So to be clear, you will conveniently have a wand that is the exact price and type that a player needs available, despite how ridiculously unlikely it is for that item to be there (you can't craft partial wands, so someone would need to have 1) Crafted a full wand, 2) Used that wand the exact number of times needed, 3) Sold that want to that a dealer in that particular village) and that makes logical sense and is not GM fiat.
But finding a weapon, or someone who can craft a weapon, is not reasonable.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I say much of the problem comes from people trying to read rules to prove their point.
Here is the deal.
Some people believe casters are overpowered because they have GM's that think "creative" is better that "rational" and that is fine. In their games they are correct.
Some people believe they have found ways to create broken builds because they are able to use odd cheese machinations with the GM they play with, and that is fine. In their games they are correct.
However most tables work fine for most classes in most campaigns. And the baseline campaigns for the publishers are...well...the published campaigns.
Invariably in these discussions, the people who claim the game is unbalanced reveal themselves as playing in hyper house ruled games that allow things most GMs would not allow. See Always Pre-Buff, 15 minute day, Infinite Wish Machine, etc...
If you have a GM who allows these things, it is no surprise the game gets out of control in the same way that if you add nitrous, the car can either go faster or blow up.
You don't blame the engineer of the car when you add nitrous and blow up your car.
My experience is if you all start at low levels and have to advance level by level together as a group, overpowered is rarely a problem given each class having strengths and weaknesses. Some classes have the potential to be absolutely dominant at times, but those classes also have the most potential to be absolutely fail in the same adventure day.
As a rule, if someone won't put up a build they are here for attention and not discussion.
Which I for one am looking forward to.
I think you can do an overhaul on the scale of 3.5 to Pathfinder and produce a much improved product that is largely compatible with the most of the AP back catalog and completely compatible with the setting.
We have gotten to the point where crunch books are going to need to get silly to still have a new feel to them, and I think there are enough quirks to make a revised edition something people are ready for.
I get the "Don't make my rules obsolete!" arguement, but frankly I still have my 3.5 books and I can still used then with Pathfinder if I choose. Moving to a 1.5 won't change that.
Big Lemon wrote:
It is probably because you aren't a jerk, and therefore you are able to make friends with people who are able to be selective because they aren't jerks.
Dr Grecko wrote:
So a large object suddenly appearing on top of you head, an object large enough and sturdy enough to be considered a "Solid Barrier" would not in any way do you harm, despite it immediately needing to reform from a "clothlike" form into, again, a structure that meet the threshold to be considered a "Solid Barrier" which prevents the effects of the spell that caused it to change shape in the first place.
That not posing significant risk doesn't require GM Fiat. Allowing the character to walk in some strange alignment, at all times, that would cause this not to do grievous harm to, you know, your head. That doesn't require GM Fiat.
And if the BBEG at the end of the quest did this to you, you wouldn't call GM Fiat on that either, right?
To which I generally respond. "Yes, that is why I am being a dick to you. It would be rude to be this belligerent to someone who didn't clearly earn it" :)
Strong does not necessarily mean loud. You can have a strong whisper, for example.
Nope, don't need to add anything.
Edit: Is there anything you can't read to minimize weaknesses for players? It is remarkable.
I do what I always do as a GM.
I listen to what the players are doing and I think about how that interacts with what is going on around them, and then act accordingly.
Pre-buffing sometimes makes sense, sometimes alerts your enemies, sometimes allowing them to pre-buff too...
Rebel Arch wrote:
Actually you are. You are telling the GM they have to run whatever you bring to the table, no matter what.
And you are telling the other players they have to accomodate whatever you bring. They have to play at the level you set.
Rebel Arch wrote:
I agree. Don't tell the GM and other groups how to run their games.
Very reasonable position.
Abraham spalding wrote:
With fast study you can get a bit closer to schrodinger's wizard in non-stressful environments you still can't fully hit it without wasting a lot of feats on contingencies like spell mastery still spell eschew materials and the like.
Fast Study and metamagic rods are two things I think need to be looked at again by the devs. Many of the other issues I find to be more GM reading things loosely rather than actual rule problems.
"Schrodinger's Wizard" has only one weakness.
Opening the box and having it appear.
Which is why serious discussions need builds, not theorycraft.
A wizard can do everything, but not at the same time. Each choice means a choice you didn't take isn't available. And when people have lots of empty slots, that shows they play with the kind of GM who has nice quiet places for wizards to study in the middle of dungeons...
Wizards can be all win or all fail depending on if they guessed right about 1) What they will need for the day 2) When they will need it 3) How long the day is.
"Schrodinger's Wizard", "Schrodinger's Fighter", "Schrodinger's" anything really is a function of people trying to show how right they are rather than trying to prove how right they are.
Posting a build leaves you vulnerable to being wrong...heaven forbid...
It is a chicken and egg thing for me.
If you start from a concept and work to make that concept the most powerful version of that concept you can, I am ok with it.
If you start from trying to manipulate the system and then create a concept to reflect that manipulation, I'm not ok with it.
I think every character who adventures wants to be powerful, and will trying to learn things to be powerful.
I also think if you change the concept every other level to fit some crunch you found, you risk killing the verisimiltude for everyone else at tables where that matters to the other people playing.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
It isn't the intake that causes the problems :)
I think if you have to write up a list of rules for this stuff Your`re taking things too seriously. So, why so serious?
I've never needed a list. I do those things normally without thinking.
Apparently others don't, so I'm trying to help.
As is befitting of St. Ciretose :)
Some people earn special treatment, both positively and negatively.
Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
A great number of people come here not looking for debate but validation. When they dont get the validation they seek its upsetting to them. They dont want to be convinced of anything so they wont be, they then when faced with a mountain of contrary opinion resort to logical fallacies, moving goal posts, Strawmen, and Reducta ad Absurdem to attemp to "win". As though its some sort of competetion.
Unsurprisingly, they are often the same people who try to "win" the game.
I am personally a fan of defining goal posts very early on, and then locking them into place.
It is the job of the person who is stating something is a "fact" to defend it, and it is the job who is stating it is "unclear" to disprove it.
It is always easier to be in the "unclear" position.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Ironically the only institution that, in theory at least, has a primary mission statement of improving life on earth for those who are a part of it.
So, I am a new user, and a new DM, and I have a problem. My group started decently sized, with 3 players. Unfortunately, sombody has been telling their friends, and now I have 8-9 players I have to figure out. None of us have had any experience, and I need to know if there is a way to run with many players, and if there isn't, is there any way to convine a person not to play. Thanks in advance.
Actually, you now have two groups.
Don't try to run 8 or 9 players. Particularly if you are new.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'm not in favor of laws that infringe free speech.
I am very much in favor of condemning people who say things, if you disagree with them.
I think the Westboro Baptist Church serves a purpose. It is what I can point to when people claim there are no extremists Christians.
I fell guilty to that one last session. Hadn't read up on the baddies spell lists and they had APG and UM material in there. Lessons learned.
It can be really hard as a GM, particularly at high levels, but there is far less excuse as a player since you only are running one person and you have time between the turn to look stuff up.
When I GM, I have the laptop open and tabs for anything I am playing to cast. Wi-Fi FTW :)
Andrew R wrote:
Actually I view it as the opposite.
We aren't locking down the words, we are calling you out on the meaning behind the words.
You can still say whatever you want. We are just calling you out on what you say.
If what you are saying embarrasses you...you said it, not me.
Because sometimes your views are racist if you are saying people from other countries don't deserve things you do based on their race or ethnicity.
Which, you know, is racist.
Bite me :)
Since apparently this is a major problem for some people, I thought I would start a thread to discuss basic table courtesy and manners.
If you follow these basic rules, you will have no problem finding games.
1. BYOS, BYOS and if applicable definitely BYOB unless you are told there will be food and drink provided. Even then it can't hurt to bring something. And frankly, you really should bring enough to share if you want to really be courteous and welcome at all gatherings.
2. Be on time and be ready to play. Don't show up at the time the game was supposed to start and start rolling up a character. Have the materials you will need as ready as you are able (laptop, book or printout)
3. When starting a new game or new character, run your concept first by the GM and then by the rest of the group. Not the character sheet, just the concept. Don't put anything on paper until you check in to make sure the concept fits in with what other people want to play.
4. If you are doing something you think is going to force a rule check, either mention it beforehand or have the rule ready when you do it. Stopping a table to find a rule is annoying.
5. Use the time between turns to get ready. When possible, have your spells available to show your GM or to check yourself. Be ready on your turn.
6. Be a part of the party, not a lone wolf. Look for synergies with your fellow players and try to create reasons for everyone to be a part of the party.
7. If you aren't interested in the game the GM is running, politely bow out. Don't try to force a square peg in a round hole. Other games will come.
8. If a game is dying, let it go. There are lots of other ideas and concepts you can try if the group isn't into what you are currently running. Rebooting is always better than group collapse.
9. You are "a" GM, not "The" GM. You can be replaced.
10. You are "a" player, not "The" player. You can be replaced.
11. If the rest of the party is zoning out while you role play, tone it down. It's a team game, not your own personal acting debut.
12. If you think the GM stinks, run your own game to show how you think it should be run. If the rest of the group agrees with you then changes will come. If not, you'll learn how hard it is to be on the other side of the table and be more likely to...well...STFU.
13. Keep your group's dirty laundry off the messageboard. Seriously, don't post asking strangers to affirm your players or GM are a jerk. If you really need advice, come here with a post asking how you can change, not how you can change everyone else.
14. Be nice to the books. If possible, buy some to add to the communal library.
15. Rules discussions are for downtime, not at the table. Even death can be corrected in this game, so just wait and talk to your GM when there is some downtime.
16. If you are GM, make sure there is some downtime periodically for players to go eat, use the bathroom, talk, plot (or for you to scramble to come up with a plan when they throw you for a loop). If a player seems upset, give them time to talk to you between encounters before it blows up.
17. Die with dignity. It happens to everyone. Start working on your 2nd character (assuming you don't already have a pre-approved backup) or something.
18. Remember it is a game, and the people at the table are your friends, and no one is (generally) getting paid to be there. Rather than acting like you are entitled to customer service from others at the table, put yourself in the mindset of helping to provide the best game for everyone else at the table.
19. When you mess up, apologize. It seems like a small thing. It isn't.
20. Don't just design for yourself, design for your group. This goes for GM's and players alike. If you thinking about what you want and not thinking about what would be fun for everyone, you are doing it wrong.
Feel free to add your own.
Toasted Special wrote:
So we are playing Rise of the RuneLords, we just started chapter 2. At the end of chapter one there was a few cages of goblin babys. I wanted to kill them all because well there goblins, im a neutral summoner. Our partys paladin on the other hand wanted to take them with us back to sandpoint, i didnt stop him just cuz well im not evil and he's a big help. Now that we are back in town he took them to the church and talked to them and now hes paying for a orphanage to get build mainly so the goblins can be raised. I have been constantly trying to kill the babys now that we are back in town, trying to reason with the priests, summoning goblin dogs to make it look like goblins, just sneaking in to kill them(my sneak sucks), ransoms, reasoning with the townsfolk. the last one it went both ways some people saw my reasoning and some saw the palidens reasons. Me their evil their gonna grow up and kill peoples dogs and horsed and townsfolk, the pali says if we raise them they will adopt the townsfolks lifestyle and be peacefull. So i would like your guys help on how would be a good way for me to kill the goblin babys without my gm saying im evil now and without having to fight the paliden one on one.
Why are you creating a PVP situation.
Let the Paladin have his Goblin babies. It isn't actually the real world, and unless your character has a specific hatred of goblins, why are you messing with another players Role Play?
The Crusader wrote:
Yes, for completely different reasons.
It isn't about you. You have joined a group that was happy before you got there and if you keep this up will be even happier when you leave.
You don't come in as the new person and dictate. You come in and watch and learn from them, and then decide if it is worth sticking around or not.
Here we go again...
How about this. How about you are the new guy in a perfectly happy group that is trying to politely tell you not to rock the boat and that they care about flavor.
Either join in with a working game or don't.
EDIT: Also the rug doesn't get pulled out from under you very often if you run ideas by the GM before you actually build out.
It sounds to me like you tried to optimize in a party that puts emphaisis on flavor and fluff.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Depends on the player. Some people I actually consider it a plus for the GM when I hear they left...
You still haven't explained why you can't run a concept by your GM before you fall in love with it and stat it up.
What you are basically saying is "I can't come up with more than one option, so you must figure out a way to accommodate that option"
Maybe you need to find options that work rather than expecting everyone else to bend to you?
Because it is not a high bar to set when you say "Run a few idea by the GM before you get to deep into creating the character"
If you are stating out a build with a backstory before you've even run the idea by your GM, that is your fault.
John Kretzer wrote:
He's played in 7 whole games, and even GMed once.
He would know...
You are beyond questioning my judgement, you are demanding explanation for it.
If the GM says I don't like it and thinks it will be a problem, and the GM is your friend, that should be more than enough of a reason for you to want to find something that will not be a problem.
Or she just doesn't like it. And even if there was more, "I don't like it" contains all of the needed information.
You are also not entitled to detailed psychoanalysis of why your GM doesn't like something. Courtesy says "Hey, my GM doesn't want to run that idea, maybe I should think of something else that we could both enjoy."