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

Laurefindel's page

3,088 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 3,088 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

My user name comes from a elven fighter LARP character, so I chose an avatar that resemble me the most. My ears where shorter and my hair blonder, but it was otherwise close enough.

My RL hair is now much shorter and my beard much longer, but that's who Laurefindel will always look like.

Irranshalee wrote:

How would this change affect the classes up to level 11?

How would this change affect monsters up to CR 13?


Given your parametres and intention to streamline gameplay, I believe your houserule would work just fine.

Like Mauril said, it does make x3 ad x4 weapons less inviting since it's max damage for all, regardless of their critical multiplier (you could increase base damage of x3 and x4 weapons to mitigate that, or give them a flat damage bonus on critical hits).

Overall, damage will be lower altogether since STR bonuses won't be multiplied. This will particularly affect power attack and diminish the efficiency of power attacking creature so in the end, it will make combat longer since critical hits won't be as decisive table-turners at high-ish levels. The few max-damage critical that would not have been confirmed in a normal game won't quite make up for it, but it should compensate a bit especially a lower levels.

It will also make mobs of weak monsters a bit more threatening (20 being both an auto-hit and auto-critical can make goblins a bit more dangerous against heavily armoured characters).

Well, these are all a holdover from D&D 3.0 IIRC, or at the very least 3.5, so I don't think Pathfinder's designers are that demented. Well they may be, but not on account of this rule ;)

The values are off IMO, and doesn't account for acclimatisation, but I believe environmental damage should exist.

In the dead of winter, when I'm acclimatised to the cold, I can take a flat -30 when dressed properly for quite a long while, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't survive a night out, undressed at -10 with wind factor bringing it down to -30 if I fly to the antarctic in what would be the middle of my summer.

The rule is there to say "you can't waltz through a blizzard unprotected, or in a desert, or in the heart of a volcano, without some kind of risk*". Adjust the values to what makes sense to you.

*but since Endure Elements is a 0-level spell, hot and cold temperatures are such a ridiculously easy hazard to overcome that you might as well remove it from the game...

Kirth Gersen wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Low magic does not necessarily mean low level or low power, however.
By 6th level, you can replicate most if not all of what Lancelot and John McClane can do. The only mythological sources E6 won't approach are things like the exploits of the Norse gods, or a few particulars of the Irish Táin Bo Cuailnge.

There is a certain satisfaction of playing mid-levels (let's say 7th thru 12th) that allows you to fight small armies of minions, surviving dangerous traps and avalanches, or being thrown out of the window after a good fight and still have the oooph to keep going. The problem is that at those levels, magic is starting to steal the show.

E6 does a good job of keeping magic under control, but it also does a good job of keeping what I call the "Hollywood cinematic action style" relatively tame. E6 does it great, but it doesn't solve every issue.

Level 7th to 12th are great, in many ways they are my favourite; it allows you to fight longer, fight creatures and overcome challenge of too large a scale for levels 1-6. Mechanically speaking, bonuses start to be meaningful, abilities are making a big difference between one class and another. The engine seems to run at optimal RPM. But by RaW, levels 7-12 is where magic starts to become problematic. Casters have enough spell slots to be carefree (let's say generous) with their spellcasting, characters really start to collect the big 6 and spells start having serious world-altering consequences. Magic becomes indispensable, not merely useful, and I wouldn't mind turning it down a notch or two, of figure out a way to play with magic on a dial of "1".

After all these years, I can't believe a 3PP hasn't come with a "how to run low-magic in your campaign" book that didn't become "forget about this game, play that one instead".

TL;DR: Levels 1-6 is "realistic" D&D, levels 7-12 is "blockbuster action movie" D&D, but it's also where magic become too much IMO. E6 solves many issues with remarkable simplicity, but low-magic 7-12 would be just awesome.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) The gods actually can't/aren't allowed to due to rules that are above them.

2) The gods ARE meddling and interfering; that's why there are clerics. For whatever reason, that's the best and most efficient way they found to influence the world.

3) The gods are less powerful that they'd like us to believe, and can't split their focus that much. Manifesting would mean thousands of clerics without power and that's would be really bad rep for business...

4) There are no such things as gods; only powerful individual (clerics), the believes and constructs of societies (religions) and a few benevolent/malevolent spirits than answer to divination spells. TIt's just a big mascarade and everyone powerful enough to know that agrees that it's better that way.

Aelryinth wrote:

Hit points are 'warrior's magic'.

You expend hit points to avoid debilitating injury.


Yeah, that's how I like to look at hp myself.

In my case, it doesn't have to be magical, but hit points are definitely spent rather than lost. Hit point is what you spend in exchange of not being severely wounded (and therefore you don't suffer penalties regardless you have 100 hp left or 1 hp left).

For me, hit points are like playing an old school arcade game driving a car and dodging incoming traffic. There's a part of skill, there's a part of luck, there's a part having a solid car, there's a part of knowing how much coins you still have in your pocket and there's a part of knowing that you're having a good stretch so far but your luck won't hold forever.

The good part about d20/D&D/Pathfinder is that hit points can be visualized/interpreted the way you want because the fluff is just darn abstract.

The bad part about d20/D&D/Pathfinder is that hit points are fluffed back into injuries because healing is just darn specific.

I'm not sure if I liked 4E way of regaining hit points by being yelled at, or losing them be splitting your focus on your enemies, but they at least fully embraced the abstract nature of hit points and I wish Pathfinder was going a step further than 3.5 in that regard.


Witch's Knight wrote:
Would you be willing to give up the sacred cow of scaling Hit Points with your level if you had working dodge/parry mechanics to mitigate damage with instead?

No I wouldn't, because (as it was said above) damage scales too much with levels (or CR).

After a few levels, missing an active defense save or receiving a critical hit (or whatever gets to you immutable pool of health points) would immediately spell death, which becomes a bit to much binary for me.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:

from a purely campaign setting perspective, I think that in a world where arcane/divine magics are perfectly opaque with each other and with all spell-like abilities and most (all?) supernatural abilities across all known planes of existence, psionics ought to be opaque as well.

Under the default ruleset, arcane and divine could not be more transparent to each other if they tried. Protection, detection, and dispel mechanics work equally well from both sides. What do you see that's opaque? Differing spell lists alone do not define opacity.


The biggest divide between arcane and divine I can think of is prestige classes which advance arcane casting but not divine and vice versa. That also applies to psionics even under the default transparency (prestige classes which advance manifesting don't advance casting, and vice versa).
In fact, even under the default magic-psionic transparency, psionics is still more opaque with magic than arcane and divine magic are with each other, since psionic powers count as spell-like abilities. An arcane caster can counterspell a divine caster, but not a manifester.

yes, I meant transparent, my mistake, which is why I said psionics ought to be transparent as well.

LazarX wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:

from a purely campaign setting perspective, I think that in a world where arcane/divine magics are perfectly opaque with each other and with all spell-like abilities and most (all?) supernatural abilities across all known planes of existence, psionics ought to be opaque as well.

Under the default ruleset, arcane and divine could not be more transparent to each other if they tried. Protection, detection, and dispel mechanics work equally well from both sides. What do you see that's opaque? Differing spell lists alone do not define opacity.

Sorry, got confused with wording. Let me correct it:

From a purely campaign setting perspective, I think that in a world where arcane/divine magics are perfectly transparent with each other and with all spell-like abilities and most (all?) supernatural abilities across all known planes of existence, psionics ought to be transparent as well.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:
The "serious blow into a less serious one" relates to the massive damage rule. If you have 101 or less total HP, massive damage applies if you take 50+ damage in a single attack; if you take 50+ damage from any single attack, you must pass a fort save-or-die.

Like thejeff, I too believe that it relates to the fact that a hit dealing 20 hit points is a killing blow for a low level character, but only a good scratch for a high level adventurer. The fact that it has more hit points doesn't mean its skull got thicker or that its body contains a higher volume of blood, but that he has learn to turn a lethal blow in a less serious one (i.e. more hit points)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

from a purely campaign setting perspective, I think that in a world where arcane/divine magics are perfectly opaque with each other and with all spell-like abilities and most (all?) supernatural abilities across all known planes of existence, psionics ought to be opaque as well.

I think that if the game was less reliant on constant use of magic; it would work. Otherwise, a setting's believability relies so much on its inhabitant's ability to shield themselves from magic, protect their home with magic and dispel magic with magic that the prospect of having powerful psions wrecking havoc in the antimagic zones and whatnot frightens me. I guess i could make an interesting settings where psions double-up the mages and priests for protection against rogue psions, or where psions "traps" are set here and there create a climate of paranoia from the population etc. It would have to be a central theme to the game, but the ramifications of such a setting are daunting...

Playing low magic in d20/3E/Pathfinder is going to be a different game; same basic system, but a different game nonetheless. I requires adjustment on the player and GM's sides.

Playstyle needs to be adjusted.

Players' expectations need to be adjusted.

Tactics and strategies will need to be adjusted.

Monsters (and their CR) will need to be adjusted.

The same way playstyle, expectations, strategies and challenges need to be adjusted when going from D&D to Warhammer fantasy, or whatever. Only, the rules are more familiar.

If one comes to a low-magic game expecting things to run as RaW, he/she will have a bad experience. As joe said, some potential problems end up being a non-issue with the proper style of play, or forces another dynamic turning the problem into an interesting dynamics.

Healing in one example; it will take a few days to go from niet to full. That changes the pace of adventures, 'cause that's the pace to be expected in a low-magic game (houserules non withstanding). That would likely be the same with other low-magic RPGs.

It means that this monster with DR 15 is now crazy powerful. That's OK, just treat it as a powerful monsters. Pathfinder is full of powerful monsters, and a GM who wants to over CR its encounters will do so regardless of low-magic/high-magic.

boring7 wrote:
Thinking further on the topic, Low magic settings also usually just don't make sense. If magic is real and magic works (...)

why are you making this assumption?

And even if it does, perhaps not everyone can become a caster. Kind of a Star Wars/jedi relation

Even D&D had had a descent low magic-setting (Birthright)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arthun wrote:
I am curious - what are the reasons a player has for wanting to play a low magic campaign?

there can be a few

1) Player is tired of the impression of magic-wins-all.
2) Player is tired of blinging-up like a magical Christmas-tree just to keep-up.
3) Player wants to play in a setting akin to (insert low-magic fantasy movie or book).
4) Player wants to have a feel that magic is rare and mystical.
5) Player likes d20/3e/Pathfinder but doesn't like that 50% of the game is about casting spells/receiving spells/saving against spells.

d20/3e/Pathfinder is magic-heavy. In order to function as intended, magic occupies a huge amount of the game. Magic isn't just a useful tool; not having magic is a huge handicap.

Please see this comment as an observation rather than a negative criticism. For most players, magic-heavy is fun. For others, the default level of reliance on magic is just too much. Yet d20 is very strong and flexible RPG engine, and one that most players know, so people want to "fix" it to fit their preferred style of play.

Rachel Carter wrote:
Thanks for all the suggestions. I'll have to double check with my players if it is really something they are interested in... One played a system where something like this was part of it as mentioned above (L5R I think) and they brought up the suggestion. Thanks for the feed back everyone.

I think that if you and your group are interested in this mechanics, you should try it. People on this board are pretty vocal against damage penalties, but there's nothing like first-hand experience to make-up your mind. What people mean by "not fun" generally means "not fun for them".

There are a few reasons as to why damage penalties in D&D/Pathfinder often don't work as intended however.

1) Unlike L5R and 7th Sea, d20 doesn't offer much strategies to fall back to when you start to run low on hit points other than "hitting harder and hope the baddies will drop before you do". At best you can do nothing and put yourself in full-defense, but offense almost always trumps defense in this system, and there are few alternate supporting actions.

2) Damage penalties rarely affect spellcasting, thus making casters yet-again superior to melee characters who are more likely to end-up with those penalties in the first place.

3) Yet another thing to track/remember. Pathfinder is rule heavy; it doesn't take must more to make it unbearable. You can somewhat circumvent this problem by applying existing conditions, such as 50% hp = fatigued and 10% = exhausted for example.

4) The nature of hit points make it more abstract to start with. One could argue that even at 1 hp, his/her character isn't wounded but rather worn down, or strained, or just running out of luck. The 50% hp = seriously wounded isn't that clear to start with, so the "realism" argument in favour of damage penalties is hard to defend.

In the end, damage penalties is a fun concept when it prompts players to change/adapt their strategies, or else forces them to accept defeat and consider flight as a valid option. Saying that d20 is not meant for neither would be wrong, but they aren't what the system focuses on.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
The Shining Fool wrote:
I have way too often seen straight dudes playing female lesbian characters who spend the entire game trying to have sex with every female they come across.

Would it be better if we just played straight male characters who spend the entire game trying to have sex with every female we come across?

If "no", then cross-gendering isn't the problem, it's the player's sexuality level.

There are two issues at hand here:

1) player plays with themes not accepted around the table (sexuality, regardless of gender or sexual orientation)
2) player makes a ungrateful parody of cultural group (in this case gay/lesbian community)

The player's sexuality level is not the only problem; there's also a matter of respect for groups/genders/cultures that are different (although I agree that both are form of lack of respect).

A jerk will be a jerk, but it's worse when its animosity is targeted toward what's different than toward what the jerk really is. Blatant disrespect aside, I can tolerate better those who make a parody of themselves.

Aranna wrote:

Comedic goblins? The Golarion writers play too much Magic the Gathering.

...or played Warhammer 40K. Or read the hobbit. there are quite a few sources of comedic/maniacal/sadistic goblins...

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:


While, yes, point buy is there to mitigate injustice and make PCs relatively similar in ability, it gives them a sort of uniformity which is beginning to annoy me.

I am seriously considering of going back to the old system of roll 4d6, drop the lowest, 6 times than distribute as desired. Re-rolling all of them if the combined bonus of all the stats is +3 or less.

Any thoughts?

my prefered method is every player (even the DM) rolls 4d6, drop lowest. reroll stats under 7, write all arrays on a sheet of paper.

every player is then free to use any of the stats array rolled around the table and asign the stats in order they like. given a typical table of 4 players (+1 DM), there's usually one excellent array, one more spreaded out array for MAD classes, one array with one good stat and one terrible one etc. NPCs created by the DM uses these arays for that campaign too.

this way, players get the thrill or rolling, that player than can't roll a character to save his life still get a decent array, fairness among players is preserved and limited degrees of choice and control is allowed.


Laurefindel wrote:
but again, since binding an angle is technically a GOOD spell, your depraved EEEEEvil aligned caster can't summon it.

stress on aligned caster

... but how many aligned arcane casters are there actually?

If there aren't any and they're the only one to get planar binding, is its really an issue?

Odraude wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Because I'd rather an evil spellcaster prefer to call a demon to do his bidding, rather than bind an angel and force it to commit atrocities for s*~#s and giggles.
I'm actually more of the opposite on this one. I've played in a campaign where an evil lich bound and forced an angel to do terrible things. The resulting fight had us free the angel and after he helped us fight the lich, we went on a quest to redeem the angel back to his celestial glory. So I think that we shouldn't limit evil creatures to evil people, since it would close off cool storylines like the one I played through.

but again, since binding an angle is technically a GOOD spell, your depraved EEEEEvil aligned caster can't summon it.

@ Ross

scroll isn't an elegant option because the aligned caster actually knows the spell but can't use it for this purpose; got it.

Isn't this more an issue with aligned spells than planar binding however? Evil cleric can't ward itself from demons or undead, sounds a bit off "fantasy logic"

Ross Byers wrote:
This also means that the exact details of each calling/binding spell can vary based on the type of outsider. Making a deal with an Inevitable is going to be different than trying to bargain with a Protean.

Yes, the bargaining will be quite different, but the method to call it, trap it and bind it until it is coerced to help doesn't have to be different. Unless the flavour of the spell is changed to a deal/no deal type of summoning, but then it may be simpler to add planar ally to the wizard/sorcerer's list, or create some kind of lesser gate spell since it already has that "do you accept this in exchange for" without the somewhat messy "otherwise you'll be trapped forever" mechanics.

As for the infernal sorcerer, why can't he/she purchase a scroll of protection from evil for that one time? The prospect of planar binding being cast frequently enough for this to become an issue is a bit frightening. While we're at it, why should abjurations of the sort be aligned spells? It only leads to settings were evil can't fight evil properly and perhaps more importantly, good has no weapon against good.

I'd rather see planar binding like wish; a single, high-ish level spell with a list of things it can do and of things it won't (or could at a cost), rather than a dozen of scattered spells (which annoy me more as a spell tax than having to know the requisite spells to conduct the ritual).

[edit]however, splitting planar binding in [subtype] binding I, II, II as standalone spells would be more coherent with the methods used by Pathfinder in the past, even if it pleases me less.

Ross Byers wrote:
As written, planar binding has issues.
  • The reliance on magic circle (and dimensional anchor) creates a Spell Known tax on spontaneous casters, and creates problems for aligned casters.
  • It treats all outsiders the same, regardless of alignment or ethos: There is only a minimal difference between binding a demon and an angel.
  • (skip)
  • (skip)
  • (skip)

Still according the the fantasy trope, binding powerful entities is not a quick affair and is usually the culmination of many preparations. D&D represented that with the requirement of casting magic circle (and dimensional anchor) with a spellcraft check to top it off.

Personally I'm not a fan of spells that do all kinds of things simultaneously. I find it not only acceptable that planar binding relies on two other spells (and potentially assistants casting suggestion as a third spell), I find it immersing. If it were up to me, it wouldn't be a spell, but rather the result of several spells/steps as follow

A spell (or series of spells) that makes a magical prison.
An other spell (or series of spells) that somehow locates and brings the entity to the prison.
A final spell (or series of spells) that completes the binding.

Planar binding shouldn't be a spell to be cast in a hurry, or often, or lightly. If planar binding is going to give you something more than summons/controls of comparable levels, than it should also be more complicated to cast. Scrolls should be able to fix the spell tax issue, and aligned casters typically have planar ally to rely on, and perhaps it's a good thing that aligned casters cannot easily imprison the planar forces of their enemies.

Ross Byers wrote:

As written, planar binding has issues.

  • (skip)
  • (skip)
  • (skip)
  • (skip)
  • It has jagged cuttoffs determined by spell level, not caster level, making evaluating bound outsiders an exercise in system mastery and corner-cases.
  • And the big one, it is a poorly-bounded spell (HD is a poor indicator of potency) that gets bigger with every Bestiary, and as a result exhibits loopholes, like making wish into a 6th level spell if you're not in a hurry.

Conceptually, planar binding attempts to recreate a staple of fantasy culture/literature, that is, controlling otherwise uncontrollable entities or forcing them to act in accordance to your will. Typically (still according to this fantasy trope), binding dangerous entities involve certain part of risk that the bound creature might break free, exert revenge or otherwise ruin your plans.

Except that in Pathfinder/D&D, there are plenty of ways to control powerful entities (via spells that gate, summon , dominate, command and the like) or if you can't control them, you can often manage to become one yourself.

Therefore the only niche that's left to planar binding is basically the ability to perform all kind of shenanigans that other spells prevent. IMO, the raison d'être of planar binding is always going to be able to perform things that a spellcaster can't do with other spells. Perhaps it would help to define those things and codify them, like what has been done for the wish spell.

Adjule wrote:
Ability scores won't be anywhere near previous, except maybe pre-3rd edition levels. They cap at 20, and point buy caps at 15 and 8. It won't be like in Pathfinder, where if you don't have a 20 at level 1 in your primary stat, then you are doing it wrong.

They cap at 15 at 1st level without racial adjustment, which are more generous than ever, but you're right about them being lower than in PF, but they'll be significantly higher than in 1st or 2nd AD&D. Perhaps that's a good balance point.

[edit] Actually, I expect ability scores to be comparable to 3.X/PF, only, they'll be more evenly distributed across the board and less heavily invested in one single stat.

[edit 2] ...unless players use feats, which I expect they will, in which case stat boosts will be more rare.

thejeff wrote:
It may not actually be true that they go up faster in practice, since I think they're won't be such easy access to stat booster items. Meaning base numbers go up faster, but effective numbers might not.

I hope there won't be easy access to stat booster items or if there are, that they only allow stat to be increased above 20. The answer may be in the open document; I haven't read it that thoroughly.

I've been working on my own system for the last two years (well longer than that, but the most recent iteration dates from late 2011, give or take). After reading the basic rules (never took part of the playtest), I realize I made similar decisions and took a very similar route about many aspects of the game.

I think bound accuracy is for me the main selling point, but I wonder if it will bother me that for two character with the same ability score, difference between being "untrained" and "very good at" is only two or three points on a d20 for the first tier of play, without much granularity in levels of expertise (feat change that perhaps?)

Bound accuracy also mean that attacks, skills and saves progress at the same pace, allowing the option of swapping one for another. Not sure if that's in the game, but the prospect is interesting.

Also, while proficiency bonuses progress slowly, ability scores increase a lot faster than in any other previous iteration of the game so in the end, bonuses will still escalate quite fast. Since feats use the ability score boost option, it may not be an issue.

Looking at classes, I'm still daunted by all the options and abilities. It still gives that "oh my, I need to know ALL of that" feeling that makes it daunting at first sight, and kill the simple and straightforward play that was somewhat promised.

Overall, it looks good and promising. I won't buy it until I get to see the whole PH and DMG, but it looks like a product of excellent quality.

Ciaran Barnes wrote:
The tide moves at the speed of the plot, but can just as easily he rolled for randomly.

Once you're in the game, you can randomly roll to figure out when players arrive in relation to the tides, but when designing the game world and setting, these things can be relevant (or may not, depends what you intend to do with the info)

To the OPer: if there are some intentions with the lunar calendar that are not explained in the OP, it might be easier to state what you want (or what your game needs) and work from there, rather than the other way around.

As Ciaran said above, tell us to what speed your plot needs to run, and we'll figure out that of the moons, tides and lunar calendar.

I haven't played much Reve de Dragon, but I don't recall any combat for my character.

Ars Magica, any of the World of Darkness series (except of Werewolf perhaps) and 7th Sea all have great potential for combat-lite games without feeling like 2/3 of the game's engine is lost.

Zhayne wrote:
Costless material components/the spell component pouch are also irritating to me, mostly from a visual standpoint. Playing around with bat crap or butter or toy telephones is just ... BLEAH.

I like the idea that you need to give something for magic to work with; either as a prop, a catalyst or the fact that some things magic cannot create (as opposed to recreate or multiply). But I agree that present material components feel like a bad joke or simply a price tag on a spell (as opposed to a rare but appropriate substance). I'd take more of this alchemical element of magic, or less, but I'm unhappy with this in-between.

Since we're speaking about semantics...

Dexterity (a term about "how well you do with you fingers") is used to describe one's agility with the whole body, as well as coordination.

Constitution (a term about how big, healthy and strong you are) has no baring on one's strength, stride or weight.

Intelligence in game term is about being "knowledgeable". While it is not technically wrong, this provokes conflicts about how one should roleplay its character (especially vis a vis how one should use reason), and fail to acknowledge other type of intelligence (street smarts vs book smarts effect).

Wisdom has similar issues, whereas "being wise", both in modern and archaic sense has little to do with what the stat actually does in game.

Charisma (a measure of how likable and how ready other are willing to follow you) is also used to represent how strikingly hideous creatures can be.

Strength is about the only attribute which the game use coherently with its description.

At least PF changed the name of "stat" from abilities to attributes. In a game full of "abilities", the name was rather clumsy.

Neronoxx wrote:
So i am going to be running a homebrew campaign where magic is basically non-existent. The PC's may only take levels in non-caster classes (sans gunslinger) and are each going to have a random spell-like ability, and this is the only form of magic in my campaign. Does anyone have any experience or advise for running such a campaign?

Some experience here.

From what I've seen, the system works quite well with one exception: monsters are designed with the assumption that magic is available. CR is a good scale for parties for which magic is available.

As long as you take that into consideration; the game works perfectly fine.

About railroad vs improvisation:

I must admit I improvise a lot. My campaign always have specific goals, but the way players take to get there is left open more often than not. Basically, I plan half of what the game might be, and improvise the rest. I don't mind being thrown a curved ball once in a while; it's actually part of the fun (as long as it isn't done out of spite).

Railroad games allow you to accomplish more in less time however. I once GMed a game that wasn't our "primary campaign". Number of players was high, not all would be able to come at all games and intervals were irregular. I wanted more of an episodic type of game, were the sub-plot would be completed at the end of that session. For that I brought the concept of "railroad cards".

Each players was given one (or more) card with a goal to accomplish this game, with a reward in XPs. Often it would be something like "hire this character" or "go to that town", but it allowed me to meta-railroad my game without the players feeling like they're riding the coaster. Some of the ways the players would come up to accomplish their goal were quite funny, some quite clever.

I never brought back the concept, but I've been wanting to expand on it ever since.

Cerberus Seven wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
That's what the "broken" condition was supposed to fix, isn't it?
this post is funny

Why? I think it's pretty cool you can sunder someone's weapon and leave it with only 1 HP. Penalize their attacks and still get the treasure.

With the right feats, you even hurt them at the same time!

I think he was referring to the irony of a status effect called 'broken' actually being a fix for something.

yes, ironic funny, not sarcastic funny.

I actually like the broken condition. But I appreciate the humour behind "broken" fixing a broken rule.

Made me smile :)

Kirth Gersen wrote:
That's what the "broken" condition was supposed to fix, isn't it?

this post is funny

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:
Maybe I am old and cynical, but it seemed like we used to play a greater variety of games....

...until 3rd edition and the OGL, which was very successful as a universal system, to the point of almost obliterating everything else.

The last few years saw kind of a game system revival however, and good quality stuff too. I have hopes that people will start diversifying a bit more again.

[edit] however, people had more time to dedicate to games before. I don't care what people say, web 2.0 and wide, reliable mobile connections changed a lot in how/what people do with their free time.

[post-edit] Correction, people have just as much time for games, but entertainment being immediately available, less time is given to social games. AS everything must be optimised these days, specialisation is often preferable to generalisation.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Daenar wrote:
Really, isn't a male witch called a Warlock? Does that not apply in pathfinder?

Sorcerer, hedge wizard, enchanter, warlock... all these are acceptable terms for a male witch. But in Pathfinder, all of these terms actually refer to a class except for warlock, which is why many have adopted "warlock" as the male appellation for witch. But since the name of a class is simply a packaging label for a set of abilities, the only name we need for the witch is "witch" IMO.

Daenar wrote:
Does anyone else find it odd to refer to a character as a gender specific class title?

Your character is not bound to call himself after his/her class. I played barbarians that weren't barbarians and monks that weren't monks but used the classes as building frames for characters concept.

I don't see any issue with your character calling himself a warlock, even if it says "witch" (or druid, or wizard, or sorcerer) under the class entry on the character sheet.

Otherwise I don't find it odd as "witch" perfectly describes the archetype represented by the class.

Forever Slayer wrote:
We all know the rule about class skills gaining a +3 which is supposed to represent some sort of training, but wouldn't you think that after gaining 10 ranks in a non-class skill, you would gain that +3?

The +3 bonus is supposed to represent a "head start" from the training the character had before level 1. It's a simplification of having a bigger pool of skill points at level 1, as it used to be in 3rd edition.

In principle, there shouldn't be any reasons for a character not to be able to "catch-up" at a later point in life by investing time and energy training in that skill.

Thing is, you automatically catch-up with all your class skills as soon as you invest 1 rank; it's the cross-class skills that you'll always fall behind. But that's pretty much the definition of what a cross-class skill is; a skill you'll never be just as good.

In game mechanics, putting extra effort and training to catch-up to a class skill is represented by a feat or trait that transforms a cross-class skill into a class skill (as said BigNorseWolf). Without re-questioning the pertinence of cross-class and class skills as a concept, IMO, I don't think the game is flawed in that regard and need adjustment.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:

Is this thread back?

Okay, one of the rules I find Absurd is actually a lack of a rule--people who cast Raise Thread don't get warnings/infractions/bannings like they do on other forums.

as far as I'm concerned, it's a feature, not a bug.

I like the fact that discussions can be picked up, and history of threads is preserved.

I do think some kind of warning sign could enhance the forum experience and prevent accidentally replying to a comment written 15 months ago however.

Sissyl wrote:

I have seen precious few threads necroed that did not contain one or two comments about the necroing.

Also, I recognize most of the necroed threads from when they were active. is that bad?

eh, that or realizing that you posted in that thread years ago, even though your "dot" isn't showing.

Mark Hoover wrote:
Get in there. Teeth gritted, armor shredded, broken and bleeding, and FIGHT. Don't JUST be super; be HEROES.

+1 to that.

I like your whole post Mark, but this particularly.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Invented the Thief class.

That would indeed put you in the "old timer" category!

Larkos wrote:
I should have been more clear. I meant in this thread the one who are more comfortable tend to be GMs.

I would agree with that.

Larkos wrote:
Also, is it me or have most of the people who have absolutely no problem with playing characters that are not like them GMs?

I'm one of the few (only?) posters who stated being uncomfortable playing characters too far removed with cultures that I know. Yet I'm an accomplished DM, and a theatre actor (although I admit doing design and tech work exclusively over the last 10 years).

I don't see playing a PC the same as playing a NPC, or be given a role to play. There are things I allow myself to do when playing NPCs or that are allowed for me when assigned a role, but that I won't allow myself if I have the full freedom and responsibility of playing a PC. Personal engagement isn't the same, at least not in my case.

Dragonchess Player wrote:
There are even GMs that populate their world with nothing but stereotypical NPCs. Or worse, make the campaign world their wish-fulfillment vehicle (usually with an NPC that serves as their avatar).

To be fair, this can be an artistic choice rather than a xenophobic one, if stereotypical =/= offensive. Some published settings feature pretty much anything but stereotypes. In some cases it works and even helps define the ambiance for the game.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

That or rings would not necessarily belong to their wearer, as employer's would find it profitable to purchase rings of sustenance for their employees.

Forget about RaW; this is for mad-scientist-level homebrewing stuff...

Having the higher grounds should...

a) give bonus to attack rolls
b) give bonus to AC
c) give bonus to both AC and attack rolls
d) give AoO
e) allow Obi-Wan to auto-win against Anakin, even if didn't help Darth Maul didly-squat when Anakin was still a kid (i.e. forget about higher grounds; it's situational and should remain inconsequential)

other suggestions are also welcome


LeRenard777 wrote:
I don’t know if I should change something or add other features, what do you all think?

A few posters have worked on something similar on these boards.

At a glimpse, your system looks fine but doesn't take into account the same tricky concepts touch attacks, nonlethal damage, damage taken from exertion, cold or hot temperature, poison etc, what happen on a critical hit, sunder attack, whether or not you have to rebuilt every monster stat block etc.

Evil Lincoln has a pretty thorough Strain/Injury rule here.

I have a similar but more "quick and dirty" version here

If you don't mind having two distinct pool of health points (a la vigor/wounds), there are several more to get inspiration from.

So, Boba Fett and Red 5 confirmed spin-offs now?

[edit] oooh, and a solo Solo movie too?

played a few crossgender characters, and only once or twice a human-analogue culture removed from mine. With years, I got more self-conscious about it, fearing that I would fall into ignorant and insulting stereotype without knowing, so I stopped.

When I play human, I play something I can easily relate to. I don't think it is mysogenistic to admit that I can't relate perfectly to a woman's psyche, or racist to pretend that I don't have the baggage to truly understand what it means to be black american, but it feels "wrong" for me to assume their shape, colour, cultural archetypes for cosmetic reasons only.

I don't even have a problem when other people are doing it (assuming they are honest and respectful), I'm just not confortable myself doing it.

So when I want to play "not white catholic french canadian" I play an elf, or a dwarf or whatever. Its not like we have a lack of choices to choose from...

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I kind of like the 240 copper to 20 silver to 1 gold rate. I find it "exotically immersing". Kind of like the "league" and the "yard", or the "mile" and the "foot" (no offense to my American friends, but money is pretty much the only metric system you've adopted. Imperial weight, volume and distance measures are just as arcane as the old imperial pound money system).

I do find it a bit sad that copper and silver exist in the game universe with so few actual use in game play. Adopting the 12 copper to 1 silver, 20 silver to 1 gold could - assuming that market prices are adjusted appropriately - increase the value of silver.

On the other, other hand, the relatively low value of gold allows for treasures with astonishingly large quantities of gold pieces, which is more satisfying than "this little pouch of gold coins is worth more than all your magic items combined!"

1 to 50 of 3,088 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.