|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
You know how in adventure movies, you've usually got a party of greenhorns and then that one seasoned adventurer who's already been around the block and isn't surprised by anything and is properly prepared for all the weird crap they run into (and provides helpful exposition on each such encounter by explaining it to the others)?
Yeah, apparently the only way you're allowed to play that character past like 3rd level or so is as a spellcaster who carries an assortment of scroll of overcome obstacle variants. If instead of a wizard or bard you wanted to do a version of this character who overcomes the same obstacles via grit and wit, well, tough.
@WormysQueue — I think we may be having a miscommunication here. First of all, in case there's any confusion on this point, I wasn't saying that the older community was racist, or even that whatever unhealthy attitudes existed among them were comparable to racism. Rather, the analogy was about how the absence of conflict does not indicate an absence of toxic mindsets or factually incorrect beliefs. Or to put it another way, an increase in arguments on topic X might not be due to people getting more argumentative or the community having more argumentative people in it; it might be due to the original population mostly agreeing with each other on the same wrong idea about X, never encountering any resistance to their belief until the community started to fill with larger numbers of people who had a better understanding of X. If you'll permit a bit of oversimplification: a community where everybody's right and a community where everybody's wrong will both have the same level of apparent "peace". But the bigger the community, the less likely it will fall into either category.
Second, please note that I specified I was only referring to a subset of topics, not everything. Perhaps this would have been clearer if I had listed out the specific topics I had in mind, but at the time I was concerned this would start fresh arguments here, so I hoped that simply announcing that the scope of my assertion was limited would be sufficient. Apparently it wasn't.
Does that help?
Sure, feel free to shoot me a PM. :)
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
I think Jiggy is busy with 3PP work (or I'm misremembering again).
I'm flattered that my decline in posting frequency was noticed. :)
Although I've done a little 3PP work, I'm not currently working on 3PP stuff (unless you count a massive independent project I'm slowly grinding away at), and that's not the reason for my absence. Rather, there was a convergence of factors (abandoning the deeply-sick PFS culture, fatigue with fundamental issues with the Pathfinder ruleset, and frustration with certain elements of the forums) that led to me abandoning Pathfinder altogether. As a result, spending time on the forums (outside of PbP games) shifted from being a meaningful priority to being something I do when I unexpectedly have a few minutes to kill. More recently, holidays and workplace transitions reduced that free time significantly.
On topic, I don't think the forums have gotten worse (since I've been here, at least). Rather, I think that the mindsets and attitudes that are at the root of a lot of the issues were always here, but weren't causing "problems" because those toxic mindsets were shared by what used to be a majority. Then, as new blood came into the community, that majority status diminished, and those toxic mindsets started to feel some serious pushback for the first time.
It's not unlike what might happen if more and more persons of color moved into a racist, historically white town: instead of 95% of your neighbors nodding along in support of a person's BS, 50% of them are calling it out. The result is a perception among the original residents that the town has "gotten worse", when really all that happened is that the original toxicity stopped having majority approval.
Obviously not all of the forum's issues come down to that; there's always going to be some number of people behaving poorly for all kinds of reasons, just like not all of the above hypothetical town's crime rate would be race-related. But many of the key topics (including ones that have already been mentioned in this thread) can, in my opinion, be linked to this phenomenon in some capacity.
Seems like a lot of folks are conflating "scared" with "endangered". Facing a monster with +99 to hit for 1d10+999 damage and 99 AC and +99 to all saves will certainly endanger your 1st-level party, but does it actually make you feel scared?
I find that the difference is in knowledge. If an enemy engages the party and quickly establishes a straightforward strategy (such as "attack for damage" or "cast save-or-suck spell X") then I find there tends not to be fear, but mere threat assessment. You get a feel for the likelihood of the enemy landing their hits/spells, and how severe their hits are, and you adjust accordingly. It's all just a bunch of calm decision-making.
But what if you don't know what sort of danger you're in? In my experience, it's far scarier if the enemy's initial actions set you up to demonstrate that something bad is coming, but you don't know exactly what. That lack of knowledge, that requirement to act without knowing the details of the situation, that inability to find the most efficient route to victory; that's where I think the actual fear comes in.
This makes me curious about where you shop. I do the bulk of my grocery shopping at Target and Aldi.
At Target, bagging your own groceries isn't an option: the cashier sets an open bag right next to the scanner, and they bag as they scan. Fortunately, this also means that the process is relatively efficient, dodging the twice-the-time scenario you described. But still, there's no choice to be made.
At Aldi, it's the other way around: the cashier is scanning your stuff and chucking it back into your previously-emptied cart, and the moment everything's paid for you're being sent off to a counter at the side to handle your acquisitions however you see fit while the cashier moves on to the next customer. Again, efficient; again, no choice/option.
I honestly can't think of a time I've been in a checkout lane where there was actually a choice to be made between self-bagging or waiting for the cashier to do it after the purchasing process was complete.
Warlocks seem to be the perfect dipping class for charisma classes. No real reason NOT to take it, it seems.
I actually went the other way around: my warlock has a 1-level dip in bard (mainly for Cure Wounds and Bardic Inspiration). He has 8 WIS and believes he's a cleric of a "good" deity whom nobody's heard of and whose name sounds suspiciously like that of an archfiend.
No, but I do have to pack it all up into boxes. In the morning, the boxes (along with computer, chair, phone, etc) should all be sitting at my new spot, waiting for me to unpack it.
I don't think I suggested my way was superior.
You did, even though I know you didn't mean to. :) You set up a two-option framework in which a given person's approach to the game is either "math" or "fun". Thus, if the reader believes that fun is the point of the game (which is not a very big "if"), then you've set up the other category ("math") as missing the point ("fun").
Sometimes it bugs me that PF and other RPGs are treated as exercises in mathematics, rather than just outlets to have fun. DPR, action economy, etc... I just skip threads about those. In fact, I don't even know what what action economy is and I don't want to know.
With respect, DungeonmasterCal, that's like saying that musicians are treating music wrong by getting hung up on chords and melodies and harmonies instead of just using music as an outlet to have fun or express themselves. "I don't even know what notes are and I don't want to know."
I mean, it's totally great if you're able to have fun by mashing randomly on the piano keys or flailing your sticks against the drums or whatever. That's totally cool. But there's a meaningful difference between what's produced in those untrained pseudo jam-sessions and what's produced by someone who put in a lot of work to understand how music actually works. To minimize that difference, and especially to reverse it by suggesting that the more proficient musician must have lost sight of the whole point of music; is extremely rude and belittling.
Now, again, do whatever's fun for you. There's nothing wrong with doing the RPG equivalent of randomly tickling the strings of a guitar. If that puts a smile on your face, then go for it. Just please don't suggest that doing so is somehow superior or more in line with the true purpose of
Sorry to hear about your accident. Hopefully you can recover quickly.
Here are some suggestions, starting with the feel-goods (since you seem to have enough feel-bad in your life at the moment):
Sweetness and Lightning is an episodic slice-of-life about a recently-widowed father learning to cook "real" meals for his kindergarten-aged daughter. It's heartfelt and adorable.
Flying Witch is an extremely low-key show that's probably best described as a modernization of the old "Bewitched" series but with less conflict.
Natsume's Book of Friends is about a modern guy who was born with the ability to see and interact with the fairy-tale creatures that exist everywhere while normal people are none the wiser, and how he tries to go about having a normal-ish life in spite of that fact. It's not so cute as Sweetness and Lightning and not quite as mellow as Flying Witch, but it's still fairly low-key and "comfy" despite relatively frequent bittersweet episodes.
If you're down for some less "soft" material (perhaps sharing some pain would be cathartic?) then here are some other options:
Orange is a quiet but deep slice-of-life about a girl who gets a letter from herself from ten years in the future, asking her to change a list of regrets. WARNING: Deals frankly with teen suicide.
Re:ZERO is about a boy who is inexplicably transported to a fantasy world, and in less than a day is brutally murdered. Then he discovers that whenever he dies, he "resets" to a previous point in time to try again. Gets pretty dark at times (both visually via brutal violence, and emotionally with grief, loss, despair, etc).
All of the above are available for free on Crunchyroll.com.
Hope that helps you out. :)
Steve Geddes wrote:
Thus far, there have been no additional magic items beyond what folks started with. There will be more later, though.
Holy balls, Fromper. That's terrible.
As for my situation, this morning's meeting revealed that the programmer who wrote the code to produce my file was working off of a set of written instructions he was given from I-don't-know-who, and those written instructions were just nonsensically wrong. So now the poor guy (who, it seems, may have actually correctly implemented what he was originally told to implement) has to write even more code from scratch, because the writing of instructions was left to someone who wasn't even involved? I guess?
Apparently my company's IT department can't get their s*## together enough to even follow simple instructions, and so I've spent about three hours in an already busy day helping to clean up their mess. And I'll be devoting more time to it tomorrow as well. Because it's not like I had my own work to do, right?
On Thursday, this ended with me handing off a list of issues that needed to be fixed in their file generation process. Half an hour ago, they gave me a new file to test, and scheduled a meeting for 8:30am tomorrow to verify whether everything's in order now.
I tested the file, and literally nothing has changed. Every single issue I listed on Thursday (and remember, each of those issues was itself an instance of not following the original instructions) is still present. So I guess tomorrow's meeting is to see if their lack of changes somehow magically fixed some problems...?
So, I'm face with this issue. Despite having knowledge my DM of course won't tell me Giants are weak against Will save, or this enemy has high Fort Save.
Well, what does the GM tell you when you succeed on Knowledge checks? Even if it's not save statistics, it should be something relevant that you can leverage to your benefit. Or if not, then the GM has chosen to ignore the word "useful" in the rules for what information a successful Knowledge check gives you. That's not inherently bad, but it's a big enough thing that it should have been made clear at the start of the game, so some ret-conning of skill rank allocations might be in order if he houseruled away the usefulness of Knowledge skills without telling anyone.
But again, if the GM is giving you genuinely useful information, it's okay if that information is something other than their saves.
So, I'm left deciding on the spot what spell is best to affect an enemy.
Sometimes you can make reasonable assumptions based on appearance, even without a Knowledge check. For instance: a big, lumbering brute is likely to have a high Fort save, while something with a more visibly frail body (perhaps relying on magic to fight) is likely to have a lower Fort save. It's not metagaming to see a strong or weak body and use that to inform your decision on whether to attack their body or their mind.
Last session we fought a Lamia in Rise of the Runelords, with SR! Holy cow, I had to roll at least a 15 to make my spells work.
To be prepared for this situation, you can carry some spell options that don't care about SR (often from the Conjuration school). Depending on which sources are available, options include glitterdust, create pit, or wall of stone, among others.
So you have weapon-users who routinely miss their targets and actively resist receiving buffs? And you have someone who prefers to do nothing but heal?
It sounds like there's a pretty big difference either between your and their expectations for what a fun game looks like, or between your and their proficiency with the system. I suggest talking to them directly about what kind of experience they're looking for in the game (including the GM).
Best of luck!
Apparently my company's IT department can't get their s~*$ together enough to even follow simple instructions, and so I've spent about three hours in an already busy day helping to clean up their mess. And I'll be devoting more time to it tomorrow as well. Because it's not like I had my own work to do, right?
The first time, DrDeth wrote:
In Pathfinder, at least according to JJ, your party is the only group of adventurers. Adventuring is not only rare but unique.
Once called out, DrDeth wrote:
...adventurers are so rare your party is the only one they [bandits] have ever encountered.
Those are pretty different statements, DrDeth.
It was someone with a connection to game design, so the overlap shouldn't really surprise me. Even so, I was all like "HEY I KNOW WHO THAT IS".
But I didn't friend request you because we don't actually know each other IRL so that might be creepy, but I still wanted to give you an internet hi-five, so to speak. :)
I enjoy roleplaying in non-RPGs. For example, I really love imagining how my creatures react to things (especially bizarre things) in games of Magic: the Gathering. I like narrating scenes based on dramatic successes/failures in board games. Stuff like that. I can't seem to not have a narrative in my gaming.
Step 1: Decide what you want your enemies to need to roll to hit you. Maybe for one character you're okay with most enemies hitting on a 7, maybe with another character you want a 14 to miss. It'll depend on the character, but pick a number.
Step 2: This chart in the Bestiary shows ballpark monster attack bonuses by CR. Reference the "High Attack" column, since it represents what'll be used for the most attack rolls. For any given level, reference the attack bonus for that CR, and add it to the number you picked in Step 1. The result is your target AC for that level.
You're done! :)
Perhaps you're not really shopping for AC-related magic items until around 5th level, so you start by referencing the CR 5 row's High Attack entry, which is a 10. Since you picked 9 as the die roll you're okay with being the minimum to hit you, you add the 10 and the 9 for a target AC of 19. So when you're managing your gear, you can try to plan for having AC 19 by 5th level.
Perhaps you then wish to look ahead a bit (which is a good idea in Pathfinder) and want to set yourself a benchmark for 10th level. The High Attack for CR 10 is 18. You again add this number to your target die roll, which gives you 18+9=27. Thus, your switch-hitting character wants an AC of 27 by the time they reach 10th level. Repeat this process for any level you want to check.
Making a statement about what's true in Pathfinder is not the same as claiming it's only true about Pathfinder. Limiting one's scope so as not to make claims about things outside the scope of one's experience, is perhaps a foreign concept to you...? Or perhaps you were just skimming really fast (twice, since you went back for citations) and mis-read the text? Or something? I'm trying to figure out how you managed to read "X is true in Pathfinder" and retain "X is only true in Pathfinder".
I know you dont like Pathfinder, you dont play Pathfinder, but perhaps maybe you could scale down your constant attacks on the Pathfinder game in the Pathfinder forums?
Talking shop about Pathfinder-related game design is not "attacking", and is completely appropriate for these forums. (I do try to keep it relevant to the sub-forum and thread I'm posting in, too.)
If you don't play the game, how can you give honest appraisals?
You don't suddenly lose all knowledge of a game when you stop playing. Whatever qualification to comment that I had when I was still playing, GMing, researching, and publishing; I still have now that I quit. It didn't go away. Obviously I would have less expertise in regard to newer content, but I also avoid commenting on that content for that exact reason.
That's why you have Aragorn and company do what they ended up doing at the end anyway: assault the front gate to hold Sauron's attention. We know it worked, so why wouldn't it have still worked if they'd done it earlier while Frodo was air-dropping the ring into the Volcano?
What does your comparison to other editions have to do with my post that you quoted?
To be fair, you've got to put the post you're replying to in context: the general flow of the discussion wasn't about banning a class or choosing not to use an optional or modular subsystem. Maybe that's what YOU meant, but that wasn't previously clear.
I mean, the main topic of the thread is magic items. "Magic items as character progression" is not a quick-and-easy ban, or a subsystem to be discarded without consequence. It's a fundamental pillar of how Pathfinder is structured. Using your "just don't use it" suggestion (which in this case translates to the same "just don't give out as much loot" advice others have given) isn't like banning a class or leaving out Retraining; it's more like cutting everyone's good saves down to bad saves, bad saves down to zero, full BAB down to 3/4 BAB, and 3/4 BAB down to half BAB; and then expecting there to be no consequences.
Banning the Leadership feat or the Gunslinger class doesn't alter the rest of the game. But a change like the above means you now have to either modify every monster you pull out of a Bestiary (and moreso as levels rise) or start homebrewing all your monsters yourself.
Cutting out wealth-as-progression from Pathfinder isn't like banning a feat, it's like banning the entire mechanic of having feats at all. There's a big difference between what you're apparently talking about and what Chess Pwn was commenting on.
I support the idea of different sorts of weapons enabling meaningfully-different combat experiences. For example, I would like for a glaive specialist and a rapier specialist to feel different in gameplay. The same goes for defense (and other elements) as well: I'd like for someone who mainly dodges incoming attacks to feel different from the guy who defends himself with full plate and a shield.
But Pathfinder approaches this concept in a really bizarre and self-contradictory fashion.
On the one hand, the level of differentiation between weapons is extreme. I've lost count of how many different versions of "one-handed sword with curved blade" there are, and each one has unique stats. The list of mechanically-differentiated weapons is unbelievably long. Furthermore, as the OP notes, many class abilities or other mechanics require that you invest in a very particular weapon (and might also require you to wield that weapon in a specific way) in order to get a benefit.
But on the other hand, 99% of the time the net result of picking a weapon and investing in it is not the ability to have a meaningfully-different gameplay experience, but simply to be able to deal a level-appropriate amount of damage with your full-attack. Just like everybody else.
So Pathfinder's weapon system has all the complexity of a deeply diversified and robust combat simulation, but none of the depth that such complexity is supposed to enable.
So to answer the OP's question: I like what Pathfinder thinks it's doing by attaching class features to specific weapons, but I don't like what it's actually doing.
tony gent wrote:
I share your preference for magic items as points of wonder rather than mere equipment. Unfortunately, as others have noted, those who designed the 3.X paradigm didn't feel the same way.
There are multiple solutions. My own was 5E. Brought the magic back to magic items, in my opinion. :)
Oh, oh, I actually already did this once, except it was CRB-only.
It was 7th level, fighter versus wizard. Starting positions were known to both parties, and were within charging range for a fighter. Both sides got three rounds to buff. The fighter was built solely and expressly for this fight, and nothing else. It was expected that the wizard would be built the same way.
Instead, the wizard was secretly built with some extra constraints:
So there was a 7th-level fighter built for the sole purpose of wizard-slaying and carrying a perfect assortment of magic items who can freely blow every resource he's got on this one fight,
A generalist wizard from an ordinary adventuring party taking time out of an otherwise normal adventuring day to fight somebody he's not specifically prepared for, using only what magic items he could make himself and while still reserving enough resources for the rest of the day.
Want to guess who won?
I bet you didn't have to venture outside the gaming world and go to places like Pinterest to find the ladies, though.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Of course, there's an element of false equivalency there—scantily-clad dudes in fantasy art are often more about male empowerment than fanservice for women and non-straight gamers. With scantily-clad women, I think we all recognize it's the other way around.
There's also the "if they both exist at all, then there must not be an imbalance" issue that's being ignored.
Sure, there are plenty of loincloth-toting male barbarians. These are mirrored by the pelt-bikini female barbarians.
But then there's also the sexy female mages, sexy female archers, sexy female bards, sexy female assassins, sexy female tavern servers, and so forth. Where are the male counterparts for these?
Yeah, sorry, crying "But barbarians!" isn't enough to support a claim that "there's plenty of beefcake as well as cheesecake".
Sadly, FLGS are anything but when you account for forum submissions. All I read are stories about socially awkward people who smell bad at best, at worst violence and sexual assault. I don't doubt these things happen but I've never seen anything like what I am reading. Granted I don't spend a significant amount of time at LGS so maybe I'm just not putting in the time to see these things?
Well, only the bad stories get talked about.
I mean, I was playing Friday Night Magic for a few years, and everyone was unfailingly polite and courteous, week after week after week. And that's with 40-50 people per tournament, with expensive prizes on the line. Then I was out of the game for a few years, and now I'm playing weekend Modern Magic tournaments without a lick of trouble. Also, the events I go to now run parallel to Magic Kids' League, and come right after the local Pokémon CCG tourney, so I get to see a bit of those events, and even with kids everybody's happy and well-behaved and very respectful.
Meanwhile, professional Magic competitions travel the globe, with 1-2 thousand players in many of the events and prizes reaching upwards of 40-50 thousand dollars for 1st place; and yet, even with so many people and so much on the line, stories of poor behavior or cheating or whatever else are so rare as to be huge, shocking news when they do come up.
In several years of Magic: the Gathering, both in tournaments and casual play, I've seen exactly two instances of unsportsmanlike conduct (or three, if "irritated tone of voice" counts). One guy made a play based on a wrong understanding of how his card's ability would work, and it cost him the game, and consequently I moved on to the Top 8 instead of him, as our match was "win and in". He was visibly agitated and seemed pretty eager to get out of there after signing his match slip, but that's about it. Didn't throw anything, no yelling or name-calling, just upset.
The other time was during a draft at a friend's house, when I was drawing all the right cards to answer everything my friend played. When he eventually cast his five-mana planeswalker that could help him get back into the game and I casually counterspelled it, he angrily knocked his whole deck off the table. (To his credit, he did quickly calm down and apologize for the outburst.)
Freehold DM wrote:
If you're selling your entire collection to a friend/acquaintance, then the buyer can reasonably assume there's a little bit of non-bulk in there (and might even know what some of it is, from having seen it in play) and could inflate the price accordingly. But a store would have to be stupid to price a 600-card box based on the possibility of "some rare cards" mixed in, and they'd be similarly stupid to pay an employee to sort through that kind of volume to verify whether it was all bulk or not.
If you bring a box of hundreds of cards to a store, and expect them to do anything other than treat it all as bulk (like by sifting through the whole collection, or just assuming there are "some rare cards thrown in there"), then we're right back to my original assertion of "obviously doesn't know much about the CCG industry/hobby".
On the other hand, you have to buy the entire book, rather than just the individual options you want on your character sheet. You also have to buy the underlying game rules, rather than just the classes/feats/spells you're using. And you have to do it again when there's a major rules overhaul. That's a lot of extra purchasing compared to a CCG.
Wow, if this guy thought he was gonna get more than about $1.00 per hundred cards, he obviously doesn't know much about the CCG industry/hobby. Having the store be willing to buy bulk cards at all is a lucky break, and far from being a given.
Having that level of unawareness of a hobby he was directly involved in, coupled with those, uh, "social skills", suggests to me that perhaps he has led a very... insulated life.
Freehold DM wrote:
Finally, 5.50 for an entire collection is likely a low ball estimate at best/actively insulting at worst
Haha, no. A box of bulk is lucky to be bought by a store at all, and getting a full dollar per hundred cards is a solid rate. If DCal's estimate of 500-700 cards is accurate, then the $5.50 that the store offered was completely legit.
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.