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

Steve Geddes's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber. 8,358 posts (9,497 including aliases). 14 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 10 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,195 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

Non-profit isn't relevant as far as the CUP goes - it's non-commercial usage that matters. (Granted those are related, but they are distinct).

EDIT: Just in case it isn't clear, from what I've heard PFSRD sounds like a great site - my comments arent intended as badmouthing in any way. I think it's good that there's lots of options around, depending on what people are looking for.

I just think it's important to be precise when speaking about the OGL, PF-Compatibility License and the CUP. Speaking loosely can lead to some misunderstandings, I think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

We have some players who don't do much between sessions and others who do a lot.

It doesn't really bother me - I try to run the game the players want. If they want a relaxed pace where they do "admin" as a group, well so be it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
JPSTOD wrote:

I think it would be Nice to have a Guide Series done for Smaller Cities..

Information like what is Presented in The Dragon's Demand about Belhaim..I would snatch them up...Adventures and Adventure paths are okay but kinda expensive to buy just for Cities..

Have you seen Cities of Golarion?

It's a very underrated sourcebook, in my opinion. I really liked it (and the similar Towns of the Inner Sea).

Nothing beats a box set though. Shame about the economics... :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

From a 'how to do it' point of view, I find it's important to have the right mindset:

Accept that it's never going to go quite how you envisaged it would - the players will do weird things and totally miss your 'obvious' clues and plot hooks. You'll have an off night - forget to mention key facts, play NPCs poorly and other such misses. You'll have an exciting story-arc planned and it will become obvious that your players dont really care for it and are much more interested in something you threw out there as a bit of background flavor.

Allow the game to evolve and let what the players enjoy drive where you go. I think that's the key to making a fun game - dont fall into the trap of running the game you'd like to play in if your players have different tastes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

This isn't really the right place, but I can't think of anywhere better...

When the next batch of "dungeon dressing" figures are planned, any chance for an animated object/dancing sword/spiritual weapon figure? I'd often find a use for that, I'm sure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
This punishment from bad GMs who will force you to act like a mentally disabled person if you dare drop below a 10 in any mental stat... I can't think of any better word to describe it than wrong.

How about just not what you enjoy?

There's no objective way to judge preferences and labelling others' as bad or wrong is unhelpful.

They're not bad DMs for running games their players enjoy just because you wouldn't like it. They're not doing it wrong just because you don't like it done that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

I'd like a premium subscription that got me the class decks, a regular subscription, the iconic heroes sets and the various Ultrapro accessories. I don't want multiple copies of the promos though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
knightnday wrote:
Confession: People's comment that they will drop a game on a given dime over every perceived slight or table variation boggles my mind. I can count on one hand the number of games I've left in 35 years. Given the comments on the boards, I am shocked that some people manage to game at all.

Yeah me too (I can count mine on no hands). I've sometimes wondered at whether a significant part of the forum grar arises from two groups - those who play long term with the same half dozen people and those who mix regularly/often with several different grous.

My theory is that the experience of the two groups is quite different - especially in the 'how to resolve conflict between different preferred playstyles' part of the game. I sometimes find it quite difficult to even picture the scenes others describe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

I presume you're looking for more than the "one way to start" section? (Page 6 of the swords and wizardry version). That indicates it is intended for PCs of 2nd-5th level and provides a decent hook for getting things going (whether you take the Geas suggestion or not) based around Bard's Gate.

However, I think Shem's view of Sword of Air being a campaign setting, rather than an adventure is certainly a useful mindset to adopt. As such, you probably do need to read hundreds of pages to really see its full potential at your table.

Besides greater prep-time and greater improvisational demands, the other essential ingredient for successful sandbox adventures (in my opinion) is player buy in. If they're walking around trying to work out what they're "supposed to do" next, then I think this adventure is going to fall flat.

Sadly, this is my favourite RPG book of all time, but I suspect I'm never going to be able to run it. My players are far more comfortable playing heavily railroaded adventures.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

It's been widely reported.

One commonly posted solution is to "pre-fold" the 64 page sourcebooks. You'll see a crease line near the spine of the front and back covers. If you fold along that line as soon as you get the book (quite hard) it makes a kind of "brace" so that when the book lies open it doesnt stretch the spine quite as badly.

I believe the solution has had mixed reviews - it certainly works for me. Like you, my first few sourcebooks (APs and campaign sourcebooks) tended to fall apart. Since adopting this procedure I havent had a single one. Having said that, I'm sure I read a post somewhere by someone who had tried the above and found it made absolutely no difference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
xeose4 wrote:
I confess I'm always surprised when someone who says they hate Pathfinder and prefer another system posts on the Paizo boards. I mean, *I* think the boards are awesome but I enjoy the system too? I don't understand.

Perhaps they like paizo but not pathfinder? Perhaps they like Golarion or adapt paizo's adventures to another system? Perhaps they posted here before pathfinder existed and are comfortable with the forum and part of the community?

Lots of reasons to post here, even if you do hate pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:

Based on what they're saying, back then the second one was explicitly suggested - by the rules - as the way it should be. The lots-of-loot version was what you got if you mechanically followed the RAW.

The difference appears to be that today's rules don't judge you for doing so. ^_^

The rules in AD&D are particularly judgemental - the section I partially quoted goes on and on about how lousy DMs are who hand out too much treasure. Very one-true-wayish, in fact.

However, my point is actually that the second is RAW. It's unusual from a modern perspective, but all those random tables in the AD&D DM's guide aren't intended to be used by the DM to allocate treasure in usual instances. They are provided "just in case" they were needed by the DM (alongside the rules which said "don't randomly hand out magic items").

DM fiat was RAW - over and over the rules provide a bunch of stuff and then basically say "the DM might use this or might do something else". Or, as here, a bunch of tables are provided for generating magical treasure hoards and then the "allocate treasure" section of the rules says "don't do it randomly".

Things were different back then and evaluating rules written in the seventies as if they were written today is likely to lead one astray.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

Yeah - I agree with you.

It seems to me that reading 1970s rules from a twenty first century gamer's mindset can result in a certain "loss in translation". There's a tendency to not count the admonition on DMs to place magic items carefully as part of the rules, since modern editions tend to shun DM fiat, in contrast to AD&D which embraces it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

Thanks, Jessica. We'll have to win it back next year. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
williamoak wrote:
So I’m wondering what other GMs have done in this situation. There’s bound to be a solution, but I have yet to found a solidly built “social interaction/conflict” system, so I’m looking to everyone else. How do you manage those situations where someone would like to play a face but isnt one themselves?

I find I'm not naturally very good at this (as DM). What I try to do is to take the player's stumbling, or not terribly convincing words as the gist of the argument and respond as if they've been well spoken. So, from the outside, a high CHA character played by a player without the skills to be a RLface will appear to be dealing with a bunch of naive, friendly people - easily persuaded and not overly critical in their analysis. Occasionally, if I find the suggested line of attack unlikely to succeed and the player rolls well, I might suggest an amended approach.

It's hard to do all the time though. When a player comes up with some feeble attempt at bluff, my natural inclination is to make it a harder DC - even though a good bluffer should be able to come up with a good story. In physical skills, this is an error you don't fall into (judging the results of a fifteen foot leap based on eyeing Jim and deciding he'd never make it).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

I didn't think it was about breaking the game. I thought it was purely about "realism".

We know things about mundane threats - so when it's a legitimate, tactical choice to swim through lava or fall from orbit it seems silly. Nobody knows how hot a dragon's breath is - so it doesn't seem silly to think about expecting to survive it (even if in-game, it's basically the same thing).

I think it's an emotional response, not a logical objection.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

My take - kudos to the DM.

He obviously got a lot wrong, but once it was pointed out he was wrong he just said "Oh. Okay." In my experience, very few people are able to do that with such aplomb. I was sure he was going to start inventing "fighter-falling" rules on the spot, having backed himself into a corner.

Good story.

EDIT: Kudos to you too. I enjoy running games with PCs like that in them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

We used to care about that kind of stuff. Now we're just grateful to sneak a few hours of gaming in - devoting time to anything other than plot propelling doesn't seem worth the effort.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
Erik Mona wrote:

Nah, never mind me. I wasn't responding so much to one specific poster or one specific bit of feedback.

The weight of years on this stuff is just getting to me, and shifting me into a necessarily more pragmatic view of things.

You can't please everyone all the time. I'm coming to grips with it. :)

Nonetheless, I dont have to just give negative feedback...

I'm pleased with the ghouls, bugbears and gelatinous cubes (though I've got a stupid number of the latter already - they just always appeal to me, for some reason).

I also think it's awesome that future figures tie-in with previous figures (ie the town guard captain). That extra effort for 'backwards consistency' is greatly appreciated as a long-term collector.

And finally - Kalindlara has persuaded me that I should like this premium figure after all. As she points out - all these gargantuan miniatures I crave dont actually get that much use at the table. I may not be keen on dungeon dressing - but I'll still probably use the bar more than any of the gargantuan monsters I've got. So thanks for broadening my horizons!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
Erik Mona wrote:

Mike and I got a crack on the setlist for the next set today.

I'm at the same time super excited about the cool stuff in there and dreading the inevitable disappointment each of these reveals seems to bring.

But, as this message board is not a personal diary, I think I'll leave it at that for now.

Hope you enjoy what we have coming up next week.

Some of you won't. :)

Boo me! (Sorry for being a downer, Erik - my earlier post was intended as feedback, not criticism).

Whether I enjoy the choices you make in any set or not, I really respect the process you go through and the effort you put into trying to achieve the impossible (a complaint-free set).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

I'm in a peculiar position with this set - I almost wish this set was less suited to my needs: I have zero enthusiasm for non-combatant figures (since I don't represent non-fight scenes with miniatures and battles in the presence of innocents aren't that common in my games). So I'd quite like to skip the set - except it's got some minis which are useful to me. Also, I like the fact you're pushing the boundaries even though it's in a direction I have no interest in.

I won't go on about it, but I wanted to say that I'm anti-enthused by this set, even though I'm going to keep my subscription. I'm doubly disappointed by the "dungeon dressing" case incentive - those are so rare that skipping a gargantuan monster is a big disappointment. The fact the chosen dungeon dressing is not going to be tactically very useful makes it even moreso.

Still - glad you're experimenting and willing to push the boundaries. Fingers crossed you push in my direction next time, Erik. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
Triune wrote:

I'd be interested to know what character "needs" such a high point buy vs would like to have it but it isn't necessary. If you just want you're far more likely to screw yourself over than get the desired results. And if you're playing such a needy character (and not even monks are that needy), using dice instead of a higher point buy is just silly. Remember, the discussion is why people prefer it, not why they're forced to use it by stingy DMs. I suspect that by your wording and quotations you likely agree.

Subjecting people to the whims of dice to determine whether or not they get to play the character they want is outright stupid.

People confuse need and want, and since they want something they assume they'll get lucky and get it. Same reason people go to casinos. The math says you'll likely lose and should take the safe bet, but people prefer to gamble.

I don't disagree with you broadly - I think your point about comparing high stat roll methods with low point buys was particularly well made. Nonetheless, I think it's overreach to declare it mathematically proven. I don't agree that those advocating dice rolling as superior for MAD classes are falling victim to the gambler''s fallacy. The world is full of controversial premises and what can appear a foolish conclusion often turns out to be a rational response to an unstated assumption.

With regard to your latter point, I prefer dice rolling (taking the results in order) but that's as a player. As DM, I use whatever method suits my players - I definitely agree that forcing someone to roll who doesn't enjoy it is unlikely to generate fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
Triune wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Triune wrote:
The only way rolling comes out ahead is if you're comparing it against a point buy of lesser equivalence. Or if your method produces such low average stats that your only possible hope of playing a MAD character to any degree of effectiveness is to get super lucky, in which case you're correct, but at that point playing a MAD class is a pipe dream you should probably give up on, or talk to your DM about ruining everybody's fun :).
Sure. However, I think that is when people make the argument - when they think that whatever pointbuy method is on offer is prohibitively harsh on MAD characters.

Exactly, and at that point, they always assume they'll get lucky. Always. The math just doesn't bear that out. Even 4d6 drop the lowest, equivalent to about an 18 point buy, gives a less than 40% chance of playing a well rounded MAD character, and the math only gets worse from there. I'll take the 18 point buy at that point, thanks, I can work with that.

People may feel that way, but the fact of the matter is that at the stat points people almost always play at, they're wrong.

Theyre not necessarily "assuming they'll get lucky". I understand the premise is controversial, but nonetheless if you want to play a MAD character and you think it "needs" a 22 point buy, you're being rational to choose 4d6, drop the lowest over an 18 point buy - some chance is better than no chance. It's especially reasonable if you play often (so you can play a SAD character when you roll average or worse and wait for the lucky game when you achieve your magic stats to play that MAD character that "needs" 22 points).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

My party scouted out the area pretty thoroughly. This included looking underneath the building (where the skiff was tied up). Initially, they were hoping to find a way up in to surprise the thugs, but when they saw the walkway underneath, they chose that as their first point of attack (and so ended up bypassing upstairs completely).

I think if they go through the place and see the hole in the floor leading down to the water where orphans are sent to Gaedren for punishment, they'll be certain to investigate. Especially once they clear out the upper part of the building completely.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

Cheers. Just different tastes, I guess.

The Electronic suppport that WotC are offering is pretty far ahead of the field, in my view. The Elemental Player Guide free PDF is pretty sensational. Plus it comes as Print-On-Demand - as a kind of mirror of your position, I wont read anything if it's electronic only (free or not) but I was glad I picked that up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
Triune wrote:
Remember, even a a 73% chance of success is a 27% chance of failure that will adversely affect your character for their entire career, and SAD classes are still much, much less likely to be screwed (and much more likely to get at least a 17 in at least one stat using your method, by the way). A high point buy gives a 100% chance of screwed over avoidance. Can't beat those odds. The whole idea that rolling is more beneficial for MAD classes is a myth that the math simply refutes.

I don't think it's relevant that SAD classes are "much, much less likely to be screwed" if you roll. I think it's the upside that rolling has over point-buy if you've got your heart set on a MAD class.

I assume the point is that the unusual 'killer rolls' are not that useful to the SAD classes (in that they're no better at their core abilities, they're just broader) but are very useful for the MAD class (who will otherwise struggle to be good at their main schtick). If you roll poorly you're more likely to be screwed as a MAD class than a SAD class - but the argument goes (I presume) that you're just as screwed by the limitations of point-buy, unless it's a particularly high budget.

Hence rolling is better for MAD classes than point buy because if you roll low it's no real loss (you're still as disadvantaged by your class's stat requirements as if you'd used point-buy and the poor rolls dont really impact on the SAD classed character), but there's an upside if you roll high (because the benefit to your MAD class is more significant than that to a SAD class).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
Sara Marie wrote:
Surprise is a card game thing. Its the promo card.

I think someone needs to explain to Sara Marie what "surprise" means....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
chaoseffect wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I suspect that our PF characters would suffer the same bias and the low-stat adventurer would just think he was really unlucky..

I see your point, but I imagine the low stat adventure really wouldn't have much time to consider how unlucky he is considering the high possibility that a few rats are feasting on his brain after defeating him in a fair fight.

I think a lot of people would be willing to say that yeah, they could probably take down someone in a knife fight, but I would see that confidence evaporating when confronted with someone who takes them up on it and asks if they want to do so for real. It's the difference between idly bragging in a tavern about how you ain't scared of no orc marauder and actually saying it to that orc's face as he rages and runs at you with a falchion. Most people without experience or at least some external confirmation of their perceived skill ("I'm the best warrior in my village of 15 peasants!") would nope the hell out of that situation, and I think the guy with straight 10s would fit into that "most people" category.

It's kind of an "adventurer's anthropic principle" at work:

Clearly a greater proportion of adventurers with poor stats are going to die than of those with great stats. However, once they've made it up a few levels I think the gap is going to close as WBL kicks in and the low-level variance recedes - as such, some of them are going to make it through and I daresay they're going to be just as cocky and arrogant as thrillseekers in real life tend to be - regardless of their natural talents, I suspect they'd be pretty darn impressed with themselves.

Granted we each have different triggers for "verisimilitude" - learning languages is what always drags me out of an RPG. I've never seen that done well. The gormless git ploughing on into battle rather than retiring with his first few hundred gold pieces just doesnt rub up against my 'reality filter'.

Quote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
When I end up with a sub-par character, it's a similar thing - I enjoy trying to get them to survive within the constraints of the bad luck I've been given.
I can see how trying to survive with severe limitations could be amusing, but I see that as most likely a short term pleasure that I have to be in the mood for. Sometimes I would rather just get rid of the joke/challenge character that I shouldn't bother getting attached to because of his 5 constitution and get on to a character I can actually have some emotional commitment to.

Yeah, I personally think you're in the majority. Nonetheless, purely in the interests of answering the OP's "what's the point of rolling?" query - that's a big part of it for me. Seeing how far I get with a handicap (not that a truly handicapped character happens often with 4d6, drop the lowest).

Quote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I dont find "character power" to be a significant part of whether I enjoy a game or a specific PC - so ending up as a superhero or a sidekick doesnt really bother me
In my experience the people who tend to say that character power doesn't matter to them tend to say it at the theorycrafting stage or character generation. Then we get to actual play and they get frustrated when they realize that they never hit the enemy, their spells never take effect, and their skills never work. I personally don't have fun when, try as I might, my character just fails to be competent at anything.

Well I dont really "do" theorycrafting, so all I have is experience at the table. I've certainly seen some strange "rolling" conventions though that lead me to suspect you're correct about many - like "Roll for stats and if you dont like them you can use pointbuy..." which seems a little odd to me.

Quote:
That said, games I play in tend not to have DMs who adjust so weaker PCs can still do their thing. Expect table variation.

Indeed. We also all tend to die when we play pathfinder at around about 8th level or so (we just run PF adventures as written and generally run into something that wipes us out near the end of the second book of an AP). Given I enjoy low level play a lot, it's probably consistent of me to favor a PC-generation method in which I'm quite likely to die... :o


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

I dont know that our PCs are very accurate at estimating what their stats are. It's generally amusing in the "What are your real life stats?" threads, just how highly people tend to value their own abilities. There's reasonably well established research that shows we tend to put our successes down to skill and our failures down to bad luck - I suspect that our PF characters would suffer the same bias and the low-stat adventurer would just think he was really unlucky..


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
MrConradTheDuck wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I like it because it's fun and interesting (and because it's from a bygone era which I quite enjoyed and want to hold onto as long as I can). Different strokes and all that - I dont find "character power" to be a significant part of whether I enjoy a game or a specific PC - so ending up as a superhero or a sidekick doesnt really bother me (most of the time, of course, you'll end up a little bit better than average).

I agree it should be part of a game's 'advertising spiel' - it's a very different thing.

I suppose, really just want to know the appeal. I see no point in playing if I'm literally worth less then the goblin we fought two levels ago.

Well, in my case I really enjoy constraints when creating a character. I dont even assign my stats when I roll - I take them in order and see what class/race "makes sense" with the array I end up with. That's partly because that's how I've always done it, but is also just a mindset: I dont regard myself as creating a character and then beginning play - I regard the generation of character as the start of the game (and it is governed by luck, just like the rest of the game).

When I end up with a sub-par character, it's a similar thing - I enjoy trying to get them to survive within the constraints of the bad luck I've been given.

One thing I think is relevant is that my workday is full of legislative interpretation, optimisation decisions, number crunching and risk analysis. I generally avoid games with those features - and when I do play them, I just tend to ignore those elements. When I play pathfinder, for example, it's quite common for me to try a fighter with an 18 charisma (or similar) - I dont have a lot of energy for sifting through the books looking for 'ideal options' and synergies across multiple features - I do that at work so it doesnt really feel like a fun thing to import to my hobby.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

I like it because it's fun and interesting (and because it's from a bygone era which I quite enjoyed and want to hold onto as long as I can). Different strokes and all that - I dont find "character power" to be a significant part of whether I enjoy a game or a specific PC - so ending up as a superhero or a sidekick doesnt really bother me (most of the time, of course, you'll end up a little bit better than average).

I agree it should be part of a game's 'advertising spiel' - it's a very different thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Not just a different set of skills, but a larger set of skills - at the expense of something else. The only way I see to do that is to use one of your very rare feats to do so.

Any house rule thoughts on this?

Personally, I like the limited mechanical customisation of a 5E PC - it's one of the elements of 5E that takes me back to 'how things were in my day' where characters are very similar mechanically and the differentiation is all in the personality. In fact, my criticism of 5E is that there's too much customisation - so far it's proving a good halfway point between what I like and what the rest of my group likes though.

One issue you mention that also came up for us was the all-or-nothingness of the skilled feat. You can't trade something away for just one skill, but rather have to be much more broadly skilled than anyone else by picking up three skills/tools.

A houserule I offered to my players (though they ended up not taking it up) was to invent a new incarnation of one of 5E's 'semi-stat' feats. Namely, a feat that granted proficiency in a skill and +1 to the associated stat. I find it interesting you regard feats as very rare - in my mind they're reasonably plentiful over a character's life (since the stat gain alternative isnt that powerful). Granted, my characters have nearly all been variant human fighters - so I'm getting more than most...

Another thing I'm using in a two PC game is to just give both PCs the skilled feat for free (though that's more about covering all the bases, rather than to help them customise their characters)

I wouldnt recommend 5E to someone who enjoys the tinkering with different character options so exemplified by PF. If someone like that was in my 5E game, I'd definitely use the feats subsystem and probably also grant three or four additional skill/tool proficiencies over a character's development - perhaps one new proficiency each time your proficiency bonus goes up, as that's easy to remember.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

I don't know if you want answers, but here are mine:

Tacticslion wrote:

When flagging a:

- Spammer, which do I choose?

Breaks other guidelines.

Quote:
- Post that has a link to an NSFW site, but lacks that warning, what do I choose?

Offensive/sexist/racist.

Quote:

Is flagging my own post the correct response when I've:

- Made a spelling error?

- Improperly used BBCode Markups?

Wow. You have standards!

Quote:
- Unintentionally insulted someone or something?

I'd use Personal insult/abusive.

Quote:

What happens (or what should I do) when I:

- Disagree with a deleted or edited post, or a moved thread?

Send an email to community@paizo.com or start a thread in the website feedback subforum.

Quote:
- Accidentally flag a post (or flag it, then regret it)?

Don't worry about it. I've done this a few times and asked about an "undo" option - the reply was that it's such a little deal it's not really worth them worrying about.

Quote:
- See a post that contains words purposefully replicated from a Paizo-created work? (Such as an extended quote, with page citations.)

I wouldn't stress, but if it were bad enough, I guess Copyright/Intellectual Property Infringement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
Zolanoteph wrote:
This is unfair. I am requesting that the moderators discipline my detractors.

Because that's the way to win true love? :o


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

I share your view on giving paizo the benefit of the doubt too. In my experience, it's the APs I've least looked forward to that have worked out the best at the table. (Something to do with my expectations, I presume).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
GypsyMischief wrote:
Is this somehow charming if you've been here longer than two years or so?

Well it's something new, which is good enough. I don't need charming.

FWIW, I presumed this was some kind of joke. Not having many friends myself, I have a habit of awkwardly joining in with other people's in jokes....and just getting them, slightly wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
Cuuniyevo wrote:
Does pulling a tough encounter out of thin air count as fudging?

I think it does (which is part of the reason I'm so sanguine about cheating and regard the "fantasy world of an RPG, governed by objective rules" to be an illusion).

To me, there's no difference between deciding that the low level mooks all roll higher than is statistically possible or deciding that a higher-than-expected-CR-monster happens along to "provide more of a challenge".

The latter is far more socially acceptable though, it seems to me (and hence superior).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
Skeld wrote:

Has Gorbacz posted to this thread yet? He's on my ignore script.

-Skeld

I don't think he's posted here in years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

I'm pretty sure (though it's been years since I heard it) that the failure of prophecy was baked into the Golarion setting precisely to prevent this kind of story. A kind of deliberate, creative constraint paizo imposed on themselves.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

Look, it's not you....it's us.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

It doesn't bother me if people cheat. I think the perception of a fantasy world with objective rules determining the consequences of the PC actions is largely an illusion anyhow.

FWIW, I think the policing of cheating should be part of the DM's job (for pragmatic and social reasons). Therefore, I don't think it's right to push it publicly if the player has "won" the argument, albeit by strength of personality rather than logic. I think it would have been better to bring it up with the DM privately again. He may not like conflict, but I think that's part of the job of running a game (and it's better than a free-for-all, in my view).

Having said all of that - my guess is that your views and actions would be pretty widely held/taken.

So what if a player instead of rolling dice and pretending to not choose the number he wants just openly does not roll and says I choose a 17 for my roll?

He is doing the same thing the cheater is doing. He is just being open about it. Should he also be allowed to keep his numbers?

Well, even that extreme wouldn't bother me, personally (I think. Thought experiments like that can be tough to genuinely answer, no matter how well you think you know yourself). However, I didn't frame it as a "should" thing. I don't think everyone should share my preferences. I suspect most would be unhappy with "pick a number" gameplay, even if it wouldn't bother me and if it impacts on the rest of the group's enjoyment, it's an issue.

As DM (which I usually am) I never audit character sheets or monitor rolls and if people tell me they've drunk a potion or cast a buff spell or something and forgot to tell me - I take their word for it. If a player came to me about another player cheating then I'd see it as my role to sort it out. My personal preferences wouldn't be the overriding factor then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
As DM, though, I'm usually very careful not to. The BBEG always has rules-legal abilities, strict WBL, and mooks allowable under his Leadership score, for example. NPCs' skill points and other stats are carefully derived. Dice are rolled in the open, no fudging from me. Etc.

Heh, I'm running a 5E PbP right now, with a party picked from an open recruitment thread. I announced in the first post of said thread that I owned only the PHB, and therefore all the "GM stuff" like monster stats and environmental effects and so forth would all be shamelessly pulled out of my arse.

We're having a blast. :)

We are. :)

Though we may, possibly be heading into our first TPK... :o


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

I'm going to put my money on Kingmaker.

I reckon the PACG design team would love to get their teeth into that challenge - I also think the "standard/nonstandard" paradigm is more important for the TTRPG audience. I'd guess the PACG crowd are more interested in innovative mechanics rather than some strong thematic preference.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Does bounded accuracy mean a fighter and wizard have the same bonus to attack or does it just mean stats(not just ability stat) have a ceiling built in such a way that characters such as a cleric and a fighter will have a meaningful difference in attack rolls, but it wont be so far apart that the cleric can not contribute in melee to what a fighter is fighting.

The latter. There's nothing inherent in bounded accuracy that says everyone has to have the same bonus. That's a perception of 5E's implementation of it (although isn't actually true - BAB and proficiency aren't actually equivalents, they're just similar. So all the "fighting" classes have class features to boost their attacks. A fighter chooses from a variety of fighting styles which increase either to hit or damage, for example - on top of the proficiency bonus).

The key feature is that the difference between untrained and "theoretical best" is narrower (in any endeavour to which bounded accuracy is applied).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
EDIT: I do predict some folks will be gobsmacked by the AP. Others will be delighted. Others will be disappointed. Others will be sad. Hopefully most folks will be intrigued and excited about this AP...

Is there an AP that didnt apply to?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
Erik Mona wrote:
One day, I won't be doing this anymore, and a part of me will be very relieved.

Well that's just great. What about ME, Erik? Who's going to pick miniatures for me then? Did you think about that? Huh?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

Yeah, it does solve that problem (to some degree, I confess I haven't played that much of it, but so far nearly every encounter seems relevant to nearly every PC and vice versa).

However, you end up with level twenties not being able to climb sheer cliffs (or with untrained novices having a chance to do so). That's the problem I envisage with trying to port it into a second edition of pathfinder.

I would recommend giving 5E a try though. It's not my cup of tea really, but my group enjoys it and it's a good compromise game for us (not too heavy, not too light).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber

It has far reaching consequences (at least the way 5E did it) - the very best in the world doesn't end up that much better than a novice. So levelling is a much more gradual increase in power.

Which is why I personally don't think it's such a good "fit" for pathfinder - I think the obscene difference between fragile level ones and earth shaking level twenties is really part of the game. In 5E you start more powerful, but you don't increase in scope of action very rapidly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Tales Subscriber
Morzadian wrote:

Steve, I agree with you.

From the amount replies about 'bounded accuracy' and thoughtful replies, pro-Pathfinder supporters did read and listen to what the D&D 5e supporters had to say.

It might of become a little heated, but it wasn't spiteful or insulting on purpose.

'Bounded Accuracy' is a very contentious issue. Many of us were part of the 5e play-test (myself included), and 'bounded accuracy' was the deal breaker that made us stay with Pathfinder.

Sure. As I said I have no problem with the argument (FWIW, I don't think PF2 should use bounded accuracy).

I object to the "heat", though and always will, even when (as now) I agree with the people who are being aggressive.

1 to 50 of 1,195 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.