|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Will the fanfare play now that Disney owns the franchise?
It will be refreshed each session, and then fluctuate throughout that session.
Basically you're giving lucky for free (well, not quite since you can't make an opponent reroll with inspiration).
It might be a bit much once the proficiency bonus gets to 4+ if it replenishes in whole every session. I would suggest either a slower refresh or a lower threshold.
Alternatively, you could allow players to accumulate inspiration up to their prof. bonus if you're handing out inspiration generously.
Could you give an example of knack?
(...) How do you feel about class balance, and balance between magic-using and non-magic-using characters?
I agree that the class balance is quite good, although they do not all progress equally.
I've played through all the tiers and each of our characters could participate relatively equally for one 5-6 round combat. It's in subsequent combats that differences started to really show. I wouldn't really consider that a flaw however.
Druid is indeed extremely durable thank to how wild shape works, but its "fire power" is in line with other characters.
Wizard is still the most versatile character at high level. I haven't seen the sorcerer in action much, but they are the best nova blasters thanks to metamagic, which only they have access to.
Cleric has awesome defensive magic, almost frustratingly so for the DM. Bard really depends on how it is built. IMO that's the class that requires the most system mastery to play. Warlock doesn't do much but what it does, it does extremely well and often.
Fighter/rogue/barbarian can hold their own about equally and multiclass well. Fighter does really well in short combat but quickly runs out of steam; barbarian shines in longer/overwhelming combats where its resistance to damage really shows. Rogue needs to care about it's hp to survive, but it has the abilities to do so. This one takes a crafty player to draw the most out of the class.
Paladin is arguably one of the most powerful "martial" in 5e. Ranger is hard to play as effectively; you need to consider its out-of-combat potential to take full advantage of the class.
I like it, it encourages players to visualize and think about their environment.
I think they should be used sparingly however, things can either 1) get out of control or 2) become repetitive and bland over time. Players shouldn't have more than one in bank, otherwise the special thing isn't that special anymore.
This one is about rolling stats: Everyone rolls a "4d6 drop lowest" series, including the GM.
Then every player is allowed to pick one of the rolled series and assign it in the order they want. Multiple players can pick the same series. Villains and NPCs will be create using these stats as well.
This way everyone gets to roll, no one is stuck with crappy stats while the lucky guy sits on its awesome series.
The Great and Powerful Zorchev wrote:
A few games have injuries happen when you go out of hp, or when you receive a critical hit. I like to think that lost hp represent taxing parries and minor wounds, the real blow is the one that knocks you off (i.e. below 0 hp).
Instead of the standard rule for dying, you could have a chart (or deck of cards) with effects that are triggered by going under 0 hp, ranging from full "recovery" to "instant death", with a variety of reduced movement and blinded in one eye etc. in between.
IIRC, the Sundering was created when the Elves used High Magic to create the island of Evermeet. It created a cataclysm then with ripples going back and forth in time, causing the the end of the age of the creator races (past) and causing whatever is supposed to happen in 5e setting (future).
My guess is that the whole 4e Realms setting will have been a "possible future" should the quest for the Sundering (or whatever) be failed. Then pantheons are going to be retrofitted to what we knew before 4e, and demons are going to be outer-planar creatures from the Abyss again etc.
I actually love the Realms. I don't mind that there are high level NPCs. The setting embraces the fact that D&D is a game ranging from level 1 to 20 (or more since FR acknowledges epic levels).
I like that some NPCs can remain mentors, or nemesis (sometimes both!), even for high level characters. PCs are only as trivialized as much as the DM let them.Perhaps the Realms are more easily abused by ego-maniacal DMs however; I could see that happening.
 5e and its bounded accuracy helps in that regards; a single 20th level characters can no longer single-handedly wipe all the monsters of an area, and hiring low-level PCs and raising armies seem to have a purpose again.[/edit]
The game can be played on so many levels (no pun intended), there is more than enough room for heroes to coexists without stepping on each other toes.
What I don't care about is the canonization of novels and that is usually discarded in my games, or at the most, vaguely echoed. Regardless of the setting, be it Forgotten Realms, Star Wars or Middle Earth, it's hard to have players follow the footsteps of Luke Skywalker or Frodo Baggins without feeling like playing second violin. A good DM finds its action further away from the main flag characters.
While I can appreciate a DM who has sunk a lot of time and energy writing details and making sure the setting makes sense, I can also appreciate DMs who put their energy in other aspects of the games, finding props, building maquettes and models, drawing characters and locales, acting life-like NPCs, using their storytelling skills etc. to keep me immersed in their universe.
Writing connections and details is one way to keep your players immersed (and the one I usually go for myself). Even if the players don't seem to "care" it is something they notice, it allows them to get a good feel of the world and be part of a living, believable universe.
But other DMs have proven to me that it isn't the only way. Some have played the "rule of cool" well enough to make me forget about all the loose ends and far-fetched elements of a setting.
A more common way of phrasing it that you may have already heard is "It's magic, I don't have to explain it".
a bit too common IMO. I'm getting tired of "it's magic" (and of its little brother "because dragons!") as an overly simplistic handwave of perceived issues.
I'm ok when magic is the actual explanation, but it's too often used to handwave everything.
I'd rather hear "because that's how we want it to be in this setting"
Mark Hoover wrote:
How do you folks feel about a setting when you're a player?
I want the setting to captivate me, I want to be pleased with its aesthetics and feel that I can get easily immersed in this universe.
Blatant lack of cohesion, coherence or common sense can snap me out of immersion and ruin the setting for me, but I can take a certain amount of realistically disbelieving "facts" in exchange for cool and immersive "facts". Whatever the basic premises, it needs enough internal cohesion for me to be able to extrapolate on the setting.
I other words, not everything needs to be explained (or be explainable) but it needs to make enough sense to keep me immersed. It's a fine balance between the unnecessarily realistic and the too-much-gonzo, but I find that with age, I became more tolerant to lack of realism.
But it DOES need to make sense within its own particular set of aesthetics. Internal consistency, verisimilitude, that sort of thing. Those don't necessarily equal to 'reacts exactly the way the real world works' making sense, or verisimilitude is not the same as simulation.
I'm not sure if a world absolutely requires verisimilitude, but I agree that it should be at least internally consistent.
A setting needs to be something the players can relate to, in some way. "Realism", verisimilitude and "making sense" are things we can easily relate to because that's our reality, but they are not the only things that can hook players to a setting.
Star Wars is one of my favourite fantasy/sci-fi settings, but it rapidly falls apart when you try to make sense out of it. That's because its aesthetics compensates for its lack logical coherence with what we know of astronomy.
So a fantasy world does not need to make sense, but suspension of disbelieve only goes so far and the setting needs something else to keep players (and DMs) interested.
I don't know the setting you're talking about, but if you're like me, the only way you can forgive its lack of "realistic feel" is to find the things that really set it apart from other settings and focus on that.
I hope this makes sense (pun intended)
I would suggest to start with two, alternating from week to week, while keeping the third RPG on the back burner. There will be a time where a campaign reaches a conclusion, or the group decides that one game is not as thrilling/interesting/easy enough, then give the third option a try.
I'm in a similar situation and as I'm approaching 40 myself, I have only so much time/energy I can dedicate to RPG. We're currently playing two games and I like that dynamic, but I feel like a third game would dilute the immersion too much.
Also, are you planning on DMing both/all three games?
Minor HP rule (made to "humanise" high level characters and diminish reliance on magical healing)
Instead of representing connecting blows, Hit Points represent tiring parries, narrow escapes, minor injuries, favourable environment, dumb luck and other “close calls”.
It's always super bugged me that a high-level character can essentially just take a cannon ball to the face and walk away like nothing happened.
This used to bug me too, then I I began to see hit points as a resource for "not-dying", not as the amount of wounds a hero can take before dying.
The way I like to see it, nobody can take a cannon ball in the head and survive; that's impossible. One survives a cannon ball to the head by avoiding it in extremis, at the cost of great personal resources (call it skill or luck or cinematographic action or bad-ass-ness, whatever). Deadly goblins blade are easier to deflect than cannon balls to the head are to avoid, therefore one needs to be higher level to survive that last attack, and still, chances are that the hero cannot do it all day long.
I'm afraid that your houserule will result in a lot of "I attack you, I miss, you attack me, you miss" and a lot of one-shot death. D&D/Pathfinder was designed with more granularity on the live-death scale and much of the system rely on that (the way healing works for example)
I strongly recommend having a look at Evil Lincoln's Strain-Injury houserule. While the application is different, it addresses the same original concern about cannon balls to the head.
Whether a book is well or poorly written is not necessarily relevant for the making of a movie. The general plot is what the scenarist are after. If the story's good, then it has potential for a great movie.
I'm glad that they are doing something in a published setting and not some generic fantasy world. Now it can bare the name (or subtitle) of D&D.
The One Ring (Cubicle 7's Tolkien Middle Earth RPG) has an interesting take on magic items (and the handling of).
It differs from typical Fantasy RPG in that extraordinary items, including magical treasure, are purchased with XP rather that bought with gold or "owed" to the player based on its level, but it does have a "magical items are rare and cannot be bought" philosophy.
Basically, the Loremaster (game master) decides what type of magic/wondrous items the players will have, based on rarity. He/she is free to readjust the list anytime, but that's what the players are going to get regardless if their characters find them in a troll hoard, receive them as gift or heirloom from one of the Great or pry them from the grip of a barrow-wight. In a way the character was meant to have that item instead of another.
As much as I enjoy a bit of magical treasure randomness once in a while, I intend to use these guidelines in my next 5e game. I just need to find the right 'trigger' since getting one of these items is the equivalent of spending an ASI in TOR.
Darklord Morius wrote:
My campaign idea is a typical fantasy setting but with animals instead of humans, dwarves and elves...
Always wanted to play it, never found an occasion to...
I would suggest that for these purposes, game play considerations are far more important things to consider than historical accuracy.
But one can take clues from historical observation, usually to keep to the genre. Things like "peasant house didn't have a chimney but an open fire at the center of their house" or "high medieval castles didn't have a dedicated dining room" can help to set the right atmosphere. Research shouldn't be discouraged even if gameplay can sometimes take precedence.
Does anyone have a good source for the physical dimensions of various medieveal buildings?
It varied depending on period and whether the house was in town or in the countryside. Village houses were pretty small and rectangular, dirt floor, one level sometimes with beds in the loft (something like 12' x 20'). Out-buildings where used for shops, farms animals etc.
Farms in some region they where bigger and housed extended families, including the pigs, goats and other farm animals. With time they got quite big with many attached out-buildings.
Town houses of the low middle age were much bigger, three to five stories high with shape matching the existent streets. Most public buildings where long and narrow to allow more natural light. Town houses were narrow and not very deep, like 20' x 20'.
You should have a look at the Encyclopedie Medievale from Violet le Duc if you can find it (I believe it was translated in English). Also, renaissance buildings where very similar to those of the low middle age, at least for the private buildings, and it is easier to find source about that era.
Unfortunately, most sources will cite examples of public buildings, castles and cathedrals; its hard to find info about the common-folk housing.
25. Fairies lose their invisibility when they sneeze; that's why you pepper your belongings.
26. Daisies help to ward off possession. That's why maiden wear crown of daisies and why you wear one by your heart.
27. Always enter a dungeon and other haunted place backwards. This way spirits will think you left instead of entered
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
I'm not very familiar with IK. Can you give us a slightly more elaborate description of its magic system?
I’m very excited about the Swashbuckler. I hope it’s a fighter or rogue archetype. I honestly think Battle master is the only fun fighter archetype, so I hope it’s a fighter with some social skills.
Most likely its going to be a polished version of the Swashbuckler roguish archetype introduced in Unearthed Arcana (same instalment as the Strom sorcerer origin), so a rogue that can sneak attack in solo combat and with a goading/charm ability.
5th ed disconnects hit dice and levels for NPCs. Your typical knight NPC doesn't have all the abilities of a 9th-level fighter; it has one or two of its abilities at most, the ability to bare weapons and armors, and 9 levels worth of HPs (can't remember how many HD it has, this is a fictive number). Commoner is a "creature" in the Monstrous Manual, not a class. And if you're not happy with its 1HD, it would be really easy to create Baguette the baker's guild-master with 3HD...
I am actually designing my campaign for the PCs to retire by 10th-12th level. That is why 5e has caught my attention. It seems to me that PCs could conceivably raise to level 20 and not have as much of an impact as 20th level Pathfinder PCs. By going to level 20, the players will have more time to enjoy their characters (development of characters, especially the emotional/mental aspect of it growing with each new adventure is alluring to us).
5e extends the sweet spot a bit further. Character come into their own around 3rd level and remain "manageable" until they get their higher abilities around level 16th-17th. Bounded accuracy insures that DCs that are challenging to high level characters are not far off from the ones that challenge low-level PCs. Same goes for monsters, what can hurt a low level PC can usually hurt a high-level one only, the high level character has lots of HPs to go through easy encounters.
There is still a paradigm shift at higher levels, mainly due to high level spells, but it comes a few level further than PF in my experience (well, from that one 5e campaign I played level 10th to 20th).
I think most systems can support your style of play, to a certain extent, but it depends on settings. PF can support 1st level bakers and you could go with a black marker and scratch everything that pertains to 12th level or above (or 10th, or 8th, or 6th), and the game would run just fine. You just need to find (or invent) a setting that supports that.
It sounds to me like 5e might be very cookie cutter, something that would be good to introduce my children
5e is by no mean a childish game, that being said, it is easier to teach to kids (and adult too). The maths are simpler, with smaller number and less add this and that and subtract this etc. less trap options and optimization has a lesser impact.
As for the rest, 5e is not less cookie-cutter than pathfinder since it works on the same basic framework, but it has much less molds to choose from, and less goodies to sprinkle on top.
You're supposed to be a hero, even if fighting 50 level 1 being a lvl 10, you should kill them.
That depends on the scope of the game/setting. In a world where defeating 10 opponents in melee makes you a hero, loosing against 50 is might be expected. But I'm with you with insta-death not being fun regardless of the game/system/setting.