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

MendedWall12's page

1,719 posts. Alias of Hoary and Wizened.


1 to 50 of 1,719 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

113. Salacious Oratory.

The Sword wrote:

I'll happily bow out of that discussion.


Don't go, I've found a rapier to be mechanically inferior, and I'm looking for another sword.


108. Rapiers, apparently.

Ventnor started out as a cute little ball of fluff but then he watched a goblin orphanage burn to the ground and became filled with hatred, malice, and unmitigated rage.

Aelryinth wrote:
A wall of text filled with numbers

Oy! Posts like that make my head hurt, and make me want to play a different game.

Anzyr wrote:
The Sword wrote:

I have played in parties with dozens of fighters, rogues, and swashbucklers over the years. They contributed, the players enjoyed the characters.

The tiers are so cynical, unimaginative and depressing I don't even want to continue this debate. I don't doubt they have their adherants but that isn't the Pathfinder Game I recognise and if you feel trapped into that mentality because of your experiences of the game then I'm sorry.

Have you actually read the tier list? Because there is nothing "cynical, unimaginative, or depressing" about it.

I skimmed the list, and you are right, they are far from cynical, and definitely not unimaginative, but OH BOY, are they depressing. To me at least, and obviously to The Sword too. Just goes to show you, one man's treasure is another man's trash, or vice versa, as the expression goes.

Johnnycat93 wrote:

Refer to both the guidelines for Monster Creation and Encounter Design to see what any particular character/party is reasonably expected to encounter at any given level.

In reference to the OP post (specifically the idea of a true fencer), I personally believe such a concept is poorly supported by the system and requires extra work put in to function mechanically, at least in terms that I consider "functioning".

Emphasis mine above.

Here's where I see the problem. The game gives you an idea of what characters can reasonably expect to encounter at any given level, and there are certainly numbers to crunch there. However, there is no dictation there of how the characters need to overcome those encounters, and the system itself is based on a set of probabilities that allow for wide swings at either end. Which means that even a "sub-optimal" or "below baseline" character could overcome those encounters on a regular basis given the dice roll in their favor. BUT, that does give at least a frame of reference for a true "middle."

Then we get to your second point, and we see you use the word "functioning" in quotes. As if you are not willing to attribute the full definition of that word in the context you are using it. The point being, what, exactly, do you consider a functioning character? Is that the same as others would consider functioning? If not, why not? There is, somewhere, in all the collective heads of people that post here routinely, a level of play that they consider functional, and THAT is the baseline.

I just wonder why that is so difficult to put into words, or if the baseline itself is so malleable person to person that there isn't a good community based definition worth exploring.

Fergie wrote:


Right, see, that was my original point. There seems to be, on the forums at least, an idea that there is a baseline, somewhere, but nobody knows where it is, or how to define it. Everyone would probably agree that there is a "floor" and that there is a "ceiling," but if you're attempting to find the happy medium, the "baseline," it's very difficult to determine. Shouldn't a community of people playing the same game (that is supposed to be balanced), be able to succinctly determine a baseline? If you can determine the mechanical floor, and you can determine the mechanical ceiling, why can't you find the mechanical kitchen table height?

Edit: @Chengar Qordath, that's a new one that I'll probably be using from now on: the "accidental optimizer."

Matthew Downie wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:
Never mind the fact the the rapier, historically speaking, was a sword designed both for slashing and piercing, and was an elegant weapon used by gentleman. While the estoc was basically designed as a giant punching dagger, good for going through plate armor.
In history, but not in Pathfinder, where a rapier is a weapon never used for slashing and is exactly as capable of sundering a breastplate as a battleaxe or warhammer. If Pathfinder doesn't give you the flavor of a rapier in its mechanics, why not just take an estoc or whatever, and then draw a picture of your character holding a rapier?

Right. Correct, because the boards are for mechanical advice. And all things equal more damage is superior to less damage. I get that the original argument is flawed because the estoc actually costs a feat in Pathfinder. I know, but there's also this:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Now imagine the weapons were more or less equal, with equal investment. Not the same -- some would have a bigger crit range, others do more base damage, others have fun properties like trip or whatever -- but more or less even.

In that case, it wouldn't matter what kind of game you were playing. The person who wanted a swordcane could select that, without that choice gimping his character. The hard-line optimizer that The Sword so hates and despises would have no obviously superior choice, so he'd have to go for something that fit the character/story. Everyone wins.

Having some options be blatantly better than others (again, given the same investment), is a potential impediment to choosing something thematic but incredibly sub-par, and serves to fuel the "by the numbers" character creation that makes people like The Sword froth at the mouth. It serves no purpose other than, ultimately, to divide the community.

MeanMutton wrote:
They're both long, thin, piercing swords. I don't see any reason a fantasy warrior can't use an estoc for fencing and glorious displays of swordsmanship, footwork, and derring-do. Too many people get hung up on a simple name in this game and that is one item which frustrates me, honestly.

And thanks for proving my point. They're both long pointy swords, and the estoc does more damage, so of course everyone, or at least everyone smart, would take the estoc, because: winning.

Never mind the fact the the rapier, historically speaking, was a sword designed both for slashing and piercing, and was an elegant weapon used by gentleman. While the estoc was basically designed as a giant punching dagger, good for going through plate armor. But you see, all that is fluff, and this is a game, and winning, and DPR and all that. So if every player had an equal choice between the rapier and the estoc, they would of course take the estoc, or at least that's assumption of a very large faction of this community.

Aberzombie wrote:
The world shall welcome its Cyberzombie Overlords!!!

Now that's some politics I can get behind. Or start a resistance movement against, I haven't decided yet.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

[Rant]I've seen more than a few things over the past couple of days, two today specifically, that lead me to believe there's some unwritten consensus on the optimal "baseline" of character creation. This one particularly irks me.

No one would ever use a rapier?!

Seriously? Why not? Because it would be mechanically inferior to every other weapon in the same damage and crit range? What if I wanted to create a character that was a true fencer, and used his rapier wit, and his actual rapier to right the wrongs he found across the land?

Why? Why does so much of this discussion community just go along with stuff like that? Or not balk at it? Is every game set up with a baseline standard of optimization, and no one can fathom that there could be some seriously meaningful, fun, and awesome games being played with characters that are completely wonky mechanically?

Inquiring minds want to know.[/rant]

Gavmania wrote:

One idea would be to look at the optimisation guides for the pcs classes, so you have an idea of where to point them when they go up levels, and which spells they should pick. It will also point towards some viable builds. If they are new to PathFinder they will probably end up making some poor choices for Feats, Spells, etc. without some guidance.

If they are really way off beam, you might want to consider allowing retraining Feats, etc. (especially the Fighter. He will have 5 Feats, 6 if Human; but may not have the staples like Power Attack, and will probably have picked up some duds that he could really do without).

You know what? That bums me out, thoroughly. Especially the part I bolded. Did you all not read that they are having a kick-arse good time, as is?! They thoroughly enjoyed figuring out what a bag of holding does! When's the last time you enjoyed figuring out the magical properties of a magic item so common, some might call it mundane?! Why point them to optimization of characters if they are having a good time NOT optimizing?! Let them build their characters with what others might consider "tragic flaws," fiddling around with some of those feats nobody would touch with the proverbial 10' pole. So what if they are "way off beam." They are having FUN, and that's the point. Run a game for them where everything is way off beam. Run a game that caters to their characters being weak and possibly built completely below what others would consider par. That's one of the things I strongly dislike about some factions of the gaming community. Not every game has to be run by the WBL standards, or the APL standards. That's one of the great things, imho, about these rules. You can do some really wonky stuff with them, and have a crapton (that's the scientific term for it) of fun. Sure if they enter into someone else's game, they might get laughed out of the building, but then they can just run a game of their own, wonky, and terribly enjoyable.

lucky7 puts the oboes in murder hoboes.

DM_Blake hit it on the head. GMNPC is the way to go with a group like this. I do almost the exact same thing with my boys. They like to murder-hobo, so I play the helpless female cleric that's good at healing and occasionally hitting something with her heavy crossbow. That's exactly how I'd approach this situation. But!!! I would definitely talk to them outside of a session and help them to understand the versatility of the classes they've chosen. I've found that nothing makes this hobby more addicting than the fact that you can intelligently discuss it in very cool ways, even when you aren't playing, and don't plan on playing any time soon. :)

Ventnor's ennui is so palpable it has become a living and active aura.

100. A sober GM who suddenly gets struck with the most ridiculous ideas for encounters... lethal encounters.

92. Paladin "rockers" falling.

GM Rednal wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:
Correct, but it does mean you can't be a paladin. A paladin, by very definition of the class, is Lawful Good of alignment. You can roleplay a principled fighter who defends the weak, and upholds their own virtuous code, but they aren't paladins.
...I think you missed the part where I said "I'm thinking about allowing NG and CG Paladins in my games".

In your homebrew game that's great for your players if they like it, but, personally, I would never allow this. The alignment requirement for paladins is part of what makes playing those characters so intriguing and sometimes difficult. It's part of, imho, what makes a paladin separate from a fighter that just wants to go around and do good by their own moral code. To me that's like saying, I'm thinking about letting clerics cast any spell from the arcane spell list, because cool.

GM Rednal wrote:

Being chaotic doesn't mean you can't have principles you adhere to.

Correct, but it does mean you can't be a paladin. A paladin, by very definition of the class, is Lawful Good of alignment. You can roleplay a principled fighter who defends the weak, and upholds their own virtuous code, but they aren't paladins.

Liz Courts wrote:
Another reminder to keep things calm, folks—if you find yourself getting angry or upset, step away from the keyboard and do something else for a bit. :)

WOE! Woe to the community that needs a ninja to enforce societal ethics of civil communication. Woe unto them, I say!

Qaianna wrote:
I now ponder antipaladins on the same stereotypical hair trigger as paladins are (not really supposed to be) on. 'Bob, you didn't kick that puppy ... and then you bought a new scabbard. Not stole, purchased.'

Funny. Actually laugh out loud funny, but I think this highlights why so many people get up in arms about the routine Paladin falling questions. Some of it is just ridiculous. Sometimes it takes looking at things in the reverse in order to understand them correctly.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

After perusing this thread I found it entirely incumbent upon me to bring in this very important message.

GMG wrote:

Creating a Spell

Successfully researching a new spell requires time and expensive research. An optional system for researching new spells is outlined below.

The research should cost at least 1,000 gp per spell level (or even more for particularly exotic spells) and require both the Spellcraft skill and a Knowledge skill appropriate to the researcher's class. Wizards and bards use Knowledge (arcana), sorcerers use a Knowledge skill appropriate to their heritage (usually arcana, nature, or planes), druids and rangers use the Knowledge (nature) skill, and clerics and paladins use Knowledge (religion). The actual research process varies by the type of spell, often involving magical experimentation, the purchase and study of moldy scrolls and grimoires, contact with powerful magical beings or outsiders, and extensive meditation or rituals.

For each week of research, the caster makes separate Knowledge and Spellcraft checks against a DC of 20 plus twice the level of the spell being researched, modified according to Table: Spell Research Modifiers. To successfully research the spell, the caster must succeed at both checks. Failure indicates the week was wasted. Spells of 4th-6th level requires 2 weeks of successful research, while spells of 7th-9th level require 4 weeks. The researcher may employ up to two assistants in the research process to assist on the skill checks using the aid another action.

While I hate to think of magic as science from a purely story-telling perspective, the idea that a character in the game can take the time to sit and research (read: study other people's completed science in order to create a desired new result) the creation of a new spell, in my mind anyway, makes magic a science of sorts. Regardless of what other avenues there are to manipulate it, if it can be researched, recreated, and then manipulated to new results, that's science.


thejeff wrote:
It's not pointless, it's just that the closer they look, the weirder the results are going to be. I don't actually want to play in a game where the characters are figuring out they live in a rather poor simulation of a world. (I mean, it could be fun in a weird deconstructionist sort of way, but it wouldn't be much of a high fantasy game.)

My choice is a far more selfish one. I wouldn't use the crystal, not because of some quasi-ethical dilemma, but because by using the crystal I'm destroying the chance to roleplay becoming the leader of a resistance movement. The number of excellent stories told throughout history, that revolve around the "heroes" actually being the leaders of a small resistance movement against greater odds and superior forces, boggles the mind. No way would I take the easy way out here. It'd destroy my chances to roleplay a long-term guerrilla warfare campaign. This is one of those rare choices where breaking the 4th wall because you love playing a character, can easily translate into an in-character decision: "my character would never sacrifice so many innocents. Not when any other choice is available. I know, let's start an underground resistance movement!"

Mulgar wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Nobody is old school. They found a d20 that's at least 1,700 years old.

If I'm not mistaken, that's a Scattegories (tm) dice!?


Damn, that's where I lost it!


chbgraphicarts wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:
Don't get me wrong, when I build a character, even if it is just an NPC, I want it to be as mechanically well built as I know how. I also, though, want all my characters to have a genuinely interesting back story and realistic characterization. I know that there are people who want maximized character power, and who also love immersive story play. I've just never met any.

I would probably fit into the "likes story and optimization equally", except most self-described heavy RP-ers probably wouldn't count me as such, since I tend to make up my characters' backstory rather quickly and on-the-fly, and my characters tend to be more or less everymen.

I've said before that most peoples' idea of "backstory" is something convoluted, melodramatic, and overly complex, and they tend to play their characters as grimdark drama characters who speak in painfully contrived & ultra-formal ways.

I summed this up as "You're playing Anakin Skywalker. Learn to play Han Solo, and you & everyone else will have a better time."

Sometimes I like to play Uncle Owen.

Trogdar wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:
Don't get me wrong, when I build a character, even if it is just an NPC, I want it to be as mechanically well built as I know how. I also, though, want all my characters to have a genuinely interesting back story and realistic characterization. I know that there are people who want maximized character power, and who also love immersive story play. I've just never met any.
Well, if the above quoted text is true, then I'm sure you have. Every time you look in the mirror.

Except for, in my own reckoning, there is a vast gulf between mechanically well built, and optimizing like you're running the rules through a juicer in an attempt to squeeze out every last bit of essential vitamins and nutrients, which is what I meant when I said "maximized."

Don't get me wrong, when I build a character, even if it is just an NPC, I want it to be as mechanically well built as I know how. I also, though, want all my characters to have a genuinely interesting back story and realistic characterization. I know that there are people who want maximized character power, and who also love immersive story play. I've just never met any.

QuidEst wrote:
Nobody is old school. They found a d20 that's at least 1,700 years old.

If I'm not mistaken, that's a Scattegories (tm) dice!?


I realize this isn't a complaint thread, so I'm not complaining, but... I hear you brother! (or sister). Dropped OP like a bad habit right after they failed to follow through with Kickstarter stuff. My replacement? Google Sites! It's got a really light learning curve, and once you figure out how to manipulate the majority of settings you can make it into everything OP has, and MORE! Plus their "limitations" for how much content you can have on there, in my experience, aren't really limitations at all.

Have at it!

Outland King wrote:

Hearing about a vampire in stories and confronting one face to face are completely different and most likely would mentally scar a townsperson.

that's why I think the insanity rules (which are in no way a reflection of real world illnesses, but are more for entertainment) are still applicable to a PF setting.

How many townspersons end up being PCs? Isn't the very nature of a PC the idea that they are more, better, stronger, faster, more resilient, better intestinal fortitude, better mental fortitude than any townsperson? PCs go out to crush waves of cadaverous undead, and make one-liners whilst they do it. If you want to use the PF insanity rules for townspeople, go for it, but I don't want to play in that game.

Ssalarn wrote:

Part of why I play is because the game lets me spend some time in a world where problems are straightforward and have simple, known solutions that I can achieve.

Funny thing, to me anyway, is that many times the in game solution is: murder-hobo.

Just sayin'

Nox Aeterna wrote:

People play what they enjoy , that is it.

I won't argue that; however, I would argue that some people "enjoy" scraping ever last ounce of power out of the rules of the game. I've also seen people who "enjoy" finding the next "this is broken" character on the internet and seeing just how broken it is. In short, there are people who are playing the game only to "win." That's what they enjoy. People play what they enjoy or they'd stop playing. Wondering if you've heard the old adage: there's no accounting for some people's taste?

This can't be the entirety of intelligent item stories amongst the entire community?! Anyone? Anyone? Something E G O economics.

Bump for people in other time zones. :)

I don't know that electronic gaming will ever catch up with table top. And I think that is really one of the reasons that the table top game is still so valid. The theater of the imagination has no limits. There are no objects in the table top game that a character can't interact with. There's no, "sorry that's not actually a table you can use because it's not an 'object' in the game," moments. There's no chasm that you can't figure out a way across. Also, there is something to be said about the fact that the table top game does NOT have a "save" point. There's a lot more at stake in a table top game because your character can actually die, and never come back (or the cost to bring them back is unreachable at given level).

That's only part of why I play though. The game is addicting! You think it isn't? Take a look at these very boards, and look at all the people who come here just to have a venue to play in! Or, spend their down time at work (guilty) perusing the boards just to spend some time thinking about the game when they aren't allowed to play it. The game is a drug. A real drug. People empty their wallets to play it. They know they're going to empty their wallets to play it, and sometimes they empty their wallets against better judgment (guilty) to play it. There's some euphoria this game creates that is unmatched by any other thing.

That's why I play.

I came to the game in the early 80's. Much like Devastation Bob actually. Rich cousins into every new fad showed us how to play one long night in their RV on a family vacation. And except for a somewhat lengthy period of my late 20's and early 30's (college, marriage, young family), I've never looked back. Even when I wasn't playing, I was still watching the hobby from the periphery.

Why play? I haven't found anything else that matches the table top role playing game for seemingly endless joy. Even with all the hours put in to GM, those moments at the table when the BBEG gets what's coming to him/her can't be matched.

That's just my 2 cp.

Good morrow Paizo community.

I have a player interested in playing (which has piqued my own curiosity) a character with an intelligent sword.

I have very little experience with such things, and have actually avoided intelligent items, even in published material, because of my own insecurities about running such things.

I've reached a stage in my GMing "career" where I feel like I'm ready to dip into this part of the game.

So! I need your stories! I need to hear from players and GMs alike on how playing in a dedicated campaign with an intelligent item works! Does it work? Is it more hassle than it's worth? Do you have some great stories from your table that wouldn't have happened without an intelligent item? Do you have a horror story from your table that wouldn't have happened without an intelligent item? To the GMs, tell me about the energy and time required to run a game with a dedicated intelligent item. Is it too time consuming? Is it just like running an NPC, but less fun? More fun? How about intelligent item abilities? Are they difficult to track and remember?

I know that's a lot of questions, but I really want to get some thoroughly fleshed out details as I work towards making this decision. I am absolutely going to base my decision to include or not include this intelligent item on the feedback I get here. So don't hold back!


Krensky wrote:
GinoA wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:
This. The generic flip mats and a pack of dry erase markers and you can create any darn thing you need in a pinch. Highly portable, but also very effective.
Wet erase are much less of a hassle. Dry erase just smudges away too easily for my taste.
I prefer Crayola's dry erase crayons myself.

Had never heard of those until just this very moment. Thanks for the info. I'll be looking to acquire some of these at the earliest possible occasion. Selling point? Don't dry out!!!! I've gone through so many packs of dry erase markers over the years just because of dry out.

GinoA wrote:
The flip mats provide a nice map base in a pretty compact package.

This. The generic flip mats and a pack of dry erase markers and you can create any darn thing you need in a pinch. Highly portable, but also very effective.

LazarX wrote:

Keep in mind that insanity as represented in the game is meant as a condition to be applied to a wargaming combat scenarion, not meant as simulation, any more than the game's economic systems are supposed to model real life or historical economies.

The basic rules of the game are about combat and effects such as insanity/confusion etc., which apply to a wargaming figure to change it's ability to wage combat. THAT'S ALL. It's not about roleplaying insanity, which when it does happen in the game will generally refer to a story condition which frequently will not map to a spell or class effect.

Which is another reason I don't think they should even exist. In this game there are enough conditions to worry about, I don't want to have to worry about a character's mental state beyond what's already there: confused, frightened, dazzled, etc. Adding in these mechanics seems arbitrary and pointless, to fill some niche that some people might want in their game, but from my anecdotal evidence, the majority of players couldn't care less about. Granted there are other RPGs where insanity rules make a lot of sense. Cthulu for one, but in Pathfinder, and in its big brother D&D, insanity rules seem like a poorly thought out addendum designed specifically to not abandon some small segment of the gaming population.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lisa Stevens wrote:

I just made a personal best. 9 seconds after they posted I had them deleted and banned. Can it really be worth it for them to post for 9 seconds? :)


That happened so fast I feel like it must have been an AoO for them moving out of your threatened square.

My problem with just about any D&Desque sanity or insanity rules is this:

prd wrote:
Insanity can also be caused by exposure to particularly potent sources of unhinging horror, madness, or alien natures, such that the mind simply cannot withstand them.

In a world like Golarion where there are actual rifts open between the lower planes and the surface world, and where seeing an octopus swinging from tree branch to tree branch before it sucks on your face, can be described as "uncommon" but not unheard of, how do you define unhinging horror? I mean vampires and liches are things that your average townsperson will have at least heard about. And these rules are for the PCs primarily. We're talking about a group of people who would have no trouble running into an an earless cat that can peel back the skin over it's own skull while emitting a bloodcurdling scream, and that's pretty "normal."

So my problem with the Pathfinder sanity/insanity rules is not that they make a mockery of real mental illness. It's that they have them at all. The life of an adventurer is chock full of entire months where the most normal thing that happens is you get attacked by short reptilian humanoids.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Many people have said this already, but I want to reiterate: if you are all having fun, even if you completely destroyed the rules as written, that is the point! Don't worry about the rules, or whether or not the plot makes sense, or whether you look like an idiot, or whether ... you get the idea. If everyone in the group is having fun, whether or not what you're playing even remotely resembles Pathfinder, keep on playing. If at some point you'd really like to play as closely to the rules as written as possible, then work towards that as a group. I cannot overstate this, and there are several threads on theses boards that will back me up: if the rules ever get in the way of the fun, you are doing it wrong. The rules are there to facilitate fun, not to cause headaches, or make things less fun.

Yes, Paizo will do it for you. May not be a perfect Alchemist/Wizard, but you are all but guaranteed to find an NPC that fits the bill rather quickly. Otherwise, if you really want it built from scratch, I'd suggest using a program like Hero Lab because it REALLY cuts down on the creation time. You may find someone here with time and energy to build such an NPC, but they'll more than likely want quite a bit more information.

I wish Paizo's vorpal sword would go snicker snack on these sons of b!@#$&*.

Go snicker snack vorpal sword! Go snicker snack. Also, I hope there's a special spot reserved in hell for spammers, where they are forced to read the same nonsense they've posted for all eternity, and where there are no snacks.

JoelF847 wrote:

I agree with Temple of Elemental Evil being the best to date (with modpakcs). That's what I'm looking for in a cRPG, turn based, faithful to the system, and with enough complexity of options to allow diverse characters. The latter is what ToEE was missing - it pretty much had core rule book level support only. But it had 3.5 crafting, turn based play, and some combat maneuvers even.

I wouldn't expect all 30 PF classes and archetypes, but it would be great to have the core 11, and 4-8 more (leaning heavily on APG classes), and 2-4 archetypes for each, as well as the best choices of feats and spells from other books on top of the CRB choices.

So if I purchase ToEE on GOG, will it come with the Co8 Modpack? Or where would I locate that? Having looked at the screenshots on GOG, it definitely looks like something I could spend some hours on.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm sure this is totally irrelevant, but I wanted to pop in and say that DDO (the MMORPG that is quickly dying) has both of these spells, and I've actually witnessed them interacting. When glitterdust is dropped in an area of magical darkness you still get a brief "pop" of bright dust, and can quickly see the outline of creatures in the darkness, then they are again covered by the darkness. Should they leave the area of magical darkness, you can again see them covered in the dust, even if they're invisible. So... that's how the makers of the DDO game think they interact. :-P

DM_Blake wrote:

GM: Because you're 15th level and this wall SHOULD challenge you.

PC: So you're saying that some magical force of the universe makes this same exact wall more than twice as hard as it used to be, only for the reason that I got better at climbing walls so walls got harder to climb???

You know what though, I've actually had this conversation with my players, and we've termed it "the level quandary." Which is a terrible name I'm sure, but that's what we called it. The idea being, Bing! You just leveled up, you just got better at a lot of things, and actually gained the ability to do some new things. Sweet! Guess what? The world around you just scaled to that new level of awesomeness, and things are going to be just as difficult as they were before, if not even a little bit harder. It is for this very reason that no matter what level my players' PCs are at, I always make sure to throw in, on less than rare occasions, a mob that they could literally stand around and watch attack them to no effect, then draw a weapon and slice and dice them all like so much Christmas ham; AND, an enemy or group of enemies that they HAVE to run away from, that they will either retreat or die. To me it presents a more realistic world, because dragons.

Also, roll dice.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

With as much gusto as the people at your table will allow! With GUSTO my friend, with gusto!!!

1 to 50 of 1,719 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.