Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Darius Finch

knightnday's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 754 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 754 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Nifty! Gonna have to grab one of these.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Da'ath wrote:

Falantrius, it is probably in your best interests to skim through these posts, copy and paste to a file all the constructive advice you've been given, save it, and HIDE this thread from here on out. Make sure you save the names of those with constructive advice so you can PM them later if you have further questions about their suggestions.

The majority of posts you'll get at this point are going to be regurgitations of the same material offered, either in the form of constructive advice or people trying to showboat how knowledgable they think they are regarding your religion, how foolish you are for your ideas, incomprehensible responses harping on the same thing you've already addressed/apologized for, or other similar responses and/or wastes of space.

Hiding the thread will save you a lot of typing and headaches over the course of the next 300 or so posts which will all say the same thing.

This thread really should be locked at this point.

A side note? That is good advice for almost every thread on the forums. Things get circular after a while. Best wishes and good gaming.


Leganduil wrote:
Also, you mention a game that you run in your home - do you have to host? If not and that game involves parents with kids, it may be easier (quieter, etc) to move the game to the parents' house if they're willing, a lot of times kids can keep themselves entertained if they have access to all their toys and are someplace familiar.

Father of three here, two tens and a four. I agree with this comment from Leganduil regarding allowing those with children to host (if they can.) I've found that it is actually quieter and there are less interruptions for boredom or "where is the X" or "Can I have blah to eat/drink" if they are in familiar territory.

Moreover, as a parent, I can say I am much more at ease and concentrating on the game (and I usually GM!) when I am not worrying that my children are doing something in another room. My wife is the same, and she tends to worry that they are in there dismantling things instead of just being quiet. A quiet room can be more terrifying for parents than a noisy one.

I do not think it is rude to make a 'no kids' night if you host. That said, I'd talk to the parents before hand. If, like with my wife and I, they both play then someone may have to stay home to take care of the kids as babysitters are not an expense some want to foot. As long as you are honest and direct I think you'll be fine. And they should understand -- they have to live with the little monsters!


Cardz5000 wrote:
As a person with your life experiences I feel you would have an appreciation for how unique they are. If someone wrote you as a PF character I would expect them to realize that there would be mechanical disadvantages, or would you have me believe that not once has your genetic issue left you in a situation that would have not been easier to deal with without said issue?

A quote from Auren earlier:

Quote:
speaking of lucky star and the like, i'm a more extreme real life case, i'm a 25 year old young adult woman chronologically, but could pass for a 10 year old girl cosmetically. but then, i am also mute and have to be accompanied by my boyfriend any time i want to see a movie, eat a chocolate bar, shop at a comic book store, or drink a margarita.

That definitely seems like more than a cosmetic modification. In fact, I know that is a HERO games disadvantage (I remember from some NPCS.)


Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:

childlike is a worthless feat tax with no mechanical benefit that should have been left as a cosmetic thing, as is the pass for human feat, age modifiers exist for middle aged and older, but the only rules that exist for children, are a series of optional rules in a book that contains nothing but optional rules and holds no more weight on pathfinder than unearthed arcana ever did in D&D. (no weight at all)

i don't even consider ultimate campaign a valid rules resource, just like i don't even consider unearthed arcana a valid rules resource either. both are books of rules that are purely designed to be optional and the book states it holds no weight as an official rulebook.

in fact, the rules on child characters are just as useless as the rules on armor as Damage Reduction, they aren't proper rules, they are just a badly thought out houserule suggestion

There's the thing. What is the intent by playing the child? What are you trying to accomplish and where are we going to stand when mechanics come into play as they are almost likely to do? Same goes with just letting the halfling pretend to be a kid because it is a cosmetic thing and so on.

I'd like to bring back Zodiac_Sheep's comment

Quote:
2) How does you being a child further the story? Doesn't have to be in definite terms (he's the child of the king in the AP or something isn't necessary, but it's a little weird to want to play an 11 year old 'just cuz').

That is important in all of this.

As for the bit about whether X book is or isn't a valid rules resource, that's for an individual to decide. It does give a GM and player common ground to see how the game suggests they could take this.


But it isn't cosmetic. This is something covered in the rules -- that is, modifiers due to age. This isn't "I want to be short", this is something that carries advantages and disadvantages, enough so that Halflings can take Childlike as a Feat.

With anything someone does when designing a character, intent plays into it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I stopped going to the movies. It's just too much noise, too many rude people in a small area for me. I'd rather just wait for the movie to come out on Pay Per View or on DVD than sit there and watch people's phones light up or hear them talk.


Does the GM have the right? Well, yes. If the two of you can find a way that you can agree on to make it work, then there you go.

For myself and my table, we'd be fairly leery to allow child PCs into most games. It isn't something we are particularly interested in to begin with, and unless it is a specific campaign focusing on the children/young adults, you can usually get the same results with someone that edges a lot closer to the adult age range.

I've run and played in a number of online (text) games where it was just not allowed at all because, well, people tend to take things into areas that they shouldn't and the owners of said games didn't want Chris Hansen wandering over to ask some questions. That may colour some of my view of this as well.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
... that's really what a lot of this thread is: some DMs hate their players and think of them as bratty, spoiled children who have to be punished and controlled (makes you wonder why they all hang out together). ...

Completely untrue as well as thoroughly and needlessly obnoxious.

I like the players and GM's in my groups or I would be in the group. I do not punish or control them. We talk about what we want to see in a campaign and all of us strive to provide that for everyone.

The majority of the group prefers nearly perfect accessibility to magic items so that is how we play. That doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer significantly less perfect accessibility, both as a player and a GM.

Well, I wouldn't say completely untrue. I am sure there are GMs out there who have had players that were a handful, just like there are players that dislike Gms that are too controlling because of that one time with the guy with the thing that scarred them for life.

Our tables have swung the entire range from low to high magic, from barely finding anything to get by on to tripping over artifacts on the way to the Biggest Magical Emporium ever. I prefer a middle range, myself, as a GM and a player both. I don't prefer having players that are never able to find an item they could use or want, but at the same time I dislike being handed a spread sheet and being told that the player won't have a good time if they don't get X by Y level.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
One way (of many) around that magic shop design consideration would be for the players to seek out the specific items they need via actual adventuring.
That can totally work, but some groups are leery of anything too railroad-y, and that solution (while very good for players who want to be told where to go next) would not be optimal for some of the people I've DMed for. You really need to know your players.

Bolded for emphasis. Regardless of anything else said in this thread or another thread, this right here is all that matters. Talk to your players -- they don't bite, usually -- and ask their opinions. See what kind of game they are looking for, compare to what you are interested in, find the middle ground if you aren't on the same page. Adjust as needed.

The book rules on settlements are a starting place and don't have the final word at your table anymore than anything else. As long as you understand what you are getting into by giving less (or more!) treasure, be it from drops or garishly bright warehouse sized buildings with massive assortments of things, you'll be fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not only that, you can change anything you and your group may find unappealing with hardly any effort.

As far as the potion bit versus the FAQ goes, it is pretty easy (as mentioned above) to hammer out a simple magic item. The FAQ, on the other hand, likely requires conversation with multiple people and digging through rules and interpretations and, although I wish it didn't have to consider this, the consideration of if you should change things and how much/how little grar and screaming you are going to get out of it.

Every time there is a new answer, the forums have to decide which side gets the pitch forks and torches and what the rallying cries will be.

As far as the LGBT banner bit -- the gaming community and communities in general are made up of all sorts of people. The vast majority, regardless of what you may believe, are incredibly nice and creative people who all want to play a game that has heroes that resemble them. And they deserve it. So a bit of banner waving now and again is good for the game, the community, and the world. And this is how we continue to get great stories. For peoples of all sorts. That is why I love Paizo.

Sorry for the soapbox.


My suggestion would be a homebrew class or to pull from some of the various 3.0/3.5 sources -- the Candlecaster was mentioned above for example.

I'm afraid what you are looking for isn't something that I see the Witch class becoming anytime in the near future. Rather, much like anything in the game, you should always feel free to alter things to fit you and your table's wants and needs. I'm certain that there are a number of people here that would be eager to help you with a great deal of the heavy lifting in that regard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some "popcorn" posts.
Whats a "popcorn post?"

Posts that say things like "Getting some popcorn" or otherwise indicating that they are gathering around to watch the ensuing fight.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My wife mentions that going through the rules for Pathfinder and all the books (and in many other games as well) can be a little like going to TVTropes or Wikipedia. You only meant to look up one little thing and before you know it, it's 4 AM.

I love the game but it can be daunting when you start out or even if you've done it for a while if you want to check, double-check and recheck that you haven't missed that one little trait or feat or bit of gear that is going to really make this character shine or do just what you wanted.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

For those who don't care about delving too deeply into the full weight of things, PF can easily be short and sweet, regardless of what you do.

Character generation can be swift, easy, and not painful.

I'd be curious to know how to do this. I think it might be true if you know the system well, or if you've already built dozens of characters.

When we use our usual style of character generation (ie making whatever choices seem best at the time) it really seems to fall apart a few levels later. We either havent got the right stats or the right prerequisite feats to get what we want - so we end up going broader rather than specialising and eventually end up dying between levels six and eight, since none of us are as good as 'the game expects'.

I'm really hoping the Strategy Guide is going to solve this problem for us. At the moment though, character generation takes ages - the trouble with the plethora of options in Pathfinder (even if there's an obvious choice as to what I 'should' take) is that I dont know which are the obvious ones and which ones to ignore.

Personally, I think the disconnect here is that those who think it's easy are undervaluing their expertise and perhaps underestimating how much effort acquiring that expertise takes for those of us with no interest in the character building side of games.

I think you are right, this is what the Strategy Guide will hopefully fix.

And yes, people tend to forget that some things are easier for them than others. When I was playing Shadowrun hardcore (since it was mentioned) I could calculate the Essence and nuyen cost in my head for just about any piece of ware and apply it as I went; others were flipping pages back and forth at a loss.

The same thing applies for Pathfinder. Not everyone creates lots of characters for fun or interest; they may only create the one they intend to play until that game ends which could take years and not look into the myriad of feats, spells and gears otherwise. For some people character creation can be as fun or more fun that then actual playing of the character itself.

This is why we have some of the grar and yelling on the boards -- some people do this as a passion, rummaging through the numbers and various feats to decide what is "best" and "worst" (for a given value of such) while others get lost in the forest of options and pick out what they think is a good idea at the time.

If you've made dozens or hundreds of mages or fighters or whatever, you have that experience to draw on. If you haven't done that, or don't go over and over the various books looking at options and making notes of what would be good combinations it can be a harrowing experience sometimes.

Neither one of these methods or styles is better or worse than the other. This is no different than the people who play a video game and those who study it and build walkthroughs and dig through every class and combination and little traveled path to see every aspect of the game. One isn't better than the other, or more dedicated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scarletrose wrote:

It's really weird to me this whole "RPGs are for girls too" argument.

I really wonder if that is such a strange thing.
I have my D&d red box since I was 7.
The second person I ever invited to play was a girl.
I was part of a club about rpgs, comics and videogames and there have never been a shortage of girls.
It's so weird to hear that to some people is somewhat unexpected, because it's so common in my experience that is not even debatable.

I agree, I always find it a little odd given my experience with role playing. When I started with my first long-time group in the late 70s there were two ladies present that pretty much drove the game in fact, the main PCs. When I went to college in the 80s several women played in our various games, and later at another college, this one primarily female, the majority of those I ran games for were women.

From talks with my wife about her friends at work and at school, they were all heavily into fantasy/scifi books and had at least played once or were neutral/positive about RPGs in general.


That is .. wow. I'm not sure I have the descriptive power to deal with that backstory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bioboygamer wrote:

Well, I've got some info from the player's character sheet:

Ifrit Sorcerer 3

STR 10
DEX 17
CON 17
INT 12
WIS 8
CHA 20

17 AC (4 armor + 3 from DEX)

FORT 4
REF 4
WILL 4

Unfortunately, it seems like the player in question uses his character sheet as more of a quick reference for the session, and he keeps the rest of his character info at home. All the same, it looks like he's not going to be nearly as overpowered as he was before.

If there's any other info you want, I could probably just ask him, but I'm not sure if there's much else to say at this point.

The bolded above is mine. I wouldn't allow this, especially if you believe him to be overpowered. My common practice is to keep a copy of the full character sheet of each person on hand, in case they miss a session or leave theirs behind or some other mishap happens. That way you are all on the same page and someone cannot "remember" some stat or item that they don't have incorrectly. Some people cheat, and some people have faulty memories; either way, this prevents that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scribbling Rambler wrote:

Mark's post on negative conditioning has implications well beyond the FAQ.

For example, when I see a particular community member who posts negative comments on every single AP, it is much harder to recognize any valid criticsms they may have. So my eyes tend to slide past their posts.

And that is for me as a casual observer - imagine what it must be like for somebody who is directly involved in the creation of the product.

Valid criticism is important, and the folks at Paizo are very good at taking it and responding when appropriate. However, when it becomes apparent that a poster will never be pleased, there's not much point in changing things to please them.

Not only that, but to those who may be new to these boards and aren't used to the certain level of charm that some may employ the raging fits thrown can make this seem like an unhappy or hostile place. There are places on the Internet that I just don't go because I don't want to be bogged down with what is essentially screaming and yelling. I doubt I am the only one.

Constructive criticism is good and helpful. Unrelenting negativity doesn't do much for the people that work at Paizo, fellow gamers, or to fix the problem.


I like that they continued a game version that I liked. I like what they do and how they do it. I like their art more than just about any other game out there.


Deathunseen wrote:
yeah it probably should be in advice i just thought since i was basically asking the rules on players killing players but yeah

The only rules for that are the ones you and your players make. That said, player versus player conflict seldom ends up well; it requires a great deal of maturity (and no, not age) to deal with this sort of thing. Usually it results in bad feelings and can even break up gaming circles.

Additionally, having someone who has to be Evil (with a capital E) and mustache twirling and betraying his own party seldom works out well either. From discussions on the board and first hand experience, you seldom see people with the subtlety to pull it off without being a cartoon.


Better to talk to the player, or have the group in general talk to them since the character seemed to not mesh with them. As it was the second game, I'm sure you could have written his character out and brought in something new without much problem.

And to follow the general comments here, punishing someone you find annoying in game is not a great way to go about it. If you continue to GM, you have to be able to deal with people who annoy you OR people you really really like with the same even hand. While the other players might have been cheering you on, they'd be less understanding if one day they forget your pizza and you kill them out of hand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:

I never noticed any big issues with Ultimate Magic, but Ultimate Combat was notorious for the huge amount of errors in it, including (but not limited to): The tetori gaining feats that don't exist, bloodlines granting spells that don't exist, feats that do nothing or less than nothing, archetypes that grant different versions of previous abilities without actually replacing the old, and of course the Gunslinger and its supporting materials which ultimate add up to the most poorly designed class Paizo has ever released, that isn't even internally balanced, let alone properly balanced to the rest of the system. And that's not to say the Gunslinger is OP (though some builds are, some are drastically underpowered), it's to say that they used poor balancing decisions that went against the common sense of any game designer and built too many loopholes into their own firearm system, with weird and poorly explained mechanics.

That being said, this is less about Paizo slipping, and more about the fact that they are a small gaming company whose popularity is still on the rise. To my understanding, they actually hit their stride in sales growth somewhere around the first printing of Ultimate Combat (though I could be wrong about that). That puts them in a weird place where they've got brand new gamers still pouring into the franchise while their core fanbase is needing a steady influx of new material to stay interested, so everything they do is under crunch. And they have the normal issues that happen when freelancers make something either really inspired or really crappy but with a cool theme and an editor with little attachment to the initial creation process shows up for clean-up and you end up with just weird s%!!.

Regardless, Paizo's audience's expectations have grown at a rate much faster than Paizo, and Paizo has now long since left the easier task of converting and updating existing material behind and moved into creating entirely new material, something that's comparatively hard to do, especially with the grueling production schedule they work under. I can only imagine that the ACG in particular had a wealth of issues associated with it, from the fact that the initial reception of the playtest led to an entirely unscheduled second playtest, to the fact that one of their most talented and experienced designers was in the process of leaving the company. The book still sold amazingly well (I have one) and I don't many people who didn't get at least 5 functional things they wanted out of it, which is actually more than I've gotten from a lot of other books in many franchises.

I wish I could give this post a standing ovation instead of a favorite. This is how you explain what you see as a problem without all the grar (as Chris calls it) that we often see. Bravo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
knightnday wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Whether it is easy or not isn't the issue. Whether someone who is critical of the book could do a better job or not isn't the issue. The fine folks at Paizo have made a profession out of what they do. As professionals they should have a higher expectation of themselves. As someone who is giving a team of professionals money in exchange for a product, sight un-seen, I expect them to have higher standards for themselves.

Actually, it is somewhat of an issue. They are professionals, as you've just said. So I'd expect they'd have a better idea of whether or not they are overtaxed than the people on the message boards.

Second, I see a lot of criticism and a lot of "I could do it better" and threads on how dumb/untalented/etc that the devs must be if they made a mistake in the book. That makes me wonder why, if we have dozens if not hundreds of such talented people that have the spare time and energy to tear the books apart to tell Paizo what they've done wrong, why they aren't using some of that energy to put out quality products with no mistakes on time, for a certain budget. To show Paizo how it is done, you know?

Last of all -- you aren't required (as far as a I know, there could be a court case or assassin involved) to buy anything sight unseen. Wait for it come out. Wait till you can pick it up and flip through it. While the editing issues and perceived lack of quality can be laid at Paizo's feet, the last issue is not their fault.

There is absolutely no one better to judge the acceptable level of quality than the consumer.

I see a lot of criticism as well, but I don't see much "I could do it better." The little of that sentiment I do see is always including "given ample time" as an understood. Ie, no one is claiming they are better than Paizo, but many suggest that even they see the problems after a few days to digest the product so perhaps Paizo should take those few days to digest before shipping.

If you want the PDF and don't have a FLGS within 100 miles then you get to buy sight unseen.

Heh. Customers tend to believe that, and producers believe otherwise. It is hard for both sides to see it from the same direction.

I'll agree to disagree with you regarding the criticism. We could dig up threads and quotes that will likely come down to how an individual reads it. I'll concede to say that there is not enough constructive criticism.

And yes, more time on the schedule would be great for the editors I'm sure, but that brings up another issue: if they cut a book, two, or more from the schedule -- just talking about the game now, and not the other stuff as they say that there are other people dealing primarily with that -- is it something that is going to upset people or make them happy. Less mistakes, but less product. That book you were looking forward to in December is now slated for next October.

It's a fine line and something they have to balance against paying people I imagine. Do too much and the error rate gets atrocious. Do too little and you run the risk of losing fans or the very people creating for you as they cannot pay bills on X books instead of Y.

Finally, as far as sight unseen goes, yes that can be an issue. But, the upside is that you don't buy something that you are unhappy with and are "stuck" with it. And you give other people time to tear into it and review it, assuming you put weight on the reviews or particular reviewers.

To wrap this up -- I am sure that the staff here is not happy with the error rate in the new book. Heck, the cover alone is embarrassing. But the number of threads that cropped up that were primarily negative don't really do more than pile on. Do we think that shaming them will somehow make them do better? Do we think that the comments are going to shame them or upset them more than they are already upset? Message boards/the net tends towards beating dead horses until they are beyond ghosts, so I know this tends to fall on deaf ears, but I suggest giving it a rest. No one is saying anything new or different. There are unhappy people. They get it. People that live under a rock get it. From what I can see they are getting their act together after the big conventions and likely having meetings on what to do. Let them do that for a week or two before we continue in the inevitable tide of criticism.


BigDTBone wrote:
Whether it is easy or not isn't the issue. Whether someone who is critical of the book could do a better job or not isn't the issue. The fine folks at Paizo have made a profession out of what they do. As professionals they should have a higher expectation of themselves. As someone who is giving a team of professionals money in exchange for a product, sight un-seen, I expect them to have higher standards for themselves.

Actually, it is somewhat of an issue. They are professionals, as you've just said. So I'd expect they'd have a better idea of whether or not they are overtaxed than the people on the message boards.

Second, I see a lot of criticism and a lot of "I could do it better" and threads on how dumb/untalented/etc that the devs must be if they made a mistake in the book. That makes me wonder why, if we have dozens if not hundreds of such talented people that have the spare time and energy to tear the books apart to tell Paizo what they've done wrong, why they aren't using some of that energy to put out quality products with no mistakes on time, for a certain budget. To show Paizo how it is done, you know?

Last of all -- you aren't required (as far as a I know, there could be a court case or assassin involved) to buy anything sight unseen. Wait for it come out. Wait till you can pick it up and flip through it. While the editing issues and perceived lack of quality can be laid at Paizo's feet, the last issue is not their fault.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
I haven't even mentioned the publication that, about a year ago, ratcheted both my faith in and my respect for Paizo down quite substantially. Mostly because it had very little to do with the RPG.

Actually, you just did.

In any case, no, they don't have too many irons in the fire, balls in the air, plates spinning, clowns in the car or whatever other term we'd care to use.

More of what we're seeing, I think, is the more pronounced use of the message boards to talk, good or bad, about the books. Paizo seems to have a handle on what they are doing and planning to do; some items aren't as polished as we, or they, would like.

Problem is you seldom hear "Hey, good job on this book" or "I really liked X". Instead, it's thread after thread of "OMG the end is nigh!" or "X is broken and here's why the devs should be beaten with a wet noodle."

It's easy to backseat drive, harder to create. This, as an aside, isn't just a problem for Paizo but for pretty much every company that has an internet presence (Facebook, Twitter, message board, etc.) It's a litany of complaints and dire predictions of why the company is going bankrupt, not as good as before, or how the user will never, EVER darken their door again.


The solution my GM had was to figure out all my off spring. Several were still kids and I found out about them and could help take care of them if I wanted. A few were older and were planning my death, as were their mothers.

Actions lead to plot hooks if you let them. Maybe they decide to get married, or take responsibility for their by-blows, or they push the party to help the village after the bar maid they were seeing gets taken by the bandits.

Anyway, what they do in their off time can have as much or as little impact as you and they allow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, reading this before the moderation comes through and muddles it, the intent I am getting from Driver 325 yards comments is that the high level character is basically Elminster or whatever and the other players live in their shadow and do little side missions while they take care of the "big stuff."

As I recall, that went over like a lead balloon when it was an NPC doing it. I cannot say that it goes over better when it is a PC or GMPC doing it to the other players.

This is less how to manage a diverse party and more how to manage two parties: Mr. 20th level and everyone else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Definitely need to see the build, as well as why the others are so under par.


As with most of these threads, my answer is "it depends." For races/classes/etc, it depends on which world I am running, which players I am running for.

If I have people that are interested in things that would not work for whatever reason in one of the existing worlds I have set up, I'll run Golarion or Greyhawk or something kitchen sinky and let players run wild. For other games, I have documents that explain what is allowed and what isn't. And yes, there are times when the player and I can talk out a new/restricted race or class or item and see if we can work together to make it work.

Other times, the answer is no. On X world, there are no existing dinosaurs, and no, there are not Primeval style gates that dump them into the world, so therefore you cannot have one as a companion.

It all depends.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MrRetsej wrote:

What I want to know is, why did she even bring her knitting supplies to the table? Wasn't she supposed to be there to play Pathfinder?

One hobby at a time, man.

Eh, back when I started playing oh so many years ago two of the ladies at our table brought knitting and needle point to keep their hands busy while they played. I've seen homework, novels, miniature painting and so on at the table as well. I allow whatever at my table as long as you are paying attention to what is going on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

LordSynos:

Spoiler:

LordSynos wrote:

What, people have to describe themselves treating wounds, climbing cliff-faces, swimming through lakes, crafting items, etc, etc, in your game? Every dice roll must be accompanied by a description?

That's fair enough. I'm not going to say you're wrong, because that's not how you have a discussion. I am going to say, the amount of characters with no relations, no NPC friends, have dumped charisma, and don't even consider Diplomacy as an option is directly related to the fact that describing how you swing your axe is not mandatory to successfully do so. And as long as that remains to be the case, I, and I'm sure many like me, will continue to carry a very big axe into combat, and will leave the talking to players (not characters) who are more social.

Heh, no not to that degree (although a bit more description would be nice on occasion.) However, I do let my players know that I'd prefer that they give some indication of the hows and whys of what they are doing. It's fine to want to use diplomacy or tactics or seduction or whatever, but I'd like (A) a starting point for the conversation otherwise things get muddled, and (B) I don't want to play your character for you.

By that I mean that if you want to be a tactical genius (or at least OK at it) or the type of character who can talk their way through situations that I expect you are willing to meet me half way in the role play or tactical thinking. You don't have to be Moist von Lipwig or Hannibal in real life to play those characters in my game, don't get me wrong, but you have to be willing to do more than throw dice at the table and expect me to play out both sides of the conflict or conversation.

I may be one of those older style GMs that Kydeem de'Morcaine mentioned above -- I like my players to be a bit more descriptive in what they are doing. This, again, doesn't mean that you are on your own and if your own Intelligence isn't on par with your Investigator's 20 that I won't give clues and hints and so forth, and I don't penalize your IRL Charisma of 8 with no clue about seduction when you are playing Joe Casanova; I just expect more than the clatter of dice and a bored "I do that. Yeah, diplomacy or whatever."

As for the axe and not needing to describe in detail, I'll add that I do expect like you mentioned to at least do more than throw dice and say "I hit one of them. don't care which." For me, it is about Rping and effort. If someone is giving me and the table/game the bare minimum, it makes it hard to want to give more back, you know what I mean?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
I don't require a player to be a skilled orator. But I at least want some sense of what they are trying.

This is exactly how I handle it as well -- your roll is very nice and all, but I'd like to feel that you are attempting to play someone who is a negotiator or diplomat or might have spoken to another creature at some point in their life.

That goes for any roll, really. "I roll Knowledge (Blah). Tell me everything there is to know." "I do Whatever. Gimme success and let's move on." I just expect and want more, just like I would hope my players would want more than "It's a room with monsters and stuff over there. Roll."

To get back on track, most of my worst role playing backstories I've observed have been of two sorts. The first is, as mentioned above, one to two word answers with no real effort put into it. It either means, in my mind, you don't care or that you are hoping not to give me anything to work with because Another GM has done you wrong by using elements of your story against you.

The second type goes to the other extreme, trying to weave in bonus material in the hopes of getting benefits out of it without spending traits, feats, and so on. Third cousin to the King, mom left a magical sword under a tree that you have to find, and so on. Those can be useful and even make for good plot elements if done correctly, but usually it comes across more ham-handed in the examples I've seen.


Tels wrote:

You guys have likely been using them without even knowing it.

The Big Six items are:
Stat boosters (Belts of Strength, Headband of Charisma etc.)
Cloak of Resistance
Magical Weapon
Magical Armor
Ring of Protection
Amulet of Nat. Armor

These items are deemed 'necessary' for survival at higher levels. Some classes don't need all 6 of the items, like Wizards, or some need alternative items, but in general, these are the items almost every character ends up with.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I/we fall into the "don't care about them" category. They are certainly nice to have and no one will kick them out of bed for eating crackers, but a large number of my past and current players aren't as interested in them as they are other magical devices. They're expected and ordinary in their minds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Cranefist wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Charlie Brooks wrote:

I like the game pretty well as-is. While I have a page of house rules I make use of, I'd be willing to run or play in a rules-as-written game without any complaints.

I look forward to future innovations with the game and would like an eventual 2nd edition to streamline the rules a bit, but overall Pathfinder provides what I want out of an RPG better than any other system I've found.

Honestly I've played with zero house rules and the game isn't terrible. There's a few quirks that I'd probably do away with but a vast majority of things that people complain about online almost never show up.

The #1 house rule I like to play with is granting the bonuses of an average typical set of big six items to all characters, regardless of class, as they level up according to WBL. There are many ifs, thens and thats involved in this house rule I don't want to get into.

With that rule in place, no one feels a need to get X items for their character and it takes the stress out of the game that power gamers feel. I then ban item crafting and magic item stores and leave nothing in but item drops, mostly no bonus wonderous items or weapons and armor with special abilities and more odd ball stuff.

When I play RAW, people get excited at first about the magic item store, but then quickly realize what a piece of crap the game is when you spend your own playing time discussing treasure, passing out loot, and buying items with a group fund with optimization in mind. All that stuff sucks.

Am I the only one around here that doesnt know or care about what the heck the big six items are? I spend entire campaigns not buying anything but starting gear and ammo and didn't not accepting loot unless nobody else could use it.
You aren't alone.

Definitely not alone. Not only that, both myself and a number of my players enjoy passing around loot, customizing gear, and otherwise "shopping". Sometimes we pass entire games doing just that, preparing for a ball or managing resources and so on, and not even to optimize, but to get the right colour gems to match clothing or having to travel to another place to find the right person to make what you want. It can be quite fun if your group is into it.


Kolokotroni wrote:

I like pathfinder. I think its a great system. I like what paizo has done with it by and large. That doesnt mean I dont think it could be better.

Also, I enjoy debating things on internet forums. Pathfinder is a thing i like with disperate ideas, and without any kind of real 'bad' side. Debating pathfinder stuff on the internet is fun for me. And I think a productive analysis of something I like. The more I undestand the rules of the game, and disperate view points on those rules, the better I can make my game at home. Sometimes the debate itself is an end worthy of persuit.

This is a great post and I wish it was indicative of how more people felt who argue here. But it is the internet, and there are people who get their jollies by tearing down what others like or love. A spirited debate can be good and even improve the product. Some of what we get, however, isn't on the same level as what Kolokotroni is going for and only serves to make the place unpleasant.

I love this game, whether just out of the box or modified to taste. It can be better, but it could be FAR worse. It gives me the platform to play out of the box with others with only minor disagreements or to modify to my heart's content for any number of games.


blahpers wrote:
I don't see it on the footer any more, and it seems like we need it more than ever.

It got removed when they put up the new community guidelines. I believe it is still implied that people shouldn't be jerks, but it was expanded upon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

I hate when people are attached to the names of classes. I've literally had many people say, "I want to use a bow, Guess I'm a Ranger then." Thinking basically that it's the only bow using class.

Like they think about what they want and pick the class whose name they feel is a good match, instead of one that is good. Many times those "Rangers" want none of the nature stuff and want feats, meaning they should have been a fighter. Or people wanting to know everything so they go rogue, the skill guy instead of bard which gets bonuses to knowledge.

On that archer thing...

I have seen that SO MANY TIMES. I mean like, I don't think a lot of people realize that there are SO MANY DIFFERENT ARCHERS:

Zen Archer Monk: If you want to play a Kagome character or a guy who stupid good at archery and machine gunning

Paladin Archer: Archer of divine rightousness!!!!

Inquisitor Archer: like the pally but sneakier

Fighter archer: Pretty much a bad ass archer... just a archer though.

Slayer Archer: Sniper extrodinare.... oh and pretty much fighter archer+

Cavalier Archer: Try beating his horseback archery!

Bard Archer: can be any archer... but with magic xD

W1/F1/EK5/AAX: Pretty much playing Hawkeye and his "arrow for any problem" guy... got a problem? I have an arrow for that!

I mean, Archers are easy to play as near ANY martial class...

Therein lies the problem I think, there are too many choices for some people. I have had a few players recently that seem overwhelmed by the choices and/or don't want to be bothered. One young lady was very interested in being a rogue. We offered a selection of ways to do what she wanted and her eyes glazed over. She just pointed to the book and wanted that rogue right there. So that's what she played.

To answer the OP's question

Jasin wrote:
Are the older melee classes getting less attractive / obsolete?

the answer is Yes, but. Yes, they can be less attractive or obsolete if you have sufficient system mastery, time, inclination and so on to construct exactly what you want from the toolbox we are given. There are those who are missing one or more of the above (not all of you, put down the pitchforks) and just want to play a Fighter, a Rogue, a whatever.

You can break down the hows and whys that a X is a better fighter or how you can build a rogue with a dash of this and two of that and there are people that don't want that, they want something simple, direct, and without the extra work.

I can show someone how to make a burrito at home that is incredible, but for a large number of those people they aren't going to want to go to the trouble, expensive, or bother when Taco Bell sells something that is like what they want for a buck.

So yes, these classes can be unattractive when you have the know how and the drive to make something out a Witch Doctor, Ninja and Gunslinger that does exactly what you want to a tee. But the average player may not want to go into that level of design, a newer player may just give up if you go into that level, and even an advanced player may just want to grab a Fighter and bang around instead. It isn't good or bad or wrong or right, it is just how people are.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
These forums, despite the opinion of some, aren't really any better than any others. There have been a few threads where I've had the entire Paizo Defense Force rise up and tell me to GTFO, that my opinions were unwelcome, and that I should leave these forums and not return sine I have the temerity to prefer some other system to Pathfinder.
The "Paizo Defense Force" is definitely a thing. Unfortunately.

No doubt. Of course, calling them out isn't exactly a non-aggressive bit either. Therein lies the problem here, which we've seen played out in the last few days with the release of the Advanced Class Guide and dire comments about how folks will never pay for it and how horrible it is and so on. Happens with a lot of books, a lot of changes to the system. My personal favorites are when someone is never ever going to buy another Paizo product.

I'm not sure it is a new version of the game we need, but a new version of the message boards and/or fans. It doesn't take a "Paizo Defense Force" to note when people are being negative, antagonistic, or not even in the neighborhood of constructive in their criticism.

Pan wrote:
I just dont believe you. I do think some people probably got pushed away and that is a shame. Though I think these forums are pretty well moderated and have fair discussions. The forums are welcoming to anyone who likes PF and even those who dont. There are trolls but what site doesnt have them? I also dont think you have a basis for a biased playtest. The goal was to make a backwards compatibale system so having a lot of changes was never in cards.

The forums are welcoming, but many of the participants aren't. I've watched far longer than I've posted and there are what I call "The Usual Suspects", a counter to the Paizo Defense Force if you will, that run out to stir the post and be as negative as they can about the product. It may not run people off the forums, but it certainly puts a damper on people who are not willing to deal with the sheer level of hostility on some of the subjects to bother to post.

Yeah, it's probably just an Internet thing, but it doesn't really help anything.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:

Honestly, unless you're objection is that you don't want to spend more money (which is completely reasonable), then I don't see a reason to say "no."

I mean, we haven't talked about what the new edition is going to be like yet. For right now, a new edition just means the game becomes exactly what I want it to be. So, since I want the game to be exactly what I want it to be, I'll vote yes.

Unless you have a crystal ball, I'm not sure that you can definitively say that. It might be something completely and totally the opposite of what you want.

My vote is No, by the by.


Thank you for the guidelines.


Wouldn't mind seeing an Alex Kingston or Helen Mirren sort, or Pierce Brosnan for the other side, generally older but still capable adventurer.

I'm less interested in seeing fan service being done just for the sake of fan service. After the nightmare threads about such around here, I'd just as soon see everyone dressed to adventure and less to titillate; that said, downtime pictures would be great in other places.

Race is less an issue for me, although it would be nice to see the occasional pull from the ARG, and yes I'm aware that we must look to Society gaming. That said, I don't think that should make a difference once we've stepped beyond the Core book -- this stuff is already optional, so I don't feel that we have to cater exclusively so that those playing Society games don't get upset that they can't play Bob the Iconic Whatever.


TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:

I'm getting the sense that this to a very real degree comes down to that old "Only if you run it that way" argument.

Which isn't a problem, it's just that it also falls into "I just disagree" territory.

I think it's not unwise - from a design perspective - to design a setting the way they did, accounting for a certain type of jerkish behavior some players are known for rather than making one particularly vulnerable to it.

It is, afterall, a lot easier to redesign lower level versions of NPC's than it is to tack on a whole bunch of levels.

Pretty much this.

For me, it comes down to GMing 101: You can change things. The stuff in the books is the baseline view for the setting, set that way for all the reasons people have delineated above (PCs are bastards, NPCs raiding places, etc etc.)

You can certainly alter anything you choose to flavor the game for yourself and your players. There are good reasons to have lower level rulers, or higher level, as long as you are capable of addressing the questions that come up from your players. Heck, the designers are great but don't always take everything that PCs can think up into account and you have to add protections from things they'd never think of. This has become more apparent in recent years in things like comics, where they've had to address why supers haven't killed the President or taken all the nukes and so on.

As with everything, they've given you the beginning of the game but if you have specifics in mind you have to adjust what is written to take that into account.

tl;dr: The trope exists as a baseline.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Too many good things to quote

I have to say I agree with everything said in Kolokotroni's post. D&D5 and Pathfinder and hosts of other games can and will co-exist without issue. There are rules light, rules medium and rules heavy games out there that all manage to get a share of the market and there are players of multiple systems that enjoy them all at the same time for different reasons.

A small sub point, and one that exists for any game system really: your familiarity with it speeds you up and you don't have to always check every book every round. Make cheat sheets, improvise modifiers (if your table isn't a stickler for such), and so on.

Even before most everyone had a tech object they could look things up on we'd have cheat sheets and notes and so on to speed things up. And while I've had people get irritated with the suggestion in the past, part of the game is work -- enjoyable work, don't get me wrong -- but work nonetheless. For the GM, for the players. Know your character and what it can do. Know what is going on, pay attention, keep notes, get bookmarks or tabs, use phones/computers for the online resources and so on.

Even with "rules lite" games there is still some responsibility for the players and GM to know their stuff and work together to keep things moving.


LazarX wrote:
knightnday wrote:

Asking here instead of staring a new thread .. are all these posts about these iconics (and the ones from the other books) going to be collected at some point in a book or other resource?

My wife is interested in the backstories, so looking to see if there are collections or if I need to save each individual blog post for her to read.

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a collected biographical tome. Do some cut and pasting and a trip to staple, you can make your wife happy now. And that's always a smart move.

Heh, no, no breath holding, I just didn't want to duplicate effort on the project. I'm happy to print it off and make a nice little supplement for her and myself for that matter. Thanks!


Asking here instead of staring a new thread .. are all these posts about these iconics (and the ones from the other books) going to be collected at some point in a book or other resource?

My wife is interested in the backstories, so looking to see if there are collections or if I need to save each individual blog post for her to read.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Speaking as a loyal Paizo customer, and as someone who is normally quite satisfied with the editing of their books, and finally as someone who's often accused of being part of the 'Paizo Defense Force'...the editing in this book is a serious problem.

I suspect it's due to the GenCon rush rather than any actual incompetence on anyone's part...but let's put it this way, I'm methodically going through and enumerating editing problems right now (I'll post them in the problems thread). I'm on p. 33 and have five or six notable problems, that's one every six pages, and I'm convinced they're more common in the archetypes section than the class section. That's an unacceptable rate of notable problems (especially when some of them have to do with basic class functionality and I saw some of those commented on based on the playtest documents).

This is not an acceptable editing job. I was gonna pick it up in hardcopy...but I'm waiting on the second printing to do that now.

I agree that the GenCon rush must have contributed to the problems this book had in the editing department and mentioned that in my review. Still, I'm glad I got one of the "collector's edition" cover mishaps and got mine now instead of waiting for another printing. There is something much more enjoyable for me about reading a hard copy rather than a PDF.

I look forward to your list of problems and hope you put them up. That way I can notate my book and not have to do the hard work! ;)

Tirisfal wrote:

Seriously, I love this book. Sure, there're a few editing issues, but I have found such mistakes in every book I've ever read. I have to applaud the team for working so hard on this book and giving us something that will provide me with endless ideas.

I'm not good at crunch, so I'm thankful that these folks are able to put out high quality books like this to help me with most of the heavy lifting. If I disagree with the way that something works, or I prefer it to work a different way, I can always adjust it, and that freedom is the beauty of table top :)

My sentiments exactly. This (or any game book) is a gold mine of ideas and concepts and fully realized material. Instead of inventing whole cloth, I can "fix" anything I deem broken or otherwise modify it to my table's tastes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
And again that doesnt mean the fighter has to be able to jump 1000 feet in the air. But he should have proper recourse simply because he is an x level fighter. Maybe fighters at x level get a pegasus mount. Maybe fighters at x level get an ability to shoot flying creatures out of the sky (and not the literally laughable fly check currently required to avoid such an effect). Maybe his tactical knowledge gives him foreknowledge of the situation and he is actually waiting on the cliff 300 feet up. Maybe the fighter throws a grappling hook onto the dragons leg, climbs up it and fights the dragon from its back. The point is he should have the tools regardless of the campaign setting to deal with the situation.
Kolokotroni gets it. 100% spot-on. And when people say "he can already do this stuff," we mean that getting it really needs to be hard-coded into the rules, so that he gets it as part of the game, not "he may or may not get thrown this stuff as a bone by the DM in contravention of the rules because everyone feels sorry for him."

Which is what I agreed was a good idea (and have even done and am still doing). The problem is the extremes on both sides (they are great and need no help versus let them be super powered). A little moderate thought on both sides (ala what Kirth and Kolokotroni were suggesting) would go a long way. Wouldn't take much more than a chapter in a hardback, maybe a Campaign Guide like Inner Sea magic or whatever.

@Simon: Not a new parent, although my four year old was pummeling me with trains when I wrote that so it may have coloured my words.

In any case, I may be alone over here but I'd love to see casters ramped back a bit as well as martials raised up. I'm a fan of restrictions on casters and putting the godhood off for mythic/epic/super high level play.


K177Y C47 wrote:
Except that it is kind of true. How many times have you heard "well... its too magical, and fighters should have NO magical at all.." or "too wuxia for me," or "that is just ubsurd, that just makes no sense, that is impossible!" when regarding potential abilities for hihg level martials without obvious spellcasting? Heck, look at how a lot of people dismiss the barbarians abilities because "they are too magical and make no sense" becauses "martials are supposed to be normal"...

Or mundane rather than normal. It isn't common, even with a lot of skill in battle, to leap miles. To shatter mountains or as an above poster commented, destroy entire armies by yourself. Even at high level.

That is something some players want, but not all. Not everyone believed the Book of 9 Swords (or whatever the exact name was) was the way that all martials should go. Not everyone wants or is comfortable or want their martials leaping about streaming energy like a kung fu movie.

The game has laid out what a fighter is, and what many posters are asking is to toss all that out and make it into something that is very foreign to many eyes for the same of making them do the same sort of thing that wizards can do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

I think part of the problem here is that people refuse to acknowledge, or just don't realize how their style of play or house rules impact the game. That is why when discussing such things it is best to not bring corner cases or house rules("How I or my GM does it"), unless it is done with a rule in the actual book.

...

Before this is misread nobody is saying don't change the rules for your game. I am saying be honest and don't say X is not a problem when you know your X and everyone else's X is different.

I am also NOT saying that if you used class x without houserules that class x would not work. I am saying that you need to recognize what your changes bring to the system. Because once you bring in your house rules all you are really saying is "I made changes so problems ______ doesn't happen in my games". That is very...

I believe the reason people say these things is because it isn't a problem for them. If I "fix" something, it is no longer a problem for our game. For your game or his game or their game it might be, and that is still relevant to an extent. But for my or their table, the problem is fixed or taken care of. They are not waiting for the devs to put out a new book to fix this perceived problem or give the OK on the boards, they've moved on.

Now, that might be more common in older players who did this sort of thing over the years before message boards and vocal campaigns to get things fixed or changed. Regardless, and whether people are happy with the response or not, it is a valid response and a valid way to deal with these problems.

Rule books, from this or any game publisher, often have problems that need errata, corrections, balance issues and so on. And not all of them are agreed on. Not every change that people are upset about is bad in the eyes of the devs, no matter how many threads are made about it. Not all of them are good either, mind you.

That said, once the game is in your and your table's hands, it is your game. You can and in my opinion most assuredly should take it apart and tinker with it, exploring what you believe is right or wrong and fixing, discarding, or upgrading as you will. They really won't come to your house and spank you.

To drag this back to the OP, it appears from their first post that their play style and players have prevented many of the problems that are seen on the boards. There are gamers who only play once a month and won't see a tenth of the issues that come up on these boards. There are players and GMs that are content to play and not tear into the rules set to see where it bends and breaks and won't run into the CODzilla in 3.5 or the various broken/bent builds that we see all the time here. They aren't wrong to say "Not seeing the hubbub guys, but good luck with all that."

X is not any more of a problem than you let it be, whatever X is. If you are waiting for your personal X to get fixed by the company, you may be in for a long wait. If these threads are nothing more than blowing off steam and wishlisting, then that is great. But out and out telling people who are voicing their opinion on the matter -- which is all we are doing -- that they shouldn't talk about their experiences with the matter or that they are wrong to do so is out and out dismissive and not very conducive to any sort of conversation on the matter.

By all means, let's "fix" things. But let's not pretend for even a second that someone's fix is better than someone else's, or someone's opinion is somehow lesser because it doesn't conform to The One True Way.

1 to 50 of 754 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, 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.