|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Alright, let's talk about Inspiration.
I discussed this idea a little in the Recruitment thread, but here it is again:
Rather than try to keep track of all of your traits/ideals/bonds/flaws so that I can award Inspiration by the normal method (which I find cumbersome as a GM), I'm going to tie inspiration to good posting habits.
If you scroll up, you'll see some information regarding your current location, the weather, and so forth. Among that is your name, followed by something that's supposed to be an empty "meter". Each day that you post in Gameplay, you'll get a point toward filling that meter. When it's full, you'll gain Inspiration and the meter will be emptied, ready to fill up again. Note that I won't restart the meter until I see that you've marked your Inspiration in your stat line under your name.
Thus, if you post consistently, you'll gain Inspiration every 12 days. (I might change this number if this proves to be too fast/slow in relation to the pace of gameplay.)
Now, that's the baseline. Particularly good roleplaying or otherwise awesome posts can gain bonus points, getting you Inspiration sooner. Also, awesomeness might be rewarded in other ways, such as restored Hit Dice or extra treasure.
Anyway, I think that's it for housekeeping. I should have the first real Gameplay post up soon(ish).
Unfortunate that we had a couple of people have to back out, but I've selected the candidates who will form our band of heroes:
Those of you who haven't made a profile for your character yet, please do so. Then, everybody report in to the Discussion thread. Thanks!
I'll expound a bit more on the things that 5e does that results in a smaller C/MDisp than Pathfinder has:
The primary (mechanical) way of interacting with the setting/narrative outside of combat is skills, not spells. Pathfinder has 1,001 low-level spells that are designed to bypass a specific (or sometimes not so specific) obstacle. So many spells either boost a skill (find traps, jump), obviate the need for a skill (spider climb, invisibility), or even do something that skills can't even do at all (endure elements, feather fall). Past very low levels, it becomes trivial for casters to have some of the most common such spells at the ready, and the more situational ones on scrolls. But in 5e, most of those spells either don't exist or have increased opportunity cost in some way.
And unlike Pathfinder, 5e's skills actually work. Much of this is because they're less codified, so you can (for instance) roll a single Stealth check for the part when it matters, instead of rolling 2-3 times per six seconds and only needing one low roll to fail. 5e's flattened math ("bounded accuracy") also means that DCs don't reach a point where you auto-fail if you're not maxed out, and skill bonuses don't reach a point where you auto-succeed if the DC is set to include the rest of the party.
So, the summary of all that is that in 5e, skills are how you interact with the environment outside of combat. Related to that, in 5e everyone who isn't a skill monkey (bard, rogue) has comparable numbers of skills that they're proficient in, and it's enough to be meaningful. But again, even if you're not proficient, bounded accuracy means you still get to play. (This is especially true since 5e doesn't have "trained-only" skills.)
The icing on the roleplay cake is that 5e gives every character a "background" which (among other things) usually comes with some neat little special ability that has nothing to do with combat. For instance, if you used to be a sailor, you can call in a favor from your old shipmates to get passage across the sea if you need it. Or if you're a folk hero of a given town, the people in that town will shelter and aid you if you get into trouble (like if you need to lie low for a while). If you're a noble, commoners tend to assume you have a right to be wherever you are, and you can secure an audience with other nobles if need be. All these neat little ways to engage the narrative.
And everyone gets equal access to it, therefore not contributing to a disparity.
Completed(-ish) Character Submissions:
Important Note: I'm okay with people not wanting to create a profile unless selected. However, I do want to see more than a skeleton before making a decision. I want to know what your class features are, what spells or other selections you've made, etc. The ideal would be to post whatever the contents of your profile would end up being if you were picked.
As soon as I can, I'll go through the submissions and try to offer some feedback to those I haven't already said anything to.
Yeah, I would think of a thing I could change (whether related to C/M disparity or not), but then that would impact something else that would need to be adjusted to match, which would in turn impact something else; basically, a ripple effect whose ripples all had ripple effects of their own.
Eventually I gave up and admitted that I just needed to write a system from scratch if I wanted it to be how I liked. In the meantime, 5e has been a great substitute; there are some elements of it that don't quite match my preferences, but overall it's a breath of fresh air.
Hi, The Fox!
Yes, recruitment is still open. In fact, less than a party's worth have even finished their characters, so you're still good.
Stat modifiers should be in the free PDF, I thought, though I don't have time to check right this second.
Also, you know the rolls aren't required to be in order, right?
Tessrimea Niessomat wrote:
What kind of posting rate are you going to shoot for?
Funny you should ask.
I was recently (as in, this morning) pondering the fact that I like 5e's "Inspiration" mechanic, but find it cumbersome as a GM to keep track of everyone's traits/ideals/bonds/flaws so I can award it appropriately (and as a player, I feel weird asking for it, and I imagine I'm not alone in that).
Then, in another thread (not related directly to PbP), I saw some people mention "houserules" where players get some minor boon for the session (like max damage on one attack or something) if they're on time or otherwise on top of things.
So I was thinking, what if I used Inspiration to incentivize good posting habits? Like, maybe every day that someone posts at least one good post, that person gets a "point" (and maybe bonus points for exceptional awesomeness, or for other logistical helpfulness), and when somebody gets X points, they gain Inspiration and reset their point counter.
This could have a potential side effect of people feeling free to actually use their Inspiration since they know more is coming (and can see how close they are), rather than perpetually sitting on it "just in case".
So to actually answer your question, the baseline ideal would be 1/day.
You could even have signs outside the dungeon/tomb/wherever.
"This dungeon has no entry fee. Come on in!"
TL;DR - Should I exploit every raw loophole I can find with a RAW is law GM to force him to consider RAI?
When you're talking about intentionally ruining other people's fun in an effort to force them to see things your way, my advice would be to recognize that you're the kind of person who would intentionally ruin other people's fun in an effort to force them to see things your way. Is that the kind of person you want to be? Maybe it is, maybe it's not. Either way, I advise self-awareness, as that's foundational to healthy relationships.
For starters, searching isn't a square-by-square endeavor in Pathfinder. A given check gives you whatever is perceptible from where you're standing at the time (with modifiers for distance and other interferences, and remembering that a vision-only stimulus to which you don't have line of sight is an auto-fail).
As for your larger question of declared searches versus assumed searches, it's really a matter of figuring out what your group prefers.
Here's something to remember: What if you decided on declared searches, and someone said "Okay, then the whole time we're in this dungeon, if we're not in combat, then I'm stopping every 10ft to take 10 on a Perception check to search for traps, until I specify otherwise"? Now you're just right back to assumed searches, just with the player having to recite something beforehand.
So who cares? Just ask the players which way they'd prefer, and do it that way. Some feel shortchanged if they're not given a check automatically, others feel more immersed (and in the case of success, more accomplished) if they respond to a suspicious-looking area by declaring a search. Just talk to them; see what they like.
Not exactly a feats thing, but something everyone needs to know: why wizards wear pointy hats.
You see, it's not actually a hat. It's more like a teepee: a conical, open-bottomed tent. The wizard casts shrink item on it, which will last for days at a time, and wears it like a hat.
Now, if the wizard is walking along, minding his own business, and finds himself running afoul of an antimagic field, suddenly shrink item isn't working anymore, and it instantly expands to full size.
The teepee therefore falls down over the wizard, leaving him standing inside. Since the teepee blocks line of effect, the wizard is no longer subject to the effects of the antimagic field, and is free to teleport to safety.
Yeah, it almost feels more like "I need an attention-grabbing intro for the post where I'll link this blog; I know, I'll cite all those caster-martial disparity arguments!"
At least the thread isn't titled something like "Make your martials interesting using this one weird trick" or "Game designers HATE her!"
So I have this ancient artifact called "TurboGrafx 16". With it is a fun little licensed AD&D game called The Order of the Griffon. It recently occurred to me that converting it into a 5E campaign could be lots of fun.
The nature of the campaign:
Also be advised that, in the process of conversion, I'll be making up monster stats and simplifying dungeon maps and modifying NPC interactions to help make the general feel of the campaign translate well into both the system and the medium.
There will be a variety of enemies encountered, including both monsters and humanoids. If it matters, probably the single most common type of enemy would be undead, but there's plenty else too, including more than one chance to fight a dragon.
For stats, if you like you can do the 4d6-drop-lowest thing (using the forum dice roller), and build your character from there; or if you prefer a concept-first method, pick a set of stats that looks about in line with what a rolled array might look like and just build a character you like. Don't have to mess with an exact point-buy or anything, just make a character that I would want to include in the party. :)
For races, anything in the PHB is fine, including the variant human. As you might guess, this also means feats are available.
You can use either the listed starting equipment for your class, or the purchase method (using average gold for your class), whichever you prefer.
Start at 1st level.
I'm sure I've forgotten something relevant, so feel free to ask questions. I look forward to seeing everyone's character submissions!
Jiggy brings up a good point: Pathfinder isn't really a "one size fits all" system. It's geared toward high magic/high fantasy (despite the whole "15-point buy" design philosophy supposedly behind their APs.)
That's actually not quite how I'd characterize Pathfinder. To me, Pathfinder feels* like they skipped the "decide on your level of fantasy" step, and various elements of the game were developed with different (assumed) expectations. It's like the people designing the spellcasters were assuming a setting like Harry Potter and the people designing martials were assuming a setting like Game of Thrones.
*Yeah, since Pathfinder was just an evolution of 3.5, its schizophrenic structure is probably more a result of uncoordinated incremental changes than of what I described above. I was just meaning that's how the finished product feels to me, not that I think that's necessarily how it actually got there.
Now, if we want to move beyond the "nutshell" version, this notion has some ramifications.
First, if you're either designing a ruleset or choosing one for your campaign, you have to decide what your setting/narrative's established degree of "fantasy-ness" actually is. For example: is your world primarily realistic, with most obstacles being things like locked doors, spike traps, and dudes with knives; possibly culminating in facing a mildly-fantastic creature (like a werewolf)? That's a very different level of fantasy than one where the typical obstacles are things like interplanar conflicts, mind-bending fey, teleporting demons, and flying spellcasters. Figure out where your story lands.
Second, determine what tools you will require to be able to (meaningfully!) engage that level of fantasy in the narrative. What does your narrative require of a character to be able to interact with/overcome a locked door? What abilities must a character possess to be able to take a starring role in the narrative when vexed by an invisible faerie that's using mind-affecting magic? What tools are required in order for a character to continue affecting the plot when the next scene is supposed to take place on a different plane of existence? And so forth.
Finally, look at the set of tools that you've determined are allowed to engage the narrative you've chosen, and make sure (whether in design of your ruleset or selecting which one to use) that every character has access to those allowed tools. (Theoretically, you could also reverse these last two steps: you could look at what tools you're already allowing every character access to, and then make sure that those tools are then allowed to engage the desired narrative.)
Your world fades to black. As you awaken, you see that you are somewhere unworldly, standing (or rather, floating) in a long queue of people, at the front of which a terrifying lady sits on a throne made of bones. Clearly this must be Pharasma, and you are in line to be judged.
You turn your head in a direction that you instinctively feel is toward where you died, and you see Rosie near your body, stomping in the face of the creature that killed you. With the creature already wounded by your own attacks, she was able to finish it off, and then came to nudge you awake. Though you're saddened to be unable to answer her, you feel a comfort that you probably have nothing to fear when you reach the front of the line.
Jack of Dust wrote:
Would you feel better if you thought of "PvP" as standing for "PC mechanics versus PC mechanics"?
That was an interesting read. I guess a more precise summation than "Pathfinder is PvP" is that "Pathfinder's mechanical setup uses the same foundational framework as PvP and that has implications about the importance of class balance". (I wonder how many
This is an interesting perspective; I'm curious to see what discussion arises.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Add me to the (much longer than you're likely to admit) list of people who discovered the caster-martial disparity firsthand in actual gameplay long before ever reading about it on the internet. Just because an idea you don't like happens to get discussed on the internet doesn't mean it's merely an internet hivemind phenomenon.
Makes that quote you ended with pretty ironic; I might actually steal that and start dropping it into other threads I participate in on this subject. Thanks!
By the way, anyone else noticing the schizophrenic nature of the "no disparity" crowd?
For example, on the one hand, you've got statements like "There's no disparity because roleplay; some of us recognize that the game's not all about absolute-best combat performance." But then you've also got statements like "There's no disparity because you're supposed to have 10+ encounters per day." So for there to be no disparity, we have to focus on roleplay, but only in the kinds of narratives where you murder things 10 times a day or more? It's even more mind-boggling when both of these come from the same poster, which I've seen happen more than once.
How does that even happen?
I dislike the big 4 items of +x in pathfinder, but there are not in 5e other kind of items that let you do other stuff besides increasing your numbers?, like rings of invisibility and the like, it would be boring if not.
Cool items exist, but the default assumption is that you can't just go to a metropolis and expect to buy one off the shelf. Instead, the game doesn't assume you're going to acquire any given magic item, and therefore whatever you find as treasure is actually a special bonus that goes beyond what's expected of you. But the fun and interesting items are totally still there. :)
Then I give you a couple of fantastical creatures and you sit there and don't post. Ball's in your court, bro.
I've got proficiency with Athletics and Intimidate from my class and that's it.
You should have a pair of skill proficiencies from your background as well, not to mention most backgrounds having some interesting little special ability that interacts with the world in a noncombat fashion. Did you forget to take a background?
Also, what about the skills you're not proficient in? There's no such thing as "trained only" in 5E. Combine that with bounded accuracy and you've got a reasonable shot at ANY narrative interaction you might want to attempt; all proficiency does is give your chances a little bump.
the vagueness of the skills requires more DM fiat to be useful.
Can you elaborate on this a bit?
A little context to my post, just so there isn't any misunderstanding - my view of what roleplaying means is that it is fundamentally about making decisions in the shoes of a character.
Bingo. Often, when people complain about a lack of "roleplay", what they really mean is a lack of talking.
Talking is not roleplay.
Doing as the character would do is roleplay.
Therefore, talking when and how the character would talk is roleplay, but talking when or in a way the character wouldn't is NOT roleplay.
When you look at a situation, think "What would this character actually do here?" When you come up with an answer, then implementing that answer is roleplay, while everything else is a failure to roleplay.
Aldath, I suggest re-evaluating your experiences with this in mind. You might discover that there's not actually a lack of roleplay happening, or you might discover that there is but have a better idea of what to do about it. Hope that helps!
...but the fact remains that if a problem doesn't need killing (I'm currently playing a fighter in 5e) I've got nothing but roleplaying to back me up. So why aren't there many figher power level complaints in 5e?
I'd guess a lot of that has to do with skills.
In 5E, there's very little difference in how many skills the different classes get, so the fighter isn't facing a deficit.
Also, skills are more open-ended and less codified, so it's easier to come up with a clever idea of what you want to do and then just roll a single relevant check (as opposed to needing to sort through a page or two of rules to see if there are any forbidden elements to your plan, then figure out how many actions you'll be using, make a check for every single action, with only one needing to go low for you to fail).
Relatedly, bounded accuracy means that if you want to try something, you have a reasonable chance of succeeding, instead of there being a chart telling you that the most comparable task has a DC of 35, so if you're not UberSkillMan you just auto-fail.
And finally, there are far fewer spells that completely obsolete skills in 5E than in Pathfinder. Thus, using skills is actually a thing people do.
TLDR: Overall, 5E is set up such that the primary way of mechanically engaging the world/setting/campaign outside of combat is through the use of skills rather than spells, and everybody has enough skills to make a difference.
This is why I like how 5E's math kind of takes care of itself. Though there's things in that system that aren't quite to my taste, it's still been like a breath of fresh air. A lot of "rollplaying" accusations in Pathfinder come from differences in math (i.e., you scraped together a bigger pile of +1's than someone else did), and those differences in math just really aren't there in 5E's model.
In Pathfinder, the math is like a wall: a bajillion little bricks all getting stacked to create a whole of the desired size. The system expects you to put something on top of the foundation (as opposed to just relying purely on BAB or other automatic bonuses), so gathering and stacking bricks to actually build something is a core assumption. However, a lot of the bricks are hidden under rocks and inside trees or scattered across continents. Some people are more or less skilled at finding them, some people think taking bricks from too far away is stealing, and some people don't care where you found your bricks but think there's a maximum number of bricks you should ever use and/or the final wall needs to look a certain way.
In short, Pathfinder math is about building a brick wall while various people judge you for how many bricks you used or where you got them or what your wall looks like in the end.
By contrast, 5E's math is much more controlled. Being good at something is binary (either proficient or not), rather than being a finely-adjustable accumulation of tiny increments. That it waaaay harder for people to judge you for your stats.
the secret fire wrote:
It makes sense that it would remind you of the different XP tracks, considering that wealth in 3.X is an XP track. ;)
Anyway, you're right; skewing gear availability in martials' favor so that they can fill in the gaps in their capabilities would probably alleviate things quite a bit.
On the other hand, considering how many threads there are which decry the evils of the "magic-mart" and/or label any significant understanding of the wealth progression system as "player entitlement", I'm afraid you're also right that it would be poorly received.
And that's to say nothing of the headache-inducing narrative issues introduced by any kind of wealth-by-class paradigm. *shudder*
I don't think he was calling "Stormwind" against the "I don't like playing with" part. I think Kirth took his sentence as stating that to be a powergamer means to love number-crunching above all else. Brother Fen's sentence is only a punctuation mark or two from literally saying that, and he's never been Grammar-Nazi-level precise with his punctuation, so he may well have meant that. (It would also fit with the context of the rest of his post, and his history around here.)
But who knows, I could be full of crap. :)
Degoon Squad wrote:
First a Fighter should not need to spend feats and have to have a magic bow to hit a monster.
"Should" and "do" are two different things.
They are a full BAB class. And running flying Monster whose BAB so high that a fighter cannot hope to hit it with a Bow is the same as running a flying monster with so much magic resistance that he will bounce all spells and make Arcane classes useless.
Where are you getting the idea that simply being full BAB is enough and monsters with higher AC than that are some sort of deviation from the expected norm?
Open your Bestiary. Check out the guidelines for monster AC, and you'll discover that their AC scales up by more than 1 point per level. Since BAB only goes up by 1/level, that means that one of two things is the case:
I think you know that #1 is ridiculous, so that leaves #2. So if the fighters in your games only need their BAB in order to hit their targets, then your games are the exception, not the expectation.
That the way the game is designed to be played.
I'm quickly becoming convinced that you do not at all know how "the game is designed to be played".
[bunch of stuff that's allegedly replying to me, but really it's not]
I didn't challenge your assertion that a mid-level PC would have a reasonable chance of hitting a deity, which makes the fact that you spent multiple paragraphs proving it pretty silly, and indicative of a lack of attention on your part.
What I challenged was your assertion that the simple fact of being able to hit implies that it's easy to kill.
Thread happens. Debate ensues.
Somebody pops into thread to point and gawk at the posts "filling the thread" with sooo many people who seem to think X.
Having not seen anyone say X, I ask for examples.
He quotes one person who said something that is not at all X.
I ask how he managed to interpret that post as X, and also ask whether there were any other examples or if that single line was "filling" the thread all by itself.
I ask one last time.
Guy hasn't been in the thread for days.
Eventually he comes back, going right back to scoffing at all these people who think X.
I wish that was flaggable.
Isn't that pretty much the point of the topic? That there's an issue that needs addressing in one way or another?
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- ONE! be the plain vanilla killing machine that a good number of players want to play?
You are definitely correct that plenty of folks want to play that character type. It's a good idea for the game to enable that character type.
The problem is, "the plain vanilla killing machine" is actually a broader skill set than the fighter has.
As long as the fighter has his favored weapon (hasn't been disarmed/sundered, or replaced by a better weapon of a different type than he originally specialized in) and the enemy is obliging enough to be vulnerable to it (isn't flying unless he's an archer, isn't incorporeal, isn't invisible, isn't immune or heavily resistant to his damage type, doesn't have greater reach, etc) then the fighter will indeed seem to be like the "vanilla killing machine".
But as soon as anything about the situation is more troublesome than a little DR, suddenly the fighter is useless (sometimes figuratively, sometimes literally, depending on the complication). The "vanilla killing machine," especially if that's his sole niche, should still have at least a reasonably strong capacity for killin' even when the stars don't align for him.
The fighter fails in this regard.
And of course, that's just the fighters. As you mentioned, there are other martials (though most people are typically referring to the nonmagical ones when they say 'martials' in these discussions), and their out-of-combat issues don't go away when we temporarily zoom in on the fighter.