ciretose's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

9 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let me both welcome you and apologize for all the puns sure to follow.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So many times on these boards in threads where the OP expressed and intention to attempt a concept we see a group of people charge in seemingly saying "YOU CAN'T DO THAT, YOU WILL GET YOUR PARTY KILLED, WEAK BUILD FOR CONCEPT IS WRONGBADFUN, ALL MUST OPTIMIZE, BUILD MOAR PYLONS!!!"

So once and for all, can we establish what the baseline to contribute is, and if anyone can meet that baseline with a concept, everyone who continues to attack the OP for wrongbadfun should then STFU and GTFO of the thread, unless they have something actually productive to contribute to making the concept work

My proposal for defining the baseline is this:

Look at the Bestiary Monster Creation Guideline for a creature of a CR equal to the level of the class.

If you would rather have those stats on an empty sheet that the proposed build at that level, you can say it is under powered.

Otherwise, it's not. It is viable and able to contribute in a normal game with normal expectations, and therefore not going to come into your home game and stab a baby.

Can we agree to this? And if not can we discuss what the baseline is and should be?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Spoilers abound...

I did not like Dawnguard. It was a horrible disappointment for one reason.

It made no sense.

Were the new armors cool? Yes. Were the new perk trees great? Yes. Was it cool to turn into a vampire? Yes. Hell, were the new locations like the Soul Cairn beautiful? Yes, all of the parts were wonderful additions to the game world.

Except the story made no sense. Jarringly, painfully, no sense.

You are recruited as as a Vampire Hunter. You are sent on basically the first mission to go kill Vampires. You discover an ancheint Vampire with an elder scroll and...YOU ESCORT HER TO THE HEAD VAMPIRE SO SHE CAN GIVE IT TO HIM?!?!?!

Worse yet, she knows he is evil, so why does she want to give it to him? And why do you help her? And why does he let you go?

Yes they added cool things, but it was like they watched that cool video we all watched with all the ideas they came up and said "Put in all the things!" without even trying to make sense as to "Why". Worse, they ruin Canon by throwing Elder Scrolls around like candy.

Remove the story and the "stuff" is great. But the story ruined it.

Contrast this with Dragonborn. You return to a place you've been before, and they know it. You play with nostalia and canon. The reason you are there makes sense. The things you do, make sense. It isn't perfect, but I don't have to completely suspend disbelief of any logical reason on the first real mission so you can deux machina me to being a Vampire.

The most hyped new feature in Dawnguard (riding the dragon) is probably the least interesting thing in the quest to that point.

And yet, some people loved Dawnguard.

I think I may use this as a test in the future to figure out who I want to game with. If you aren't bothered by the horrible story in Dawnguard, because you only cared about the shiny new ways to kill things...well, we probably aren't compatible gamers.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

14 people marked this as a favorite.

There is another thread that is kind of blowing my mind right now.

I understood that some people feel restrained by things like alignment restrictions of classes. I don't agree, but I get that if you were playing in settings that didn't follow it could make sense to loosen such things for house rules.

Now there seems to be an argument that having your character actually make sense, in the setting you are playing, is to much to ask.

Really? Making sense is now an excessively high bar to reach?

I am not talking about people who want to play in silly concept games, that is almost a completely different sub game where everything makes sense, because of the setting.

I'm talking about people who sit down with the presumed intent of playing a game equivalent of an AP or Module, where there is an immersive world where the characters "exist" as presumably part of the world.

And yet...asking them to make sense is a bridge to far.

I'll just say it, many people on here don't seem to get they don't game alone. That other people don't come to the table to serve their desire to play whatever they want, regardless of if it makes sense or disrupts the game for everyone else.

Making sense should not be an unreasonable expectation in character design. A GM shouldn't have to "house rule" making sense into the pregame. It should be an assumed goal.

Obviously "sense" will vary from table to table. Some will allow things others would forbid.

But seriously, we can't agree that a player should at least trying to make sense?

That is now to much to ask?

*mind blown*

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Idea for a challenge game.

One person picks a level. Two people each have an option of making a PC or choosing a creature from the bestiary of that level, completely unknown to each other (under spoiler tags)

They appear and fight it out.

Only thing I can't figure out is the arena.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I am on record as not being a fan of either of these items.

Metamagic Rods are functionally purchased feats. Only better since you don't have to prep the spell in advance. Items should not obsolete feats, IMHO>

Pearls of Power overcome a class limitation...why? To what end? The whole reason Sorcerers lag in spell progression is because of the advantage of being able to recast the same spell...which is overcome by this item.

So what would be the problem if they were removed from the game, as I want to check in before I officially house rule them out to see if there is any reason to leave them in.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

5 people marked this as a favorite.

As a comment on the recent spat of "Evil GM" threads, allow me to explore possible roots of this issue.

When a group of people sit down to play a role playing game, a decision is made. Someone from the group will be running the game. Who will that be.

Now if you are like me, you have a lot of very reasonable, intelligent, people to choose from. Sure, you may have a friend or two who is kind of wacky that you like to game with for comic effect, but you aren't letting that guy run the show.

Not with so many other, more reasonable choices.

Similarly, when you want to run as a GM, if you have a large group of very reasonable people in your life, it is actually a challenge to decide who you will invite, and who will be out of this game, either for logisitical purposes or just philosophical disagreement on game play.

So, you know, if you can't have this happen...well...I'll just go ahead and say it. Like attracts like.

So if you are having problems at your table...maybe start with the person in the mirror. You picked these friends, you decided to sit down at this table, you decided to invite these people, you decided to put that GM in charge.

Just sayin'

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I'm listening to NPR and Kevin Spacey and David Fincher are discussing actors and directors, and it occurs to me this is a near perfect analogy.

PCs are actors, GMs are directors.

It is not a flaw that the Player is going to try and create the most powerful thing they can. It is the players job. The player is trying to make a hero, someone exciting and interesting and fun to play.

This is what they are supposed to do. It is, in fact, their primary job.

However, if an Actor shows up on the set of a Western attempting to play Robo-Cop, it is the job of the director to get them into the movie that is being made.

A good GM say to the player "Here is the setting, audition your idea for heros in this setting".

And then, the GM sits back and sees how creative his players are as they audition ideas. If an idea doesn't work, the director, well...directs the actor to try to come up with something that will.

The GM should never tell a player what to play or how they must act, but they absolutely should guide them toward choices that fit the setting and the group.

Because they are the only person who knows the setting, and they are the one in consulation with the rest of the group in forming the story.

If a player isn't interested in making something be part of the setting, the player doesn't get cast in the campaign. If they are, most everything else will resolve itself as things go on.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just a fun little discussion of what would be the Ultimate 4 person party for the AP, considering both utility and fun. It is obviously subjective, so please post your own.

1. Human Wizard - (Transmutation School).

Why? This is a AP all about anchient wizards. It is full of spellbooks and rollplaying opportunities and at the end, this player could become the new runelord of Greed. Hence picking transmutation.

2. Human Bard (Archeologist Archtype)

Why? This fills a ton of party roles. You have your trapfinder, secondary caster and healer, party face...not to mention the bardic knowledges are going to very much come in handy. Not a power house, but a jack of all trades that will come very much in handy throughout the campaign.

3. Human Paladin -

Why? Many campaigns are hard for Paladins. This one isn't. The bad guys are bad. Immunity to fear and detecting evil will very much come in handy at many points in the campaign. He is your tank, your secondary face, your nova against the BBEG and yet another healer.

4. Human Druid -

Why? Because this is a heavy travel campaign over lots and lots of different terrain. Wild shape is great for scouting, and you will absolutely need scouting.

Thoughts, or post your own.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In an effort to provide a target rather than a complaint, let me spell out some of my concerns with the rules and guidelines and discuss ways forward for improvement.

1. Craft Wondrous Item needs to be split up. All of the others are pretty much fine considering you are giving up a feat for a relatively narrow field of study, but craft Wondrous Items is ridiculous. At a minimum sub-divide it into clothing and actual items, but I think a good point of discussion is how we can divide up this far to broad feat. If you make this several categories with different feats rather than one feat, a lot of the overpower concerns are addressed.

2. Why is the Wizard making weapons and armor? When did wizarding including blacksmithing and tanning. Not saying they shouldn't have access, but it adds nothing to the game that the Fighter can't make his own weapons and armor as well as a guy who has no proficiency at using such things. Yes they added master craftsman, but that should just be a rule rather than a feat, at least for weapons and armor. Opening it up to much? Perhaps, which leads me to...

3. You should have to be proficient in a weapon or armor to craft that weapon or armor. Will this mean Wizards will have less ability to craft weapons and armor. Yes. Is that a bad thing? Not in my opinion. At least not if you are making it easier for the other classes to craft for themselves if they choose.

4. You shouldn't be able to take 10 when crafting. You are getting an item for half-price, failing on one every once in a while isn't an unfair addition.

So lets look at just those changes.

Now Martial classes are the best at making weapons, fighters the best at making armor. Seems right.

Wizards, and casters in general, are still are the best at making magic items. Seems right.

You will need a heavy feat investment to fully outfit yourself, regardless of class, which seems right considering you double your WBL.

Thoughts? Particularly on ideas on how to subdivide Craft Wondrous Items.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So there is a lot of discussion of versioning and updating...but the solution to most of the problems is already being implimented.

Versions.

Currently there is Pathfinder and the Beginner Box version of Pathfinder.

Both are more or less fully compatible with the core buisness (Adventure Paths and Modules) but both are very different.

Expand this with a re-boot in 3 to 4 parts, each with a "separate" rule set depending on your preferred playstyle.

Game 1: Beginner Box. Your simplified entry level rule-set designed almost entirely with new player in mind. Basically the beginner box as it is.

Game 2: A revised and cleaned up Core. This is your base game, only now it will be kept as clean as possible from any ambiguity, creep, etc...this is the baseline game in a core rule book that is the clear next step up from the Beginner Box, designed for the purist, and the baseline the APs and Modules are written to.

Game 3: Advanced Rule Set. This is where we start putting in spells and feats that require some adjudication and maybe GM approval, or things that could be open to abuse but are still fun. These are your splatbooks that push the envelop a bit. Marketed as included only with GM approval, but will still work if plugged into the core model. Some things will eventually drift over to core books, but this is where borderline things start out.

Game 4: Experimental Rule Set. This is where stuff like Words of Power or Alternate Armor rules go. Stuff most of us won't use in our game, but that we might buy and give a go. If things work they can get moved down to the other rule sets eventually, but this really is the Dev playground.

The key is all of this is compatible with the core buisness. The publishers can choose if these would be completely separate lines or just separate sections in the larger hardcover releases.

Either way this gives the game room to grow while still keeping creep at bay and making sure all rules encourage purchase of the core buisness items.

Thoughts?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Why do you let them run? Seriously, why?

One assumes that generally 5 people who know the rules are sitting at a table when this thing happens, and those 5 people have to decide "That person is someone I'm going to invest hours of my time allowing to run a game."

So why do you do it? Why do you come to the table and then complain on here about it? Why don't you run?

If you don't trust your GM, why are you letting them GM? Why can't you find someone else in the 5 people making the decision who isn't going to a be a "jerk?"

And does everyone else think they are a jerk, or are you the only one that is having a problem?

Because...well...if five people sat down and picked someone they all think is a jerk to DM, doesn't that kind of implies they think that GM is the lesser evil of the other four?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

37 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a story that is not about a paladin, but illustrates why many of us hate the paladin threads.

I have a player in one of my groups who decided to make a clouded vision oracle. He spent a lot of time coming up with the concept, worked hard to maximize the benefits he could get out of darkvision and to minimize the penalites of his limited vision.

When I am running rather than playing, particularly as we get to higher levels with so many creatures on the board, I often will forget that he can't see something on the table that is outside of his visial range.

He always reminds me.

Let me say that again.

He always reminds me.

He made a character that he wants to play. He wants to play the charater, not game the system.

If his character can't see the flying creature because it is too far away, he doesn't want to cheat.

If you make a paladin, part of playing a paladin is playing the code of that paladin. How you define that code is between you and you GM. But you made a decision to play a class with a specific limitation, in the same way my friend chose to play a class that can't see beyond a certain distance.

My friends Oracle is an absolute beast in dungeons and close quarters, but when you put him in an open field he has to adjust.

A paladin is an absolute beast against evil, and other times...has to adjust.

One of the reasons I get so short with people on the threads is that I come from a largely self policing group. We (Generally) don't invite people back who we can't trust to try to play the game honestly.

The few people we have in the game who can't handle this aren't allowed to play paladins and have to have spell sheets on the table and check them off as they go in front of the GM. They understand, it isn't a Red "A" on their chests, they just know they will fudge if we let them.

The guy who plays the oracle. No one questions him, he can play whatever he wants. He is always welcome at every table.

Everyone should strive to be more like him, rather than being "that guy"

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps it is just me, but I like my game a bit gritty. I want a bit of fear at my table. I want to know that the rolls matter, and that I can't just make everything ok if something bad happens.

I want it to matter if I make a mistake. I want there to be consequences for failure.

There seems to be more and more of a push to nerf negative outcomes and conditions from edition to edition. There was a long and interesting discussion of the real costs of death in the long run in the game in another thread that seemed to indicate that there are none anymore.

And I find that disapointing.

I don't come to the table to always have the good guys win, no matter how badly we perform. I don't want a participation trophy.

I want a world. A real, gritty, dark world where if my character makes it to high levels, it is an accomplishment I can be proud of rather than a function of patience.

And I want to have to decide if it is time to hang up my haversack after a few to many run ins that didn't go my way.

I am looking for immersion. I am not looking to be a disney hero, who knows it will always work out for everyone. I'm looking to be a Joss Whedon hero, who knows good will triumph, even if not all of us are around to see it happen.

Why is the game drifting away from me?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There was a discussion about the cost of raise dead that took a turn that kind of confused me, and I think it may be a source of some of the divsions in the game.

Raising your character from the dead is rarely about how much it costs in games I've played it.

You find a way to do it, because you care about your character. And more importantly, because your party cares about them.

You are a band of brothers/sisters. You bond through these adventures where you risk everything to save people you care about. Sure, they aren't real, but they are real when you are at the table.

When things are going well, the table is at damn near panic when one of our "friends" is a dice roll from death. The idea of just rolling up another characer is almost crazy talk. Of course you are going to spend whatever it takes to bring him back (and play behind a level in the old days) because he's your friend and that is what you do.

Are there times you are ready to move on, sure. Sometimes you don't bring them back, because you are ready to move on and change characters.

But that is rare (and in our games, can have consequeces...we have had old PCs that died be brought back as undead challenges...). It is rare because when your friend dies, and you can bring them back, you do it because you care.

The math isn't the question.

If I play with a GM or other players who aren't invested in creating a world that matters, I feel like that game failed. If I can't get the players to care, I feel like I have failed as a GM. If I can't make a PC the table feels is part of the setting and matters enough to save, I feel like I have failed as a player.

I am not saying it is wrongbadfun if it is about the math for your table, but it seems so strange to me to think that way about a fellow adventurer.

Thoughts?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Discussion from another thread moved here to reduce derail.
The Flynn Effect.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Is the video private for anyone else, or am I special?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 15 people marked this as a favorite.

If it looks like a loophole, it probably is one.

It really is that simple.

When you read the rules, if you realize there is something that you can do that doesn't make sense, why would your default be anything but no?

If you have to ask your GM if something unclear in the rules is allowed, it is probably because you know deep down it shouldn't be. If you were confident about it, you wouldn't need to ask.

Are there exceptions, of course. I fully expect the Lollypop Guild to come into this thread in force to point out all of the things the rules allow that are outside of logic, to point out initiative and one swing in six seconds aren't logical, etc...

But really. Seriously, isn't RAI pretty clear most of the time?

The rule at my table is simple. If you wouldn't try to do that in a game with the Devs, don't bring it to the table. When in doubt, majority rules.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

10 people marked this as a favorite.

In one of the first really epic campaigns I played in, one of the players was lagging a bit. He was a good player,had a great backstory that became integral to the plot...but it was 3.5 and he had a gnome rogue that just didn't roll stats very well. The gap kept growing and although he had some epic moments, often he was frustrated by the relative power of other party members.

Later in the game, the GM helped him out by having things happen to him that increased his ability scores a bit. It was fully in story, hard fought, but it also brought him in line with the group expectations.

This is how I plan to use the Mythic Rules, based on what I've read so far.

The Mythic Rules will be something I have in my toolbag to pull out and reward players who do everything right, make the game better, but maybe bit off more than they could chew with a concept that didn't work.

In that game, the gnome rogue ended up landing a killing blow on a demon we had been chasing for, well, years. It was epic have the little gnome that could land the final backstab, and that would have been a perfect time to reward the player with something like this.

So while I fully expect the munchkins and power gamers to abuse and exploit these on the forums, out in the real world I make this suggestions to the GMs.

This is yours to make adjustments at your table. To reward strong play and story.

Use it for good, not evil. :)

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Instead of listing things we want, for a change let's list things that you would remove from the game, or rules you would revert back to the 3.5, or pre-errata/playtest version.

Just off the top of my head, to get the ball rolling I would remove (or at least increase in price)

Most metamagic rods
Pearls of power.
Antagonize

I would revert

Sunder to pre-errata.

Go!

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think the discussion of specific roles is a bit...off. It isn't to say that roles don't exist, but rather that assignment of roles to a party member isn't the only, or best way to approach accomplishing the goals.

I'm going to divide this into two sections. Needs and Wants. All parties need to be able to do the following, preferably without resorting excessively to consumables.

1. Remove Enemies from the Battlefield: Generally through removal of hit points, sometimes through SoS spells. The enemy has to go, and you need multiple ways of doing this.

2. Party Recovery: Early on this is just healing, but later in the game this becomes much more broad. Party Members will be hurt and/or killed and the party needs to be able to deal with this in the field.

3. Out of combat interactions: You need to be able to deal with out of combat social and skill encounters.

Looking at the three items, there is obvious crossover. Classes like Bards and Inquisitors cover all three, but not as well as some specialist classes.

The next division is more group wants, depending on party play style.

1. Stealth and Initiative: Not always combined, but the concept being the party that decides the terms of the combat starts with a significant advantage. Stealth allows you to get the drop on the enemy, and initiative allows you to set the terms of the encounter by going before the enemy.

2. Control and mobility: While you would prefer to choose where you fight, and to go first when you get there, if that fails you want to be able to effect the battlefield, either through control spells or by being able to get where you want to be, regardless.

3. Social Interaction and Intelligence Gathering: Allies are better than enemies, and the fight that can be avoided thanks to a good party face and/or effective intelligence gathering is in and of itself a combat win.

4. Versatility: Being able to do a ton of damage in a given encounter isn't helpful if that isn't the encounter in front of you. Being able to adapt on the fly when something unexpected occurs is just as important as being dominant when dealing with the expected.

The classic 4 accomplishes filling these roles in very specific ways, but that doesn't really make the classic four the ideal set. In fact, in many ways the classic 4 is somewhat lacking, particularly with regards to social interactions (who is the high charisma face in a party with a fighter, rogue, cleric and a wizard?) and versatility. Not to mention Stealth isn't exactly a strength of the Cleric or Figher.

Would you rather have the classic 4, or a replace the Figher and Rogue with a Bard and Ranger for example? Perhaps then replace the cleric and wizard with an Inquistor and Magus? And in that party, there are less "roles" being filled by a specific person and more situations being dealt with by the combined skills of the party.

Thoughts? Additional "Needs" and "Wants" I missed? Areas of disagreement?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ashiel and Tels please stay out. This isn't about either of you and I'm not interested in either of your input since you got the last thread locked.

Let's try this again.

One of the primary divides on the messageboard seems to come from a disagreement of the role of the rules in relation to the game.

On the one hand you have people who view the game as a puzzle to be solved. How can I make the best X to win all of the things. The rules, to them, are the game.

On the other hand you have the people who view the game as an interactive story that they expect to not be a simple "win" or "lose" kind of proposition. The rules, to them, serve the setting.

Obviously with people who fall in the grey area in between, but those people are nice and don't argue on the messageboard.

I fall very strongly on the side of the rules serve the setting, rather than the setting serving the rules.

So when I hear about someone trying to argue for loopholes they have found in the rules that allow them to do things counter to the logic of the setting, I want to throw a book at them. They are, to me manipulating the rules to break the setting.

When someone else hears me say "You can't do that" to something they think is RAW, to them, I am cheating and being cruel.

1. Do you agree that this is a fair dividing line (with lots of people who fall into grey areas between on various issues)

2. Which side of the debate are you generally on. In other words, do you believe the rules serve the setting or that the setting serves the rules.

To be clear, I'm not demanding agreement with my position. I'm open to discussion. Both sides are perfectly fine ways to play, however I feel like they are also incompatible with each other. I just want to see if people agree these are the sides in conflict and if they see ways that I don't to get around the incompatibility.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Carry over from another thread. I said the following.

"On the one hand you have people who view the game as a puzzle to be solved. How can I make the best X to win all of the things. The rules, to them, are the game.

On the other hand you have the people who view the game as an interactive story that they expect to not be a simple "win" or "lose" kind of proposition. The rules, to them, serve the setting.

Obviously with people who fall in the grey area in between.

When I hear about someone trying to argue for bound genies with no risk granting bonuses, I want to throw a book at them. You are, to me manipulating the rules to break the setting.

When someone else hears me say "You can't do that" to something they think is RAW, to them, I am cheating and being cruel.

I fall very strongly on the side of the rules serve the setting, rather than the setting serving the rules."

1. Do you agree that this is a fair dividing line (with lots of people who fall into grey areas between on various issues)

2. Which side of the debate are you generally on. In other words, do you believe the rules serve the setting or that the setting serves the rules.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Munchkins and power gamers. I want you to attempt to stress test the following changes to the monk.

First, under unarmed strike replace the last paragraph and the chart with:

"A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk. The unarmed damage values listed on Table: Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage on the table given below."

with

"A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would. At first level a monk's unarmed strike does 1d6 hit points of damage. At 4th level the monks unarmed strike gains a +1 enhancement bonus. For every four levels beyond 4th, the monk gains an additional +2 enhancement bonus to a maximum of +5 at 20th level."

Second replace:

"Wholeness of Body (Su): At 7th level or higher, a monk can heal his own wounds as a standard action. He can heal a number of hit points of damage equal to his monk level by using 2 points from his ki pool."

With

"Wholeness of Body (Su): At 7th level or higher, a monk can heal his own wounds as a standard action. A monk may spend one ki point to heal himself as if casting cure light wounds. At 11th level the monk may spend 2 ki points to heal himself as if using cure moderate wounds. At 15th level the monk may spend 3 ki points to heal himself as if using cure serious wounds. At 19th level the monk may spend 4 ki points to heal himself as if using the spell Heal."

And finally add to the end of Diamond Soul:

"Spell resistance may be raised or lowered as a swift action."

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Munchkins and power gamers. I want you to attempt to stress test the following changes to the monk.

First, under unarmed strike replace the last paragraph and the chart with:

"A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk. The unarmed damage values listed on Table: Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage on the table given below."

with

"A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would. At first level a monk's unarmed strike does 1d6 hit points of damage. At 4th level the monks unarmed strike gains a +1 enhancement bonus. For every four levels beyond 4th, the monk gains an additional +2 enhancement bonus to a maximum of +5 at 20th level."

Second replace:

"Wholeness of Body (Su): At 7th level or higher, a monk can heal his own wounds as a standard action. He can heal a number of hit points of damage equal to his monk level by using 2 points from his ki pool."

With

"Wholeness of Body (Su): AAt 7th level or higher, a monk can heal his own wounds as a standard action. A monk may spend one ki point to heal himself as if casting cure light wounds. At 11th level the monk may spend 2 ki points to heal himself as if using cure moderate wounds. At 15th level the monk may spend 3 ki points to heal himself as if using cure serious wounds. At 19th level the monk may spend 4 ki points to heal himself as if using the spell Heal."

And finally add to the end of Diamond Soul:

Spell resistance may be raised or lowered as a swift action.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The game doesn't say that dead characters can't take actions.

So clearly, by RAW dead players can take actions.

I know no one plays this way, but this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, as currently, clearly, we are all violating RAW.

Discuss.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Would you...

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It has been discussed in other threads that one possible fix would be to allow monks to enhance unarmed strike at the same cost as weapons.

It was also discussed that anything obsoleting AoMF is a non-starter.

So.

Let's say that you change the monk to allow them to enhance the attack and damage bonus. Let's say enhancing them is equal to the cost of enhancing two weapons.

Let us further say that to avoid dip issues, this can starts at 4th Level, where you can add a +1 enhancement. Every three levels, you can increase this by +1 (+2 7th, +3 10th, +4 13th, +5 16th) capping at a maximum of +5. For fluff we will say this comes from intense meditation and focus, with special material needed for the ceremony.

Now, the AoMF does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability. So you could have any melee special abilities come from the AoMF, while the attack bonuses come from the monk special ability.

The question, in two parts.

1. Would this break the class (too powerful)
2. Would this fix the class (make it powerful enough)

Discuss, preferably with math.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

6 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a book I would buy. A list of divine archetypes for each god.

A Cleric of Irori with Monk aspects?
An Inquisitor of Abadar who seeks out fraud and corruption?
A True Paladin of Iomedae following in the Inheritors image?
A truly cursed oracle of Rovagug, twisted to destruction?

This is a 32 page book waiting to happen.

Thoughts? Ideas?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Presuming at some point there will be a major revision (but hopefully not a new edition...) which classes would best be served by another pass of "Pathfinderization"*

*(Pathfinderization being defined as doing a lessons learned on the existing class and tweaking where needed, as they did from 3.5 to Pathfinder.)

My opinion, feel free to add your own. They are like certain orafices, everyone has them and they are all full of...stuff...

Core.

1. Barbarian is good. It matches flavor to mechanics, and remains effective in it's role throughout. Only complaint is it needs non-core to do so, but that is nit-picking.
2. Bard is great. Well balanced, fits a role, beloved by those who love bards. No change needed.
3. Cleric is good, perhaps adding a more "preist" like spell caster option, but that is complaining around the edges.
4. Druid is very good, the polymorph fix worked, well done.
5. Fighter is ok, but could use some more high level options/abilities. But it basically serves it's role.
6. Monk needs a way to increase unarmed attack bonus. That is it. Period. Full stop. Do that, monk is fine.
7. Paladin is great, bad ass when they are supposed to be, without being overpowering at other times. Good class, leave it alone.
8. Ranger is damn near perfect.
9. Rogue needs a boost. The shrinking number of skills and the change to the trap and lockpicking have made the "skill" class role less critical. Letting them sneak attack more things helps, but they need a little more to keep up.
10. Sorcerer is fine, although I think metamagics need a major overhaul, and spell clarification would be helpful with some of the more abusable options. I get GM deference, but adding a "high risk" component to spells working in exceptional ways may allow story to proceed while still giving GM's way to balance cheese casters.
11. See above about sorcerers.

APG
1. Alchemist is...ok. It could use some tweeking, as the flavor can't seem to decide between mad bomber and mad scientist. I would be ok with a major overhaul of the "bomb" stuff to make it more standard spell casting actually. It feels tacked on and at times kind of silly. A 3/4 caster with 3/4 attack doesn't need ranged sneak attack, so replace it with something that better fits the class and make the mad bomber an archetype. It isn't "Bad" but it could be better.
2. Cavalier is good at being a Cavalier. The fact people don't want to be Cavaliers because horses don't fit in dungeons is beside the point. It does what it is supposed to do, and fills the role it is supposed to fill. If that role doesn't fit in your campaign, that is a separate issue. No changes needed.
3. The inquisitor is mind-blowingly well made. Don't change a thing. I honestly think it is the class all other classes should be judged against, it's that well balanced.
4. The Oracle is fine, it does what it is supposed to do and does it well. I wish there were another pathfinder spontaneous divine caster option that didn't require curses (and the benefits of them) like favored soul, but I can also just port over favored soul.
5. The summoner is an amazing idea that I can't figure out how to execute, in the same way Words of Power are an awesome idea that just doesn't quite work. I don't want to be to critical of it, because I can't think of a better way to do it, and it is a great idea, but I also don't think it works currently.
6. The witch needs some small tweaks of the hexes, and the fluff could use work (feeding them scrolls...come on, you can do better...) but only tweeks.

Others
1. Samurai...dude...I get linking it to Cavalier, but let them trade the horse for an awesome sword like the paladin. That is the Samurai we want, give it to us. Being married to archetype ruined them.
2. Ninja...again, the ninja being tied to the rogue ruined both the ninja AND the rogue (since the ninja is clearly better than the rogue at being a rogue). Base the ninja off the ranger, with light armor instead of medium and ninja powers as the 4 levels of spell casting. I know this means losing sneak attack, but that is rogue iconic anyway.
3. My love for the concept of the gunslinger is only slightly outweighed by my dislike of the pathfinder gunslinger. Why does the gunslinger need martial proficiency? What the hell is this grit mechanic that overcomplicates a concept that is a person who shoots people with guns. And why are all guns touch attack for everyone? I've got an Eldrich Knight Gunslinger in the party torching everything, because who cares about those 1/2 caster levels when you are against touch AC. Hell, why make it a full BaB class if it hits against touch AC? The whole thing needs to go back to the drawing board and start over.

Thoughts? This isn't a "The Devs suck" thread. Quite the contrary, this is a "Hey, you did great with the last lessons learned, lets run it through the machine again and see how much better they can make it."

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

25 people marked this as a favorite.

These posts are from the same thread. The one that was locked prior to GenCon. Bold added by me.

Jason says
"There are some other issues in the monk that I hope we can address after Gencon, but I want to warn folks.. we will not be rewriting the class. We endeavor with most of our changes to make small moves to get things where we want instead of drastic shifts that might go too far or force us to change again. We've been burned by that in the past."

Sean says later, just before he locks it down.
"I don't know how many times we have to say something before it'll stick.

We do NOT want to use items to fix the monk.

We want to fix the CLASS.

And the design team hasn't yet had ANY talks about what to do about the monk. So we can't have implemented any fix-the-monk design decisions in Ultimate Equipment items because there haven't been any fix-the-monk design decisions made yet."

To be very clear, I am not saying that Jason or Sean have any obligation to the community to respond, or that they are "bad" or "wrong". In fact Jason and Sean are awesome and we love them very much. Which is why we buy the books they write and look to them for guidance.

But I am saying those of us trying to figure out this issue are very, very confused.

Is a re-write coming (which I would be opposed to, as I don't think it is needed) or is it just going to be a tweak.

Those of us in the tweak camp think an item could fix the problem, specifically a way to enhance monk unarmed attacks at a comparable cost to TWF (or slightly more, while still being affordable under WBL guidelines) without taking up a slot.

Period. Full stop. Give us that, we are happy, monk is good, no more posts from us execept defending the monk from the people taking a more extreme position.

You can even verify that with me, as if you look at my post history prior to the brass knuckles nerf I was on the other side of the argument. I get why they nerfed the knuckles, it was lame thematically, but it fixed the problem.

Those on the re-write camp...well I will just say it...they will never be happy. And in the process of re-writing it is just as likely you will break something we like by trying to "fix" what is "broken."

A large group of people got mad at the monk items in Ultimate Equipment specifically because we think it isn't that complicated, and that is is actually an easy fix. Just give us a way to enhance unarmed strike that is comparable in price to TWF and doesn't cost a slot. But what was added in Ultimate Equiptment was the same kind of stuff that we have said it the problem from the beginning. Overpriced items that you can't afford outside of Chrismas tree games that take up slots needed for other things.

I mean, the wraps took the same slot as Monk Robes. Monk Robes. It literally is an item named for the class.

What some of us are saying is, please don't re-invent the wheel. If you disagree with the calculations, show us. Because we are looking at the numbers and the monk is behind the Bard at this point when fighting unarmed.

Seriously. Not hyperbole. Behind the Bard.

The Bard has a cast primary and either melee (str) or ranged (dex) secondary, basically the same MAD as the monk. Only the bard can a) Self Buff and b) Afford higher weapon bonuses.

So a monk and a bard have 16 Str with another 16 elsewhere (wisdom for monk, Charisma for the Bard)

When you look at WBL, the monk can't afford each enhancement bonus for AoMF until they are generally a full point of bonus behind their peers.

And they start off with base ability score bonuses equal to the caster classes, given the need for wisdom.

So a Bard can get masterwork weapons for a +1 to attack and a monk can get...yup.

When we move into actual +1 weapons, a bard can get two for 2000 each for a cost of 4000 + cost of weapon. They can make them +2 for 16,000

AoMF are 5,000 for the first +1 and 20,000 for the +2. You can't even get to the first one without spending more than half of your WBL until 5th level. It's 9th level before it is less than half of your WBL to get a +2.

For comparison to the class the monk should be on par to hit with, let us look not at a full BaB class, but at the other 3/4 pure combat class, the Rogue.

The Rogue is going to be able to focus on Dex to have at least an 18. And they like won't be spreading their level bumps around much, meaning they will keep increasing the gap between what they use to hit and what the monk uses as they level.

Level by level for unarmed

1st a Rogue is up by at least +1
2nd a Rogue can afford masterwork, monk has no masterwork option, Rogue is up +2
3rd Rogue can afford a magic weapon, monk can't.
4th Monk still can't afford a magic weapon. Rogue just bumped Dex.
5th Monk can spend literally half their WBL to get a +1. A rogue can have two +1 weapons.
6th Rogue can afford a +2 Dex item, so the rogue is now likely at least +2 for attack over the monk.
7th level rogue can probably afford to have a least one weapon +2. Monk...next bump with cost 15k more than the AoMF they have, so no way.
8th. Still more than half the Monk's WBL to bump, Rogue can have two +2 items for 16k (less than half WBL, each less than 1/4 WBL which was the classic rule of thumb for single items)

I could go on, but you get the gist.

There has been a lot of talk of "be patient". But the issue isn't patience, it's wondering what is going on.

My experience with PF monk has been this.

Me "This is awesome! They fixed the issues, sure I'd like better attack bonus, but I can DD as a move action so I can attack after and that is badass. And look at Vital strike and spring attack, so awesome for a monk!"
Paizo "Uh...no DD and attack, and vital strike doesn't work with spring attack"
Me "Oh..."
Paizo "But look, we will give you these awesome brass knuckles so you can finally enhance unarmed attacks and keep pace without having to waste as slot on the AoMF you can't afford until far later than everyone else. And here is a feat chain to the DD thing."
Me "AWESOME! That works great and is perfectly balanced. Good job finding a compromise fix!"
Paizo "Actually...nevermind on that brass knuckles thing"
Me "Oh...well I guess there is the cheesy flurry work around, I hate that unarmed is lame and everyone is getting temple swords, but at least the monk can be competitive. I guess that is ok"
Paizo "Actually, that isn't how it works. You need two weapons, it's like TWF"
Me "Oh...I mean that makes sense, I can see the logic...But since this is TWF, and flurrying unarmed is basically using two weapons, can I just enhance my fists with each being a weapon. Maybe make them masterwork as a class feature and allow them to be enhanced like anyother weapon?"
Paizo "We aren't fixing it with items or anything that would obsolete AoMF. We are fixing the class, not just adding an item.""
Me "Oh...so how are you rewriting the class"
Paizo "We aren't rewriting the class."
Me "Oh..."

So are some of us confused? Yes.
Does our confusion irritate the Devs? Seems so.
Is it reasonable that we are confused?

Yes.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Now that we can say with confidence that Holmes, Loughner and Cho were all flagged by professionals as being dangerous, and given the shooting at a Sikh by a known Neo-Nazi with criminal history, can we maybe work on getting the database to be updated and useful across state lines.

Holmes doctor literally went to police to warn them, risking her license, because she thought he was that dangerous 6 weeks before the shooting.

Before he bought some of the guns. So if we had a useful database we could have flagged him and alerted police that someone who was dangerously unstable according to a doctor was buying a gun.

Seriously. We can't agree to this?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

3 people marked this as a favorite.

1st Barbarian
2nd Bard
3rd Cleric
4th Druid
5th Fighter
6th Monk
7th Paladin
8th Ranger
9th Rogue
10th Sorcerer
11th Wizard
12th Alchemist
13th Cavalier
14th Gunslinger
15th Inquisitor
16th Magus
17th Oracle
18th Summoner
19th Witch
20th Pathfinder Chronicler

BaB +6
No spells above 1st level.

GREAT Saves :)

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

1st Barbarian
2nd Bard
3rd Cleric
4th Druid
5th Fighter
6th Monk
7th Paladin
8th Ranger
9th Rogue
10th Sorcerer
11th Wizard
12th Alchemist
13th Cavalier
14th Gunslinger
15th Inquisitor
16th Magus
17th Oracle
18th Summoner
19th Witch
20th Pathfinder Chronicler

BaB +6
No spells above 1st level.

GREAT Saves :)

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I am setting this up so people will post here until we can convince the people running the boards to create a subgroup for these kinds of conversations so people who like to do these kinds of posts will go there and leave the rest of us on the messageboard alone.

:)

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

18 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I've narrowed down what really irritates me on the boards.

Honesty.

We all house rule in one way or another. The game is not one size fits all, and you adjust things to fit your table. Some tables want more than others, some players need to be reigned in more to fit the room, some need to be given some rope while they learn...

We all adjust the table to fit the room and to try and have fun.

But when you come on the boards, be honest about it. Say "We did this, it probably wasn't RAI, but it was fun."

Ravingdork is one of the most over the top theorycraft posters on the board, but I like his posts because they start from the premise of "I know this is crazy, but I think the rules let me do 'X'"

He never tries to say if the rules should, or if the rules meant to, it is more like "Hey guys, can you believe this may be allowed!"

That, I think, is awesome.

But when you come in and say "The game is broken because it allows 'X'" you should have a sense of relief when people say "No it doesn't"

Because that means it isn't actually broken.

If you continue to say "Yes it does, it is totally broken, you don't know how to read the rules" you are no longer saying the game is broken, you are saying "Look how smart I am, I broke the game, how dare you tell me I'm not smart and didn't break the game!"

At which point I want to stab you. With something dull. Because it will hurt more.

Where the game is "broken", we should try and fix it. When a Dev says "That isn't what we intended" that basically means, well...that isn't what they intended. If you don't like the effect, house rule it out until we can errata it.

But you aren't cool and smart if you find ways to break the game and then go "No, it was totally supposed to be broken, I am smarter than the Devs!"

You are just annoying. And dishonest. And unhelpful to the dialog.

We are all trying to create a better game. That game isn't going to be one size fits all. But if your game has problems, that isn't something to be proud of.

You aren't clever because you broke your game anymore than you are clever because you blew up the engine on your car when your were messing with it.

And you are kind of a jerk if after breaking your game you go to a forum and tell people how you did it so they can also break their games, and then yell at people who say "But that is going to blow up your engine!"

Aren't we all here to try to find ways to improve our home games and/or encourage modifications that make the base game better, including more balanced?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I looked through a copy a friend ordered and these were my thoughts.

First, I want to point out the positive. Because it is mostly positive. I think it is one of the better books in the series, far better than either of the Ultimate Books, right there with the APG (and in some ways better). When I got home from my friends, I immediately got online and ordered a copy. It is something I want in my library and on my shelf for my players to access. It is something I want to access. It made me excited about starting a new campaign just to play with the new concepts.

Which is exactly what it should do.

I was very, very skeptical about the whole venture. I was wrong, they pulled it off. The devs seem to have hit the right tone of variety rather than power on what I have read so far, and I really like the added options for each race. It is a book that broadens the world of options, rather than creating “must have” shiny tricks. I read it imagining lots of new ways to approach things I wanted to do that were previously difficult to do. It didn’t seem to “break” things, but rather it seemed to “allow” things that were hard to accomplish before. The choices were actual choices, with sacrifices and trade offs.

On the less positive side...I wish they had clearly separated “advanced” races in the featured and uncommon section. Some races are just, factually better. They aren’t unclear about this in the core race example section. The core races are between 8 and 11, a small variance that doesn’t much bother me. I would call that within the margin of preference.

Aasimar are 15, almost double the lowest core race. Drow are 14, but with some of the weaknesses I am ok with that. However Fetchlings are 17 and Suli are 16.

Tengu and Vishkanyas are 13, and I can live with that considering the drawbacks of the flavor, but Svirfneblin are 24. Three times the lowest core rase.

Three times.

I want the options, I don’t want to reduce the number of options. But I want them labeled appropriately so we don’t have messageboard arguments about cruel GM’s who won’t allow my Svirfneblin with a heart of gold PC. I want the disclaimer to be very clear that certain races are better, and I would have liked some kind of accommodation system to address this. For example removing the first level feat for Suli and Aasimar, and perhaps even making the Svirfneblin a +1 CR.

I don’t worry about this too much at my table, but one of the goals of upping the power level of the core classes from 3.5 to Pathfinder was to make sure the core was still the primary. When you have races that are unquestionably better than the core races, and you don’t have any penalty for playing them over core races, that is a problem.

I don’t want the options removed, but I also don’t want a world where GM fiat is the line between everyone being a “rare” race.

But at the end of the day, I ordered it as soon as I got home. Which is about as good an endorsement as I can make.