|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I agree, Pathfinder isn't completely fair. Which is all the more reason not to exacerbate the problem by giving the.wizard free levels that make him a better wizard, and giving everyone else free levels that make them a crappy wizard AND substantially delay their progress in the actual classes they want to play.
My point is, why bother to have both prepared and spontaneous casters if you essentially give prepared casters the ability to cast spontaneously? If you are going to limit prepared casters to what they have prepared, actually do it. Stop giving them the spontaneous spellcaster's toolbox as well.
For things like scrolls, wands, bound object...maybe impose a penalty on prepared casters for going outside their wheelhouse. Maybe casting a spell from those sources burns one spell slot higher than the actual spell.
Back in the day, you boasted about your actual accomplishments. Given how cowardly modern PCs tend to be, the boasting has had to shift over to how badass their build is. But apparently not so badass as to risk a battle against anything that might stand a remote chance. :P
The Beardinator wrote:
Bottom line: 1st edition D&D was incredibly new and rough designed.
And yet, because it didn't feel the need to overcodify things, it didn't allow BS like Pun-Pun, or have the need for Advanced Multiclassing Redux (subtitled "because it's sucked since 2000, but we couldn't be bothered to fix in in the Core Rulebook").
It also wasn't as new as I think you probably assume it was. Or as roughly designed. It had been around in the form of Original Dungeons & Dragons for about 4 years, and the AD&D books were MUCH better organized and well-designed than the original booklets.
We aee all f#$&ing wierd. We like PnP RPGs.
I have the highest respect for FGG (all of you...even you, Skeerer!) and the way they run their Kickstarter. While I was for the most part late to the party for Necromancer Games, I've been a pretty big supporter of Frog God Games since the beginning, which I why I went into their first Kickstarter knowing that they would deliver...and that confidence has only been boosted by their numerous successful Kickstarters (each of which I'm proud to have backed).
Since what is encountered is entirely up to the gm, even - at least so far - according to the strongest player empowerment group on the boards?
I'm not all that sure about Anzyr. It's possible his group has reduced the GM down to rolling dice for whatever encounters the players define for him.
Plan, but with a couple of caveats:
1. I don't consider the plan to be set in stone. It will change to adjust to the campaign, I do not demand the GM adjust the campaign to my planned build.
2. My plan doesn't include items beyond mundane weapons or armor. If I get magical stiff, that's great, but I refuse to be the whiny b%$#! complaining that I need X, not Y.
He can be a Tengu. Firework salesman.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
How dare he show even a tenth of the amount of condescention you routinely show when you regularly relegate the entire history of D&D prior to the d20 system as being nothing more than "Mother May I?" Everyone knows that only you are allowed to express condescension of that level!
Even running a AP right out of the box is a much more substantial time investment for the GM than for the players. They have to read though it, preferably multiple times. They have to look for possible areas where the PCs might go off the rails. They have to try to keep track of a bunch of NPCs the PCs might never bother to interact with, etc, etc, etc.
You can do it, but in my opinion it's generally more effort than it's worth. Instead of trying to pound the square peg into a round hole, you might want to try a round peg. It's not like there are a shortage...I can name dozens of retro-clones. I don't think there's a pre-d20 edition that doesn't have a retro-clone available. And that's ignoring the fact that you can also get copies of genuine pre-d20 Dungeons & Dragons products for fairly cheap, if you so prefer.
Another question for you:
Should the GM's preferences EVERY be taken into consideration? Or should he just STFU and roll the dice for the monsters?
Why are all the players in these discussions always reduced to a hivemind? Its entirely possible that after Bob rants at the GM for a half-hour about what a s#ty GM he is and how they are firing him, that Steve, Luke, and Jim tell him they don't really care if he gets to play the crown prince of the non-existent Tengu race, and that he can leave if he wants, bit they want to play the game.
The black raven wrote:
Like I said, in the topic I'm talking about, the poster essentially defined compromise as "The GM gives the player absolutely everything they want, with no conditions".
If that's the definition of compromise we're using, then yeah, I don't think that "compromise" is always the best solution.
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Man, you haven't even seen the half of it. I remember a thread several months ago where a poster gave examples of the GM and the player reaching a compromise...only the examples that he gave were all of the player getting exactly what he wanted, and the GM not getting any element of what he wanted.
Which seems to be what the majority of posters in these threads think is the ideal resolution for the situation of a disagreement between a player and the GM.
What I don't understand is why a single player's fun is given so much more of an imperative than the GM's fun by so many posters on these forums. Is the GM simply a non-entity who gives up the right to have any fun of their own when they take up the role of the gamemaster? Is there ever, in your mind, a situation where the GM actually gets to tell a player "no"?
Why bother having a GM if the players control every aspect of the world and adventure creation? Is it that inconvenient for the player to roll the dice for the monsters/NPCs?
Is it really creativity to pull a clearly defined ability (well, sometimes...if you FAQ it repeatedly over a couple of years and dozens of threads pop us asking why the ability is so poorly defined) out of the books and say "I do this".
Also, rigidly defined rules can do more to limit a character than allow him to think creatively. In pathfinder, lots of the cool stuff you can do is locked behind feats, often with other feats as prerequisites. Something you could do just by trying it in older, more rules-light version is likely to get you a "No, you can't do that, you don't have the feat. But you can try it again in 8 levels, after you take the prerequisites and then the feat".
I've never understood that particular complaint. Roleplaying isn't a function of the system. If can't roleplay in a 4E game, it's not 4E's fault...it's obvious that you are looking for a reason to dislike the system, and have decided the ridiculously nebulous "I can't roleplay under this system" is your excuse for disliking it.
Also, a Paizo 4E clone is not gonna happen. The reason that Pathfinder exists is that Paizo didn't really like 4E.
So basically, you don't want to see how easily an antimagic field strategy will get a level 20 Fighter killed by a Wizard 5 levels lower. Fair enough. I can respect people who know when to bow out of a discussion.
Why is it that all "WIZURDZ IZ SUPERIOR!!!!" discussions seem to begin with the wizard just happening to have ALREADY cast JUST the right spells, have EXACTLY the right equipment, the encounter takes place in an environment that's EXACTLY suited to favor the wizard, etc?
Steve Geddes wrote:
I hope someday to play SOMETHING (I don't really care what) with this man.
Wizards still need to refer to the recipe book EVERY TIME.
Kinda makes their vaunted intelligence look a bit suspect.
Especially when the INT 7 Sorcerer can managed to remember how to do that stuff, yet the wizurd can't.
Why is that a bad idea, but walking into the magic mart in a town of 12 (including one old dog) and finding everything short of artifacts is expected?
No, really, why is a wish list a bad idea?
What if I invite you over for dinner? Is pizza implied? No.Personally, if RPGs were as rote and by-the-numbers as you seem to be suggesting they should be, I wouldn't be a fan of the hobby.
Damian Magecraft wrote:
I would have to say if a build cannot be viable with out item x... then its not a very good build.
I agree, which is why i find so many of the "optimized" builds posted on these forums so laughable...take away 2 or 3 of thief toys, and they turn to absolute useless rubbish.
The two or three times I have posted builds, they have been "naked" builds...no magical equipment whatsoever, and only the builds most necessary equipment in mundane versions.
Another thing I find amusing is the "must-have" items that I've never seen in actual play.
Me, I'm kinda old school. A magic store in one of my games will have a bags of holding, haversacks, bunch of cure x wounds potions (possibly even a potion of Heal), maybe one or two low enhancement bonus weapons, and occasionally an old dude that might offer to attempt to create something specialized for you if you pay him enough gold AND you quest for the dozen or so exotic materials that he needs to make it (or just wants for his own reasons). Dude might be a con man or he might be legit. Its a lot safer to just tell me what you want, and it might appear as loot within a few sessions. Maybe. Probably at least something close to it, at least.
I said it earlier in the thread, but I think it bears repeating:
Magic is wonderfully useful. Its great, no adventuring party should be without it.
Always depending on magic only, to the exclusion of everything else, is grotesquely stupid and staggeringly suicidal.
Using a limited resource to do exactly the same thing that could be done without it is also exceedingly stupid and wasteful.
I like them as popcorn fare as well. I do wish they would tone down the actions scenes and the fast cuts enough to see what is happening. The trailer is already guilty of it. The scenes cut so fast it is hard to see what is happening.
That unfortunately seems to be the standard in action film making these days. Cuts every half-second and zoomed in too close to actually be able to tell WTF is going on.
To the point where I've stopped being disappointed in it, really. Instead, I'm just impressed when a film actually manages to do an action scene well, and I'm able to tell TWF is going on.
Ain't that sad? I'm impressed the mere competence these days.