|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
IF Golarion disappears, maybe I'll have no choice but to go back to D&D 5e. Well, probably not- I still haven't forgiven WotC for 4.0. I'm not a fan of the science fiction based game genre: and I have enough Pathfinder material to keep running games for years to come.
1. Noble Families 2. Civil servants ( town guard, fire, sanitation ) 3. builders 4. merchants 5.religious 6. mages 7. If the town is noted for any special product(s), such as iron working,alchemy,seafaring/dockworkers,crafting of special objects etc. Or: 8. membership might be divided upon racial lines. Or, there might be a member for separate geographical areas. In a town which is democratic, there might be a town council consisting of a member or members from important groups; however, in less democratic areas the ruler(s) might be restricted to one group or overlord.
Everyone has their own style. As long as he contributes something to the group, I would generally let him play the way he wants. If, however, he does not participate at all in the group's battles, or leaves before he has taken any damage, then this becomes a serious issue. Rogues contribute to the group by flanking and non battle skills such as finding secret doors, trapfinding (especially magical traps),and other perception based skills. The group should not expect a rogue to stand in the heat of combat for long periods unless the circumstances are dire. Also, if the party does not have a strong healer, this increases the risk to all party members and the rogue would feel even more threatened since he has fewer HP. The rogue should be aware,however, that leaving the group during a battle has the potential to put himself in an alone and exposed position. Finally, the notion that a group can never all retreat in order to regroup or plan new tactics can be a serious or sometimes fatal error.
Mindless undead have only an overwhelming hatred of, and/or hunger for, the living . They exist only to kill and do not have the mind for sophisticated tactics. They are largely unconcerned with any defensive tactics, as their hunger is so great. They are not fearful of dying as they have already died. They do not plan or cooperate with one another as each ones own hatred and hunger make each one want to kill or feed so badly as to preclude any cooperation.
When I DM,mindless undead use no tactics. They simply attack the nearest living creature unless they have previously been given a simple command to do otherwise. If there are more than one living creature equidistant, they will randomly attack those nearest. They will continue to attack their target until the target is slain,ignoring attacks on them by other PC's.If the undead are numerous and all or many have the same PC target, they may inadvertently gain flanking as they surround their target.
If I was the DM, i'd go with the flow or give the flow a nudge, Let the skulls start speaking or communicating with party members in some way (or as a player you could use ventriloquism if you wanted to arrange this with the DM). The skulls could be used to give the group information, suggestions, or to lead the group into certain encounters. This might work as sort of a 'speak with dead' :but, if so, the DM should be aware of the alignment and motives of the dead,so as to weigh the information that they give to party.This could lead to a whole new tangent of adventures for the party.
Was this a Pathfinder Society scenario or a home game? PFS scenarios have specified monsters/opponents dependent upon the group's average level. The opponent's specific tactics and DC checks needed to change the opponents attitude towards the group are specified for the opponents. I have found it very unusual for one PFS encounter to last three hours. Diplomatically ask your DM to explain why the encounter lasted so long in real time; and let the DM know that you didn't have fun in this situation. Did others at the table feel the same way? if this was a home game made up and run by the DM then you should expect greater diversity as to style of play. In any case it is important to have a courteous discussion about this with your DM.
You've answered your own question. Save or dies almost guarantee short character lifespans. Character death should be possible, maybe even with a higher probability than at present; however, save or die effects make it highly probable.
My characters are almost never optimized.I'm just happy to be able to play fun and challenging games with a group of players who generally cooperate. As far as I am concerned, players should be able to make the character they want as long as they cooperate with the group and not actively sabotage or undermine team game play. Nor does it matter to me whether group tactics are optimized or most efficient as long as a TPK is avoided. I have found that there are many ways to have fun playing as long as the group is not severely divided, argumentative or vindictive. When I play clerics, I have no qualms about healing or buffing team mates or using my resources to help my group. Let's not get all worked up over issues that have no one all inclusive "right answer". Happy gaming to all.
You appear to be putting yourself into a situation where you are being bullied and abused. The choice to leave the group is always open- even if no other group appears to be immediately available. The options of playing via computer group or at a convention are additional possibilities. Or, either you or your DM might want to start a second group which would not be open to the bully.
Speak to the players and the DM prior to your next game. If the issue cannot be resolved to your satisfaction via discussion and compromise, find another group.
Unless the player of the dead character was an absolute jerk, or the character died because of his players total stupidity,I would do my best to effect his character's resurrection ( assuming the player wished to have his character resurrected ). I have found this to be the case in all the PFS groups I have played with.
When I DM, especially in home games. I do not tend to specifically describe creatures by name , but rather by appearance,unless I am aware that the monster they are facing is extremely common or of a type they have specifically previously fought.
As a DM, I generally adjust the DC of the roll upwards or downwards anywhere from plus two to minus two depending upon the situation and the players action. In diplomatic situations, I try to take such factors as character race, social status or class, and whether characters know one another or have a particularly good or poor reputation into consideration.I would add that I use this method much more in home games, not in PFS games; where I generally use the written DC.
You do seem to be set on the vampire escaping. Just be ready for a lot of player anger if you let it get away through the solid ground. Perhaps it could escape through a small floor grating that leads to a thin pipe, or a chimney. Perhaps its lair could have many trapped holes in the wall and only one is the real emergency exit. Perhaps the coffin contains an illusory vampire; but the real one is in a coffin/secret compartment below the assumed coffin. Strictly interpret the solid ground rule but be creative in the use of trickery to mislead the players if you intend for the vampire to escape. Vampires are quite cunning and can be used as a continuing nemesis.
If a character melee attacks without a weapon (assuming the character does not have a special ability or class ability or spell or granted power which would enable the character to do lethal damage as if using a weapon), the character does non lethal damage and will be subject to an opportunity by the intended target.
Seems like a dumb move to me. But, then again, since when has Wizards of the Coast been noted for its smart moves, or listening to/ consulting its audience. Over the years, they shut down both Dungeon and Dragon magazines, suddenly ended 3.5 D&D and launched the 4.0 disaster. Now, they hardly support 5.0. They should have stuck to Magic the Gathering instead of entering the role playing game business which they apparently know little about and care less.
On the general topic of rise and possible fall of companies and systems: what is going on with Pathfinder Online? From what I have heard, Goblinworks has had mass layoffs and is struggling to keep its head above water, or to possibly sell off to another company. Does anyone have further info from what was last posted on their website?
In Pathfinder Society play, i've had one of a dozen characters die. It's not enjoyable; but that is the risk a character in the game has to take. I make it a point to refuse re-rolls as well as resurrection or raising of any of my characters. I guess i'm stubbornly old school.
Our groups have used the following suggestions in order to increase the number of available G.M.'s: i.give gm preference to play at an upcoming event. 2. Have the group provide the GM either with free snacks or a token payment. Possibly the game store might be willing to provide a small store credit.Paizo also extends certain privileges to G.M.'s : see the Paizo board.
As far as I am concerned, this is a tempest in a teapot. I have never found a PFS DM to use blatantly unfair tactics against players. If anything, I feel that most DM's go out of their way to avoid killing player characters.
A CHA 1 character would not be able to effect his groups actions in any way. He would be passive in terms of his own actions other than self defense. NPC's, in many cases, would view him as an immediate alien and bizarre threat and would probably attack him on sight. In this respect his character would indirectly be very harmful to the group. After all, most "normal" people don't associate with oozes or zombies. This character is essentially harmful to the group and to gameplay. Why the DM would allow this is beyond me. The character should be either retired, changed by wish or miracle, or killed off by the local populence. If this continues, this is an example of gross DM error.
I greatly appreciate all the work done by 4 and 5 star GMs. I don't know what percentage of the total number of Pathfinder Society games are run by 4 or 5 star GM's: but I would hazard a guess that this is a significant portion of total PFS games, Thus, I believe that these GM's are an extremely important part of the Pathfinder Society and I do not begrude them any special or additional perks they may obtain, even if I am not eligible for these perks. Having GM'ed a few games, I know first hand the time and effort needed to fill the role of GM.
Post the city or town in which you live. Someone might be able to refer you to a game in your geographical area. Or, contact the Venture Captain for your area (listed on Paizo boards ).
I think it a good idea that players and DM's can choose either CORE only or an expanded version which includes additional options. I see three advantages to the core version: easier to learn, easier to DM, and less power gaming. Additionally, for those playing in Pathfinder Society play, it enables a player to play the same scenario twice: in core and expanded versions. On the other hand, the expanded version provides an opportunity for players to form more types of characters with more unique backgrounds, skills, feats, etc. Neither option excludes the other: and I think that those players who begin playing Core only will later move on to the expanded version. I think that it will be interesting, in a year or so, to evaluate as to how many players are using each system, and to compare the growth rate of new players into PFS with that of the year prior to its introduction.
Personally, I think that Pathfinder Society should allow only lawful evil, lawful neutral and neutral alignment for the Cheliax faction, since that faction is inherently lawful evil. Similarly, Silver Crusade should allow only lawful good, neutral good, and lawful neutral since that faction is inherently lawful good. Only Cheliax should be allowed to play an evil alignment;but this should also involve a charisma penalty when interacting with all non-Cheliax factions.
If you play Pathfinder as a home game, your DM can adjust the perameters, setting, and rewards the players receive so as to customize the game more to the group's liking. Thus, your group could have either a higher or lower level magic using campaign. If you play in Pathfinder Society organized play, I have found that the amount of magic, while available, is limited in comparison with other worldwide systems. I distinctly remember the days of "Living City" or "Living Grayhawk" in which players came to play armed with loose leaf binders full of certs for multitudes of magic items. No system is perfect; however Pathfinder is quite enjoyably playable. One more thing- Pathfinder Society organized play is in the process of instituting a CORE version as a separate option in which all players who participate in this option use the CORE rulebook only. This makes the game both easier to learn: and restricts higher powered classes, magic items, feats etc.
I recently tried 5.0 at a game convention. It was better than 4.0; but not as good as Pathfinder, which offers a much wider range of choices/options for your character. As a D.M. I enjoy Pathfinder's varied and well supported settings for adventures.
I am looking forward towards trying out PFO once regular enrollment starts and the bugs are ironed out. I am not very computer savvy, have poor eyesight, and almost of my experience has been in tabletop, non PvP gaming. I would enjoy a game enviornment in which I can explore and craft. Whether I will continue in PFO will be dependent upon whether I can find at least a small niche in the game and whether the PvP aspect is so onerous and intimidating that it drives me away. Anyway, for what that's worth, that's my 2 cp.
I believe that if there is no chance of character death the game becomes more boring and meaningless. I have had two of my own 11 PFS characters die- one at level 2 and one at level six. Though I was saddened by their demise, I chose NOT to have them resurrected. I still remember them well. Looking back upon the reasons for their demise, I feel, has taught me to be a somewhat better, less impulsive, and more effective player and character builder. And, to realize that- as in life- sometimes the luck of the dice just isn't with you so you must bear your fate with grace. This is not to say that scenarios should be total meat grinders; but even in the most challenging scenarios I would hazard a guess that the death rate probably is not more than 10-15% Maybe i've been lucky ( or blessed with generous D.M's ); but I have never been involved in a table which has been a tpk.
My advice would be to play a few more games and see if you have fun in those games. Everyone makes mistakes at times. No one is forcing you to play games with a particular D.M. Also, since you mention that you have had rather extensive experience with a number of different game systems, you might, in the future, consider becoming a PFS D,M. yourself. It certainly gives a different perspective from the other side of the table.
In organized play, all Pathfinder Society members must speak common. If they did not, or especially if they outright refused during their training period, they never would have been allowed to become Pathfinders in the first place since this would hamper their group's missions. If, after being admitted to the society, they became permanently disabled and could not be cured, they would be retired/pensioned by the society. In a home game, however, I would allow the player to impose this large disadvantage upon himself if he/she chose to do so.
This can open up many different plots and avenues for role playing. For example, what if the NPC bed partner is actually a spy, a thief, or the wife/ husband of an important and influential NPC ? What if the affair becomes common knowledge/ town gossip. How will this effect the group's reputation in the community ot the community's willingness to cooperate with the group? This doesn't even take into consideration the consequences of an affair with a non human, magical, or demonic being.Go with the flow as it can lead to a more interesting game.
PFS scenarios for seasons 4&5 have shown increased challenge and are harder for the unoptimized and/or inexperienced players. I think the present difficulty level is about right; but if the great majority of players express an interest for more challenging scenarios, PFS could rule that no treasure or items which are found during the scenario can be used in the scenario and must be "bought" after the scenario is completed. Or, to revive an old "living" rule, make listed treasure on the sheet unavailable after the completion of three further scenarios. Or, to lower the GP value of items available through use of prestige point purchases. Any of these changes would decrease the type/amount of equipment available to players thus making them less powerful and making the encounters they face more challenging. I doubt, however that the majority of players are interested in decreasing their character's power to enable even more challenging scenarios.
Sadly, the Andoran faction is slowly succumbing to a mixture of political correctness and multinationalism. Be proud, Andorans, for we alone are the nation and the people who represent the ideal of freedom on Golarion. We are not the masters of trade, or the seekers of lost empires, or the dealers in slaves, or in league with dark powers. Andoran lives on; and it will be reported as such on all my character sheets.