Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Kobold

Jiggy's page

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32. RPG Superstar 2013 Marathon Voter, 2014 Dedicated Voter, 2015 Dedicated Voter. FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 18,697 posts (20,903 including aliases). 17 reviews. 4 lists. 1 wishlist. 13 Pathfinder Society characters. 22 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 18,697 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Terquem wrote:
Castle Caldwell was started specifically to see if a straight no house rule game would generate enough interest

That's a very valid reason to not have any houserules. :)

So, doesn't that just go to show that someone talking like there aren't any houserules might very well have a valid reason to do so, just like you do? Doesn't your own example prove that people talking about what the system allows are not necessarily speaking out of an adversarial mindset, and in fact might have very good reasons for their comments/decisions?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
But that's just it, isn't it? It always seems to become an adversarial discussion, breaking it down to what the SYSTEM does or does not allow, as if to say, well sorry mister DM/Player (whoever you are trying to argue with) the system doesn't allow that so haha I win and you don't get your way.

It perplexes me that you would say that, given your own denial of houserules in your Castle Caldwell game. What you're saying now would seem to suggest that your own post where you veto'd a houserule I suggested should have been interpreted as "the system doesn't allow that so haha I win and you don't get your way". I know I certainly did NOT interpret that veto in such a negative way, and I'd wager a guess nobody else did either. You just had a preference to run things "by the book", and that was that. No biggie.

So why not assume the best of those discussing differences of rulesets, just as I assumed the best of my DM shooting down a request? Doesn't have to "become an adversarial discussion," as you put it. Folks can just talk. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Gilfalas wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I can't help wondering if there's any correlation between people who want "realistic" explanations of HP and people who felt the introduction of midichlorians was a good thing.
Oh come on we all know midichlorians was not a good thing.

But more importantly, why?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I can't help wondering if there's any correlation between people who want "realistic" explanations of HP and people who felt the introduction of midichlorians was a good thing.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Terquem wrote:

I don't really get the "customization" argument. It is a game of make believe, therefore a game that is 100 percent customization (you can make up whatever you and your friends are willing to deal with). It seems that some players are of the kind that must be able to hold up a RULE and say to the DM

"Because I selected X you must let me do Y"

instead of the kind of player who asks the DM

"I will try to do Y, what do I need to roll to succeed?"

Wow, that seems like kind of a "chip-on-shoulder"ish way to interpret discussions of what a system does and doesn't allow/enable. Merely describing the differences between rulesets does not constitute an attitude of coercion against the GM.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's interesting how both this thread AND the "unexpected problems" thread are filling up with almost exclusively positive things.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Stefan Hill wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:


There is no denying it has fewer points of customization than 3.x though.
And far fewer 'trap options'.

Yeah, I really like how high the "optimization floor" is. Unlike in Pathfinder, a person who simply reads the class and makes choices accordingly will end up with a reasonable character instead of a background NPC.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mega Man 2 is pretty hard to beat; heck, if you Google/YouTube something like "Top 10 Old School Video Game Music" or some such thing, you'll see a lot of inclusion of MM2, especially Wily Castle stage.

For SNES, Super Mario RPG and Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest both have a lot of amazing tracks.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Yeah, TWF is pretty slick. It's right in that sweet spot of "good if you built for it, not so good everyone will do it, varies by build, but is easy to learn/use regardless".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I think I finally came up with something I don't like in 5E: your skill selections are basically set in stone at 1st level. Outside of some very specific class features (like becoming a Lore bard), you're going to hit 20th level and be proficient in exactly the same set of skills you were proficient in at 1st level.

If your game uses feats, then you can exchange one of your stat boosts for a handful of proficiencies, but then it has to be a whole batch of skills that you suddenly learn. What if you've been adventuring for five levels and you feel like it would make sense for your character to pick up such-and-such a skill? The system doesn't support it; you would need to ask the GM for a houserule in order to learn something new.

I'm going to offer my PbP campaign a new houserule whereby each time you level up you can make effort toward eventually learning a new skill (or tool) proficiency.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Muad'Dib wrote:
How about we just get this thread back on topic. Dice fudging is a never ending debate that will not be solved here.

Well, we weren't trying to decide whether fudging was okay, we were exploring whether its use as a GM tool was a default assumption or not.

Quote:
How much cheating do you tolerate? What cheating do you tolerate?

I think it got established pretty early that most folks won't tolerate the things they call cheating, and the differences of opinion center on what actually counts as cheating. This led to the related subtopic of expectations and social contracts (after all, if you join a game with full knowledge that the GM will fudge, you can't really complain about fudging). That led to the current discussion about what's the "default state" that goes without saying, versus a houserule that it would be jerkish to not discuss ahead of time. Since that's tied in to expectations and therefore definitions of what constitutes cheating, it's entirely on-topic. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Way to gather some info, folks! This is how learning happens! :D

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I see it as passive-aggressive in that it implies the poster is in denial, but is a minor part of the overall sentence. But yeah, that could be wrong.

He didn't imply, he stated directly. Hence, active. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Jiggy wrote:


So, this ALSO does not "override" what I was saying earlier that the default assumption is that any houserules (such as not following the d20 mechanics, aka fudging) need to be discussed up front, and anything not discussed up front would be naturally assumed to be as written.
On the other hand:
CRB pg 403 wrote:
Rolling Dice: Some GMs prefer to roll all of their dice in front of the players, letting the results fall where they may. Others prefer to make all rolls behind a screen, hiding the results from the PC so that, if they need to, they can fudge the dice results to make the game do what they want. Neitehr way is the "correct" way; choose whichever you wish, or even mix and match as feels right for you.

I definitely did not think to look under a heading of "rolling dice". Thanks for adding to the discussion. That definitely changes the picture a bit.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

#1 is, I think, kind of system-dependent. I'm running a mapless 5E PbP, and people's actions have felt pretty organic, rather than tactically perfect. I think it's because 5E isn't as punitive of organic action as Pathfinder is, not because of whether it's F2F or PbP.

#2 is important. I try to predict when a decision point might suffer from WhatDoWeDoNow-itis, and put something at the bottom of my post saying, "What now? Do X? Do Y? Do Z? Something else?"

As for additional notes, pacing is very important. For instance, if you have a time of open-ended roleplay before leaving town, a F2F group that sort of stalls takes about 3 seconds for the GM to see if the party's ready to move on. In PbP, that could take days, and really kill the momentum of the game. Dealing with that is an entirely new skill the GM has to learn.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I almost always fall for pointless thread necromancy, in that I often fail to realize how old it is until after I've been reading for a while. :/

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
You just don't want to admit
I didn't know this sort of passive-aggression was how you resolved disputes.

Nitpick: active, not passive.

;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
You just don't want to admit that "the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules" is the trump phrase in that entire paragraph, when relevance is distilled.

Or maybe you're not really reading carefully, because your pre-biased filters are so thick that you can't take the paragraph for what it is? Honestly, how can you read an entire paragraph all saying the same general message of "everybody work together to mold the rules for maximum fun" and say that a single clause "trumps" that entire message rather than thinking maybe it means something within that paragraph?

I think you're starting with what you believe, finding a phrase that can support it, and bending everything around into compliance; instead of starting with "What does this say?", reading for the "big idea", and interpreting any given phrase within the context of the sentence and paragraph in which it appears.

Quote:
Quote:
Where are you getting that quote? I can't find it anywhere, despite multiple searches of the entire PRD.
Well, then, I must be making it up. [Rolls eyes.]

Quit being a jerk; I made no such accusation. Anyone who's ever followed me on the rules forums knows I ask for references so I can learn more. If you can't read "I can't find that line" without assuming I'm accusing you of lying, that's on you, not me.

Quote:

Chapter Twelve: Gamemastering, page 396, of whatever edition of the Core Rules I bought, long ago. Therefrom (with the sentence following):

"Judge: The Game Master must be the arbiter of everything that occurs in the game. All rule books, including this one, are his tools, but his word is the law. He must not antagonize the players or work to impede their ability to enjoy the game, yet neither should he favor them and coddle them. He should be impartial, fair, and consistent in his administration of the rules."

I believe you that it exists on that page. Perhaps you'll also believe me that it doesn't come up in searches of the PRD, and therefore understand why I asked.

Yes, that paragraph does suggest more authority on the part of the GM. Added to what else we've read, it does change the net result. That's why I was interested in finding it: to see and understand what information you were working with, not to accuse you of making it up. I'm trying to end up learning something here.

Thanks for providing the whole quote this time; it's interesting that in the very same paragraph as the "his word is the law" part it also says that the GM "should be impartial, fair, and consistent in his administration of the rules". I'm very curious how the type of fudging you're talking about fits into "impartial, fair, and consistent", as well as your interpretation of the "big picture" painted by a paragraph whose general description of the role of the GM includes both "his word is law" and "impartial, fair, and consistent".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Therefore, that whole "the GM is entitled to do whatever" sentiment that you said was "the default" is, well, not. That is, unless the GM discusses that notion with the group in advance.
Except that your point is overridden by statements that preceded and followed your very judicious quote.

Nope. Look again:

Quote:
"Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs

For one thing, you seem to be implying that this quote is addressing the GM. It's not. This passage is from the Core Rulebook, and is addressing everyone.

So you could say "Remember that these rules are the players'. The players can change them to fit their needs.", and it would be just as true as what you're claiming on behalf of the GM.

So no, that does not "override" what I was saying earlier.

Quote:
... Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules ... "

Well, Mr. AccuseMeOfCherryPickingQuotes, at least I didn't cut any sentences in half. Here's the full line:

The full version of what you sculpted down for your purposes wrote:
Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

This line is explaining how to handle unclear or disputed rules, and sets the GM as the "arbiter" (i.e., the judge, or the person who would arbitrate a dispute between parties) within the context of everyone at the table having a discussion.

So, this ALSO does not "override" what I was saying earlier that the default assumption is that any houserules (such as not following the d20 mechanics, aka fudging) need to be discussed up front, and anything not discussed up front would be naturally assumed to be as written.

Look real hard at what you did: you took a quote saying that the rules belong equally to everyone and a quote that lets the GM arbitrate table-wide discussions, and you tried to make them look like the opposite.

Quote:
Oh, and ... here's another: "The Game Master must be the arbiter of everything that occurs in the game. All rule books, including this one, are his tools, but his word is the law."

Where are you getting that quote? I can't find it anywhere, despite multiple searches of the entire PRD.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
I'd actually say that the above is the default, and that players who want it differently would have to negotiate to change that.

I'm gonna type my way through a train of thought that I haven't figured out the end of yet:

The norm for games in general is that "the default" is whatever is written in that game's rules. Deviations are houserules, and can't be assumed to of anyone who hasn't agreed to them. When you say "Let's play game X", by definition you're agreeing to go by the printed rules of that game.

So, what rules are printed for Pathfinder?

Well, one rule that's printed for Pathfinder is how saves work: roll a d20, add a specific modifier, and the result has to equal or exceed the DC in order to save.

So if that's what's printed, then that's "the default", right?

Now lemme dig out a quote that I don't remember very clearly... ah, here it is:

The Pathfinder rules also wrote:
Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played.

So here we have a printed acknowledgement of the possibility of houserules, with a printed expectation that any such houserules are discussed in advance.

So, "the default" for Pathfinder is that the rules are followed as printed except in such ways as the group discusses in advance. Since this is "the default", then this is what is reasonable to assume a player will be expecting.

Therefore, that whole "the GM is entitled to do whatever" sentiment that you said was "the default" is, well, not. That is, unless the GM discusses that notion with the group in advance.

So, a reasonable expectation is that a player comes to your game with the knowledge that you might have some houserules, and also that anything not discussed will be assumed to be done "by the book".

So if we're talking about "the default", the GM has a social responsibility to openly discuss his/her desire to run a game in which he or she can alter/fudge the game's mechanics. If you fail to mention it, players have a right to be surprised and upset when they later find out, because it wasn't reasonable to assume they'd be expecting that.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Laurefindel wrote:
In other words, I like that the skill system is simple and versatile enough to handle houserules, campaign-specific subsystems and on-the-fly ruling quite well.

Not even just the skills, but more or less the whole game. The entire system is very malleable and houserule-friendly.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:
As I said before, a happy medium where wants/desires from both sides of the screen are communicated and respected is best.

Agreed; I said so myself, in fact.

Quote:
But humans will be humans, and despite the best of intentions it periodically breaks down.

Granted.

Quote:
In those cases where you can't maintain communication and respect, there are two options. Players laying down the law, or the GM.

No.

In those cases where you can't maintain communication and respect, someone needs to grow up and learn to be a better person than they currently are. And the person who needs to do so is most likely the person who thinks there could ever be a situation in a (non-professional) game where the it's truly necessary for someone to "lay down the law".

A group of people who, when getting together to play a game, actually manages to come to a point of one or more parties wanting to lay down the law, is a socially dysfunctional group that has bigger things to fix than GM/player role expectations.

Quote:
I think the GM avenue is better for the same reasons that chains of command in emergency response/military organizations aren't committees.

See above. The need for one gamer to tell another gamer "submit or leave" is a sign of problems, not a necessary or fundamental element of gaming dynamics.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

thejeff wrote:
How do you structure the game, either as a player or as the GM, so that short rests make sense?

In my PbP, it's been alright so far.

At first level, my PCs needed to go looking for a missing librarian whose services they required. He was expected to have been attacked by bandits near the road out of town.

Thus, the first encounter was against bandits, just off the road.

Once the bandits were defeated, there wouldn't really be any threat by the road, so they could have just chilled out there for a while if needed.

Then they went to the bandits' hideout and fought a bandit and a surprising conspirator.

Now they have the hideout they can rest in if they like, and since they're a good distance from town and all known inhabitants of the hideout have been defeated, there's no reason anyone would show up within an hour.

Then, on the way back to town with the librarian, they meet more of the conspirators (who had learned of the PCs' expedition and intended to intercept them, but were a couple of hours behind them). This was the final fight for the day.

At 2nd level, they were traveling and saw a girl being chased by goblins. First encounter was those goblins.

Then they learned that the girl had run from her village that was currently under attack, meaning the party had to choose between resting or responding to urgency. (This is where a cleric can "cheat the math" to solve that dilemma, thereby making a very relevant contribution.)

They encounter a group of goblins guarding the road outside the village. Encounter #2.

They got to the village just as the main force of goblins was driven off. Then they got to choose between resting, pursuing, preparing for a second attack, etc. They chose to rest and prepare for a second attack.

Currently, they've completed encounter #3 (the second goblin attack), have expended most of their HD, and the cleric is (I think) all out of spell slots. They're currently deciding whether to bed down for the night (it's already evening) or try to do some relevant exploration.

So! No true "dungeon crawls" yet, but as long as I'm conscious of the healing/rest paradigm when planning encounters, it's been pretty doable so far.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DonKeebals wrote:
A terrible GM is one that allows the players to run the table.

That's not mutually exclusive with what I said, you know. There's a whole lot of fun to be had in the ENORMOUS space in between "GM is god" and "players run the table". That's where the good GMs are. The terrible ones populate the two situations you and I have now identified (and probably some other spaces as well).

Quote:
And yes, GM's are the gods at their tables. What they say goes, period.

Unless of course the GM is a healthy, high-functioning adult. In that case, the GM makes adjudications where needed but listens to complaints/rebuttals and is willing to accommodate reasonable requests.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.
DonKeebals wrote:
I saw someone mention GM's and cheating, so I figured I'd add my $0.02. A GM can not cheat. GM's are the god at your table and they can do what they want. I almost always roll behind the screen and if I think a miss would have been a hit, it will be. Especially if I need to knock a player off of their high horse. To me this is no different that adding the advanced template to creatures.

This whole quote is a perfect example of terrible GMing, and the part I bolded is a good illustration of the level of blindness required to not see it.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

When I first read the rules for this mechanic, I wasn't sure what opinion to form; my response was mostly "Oh, that's interesting..."

Since then, I've run a PbP game up through almost 3rd level, and I have to say I think I like it.

Now, I will say that—like a great many of 5E's mechanics—the healing system will burn you if you fail to look at 5E as its own system and just barge in with your existing mindsets/habits and expect the game to accommodate you.

In older editions (as I understand it), healing was measured in potions and cleric spell slots. That meant that as soon as the cleric ran out of healing spells, the day was over. By contrast, Pathfinder assumes pretty easy access to wands of CLW, making HP into a per-encounter resource rather than a daily resource.

As a result, older clerics were pressured to be healbots, since casting other spells meant a smaller HP pool for the day, and therefore getting less done. Meanwhile, PF clerics need only be ready for an emergency heal in certain combat situations, but otherwise needn't really be "healers".

In 5E, it's somewhere in between. The "daily pool of HP" certainly exists as a concept, since you only have so much healing you can do in a short rest. However, rather than requiring a healer to be part of that daily HP pool, the "healer" is a role that is optional, whose method of contribution is to extend (rather than be wholly responsible for) that HP pool.

In effect, a healer has an ability to expend resources to "modify the math" of the adventuring day as they and their party see fit.

Unlike in Pathfinder, the "healer" role truly exists as a meaningful way to contribute. Unlike in older editions, it's not a burden to shackle the cleric player with. Thus, it looks to me like 5E could support either playstyle.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Serisan wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
*jots down idea for new homebrew monster*
Does it involve disarming characters so they no longer possess hands?

>.>

<.<
>.>

Make a Knowledge (sadistic GM) check.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Lorathorn wrote:
Perhaps it should be a topic unto itself.

Yeah, it's probably a big enough topic for that, with potential for a lot of fascinating discussion.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

*jots down idea for new homebrew monster*

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

RainyDayNinja wrote:
As I understand it, ability score improvements are tied to class level, not character level. Doesn't that make multiclassing rather unattractive in a lot of cases?

Yes. It's something you really have to consider carefully.

It's also interesting to note that (assuming an even split between your classes) by 8th level you'll have the same two stat boosts as a single-classes character, you just will have gotten the first one much later. That is, you might be looking at getting your stat boosts at 7th and 8th instead of 4th and 8th. So if you were to start a character at or near 8th level, multiclassing would get a lot more appealing.

Quote:
I'm playing an archer Ranger in a PbP, and I'm considering multiclassing into Druid after that for the spells. I just don't see much to interest me past level 5 in the Ranger.

Get ready for a lot of homework on multiclass spellcasting, then. :/

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

I think one of the disconnects, however, is that there are some elements of the group "contract" that are, whether known to all or not, kept private, and just kind of accepted locally.

This is layered upon things that just aren't talked about (because people have different expectations) and it's when these thing conflict that badness happens.

What are you suggesting? That communication is central to healthy relationships? That conflicts can be resolved through clear communication rather than needing to teach the other person a lesson or abandoning the relationship? Nonsense!

;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
What's in the box? wrote:
The adjustment to the "prepared" spell casting system is SO much better (which is similar to the Arcanist method of spell casting recently released for PF) than the old 3.5 method. SO. MUCH. BETTER.

There's sooooo much that I like about spellcasting in 5E. What you mentioned is one part of that.

Another part is the combat viability of cantrips. A sorcerer shooting a fire bolt cantrip has the same chance of hitting and only slightly lower average damage than a fighter swinging a sword. No longer do casters say "Oh crap, I'm down to just cantrips!". Instead, cantrips are the default, the caster's bread and butter. Since you know your cantrips are "good enough", you don't feel like all your spell slots have to be devoted to combat power; there's room for utility stuff too.

And speaking of utility stuff, ritual casting is awesome. Instead of 4E's total division of spells and rituals or Pathfinder's dilemma of needing to spend spell slots on boring and situational spells, 5E has things like identify as normal spells which also have the "ritual" tag. Such a spell can be cast "for free" by a ritual-capable class by simply adding 10 minutes to the casting time.

I could go on; maybe I'll come back to this. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hm. I've never done any real testing, but the Chessex dice I mentioned have always seemed good enough to me; plenty of hits and misses both. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Lorathorn wrote:
Here is the sister thread.

Thanks!

Quote:

As for the healing, I would say that the opinion is divided on how to handle healing during rests, more particularly about whether or not to employ the hit dice healing, and how that interacts with clerical roles (and the expectations put on that class).

I just wondered if anyone had further insight into the issue.

So, sounds like you're saying you've heard from people who feared that the ability to do significant self-healing in an hour steps on the cleric's toes by making a healer less necessary. Is that what you mean?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:

A slightly different tack to the discussion:

Is it cheating/fudging to give PCs CR-appropriate encounters?

After all that's the entire point of Pathfinder's CR system- to ensure that the players generally can win. Whether or not the GM fudges a will save for the BBEG to a "nat 20" so the climactic fight is not over in 1 round, or if the GM fudges a crit down to a normal hit so he doesn't kill a PC.. these are tangential discussions about the underlying paradigm:

The game doesn't even pretend to offer truly fair fights. The PCs are presumed to win (at least in the end, if not in every single fight).

As I talked about before, it's as simple as this: whatever the group agreed (explicitly or not) was going to be happening is "fair", while any deviation from that is "cheating".

So, for example, suppose the players build their characters under the impression that encounters will be CR-appropriate, or X level of challenge, or whatever. Maybe they lowball their optimization because they want a gritty meatgrinder that forces them to think tactically, or maybe they optimize highly because they want a fun roflstomp of carnage-joy, or maybe they go somewhere in between with an understanding of a sandbox world where they'll be constantly gauging their own power against that of potential obstacles.

If the GM then goes outside that group agreement by providing encounters that are different enough as to provide a different play experience (such as turning the meatgrinder into something easier, or the roflstomp into something harder, or the open sandbox into "everything is a level-appropriate encounter no matter where you are"), then the GM has betrayed the other people at the table. Maybe you use the word "cheating" or maybe not, but either way, the GM's being a selfish jerk.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Emmit Svenson wrote:
Related to players cheatin’ with dice: Can anyone recommend a source for polyhedral dice that are both fair and exceptionally readable cross-table? I’m thinking oversized, high-contrast dice with simple numerals and no distracting detailing.

Have everyone use that giant red d20 that has flashing LEDs when it rolls a 20. ;)

For myself, I generally use Chessex dice, such as those which come in a little plastic rectangle with one of each type of die (d4 through d20). As long as I pick a set whose color scheme offers good contrast, I find they're readable from across the table fairly easily, despite not being oversized.

As for being "fair", what's your criteria?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
I think this has less to do with role play definitions and more to do with not being a rude ahole in public games.

Well, when some people's trigger to "be a rude ahole in public games" is seeing someone violate their roleplay definitions...

Well, anyway, enough with the downer derail. I'm currently having lots of fun with some 5E PbP, and that's what counts. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

quiet riot wrote:
Another player thinks they both count as a single weapon that attacks twice, since feats like "improved natural attack" would improve both claws, not just one.

I haven't delved into the larger question, but the quoted part at least is definitely wrong. After all, we already know that using a manufactured weapon with a given limb prevents using a natural attack with the same limb in the same full-attack (and vice-versa). As such, someone with two claw attacks could use a sword in one hand and a claw attack with the other. This would not be possible under the above-quoted interpretation.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

thejeff wrote:

In fairness, your earlier post said "fun I had would sometimes depend in part on whether or not tablemates within a certain demographic thought I (or my other tablemates, for that matter) was roleplaying."

Which I didn't initially read as "because they'd publicly shame me if they didn't like it", but more as "It's hard to have fun unless everyone's on board with the way we're all roleplaying."

That post wasn't at all clear to me. I can see how Aranna took it that way. Your next one on the subject of course made it obvious that was wrong.

Hrm. I thought it was implied that the reason having other people not like my roleplaying could impact my fun was that they would, you know, take some sort of action about it, but perhaps that wasn't so clear.

Sorry for the confusion.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Lorathorn wrote:
It would appear that the healing rules are a flashpoint for many groups.

Really? What kinds of complaints have you heard? My PbP players are almost to 3rd level and haven't really had an issue, and my F2F group has been fine with the healing rules as well. I'd be very interested in different opinions (I have an interest in game design, so hearing all the angles is important to me).

Oh, also, I was meaning to ask: where's this thread's companion, the thread for "5th Edition in Practice: Things that worked better than you expected"? I assume that you'd have made such a thread if you're looking to get a picture of what 5E is actually like to play, but I haven't been able to find it. Do you have a link?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Aranna wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Pan wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

/snip

Was I roleplaying?

Who cares, did you have fun?

As it happens, how much fun I had would sometimes depend in part on whether or not tablemates within a certain demographic thought I (or my other tablemates, for that matter) was roleplaying. Thus, the two notions are not as entirely independent as you make them out to be.

Part of the reason I'm not playing PFS anymore is that the folks who believe in how the game was meant to be played were gaining both presence and influence in the campaign, both globally and in my local area.

"Who cares?" and "Did you have fun?" ended up being kinda connected. :/

Wait a minute! Didn't you just post the exact opposite stance?

Jiggy wrote:
Since when is roleplaying something that the GM needs to "rule" on?

Yup you posted that supporting thejeff's argument that it didn't matter whether others thought people were role playing or not.

Two things:

1) No, that second quote (about the GM ruling on roleplaying) was not "supporting thejeff's argument that it didn't matter whether others thought people were role playing or not", it was a reply to you and you alone. That's why, in the post you pulled that quote from, I had included a quote directly from you about the GM ruling on roleplay. How in the world did you interpret a direct quote-reply to your post was somehow related to someone else's post?

2) Questioning whether roleplay is something the GM needs to make rulings about is NOT the "opposite" of having had an experience where some of my tablemates would publicly berate anyone whose roleplaying they didn't like. They're two very different things. How did you manage to come to the conclusion that one post about GMs making rulings and another post about social shaming could be so related to each other as to be contradictory?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
PFS is out of your control you have to temper expectations.

I'm not sure "putting up with public shaming and open derision of myself and others" is a reasonable form of "tempering expectations". :/

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

/snip

Was I roleplaying?

Who cares, did you have fun?

As it happens, how much fun I had would sometimes depend in part on whether or not tablemates within a certain demographic thought I (or my other tablemates, for that matter) was roleplaying. Thus, the two notions are not as entirely independent as you make them out to be.

Part of the reason I'm not playing PFS anymore is that the folks who believe in how the game was meant to be played were gaining both presence and influence in the campaign, both globally and in my local area.

"Who cares?" and "Did you have fun?" ended up being kinda connected. :/

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Either way, stop it. There's no culture that produces BBEGs whose HP might or might not spontaneously double depending on how fast they're losing a fight.
You know, you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing: Saying the extreme is representative of the whole.

I did not accuse you of that. I accused you of lumping "makes sense for that character but not for modern me" in with "doesn't make sense for that character".

Quote:
I was saying that what's strategically optimal given the circumstances isn't optimal given the needs of the game.

I. Never. Disagreed. With. That.

Heck, I never even mentioned "strategically optimal" (or even "strategic" or "optimal" by themselves). You inserted that all on your own. What post were you reading?

Quote:
I think it's great roleplaying to go ahead and do things that you know are bad but appropriate to the game/genre.

I agree with this.

I'm just saying that there are some things which, though they often show up in a given genre, are still stupid and/or don't match the established characterization of the character performing the action.

Quote:
It's not "what I would do in that situation", but it's what the character in that genre would do. Wanting what you want from a game isn't bad. I want it too sometimes.. but because we have different opinions I indulge in those wants in a wargame rather than in a roleplaying game.

Acting in accordance with your character is something you go to a wargame for? Because that's what you just said.

Quote:
If you can't hear about a divergent opinion without taking it as a personal attack, then I suppose I should go ahead and be done trying to talk with you. You seem to only want to be talked at so you can argue.

If you ever decide to read one of my posts start to finish and reply to what I actually wrote instead of replying to a party line that you're assuming I represent, then I'd be happy to have a discussion with you. But yeah, if you make s@+% up about how when I say "do what makes sense for the character" I somehow meant "do what's strategically optimal even if it's contrary to the character", then I guess I'm gonna keep looking argumentative.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

RedDogMT wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
RedDogMT wrote:
My gut tells me that Take 10 is not intended for Perception Checks
Your gut is uninformed, and is unskilled as an arbiter of rules. Better to ask your head. And your head, upon reading the rules, will discover that T10 is intended for EVERY skill unless a specific exception is given (such as UMD).

Wow, Jiggy. So you intentionally misquote me and then belittle me. In fact, you were actually kind of an *** about it.

What I said was this...

RedDogMT wrote:

Take 10 is generally used as a mechanic to simulate getting an average result for tasks in a non-oppressive environment (instead of rolling many rolls for every little detail of a task). Good examples where this works is crafting, searching a room, or climbing a wall.

The rules say that distractions or threats do not allow characters to Take 10. The reactionary nature of rolling a perception check to see if a character is surprises feels like it does not really fit into the Take 10 mechanic.

If this was my game, I would not allow Take 10. My gut tells me that Take 10 is not intended for Perception Checks for surprise rounds.

...and the bold part is what you quoted, without all the surrounding context. I actually thought better of you before this.

In any case, I stand by what I said before: the surprise round is the start of combat and it's reactionary nature does not fit the 'mold' of what Take 10 should be used for.

Just to clear something up here:

I misread one of your statements as saying you can't T10 on "Perception checks or surprise rounds" rather than "Perception checks for surprise rounds".

So I thought you were listing two whole categories of things you can't T10 on: all Perception checks, and all situations in a surprise round.

The reason I truncated your post was because I only took issue with the Perception half of what I thought you had written; I was specifically NOT wanting to contradict your assertion about surprise rounds.

So although I am of the general belief that rules interpretation is better left to heads than guts, my response to you in particular was based on a misreading of your post where I thought you were against taking 10 on any Perception check ever.

My bad. :/

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
(And he didn't really spam it in the book either, though he did use it a couple times. He was too busy expositioning.)

More than a couple times, I thought. Man, now I have to go look it up tonight. :/

/derail

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:

What is "logical" is going to be different not just person to person, but culture to culture. Samurai drama, for example, pretty much has to include the hero suffering (if not dying) over points of principle/honor. Wouldn't it be more logical for the hero to compromise his honor and get the bad guy, ala the Hollywood-esque individualistic action star?

Not always. In the genre of samurai drama, the "good" story has the heroes doing what is culturally appropriate, even if its not what you would do from your own mindset.

Not at all what I'm talking about.

Character motivations, such as a samurai's honor, are part of the "logic" that I want in a good story. Or to use the slasher horror example from earlier: if the guy who ventures out alone to investigate a noise while he knows there's a killer looking for him has already been identified in the story as a stupid person, then we're all good.

No, I'm talking about genuine nonsense.

What's the cultural explanation for why Voldemort (the movie version) wasn't spamming the killing curse in his fight against Dumbledore?* I mean, he's confirmed to know the spell, has no qualms about killing, knows Dumbledore is a threat, etc. So why, when Dumbledore fights him, does he not just spam that unblockable, instant-death spell? Now, we have a good reason why Dumbledore doesn't do that; it's well-established that nice people don't use that spell. But Voldemort uses it willy-nilly elsewhere, so why not here?

Because exploding glass and a giant fire snake look really cool in a climactic movie showdown.

When a character is already established as being ready, willing and able to do X at the drop of a hat, and they encounter a situation where X is the obvious thing to do, failing to do so is NOT the kind of cross-cultural roleplaying experience that you're talking about.

Either you're blind to think the "not what I would do" moments are all culturally appropriate with no genuine nonsense, or you're deliberately being dishonest by lumping cultural differences and genuine nonsense together in order to make me look anti-roleplaying.

Either way, stop it. There's no culture that produces BBEGs whose HP might or might not spontaneously double depending on how fast they're losing a fight.

*:
In the book, Voldemort actually does spam the killing curse at Dumbledore, which got me pretty excited to see a villain acting in congruence with their own established character.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:

Of course you're going to split up, visit the creepy cemetery, and by all means find ways to forget to call for the police.

...
The way I like to run (or play) RPGs is where a good story is told.

These statements are contradictory.

A story that leaves you wondering why in the world a character would do X instead of Y is not a good story. The fact that such situations have shown up in a lot of stories does not make them any less terrible.

Hiding from a known homicidal psychopath but then leaving your hiding place alone just because you heard footsteps, doesn't stop making for a stupid story just because it's been done a lot.

Just because something is common enough to be a familiar trope does NOT mean it's an ingredient to a good story.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

So, first I get masterwork weapons/armor.

Then comes the +1 armor/shield, and the +1 cloak, at 1k gold each.
Then the +1 weapon for 2k.
Then I upgrade the armor/shield/cloak for 3k each.
Then I drop 4k on a stat booster.
You forgot about the protection ring/AoNA (in that order) right after the weapon. But otherwise - that's generally the order I go in too.

Whoops, good catch.

Anyway, I too usually dump the vast majority of my wealth on the big six.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I generally buy whichever item/upgrade is cheapest of what's left.

So, first I get masterwork weapons/armor.
Then comes the +1 armor/shield, and the +1 cloak, at 1k gold each.
Then the +1 weapon for 2k.
Then I upgrade the armor/shield/cloak for 3k each.
Then I drop 4k on a stat booster.

And so forth.

Certain key consumables will be in there too, usually before 3rd level.

Does that help?

1 to 50 of 18,697 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.