Chest Rockwell wrote: My critique is of the seemingly complicated, large numbers, fiddly design (that Trinkets preview was not pleasing to read). Lots of moving parts, and the obvious new shiny thing of this edition being the 4-tiers of success system. This is a total tangent, but I agree that my players will end up getting lost on the degress of success system. There was a time I thought something like this would be pretty cool, but now I can see it will probably be overly complex for your average roleplayer.
Skerek wrote:
I would definitely prefer they go with Arcanist style. Especially if we're only ever getting 3 spells per day of any given level. I think going another step into a magic point system is a bit too flexible.
Planpanther wrote:
I had a GM who was obsessed with rust monsters/demons/mephits/horses. Every couple of sessions he was trying to churn magic items. It was truly obnoxious.
My great hope for PF2E is the retirement of generic magic items such as +1 swords and +1 armor. These items are boring as hell and just create an arms race where you need to have a certain bonus level to keep up. I would prefer more interesting items, and remove the stacking of bonus abilities such as having a vorpal firey human bane sword. If you want multiple effects you have to carry multiple swords and change weapons to adapt to the situation. I think this would make the game much more dynamic and interesting. And don't get me wrong, I love having those things, but I think it's bad for the game. Magic items should feel rare, powerful, and unique, rather than a commodity. I'd still be fine with, say, a weaker version of weapon types, such as a Greater Firey sword and a Lesser Firey sword.
On the opposite side of this, I hope this get rid of all 'generic' magic items aka +1 sword, +1 armor, generic AC bonus items. Boring 'must have' items that simply add numbers. I know that a +1 sword is the most classic item in D&D, but I think it's time to lay the concept to rest in favor of more interesting items.
Multiclassing has not been good, in my opinion, since 2e D&D. I would love to see more options open up for multiclassing characters. Although Pathfinder has many options for reflavoring a character via archetypes, they often feel tacked on - and are mechanically so much worse than other classes, or give up too many essential class functions, that they are nonviable. Please, let me play a rogue/wizard that is actually good! Thanks.
Literally just hand-wave everything you don't like/understand and you'll have a blasty-blast. For example, I am not enforcing at all detailed charge tracking. I tell my players to fudge it and arbitrarily tell them when they are probably running out of ammo. They think it's a fine compromise in lieu of tracking every shot. However on a roll of a 1, the current cartridge always explodes. It works out decently well. We are easing into ship combat. We will probably never use the full rules. I'll also state that starting Starfinder characters are more interesting, more durable, and have more customization than base PF characters, or even Level 1 characters with 5 years of fluff tacked on. It is unreasonable to expect a game that is less than a year old to stand up to a game that has been out for 5+. It's your choice, but I feel like you're not giving it a fair shake. Which, granted, you're only primarily hurting yourself, but griping on the boards like this might turn people off the game for no good reason. And that hurts Paizo.
pauljathome wrote:
Seems to me like it would be good to limit it by availability and make the cost scale as a % of WBL equal to the WBL % of a Level 1 grenade. Either way, I built a spreadsheet to look at costing for SF grenades. There's a weird spike mid-level.
A few things: 1. Everyone is not cut out to DM. Period. 2. Everyone is definitely not cut out to DM in every style. 3. A good DM plays to their strengths. If you're past the hurdle of 1, make sure you are careful about 2, and paying close attention to 3. Maybe big battles just aren't your style. I know that prepared adventures are not mine. So I don't. I prep my own way and wing most of it and I do well. Even when running large Con games, I take the prepared material, find out what's important - and what I can improvise - and throw away the rest. If big epic battles aren't your thing, find another way to create a satisfying conclusion. The final thing to consider is every game session is not going to be perfect. Sometimes the players are tired - or the DM is worn out. So everything could go perfect, and player engagement is low 'just because'. Because of 2, it is very difficult to have an intensive, one-size-fits-all approach to "DM Training". There is lots of fairly low level advice spread throughout the Paizo library to get someone who has what it takes to DM up to snuff. The larger Internet DM advice consortium covers literally every other issue a DM could ever have. The best DM advice usually comes across laterally, from other DMs - not from above.
Detoxifier wrote:
Yes, this. Or have it filling with something very dangerous, like poisonous fog, or a negative energy cloud that drains levels. Or have it filling with a cloud of darkness that is filled with swarms of very hazardous creatures that only attack when you enter.
Buri Reborn wrote:
Whenever I make a character, I always factor in that my GM will pass every save, and crit me with a high degree of frequency. He uses my dice, and sits right next to me. He does not cheat, ever; he is incredibly lucky.
Kill the Rogue. Take the flack. Use the moment to teach a lesson about PvP. If the Rogue wants to try and pull some frankly ludicrous actions such as this, he has to be willing to pay the piper. If that doesn't go well, find a new group. Try Meetup.com. That said, every group I have ever played with has had a strict no-pvp policy that includes theft. Unless you have a very specific type of group, it is, IMO, the best way to ensure that everyone stays happy.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
I think the metagame is a real person not being horrified by an undead creature and wanting to see it destroyed. I think metagame is investigating creatures that seem like obvious threats when you have the power to destroy them - saving your life and the lives of others.
DM Controlling PCs - No
Fluff - Fluff is basically the entire game. Without Fluff this is a Tactical Board Game. If you don't want fluff play PFS. Otherwise the DM is the arbiter of the rules - that is actually one of the rules; it's in the book. In the book, it states the DM is the judge and jury when it comes to rules decisions. However, the DM should apprise their group of all major rules changes BEFORE the game begins - and definitely before characters are created and finalized. The DM is not a mouse and keyboard with buttons for you to press so that your video game plays out the way you want it. The DM is the storyteller, rules-arbiter, world-builder, and plays all of the world's characters. You play a single character that you create - respecting the DM's rules choices - which exists in the DM's world. That is the reality of this game. If you don't like that, play a board game or a video game. P.S. Another rule of the game is 'fun'. All of that - the rules and whatever - is the backdrop which is essentially a contract between Player and DM to respect each other, and make the game fun. However, in order for that to happen, the rules must be respected so everyone is on a level playing field, so a simulation is created in which we can all exist and understand the imaginary world, and we can get down to just telling stories.
The LG Zombie thing is definitely a miss. I had a DM that would play these kinds of mind games with us all the time - present an obvious enemy that isn't an enemy at all, even going so far as to play the character as threatening, then suddenly turn on the players about how they killed a good guy, they're evil now, bla bla bla. Moral grey areas are one thing, but playing silly mind games is another. It's a poor way to try and create tension or a plot twist. IMO ditch the LG Zombie as quick as narratively possible and move on. Don't go into this territory again.
Nebulae wrote:
How does the paladin exist in this party!? Pretty questionable morality.
35. Lawful Good - Take them to an orphanage for 'trouble children' and hope for the best.
Some of the things that I see DMs decry as 'unrealistic' is often simply a misunderstanding of real world analogues. Another problem is looking at 2015, instead of 1000, for your analogues. This is a game about a medieval/post medieval society. This is not a game about Earth 2015. Set your perspective. Some modern analogues help, but most do not. Magic Item Economy? Look at guns, or yachts. The average person can either feed their family for a month or will never see the inside of one, respectively. Common? Many times over, the world has come close to speaking a single language. Greek was widespread, Latin, English, and now Spanish and Chinese are massively widespread in places that to which they are not indigenous. Bounty Hunters Are Poor: In real life 2015, yes. In real life, before it was easy to track stolen possessions, probably not. If you could loot the home and stash of every bounty you came upon, you could end up with a hoard of your very own. The problem today is that the profession of bail bondsman is so heavily regulated that you cannot afford to jack the stash. Pan: That is more of your gripes with level-based games. This thread is about portions of the game that don't seem realistic, but are accepted.
I didn't read all 145 posts of this thread, but in what I did read, the OP is being cagey about his intentions. Not sure what you are trying to do or why, but my guess is that he wants to get all of the Shield feats, and get weapon focus shield and all of the Shield-specific feats, and have the option of TWF with two buffed up shields. It seems, however, that the best way to do this would be to enhance just one shield +10/+10, and have the other shield just a +10 weapon. Again, I am not sure what it is you really want to do, but two +10/+10 shields doesn't seem to great. One +10/+10 shield and one +10 weapon with the option of either using one defensively while using one offensively OR using both to TWF seems like it could be pretty decent. The only reason I can think of to get both shields at +10/+10 would be to maintain your AC in the event you are disarmed.
Regarding fudging...the majority of DMs I know use a fudged roll/stats to either Increase Drama or Save the Story. A fudged roll can put the players in more danger, and increase the dramatic content of the encounter. A fudged roll can also save a PC from a stupid death, so the story can continue without the interruption of replacing the character. This is good, because you are telling a story, not playing a board game. Which also relates to the unique snowflake concept. To me, playing D&D is more like reading a book that is being written in real time. It is different than, say, an improv show. An improv show is about what's happening in the moment. The best part of D&D is building on the story of this character you're playing. It is also different from playing a board game, because you're really not competing for anything but the best story you can tell. If that story is about a group of 5 people that really don't matter or do anything interesting or novel, ever - and one of them dies every couple of days and is replaced by another stranger they randomly met...that's boring. No D&D game is like that. So just by the very nature of your group meeting at this table and spending the time developing this story, your characters are important and story-worthy. They are somehow unique and important, because otherwise why the hell are you telling a story about them?
For me the problem is more players to GMs, and me as a GM having to constantly 'keep up' with new material. I have to read it, or read about it and trust the opinions of random strangers, and then make a rather arbitrary judgement on whether or not the book is ridiculous or not. For the first couple books, it wasn't a problem. But things have just been getting more and more crazy. Sure, I could just ban all but the CRB, but players don't typically like that. They want options, even if they don't understand - or care - how those options will effect the game at large. It basically just makes my game harder. If they were to continue to create content that was balanced against the CRB, I would have no problem. They are not doing that. P.S.: If there is a bloat in bloat threads, it is because the bloat is getting worse. Duh!
Cuuniyevo wrote:
CR, and subsequently Wealth by Level, assumes a certain level of magical gear. While this magical gear could be the absolute only piece of its type in the whole wide world, the APs, Ultimate Campaign, and overall power level of the PCs make it very clear that Pathfinder is meant to be a high magic setting. It is definitely not Low Magic. You could argue that it is Moderate Magic and I wouldn't fight you much. But magic is everywhere. Magic is abundant in Golarion, and relatively simple to acquire according to the game rules. Even a peasant can afford to have a healing potion in the drawer for emergencies.
wraithstrike wrote:
The problem occurs when you have a close knit group of friends. Then you have to make compromises. And when Paizo keeps releasing gonzo first party stuff these discussions get more and more difficult.
1 The players are unique and beautiful snowflakes - there is a reason we are telling this story about your characters. DMs would do well to remember the players should be story-worthy - unless your campaign specifies otherwise. 1a Players would do well to remember that sometimes, the reason no-one else is helping them or lifting a finger to help them is because there IS no one else, or everyone else is busy. 1b Pursuant to 1a, if you as the player have been pretty clearly briefed on what the story will be, and you haven't made a character that has a clear and ongoing investment in that story - THAT'S YOUR FAULT! YOU need to bring yourself into the story as much as the DM. If you aren't interested in the story "because your character wouldn't be" that's your problem 1c As the DM, if you had the players design their characters around a specific motivation, and then change it - it is your fault your players don't care anymore! 2 Golarion, and any basic Pathfinder setting is assumed to be a High Magic world with massive wealth disparity. Magic is everywhere. Money is easy to get if you're powerful. If you as the DM don't think any group of 5 or more people isn't going to have at least 1 magic item among them - you're doing it wrong. If you're playing it differently, you need to apprise the players. Respect Wealth by Level, or make it known that you aren't. 2a Giving out wealth and magic is an exercise in creativity. It is the DM's job to figure out how stuff gets into the hands of the players - so they can have fun with it! Remember fun? The whole reason we play this game? Have some! What other essential conceits do many players and DMs forget when playing this game?
Everyone has their limit. I think Mythic is the limit for our group. Although I hit my limit on spells pretty much after APG. Most of the spells that have come out are either uninteresting, weird, overpowered, or just plain awful. I rarely even check the full spell list when playing a caster, but rather just the Core spells. Pathfinder is still the best option, just not by as much ;D
You are screwed. Screwed screwed screwed. Also there is no society that is not Neutral or Chaotic Evil that you acted within the boundaries of. Also you are so screwed. I would assume that since you overreacted a bit, his reaction is going to be somewhat like Mickey's in Snatch. Look forward to a long, painful death scene :D
M Human Inquisitor 1 [] HP: 10/10 [] AC: 15 FF: 13 T: 12 [] Fort: +3 Ref: +2 Will: +4 [] Melee: +0 Ranged: +2 [] Init +2 [] CMB: +1 CMD: 14 [] Speed: 40ft [] Perception: +6 Sense Motive: +6 Stealth: +6 [] Status: Just dandy
Hey all, I collected and collated all of the relationships that were presented in the recruitment thread, so they are all in one place for easy reference. Pick wrote:
Loruk wrote:
Rhanloi wrote:
Khalbar wrote:
Arturus wrote:
Kyra wrote:
Aletta wrote:
There's no limit. Don't even try. The limit is that it costs 15gp every time he does it, and only heals 1d8+1. The other limit is a standard action, which takes 6 seconds. The actual dice rolling should take less than that. If the other players can't wait 30 seconds for the guy to heal himself so he can not die when they need him...I don't even know what to say about your group. CLW wands fine just the way they are.
Byrdology wrote: 2hw fighter/ MoMS. Use a nodachi and unarmed strike as your two weapons and get x2 str with you nodachi, and 1.5 str (dragon style and dragon ferocity) with your unarmed strike. When you get enough iterations, pick up boar style and boar rend to do bleed dmg when you hit with 2 UAS' and take two weapon rend to just be silly with it. Use light armor with the brawling property to get an untyped +2 to hit and dmg, and an AoMF to kick it up even higher, and use weapon training to up your nodachi to hit and dmg and enchant that as you see fit. Then enter beast mode and laugh at all other TWFers who try to keep up with you. You want an 18 str and pump your dex after that, make sure you get a good con to stay alive. Your HP, saves, skills, skill selection, and dmg will be better than all other fighter builds, and you will have evasion... Have fun, and make people stare with their jaws dropped. Welp unless anyone has a pretty serious rebuttal, I think Byrd just won this thread. Kudos sir, bloody kudos.
I know I'd heard about the City of Tarrasque somewheres...but I'm sure the idea is as old as the Tarrasque itself. Anyways, I want to play in that campaign. I like the added part about the Allips too...could be another addition to the setting.
I love Words of Power. I'm totally sold on it, possibly forever(at least for spontaneous casters). However, the Words that exist are, IMO, inadequate. My DM has agreed to let in new Words of Power if they are balanced and interesting, and respect the system as intended. Please suggest new Words! P.S. No arguing over suggested Words, please. This is a constructive thread! Only post your Word suggestions, or improvements to others words in the form of a Word suggestion of your own. Thank you!
PvP, if well implemented, can be the life-blood of a good MMO. Nothing will sustain a game longer than the presence of a never-ending battle. Content will wear thin after a time, but battle-lust will never fade. That said, WoW's implementation of "loss-less" or "risk-less" PvP was an enormous mistake, especially after they herded the better PvP'ers into battlegrounds and arenas. World PvP is a great thing. Wars can pop up overnight and rage for days or weeks. If the concept was codified into the game, with something to be won or lost, the pull would be even greater. The idea is to channel griefing and ganking into a part of the game, turning them instead into assassins and berserkers that must be dealt with. UO dealt with this by adding bounties and ousting murderers out of city life. And IMO, UO had one of the best PvP systems in gaming history. Turn the guilds into kingdoms, and allow war, politics, and trade to emerge between them. One final note: If you aren't playing an MMO for large-scale social gaming, please find a single-player RPG more suited to you. UO was ruined by players who wanted a super-safe single player experience where they could farm and do basically nothing, while ignoring the largest portion of the game: other players. I pray PFO will not repeat the mistake of destroying PvP in favor of trying to capture those who want to play Recettear Online.
I fully support the idea of making darkvision, torches, and magical light sources viable tools again. I sometimes wish the Faydark had been darker. I also support avoiding fast travel. I very much enjoyed the feeling of distance and size created by the pre-PoK EQ continents. It was great exploring those huge spaces, not just running from point A to B to kill 10 of X monster. I remember how awesome being teleported for the first time was(it made me reroll druid!). There was little else to do in WoW, and the game itself was not compelling enough to encourage this sort of exploration outside of world PvP(which they promptly destroyed) or crafting. The idea is to implement these challenges with an eye towards making them part of the experience, rather than an arbitrary time/money sink or difficulty increase. Also Scott: I would like to see an increase in content-to-word ratio in your posts. We get that unfounded difficulty is a poor idea, but why does darkness fall into that category?
NWN was tbh horrible, in hindsight. It was a poor 3-dimensional bastardization of the massively awesome Infinity Engine using the ugly larva of a ruleset that we can now understand was simply crafted to allow Pathfinder to bloom into a beautiful butterfly. If anything, I would base the game off Baldur's Gate and its ilk, add some physical action using Skills (Acrobatics, Climb, etc), figure out a way to make player-run(i.e. DM'ed) customizable instanced dungeons, and call it a day. |