Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber. Pathfinder Society GM. 439 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 13 Pathfinder Society characters.
I am also glad to see that there are people who want to play Pathfinder instead of just running the numbers.
What does CE exactly do except changing some numbers?
It gives options. Viewing the game from a purely mathematical point of view is not how the majority of people play. You don't have to like the feat but to assume that it is never a good choice is obviously wrong. It has been demonstrated more than once that it can be a good choice. Unless you are saying that everyone who found it useful to be lying. You don't have to like the feat and you might find it useless but that isn't a given for all players.
Clearly, I'm a roleplayer in a room full of gamists. You're all about metagame strategy, party builds, and such. I'm thinking of it all from the perspective of the character. If he can protect his comrades in arms, he will, but he's got to protect himself first. A dead tank doesn't even make difficult terrain, much less help anyone else.
This is the way real world life guards think: if it comes to them or the person they are trying to save, they will put the drowning victim in harms way to protect themselves (such as a rescuer putting the victim in between himself and the jagged rocks in river rapids). After all, if the rescuer dies, the victim most certainly will too.
In our games, the party doesn't all stand around saying "we need a tank and trapfinder rogue for this quest" or "let's go to the nearby Goblin Wood and grind some easy XP by slaughtering a few tribes." They are usually hapless people who got thrown a strange lot and thus became adventurers. They deal with things as they come, and adapt when able. They don't kill monsters for loot and XP. That's what PC gamers do. Roleplaying characters have lives and goals. A gamist's character is all about the numbers, gear, and leveling up for bragging rights. Our party kills living creatures to save themselves, to save others, or as part of a fight for a cause, not because they can.
In short, gamist characters are all about the mindless grind towards the top. Roleplaying characters CAN be about that, but they have a story to tell too.
As for shallowsoul, I really don't know where this 'factual proof' of yours is. If you mean character builds, then yes, there were a few character builds that relied on being human and having a high intellect before crowing "look how many skills the fighter can get!". I'm not impressed by the 'factual proof'.
If that was what he referred to, then I do not find that proof of anything either.
Don't forget headbands of intellect to give the Fighter more skill points, because obviously everyone else can't do that too. :P
The other arguments all involved very specific racial builds (one had to be a half-orc with scent-based feats), for example. It was akin to saying "Fighters are great and can make lots of magic items, as long as you're a gnome", which is about as accurate as saying "Gnome barbarians can make lots of magic items". It's true, but not for the reason it's being argued.
Which Brings me back to My Point: Fighters get a lot of flak because they require way more system mastery to be viable compared to their peers. I even like playing Fighters, for specific purposes. However, again, I feel less inhibited by them due to excessive amounts of system mastery, and the reliance on custom made magic items to remain relevant at higher levels.
But for some reason, you can't give an honest criticism around here without people crying that you must obviously hate fighters forever, and must be biased against them, etc, etc.
Yet there is a bias I've noticed in this thread. A bias so strong, that people are willing to break the rules and cheat to try and make the Fighter look bad, declare rangers to have spells that are only usable in combat (despite me listing about 1/2 of their spells and pointing them out as non-combat spells), and arguing that apparently a Ranger's class does nothing for helping them be item crafters, despite the fact their class automatically qualifies them for item creation feats to be used in their...
The problem is that fighter haters keep using misinterpretation, exaggeration, and hyperbole, since this is a point at me.
Yes EVERY CLASS CAN USE A HEADBAND FOR SKILL POINTS. Guess what? Not being able to Craft IS NOT A FIGHTER PROBLEM. Anyone can do it. It's NOT a problem if you want to do it!!!
My examples didn't use Archetypes. Thus, not 'all' the examples used them, yet you just dismissed them all because your arguments didn't apply.
A rule that applies to ALL CHARACTERS requires more system mastery? I suppose.
You definitely have an anti-fighter bias, and you take it out on others who acknowledge the weaknesses, yet have found workarounds.
ANd then you go right into character slams. Nobody broke the rules. The majority of ranger spells are designed for combat use, not 'all of them', and not 'only useful in'. Exaggeration and hyperbole, and willful misrepresentation of facts. A Ranger's class puts him 3 levels behind a fighter in making items...a fact you are ignoring. The fighter can make all the key items he needs with one feat, the magic item Malignor noted obviates even needing to spend for the Crafting feat, and you are ignoring the goalpost...the complaint that the Fighter can stay absolutely relevant and productive in down time.
And then you bring in SLOW TIME PLANES, to complete your argument. It's kind of ridiculous to even have to read it, Ashiel. C'mon, tone it down, lighten it up, and understand the position.
The fact that the fighter is a less versatile then a ranger is about as relevant as the fact that the ranger is not as good as a wizard...so the Ranger should never craft.
as long as the fighter can remain productive and useful and pump out 1000 gp of valuable and usable gear during down time, that's ALL that is required. That's it. Stop. End of argument.
Your 'infinite time' argument is not. Most campaigns do not have 'infinite time'. A normal AP is going to have 2-6 months of downtime, MAYBE. Most campaigns are done before 12, most AP's don't reach 18. ANd if you have 'infinite time', you keep pumping out +10 armor, +6 stat boosters, magic boots, torcs, gauntlets and girdles. It's not that hard to do.
So, you're railing at a straw man, an argument that is not there. Malignor is trying to make the point that Crafting is a fighter problem with his Commoner post. It's not true. It's proof that Crafting is NOT a Fighter problem. It's a General Character Problem. That's it. A Commoner can do the job, which means a Fighter can do the job, which means a Ranger can do the job, which means a bard can do the job, which means a cleric can do the job, which means a wizard can do the job. ANYONE CAN DO THAT JOB.
So, it's not a fighter problem if anyone can do the job. The goal post has been met...if he needs to be productive in downtime, he can be productive in the downtime.
The only limiting factor is time. And no, most campaigns do not have infinite time, the same way they don't have infinite gold, and no, most campaigns don't end up with slow-time planes, either. As a matter of fact, I can't think of any non-Epic ones that would consider it, and it's a GM house-rule to even allow such an imbalanced monstrosity. That argument isn't an argument either. Nobody plays at that level.
And it's interesting how you rail about the need for custom magic items, then turn around and make tons of disposables, but the fighter can't use those...and use 3.5 slow-time planes abuse, but don't draw on the incredibly rich heritage of 3.5 magic items which can allay almost all the weaknesses you're looking at.
So, yeah, we're detecting a lot of anti-fighter bias, and it's coming out in spades. You need to take the rant and emotion out of your argument, acknowledge the counter-points, and move on.
I'm also trying to figure out how the fighter class brings the ability to craft items. As you've said, they're just general feats that anyone can take. What does the fighter class bring to downtime?
This question needs to go away because it really is the definition of a stupid question. This is a role playing game. If you can't figure out what to do during down time, then that's not a problem of the class. It's a problem with the player. I suggest trying to actually role play. You may find lots to do during down time.
The fighter, like every other class, can invest skills and feats that matter to him or the party during down time. The fighter is designed to be a master of combat. I don't see anything that even remotely suggests that he is supposed to be anything else. If you want more than a bunch of extraordinary combat options, then play something else.
From the PRD:
Quote:
Some take up arms for glory, wealth, or revenge. Others do battle to prove themselves, to protect others, or because they know nothing else. Still others learn the ways of weaponcraft to hone their bodies in battle and prove their mettle in the forge of war. Lords of the battlefield, fighters are a disparate lot, training with many weapons or just one, perfecting the uses of armor, learning the fighting techniques of exotic masters, and studying the art of combat, all to shape themselves into living weapons. Far more than mere thugs, these skilled warriors reveal the true deadliness of their weapons, turning hunks of metal into arms capable of taming kingdoms, slaughtering monsters, and rousing the hearts of armies. Soldiers, knights, hunters, and artists of war, fighters are unparalleled champions, and woe to those who dare stand against them.
Role: Fighters excel at combat—defeating their enemies, controlling the flow of battle, and surviving such sorties themselves. While their specific weapons and methods grant them a wide variety of tactics, few can match fighters for sheer battle prowess.
Oh, and since he does have Knowledge (engineering) he can do some work for the kingdom and townsfolk. He can do contractual work or charity work, building the party's reputation and help get more contacts. He can barter his skills with others. Maybe he will help the king get a new type of ballista and in return he has access to the royal family that others may not get. Remember that the fighter can have 3 skill points per level, not just 2. If he is a tactician, he can have 5. In addition, he gets extra skill points from race and Intelligence just like everyone else. If you want a bunch of skill points, you need to invest in that just like everyone else. The ranger has a bunch of skill points, but also needs them because he has given up some things, like heavy armor and weapon mastery, to pick up other abilities.
If you want a fighter that does more than just swing a variety of weapons, then you should look into archetypes. They are specifically meant to modify the core fighter to fit different themes.
I say again, that your problem isn't with the fighter class. It's with you wanting the fighter to be something that it was never meant to be. You want it to be a ranger, or barbarian, or whatever. If you can't build to your concept with one class, then find the class that allows you to do so.
What I'm seeing here is not a problem with the fighter at all but people trying to put the fighter into situations to try and make the fighter look bad in order to justify their argument. I can come up with situations to make each and every class look bad but that doesn't mean there is a problem with the class. Not every class can handle each and every situation and there are times when it takes everyone helping each other in order to get through an encounter or a situation.
When you have to go out of your way to try and make the fighter look bad then there is a problem with that person and not the fighter.
Bob is the only one who's been posting builds of fighters so he's been putting his money where his mouth is.
If the wizard has managed to put himself into such a defensive position that no one can get to him, why does anyone care? The wizard can't hurt you either. So what has actually happened is that the wizard has gotten so scared of the insignificant fighter that he blocked himself off and neither one can deal with the other. The fighter can just leave because no one is going to win this.
The fighter wielding an adamantine weapon can cut through the wall of {pick a natural material}. I know it seems odd, but the rules do allow for that. Ignoring any amount of hardness is a nice effect. Ignoring a high amount of hardness is even better.
A cape of the mountebank will allow the fighter to bring the rest of the party past the wall of force. Sure, the fighter won't be able to attack (can't even use attacks of opportunity) but that restriction doesn't apply to everyone else. If someone else has the cape, then they can bring the fighter with them and he can lay waste to the silly wizard that thought he could stop the fighter with something as trivial as a wall.
A fighter built to take on casters will stop the wizard. That's the problem with these discussions. For every move, there is a counter move. Instead of actually looking at how things would actually work in a game, we see hyperbole thrown around. When an actual build is thrown out there that counters the hyperbole, it is either ignored or hand-waved away with more hyperbole.
The simple fact is that fighters suck in some games and rock in others. In other games, the classes are relatively balanced. The only games I have seen one class (not player, but class) dominate, are the ones where the GMs ignore the rules (intentionally or not) or build encounters specifically that favor casters. In a well run game with encounters that are designed to give everyone something to do, there isn't any domination. I know because I have seen and done it for years. I have met people that thought that casters were the bees knees, then when they come into a game where the rules are applied equally, their casters aren't really all that anymore. They are still powerful and can still fo a lot. They just aren't demigods anymore.
As far as I'm concerned as long as you have it at the table -- and are in possession of the shirt from the beginning of the scenario (if borrowing it) I'm good .. I had a table at origins where they all wore their shirts as turbans since it was a desert scenario.
When a game reaches a point where DMs no longer find it enjoyable to run because players are far too powerful, that's the fault of the game designers. Not the DMs or players for providing imbalanced options and doing a poor job of rule design.
Heheheheh
Believe me, you ain't seen nothing :)
Brandon Hodge wrote:
For the record, I still maintain changing the assumed round duration from 6 seconds to 10 or 20 seconds will clear up those perceptions of physical impossibility for the OP without adversely affecting a single other rule of the game, or imposing on any other PC or GM's game style or perception of realism.
The amusing thing is that based on those YouTube videos and the Saracen book, a rate of 12 arrows in 6 seconds should be attainable by plain 'ol contemporary mortals, based on the "three arrows in 1 1/2 seconds" metric they used.
So, if a well-trained but pure strain human fellow can shoot 12 arrows per 6-second round, I have no issue with a 20th-level character shooting more than 12 arrows/round. After all, virtually nobody on Earth is even 5th-level.
(I point you at The Alexandrian for the single best explanation of this I have ever seen.)
This is another thing D&D doesn't capture. A shortbow can be fired faster than an English longbow. But in D&D everyone uses the equivalent of an English longbow for greater damage and range.
Mounted combat was with shortbows. Not the heavy pull English longbow. But because D&D doesn't take these types of things into account, everyone goes with the better damage weapon.
For example, using D&D rules you would have entire armies of heavily muscled guys wielding two-handed weapons because at low level the damage advantage is much greater than the AC advantage of a sword and shield wielder or a light-armored dextrous fighter.
But that isn't reality in any way. Two-handed weapon wielders would be destroyed on the field of battle as they were because wielding a two-handed weapon is so disadvtangeous as to be unheard of. A trained shield user with a one-handed weapon can kill a two-hander fighter with considerable ease. So could a light one-handed fighter. But you wouldn't know that the way D&D does combat. So why even try to apply realism to it. D&D isn't about realism. It's fantasy in every way.
Hero Lab for the Pathfinder Beginner Box is being finished up now, so unless there are any major last-minute surprises, it will be out before the weekend.
The Mac version is slated to be released next month when we officially release the Mac version of the full product. For more details on the Mac status of Hero Lab, see our November newsletter (available on our website) and/or watch for more info next week.
]It comes from Michael's interpretation of the concept of taking 10. I don't personally agree with it, but I don't see anything that indicates it couldn't be such so I'm not going to refute it.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to decide this was "my interpretation" of the rules. Because pointing that out, of course, wins debates on forums! ;p
When it comes down to it, the rules are a guide line, one we GMs try to adhere to. In some way or another, ALL rules are "interpreted" by a GM.This thread was never meant to be a debate about Taking 10 or whether it should be allowed. Specifically, this thread was asking other GMs for when they would determine a "distraction" would come into play, preventing the Taking 10 rule from coming into play. So far, all I've gotten was a few people defending their right to use it anytime and all the time. If that is the case, then the NPCs on the other side of the board are always Taking 10 too... seems fair enough.
In my opinion (and that is mine, not someone else saying what is mine!), Taking 10 has the potential for abuse. I would absolutely judge that Bluff, Disable Device, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive could all fall into line with Use Magic Device as skills where Taking 10 are probably not going to work, as they involve interaction with influencing other people or (in the case of UMD) items outside of your control.
I suspect few players have that big of a jump but it happens. I played one of them with one character and the other with another character. When you are done with the adventure, your character gets a chronicle for what he actually did though, not for something some other character did.
Dennis,
Doesn't the proposed new system still do this?
If I play 'Ezren Seven' in an adventure, and tie him to Rey, Rey will eventually get a sheet for, "something some other character did."
Likewise, if Ezren Seven dies, Rey dies at level 2.
And if Rey at level 2 has to tie his fate to someone at level 7, and wait for level 7 to benefit, why shouldn't he tie his fate to a level 7 Rey? Level 7 Rey is just as 'real' as Level 7 Ezren.
the other quote that goes with T10 - "you know how long that will take?"
(yeah - I hate to admit I reply to this "six seconds" way too much)
Actually, if you take into effect the idea that Taking 10 epitomizes "taking extra precautions to prevent distractions or failure", then "six seconds" is hardly accurate... as a matter of fact, I don't recall ever seeing a passage in the Core that says that a Round is 6 seconds! To me, Taking 10 means more of "taking my time", like Indiana Jones estimating the counter-weight for the trap in Raiders of the Lost Ark... not that it necessarily means an auto-success (as per the example!) Can it succeed? Yes! Does that mean the player automatically should know the DC? No... that isn't info granted by the skill itself.
5d6 fire damage at 5th level is piddly. 7d6+3 fire/cold/acid/electrical (as needed, see admixture speciallist) damage at 5th level is not.
5d6 damage is 17.5 average (8.75 on a save). 7d6+3 is 27.5 average (13.75 on a save). They're both kind of piddly, considering CR 5 enemies have ~60 HP.
You could contribute far more damage with Haste. Hell, Bull's Strength even adds 3 damage per swing to a two-handed weapon fighter--that deals more effective damage than your super buffed fireball after just 9 swings. You can control a group of enemies far better with Stinking Cloud.
I don't know, I just think it's a much better NPC spell than PC.
Is it just me, or is dealing almost a third of a creature's hit points in damage--with one spell--against possibly more than one opponent no longer considered good?
Maybe it is just everyone wants to win the DPR Olympics, but come on! Your wizard or sorcerer is not a solo gladiator in an arena--he is part of a party. And if a 5th level wizard can deal an average of between 17.5 and 27.5 hit points against an opponent with 60; I'd consider that a win! Especially if I can damage two, three, four, or more threats at the same time.
I'm sorry, but I don't really buy into the 'if you don't kill it in one round, you failed' mentality.
Since the blog comment page has lost focus, I am starting this new thread with the intention of discussing a solution to the presented sanctioned modules issue of "no risk, no reward." My suggestions are very preliminary, working from a starting point of simplicity. Here goes:
It appears we have two opposing issues with sanctioned module play:
-Ability to put on a game regardless of the players' PC levels.
-Desire to make modules "count," with regard to death, consumable use, etc.
So, an ideal solution here would take the best of both worlds, i.e. maintain the modules' accessibility as well as make them "count." These two issues are not, in actuality, oppositional. We can have both.
One issue with the sanctioned modules as they are is that PCs who receive their Chronicles receive less gold and Fame as they would have from going through three PFS scenarios. Michael has indicated that the gold issue will be remedied by reissuing the Chronicles for the sanctioned modules.
Michael has also indicated that he wishes to make the rules for running sanctioned modules as simple as possible, meaning that they will differ as little as possible from regular PFS play.
I will propose a simple solution, then:
Players who do not play a pre-existing "at-level" PC through a sanctioned module receive one-half of the indicated XP, GP, and Fame, awarded to an existing PFS PC of their choice; these PCs receive rewards as if they were using the Slow advancement track. In this way, "the gold math" is already on the Chronicle.
This solution is very simple, as well as sufficient for addressing all of the presented concerns. The sanctioned modules maintain their accessibility, while incentivizing playing them with an at-level PC.
-Accessibility is maintained. Anyone can join a table of a sanctioned module.
-Risk-for-reward is encouraged, by doubling the rewards an at-level PC receives.
Let's start from here. We can solve this problem without restricting sanctioned module play any more than it needs to be.
"The problem I've seen is people do tend to do lots of pretty evil acts in PFS and feel a good aligned characters should look the other way and not say anything." - This is some pretty horrid "player entitlement" right here.
Just because YOU (not pointing at anyone, just using an example) want to play an evil character, the DM has to ban Paladins? If I were DM and saw this happening, my answer would be "No, you selfish little dips***, you are playing with a party and mister goodie is as much entitled to his paladin as you are to your jerk of a rogue. So, either you agree to compromise or you get the hell outta my table".
I played with a group (I was the DM) that had a Taldan paladin and a borderline chaotic evil Dwarf fighter (who, despite never committing something that horrible, had the nickname "Dorf Rapist"), and the two got along if only because the latter's wrath was directed mainly towards enemies and the dwarf actually considered the other characters to be his pals. He actually flew into a frenzy when an Efreet killed the Paladin, and proceeded to avenge him pretty quickly.
I completely agree that celestials need some love! I LOVE the thematics that celestials (especially angels) bring to a story. I consider them hugely badass, to the point that I have a campaign concept that I'm chewing on that uses them as major force at play.
I don't have any ideas for a new celestial as the OP requested, but if any devs are reading this...
PLEASE MAKE CELESTIAL COUNTERPARTS TO THE BOOKS OF THE DAMNED!!!
7 player tables, much as I dislike them personally and would elect to avoid if given a chance, are a necessary evil in organized play to avoid turning away a player.
Wrath, the GM shouldn't have to make up encounters that cater to the party, IMO. That's why some GMs don't like wizards because monks, fighters, rangers and rogues can all interact with the world a little like people and have to find ways of dealing with whatever happens. The wizards just carts around a bunch of instant win buttons that work for this or that and I think that makes it suck.
Wizards should play in the same field as other characters: helping the party directly with power ups, blasting bad guys, crap like that, not just putting all the bad guys to sleep or casting hold monster so someone can chop its head off.
You see, that's were our philosophies are going to differ. What people are missing is the fact that this is a magic world, nothing like our own. Its easy for GM's to think in terms of things the non casters can do, because that's like our world. Since we have that as a context, designing encounters is easy for that.
You have to actually think about magic and the way it works to design encounters for this game. Even if you don't have a caster in your world, the creatures living in it have evolved with magic and its effects and may still react accordingly.
Some things to note about the two spells people are toting around for early level end game.
Sleep is a full round spell - baddies shoot people in the head or charge and hit when you are casting for prolonged periods. Getting off an effective sleep spell is not as easy as everyone keeps saying. Baddies also spread out when long casting is happening, because that's how survival instinct works in a world of magic.
Colour spray is up close and personal (15feet) and an area effect. When the baddies save (and they do), you're going to die. Of course, this is because you've pulled out a spell that affects your friends as well as your enemies, so obviously your friends aren't within that 15ft cone which means they aren't defending you against that attack. It's also a rare situation when that kind of spell "ends a combat".
Telling people they shouldn't have to design the encounters around magic is basically saying don't play in a magical world. I disagree with that completely.
GMing for magic is harder because there is no real world analogy for it. It requires far more imagination and often leads to folk complaining that you're "ripping off" the caster. That's why so many people don't like casters when they DM.
I've heard people discuss how they deal with the issue of certain spells, only to have players say "That's just being a dick!". If you can justify it in terms of a world where magic is pervasive enough that casters are taking Teleport and Sleep, and colour spray and all the other save or suck spells, then all the other things living in the world will know all about them as well. They survived as a species up until this point in a world of magic, they know how to respond to them. It's the GM's role and responsibility to cater to that world, and sometimes the players also need to understand that the magic world isn't going to respond the same way our world does.
I came here back in early 2006 to ask a question after getting verbally pooped on by folks on another forum way back then.
Here I got nice answers, stayed, made friends, and the rest is history. I hate seeing the same behavior that drove me away from that other site happen here.
Announcing Brewfest 2011, three days of fun, games, food and drink for the weekend of October 7th - 9th at Buckner's Brewery in Downtown Cape Girardeau, Missouri. More coming soon, including a link to Warhorn and a full schedule of events!
To me I don't see any reason not to allow this, sure it's a great trick but it's the sort of thing that would in practice be very hard to pull off, in order to do this to the druid the bard would have to:
1) Know that druids are forbidden from wearing metal: I would require a dc 10 knowledge religion or nature check to know this, not a big hurdle for a bark but things get tougher.
2) Get next to the druid: If a druid is spell focused, he won't be hanging out on the front lines waiting for your bard to walk up to him. If he's combat focused, being next to him might not be a place you want to be, especially if your spell failed. A wild shaping druid has lots of mobility options available to him as well.
3) The druid must fail his save: Will is a strong save for druids, they have good will progression and high wisdom. They laugh at your measly level 1 spell.
4) The druid must be able to use your shield: If the druid is wild shaped into a form that can't hold or use the shield the spell fails.
Finally even if you succeed there are still ways it could backfire:
For starters you just handed one of your major defensive items to an opponent who is probably at least your equal in close combat.
Moreover the druid, realizing he is screwed may decide to flee into the woods, taking your shiny shield with him.
I'd say that the difficulties and downsides balance it out quite nicely.
I'm sorry, people acting as the alignment police greatly, and I mean seriously, weaken the game.
Some are citing instances of killing citizens wantonly and sacrificing infants to Asmodeus. This is a blatant straw-man. How often does that actually happen? Why can't that be solved with "Don't be a Jerk," or "Don't be Disruptive?" These strike me as instances of players trying to get a rise out of other players, not really playing characters. As these cases can be solved through other rules, discussing them adds nothing.
More interesting are faction missions and prisoners. Good characters doing bad things. Neutral characters as well.
First problem. Good characters can perform evil acts and still remain good. Good means you do good most of the time. If you don't track the 'most of the time', only the slip ups, you strike me as a lazy GM. It would be akin to tracking damage and ignoring healing. Nowhere is it said a player must always behave in a certain manner.
I could see a good character, his friend just murdered by an assassin, ignore the assassin's plea of mercy and finish him. This is likely evil. Paladins would lose their powers, but it doesn't, in my mind conflict with a character's alignment. A personality is more than two letters, and forcing someone to react to everything like a robot leads to boring roleplay - bad for the game.
Just because an action doesn't fall in line with alignment does not make it forbidden. Where does it say that? Where does it say that every character must always, in all instances act in line with those two poorly-defined letters? Most importantly, where are evil acts banned? Not evil characters, evil actions. You clearly what to ban the latter through a thinly veiled claim that it's all for the former
Further, neutral characters will do evil things, just not most of the time. I've got a witch who will coup de grace a helpless character who has proven himself a threat. This might be evil. She doesn't care. The same witch went out of her way to put a ghost to rest because she didn't like the idea of the ghost, who did not deserve her end, suffering. That strikes me as good. If you marked off for the former, but ignored the latter, I'd complain about you to the campaign authority, have whatever you wrote on my sheet nullified, and go about my business playing my character the way I wrote her.
Pretty sure I'd be backed up, what with the good actions being ignored.
Neutral is an option, and yes, a few might use it to skirt into evil. I honestly don't care. As long as it's not disrupting the table, why say anything? What does this improve? Who does it help? Yes players can't play evil, but this strikes me was simply preempting the immature baby-killing type. Don't punish good roleplayers because of the threat of immature players down the line.
It's true that a GM needs to control the table, but this view goes beyond controlling a table. You are trying to control the personality of a PC. Perhaps you can ask why the character is undertaking an evil act, and they might have a good reason. If they don't suggest that they might be happier as [x]-Nuetral, as it might better fit they way they see their character. That is what the Core allows you to do. It gives you no other power to change, and you sure as heck don't get it anywhere in organized play. When you tell me my character's personality, my opinion of you as a GM immediately decreases, my idea that you know what you are talking about falls as well. A GM needs respect to control a table, and I see things like this as a quick way to lose it. Alignment is one of the easiest ways to start an argument, and your job as a GM is to keep things moving and keep people having fun so we can all tell a story together. How can you do that if you start an argument? And it will start one. Same as if you said coup de grace or Phantasmal Killer was a death effect.
Also, on the topic of control, anything immediate to the table is yours to control. Things that reach beyond, those are for the coordinators, not the people at the tables. You strictly follow the rules for death and wealth, using no house rules. So too with player alignment. Your views are not all GMs' views. Players need consistency. This alignment marking is extremely inconsistent. It'd be akin to the players never knowing the PA cost for a raise. Further, it'd also be akin for players never knowing their hit points.
Again, unless you track every single action Good/Evil, Law/Choas, this marking method is a miserable failure. It is bad for the game, pure and simple. There is another rule in the guide apart from no evil - Play play play. Let people play, and as long as they're not antagonistic or disruptive, perhaps there can be some nice interplay between those of high morals and those with fewer qualms. More interesting roleplay comes from these types of interactions, rather than those whose ideals all line up.
Some of the most fun roleplay I've had was my CN witch arguing with a LN Asmodean cleric. Our characters did not get along, but as players we had a blast debating the powers of order and entropy. You would deny one axis of that type of RP. While there would not be full out evil on the other side, some neutral characters might have fewer qualms about things that are sacrosanct to the good. RP gold.
Essentially, the game you are asking me to play is boring. It is one-dimensional. All good characters do good things all the time. Neutral characters do good things and occasionally brood, I guess, as that's the only other option left to them. Gods forbid anyone do anything you think is evil that might get them banned. Gods forbid a character suggest killing the bad guy, we're all bright shiney heroes. If I wanted to play a G-rated game, I'd go find one. Mind you I don't always play morally gray characters, I've got a few LG in the mix, even, but no one should take the ones who skirt darkness from me or anyone else.
Again, unless you can point to a uniform measure of actions, and the magnitude each has on alignment, and unless you track each action on that measure, you are doing things wrong.
Evil actions ARE NOT BANNED. You can worship an evil god. You can create undead. You can kill the prisoner. You should not play a character who goes over the line for this, and you cannot qualify for assassin ever, but that's it. There is no mechanism for anyone to change someone's alignment. Home GMs are given that prerogative, but they're also given the prerogative to hand out new magic items. If you can add alignment markers to a sheet, I can add new magic items to their sheets. The logic is the same, the core says the GM has that prerogative.
This is organized play, and you don't get full GM powers. You may want them, but you don't have them. You can remove someone from your table for being disruptive. You can tell someone who wrote LE on their sheet that they can't play it and need to change (same as if they wrote Scribe Scroll). You cannot decide that you invent a one-way scale movement on which only a costly spell can fix. This is not what a PFS GM does. I'm actually angry right now, so I apologize for the tone, but you weaken the game, and I could see you ruining fun tables I've had in the past. I truly hope you haven't made things less fun for those for whom you've GMed.
GMs should never penalize players for completing faction missions.
Those are my two beliefs about PFS.
I see absolutely no benefit to enforcing alignments. None. Forcing alignment change is the equivalent to a GM telling players what they think or telling them what they do. It is a violation and the player has no recourse. If I know the GM I might have some inkling as to their belief system, perhaps alignments have some place in home games, but if I join a PFS game with a GM I've never met before I shouldn't have to worry that something I perceive as a neutral act would be perceived by him as an evil act and thus force an alignment change.
Supposing we captured a CE bad guy and we made him give us information, should I worry that the DM is going to view this as torture? Supposing we executed him for his crimes (as well as for his unprovoked attack on us) should I worry that this is an evil act as well? Suddenly the two acts which I think are very grey but the DM calls evil force an alignment change? This is not something I want to debate at the table or on the message-boards later. I know there are people who will agree or disagree with me. I don't want to waste time on the debate.
As for penalizing players for completing faction mission: I can't even believe that someone would do such a thing. It blows the mind. Invite someone into your home, tell them the rules to monopoly, and then fine them for passing Go because you feel that there needs to be taxes. Later wonder why they don't want to play monopoly any more. With any luck the player just won't want to play monopoly with you, but in all likelihood the bad experience could turn them off the game completely.
I do agree that the writers need to be careful when designing faction missions, assassination missions should be given sparingly (and then only when the target is truly evil) but it's not up to the GM to punish players for poor game design. You want to be a proactive GM? Instead of giving them warnings about how this mission will turn them evil, why not work out some way for them to complete the mission without offending your morals?
I believe that everyone interprets good and evil differently. I don't want to convert you to my belief system any more then I want to be converted to yours. Let's leave our beliefs at the door and just have some fun gaming.
you know glamoured armor is pretty cheap and it makes sense to appear like your wearing alot less when your actually wearing alot more, any edge you can have over an opponent is worthwhile.
It's not that you're "showing too much" (for me anyway), it's the circumstances under which they are being shown. Like the clevage in the picture that Evil Lincoln mentioned of Nirmathas.
I guess because aggressive expansionist countries like Molthune never launch attacks at settlements with by cleavage-revealing farmgirls or barmaids, they only attack soldiers. And we wouldn't want to paint (ha!) Molthune as the bad guys in the section on Nirmathas....
Robert Cameron wrote:
Or of the Andoran picture with the charge being led by General Chest Revealer[/b]
Art doesn't have to be realistic. Sometimes art is evocative of a mood or theme. Does that art in the Andoran section depict an actual woman, or is it an idealized image of regular people in Andoran standing up for their right to freedom and self-rule? Is it a moment in time, or is it an Andoren painting depicting a historic battle, colored by the lens of propaganda and patriotism?
Robert Cameron wrote:
Obviously everyone has a different idea of "unnecessarily" but I think that I'm not far off the mark in saying that exoposed skin adds nothing of actual game value to the APG Iconics or the examples that were previously mentioned.
Except "nothing of value" is also subjective--it's your opinion of what is or is not necessary.
We're playing a game where magic is real. If I wanted to play a historical game where all armor had to be completely functional, all the art would show everyone in a helmet, and you'd never see anyone's face. Me, I don't want to play historical RPGs, I want to play in a fantasy world where a person can pick up a sword and not be murdered on sight because only the nobles are allowed to carry weapons. The basic premise of the game is already vastly different than history, so why does every scrap of armor have to conform to history or realism?
Seelah is an armored melee character, and none of her vitals are exposed, so her art makes sense. Seoni doesn't need armor at all, she has magic, so her art makes sense. Merisiel is not a tank, and she needs a little more flexibility for her role as an adventurer, so her armor wouldn't necessarily be tight around her neck, and therefore her art makes sense. Kyra is a conservative priestess and is pretty well covered, not even showing her neck, therefor her art makes sense. Amiri is a crazy raging barbarian who shrugs off hits from a frost giant, her armor is no less practical than "I'm wearing a bearskin as my armor," so in the context of barbarians, her armor makes sense (she's also carrying a sword that weighs about 80 pounds, so the realism of her armor isn't her biggest issue).
Sajan is mostly shirtless, yet that's not "of no value." Conan the Barbarian is rarely shown in armor, yet that's not "of no value." Valeros doesn't even have a helmet in his art, yet that's not "of no value." So many times, these arguments boil down to, "you're showing parts of *women's* bodies, and doing so for no reason," even though man-flesh may also be prevalent.
Robert Cameron wrote:
I only say this because I know there are people out there who dismiss Pathfinder because of the art and while I think that's ridiculous I want to see Pathfinder as a game of inclusion rather than one that excludes people for something as trivial as the amount of skin shown.
If someone decides to not play Pathfinder because some of the characters have exposed arms, legs, or cleavage, so be it. We're not blatantly trying to sexualize the female characters (unlike another d20 publiser's cover art). Women who are offended by Merisiel and Seoni (and let me quote a female game designer here) need to get over it.
Note that I'm not saying Lobolusk is wrong for not wanting to show the art to his children. That's his choice. But he's not saying, "you'd sell more if you stopped doing this because this is offending people." It turns out that no matter what you do, you're going to offend some people, so as a publisher you find what *you* are comfortable with, and let the market decide whether or not that's an appropriate standard.
So... why? That's $3.25 per mini, less than what you'd pay for an unpainted mini.
Just curious.
Probably just comparing them to the random lot booster box prices of DDM.
I don't have an issue with the price - I don't mind paying a few bucks for quality, non-random pre-painted minis. I have bought every single pre-painted Legendary Encounters mini so I will buy these just as extras for my players.
DM rant:
My problem (and it may just be my problem) is that as a DM I need other minis, monster minis. Lots of sets of pre-painted monsters.
More than what Reaper currently offers - and I'd like a subscription please (bi-monthly would be fine).
Lets get some sets going and do the thing that the other company refused to try due to the promotion of their rare/uncommon/common scheme. Sets, fixed sets.
I don't want Druid shadowstriker cybertrolls, I just want trolls - maybe swamp trolls, mountain trolls, etc, but lay off the template promotions.
8 minis - a fixed set of pre-painted minatures at $26 (or more, or less) as a sub, or even special order would be nice.
I want sets of: orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, troll, skeleton warriors, dungeon vermin, devils & demons...and special dragon sets. From Paizo. That's my problem.
Don't think of all combat maneuvers as one big list of things that all work the same. Think of them in game for a minute.
Let's look at Disarm vs. Overrun.
Character A and B are in a fight mono a mono. Their eyes are locked on their opponent's eyes and they circle each other looking for weakness.
Character A decides to go for an overrun. All he has to do is swing his blade hard enough to knock the opponent's blade into a bad position for a moment then surge forward with all his strength and weight behind it. Its a relatively simple maneuver but it requires some strength to pull off right, after all if Character A is not strong enough he may not be able to hold his opponent's weapon back when he makes his move. Still, he's able to do it with his eyes and attention locked on his opponent's eyes.
Character B decides to attempt a disarm. This is a more complicated maneuver in that it involves splitting his attention between not only how his opponent is moving and fighting but to check how Character A is holding his weapon, what kind of hand guard there is, how Character A manipulates his blade in response to certain moves. He can't do this all while keeping his eyes locked on his opponent's eyes and so he'd better be trained in keeping his defenses up.
Combat expertise is, to me, training in how to study your opponent's movements and watch for little things while keeping your defenses up. That's why it requires intelligence, that is why it grants a bonus to AC. And that is why it is a prerequisite for moves that require you to divert your attention away from the direct flow of combat such as disarm and trip, not because it helps you with those maneuvers (which we all agree, it doesn't) but because learning it teaches you how to pay attention to your defenses and study your opponent at the same time.
Edit: As to why it requires 13 and not 12 or 14, that's simply because they had to pick an entirely arbitrary number as a prerequisite and they chose 13. However, 13 is the line where point buy is still 1:1 so it is not an extraordinarily high cost so that might have had some effect on their decision. (I can't however say that for certain because the 13 was a prerequisite in 3.5 where the point buy went 1:1 up to 14.)
I have no problem with Combat Expertise. I really lie the flavor, and yes I think it works for all the feats it is a prerequisite for.
The 13 reflects the inherent strain of battle- in Pathfinder, a turn shouldn't be as little as one attack a round, the BAB in my opinion shows how often a fighter is able to make attacks with so little effort or with such a natural flow that he doesn't needlessly (and fatally) open himself to an attack. Attacks of Opportunity show when someone over extends through a movement they didn't plan extensively for. A person in a fight is fighting his own rage and adrenaline to hold to a prescribed style, 13 Int shows a fighter that is smart enough to maintain his footing, stance, attacks, and defense while still making maneuvers out of the ordinary to throw off foes.
Combat Expertise is required for Trip, Feign, Disarm and Dirty Fighting
Trip- A brute is more likely to use size and strength to trip, is this not enforced by overrun as well? If you succeed by 5 or more, the opposition falls prone. The "smart" fighter with expertise doesn't look for openings to apply their strength, though they must use leverage (showing the STR in CMB). Instead, they look at the ground and how the enemy moves to throw them off.
Disarm- Again, a "smart" fighter isn't looking to hit the weapon from the enemy's hands, but instead to find a weakness and exploit it in the fight. Disarm weapons are made with a specific design to torque a weapon away or pry the hand open. Most enemies are assumed to be strong enough to resist a direct blow to the weapon, in my opinion it isn't a failing of CE but of lack of another feat designed to disarm. A "brutish" disarm shouldn't be seen as a maneuver but a risk of that brute just hitting the weapon hard enough.
Feign- This one shows why INT is valid, the maneuver more relies on bluff checks than the maneuver itself, and that 1 extra skill point can go into bluff. Best design award.
Dirty Trick? This is the hardest to reconcile. Anyone can perform a dirty trick, yes, but most people take it at an disadvantage to throw dirt in someone's eyes. Our "smart" fighter doesn't allow himself to be opened up to get in that desperation blow. Improved Dirty Trick shows someone with keen situational awareness in my opinion, it isn't someone prone to desperation, but relies on the natural openings of the opponent more than normal and the situation at hand, something that in the heat of battle SHOULD require a high INT.
I personally HATE, HATE, HATE needing to take power attack. I don't think that it is a bad feat, and I know many people far prefer it to Combat Expertise. I don't know why that is however. However, it shows just how effective a brutish fighter can be. I am far happier with Piranha Strike, but that just shows how I see the feats being reflected in combat.
Yes, INT doesn't have a Rules as Written bonus after taking Combat Expertise. This will upset some people. But I like it tempered with my view of stats and characters. I know some people will disagree with me. I'll take it on some fighters though, and SOME of my players will take it. Some don't even know it exists, sure.
Using the maneuver's wisely shows me just how the INT shines in the feat tree. 2 of the players I know recently forged character concepts that play off of each other. One is a Monk of the Empty Hand/Ninja with Catch Off Guard, and one is a Phalanx Fighter with Combat Expertise into Improved Disarm. you know what happens to that bonded item Wizard who fails his perception? Ninja starts, drives to the Phalanx who disarms, Monk counts him as flatfooted while unarmed, and they both pull Attacks of Opportunity when/if he goes to pick up that item. Scary effective.
Posts
