Hey all, haven't played a Mythic setting yet, tho I am looking over the materials. A bunch of stuff caught my eye, but I had some questions at first for the Gunslinger.
Gunslinger as mythic Champion.
Using advanced pistol, range increment 20.
1) Tier 1 Champion power: Limitless range. Would now allow for a 100 range increment for the pistol, with no max range? (Up until the negatives get too high, I suppose)
2)Destroyer and or Unstoppable shot. I realize as both tier 3 powers you'd have to wait a bit longer to get both, but if you did....
Combined with above does that result in:
A pistol with range increment 100, no max range, ignores Hardness of objects/etc. But if there's no max range, and you use the closest target in line to base hit off of, do you end up with a shot that can go...miles through things? Forever?
Yknow, its a tricky thing. Personally I don't mind nearly all other CM being used against my chars, because I do it back to them (or first, as the case may be), but Sunder just sits with me wrong somehow. Perhaps its old school 1st edition Barbarian flashbacks, yknow, where they got xp from breaking magic items and stuff?
And possibly since I look at enemy NPCs and see little bags of walking XP, in association I see their gear as floaty pieces of lewt, and destroying floaty pieces of lewt just seems....so wrong.
Like all character abilities, they are somewhat constrained by the player themselves. For Charisma?
Problem scenario (not saying the OP was a situation like this):
Player X is talking about how his CHA 24 character is talking to the NPCs. Problem is, the player himself (with maybe a Charisma 10, if we had stats in real life) is describing it in a way that you as another player/GM makes you think "He's being kinda a douchebag."
Consequently there's a disconnect between the intent of the char, who may be genuinely wanting to win over the crowd, vs the player, who is doing a bad job articulating it.
Its a journey vs destination possibility too. As a GM do you care about the overall experience of play, or do you care about "Story getting done"? I've played with some GMs that are so focused on their game world that in a sense, it was more like interactive story telling than true application of game mechanics.
As noted, a TPK midway through the GM's planned epic arc means that he has to find another way to bring the brand new PCs into that arc, abandon it or otherwise do some serious retooling.
In that sense, easier to 'keep them alive' and on track. Tho in a sense, that's also railroading.
Eh, like anything its based on individual preferences and then a shared narrative. If the GM knows I don't want same sex npcs hitting on me, but I'm fine with the concept in general, then that's how play gets modified. If the tone of the group is not interested or opposed to it, there's no benefit in forcing the issue. I do notice the Adventure Path stuff seem to throw that in with same-sex pairings. I don't mind, but its more because in general I consider NPCs to be...ahem...interchangeable for more than sexuality. I don't care what their gender is, or race, more like...what alignment are they and are they going to try to backstab us? :)
I remember those days, "Yeah I totally naturally rolled all 18s with our 5d6 discard two lowest!"
The inherent problem with any rolling method is while there are averages, there are also possibilities of outliers. Really low rolls naturally tend to get approval to re-roll, but no one ever wants to reroll super high rolls.
Point buy is more 'democratic/balanced' and it generally results in everyone at the table being more or less ability score balanced, save for race choices, etc.
Trying to one up a metagamer with more metagaming doesn't really lead to 'lesson learned' or 'fun had' for anyone involved. What I DO like about PF is that you can throw templates onto monsters to change them up so they're not strict Monster Manual copies..
On the other hand, its also very hard to have someone not use real world knowledge. I mean scenario of GM presents a monster at us, we're not armed with the correct DR piercing weapon but the GM had also previously mentioned in general description the room/area we're in, which I know, as a player is 1)his hint we should look 2)I would have (as a player) looked around anyway. But problem is, my level 2 char with no Knowledge (monster Lore), wouldn't know that, so whats the reasonable amount of flailing around we should do before grabbing the X-material blade stuck into the table over there?
That's sort of the 'downside' of the otherwise excellent Adventure path stuff. Well, one of several things I suppose:
1)By following an AP in a sense it leaves little or less room of homebrew adventures, as simply following the path takes you to 15-18, and more recently, mythic tiers.
2)Storylines of the AP tend to use the "there's some significant connection with one (or all) of the PCs to a specific plot point/etc"
Consequently players interested in playing APs have to sorta accept that in general, their PC's are going to be kinda constrained and you won't really have 'free play' access with them until after level 18 or so. Similarly the framework of the AP storyline tends to prune out or lean against certain backstories, just for ease of access.
Honestly, the way I see AP stuff is just build the classes you want and then pull 'background' from the AP itself.
Still new to it, and while I like the mythic stuff, at the same time I can see why you might wanna hold off on it. EPIC level stuff is easy, since its already kinda built in Epic-tier, nearly 24-7.
Mythic stuff is enhanced normal play, which can lead to potential balance headaches when facing non-mythic stuff 1/3rd or 2/3rds of the time.
Not completely game wreaking, but potentially requiring a lot more work on the GM side of things.
Hm. I would go as far as saying they're pretty good 'straight out of the box'. I mean, I suppose you COULD screw up a build, but in general you're going to end up with at least a good build, if not a holycrapnice build.
Its kinda of a nice class to get into the game with, not super complicated (for a newbie) and also able to hang out and be useful even with a 'generic' build.
Always a toughie. Its based on the overall premise that as a 'shared activity' YOUR fun is fine up until it starts infringing upon MY fun. And vice versa. Whether people can compromise when those areas start chafing is individual to the group itself. Sometimes its easy, sometimes not, sometimes impossible.
Note this applies to gamemaster/player relations as well. The players fun doesn't mean they get to make the GM a trained adventure spouting monkey, just as the GM can't expect to turn it into "Its all about me!" either.
So I come to the board with a question on how to frame a story that would 'function' in a world where magic/etc is an option to uncover certain truths/reveal falsehoods/mysteries.
The general scenario: Almost soap-operaish
A grandchild is left in the care of the paternal grandmother and her husband. The child is left because mom and dad are (high order) adventurers that have a (high tier/order) quest chain that will take them off-plane for a good stretch of time (5+ years) the nature of which would (for purposes of story logic) also make them out of contact for that period of time, so no way of getting updates.
Now, being with resources, the parents set up some measures to provide for the child. The child will be living in the town of the daddy's place of birth, under the foster care of his own parent (as noted). They will provide a sizable nest egg to be managed by grandmom. As high tier/epic adventurers leaving a trust the size to potentially BUY the town is pretty easy to happen.
They also leave behind a governess. Think "Young capable maid saved along the way, owes debt to saviors, but since they're going to assault another Plane of Existence, she can't really come along", so she pledges to help watch over their child.
All is good. Mostly, at first. Genuine positive love/care from grandma and governess, also the child is well regarded by most of the village.
Step-Granddad is envious. Paternal grandma is actually responsible and not splurge-y with the child's inheritance, so "granddad" plans to off grandma and probably governess to gain control of the child's fortune. Wants to try to NOT whack the kid too, since that'd be a bit too much of a coincidence, better to be the purseholder/trustee of the fortune than risk losing it all or being under too much scrutiny if they all die.
Let's say Granddad is competent in the semi-real world steps so through mundane efforts he's managed to cover his tracks.
What would he also have to do, or what would the town setting need to look like so he could conveniently get through initial investigations that also may include magic.
For scenario purpose lets also say the town is decently sized, "Large" 4000ish people, spellcasting limit of 5th level, fairly rare. LN alignment. Notable NPCs with adventuring levels at most 10th-11th level. Doesn't have its own religious leanings/outposts, so 'shares' the services of wandering clerics between say...3 other communities. So 80 percent of the time, there isn't a divine caster in town.
What would be the best means to 'off' the grandma and governess? Fire? A 'botched break-in?' Grandma is a generic NPC by classes, governess at best is a level 4ish character (maybe a witch or something). Don't want to do something that specifically singles out the "witch" tho. So no, kill grandma, frame governess, execute governess.
Lets also say granddad is willing to take some damage to 'sell' his part in being a potential victim too.
Hm, I dunno, I'd say a successful dispel magic use is like cutting the power on your clock radio (plugged in, no battery), which may only last a 'few rounds' but gives you the flashy 12:00 blinkie until you fix it.
Similarly a dispel magic hit is different from 'take it off to take a bath'. You take your magic belt off for an hour or two, heck, I'd argue that to lose connection you'd need to have it off for 24 hours, or try to wear a 'new' item in its place, otherwise the permanent bonuses come right back when you put it on again.
The Magus type also has something of a 'swiss army knife' characteristic that makes it potentially (especially with expanded magus 'feat' choices to increase the types of buffs you can give your weapon) the guy that has the "Hey, I have just the weapon for that!" aspect when an unexpected foe type pops up.
Granted it takes some magus choices to get things like Bane, or the Holy/Unholy/alignment route, but you could then end up with the ability to beat on anything, and not have to carry the golf-bag full of different weapons.
On the other hand, as noted by others, this flexibility comes at cost of duration and when you run out of arcane pool buffing, you're kinda a subpar fighter.
Hm, seems a little 'light' to just lose Flurry in order to gain Rogue-progression sneak attack (if I'm reading it right).
Also in a sense, isn't the Dim Mak already sort of 'quivering palm'? I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of some sorta precision damage added to Monk stuff, though again I think you should trade away more than Flurry to get it.
No evil. No CN pretending to be 'whimsical' while actually being evil.
The base 12, 2d6 discard lowest, roll 6 times and array as desired for stats was fun, basically giving you 13s-18s in everything, most of our games assumed we were just 'more than mortals'.
Some games had a 'common sense' attribute derived from Int, Wis and Character Level, which acted as a freebie save when the Player had a brainfart that would potentially go contrary to the common sense of their intelligent/experienced adventurer.
X many Quips are allowed per session before pelting (with dice) is allowed. So Monty Python or Highlander or Flash Gordon or whatever quips can be used, but risk player retaliation.
Dice go in the cup, cup gets rattled, dice roll in box. Dice rolls that don't happen with the cup, or roll out of the box must be rolled again.
My games tended to metagame alot, or rather, worked things out on the out-of-character level beforehand. In my best group, the Gm explained what the setting and what he hoped to see in terms of characters/recommendations on best fits. We still had room to come up with characters that could have tension between them, but not 'grind everything to a halt every fricking encounter because of alignment/philosophy/etc conflicts'.
If we're all playing a heroic set? Its common for the Paladin to be kinda like Captain America (616 version), truth, justice, ideals of the best of humanity, and will kick your ass all over the place.
Tactical Mind. Organization ability. Not qualities really distinct to alignment
Rarely imposes rules (which means she sometimes does), giving insight and knowledge. - Leans against chaotic.
Lies - Depends. Selfish/petty acts? - Leans evil
Good relations with Royalty - Not really quality distinct to alignment.
Absolute Chaos in town - Oddly? Potentially evil. Self Centered and entirely in disregard of the consequences for others.
Suggested building a replica of town - The motivation seems selfish, but not sure. Again, she didn't want to make herself look bad? - Evil.
Fits of Rage? - Barbarian
Helped out another girl - Dunno
Obsessed with knowledge, will not stop. rules be damned. - Evil. Chaotic.
A+ student. - Not relevant to alignment.
Freak out when plans fail - Potentially not relevant to alignment, unless choosing selfish/violence/etc, then evil.
Skeptical Minded - Not relevant to alignment.
Masked Superhero - Ironic, considering this appears to be a very prideful character basically 'calling out' another character for being prideful - Not sure if alignment, but kinda petty.
Friends break stuff - Not relevant to alignment.
Organization/library - Eh, not relevant to alignment.
Went crazy at brother - Eh, not relevant to alignment. Family is like mental illness, it transcends alignment.
Yelled out the Bride was evil - Im guessing a plot point, not really alignment based, tho potentially telling in the "I'm an attention ho" kind of way.
I'd argue the one consistency is that out-of-game, you and the GM MUST come to a consensus on what the Paladin code is going to mean. If you've got one interpretation and the GM has another, its going to be a huge headache to even BOTHER with. If you are both equally unwilling to budge, the best option would not to play a Paladin at all.
I always liked 'fairplay' rules in our games. If you wanted to simulate 'there's no way they could know!' stuff, consider that the rules should apply to PCs too. While a player might know, cause the Gm just said "Make a Fortitude Saving throw" or something, if this is a world where you want to exploit the idea that the characters and NPCs themselves don't know, then the PC shouldn't get to operate on Player information that a saving throw was just required.
Any player told to roll a saving throw immediately goes to RED ALERT and starts doing things like "My character looks around to see what just happened/etc" even if their character would have no way to tell someone just cast a spell on them.
Consequently, through metagaming, we just generally go with 'you know SOMETHING happened that should put you to red, if not yellow alert'. I suppose one could argue that non-classed npc types would be less familiar with the triggers or 'vibes' one gets when targeted by a spell, but ultimately it comes down to how much work you and the GM want in your games.
I'll mirror the suggestions to talk with the GM. Even if he's not intentionally trying to work the player over, it would be important for the player to express, "Hey, I'm not having fun when I keep getting boned like this."
GM isn't really under an obligation to make changes, but the player isn't under obligations to play. But Without the two in concert, you can't really have a game.
Meh, play what you want, how you want. Accept the consequences of your choices. Could be in game. Could be out of game. Could be 'social' consequences (people don't want to play with you), could be more direct, 'people think you're a jerk and punch you in the face'.
Way of life. Also, accept that others are under NO obligation to accept your reasoning as logical or appropriate or in good taste or in the spirit of the game or whatever.
If he's happy and not bothering anyone, I'd say leave it alone. You can solicit information from him, check in, see how he's doing, if he's having fun etc.
Honestly I'd prefer him to 'that guy' in the group that is more a disruption, distracting and grinding things to a halt. Funny is good, trying to make all the other players his audience all the time, is not.
In a related fashion, would a +1 Bane (Evil Outsider), Holy, Grayflame weapon be possible? A +1 Sword that becomes a +3 Sword vs Evil Outsiders, regardless of channeled energy, a +2 sword when energy is channeled. That also does +2d6 vs Evil Outsiders +another 2d6 Cause they're Evil, and potentially another +1d6 ('divine') dmg due to the channeled energy?
Would it be inefficient to do that grayflame addition? As the Holy already provides 'good' qualifier and you could get 'silver' qualifier by simply making the weapon mithral to start with?
That...sounds about right, especially if you're running a group of 4. Encounters sized to that # tend to also be smaller.
Things get more complicated as you add PCs, tho if you don't increase the threat to compensate you can potentially end up with shorter stomps.
Also if the GM is running a full offensive from the badguys, instead of mixing in some 'smart play' where they fall back, take cover, move off only to come back in, etc, things can go quickly. how the fight starts is important. If 'all the pieces' are visible and on the board in a convenient array, it can go swiftly.
That being said, a 'few rounds of combat' can take some significant real life time to resolve