would have been to start with the action economy of rapid reload coupled with paper alchemical cartridges. For example, they could change the rules to paper cartridges to allow only the number of iterative attacks the gunslinger would otherwise has free reloads (1 at 1st, 2 at 6th, 3 at 11th, etc) and an additional reload or two as a free action with a feat, bringing gunslingers in line with archers with manyshot, rapid reload and iteratives.
Got it, so when the earlier post talked about cross-referencing the rules I thought the rules nefreet was cross-referencing were the Deadly Aim vis a vis the touch attack language, not knowing the specific exception the early firearms rules have for not being considered a touch attack for purposes of Deadly Aim.
edit: And yes, one can be pro-RAW without being anti-gunslinger even if one's RAW-fu doesn't quite meet up with the lofty standards of the RPG Superstars.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
You can't take free actions when it is not your turn.
Seems like other designers aren't on the same page then. For example, the Order of the Warrior Honor in All Things ability grants a +4 to a saving throw (or skill check) as a free action. Wouldn't that mean it's applicable to saves that occur only on the Samurai's (or Cavalier's) turn?
I saw that after posting and decided against altering my post after the fact. The point remains that knowing how Deadly Aim works and and telling other gamers how it works (i.e., that it doesn't work with guns at the range that most gunslinger builds live in) doesn't make someone anti-gunslinger so much as a pro-RAW.
Matthew Pittard wrote:
powell01: There are also quite a few gamers out there who purposely tell other gamers that deadly aim dosnt work with firearms to disuade people from playing Gunslingers. They belong to the 'No guns in my fantasy setting please!' group.
The feat description specifically says "The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks". Deadly aim can be used with firearms provided they are firing outside the range for which they need only target touch AC.
So you can fire a longbow six times a round because drawing an arrow is not a free action but is instead part of the full attack action with many shot, rapid shot, and three more iterative attacks at say 16th level?
Same here - I had a witty line about the natural evolution of contentious threads that bordered on a math joke.edit: On second thought it would have been funnier as a set of equations.