|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I've seen the same movie, with my girlfriend, and we both though it was a provocative film about someone in a tight spot and some of the things your mind does to cope with it.
I saw it with my wife and I thought it was Cast Away in space but a lot less interesting. I could try to examine agenda-pushing, but I'm too distracted by how they temporarily changed how space works just long enough to kill the chatty dude. :/
...and remind them that the opposition will be reflected in what scores they choose.
I'm seriously considering no longer putting in the work to create full statblocks for enemies in my homebrew, instead just assigning AC, attack bonus, etc at numbers that will highlight the various party members' strengths and weaknesses regardless of whether a "real" statblock could produce those numbers.
the secret fire wrote:
And how many INT>CON>DEX...PUNT Wizards have you played with in all that time? Just askin'.
The same number as I'd have seen if people's rolled stats included a highest number, a second-highest number, and so on.
My assertion is not that point-buyers never make soulless, cookie-cutter characters. My assertion is that the creation of those characters is not the result of point-buy.
I've never played a rolled-stat game. Every game I've played (whether PFS or home game) has been point-buy. (Interestingly, that means that every awesome, unique, deep, and engaging PC that I've ever played (or played alongside of) has been made with point-buy. Just sayin'.)
In the homebrew I'm currently running, PCs got the Heroic NPC stat array.
Or none of the above? I don't understand why people are having trouble with this. The blog says nothing about the Technologist feat (or the rules surrounding it) being changed. So you still don't get to make those checks. The blog just points out that it's okay for Pathfinders to infer that if you can't find an opening mechanism for the door, then maybe the thing at chest height right next to it is involved. Or that something shaped like a "normal" weapon might itself be a weapon. Or a spot with an imprint shaped like a hand might do something if you put your hand in it.
Not by making skill checks, just by thinking. There is gameplay space available between "metagaming" and "making skill checks".
I was in Trial by Machine. Even in a 7-man party, I felt like my two-hand-raging-Power-Attack and my rage-boosted 2nd-level hit points were very nearly the only reason we survived. And that's with a GM who seemed very UNinterested in PC deaths. With a sterner GM or more moderate damage output, I think we'd have all died. Possibly twice.
Bill Dunn wrote:
I'm looking for an effort to put together the major points of an attempt at diplomacy, the tactics used, and all fitting with the PC's perspective and what they could and would understand of the situation.
I've never seen anyone try to get away with less. Ever. Rather, what you describe here is the group of people who are feeling (accurately or not) pointed at when certain posters talk about people who don't care about roleplaying.
For instance, Corrik describes a situation where some players are trying to have an in-character dialogue but the player of the "face" isn't, and labels the face-player as the source of the problem. Well, a player who prefers to do it in the way that you described as being acceptable would fit the villified role in Corrik's example, so they (and others on their behalf) feel attacked.
So they explain that their own flaws shouldn't affect their characters. Then certain other posters respond with things along the lines of "Pfft, well sure, if you don't care about roleplaying," effectively painting people who do the very thing you described as perfectly acceptable as instead being only interested in smashing stuff and rolling dice.
And it just goes round and round. And then some kind of rogue eidolon shows up and gets all "clear" and "communicative". ;)
Okay, maybe I just wasn't clear before, so I'll try again more thoroughly.
So you're in this scene. So that means the game is underway, which means you started playing at some point, which means that character creation is done, which means at some point everyone (all the players and the GM) decided that the assortment of characters everyone was playing was A-okay, which means that (whether explicitly or implicitly) everyone agreed to let Player C lead the way in social situations.
That means that the situation you describe is the result of one of the following (but if there's a third option I missed, by all means, point it out):
If the situation is #1, then the group discusses the issue and finds the resolution that's best for them. If the situation is #2, then the whole group is pretty immature and A/B have no right to hold C accountable for their own failure to point out a problem that they saw coming.
Basically, either way it's time for an OOC discussion about expectations and roles; but I'm having a hard time imagining a situation where there's fault on the part of Player C.
Mark Hoover wrote:
In respect to this thread then that means explain how, or at least why, you're using a skill. Don't just wait til someone comes up to you and go "I use diplomacy. 25; what info do I get?" That's my opinion though and others' most certainly will vary.
In my experience, the oft-discussed category of lower-CHA-than-my-PC players are doing exactly as you ask: they say "I ask him about [topic]; should I roll Diplomacy?"
The "I Diplomacy him" player seems (near as I can tell) to only exist in the minds of internet dudes who want there to be only one type of player other than the method-actors so that the method-actors can feel superior.
JCAB, there's a difference between "certain players attempting to play certain characters could reduce other people's fun so let's address that" and "the only two possibilities are that you're fully able to act exactly like the character you're playing or else you just want to diplomacy people and punch faces and count loot".
The former seems to be what you're describing, while the latter is the very small world in which certain posters apparently live. The former is something that's just part of being a reasonable person (and is connected to every aspect of the game, not just the roleplaying), while the latter is very far from reasonable.
I was replying to the latter.
the secret fire wrote:
There are people who want to play a character that they themselves are not capable of representing completely, who nevertheless care a great deal about roleplaying, immersion, and the fun of the other players; and are interested in far, far more than just "diplomacy-ing people", punching faces and counting loot.
I don't understand why it is hard for you to accept that this category of people exists.
the secret fire wrote:
If you, the player, decide to "talk pretty", then you are not playing a dumb, uncharismatic brute, are you? If you decide to play an oaf and then conveniently get eloquent fishing for a bonus in social situations...eh, no. That's just schizophrenic, terrible roleplaying.
Earlier in this very thread, the secret fire wrote:
Play however you want, but I have been known to greet statements like "I use diplomacy" with -20 penalties to the roll and hand out similarly large bonuses for great roleplaying, even from otherwise socially inept characters.
So a group settles on which person is going to be the face, but then keeps butting in on that person's face activities, to the point of causing internal consistency issues, and it's somehow the face-player's fault?
Maybe the standards for adult behavior vary by region, but when I'm at a table and someone else is the face, I follow their lead rather than trying to take over or ignore what they're doing. If they talk it out, I back them up (or not, depending on what I'm playing). If they say "I use Diplomacy," then I say "I assist" (with maybe an additional "Oh, and you're gonna mention X when you talk to them, right?").
Trying to do what was already agreed to be someone else's role (and for that matter, agreeing to it in the first place if you're not planning to respect it) and then blaming the resulting issues on them is just being a grade-A jerk.
Lemmy said otherwise, I even specifically mentioned that in my post.
I may have misunderstood him (or you), then.
So, most of the dwarves I've seen?
the secret fire wrote:
Wait, so your players are only allowed to act the way they really are in real life, and you're accusing other people of getting rid of the roleplaying aspect of the game? You literally just labeled the imagining of being a different person as not roleplaying.
What specifically do you think the word "roleplaying" means?
The person who doesn't like to talk around people or isn't very quick on their feat for dialogue probably shouldn't play the party talker.
Why not? What's wrong with a player saying "I want to convince him to do X" instead of acting out the exact dialogue? What does that hurt?
Your roll playing should be heavily dependent on your mechanics. Mechanics aren't just numbers. They are a representation of how the world and characters function.
I don't think anyone was saying otherwise. Rather, the topic of the thread is when the player wants to play a character (both mechanically AND in how the character functions in the world) and someone else tells them they "shouldn't" for no other reason than that the player doesn't have the same level of skill/ability.
Sort of like how you said a low-CHA player "shouldn't" play a high-CHA character. Nobody's talking about claiming their low-STR character is strong or their low-INT character is smart; we're talking about a player not being allowed to be different than their character.
My point was just that I didn't see any reason for the big debate about the morality of intentionally killing a companion when there's any number of ways to explain why you don't have the companion and what the focus represents.
Because there's a right way and a wrong way to play Pathfinder, of course!
The reason why it is a problem is because you should be attached to an animal companion, it should be your friend. If they should die you should want to bring them back.
(Bolding mine.)Play the way you should! /sarcasm
Human Fighter wrote:
Whirlwind attack looks like it could be cool, but it's situational and involves combat expertise, int 13, spring attack, mobility, and dodge.. that's a real bad time.
If memory serves, a 1-level dip into Brawler (from the ACG) will give let you qualify for combat feats as though you had 13 INT. (Plus you get other goodies like save boosts, IUS, etc.)If you then go into Lore Warden (fighter archetype), you can get Combat Expertise for free on top of your normal bonus feats. (Plus, you'll later get substantial bonuses to combat maneuvers.)
Thus, between the two of them, you could have Whirlwind Attack at 5th, with 3 other open feats. (Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec?)
If you did this, you get another bonus in that Martial Versatility combos really well with the Lore Warden's bonuses to combat maneuvers. You'll already be taking Power Attack, you'll get Combat Expertise for free, and you'll get IUS for free as well. That means you'll have the prereqs for every single Improved Maneuver feat in the game. You can decide to suddenly be a grappler, tripper, sunderer, or whatever on the fly. And be GOOD at it.
Something to consider.
Personally, I think a starting 20 in STR has crossed the line of diminishing returns. The difference in cost between a (pre-racial) 16 and 18 is nearly half your build points, all for a measley +1 to attack and damage. Taking it down a notch gets you +2HP/level. How would you like to play your last several sessions with an extra 20HP? Doesn't that sound better than +1 to hit? You'd even have points left to either un-dump INT/CHA a little or even get a little WIS to shore up your Will save a tad.
That's an awful lot to lose just for +1 to hit.
If I'm not mistaken, the suggestions I made above only leave you with light armor proficiency. However, if you take the Armor Expert trait, you can still wear the armor you're planning on without penalty.
Magic items aren't that rare in Pathfinder but they should still be something special. :)
I find this to be the crux of the issue. There's a (sometimes uncomfortable) tension there.
By the book, even a 1st-level adept might have a magic scroll. A random 5th-level NPC cleric is wearing either +1 armor or a cloak of resistance or some such.
It's not so much "magic items aren't that rare" and more "everyone but the pig farmers has magic items, and anyone who's even remotely important is dripping with them". That's Pathfinder's base assumption.
On the other hand, the kinds of classic fantasy stories that folks are often trying to tell in a game of Pathfinder includes things where the hero finds the legendary magic item (Excalibur, Master Sword, Ring of Power, etc) and there's some awe and wonder to it. You can't produce that level of awe when a PC finds a level-appropriate item, especially given that (unless you find it at the very end of the campaign) it's actually going to end up outclassed and replaced.
Threads like this one seem to usually center around finding ways to reconcile these two things: a system built around "magic is common" and using that system to tell "magic is rare and awe-inspiring" types of stories.
Luckily, we've got some creative folks around who have shared several viable options: convert the role of gear into inherent level-based bonuses, let people find whatever they need and work it into the story, have a single mysterious shop that constantly changes location, etc.
I dislike the comments that 'magic items are required by the system'. A GM should be able to adjust encounters so that they are workable no matter what level of equipment is available.
Of course, and the speakers of those comments would agree with you. All that's meant to be pointed out by the statement "X is required by the system" is, in fact, that removing X requires the GM to (as you put it) adjust encounters so that they are workable no matter what level of X is available.
Your observation is in fact the point. See, if you're GMing a homebrew game, then you're making the encounters from scratch anyway, so it doesn't matter what's going on with the PCs - whatever they have, that's what you'll design around.
But lots of GMs use things like Adventure Paths because they don't have the time/creativity/interest for making up their own encounters. And if they have to "adjust encounters so that they are workable no matter what level of X is available", as you put it, then what was the point of buying the adventure in the first place? I sure know my Mummy's Mask GM wouldn't be interested in doing anything that forced him to adjust all the encounters.
That's what people mean when they talk about X being "required by the system". They mean "in order to play the game without having to make up all my own stuff, I need to use X". They're just saying that in order to run the game in a non-homebrew fashion, they have to give the PCs that which the adventure they're running assumes they have.
Did that make sense?
Welcome to PFS! I won't reiterate the good thoughts others have shared, but I have one exercise to suggest:
I recommend counting up the total number of sources listed as having legal content on the Additional Resources page, then say (out loud) "PFS allows content from [number] sources." Then, after you've said it out loud, think about whether or not it's too restrictive.
I spotted the hiding bandits, but instead of attacking them, I waved to them and asked them if they needed anything because we saw some bodies earlier and a lot of blood and are you guys alright?
Ended up talking to them, learning how scared they were, reassuring them, and escorting them out of the dungeon (going the way we'd already cleared) to make sure they got out safely, then went on with our delve.
Turns out that after having run that scenario multiple times, ours was the first table that didn't just murderhobo them into paste.
"Good" is not a jersey.
Did I mention I'm a bloodrager?
I had no idea that the mental conversion of "before making an attack roll" to "before making your first attack roll of the round" was so common of an error.
What if I use my first attack to chuck a chakram at a dude (obviously not using PA) and then my second attack to swing my sword at a guy in melee? I can never use PA on that? But if I'd started with the sword, I could've used PA?
Are we really saying this is what "before making an attack" roll means?
Joe Lai wrote:
The reason ppl thing grease can burn is always a result of players or GMs trying to cheese into doing more damage.
Really? I thought maybe it was because most people are neither chemists nor chefs and are therefore making assumptions based on having heard of things like "grease fires" and "oil lamps" and drawing reasonable conclusions based on their incomplete knowledge.
But no, you're probably right that it's always a result of people trying to cheese into more damage. That's a much more believable reason than "honest mistake".
How about you just stick to discussing the topic instead of trying to demonize those who didn't know the answer?
Bob Jonquet wrote:
My point is that I constantly see players (usually rules lawyers) criticize other player's character build decisions what they "should" have done with their feats, equipment purchases, etc. And too many munchkins over-bearingly telling others what to do with their characters so they can min/max every single possible variable in the game.....
Huh, interesting. Maybe it's a regional thing, because it seems like every time I hear someone tell someone else what to do, it's either tactical (independent of build/rules/etc) or it's open derision for having a stat higher than X or for utilizing option Y. It's not the optimizers that I've heard say things like "Don't do X; it's stupid" (I wish I was paraphrasing) or labeling others' playstyles as something juvenile that they need to "grow out of" (again not paraphrasing). Rather, in my experience, the optimizers are the ones being targeted by the commands, name-calling, and put-downs.
In any case, you're right: folks shouldn't tell each other to play the game this way/not play the game that way. As my wife once put it, "This game is big enough for everyone."
The idea that characters would never make a mistake (my character would know better) because their stat blocks are better than the player's real life one is ludicrous, but that is often the attitude I see. Just an observation.
Wow, you've actually encountered "would never make a mistake, because stats"? Oy. Closest I've seen is "No, I'm not going to roll randomly to see if I accidentally grab something other than my potion of remove blindness, because I never accidentally grab my wallet instead of my car keys, even with my eyes closed." (Which, obviously, is a good thing rather than a bad thing.) Just goes to show anything can get twisted to badness, eh?
PFS-legal obnoxiousness: The orc bloodline for sorcerers. First because... what? Orcs are a completely nonmagical race. So nonmagical that even being fully half orc doesn't give you diddly-squat as far as magic goes, yet having traces of orc in your ancestry gives you full-on sorcerer-level magical powers? What? And secondly because the only crossblooded combination I've ever seen anyone complain about is the one that requires the orc bloodline, but every time I hear such a complaint, what gets blamed is not the orc bloodline but the crossblooded archetype, despite there being no other crossblooded builds (that I've ever heard of, at least) that ever create problems. Laying blame in the wrong place is a pet peeve of mine, so this phenomenon of blaming crossblooded instead of orc for the crossblooded orc/draconic builds really irks me.
Down with the orc bloodline!
Cut Bob some slack, everybody! Maybe his examples don't look as bad as what he was probably thinking of, but I think we can give him the benefit of the doubt here and assume he means the "bad kind" of interjections on other people's turns. Like when a local player lectured me during my turn for having my spellcaster make a tactical withdrawal instead of setting him up for a flank. Stuff like that is probably what he meant.
GM Bold Strider wrote:
As to the people who aren't thrilled with character death or don't want the chance of death by a single roll, then I ask if you have ever made a Witch with Slumber or a Caster with SoD spells or a Fighter with Improved Critical and a Falchion. All of these characters can end lives in a single roll.
1) Well, all of them except the fighter, whose "save or die" impersonation actually requires two rolls, the first of which only has a 1-in-4 success rate no matter how well you build your character; and even when it works you're at the level where it's not an instant death except against mooks. But I guess that's beside the point. ;)
2) When a PC uses a SoD, the GM doesn't have to go home/twiddle his thumbs for the rest of the night. It's okay to dislike a gameplay experience that's produced by something which doesn't produce the same issue when it's pointed the other direction. This is not the hypocrisy you're painting it as to try to shame people into not complaining.
If the enemies can't do the same, then what's the point in playing a game where you pubstomp the enemies and get the "Thingy" (TM).
Socializing? Telling a fun story? Feeling powerful? Having an experience against which That One Time I Almost Died can be contrasted and thereby carry more dramatic weight?
Without death, the game becomes boring.
To you. But you're not the Fun Police. My wife gets stressed if it looks like someone might die. She has more fun when everybody's okay. You don't get to decide that means she likes boring games.
And besides that, for many people (such as myself), the game gets even more boring if death is a constant threat. For (I'd wager) very many people, getting creamed by Krune is a lot less awesome if you're killed or nearly killed on a regular basis. The exciting moments for many of us are when a deadly situation STANDS OUT because it was so much closer than usual.
There are no epic saves where the rogue got creamed and needs to make his stabilization check and barely makes it to avoid death.
Waitwaitwait, a second ago you said "without death, the game becomes boring", then you describe an instance of how exciting not-death can be? Are you actually choosing to say these things or was this a speech in a can?
Or the fighter has 2 HP left and the dragon is about to eat him and he crits his attack killing the beast.
There you go again with the not-what-you-said examples.
If the monsters can't kill you, then what's the point?
Re: Thread title — Making a rules mistake is not stupid (not even "a little"). In fact, just by having recognized and admitted the error, you're already a step ahead of a great deal of very experienced players/GMs. Bravo to you for stepping up to take care of business even while people are looking. :)
Kristen Gipson wrote:
I'm imagining a player who dies/fails due to a low roll, and then finds out that the thing they used up their reroll on earlier in the scenario was something you "made up" (your words). I'm trying to envision a situation where this happens and your actions as GM aren't reprimand-worthy, but I'm coming up blank. Perhaps some clarification from you would help?
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
And that depending on how strictly it is interpreted, it can lead to bad games?
And that it is good for the society as a while to remove things that lead to bad games more often than good ones?
Here's the issue: the paladin does not qualify as something that "leads to bad games more often than good ones". Does it sometimes lead to bad games when the GM and/or player(s) are being idiots? Yes. But that's the exception, not the rule. Thus, no ban is necessary.