|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
But if you fought something before, how would you magically forget that you fought it and forget important things such as, I don't know, what it's weaknesses are?
Your GM is correct, but he should have given you a bonus on the roll (honor system). Just because you remember doesn't mean your PC remembers.
Having said that, the Pathfinder Knowledge skills in general need to be streamlined and simplified more.
I have a fighter that sunders; he is level 11. I found that as you advance levels, there are less opponents to sunder/disarm in general, and that your toughest opponents don’t have anything to sunder/disarm. So you're making already easy opponents too easy, and your feats count for nothing against the challenging opponents. Also, I find that it's actually better to just kill mooks instead of sundering them since it's faster. So if I could go back, I probably wouldn’t have wasted feats on this tactic.
Spellcasters don’t need all their spell components in one pouch, it can be all over their body. I think sunder/disarm/steal in general would be too powerful if that were the case, with or without feats.
No, this solution would break Organized Play, making it impossible for new people to ever play older scenarios and claim full rewards. As an event coordinator, it would mean that I would only have season 6 and 7 scenarios to choose from, or that I would have to tell my players, "See that neat boon on your chronicle sheet? You don't get it."
It's an option. And to use it would depend on a number of factors.
Just because a boon isn't available doesn't make a scenario unplayable. Boons shouldn't be such a strong factor in whether a scenario is played or not. Last year I played "Way of the Kirin" and there were no special rewards involved (Ex-Lantern Lodge gained +1 stat and the boon was later removed after having 2 months to play, making this scenario unplayable apparently). Seriously, who cares, it was a good scenario.
Anyway I guess we have a difference of opinion and my suggestion would deter boon hunting. The last thing I want when I sit down at a season 4 evil boon scenario is to be at a table of 4 guys who have already played it.
I'm sure these GMs would still pick the perfect character for these scenarios (during the 2 seasons they'd be available), would burn stars to replay, so I don't feel bad about it at all.
If you're going to add a powerful boon, whether it's evil or not, it might be a good idea that a PC can only gain the boon if the scenario is played in the current season (or perhaps season +1).
I'm sure there are people that replay (or play illegally) certain scenarios to gain an extra feat or +2 ability score. They become "must play" scenarios. It would be nice to have a statute of limitations on it, like the Shadow Lodge/LL boons.
I don't like evil boons because:
1) They are too powerful.
2) They are more like a powergamer indicator than anything else, since all PCs will take them, regardless of character alignment. I guess everyone roleplays character alignment until the prize becomes something that is too good to refuse?
For example, the Krune boons. When I played one scenario, my barely non-evil CN half-orc was the only one that refused the evil boon, the rest of the party was "good" and took the boon immediately. How messed up is that?
3) Players cry (or cheat and avoid) if they suffer any repercussions for taking these boons. In the example above the other players already knew everything about the boon and whether there would be any drawbacks, and told me it was OK to take it.
I'd prefer that you don't include evil boons, but it really depends on how flavorful it is, how powerful, and how badly people will cheat to get it or avoid the consequences behind it.
Also, it needs to explicitly say that it cannot be taken by good characters. Conversely at some point you need a boon that says it can only be taken by good characters. Fair is fair. In this case you don't need to have any drawbacks behind the evil boon, besides flavor.
Depends on the challenge, depends on your character optimization. I ran 16 (easy/quick) encounters in one 4 hour slot. That was the upper limit and it was insane. Normally it would be 2-4 encounters in a 5 slot, which is must more memorable.
Your GM sounds like he's trying to make everything "epic". Every encounter/fight doesn't need to be a slog and you don't have to roleplay every item acquisition for the game to be entertaining. I had a GM like this once, where everything we did was "wrong" and everyone was better than us. This may or may not be the case, but you should talk to your GM and if the game isn't to your liking, I wouldn't waste your time. Find another group or play Pathfinder Society.
10 Con is fine for a backline character if you're conservative. You'll still get hit with AE sometimes. Personally I'd go with 12 Con.
Higher caster stats often mean everything, especially at high tier. 5-10% is a lot when it's save or die.
A 12 Dex compared to 10 Dex is meaningless, especially at higher tiers.
If you have no front liners it's a real problem at low levels period, even if everyone has 16 Con.
Often dying in scenarios has nothing to do with your Con, it has to do with crits, bad luck, bad decisions, or a combination of the three.
Am I missing something? Will I even enjoy running PFS games? Am I misunderstanding how PFS works?
I recommend that everyone play PFS as a player before GMing it. There is a lot to learn about the campaign, let alone the rules.
Pathfinder in general is not a system you just pick up and GM, there is work and research involved in making a game run (properly). Even veteran GMs need to review old rules and learn new rules. In home games, often the rules aren't important, you can just add or subtract hit points on the fly, add in new mobs (even in the middle of the encounter), reduce/increase the damage a boss does, but in PFS you play by what is written, which means actually knowing the rules. It's tough for some GMs.
There is lots of creativity involved in PFS as well. You are welcome to change or interpret a lot of the fluff. Sometimes it can make a scenario completely different when GMed by different people. Having said that, you cannot change the mechanics at all. I find that it actually enhances the game and makes it fair.
Paladin has alignment restrictions and if you make a new player fall, could be the last time they play RPGs. I agree with others, in some ways it's one of the more complex of the core classes.
A ranger without a pet is not a bad idea.
The fighter is the best class for any player who isn't 100% committed to learning the game or spending time levelling a character. That's the trick really, to get a player invested enough in the game. The unchained rogue is also not bad right now as well, maybe it's a better suggestion because there's more going on.
I wouldn't allow it to be used 2H, Crane Wing has a drawback and you're not respecting it. The round concept is only that, for game purposes everything you do happens on your turn, but in actual fact you're acting during the entire round.
If you allow this, you'll need to allow Deflect Arrow to be used with 2H weapons as well. You might as well remove all requirements from all feats that say you need to use 1 hand.
What do you think about Rusted chainmail?
I'm not sure Rusted chainmail is meant to be a good card, or at least a card you don't want to upgrade. It is what it is, beginner armor.
In Runelords, armor is a non-desirable card, so this more so. This is an OK card in Wrath.
Glad the game is coming out soon, will buy an Android tablet just to play it. I'm a little leery of the demo being free, hopefully each AP isn't crazy expensive or I'll just stick to the actual card game.
I prefer to go through Paizo to get singles, but if I have to wait an extra week or two for subscribers to get their product, then deal with a rush of people all trying to get limited quantities of the rare minis that people will tend to need to fill out their sets, I'd just save myself the hassle and purchase elsewhere, and end up cutting Paizo out of my minis purchases altogether.
The thing is, the bar dressing minis are all in high demand and are rare, and the worst problem is that customers want *multiple* copies of each bar dressing. There will be no single to purchase the rare bar dressings you are missing anywhere, or to get multiple copies yourself (unless you want to pay $40-50 in the aftermarket).
The real problem is that the bar dressings should have been uncommon, not rare. Stuff like Frost Giant Mage, Bugbear Tyrant, Flesh Golem, and some of the ghouls should have been rare.
The price of the single rares are also too low, at $6-8, especially if you are breaking open cases to get them.
Might need to do another set where some of these minis are revisited, they seem popular.
My response was to maneuvers in general, not to special classes. My monk's CMD gets pretty high, into the 35-40 range when using a Ki point, so I still feel it would be challenging. Maybe a Tetori or Lore Warden could do it, if so I question why it's fun to play a character that has no chance to fail.
Having said that, GMs can't make every opponent a Lore Warden or Tetori monk, so this is not really a helpful discussion.
Maneuvers do ignore armor and armor spells (mage armor and shield).
Having said that, high dex characters often have a very high CMD as well, since dex bonuses and dodge bonuses affect CMD. So yeah, unless you are a Tetsori monk, you're not grappling with me.
I have a character like this. A monk using Crane Style. Please realize that I've spent most of my feats in defense, so my offense is not very strong.
Most fights, I think after attacking me for 1-2 rounds, most intelligent creatures would move onto my squishier friends.
Actually, that's my greatest fear, being ignored and killing everyone else around me, with me unable to do much about it.
My real vulnerability is being flatfooted. Eventually I will roll a low roll on initiative and when I do and if I'm in front, I will be plowed.
Invisibility also works, but hitting me one time usually isn't enough.
Spells and special abilities work, eventually I will fail.
A "20" always hits and creatures that do significant damage can eventually take me down. With my low damage, I'm unable to solo some monsters that a 2H fighter would beat. Truth is, my hit points aren't that high.
Not sure I like the advice on the website, I want my GM focused on story based sessions, not throwing a monster menagerie at us just to hurt me.
Bottom line GMs, this is a tanking character and if you're not allowing this character to tank, it's not terribly effective.
It seems over the holidays that half of the sessions for U-Con were reported. I usually wait until the 1 month mark before pinging anyone. I pinged the summer organizer, which is why I'm 99% sure it will never be reported.
I'm going to help with reporting at a local convention we're having in Feb. "Many hands make light work".
Expectations: game day (1 week), conventions (1 month).
Having said that, I think the *goal* of reporting should be 1 week in all cases, because when it drags on I find that things never get reported at all.
When things don't get reported, as a player it's annoying but livable. As a GM, I'm irritated, and if I was GMing a special it would demotivate me to not do it again.
This year, I've had all of my sessions at a major convention 6 months ago not reported (and I don't believe they ever will be) and another major convention in November (U-Con) was also not reported. I'm still holding out hope for U-Con. Luckily I was only a player.
The Sword wrote:
Why do you need to know all the spells and rules before hand? Why can't you just choose some spells and learn the rules relevant to those?
Obviously, you only need to know what you use. You're not being argumentative are you?
The Sword wrote:
Casters have been part of this game since it was a game.
And? These days, it seems like several people are casual and can barely keep their chronicles and gear selection up-to-date. They just want to "show up and play", like it was a video game, or a board game. There's nothing wrong with that, but for the sake of the table, it would be better if they had an easier character to play, since even learning the basic rules of the game will be an ongoing process.
I have two players like that in my home game.
The Sword wrote:
Why didn't you tell the guy he could roll 2d4+2 for a magic missing?
You're very judgmental, how do you know that I didn't say something?
I have in several instances.
The last guy was using a wand, he was very knowledgeable, so I have no idea what he was doing. I just figured he was holding stuff back.
And like I pointed out in this thread already, defensive people don't like being told what to do, so sometimes it's better to just let it slide, especially at a convention. Maybe he is just "playing his character".
The Sword wrote:
Were you getting your kicks watching him not succeed? Wizards using armour is missing a mechanic of the game like not realising what armour check modifiers can do. It can happen to any class - it's a shame someone didn't point that out to the guy at the start and suggest taking spell focus instead. Yeah - the problem the OP mentions becomes ever more apparent.
Very judgmental again, how do you know I didn't say something?
We actually *did* nudge the player (and did suggest Spell Focus), but he didn't understand and thought feats in armor and weapons were the best thing ever. If we said any more plainly it would have been offensive.
I'd rather be diplomatic than pushy.
The Sword wrote:
I'm a DM and player of 25 years who still looks things up during a session. As do my players - people who don't usually make assumptions and get things wrong
We all look up things, I never play without my core rulebook. I think you've misinterpreted me.
For someone to feel this way, I think there are things that people on both sides could do better, and chances are the veteran players don't even know that it's making someone new feel unwelcome.
So I've done a lot of conventions in a lot of different places, and while local games aren't any indication, by far the community has been very nice.
Played my second organized pathfinder core game and walked out because of demeaning and ridicule from veteran players.
How exactly did they ridicule you?
1) Help new players.
In #2,3,4,5,6,7 it sounds like they were trying to help you, but you have to be receptive to it as well.
2) Have the new player experience FUN, not frustration because they dont know alllll the rules.
Learning new rules and taking directions from others is sometimes frustrating, especially if you don't like being told what to do.
How did the GM and other players make it frustrating as opposed to fun?
3) Dont be cynical and tell new players what they can and cannot do, let the GM do that.
Veteran players are actually trying to help the GM. This is what the community does in general. Other players occasionally correct me and I have 38 years of experience. It happens and you don't let your ego get in the way.
4) Please dont say..."I would recommend new players to NEVER start with spellcasters", in front of everyone, and at the end of the game. Real barn burner that one.
It's just a recommendation and I think you're being too defensive.
I also wouldn't recommend spellcasters for new players or casual players.
If you are going to take a spellcaster, you need to be prepared and know all the spells and spell rules beforehand, and not look much up during the session. As you level up, you gain more options which makes it even tougher. It's not for the casual player.
Story time. I've seen:
In terms of not contributing, wizards are probably worse than rogues in terms of being underpowered in the hands of a new player.
So yeah, bottom line, it's a recommendation, but if you're not going to follow the recommendation you'd better do some homework, play a pregen, or get someone to help you.
5)New people may think outside the box, so give them at least some consideration of style play, and not box them in preconceived notions of rule and opinions. This is a game of imagination if i remember correctly.
Well, this isn't a home game and everything must fit within the bounds of "reality" and the game system.
In other words (real example from a player), you cannot draw your bow (from your backpack), tie an arrow to that bow, tie the other end to your waist, shoot at a tree 200' away, swing on that rope, all the while firing more arrows using Rapid Shot, all in 6 seconds. Fun imagery, but if you're going to play like that you might as well be playing "The Window".
Do you have specific examples of how they stifled your imagination?
6) Dont let a new player be the only person in the group not being healed, because the veterans dont like you. Rude.
They probably all had their own Cure Light Wounds wands and assumed one of the spellcasters would use it on them. They probably didn't explain that to you.
You know there's a flipside here too. They don't know you. Did you say you were new? It's possible they didn't even know (that you weren't getting healed).
If that wasn't the case what exactly happened?
7) The game should be FUN! Its us against the monsters, not veterans against new people.
How were the veteran players against you other than what you've already raised?
Sorry you had a bad time, I'd give it another try after talking to organizer. Organizers don't want to turn away new players and they should know about this. Maybe even veteran players in the area need to be a little more diplomatic, aware, or sensitive.
Chris Mortika wrote:
As opposed to destroying an entire lodge? Game rules need to be enforced, if people don't want to make skill checks or whatever, there needs to be consequences. That was the point of this entire thread actually.
When you don't let these players cheat and ignore rules, they leave on their own eventually.
I don't agree with other players not healing this individual (if he brings his own wand of CLW), I think that is malicious and he does have a grievance (it ignores the PF rule to cooperate and is jerk behavior). However, with regards to hiding, I'm pretty sure that this individual did the same thing a number of other times and the group DID help him out. Finally they said 'no'. This is what happens.
I know this comes up every so often, so pardon me for re-asking ... but does Pathfinder need a second edition?
There's this company called Wizards of the Coast you might be interested in. They create new editions of D&D every 5 years, so this might be your thing.
As someone who actually pays for every book and resource, this is not my thing.
If Paizo makes another edition of Pathfinder before the 10 year mark, I'm just going to find another hobby.
I'm more than happy with all new rulebooks being optional (like APG, Unchained). It's like beta-testing the next edition. But it's soft, because it's optional. It gives me time to read it without pushing it down my throat. That's what I like.
Chess Pwn wrote:
This doesn't actually work out. If you have 4 people the scenario is easier than if you had 6 people.
As a GM and a player, I don't find this to be true. You realize that the 4-player adjustment means that there is usually only 1 less mook in the combat? Having 1 less mook doesn't compensate for losing 2 players. The 4-player adjustment is often inadequate.
Also, if you have 2 players not contributing, would you rather having two characters doing a scenario meant for 4 players (@50% strength) or 4 players doing a 6 player scenario (@67% strength). I know what I'd prefer.
There is also less diversity (for skills), less hit points for the table, less flankers.
4-player tables are tougher than 6-player tables.
I just wanted to apologize for my earlier post which seems too harsh now. I was only trying to point out that sometimes it's better to focus on the things you can change (yourself) than the things you cannot (players).
Instead of blaming the players for not being skillful enough, maybe the scenarios are too tough? In season 7 I'm finding them very challenging, too challenging in many cases. And I've been bringing optimized characters to the table. And there has been soft balling.
Recently I was astonished by the number of zen archers, tetori, and gunslingers at my convention tables. Wizards that use 5+ source books. And bards to handle the social.
At home as a GM, I'm finding that the 4-player adjustment just isn't adequate (or at least as good as having 6 players) in most cases. Are they playing in a lot of 4-player groups?
You have to talk straight with them and tell them that their characters (and play styles) are not strong enough in combat. If you've already done that, what do they recommend as a solution? You have to include them in the decision making. Do they understand that other players don't like their characters dying? What would they suggest?
Anyway good luck, I'm curious how this works out.
What are you waiting for?
1) Enforce the rules. If they don't want to make the Climb check, they sit in the pit for the scenario. Letting them cheat and having one set of rules for some players and another set of rules is a GM problem, not a player problem. Please consider that some players might have left not because of the couple, but because of the GMs catering to cheating and favoritism.
2) Stop soft balling. They get upset if you attack their character? Your GMs need to make things fair and if they avoid attacking the couple in favor of other players, they are part of the problem.
Ultimately, it a GM/leadership problem. GMs shouldn't allow players to cheat, ignore rules, and there shouldn't be favoritism. Favoritism kills tables in home campaigns, it kills tables in PFS venues also.
If your GMs were tougher with them, the couple would have left on their own already.
If they're disruptive and continue to ignore the rules and the GM, kick them from the table. If it happens again, feel free to tell them they're not welcome at the venue and report this to a VO. Problem solved.
Redneck GM wrote:
The husband always plays a rogue style character (ranged) and the wife a "healer" that is usually a Druid more concerned ooc with the survival of her animal companion than anything. Near zero contribution in combat, and NO contribution in social...
So if I'm reading this right, by "skill" you mean they play very non-optimal characters?
Someone probably should have explained things to them months ago. Everyone's character needs to do *something* somewhat effective. Offer to help them in item purchases, character building, and playstyle. Often people just don't know or don't have the time to learn.
If they dismiss all help then that's a different problem. Is it better to be all inclusive and kill your lodge or be "rude" and disallow 2 players?
I GM a home game and I'm in this process myself. The characters are almost level 7 now and things are getting a lot more difficult. As it is, I'm cherry picking weaker scenarios so they don't get crushed in combat. But I'm also teaching them better playstyles, better gear purchases (or rather to even use gold), character auditing (missing 10 hp on one character!), and feat suggestions. So far so good, but it's a process.
Also encountered this problem at a convention. Subtier 6-7, my brother and I basically needed to complete the entire scenario. Had one guy shooting magic missiles from a wand (1d4+1), another guy was a face character with no combat ability (even against a humanoids?), a healing cleric, and a druid with a defensive animal companion. 0 prestige, lucky to come out alive, would be dead with most other characters. Not sure what to do with groups like this except to let them die and hopefully they won't take you down with them. If they were local to me, I'd avoid them too. But really, someone should really be offering them help. You carry 1 guy that can't contribute in combat but not 3. Funny thing is, they probably thought of us as minmax munchkins and that we were the problem. And that's how it is!
Casual GMs have a tendency to skim over details like this and this is why this encounter has such a high TPK rate. Now imagine what happens with casual GMs and complex adventures. The more complex you make an adventure, the more table variation you are going to get from GMs and the more deadly they become when the GM misses something.
The problem isn't casual GMs. I find that 3+ star GMs run so many scenarios, they are often LESS prepared than more casual GMs because the casual GMs actually take (or have?) the time to prepare properly.
One thing I've learned is that you can't count on GMs to take a killer encounter and then nerf it by giving it the listed tactics or other advantages the PCs should get. These advantages aren't even explained a lot of the time.
And then the experienced GMs who softball and take AE spells (Fear, Confusion) and apply them to only 1 target. Maybe a better play experience but the true difficulty of the scenario won't be indicated in reviews.
Or the experienced GMs (3+ star) who cheat to make encounters more challenging (robbing you of gold/PA) or do coupe de grace when it's inappropriate.
"Run as written" is a foreign concept for those of us who play in a variety of conventions and also GM. It's rare that anything is run as written in my experience.
My GM printed out the maps and they looked great, even in black and white (these maps deserved color). Loved the maps in this scenario.
I'm sure you could hand draw everything but you'll be missing so many details, it's kind of missing the point. Combat is the main feature of this scenario and it's a big feature to have a nice battleboard. imho.
1) Just asking around, what's your favorite GMing style?
2) Do you prefer GMs who make death serious business, or ones who will go out of their way to make sure you don't die?
Somewhere in between. I hate GMs that go out of their way to try to kill PCs. You want your GM to be fair.
3) GMs who play things by the book, or ones who extensively houserule or play things loose and fast?
By the book. If houserules are known ahead of time and documented, that's OK too.
4) GMs who prepare extensively or ones who mostly improvise the story?
Prepare. Even when you prepare, you need to improvise anyway.
5) GMs who make you laugh often, or ones who immerse you in a story?
6) As a GM, is it better to be feared or disrespected?
Neither? It's just a game, and the game isn't about who is in power or control. At least not for me.
I think you are overstating the jadedness of your players.
I actually asked them after the session and they all said exactly what I quoted you. And they were glad it was cut. These are friends and not strangers, so they were up front with me. So yeah I know my players and I don't think it's jaded to want your games to make sense.
Regarding the ship being under attack during the storm, I think it would be nearly impossible to throw a grappling hook onto a ship that is thrashing around like a bucking bronco, so the chance of more elves *finding* the ship and actually getting onto it during a storm seems... unlikely.
And I think the crew would be a lot better in taking down the rigging *properly* (and not doing damage) compared to someone with zero training. From my limited sailing experience, it's not that easy, especially a ship of that size.
And really the last encounter could really happen anywhere with a little imagination. There's probably better places to do it instead of in front of the entire crew.
It's your game so do what you think is best. I would have left it in if my session hadn't already run 7 hours, it was only afterwards that I realized it would have taken away from the game.
7-06 is kind of painful I would agree. Just out of curiosity what do you think the hard part of 7-08 because that one is fairly well manageable?
That just tells me that whoever ran it didn't do it right. The first encounter it should be obvious why it's painful (especially if you didn't play part 1, which people are doing).
The last two encounters Karma is partially customizable, the NPC knows they're coming, and if the GM knows how to play that kind of PC... she can basically make the party look like a party of Benny Hill. The difficulty depends almost entirely on the GM.
Preping this for Thursday. In the (unlikely) event we get to the storm, I think I will have the captain tell them that they are needed on deck while the crew batton down the hatches below in case the merfolk take advantage of the storm to sneak on board and cripple the ship, drowning them all.
It would make more sense to have it the other way around, after all the PCs know how to fight and the crew actually knows how to run a ship (and how not to die in a storm).
Actually the entire event doesn't make much sense (the crew should be fine in a storm by themselves). In reality, someone who doesn't know anything about sailing will do more damage trying to "help" than they will actually help.
The encounter is also cliché (experienced players will have seen it a million times before), it's a time waster in a scenario that's too long, and its not even a fun encounter.
Maybe you can tell I'm not a fan and that when we started to go overtime (7 hours), I cut it.
Looking forward to this game. Having said that, I'd rather they bring the product to market than to make changes like Rusty Chainmail or Blacksmith's Son.
A multi-player option over the internet with a good queuing system (where you could do other stuff while waiting for other players to join a game/scenario) is what would put this game over the top.