|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
How do you approach it?
I have on and off, been working on developing some interesting fantasy societies which draw on various elements of transhumanism and connected ideas.
What does a post scarcity economy in a fantasy world look like for instance?
What does a community that has achieved functional immortality look like.
What does a magical society that takes privacy and individual liberty really seriously actually look like?
I haven't gotten very far with any of them, but it is very interesting.
Given current developments in a range of areas such a nanotechnology, cloning and extreme life extension, I think it is more that a little unfair to call interest in functional immortality a "fantasy trip for immature technogeeks who aren't willing to accept the fact that everything dies at some point." We have experimental gene therapy treatments which demonstrably double the lifespan of mice, and if we can find a way to take that and apply it to humans with similar effect, that is a game changer. While the prospect for seeing printed replacement clone organs within my life-time, let alone my childrens, is very good.
I don't think wanting to enjoy a long and happy life, free from suffering and imparement is "masturbation."
Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
You just managed to sum up one of the the major argument against anarchocapitalism :D
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
You, your right. My mistake. but still, that is a fair chunk of HP
Yeah, I didn't get time to get it proof read before the competition was done, and I am like super dyslexic. In answer to your question, there is a shaft leading up from room between 2 and 4. When I get around to re-polishing it, I shall have to add in some arrows to make it clearer. I thought it was pretty self explanatory, but more than just you have been confused by it, so I think it is something that needs improving on
I'll give you that the black arrow shot is something which Pathfinder does poorly, but that doesn't change that both DnD and Pathfinder explicitly try to give an experience similar to reading an Appendix N
You have to be a pretty high level character to consistently and reasonably walk away from 20d6 damage(mean 110 hp damage), and as the Alexandrian points out, Aragon is a 5th level character
Or punching rhinos to death, for that matter.
Didn't Conan punch out a cammel? I have memories of that being a thing. Regardless, just because they system lets you do a thing, doesn't mean that it is intended that you do that thing.
It is a complex system, there are always going to be emergent elements, but the ability for me to reskin a wizard as a cyberpunk inspired paramilitary sniper doesn't mean that I should do that.
The simple quick answer is Genre.
In the genre that Pathfinder primerially emulates, martial characters are limited to very close* to real world physics and feats of arms.
Bard shoots the black arrow with a miracle shot and takes down smaug.
He doesn't sprint along the roof tops, firing three arrows a second, each of which splits into a hail of lightning bolts which rain down on smaug.
People wish to play the former in pathfinder for the most part, and not the later.
*very close here being relative, pathfinder combat is nothing like real combat, but it is pretty close to what most people think real combat is like.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Three rounds in which casters would have to expend three spells to kill the opposition that a martial can kill in that time without using any resources.
Stopping the enemy is all well and good, but they still need to be killed
PIXIE DUST wrote:
I'm not really up to date with the classes or the archetype. It is quite possible it always has the exact spell it needs, but honestly the archanist is from the Advanced Class Guide, so for much of the life of pathfinder to date it has not been around, and honestly the fact that creep happens is practically a law of nature when it comes to the expansion of complex game systems. As such I am more than willing to ignore it.
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Bonded item is once per day.
All the other items here represent use of wealth by level, not class features. Martials can also use wealth by level to "get nice things"
And even then, having the right spell for the right situation is no sure thing, especially if the magic item creation rules are obeyed and any reasonable amount of care is taken in treating the acquisition of new spells via copying as a challenging activity.
Most PC's do not get to choose the point of combat since they are likely invading enemy territory.
But the GM does get to choose that, and probably aught to be providing varied ways to interact with the encounter.
By using a limited resource and the action that they are supposedly using to be god? Oh, and you know, the fact that they cannot possible memories all possible spells.
A martial certainly can put out fires. They have ability scores and skills, they have environmental features, they have equipment. It just takes a modicum of inventiveness to realised that breaking open the cistern full of water, or beating the flames with a wet blanket is a valid action in a combat.
In my ideal world, every combat in a pathfinder game would have the risk of serious long term injuries, and would feel a little like the corridor fight form old boy. I am not out there campaigning for the game to be changed to be that. One day, I'll figure a way to house rule it to get that feel, but in the mean time, knowing how to use the game as it is written to get close to the feel I want is a useful skill.
You want martials to matter, there are ways to play the game that makes them matter, and there are ways to make them not matter. Your choice, but I am fairly certain the a change to play style is a more practical way of getting what you want than sitting around complaining about how broken the game is. (A situtation where, if you are successful, you potentially upset all the people who are perfectly happy with the system as it is.)
Because if the only mechanics-based decision I have to make during a session is who my character attacks next (because it's not like they even have the ability to be good at anything else without navigating some arcane maze of feat trees that are largely limited to individual weapons), I have no excuse not to write a bot that can make that decision for me and go on a snack run the moment combat starts.
Sounds like poor encounter design to me.
Why are you not able to push over ruined collumes to crush or trap your enemies? Why can you not deflect a stream of lava onto them, or open the flood gates, washing them away? Why are you not dropping chandeliers on your enemy?
Why are you not having to choose between attacking one of the enemy and putting out the fire that threatens the orphanage? Why arn't you dashing to get the goblet of zaranna, before that goblin can grab it.
Are you going to engage the enemy at the elevated and effective but slippery choke point, or are you going to let them through onto the even ground and help the rogue get flanking?
Varied win condition and engaging encounter environments should mean that you can't just write a script to make your combat decisions.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Only in so far as it is a human presenting it, but if that is enough involvement to assert that they are human antagonists, then traps are also human antagonists, and I think that is a rabbit hole of unusefulness of language no one is especially interested in pursuing.
Additional the examples I am giving have no human motivation, and a designed in such a way as to dehumanize them. The monster in the dying of st Margaret, doesn't get controlled by the GM. It is in many ways like an environmental effect. In the watchers, the structure of the adventure is such that the monsters behavior is intentionally fragmented and irrational, presenting the feel of an unknowable and alien motive. The crawling god, is if memory serves, run on a kind of A.I.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Not always true. You should check out some of the purist trail of cthulhu scenarios by Graham Walmsley(especially the dying of st. Margarets and The Watchers in the Sky) which have antagonists with distinctly non-human mind sets, and which are written to make them non-human. The god that crawls for lamentations of the flame princess is another example of this.
I have to say that skill based systems, to me atleast, appear vastly more common.
-BRP(CoC (edges towards class based, but it is such a light mechanic, it is really just away of choosing a skills package)
In fact the closest thing things to level or class based games I regularly play outside of the DnD family tree, are WFRP(+various 40k rpgs) and CP2020. They are class based, but one of those is access to a single special skill(cp2020) in a skill based system and the other is a set of skill packages which you don't even have to complete before moving onto your next class(WFRP).
Obvious there is stuff like one ring and Apocalypse world, but neither of those are level based.
Anything which is a reasonable stand in for a human. Humans make the best antagonists, because their motivations are varied, hard to predict, but possible to empathize with once discovered.
Merchants are among my favourate sub group, because the ability for the profit motive to make people do the unspeakable in the real world can make for a chilling villain in game.
Stormwind fallacy is often used as a strawman. It ONLY applies when a player says "you cannot optimise and roleplay well." as a generalization.
It does not apply to all criticisms of orpimisation from a roleplaying perspective, i.e. it is possible for a optimizer to make choices for purely mechanical reasons which are damaging to the fiction of the game, and/or play style of the table.
The best example of this the hypothetical guy who sits down at a table after being told that it is going to be a street level urban adventure about flawed individuals caught up by circumstance, that characters should be built so as to be naturalistic, and then builds the worlds greatest swordsman and claims that it is all good because his character is a rat catcher. Such behaviour is disruptive both because it is difficult to square a guy who mechanically is the worlds greatest swordsman with his background of being a ratcatcher, and b, because the hyperoptimised character is on a completely different power level compared to the naturalisticly built generalists.
19. Leave your profession as a rat catcher behind, travel to Nuln for a job that doesn't exist, make your way to Bogenhofen, get caught up in the dealings of the cult of the purple hand, thwart said dealing, get a boat, sail up and down the river riek for six months before a strange set of events lead you to a tumble down castle held by chaos cultists, where their is a huge chunk of warpstone, thwart that cults plans but look on in dismay as the warpstone is spirited away by skaven. Make your way on to Middenheim, get angry about taxes, party at a carnival while solving the tax thing, realize the tax thing is a plot to take over the city by the cult of the purple hand, thwart their plans with thrilling cliff via duct battle against an evil wizard. Get made Knights!
I chipped in for the first time in forever last light. God it is good to be playing CP again.
However, running into a problem.
Melee weapons and cyber weapons. Do they really behave like armour peircing ammo? I.E. Half damage after armour? Or is it just that they treat some kinds of armour as half value.
I can't tell you why, but I can offer advice on how to take this and make it into a positive.
The player's character can no long function as a PC, so have him retire it and bring in a new character, but you keep his sheet.
Run a couple of high action, low plot adventures, play up the dangers and lack of reward of the mercenary life, and advance the time line about 5 years.
Then re-introduce that guys PC as the campaign big bad guy. He has set up the organisation, and is now vastly rich and powerful, because of the charter he stole from the PCs. They have a reason to hate him, so when other enemies of the BBEG decide they need a weapon to use against him, because they fear he is out to do something supremely stupid or dangerous, they look to the PCs as their tool
It is a Laundry files joke about K-Syndrome. It is a disease suffered by sorcerers who perform mythos magic simply by running through the mathematics in their heads. If you think to hard about the underlying math, you end up openning min worm holes to other realities, where not nice things live. Those things eat out little chunks of the sorcerers brain. The disease presents like CJD.
So I've been thinking really hard about the implications of the church-turing proof...So I've been thinking really hard about the implications of the church-turing proof...So I've been thinking really hard about the implications of the church-turing proof...So I've been thinking really hard about the implications of the church-turing proof....