Been there, done that. I usually end up getting hosed. As a player, I always say I'll never do it in a game again, but then I keep playing characters that would take the chance in a heartbeat.
My problem is that I see the other PCs getting good stuff and I think "One draw can't hurt..."
Yes. Yes, it can.
I agree: I think there's a gap between what you're describing and what the players are seeing. If you describe a guy moving forward in "a blur of speed", for instance, then the players won't be surprised if the guy is moving faster than a regular human. And if you describe a wraith's "eyes glimmering with malevolent intelligence", then they'll realise that some undead are smart. Etc., etc.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Robertson is apparently confusing D&D with WoW -- the latter is a video game, and there are examples of people doing stuff like not sleeping or going to work or feeding their kids, because they got too into it.
I think he's talking about the Intellivision game. ;-)
upon reflection, I suppose it's not really his crafting so much as he's really REALLY good at exploiting the rules, especially with magic.
That's what I suspected. Taking Craft Wondrous Item is a symptom of him being a power-gamer (or whatever your preferred term is), not the cause.
Mark Hoover wrote:
I have several success stories about joining a group that wasn't a good fit, bowing out gracefully, and then later finding a group that's just about perfect for me.
I don't have any success stories about joining a group that wasn't a good fit and trying to change it from within, however.
I'd think a non-combat trained dog would rather flee that defend itself if attacked.
Would it make a difference if it was a wolf instead of a dog? If not, can I tell that to the GM every time our party gets attacked by wild animals? "Sorry, they don't have Combat Training so they'd rather run away."
How does sharing a language factor into Handle Animal checks? (less common of a factor for Animal Companions though a gnome druid or any druid who has cast Speak With Animals could be in combat and speaking with their companion)
You beat me to it. Speak with Animals says that a friendly animal "may do some favor or service for you". Does that supercede the trick/Handle Animal rules? What about intelligent animals who have taken the Linguistics skill: would they similarly be willing to perform favors or services?
What about animals acting in self-defense: are they also limited by the type and number of tricks they know? It doesn't seem right that a wolf without the Attack trick would never bite anyone, but on the other hand it doesn't seem right that a wolf without the Flank trick can flank on its own initiative but not when ordered to attack.
It's an indisputable FACT that I hear much more complaining and whining about D&D on the internet now than I did 30 years ago. The inescapable conclusion is that people are whinier and more entitled. Q.E.2.
My worst house rule story (I've told it before, so bear with me)...
I was starting a new Pathfinder campaign with a group of people I didn't know. Two minutes into the game, one of the PCs was being attacked by a goblin. The goblin hit his AC, but the player asked: "Can I make a Reflex save to avoid the attack?" The GM answered: "Sure, why not!"
So after two minutes of playing, we had already created a brand new rule that doubled the amount of die rolls needed for every attack. I winced, but I thought to myself: "Maybe it'll get better."
What I'm saying is--is it reasonable to expect players to understand when they are outmatched and to expect them to run away. I only ask because I've had situations where the characters were obviously completely outmatched from the very beginning of the encounter--had options to run and simply chose not to.
I would argue that it was probably not completely obvious that they were outmatched.
As a GM, don't be afraid to literally say: "Seriously guys, if you attack this guy, you will die. You have no chance of beating him." Big hints are not enough!
Here's one (although it's an old thread):
Here's a guy who printed his own:
I could have sworn there was another, more recent thread on the subject, though. One that specifically referred to Gale Force 9.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Evidently this player had been punished so mercilessly by a string of DMs for perceived "metagaming" that he was now basically unable to play the game, he was so worried about it all the time.
Not to mention that there are people who reason: "If I deliberately make enough terrible in-character decisions, that will prove that I'm a ROLEplayer, not a ROLLplayer!"
(I wish this message board had an eye-rolling smiley so that I could succinctly express my opinion of that line of reasoning.)
Dennis Baker wrote:
Uh...I guess I better bow out here...
Laiho Vanallo wrote:
Every-time we almost get TPK but then to add humiliation to injury he pull his punches! I feel that at least he should suffer the consequences of his actions (unbalanced fights) by making the TPK happen.
If hating this phenomenon is wrong, I don't wanna be right.
Seriously, I hate, hate, hate when GMs do this.
My understanding is the same as yours:
In situation #1, the undead minions can use Aid Another to help the wizard grapple, but they can't grapple the fighter directly.
In situation #2, the other PCs can use Aid Another to help the first PC reverse or break the grapple, but they can't grapple the eel directly.
Does it make sense? Not really, but the 3.5E multiple grappler rules weren't a whole lot better.
Vug moves over to Valgrim's corpse. "I knew your hot-headedness would get you in trouble some day, Valgrim," she sobs. "Well...on the bright side, it's not every day that I get to see the inside of a dwarf. I better not waste the opportunity. F-feres, does he need all of this stuff to be brought back to life?" Vug holds up a link of Valgrim's intestines as she rummages in her backpack for a pen and paper to make some sketches. "You never know when I might want to make a clone or something."
I want it to matter if I make a mistake. I want there to be consequences for failure.
Consider the first movie in a movie series, like Raiders of the Lost Ark or Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.
In theory, it "matters" if Indiana Jones or Harry Potter makes a mistake. And yet there's no chance of them dying in the first installment, since you know it's the first installment of many featuring the same character. So how can they be exciting or suspenseful? Well, the excitement and suspense shift from "Will they survive?" to "How will they survive?"
From my point of view, when I hear the beginning of an interesting story, I usually like to hear how that story will end.
One effect of random encounters is that players can't be sure they won't have another encounter later that day. If they go Nova on encounter X, they'll have a hard time with encounter X+1 and (if really unlucky) encounter X+2.
Right -- that's the BAD thing about random encounters: they encourage the players to go from having a 15 minute adventuring day to having a 10 minute adventuring day (in order to hold back some resources in case of random encounters).
I think that Wish spells, like most things in d20-based games, have only become more and more unmanageable from the attempt to hard-code everything about it.
And I feel, on the contrary, that specifying that a Wish spell can do certain things safely is a giant leap forward for Wish-kind.
Firstly – The encounters are ridiculously tough.
With regards to the more recent seasons, I tend to agree with you. But prepare to be bombarded with people saying "there's no such thing as a tough encounter, that's a failure on the GM's part or the player's part, etc., etc." :-(
The party is using sound tactics, which should produce some easy victories. Their enemies may also learn from those victories, adopting countermeasures and adding wrinkles to forestall the party's actions.
I think you're missing the point a bit. There are spells that can lead to easy victories that are tolerable because they make fights shorter (e.g. hold monster). The problem (well, I think it's a problem) is with spells that make fights longer, countermeasures or no countermeasures.
Michael Brock wrote:
The RotRL should be the new edition using PFRPG rules and not the older version using 3.5 rules.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems odd to say (paraphrased) that running the adventure path using massive house rules and with the GM rewriting every encounter would be just fine, but the slight difference between the 3.5 and the PFRPG version would not be fine.
Or am I misinterpreting things?
Then Thornborn hit the nail on the head: the item is worth more, but only to Rat Kings, so the party can go looking for another Rat King or not, as the case may be.
If everyone that played this game had an above average vocabulary, it wouldn't be as necessary.
Roughly 0% of the arguments I've seen have centered over the meaning of a word like "polyzygotic" or "funambulism" and roughly 100% of the arguments I've seen have centered over the meaning of words like "is" or "that".
I'm also not crazy about the idea that the Pathfinder Society is some sort of paramilitary organization. When the campaign setting first came out, it sounded a lot more like a loose affiliation of like-minded individuals (like an explorer's club) and that's how I treat it when I'm GMing.
I have a fair amount of arena fight experience from 3.5 (the Core Coliseum forum on the WotC boards).
My two cents:
If I think of anything else, I'll let you know. But those are the big ones that come to mind.
I agree with Mattastrophic's sentiment: If you're regularly eating up play time at the table explaining your PC, that's bad form. Similarly, blasting stinky farts at the game table is PSF-legal, but I wouldn't encourage it.
Try wild shaped feral combat style, Janni Rush, Vital Strike. Even extremely experienced GMs take 15 minutes to look it all up and actually believe that it all stacks. It just doesn't sound like it should.
Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the combat bit of Janni Rush require a charge, whereas Vital Strike doesn't work on a charge? That took me three minutes, so there are 12 minutes left to explain it. :-)