|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I like it :0
An MMO in a game setting i have come to love and enjoy over the last couple of years as an avid p&p gamer, where the developers seem willing to push the possibility boundries beyond the norm for mmo's, sure i am curious about how sandbox and theatre will work together, and i salivate at the thought of recreating my favorite pathfinder character's meglamaniacal quest for world domination and political subterfuge in a living world containing thousands of players not just my friends at the table, what more could any player really ask for?
go for it guys
p.s loved the blog
I personally found a lot of material from Monte Cook's IRON HEROES to be inspirational, especially for low magic campaigns. The drawback system for magic items allowed magic in the game without it becoming mundane and ordinary, characters thought twice, and even three times before resorting to powerful but risky "magic", and the arcanist class was a real character of mystery and dangerous arcane knowledge. You just have to love the looks on players faces when the arcanist yells, "alright!! im gonna try this spell, get ready to run for it!!", lastly, the feat mastery was an excellent idea, with the option to invest further feat choices into those you already know for improved effects.
I also like the MIDNIGHT game material for reasons already described by previous postee's
both product lines create great atmosphere, and to me that is at the heart of roleplaying :)
lol, i had to go check what the first post was again after that, and we really are of the track
as far as the original point goes i can only agree, when comparing classes, builds etc, what different GM's rule in thier own games really has nothing to do with it, purely for the sake of comparison you really have to RAW it
its 3.30am here and my head is falling out of my eyes :P i must go sleep now
the example i offered above was a GM ruling, but was it a house rule? or a fiat?, what if fire opals are rare etc?, aspects of the game such as availability of any given "thing" are entirely up to the GM, part of his role to populate the realm with beasties, goodies etc, the fact that creation of items etc requires materials firmly makes the GM part of the process, no houserules at all, unless everything in the game is always at the players fingertips or close by. players may be hundreds of miles away from markets offering such goods etc.
house-rule wise, i used a recipe system in one campaign that was warmly recieved(and enjoyed) by players, where crafters basically expended gold in downtime etc(assumed to have matts somewhere)to create item, but needed recipe to make(for permanent items), casters gained 2 recipes/level advanced total(if multiple craft feats)of thier choice-had to meet crafting requirements to choose though, and found recipe scrolls occasionally, and could de-construct items to learn how to make that item itself if they chose, it worked very well
on the whole GM ruling thing...is it even possible to GM a game without making some kind of ruling at some point, its a fundamental part of GMing
GM said, always comes into it
to bring crafting in line with RAW discussion, Player sais," i wish to craft a helm of brilliance my most wise GM, i knoweth the spells etc, it costs 67,500gp to craft", fine answers wise GM" said helm of brilliance is described as having 10 diamonds, 20 rubies,30 fire opals and 40 opals set within, once you collect these gemstones you will be able to craft the item"
is it RAW for GM to specify material components needed? it states on p553 that the character needs a supply of materials,the most obvious being the item itself(a helm with the gems inset,)or the pieces to be assembled(the cost is subsumed but you need the items still, and they could be hard to find....)
now the GM can make the aquisition of the components part of the quests etc and its RAW is it not?
so it will take time to collect stuff(say 3 months for this example)
and thats still RAW with GM influence
i must ask
what do you class as a house rule?
GM saying that Barbarians in his campaign cant wear armor, but gain natural armour +1/3 lvls, to me isnt a house rule, but a homebrew campaign mod(to me)
both arent RAW, though to be technical the core rules are self inclusive and dont consider 3rd party or campaign specific rules in thier balance either, so what is RAW if we are discussing it?
Once the OP - who claims to run a "standard" game - allowed the wizards in his/her campaign to craft X amount of items in Y amount of time they deviated from the "standard" game. The "standard" game has no fixed formula to decide how much crafting down time the PC wizard has (nor does it cover the extra cost detailed in a lower level wizard needing a lab, while not actually paying for the cost), this was all the GMs decision and invention.
things of note:(pp548-553 core rules)
note:potions require FRESH and UNUSED materials, so cannot carry"enough gear to make 20 pots eg", same as scrolls
all creation feats require a comfortable ,quite, well lit area to use(p549 core rulebook),
if a character wants to fulfill all these requirements and try to squeeze a bit of crafting in (needing 4 hours minimum at a time -only garnishing 2hrs worth of imput to item mind you) during an adventure
you cant just say, heres the 5000gp, and i know the spells, it will take me 2 days to make...i'll put it on my character sheet
so it is technically RAW to craft on the go, but the rules make it extremely impractical and improbable.
what i was trying to alude to is im all for upping the excitement when needed,but if a rule issue could likely end in the death of a character a little give doesnt hurt, though if the player is simply trying to worm out of a self inflicted situation using, loopholes say, fiat is there to ensure consequences :)
Evil Lincoln said:
The most constructive thing this thread might do now is discuss how to quantify the GM variable in such discussions, which would (hopefully) redress the OP's grievances,
on this note i would offer that , as mentioned before by dire mongoose, that house rules like what books are deemed legal for a game are legitimate house rules, and apart from that the only other i use is basic procedure for when a rule issue arises during a game, ie
if a rule issue is raised during play it is GM's responsibility to make a ruling that will not negatively impact characters directly of kill the mood of the game(in order to move forward ), then as a group, discuss the problem after the game and reach a consensus as to how it will be dealt with in future.,
you dont really need any other house rules i find
Altering fluff is far more advisable to altering crunch, that's my take anyway. You might have different fluff, but if your crunch is the same as mine, we can more easily sit at the same table.
i think essentially where we are at is that GM's should provide the story, the rules the framework, and in the spirit of modern democratic gaming, GM's should bend rules wisely, and players should respect the story GM's provide and try to keep thier toons in theme where possible, this makes a great game i think
hey, you can still do the cursed sword thing :), i use a magic item system lifted from Iron Heroes when i do low-magic/risky magic campaigns and its a blast...drawbacks...mwhahaha
EDIT: and yes, my cavalier found a cool gem..which gave him uncureable leprosy(periapt of foul rotting), every time i took my full plate of i had to dig a finger out of my gauntlet lol)
Brian bachman wrote:
I think many of those who insist they are playing such normal or standard games only think so because they haven't been exposed to that many different games and seen how wonderfully flexible the Core Rules are and what a fabulous variety of different campaign worlds and playstyles can be supported by them, even without bringing houserules into play.
and i fully agree, i have never needed to houserule much at all and yet have had many great and varied campaigns-simply by adding "fluff" in most cases
lol, true loaba
but one of the most memorable things about playing rpg's in the early days was the "mystery" of not having access to the rules or lists of magic items etc, the thrill of finding stuff and facing things from the books you "werent allowed to read". that mystery went a long way towards creating truly memorable games (i had exellent GM's most of the time)
nowadays, player knowledge vs character knowledge really knocks the stuffing out of some potentially great moments in gaming
ahh, i do love a good debate in regards to RULES vs GAME, and have followed this thread for a while, during this time i found and dusted of my 1979 Dungeon Masters Guide for Advanced D&D,by the Immortal Gary Gygax, which funny enough was the rule book....for DM's eyes only :), now i will quote the afterword(p230 said product)
"IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER OF THE WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK APON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME. AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL, ALSO BE CERTAIN THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER. BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT , AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE."
now, the "rules" used to create said games may have changed many times, but the principle as to what a DM should be doing hasn't, if your game revolves around rules and interpritations and forcing adherance, you are playing a boardgame, not a role-playing game
soz caps but is how written in the original, to emphasize the importance :) nuf said
if you want to use other/outer worldly entities etc to theme up your campaign i have one word for you.....THOON....
if THOON isnt a great old one i dont know what is, and the fact it doesnt exist as such leaves it beyond the touch of the most powerful PC's, they can deal with its minions and diabolical warped schemes but cannot directly interact with it, as it should be, i used a thoon infected elder brain(not standard from MM but closer to a pseudonatural template) as a main antagonist in a truly epic campaign spanning lvl 1 to final lvl23, with many infected minions and creatures from other games etc to represent its otherworldly origin to keep players dealing with the unknown often enough to avoid complacency(eg. had a kydian powerlord minion from Rifts) etc, useful for low levels only...i think not
Question; attempting to move through a hostile occupied square from an adjascent square, as discussed above requires an acrobatics check to succeed(established) but wouldnt a second acrobatics roll be needed to avoid AoO from leaving a threatened square?(the start point), and if the attempt fails(for passing through occupied square)and you remain where you started,-provoking an AoO for the failed attempt, the second roll would not occur(because you technically didnt leave the starting square, then attempted to move the remaining 5' of your movement (re; skylancer4's point #4 above,)you would indeed draw an attack of op, as the first AoO was for the failed move through, NOT for leaving the threatened square, which are different actions drawing AoO??
2)after failed acrobatics check to move through will still draw AoO if use remaining movement to leave threatened square
ive got it! GM's fudge cos Players Powerplay and Metagame, now if everyone remembered what the "R" in RPG stands for, Mr Gygax may stop rolling in his grave over the invasion of his concept by mmo game principles like "builds" etc, if players want to make the "ultimate machine of whirly death" go play WOW or something (i cringed before at seeing a thread asking for people to post cavalier builds) NOT Roleplaying folks.
that is as you say selgard, but imo
there are many ways a character may become permanently blind, and lacking specific magics may not be able to reverse it for some levels, now in some campaigns your "Dps" fixated players may convince you to replace the now "useless" pc, but in a roleplaying sense you dont "dump" your adventuring mates but help him out, so maybe he learns blindfight, gets scent somehow(item maybe...wolf fetish?)and gets by, when (if )he gets his sight back later, he then carries experiences and abilities learned from them, to his benefit. And in all honesty its the travails the characters overcome and the personal tragedies, that make truly awsome characters with a feel of history, I feel sorry for the players who ditch characters purely cos they get a bit broke, they truly are missing the point of RPG
as a GM, i personally think it comes down to two different senarios
1. If your players are truly involved in the roleplaying and developement of the game and the story is more important that the rules(as it should be in my mind) then i must say, yes i have fudged, both dm rolls AND changed dc's(lower) so that crucial player actions eventuate to the benefit of the story BUT
2. if your players are loot[******] and rule nazi's who are more concerned that they're not getting ripped of in some obscure way behind the dm screen, then let it be so and leave it to the dice gods, and let them suffer the consequences,1 monster may roll bad, but one day they will roll good(or the player will roll 1 vs death)GM fudging works both ways
I let my players know at the start of a campaign that i will exercise GM perogative to alter results occasionally, if they object i dont do it .but warn them what comes up on the dice stands then...in all things
good points madak,
having played elder scrolls i know where your coming from there, though i would consider it more a skill based system than levels, and yes cross-over of skills would make it easier /less time consuming.
training time is something that hase gone the wayside since about 2nd edition(and training cost imo), i have considered introducing a houserule system similar in principle to old-style dual classing to make multiclassing a little less desireable, but still possible for the dedicated(only requiring a couple lvls advancement without previous classes abilities to represent the instiling of new ways etc then full access after that
hi Shar, and i would concur, as you say, back in UA it was a true
cultural class, and the current can be considered more a berserker,i
may have worded that a bit better. Im glad you bought up 1st Ed, cos the training time convention that existed in earlier versions of the game is related to the string topic, your thoughts on multi-classing?
well, you can take skill focus for appropriate skills, im sure theres a feat giving improved search/spot or perception stuff to
but i put the question to you, if you want to play a blind character is there really any point to skilling/feating out your character to counter the badness of blindness?, in a roleplaying sense you are better of just following the blindfighting feet line to"learn how to adapt" and enjoy the roleplaying that comes from the downside, it seems pointless spending all your skills etc to essentially create a blind character who can see but who is 5 lvls behind in feats etc
Hi, and consider,
Yes, E6 is an interesting way of dealing with the problems of truly unrealistic gaming that comes with level based systems, but it would be a shame to basically ignore a large percentage of game content to try and reach some sort of equilibrium. In a way returning to d&d basic set(red book) and pretending the rest of the game didnt follow, game balance and realism quotent will always be a measure of DM skill more so than the system itself (a poor workman blames his tools)
Perhaps the best low-magic d20 ogl product i have seen(and used) is
one of the most memorable DM twists i have used was inspired by
in Iron Heroes magic is unpredictable and dangerous,and very rare, thus magical items, be they potions or swords, carry drawbacks, some minor some devastating, and better yet players will risk the dangers of using when they really need to despite the risk, and think very hard about using them otherwise, and your game doesnt sink under pages of consumeable and use at a whim magic
ie: imagine players diving for that cure serious potion to find it missing cos the party rogue is addicted to them and nicked it last night!!
i highly recommend checking it out, Iron heroes is a more gritty style 3.5 offering with some unique and ingenious ideas worth mining
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.