|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
No, I honestly appreciate their work.
I've also been fortunate enough to see the new monk in actual play, and it's doing great.
Our local groups are pretty excited, and I know of around 30 or so people who are enjoying it. Another person came by today to borrow my book, and is looking to convince her DM to let her update her character.
Maybe it's different in your area. Couldn't say.
Loving what I hear so far. The spell smashing ability would be easy enough to add in, and raging vitality is a simple edit. When you take something and "unchain" it, I expect there to be some quirks.
Thank you for a tasteful fix to rage cycling, and rebalancing the powers.
I'm going to be watching threads to see what issues crop up (or don't), as I suspect there may be some pieces that quirk a bit when put together.
I love the concept of the rogue as a debuffer or strategic combatant. That said, I'd also be interested to see how these boosts affect their damage, etc.
Something in me wants them to be that medium track--not a King Damage class, but a more utilitarian one with strategy, and sneakery, built in, in an interesting and fun way.
It's for this reason I was thrilled when the rogue was effectively "split" into several classes. For too long, it's seemed as though folks were arguing for "master of x" role (see: slayer, swashbuckler, investigator), but there were too many things the rogue was "supposed to" be the master of.
The rogue wore too many hats, and didn't have its own identity--yet, many conflicting ideals over what it SHOULD be.
Regarding some of those concerns, I really would <3 to see a damage comparison to the fighter, slayer. The rogue mostly hurt for accuracy and opportunity; it looks as though both were aided and dependencies reduced...how did it change the other numbers? Any discussion, here?
Really looking forward to seeing the Unchained monk.
Also, thank you guys for considering some of the "number shiftiness" in designs, and working to streamline it out.
From what's being said, I'm curious about the barbarian. That is, I've some concern on how Unchained barb will work with future content--and will it require adjusting old content, and if so, how much?
The old adage about not taking a dump where you live comes to mind.
It isn't smart.
Talk with the player out of game. Post that, if he doesn't want to be part of the group, see about switching to the god of mercantile.
First, no, don't craft for him except at a raised rate. Say he gets 90% while the rest get 75 or at-cost. This is a great way to shift wealth back to you, where you can resdistribute. In addition, any spellcasting he receives, he pays for through NPC pricing to you, with additional "roaming costs" if you're in an inconvenient location, time of day, or in combat. Count your funds religiously so he can't bluff paying you.
Likewise, charge for any services. If he refuses, get him blackballed at your temple.
Nickel and dime him as a means to get your funds back, in other words. If he's robbing you once, you can balance the scales through fees, fines, and interest rates.
Don't forget the interest rates and additional "roaming fees."
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Anybody remember the time people found out that Chik-Fil-A donated money to groups that advocated for the execution of homosexuals and then social media caused a huge boycott that drove them out of business?
A true story that I would appreciate further investigation on.
Not long past, near where my father had worked, a Chik-fil-A was being built. Curious, he walked over there one evening to say hello to the workers and ask how things were going.
To make a long story short and abbreviate some steps inbetween, he ended up introduced to a number of the workers. Most of them did not speak English. One out of ten did, because that is what you needed to coordinate efforts--someone to translate the orders for everyone else, per group.
They told him this was the usual arrangement, and showed him the trailer where they were kept. Inside the trailer was a cage wall.
The idea was this: they were forced to live/work around the clock on the job site, then were packed away and shuttled to the next job site to work the same hours, under the same conditions. This is how Chic-fil-A (and perhaps other companies) build so fast.
The men couldn't speak English, were watched constantly, and were continually moved around, so they had no protections against the treatment and long hours.
He told me the men were desperate to share their story, in hopes someone would listen.
This wasn't some random person. This was my father, and it is a tale told within the last two years. I'd appreciate anyone else who has spoken with these workers, and invite y'all to share the tale.
Sometimes they who yell the loudest about values...
Have skeletons of their own.
Howdy. Not trying to imply that they do. I'm actually agreeing--with more extreme views, it tends to be a very small number.
Probably folks who use alias-inflation, too: small numbers.
...but the loudness and aliasing can make things seem bigger than they actually are.
Your story is a very good reminder that sometimes it's good to step back, and take a closer look.
Requoting because it definitely pays to check aliases, though some of these guys make puppet accounts, also.
Another thing to do is check tone and style, as well as how quickly the posts occur. If these three elements match up, it may be a puppet account.
For the more extreme views on anything, there tend to be a smaller number who are very, very loud. That is true about most anything.
I would send a polite thank you, and move on.
Doing the above will convince them that you're the antisocial powergamer they seem to think you are. It's a bad move. Also, it's going to come across as rude and condescending.
This is true even if you do not mean to be. I'm not pointing this out to be mean at all, by the way.
A polite note with a thank-you attached is the way to go.
Yeah. I'd start reporting the guy to the authorities, and follow up with the potions.
You could sell him to a wizard as a skillmonkey familiar. Just attach a tail.
What you might also do is work with the other members of the group, and deny him healing so long as he does this. It's amazing how effective that is.
If you're not allowed to kill him, you can still knock him out, repeatedly, and leave him behind on adventures. Did he spend points in tracking?
I'd also point out that things like diplomacy and so on working on other PCs is a house rule. I forget the source, but it's in there somewhere.
If the group is otherwise good, and they just aren't dealing with this guy...I don't know, man.
I just wanted to chime in here. Summoner was an ambitious attempt to create something new. They did a great job...but it needs revised, because it was so ambitious and different. There are a few dev comments on these boards to that effect, and even an outright "It's broken" quoted I believe, at a convention.
Pathfinder Unchained will address the Summoner (May 5th) for that reason. ...so, if this continues to eat up more of your time, require additional adaptions, actions or house rules--you might issue a stay until the revised class comes out, or at least state your intent to swap once it does.
4. You could also institute "bennies" for positive behavior. Being a good team member* during a session is worth one bennie, for example. Getting into a shouting match with the DM/other players isn't.
Bennies could be used for adding a 1d6 to a roll at opportune times.
This is another play on--being a good player makes your character better.
* There's some good guidelines for play posted here and there on these boards. I'd gather some of those up perhaps, and base such a system on them.
Just wanted to echo a few others--trying to beat a minmaxer at their game will just grant them justification for what it is they're doing: See, see?? This is the type of things we face! and so on.
There are a few approaches. Here's some of my favorites:
Tim the Sluggy wants to go beat up some guards just to show he can, and no one else in the party is in on it...Well, let a few rolls decide the outcome, then move on. Don't dwell on it and give the guy the spotlight.
(I realize some might disagree with my example, and there may be some times to beat up guards, but we're assuming the instance is an overall part of a greater behaviour problem.)
Minmaxers like to "win." Turn "winning" into the behavior you want to see makes them want it, too.
There are players who will decide descriptive doesn't matter if it isn't backed up by rules.
There are players who disregard descriptive altogether and say that descriptive and rules are completely separate.
It depends on who you're playing with.
I would tend to have descriptive and rules match, but do so in an overall way with broad strokes. Not everything needs rules added to it, because that gets insane.
I'd mostly remove sneak attack, and then rework the class to focus on debuffs.
The skill system needs reworked also.
Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:
Hey there. While this is good and well-intended, I wanted to add that following the "write down everything" guidelines too far can cause a worse issue when in this case what is important is the spirit of the game. Your "spirit of the game" isn't to pin down everything and interpret it to the nth degree no matter what.
Discuss as the poster said, yet focus more on outlining your house rules in general, then follow with a conversation about how to interpret rules in the future (RAI versus RAW, etc.). It will likely require more than one conversation before he "gets" it. However, and this is important: ensure that the player knows he will not be screwed over. ...and that you encourage discussion, but that railroading the game into a rules argument that takes over an entire session is not just bad behavior, it's unwelcome at the table.
How you respond should be within the spirit and intent of how you intend to play.
Just be sure he isn't punished for not knowing...and that he understands your group's expectation of behaviour at the table.
I would probably also set a limit to how objections are handled, as well as lawyering. That is, it may be brought up once in session and must be brought up politely. Details are reviewed after session whenever possible, and if the DM says no, accept it and move on, or find another table.
Pretty much what it says. Has there been any discussion or commentary by any past or present developers on increasing (or not) the skill points per level for the 2/level classes?
I understand that the skill points per level will not change in this edition.
I'm looking for if there had been commentary, or if this might be addressed in Unchained.
I found reference to some commentary but have had no luck tracking it down thus far.
Any help would be appreciated.
I have always been the fan of this mod:
At chargen, select either Dex or Str to handle:
* AC bonus
The other then handles:
* To-hit bonus
...and so on. Once assigned, this may not be changed. If they chose Str for their Ref bonus, etc. package, it could be explained as being strong enough to move more quickly (70 and 20 year olds will move their legs about the same rate and pattern; it's the force with which they strike the ground and then lift off that has the greater impact on their speed).
DnD encouraged me to learn math as a kid.
I can see a use for this feat. Most of them involve sneaky ways to encourage a kid (or yourself) to get better at math.
- A kid might try it because you told them "man, no one can do this!" just to prove you wrong
Result: Kid learns better math concepts, and gets immediate benefit
With respect to others, extreme Individualism vs Collectivism reminds me too much of today's political debates.
Here are some additionals:
The Value of Karma: Due to a bad agreement, all souls are doomed for hell, or heaven is just picky. In this system, there really is a weights and measures system. Heroism is one method.
Mixed Mythology: Heaven and Hell are a mythology crafted by the human dreamstate. Therefore, you have multiple Heavens and multiple Hells. The power of the mortal is really the power of its dreaming state and imagination, which causes such things to be real and is one of the reasons that all forms of Hell quest for the mortal soul. This does not mean that good or evil do not exist; only that while the core of them may be similar, the particulars vary from place to place, and the actual, living mythologies enforce it.
Right to Destiny: A different take on the above could be that Hell was the original creators, but the mortals, once slaves, were able to dream themselves free. This is the true value of the soul: to give dreams energy and power, over time. (Because this happens over time, how or if you have this mechanic fit into the game world is up to the DM).
It was then that mortals created Heaven. Heaven was the wish of all their dreams and wants. It is perhaps: A pure realm that Hell fights against their achieving by draining their souls and in the meantime, they're stuck in this middle, or only partly-achieved state. Alternately, perhaps heaven is too pure of a realm, and mortals find themselves doubly trapped. Even more alternately, heaven-as-made-by-mortals is really mixed up (some people are just twisted, and this was created by the shared dreams of -everyone-). It can save them from Hell, but is it worth it?
Heaven as Pure Ideas, Hell as Impure Fragments: In this, Heaven represents the purest form of creation, the purest forms of philosophy, of ideals, concepts, and ideas. The plane of fire might as well be one of Heaven's many parts. Most of Heaven is unviewable by mortal eyes, and is incomprehensible to the uncleansed body. Hell becomes the unworkable, castoff fragments of these ideals, who over time, go mad on their own. It is merely a consequence of creation and nothing is to be done for it. Think of it as the leftover parts of a sculpture, as broken clocks, untruths, as a shattered landscape and the fallen buildings of an architectual failure.
The war of mortals then is to protect their own plane of existence. While imperfect, the Mortal Realm is comprehensible to them, it is livable and new creations (from Heaven, this place of pure concept, etc.) filter downwards and generally do not harm them.
However, the leftovers do, these bits of bitter, useless leftover creation who did not "make the cut." Mortals train themselves to combat these fragments. The nature of the Mortal Realm, with its position between the Pure and the Impure, makes it the perfect battleground.
Faithwise, this world could be very practical with "what is good" being focused on local customs or survival...or it could worship ideals, which Heaven embodies. Good would be honoring what is Ideal and rebuking what is Corrupt of that Ideal. For example, an engineer would strive to embody and honor true design and strong safety measures, while rebuking what caused buildings to crumble. An engineer warped by Hell would infuse buildings with flaws, or build bridges to fall.
An artist could be both a savior and a sinner. On the one hand, an artist might use art as war, reclaiming fallen structures and giving them purpose. On the other, a deconstructivist would stand for exactly the opposite: tearing down what was once Ideal and rending it to rubble.
Back to the original topic...
Don't forget Hunter's Surprise.
I just wanted to add to this in a somewhat tangential way. Kirk Hamilton recently reviewed Kotaku's own policies and approach, as well as reviewing a related Wired article on the topic (handling internet trolling).
Quote from Wired Article wrote:
...there's more there, including how the focus on and treatment of an online space as a "community, so act like it" is one of the more effective measures you can have against negative behavior, combined with "those solutions which defuse the Internet’s power to amplify abuse but also encourage crucial shifts in social norms."
Nice! I must have missed them. I know one of the frequent grumps I'd run into regarding Plant Shape was the perceived lack of regeneration effects, and looking through I hadn't noticed any. I did see more fast healing, though. Perhaps this will help.
When I was looking through the Plant Shape spell, I started wondering if while it was being written, the author might've put down "Regeneration" when they'd meant "Fast Healing."
Since some plants have fast healing, and none (to my knowledge, though this might have changed) have regeneration, this seems like a reasonable conclusion.
So, is Regeneration really meant to have been Fast Healing in the Plant Shape series of spells?
I'm not proposing a debate or argument about the effectiveness of the spell. This is just me wondering if A had been meant to be B.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It's really mostly a control issue. Read any of the angryposts from a gamer feeling their choices/rights were taken away regarding Y, and then compare that to the up/down way SA works.
It's also that skills need to be more useful in specific ways.
The first is an issue with the SA mechanic itself (and a trust issue), and the second a more overall design issue that is outside the scope of an errata.
Loup Blanc wrote:
Echoing this...my first gaming group was composed of family and family friends. It was safe and fun. There's nothing wrong with this...and a rl group helps her develop offline social skills, too. It has the bonus of you dropping in to see how things go, and being able to speak with the parents.
In my own experience and reading of these threads, many players and DMs hate loss of control over their PCs.
Absolutely HATE it.
Want to stab it to DEATH.
The rogue sneak attack represents 'loss of control.' Limited per-day abilities do not have this issue.
Therefore, you'll never have a good discussion on SA, because half of it is actually from frustration of not having control over a character.
It doesn't matter if it's effective, or somewhat effective, or highly effective, etc. Not at all. It matters if the player feels in control of their abilities.
I once made a summation of what I'd considered to be general recommendations based on forum posts and various 'guides. It read something like this:
- All full BAB classes receive pounce beginning at L11+
I've also seen:
- Bad saves are unfun, so give everyone good saves.
So to add to this:
- Rogues should attack at touch AC.
It makes the game quite different. Perhaps if you are considering the touch AC, you should consider adding the rest as well.
Note: Don't take the above list as agreement or support. It's merely note-taking on my end of things.
Fairly well this, yeah...for example, I've run into the folks who tried PvPing everyone around them, or a wizard who claimed omnipotent knowledge and...the ability to PvP everyone.
I've found there are also fewer issues with "rules conundrums" so long as expectations are stated. Certainly none of the drama you'd expect from reading these boards. More, just the occasional attitude quirkle.
For example, the fellow who demanded a CE assassin with expanded gun rules. ...while giving what felt like an hours-long pro-NRA speech while arguing for additional gun options while attempting to out-stare the DM and and that all women should love him now, but damn them all for jilting him so far...and hey dude, what's the policy on PvP? ...you may not want that guy at the table.
Or the guy who pretended to be a female sorceress and would sit there drawing her boobs all the time, mostly to the tune of, "Lawl! I drew them too big that time!"
...are much more frequent than rules-drama.
Hey, there. I'm going to ramble on for a little bit, and then present a specific approach based on that ramble, so please forgive me. This is a pretty cool topic.
When dealing with a large amount of data, the human mind tends to create categories. So if it sees a series of different objects, it will attempt to classify them.
What I'm going to propose is that instead of presenting these books and options to a DM all at once or even a few at a time, you help him or her create these classifications and then use this as a selling point. In this way, the amount of data (which is what many have suggested is a barrier, here), seems less overwhelming and more familiar. Therefore, it appears less burdensome.
This is what I would do:
1. Promote one book...just one. It's much easier to build your case for The Idyll Treetops Supplement than Kobold #235, Kobold #651, Idyll, and then Thorinbreak Mountain Underdark all at once.
2. Through conversation, and without being pushy, talk with the DM about different 3pps or product groups (whichever you feel works). Be honest and thoughtful, but not pushy. Explain that players have tended to find Treant Slayers productions (making up a name, here) to tend to produce OP material. OTOH, Lantern Sea Gods has been in 3.x since before Paizo, and has won a lot of respect for producing balanced material. Or, perhaps cover where Lantern Sea Gods tends to get their ideas, "they always go back to CRB material during development, and balance around the ranger, barbarian, etc."
The purpose of this is to help your DM feel as though s/he "knows" the products, at least in general. This way, if you present five Lantern Sea Gods books at once, he or she has a means of approaching them and comparing them to, say, Treant Slayers.
It also helps illustrate the thought you've given towards these products.
Plus, understanding builds trust.
Remember, you'd selected each of these items individually, and your collection grew with you. Therefore, it feels familiar. However, when presenting a flood of data to someone else, we need to "pre-sort" as it were.
And, sometimes "pre-sorting" can help us make our argument in the long run, and can even be turned into a selling point.
In his A Brief History of Fashion in RPG Design, John Kim suggests that game design is less modeled after evolution in some ways than it is a series of related artistic movements. That is, one often develops in response to another. Or, in his own words: "where there are trends which may die out, or classic fashions which may revive."
In his essay, he outlined nine major movements within RPG design:
1975-1980: Explorational Wargames
1978-1988: Literary Simplicity
1980-1988: Rules-Heavy Worlds
1984-1993: Comical Rules-Lite
1986-Present: Universal Problem-Solving
1987-Present: Fast Cinematic Action
1991-Present: Dark Storytelling
1991-Present: Diceless Fantasy
2000-Present: Crunchy Challenge
...however, the article stops at 2000 (or 2004, when it was published). It's now 2014.
In your own thoughts, where are we today, and where are we headed?
Sometimes being concerned with how everything hangs together at the table is the biggest, most important thing...
...and that's a purely OOC issue.
I've met some fairly quirky characters...if there were issues though, it was rarely with the piece of paper, but the person who had written on it. A good person you can work with, generally.
And generally...you try to fit everyone in and to make it work. That isn't always possible though, despite every attempt otherwise. Usually, it comes down to OOC issues, as to whether whatever is going on can be resolved.
Sometimes, it also comes down to management of the table. A good DM or group can help mitigate some issues or help someone incorporate, but there's a reasonable limit here as well and a table is no place for a therapy session.
So in the end...yeah, I've run into some quirky PCs. I remember the person behind the paper more, though.
There is absolutely a middle row between the playstyles, here.
1. Treat some of them as a hazard, not a trap. Or/and,
A: Roll is successful: Disable a trap, or obtain detailed knowledge about the trap and potential disarmament
Benefits of a multi-part trap: A trap becomes a process which can involve coordinating several party members and a sequences of challenges as opposed to a single roll. For example, when allowing the rogue to use DD on a trap to analyze it, a DM might say: you recognize you can disable this device, but it would involve... (outline a loose process that includes some challenges).
Done well, the latter method can help the rogue feel like McGuyver, as well as involving the other party members in the challenge.
How often in a story have we seen the scout come back and say: there's this trap, guys. ...but I'm going to need your /help/.
And then it becomes a more interactive challenge and larger part of the adventure.
You don't want to do this every time, but it could offer you a middle ground.
I've also pretty much reiterated what other posters have said. Best of luck to you, and don't worry overmuch about the roll versus role arguments. Those things are bound to come up and the only really solution there is to work things out OOCly with your player(s). That said, a solution like the above can help both styles play nicely.
Some of you may know already, but I wanted to let y'all know that I was speaking with Richard the other day, and the Braille dice are moving forward. There is still some work to be done, but he's posted some mockups on 64's Twitter.
There are a number of specific issues with online gaming, as well as a number of strengths. Since you asked about the weaknesses and issues, I'll focus on those.
The type of issue depends on the online medium, and whether it involves a specific group of friends or a broader audience. Is it a persistent world, or by-campaign? I'll cover 10 general issues in this post. If anyone is interested in something more specific, please feel free to ping me.
1. Timezones are a big one...both in understanding them, and because you're also dealing with the separate scheduling of people across the globe. There are two "solutions" to this.
The first is to be somewhat flexible on your starting time...say give it, unofficially, a half hour. Be forgiving if someone shows up a little later than that. Just work them in as best you can. Importantly, remind your players to keep you updated...give them a way to contact or message you if they'll be late. If someone is consistently an hour late, speak with them about it, but if it's an occasional happenstance, just let it go. This is especially true with adult players; it isn't like when we were kids, or in college, anymore.
The second is that for one-off scenes, keep a waitlist. If someone is a half hour late, then they lose their spot. This lets you keep the scene full and keep moving, while being fair to everyone involved.
The third is accepting that scheduling conflicts, especially online, happen. Work with it as you can. Be upset at the constantly-late player if you need to, but by using the tactics above then chances are you're more able to work around it.
2. A second perhaps less obvious issue with online gaming is writing style. Players and DMs are so particular about style in TT and this does not go away when you are online. For example, sometimes players or DMs might insist that character responses are typed with a specific form of indentation. Other players may write short responses or none at all.
What can work here is either being accepting of a variety of styles (you may need to remind your playing group(s) of this from time to time. Another is to set an example of a preferred format and to work from there.
This is of course moot if you're playing over mic.
3. Mixed play styles and managing arguments. Somewhat different than #2, this refers more to play style...the old rollplayer versus roleplayer debate. Chaotic versus law. Some of these debates can become more intense online, where the screen hides us, or hides the very real impact of the other people at the table around us. Don't be afraid to enforce some time away from the table, or ask for a topic change. Don't be afraid either, to speak with players if you need to about the type of environment that's appropriate for the game. Sometimes, we all need a reminder to step back somewhat.
Managing online arguments could be its own point...and will be in just a moment.
4. Managing online arguments, the expectation of privacy, free speech, etc. Sometimes arguments become worse online. Also there are areas that people will explore online that they may not in life. For example, someone may come into your forums and begin arguing about gun control. They might, for example, joke about assaulting a public figure. Aside from being potentially jarring to the game environment, some of these statements can place you in an odd legal position (especially as online tends to = easily logged).
In the end, and this is important...think of the online space where you run your games as a home. You have the authority to set rules for it. This is not any different than Paizo having rules for its forums. If you run an online game, your policy for handling these behavorial situations is going to be important.
Also important: the policy does not need to be long. Some of the most successful games I have seen possessed very simple policies that amounted to: don't be a jerk.
5. Easy start/well-organized documentation becomes important. This is more true with a persistent online world, but also with a smaller one. Make the documentation easy to understand. Provide a "jumping in" document to help your players get on their feet and playing. That's what they're there for, after all.
6. The underbelly. Gaming can be an empowerment fantasy. Online gaming can also be a means to explore concepts and ideas you may be uncomfortable doing so in life. However, there are some fantasies that may not fit your style of game you're hosting, running, playing in and so on. Be aware of this and be upfront about it. If you've never heard or had someone ask to play a half drow hybrid catperson dominatrix elf half vamypre half sorceress...bless you.
7. Burst abilities and powers can become all-day powers. At tabletop, we become used to being able to do so many encounters in a session. Online, encounters simply take longer. This causes a few issues. The first is that it can make the adventuring day shorter. This greatly enhances the value of burst abilities, limited abilities, and so forth. The second is that it will or can skew balance. Classes that were balanced around a limited use of their abilities suddenly aren't.
8. Combat takes longer. This is important enough that it's worth repeating a second time.
9. Communication is the source of most conflicts; online, this can be magnified (unintentionally). For this reason, never be afraid to ask for clarification. If your players are new to online play, or even if they aren't, encourage this practice. It can save you some headache in the long run and encouraging a better gaming experience in the longer term.
10. Remember you have DM fiat (except in the case of PFS). There are many differences in online and offline gaming, and not all of them are evident at first glance. Some are more subtle than others. Don't be afraid to make some adjustments to enhance the experience if something doesn't quite work as well...or just needs a minor tweak.
Relevant Experience: About a decade's worth of assisting in running online d20 massive worlds/games, with as many as 4 scenes/day. You are all good people. :)