|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
That is actually my way of thought too : this is a pretty efficient way to curb down the power, without limiting creative options in the choice of classes.
And ban all stat boosting items, too.
I'm with you, but I already tried to contact them, and this is so annoying.
I am due to start a Razor Coast campaign sometime next year. Should I just tell my players "sorry dudes your character sheeets are ******" every time there's a new update ?
The great point of hero lab is precisely that it is open to everything Paizo, and then more.
And I am already spending way too much time on RPG/software forums, so no I can't find some to go to Lonewolf's.
Well, sorry for the rant anyways.
That is great.
However, once again, ALL third party files that are not sold from the lonewolf webstore have disapeared.
This happens about every new update and is frankly growing irritating. If some more permanent solution could be found to avoid this, that would be great.
Mana Chicken wrote:
I am all in favour of more realism, and more rules to limit magic, but there's such a thing as pushing it too far ...
The problem with 15 minutes adventure day is bad adventure design, and powermunching players exploiting it.
Want to avoid that ?
Write the adventure with victory conditions for the villain which means the PCs need to act now, or lose.
It can be :
Would it be logical IRL for the party to rest and nothing happens after their 15 minutes ? No ? Then don't have it in game.
Also, if the party stays immobile to rest, then they become targets to be ambushed. Stay out also of the boring and predictable three encounters a day. Send as many encounters as needed to make them squeal ... if that is logical with the situation.
I remember absolutely hating the delve format.
It made things much more complicated for me, and sometimes it was really irritating. I had the impression of reading the same text several times over as different sections were referencing the same thing, but not in the same way, leading to confusion.
Plus, as I recall, it made certain monster actions mandatory, as "the goblin will always charge you".
Better is the foe of Good as they say.
The Raven Black wrote:
I haven't showed me my OD&D "white box" yet ? :)
I also have the Fiend Folio authographed by Gary himself.
James Jacobs wrote:
Somehow, I am somewhat sad to read this.
I understand that you want a gaming atmosphere as friendly as possible, everybody is welcome for Golarion, and I deeply respect this.
The part of me that is sad though, is that I have the feeling that all of you are self-censoring yourselves because of this, in fear that someone might get offended. I don't mind adult and edgy themes, done right.
Please keep up the good work, and dare show evil for what it is. A good villain for an AP, is a villain you want DEAD, DEAD, DEAD !!!
All the best.
I had a very similar approach.
I had to tell players : "NO, your character cannot start with knowledge of Thassilonian", and no, no one can teach it to you, as no one speaks it.
That was in hope of getting them motivated to talk to Brother Quink, or whatever his name. it did not work though, they kept ignoring him for the whole campaign.
I also applied huge limitations on rolls pertaining to ancient history, and geography of the old kingdoms, until they found the library. then I lifted it all.
Actually, that did not change much, but I felt it was better.
Well, I part agree and part disagree with you.A really bloated amount of material has been written for D&D / Pathfinder over the years, yes. And you can now have a custom made character that covers just about any possible concept.
So that means that if you have a thematic adventure (SF, Pirates, Wild West ...) there IS something out there to run it. If everyone at the table agrees to avoid the kitchen sink approach and limit the options offered to stay true to the genre, than you CAN play about everything without having to learn another RPG system.
Fire hurts things more reliably than, say, holy water in the real world. It stands within reason someone would try with fire, before trying anything else.
Also, you don't have that many options in the core rulebook, without digging up weird manuals.
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Agreed, but even without that, there is nothing wrong with throwing an alchemist fire on a troll even if you failed the roll. Trial and error.If you have one available, and your normal attacks don't work as well as they should, why would you not try another method ?
And if someone finds this is meta gaming, then throw another kind of troll vulnerable to something else once in a while.
I am currently recovering from one myself. You have all my sympathies.
My best advice is tell the players that you need a long break from DMing, and ask them to DM you instead. Also, get some rest, and try other activities.Tell them, it's not them, it's you. And also, this is temporary.
It's been some six months since I stopped, and I am feeling infinitely better.
After reading the thread, there is a rule that I really don't like, and I have not seen it mentioned here : CORNERS !!! (And the rules for cover of concealment in general, but corners are the worse case IMO).
Corners give you basically +4 AC cover from all kind of attacks, and negate AOOs, and give you a +2 bonus to reflex saves.
This seems really unrealistic, but also it rewards idiot behaviour, like the mage putting itself in the front of the party, but in a corner, because he does not get AOOs.
This slows combat on both sides, as people do not always compute well the variations in AC.
And also, the corner cover punishes BOTH sides of the fight : it could make sense for some defenders to establish a bottleneck in a room at the end of a corridor, where they can block the mobility of the enemy, and stall them, and benefit from the fact they are more numerous than the attackers, but no, they are as handicapped as the attackers when they want to roll their attack.
I will grant that it makes sense to seek cover against missile weapons, but against melee attack, I do not think so, especially as the fights occur over an abstract grid with an already large size for the squares.
It also hardly seems heroic to win a fight by hiding in a corner, but then that's me. Sorry for the rant.
Except the problem is often that playing the rules as sacred, there is no much challenge left, and it is often auto-win but wrapped in tedious rules-minutia, so you are not really playing a game, and with all the time you are spending on that, there is not much left room for the story part which is rushed.
A little compromise can go a long way to fix that (without the artificial DCs thing).
I think this was an attempt to show him as a deranged character : a lot of those scumbags know they are doing wrong, and cannot reconcile this with their mind, so they attempt to compensate their actions with their self glorified opinion of themselves by being ostensibly helpful now and then.