|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Perhaps a little devil's advocate, but I sure would be angry if my GM saved classes for special snowflake NPCs and denied them to his PCs. The players are supposed to be the heroes, not the supporting cast.
While I absolutely agree, I also feel compelled to say that they're the heroes because of what they do, not (only) because of what they are.Important NPCs must be special as much as the playing characters, even exotic or exceedingly rare, and even moreso due to their limited playing time in a show focused on the PCs.
Players requesting to have "all the options" to perform as protagonists is not a valid argument - at least in my book.
Seen it. Once, then they learned.
Short story, the group charged into melee, crashing headlong into an orc multi-tribal horde.
The rest of the party went through a lot of hurt, while trying to get their comrades back to safety, harassed by lowly troops and slowed by the occasional elite enemy (orc warchiefs, ogres, an handful of giants), and ran for their lives as soon as possible.
Back at their base camp, they also suffered the indignity of an army officer berating them for risking their lives of most capable warriors and spellcasters just for a few dozen orcs.
tl;dr: split the party. Wreck their strategy.
1. Yup. Tabletop RPGs, boardgames, wargames (even that old grognard stuff with hex maps and card counters!!), videogames (mostly puzzle/platforms, RPGs and FPS).
2. Not needed.
3. Not needed. We agreed very early in our relationship that each one had his/her own hobbies and need for space/personal time. Gamers do understand.
4. At my FLGS, while buying the Tome of Horrors. Ah!
5. She pushes me further, with something along the line of "Oohh, shiny...get it!". Can be hard on the wallet.
6. No spawn.
I do have a tablet, with a couple of CAD apps, which I do use to make annotations, corrections and updates "on the field" (naval engineering).
Do I appreciate the sheer usefulness of the whole thing? Sure I do.
Do I like the CAD interface (precision, usability, responsiveness, etc.)? Nope.
Do I think the two things should look the same on the two very different environments (desktop with keyboard and mouse vs tablet with touchscreen)? Nope, again.
Is the tablet apt to be used for prolonged typing (as in writing lines of code, or just detailed reports), or digital drawing with layers, filters, effects, and a hundred other professional kinds of work? Nope, for the third time.
An handheld, portable device such as a touchscreen tablet is really usful for minor corrections, small and absolutely not complex updates, or even generic sketching a layout of a new work. But it's close to useless for detailed, in depth or long term working (don't get me started on batteries duration).
A single, unified user interface is ANTTDNW (another nice trick that does not work), at least with the current technology.
As far as user interfaces are involved, unifying the desktop and mobile environment is simply stupid. I'm not using my CAD the same way I'm fiddling with my tablet, get over it once and for all.
And this is true for a hundred other professional softwares.
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
Sorry but my brain kinda crashed into a brick wall and refused to read further after this.
You dig a 10 ft. deep (about 3 metres) trench every time you camp around a defensive area. Every time. 10 ft. deep.
Even with a gross approximation, how long is this trench? Do you accomplish this herculean feat alone? Do you have some kind of magic assistance in doing this?
Yet another vote for Call of Cthulhu - the d100 version.
More recent systems, The One Ring (set 5 years after the Battle of Five Armies) which deals a lot with travelling and social interactions with the people of the Middle Earth; and A song of Ice and Fire RPG, which has a robust social interaction system and an equally developed domain management part.
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3rd Ed. (with the Lure of Power supplement) can be easily used for a political/social campaign in which physical combat is the least frequent option.
Also, Thousand Suns is a good sci-fi game that has combat not in the forefront, and I seem to recall that Rogue Trader features an interesting commercial focus, with a great concept of managing your own space vessel and its crew.
A lot of Cortex based games, like Leverage, also do not have combat as the main element of the game.
Sorry, I don't get the part in which you have to choose a deity and you have all the dwarven pantheon written down on your sheet.
I'd like to see bigger tiles, like the ones produced by Rakham for its Cadwallon/Confrontation lines (they were called something like "reversible hybrid tiles"), massive 12" x 12" laminated card tiles.
But they would also heavily interfere with flip mats and map packs, which I understand is not a good idea.
With 8 players I have to max HPs and add 50% to the number. ;-D
Remember that a large PCs group is gonna mop the floor with enemies of a CR equal to their average level, even with a hefty number of critters. Too many and you'll just make the encounter more cumbersome, not more challenging.
At the same time, "boss-type" monsters should not be a CR value higher than the recommended 3 points. Deadlier monsters suddendly become able to insta-kill characters with a little effort.
Don't refrain to use hit-and-run tactics to wear out the group resources.
For 6 PCs just use either max HPs (best for elites) or +50% to overall number (best for lesser critters); add a few mooks to solo encounters or add some environmental advantage for the baddie.
Don't really bother changing the treasure amount: the gain from a larger group largely overcompensates the sparser loot.
I DM an 8-strong group, these are the basics that work best.
I freakin' hate this tablet's auto-composer.
While I fully support the idea of being allowed to summon an acquatic creature on a dry surface, I also wouldn't rule it as able to normally attack, even without movement.
The shark taken as an example would trash wildly around, with zero reach, lacking both the appropriate limbs and a medium (such as a body of water) to properly propel itself against enemies using its fins.
T. B. wrote:
Dungeon Crawl Classic has one of the most "dangerous magick" systems I've ever seen.
Otherwise OpenQuest, Cortex Classic, or an adequately customized DragonAGE.
I like my dinosaur way: evolution slow and steady, maybe with a couple too much dead branches, but sparking inspiration even at wrong turns.These new social mammalians mutate too fast, even discarding choices before having effectively perused them.
Best 35 $ placed in a preorder - ever!!
(and many thanks to Lou and everyone else involved in the project too, obviously)
Given how much I've enjoyed WotW, I'm more than willing to give Gary an undisclosed amount of slack.
In a long-running campaign this could have been a plot device (even if a rather ham-fisted one, it seems to me).
In a one-shot adventure... dick move. But maybe it's not a one-shot, or it's a longish one-shot. Or that fateful battle is the prelude/basic premise of a brand new campaign.
In any case you shouldn't be worried: your PC will resurface when the plot device has run its course, or you were supposed to discard the character at the end of the adventure anyway, so there you go.
Lord Snow wrote:
Ah, that requires a more granular mechanic - degrees of success. Many RPGs have it (right off the bat: WHFRPG 3e, A Song of Ice and Fire RPG, Thousand Suns, even DragonAGE in a small measure).
Let's say elves have an automatic degree of success in agility (Dexterity) tests to better portray their preternatural grace. Irrelevant of actual ability modifiers, with the same dice roll result an elf will perform better than a human; even with a failed roll he may be able to negate the worse consequences.
As in the d20 system such a submechanic is missing, the concept of a "always on" better archer/sneak/crafter/poet/whatever is left to the DM/player interaction and visual description of the action, and not quite reflected in rules-based gameplay.
My complaint against the flat modifier instead of the dice roll, or the +2 to ability (+1 mod) instead of the occasional odd value stems straight from the fact that such a change in the system skewers it - or shifts it - into a different league*: one where the player relies more on a sure average determined by modifiers and marginally (OK, it's an exaggeration) influenced by the dice roll, instead of the other way round - to make a reference to the original quote that started it all.
Having an odd bonus that changes a odd ability value into a real +X mod is just that: when luck is on your part, that small advantage that sort of remained dormant turns out to be critical.
Removing this small element makes the game poorer, even if it allows for a more reliable mechanical effect to represent advantages (or disantavantages).
*: I'm perfectly fine with any league or play style (gritty, heroic, etc.): I'm biased against changing the basic, average framework of the game - not really designed for a specific goal - and thusly making other kinds of play more difficult or not possible without a personal custom job and large scale overhaul.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
You seem to be lumping ability mods into the same pile with mods that directly apply to d20 rolls, and it's important to separate the two.
Correct. A mistake on my part.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
The mods changed from the occasional odd (+1, which still stays for the Bless spell IIRC) and dice roll (1d4+1) to a flat +2/+4 because there were complaints about "weird math" (sic) and "ineffective" mods. And there were complaints indeed. More to follow.Weirdly the 1d4+1 roll from a few spells went from a +2 (+1 mod) onward, but the complaints were only for those two poor odd +3 and +5 and the times in which they didn't came across as full fledged ability mod changes. More to follow again.
PPS: a whole ocean will keep the risks at a minimum. Hopefully. :-D
Lord Snow wrote:
No.As ability values can be odd or even, a odd modifier means a bonus half of the time. While an even modifiers means a bonus always. But half of the time is not "rarely". It's half of the time.
I won't go into examples of characters with all odd vs all even values for abilities, or human commoners vs elf ones and ther 10/11 which statistically become 9/10/12 (sic, again), but I'd rather tell where this comes from: from the WotC boards of the time past.
Lord Snow wrote:
Yes. Obviously my poor attempts at humour and quoting the Invincibles don't translate quite as expected. Sorry.
Lord Pendragon wrote:
I think I put you on my spam folder a couple of years ago. Sorry.
Roll 4d6, take away the lowest result, do that six times, rearrange as preferred. If the whole string of values is not good enough, repeat.
"But this way I can roll infinite times to get all 18s!"
(roughly translated from the original at my table)
It's not the value that determines outcome, and only occasionally is the dice roll. Most of the times, the culprit is the player's decision.
Bill Dunn wrote:
But he would if the initial stat was odd. And having to roll for modifiers gave the feeling of something unpredictable, weird, possibly not so good possibily better than expected... hey, that would be some kind of magic!!
Sorry the sarcasm wasn't so obvious in the first place, but I do know why it was changed: because of complaints from people who got the short stick from a freaking dice roll and weren't able to deal with it.
I find the idea of animal companions for rangers and druids absolutely moronic.
The fact that every druid is able to change shape into a virtually infinite number of combat-oriented animals is equally laughable.
The most succesfull characters I've seen at my table were a fighter, a multiclass fighter-wizard, and a monk, all of them hailing from the 3.0 rules.
My players have always thought of PrCs as a waste of time.
I think that the Illumians are cool.
Combat is overrated in gameplay balance and depth.
Excluding obvious loopholes in spells, 3.0 was better than 3.5.
I never understood why suddenly odd modifiers gained a stigma, and every modifier suddenly became a flat +2 or +4.
Some more confessions/ranting/venting.
While I firmly stand by the idea that in RPG there is no wrongbadfun play style, I also won't budge from the line that there is wrongbadfun playing RPGs at my table.
I always use the "hide" function whenever I see a "Sell me on this archetype/class/feat/spell/adventure/AP" thread.
I fudge dice rolls until the characters are at least 3rd level (unless the players do something exceedingly stupid), but afterwards the gloves are off.
I have brought back the original 3.0 skill list.