|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Yeah it kind of is lol.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I will concede with the right group of players one can without alignment. Or by house ruling that it has less of a effect. Again one needs the right group. Maybe I'm a little jaded and have had one too many players who either can't play their alignment properly. Or choose to ignore it and play themselves. Maybe next game I may try without alignments at least at the start. As I would trust my current group.
There is nothing wrong with having fun. Up until it just becomes a free for all. To use my previous Paladin example the BBEG hired guards to protct him from the Paladin. Th guards disliked working for the BBEG as they were basically good men and women hired to work for a scumbag. The paladin assumed that since they were working for the BBEG the had to be evil. No detect evil was used. No attempt at diplomacy. My subtle and not so subtle hints about the guards were ignored by the player. The BBEG got away. All the guards were killed and the Paladin fell. He did have fun he also realized he went too far. He ended up atoning for his mistake yet was never welcome in town again. Was considered a mad dog by the townsfolk for a very long time. As some of the guards that he killed had families.
For better or worse D&D has alignment tied into some elements of the game. One can't just ignore that just to have fun. One can have fun within the rules of the game. Before 3E came along we played a lot of 2E. Eventually we tired of the restrictions of 2E and switched to other fantasy rpgs. We could have hacked 2E into the rpg we wanted we just chose the easy way out.
I do think some sort of alignment needs top be enforced. Or it ends up turning into a free for all at the table. I have played in games where Paladins are properly roleplayed. In some where thy are either lawful stupid or dirty harry with a shield and sword. I was at odds with one gaming group one time because they torched a hobgoblin nursery without any hesistation. I refused to do so. Being told "well they would probably grow up to be the enemy " was simply imo not playing in character or very heroic. Nor is playing a Lawful Good character who has tries to to haggle a fee to help someone.
I'm not saying alignment has to be a strait jacket in terms of roleplaying. There is a reason tit's so tied into the D&D. If one wants to play himself at the gaming table I encourage it. I also enforce a alignment if a player decides to take a class whose abilites are tied to a alignment. I have a barbarian cohort who at the start of the fight was trying was on top of a stone hut trying to break his way in to get at a enemy inside. I realized that was not proper barbarian behavior. Stopped. Ran to the edge of the hut jumped off and macked a Vrock off the side of the head. I took a AOO yet it just seemed more in character.
I'm starting to notice a trend in the D&D gaming community. First low attributes are not meant to be penalties as they can be role played away. Alignment nah I don't feel like playing one it gets in the way of roleplaying. There are plenty of other fantasy rpg out on the market if one does not want to play within the restrictions of D&D. Such as Fate. I think many gamers here would like it's narrative and freeform nature.
Rifts from Palladium has the US as the enemy. Basically the Coalition States. Which began as the remains of the Us, Canada and Mexico armies after the coming of the Rifts. Over time became corrupted and evil. Turning from a democracy into a fascist government. Much of the CS tech is stuff the US was working on before the coming of the Rifts. To keep the average person dumb and stupid they change the look and origin story of much of their tech.
Not every decision but it would help imo.
And no I don't trust my fellow gamers to do the right thing because sometimes they don't want to do the right thing. I have played in one too many D&D sessions where players take a good alignment then do the exact opposite. As I have played in many games where alignments were roleplayed properly. As a DM if you take a certain alignment it means you roleplay it. No exceptions. If you take Lawful Good and your playing Lawful evil I'm going to call you out on it at the end of the game. Either one plays lawful good properly or switches to lawful evil. It's not to say I follow it by the book. I do give my players lots of leeway. No Paladins falling for the most minor infractions in my games. Yet if your going around killing babies on purpose then your evil. It's one thing if it happens by mistake or if your cursed. If your targeting innocents on purpose it's not even up for debate at my table.
While alignments should remain in the game they need to be defined clearly. In point form what a character can or cannot do. Not a vague paragraph or general statements. If a player wants to take prisoners the alignment description should say if they. Not leave it up to the DM nor the player. One of my favorite systems that deals well with the topic is the Palladium alignment system. The core rules aside I never had any trouble keeping lawful stupid or out of control Chaotic Neutral characters.
Players who come from D&D and who like to play fast and loose or just plain ignore alignment tend find they can't do the same with Palladium alignments. I know some will scream bloody murder as players should not be tied to a alignment. Yet without a properly defined code of conduct tends to allow for abuse on the part of some players. Nor do I want to waste too much time as a DM figuring out if player XYZ can break his word or not.
This is a actual thread right. I'm not imagining it.
I'm asking because I'm on strong meds at the moment. For a second I thought I was hallucinating.
One gets the spell at first level. It's a force effect and many npcs, pcs and creatures don't have resistance to force. Only a Brooch of Shielding, Shield spell, or SR defend against it. It can hit multiple targets or only one. Pretty good range considering it's a first level spell. While also being enhanced by metamagic feats.
So its' not useless. Not in the least.
I don't think it needed to be nerfred.
To answer the questions if the encounters in APs are badly designed. Having played and running a ap I can say without hesitation that imo the encounters are badly designed. Unoptmized npcs. Strange feat sand spell choices. Assuming the pcs are non-optimized even to a small degree. I find myself having to rewrite too many encounters to ensure the npcs survive.
To be fair though it's a problem in many fantasy rpg settings. Where the pcs have a lot of cash yet the npcs at most silver, a few coppers and a rare gold piece. Which is why in my games if players are dropping 5000+ gps on items the vendor improves his selection and carries more items. Or improves the quality of current items being carried.
It's almost as bad as humans always being the dominant race without any logical in fantasy rpgs beyond that the devs wanted humans to be th dominant race.
Somewhat selective. We game to have fun and socialize. So no rules lawyers or anyone with a lack of social filters or a lack of social skills. As well bathing regularly is a must. I too had a clannish group of gamers. Yet over time it was either get new blood or not game at all. As some of the older members moved on, away or just went into other hobbies. We also have a three strikes rules at the gaming table. Your given three chances and then your asked not to come to the game anymore. Mind you if a player puss a huge fit at the tabe for no good reason he gets he gets no chances and is out. Interestingly enough I have a new player younger then the group who decided to join while we were gaming at the lgs. No prior expereince to tabletop gaming except for MMOs and is having fun and likes it.
It also make sense that eventually a shop pwneer will have access or can oprder the item a player wants. When players keep spending gold in a city or village it's not like the the gold just sits there gathering dust. It gets used. In a game that I played in the blacksmith where we bought armor and weapons from kept upgrading his operations. From one man to having four apprentices working for him. Same thing with the Alchemist shop and potion maker. The want the pc to keep spending money and ,ake sure the pcs have a reason to. When pc have more wealth than a average farmer can get in a year it's only to be expected imo.
Why would I keep going to a shop that only carries +1 items when I'm tenth level or higher. Might as well craft a better item of my own. But let me guess some in the thread either ban or nerf crafting as well right. Or the group has to go on a epic quest to just craft a +1 suit of armor
Damian Magecraft wrote:
I recommend taking a look at Earthdawn. It has just such a system for magic items.
I don't mind researching the history of a specific item. Not every magic item. I want my character to adventure. Not play Secrets & Sages. I don't understand the sheer fear of occasional just giving a item to a player. No questions asked. Do players who restrict items to players also do the same as a player. If not your being a hypocrite.
Sure right up until the enemy keeps hitting you over and over again. It's not required it does help imo. As when I'm a player I want my AC to be as high as possible. You can get by if your a melee class. A rogue going in for a sneak attack without magic is just so easy to hit. If he survives he either is very lucky or the DM goes easy on him.
At low to mid levels one can get by without magic items. At higher levels it's sucidal not to have magic items. I'm sure that fire Giant that a group is going to fight sure appreciates a group with magical items. In any case it's a difference in playing style. I see the merits of both styles. I just prefer my magic items.
While I don't expect anything and everything to be given to me as a player. Neither do I want to beg and plead for everything. I think a bit of give and take on both the player and DM is needed. Out of the two imo the DM has to be more careful. Give to much to a player and it's too easy a game. Don't give enough and a group might be TPK by a strong enemy. Sure some might say "well they should retreat". Smart parties will. More often than not they fight to the better end.I play D&D to have fun and kick behind. Not to have to relive the daily worries of real life.
The APS or at least some of them are so underpowered. The NPC design so poor that even a non-optimized party at later levels can do well. I find that I have to upgrade the monsters or the party members just mo through everything. Even with intelligent monsters using tactics.
The good thing as a player or group one can refuse to go adventuring against opponents that require specilaized magical equipment. I spend time making a character and backstory. I want to play D&D and have fun. Not roleplay Custers last stand.
Depending on the size of the city/village etc that the party is visiting and on what items they want if it can be found I usually allow them to buy it. The NPCs get some interesting toys as well. So imo it balances it out. As well unless the group has a secure spot to at to store money they will for the most part not lug it around. Even with Haversacks. It's still a lot of weight. As well while most gamers adventure to have fun and roleplay I have yet to meet any of the non-profit kind. So unless a DM states from the start that it's going to be a low wealth and magic type of game then players imo will expect some sort of reward. Not interested at all in playing any games where I have to save every damn copper piece or beg and plead for even a +1 sword.
As for DMs their world is law within reason. I won't hesitate to walk away from a table of if the DM is being a unreasonable jerk. If I'm in the wrong I'm in the wrong. Or the dm and my style of playing don't mesh. None of that "I am the DM I am god" crap. As soon as I hear that I don't waste time making a character even if it means taking a cab home. I have noticed a lot of people here acting like the dM can do just about anything because they think the core book gives them the right to. All fine except I suggest you better be running games from your own homes. As I will not hesitate to ask a DM to leave my apartment if they try anything rude or abusive. If that means the game is over so be it. I pay rent and pay bills. If anyone thinks to come into my place and start being unreasonable or even worse kicks me out of a game. Why would I allow the game to continue. In my apartment.
Never played yet would like to. Specfically this archtype. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-kobold/swarm-f ighter . I find the regular fighter boring and the archtype is more interesting. I'm also tempted to play my first level unable to speak common only draconic while roleplaying that he learns the language by listening to the rest of the group.
I missed the part about the first batch receiving some sort of damage. Good to know.
He has and it is still on backorder. Hoping to get it soon.
Some domains especially the ones related to the environment are not worth takinf. The abilities they give are underpowered. What is it with the devs love of obscuring must. Was there no other spell that they could give. Some domain abilities are not worth taking or too underpowered and should be given a upgrade. Why does the speak with animal ability from the Animal domain not a at will ability.
Here the thing NL. Your not just saying wizards should not be nerfed. It's said in a way with too much gloom, doom and pessimism. Any change=the end of D&D. It's hard to discuss anything when it's cloaked in over emotional hyperbole. Defend yourself to be sure just take it down a emotional level. I agree with other posters. This is a thread about what we want to see changed in PF. Not what we want don't want to see changed. I get the impression that your making a lot of fuss in the hopes that the thread gets locked. You can try but this topic is just going to keep showing up on the forums.despite your best attempts to silence it.
NL you can defend your position. Except you refuse to even acknowledge the other position. Anytime someone even remotely suggest any change no matter how small you assume the worst will happen. I can respect someone for defending their position . The constant doom and gloom hyperbole. As well acting like your some sort of victim constantly is well annoying.
Agreed. While Im enjoying lookin through my 2E reprints and like much of what Im reading. PF should not go back to that imo. If I want older style of gmaing I can use 2E or any of the retroclones.
Good point. Yet the seventh edition of CoC is supposed to be different from previous editions so it goes to show even Chaosium is willing to change their rules. A 2E by 2020. Not 2045. I don't want to try a new rpg when I'm 70 years old and in a retirement home.
I'm not sure forver. I think that sales will drop on the aps after a certain point. How many aps does one person need? 10,20 30 whern does it end.
Never said I was eager for a reset button. There is room for improvement and possibly change on some elements of the game. Maybe major or minor who knows.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Call me a cynic now yet I think a product eventually needs to be replaced. Not saying that PF needs to anytime soon. I do think that eventually they will run out of new material to release. Even with the APS. How many APs does one person need. Were starting to see it with the Bestiaries imo. What is the difference between a ocean or River giant again. A hill, cave or mountain Troll again. They still have a lot of material to offer. I wish they would do a environment series. Or new campaign settings. Getting tired of just Golarian specific stuff. I'm nito sure if the Stategy guide is going to be wroth it.
Good luck to Paizo on trying to sell a second edition with no changes and with mostly rehashed material a second time around. It's not going to do as well imo. Unlike the current version there is not going to be a 4E that drives 3.5 fans away from Wotc to Paizo. With no major changes fans will stick with 3.5 and the current edition of Paizo. I can understand and respect not wanting to see anything change. Tradition and keeping the spirit of the rpg is all fine and well. It's not going to be enough for me to spend 100-120$ a second time around.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Either they keep making the same or more money with the current edition. Once they start to lose money and consistently lose it they may have to. I have alot of the books. I rather not upgrade. Yet their are issues with the rules that need to be addressed. And which keep some gamers away. I know a few 3.5. diehard that won`t touch PF. Myself I can`t go back to 3.5. My Babarian has to have RAge popwers dammit!
Steve Geddes wrote:
We will see. 5E may be the first edition of D&D I don`t buy. Not because of the rules. Just new edition fatigue. It has to knock my gaming socks off. Try to address some issues 3.5 had. More importantly their goal of one edition for all D&D player with the promised modularity better still be part of it. Otherwise I have PF and 2E to keep me happy.
Since when is seeing some elements of a rpg changed equal disliking all the rules. Would I like to see martials espcially fighters get nice things sure. Do I dislike or hate all the rules. No. I'm not one of the fanbase who keeps playing D&D hates it and comes here to complain. Is that the new defense used to prevent any change of the rules. Either a fan likes the rule as is 1000% or they don't like the rules. That makes alot of sense. I hate eating liver therefore I must hate all eating all kinds of meat.
Nathanael Love wrote:
You keep bringing up "Paizo forces me to buy more books" as a counter argument.
Who exactly is going to come to your house and force you to buy anything? I see this same argument whenever a new book is published. First with the APG, then the ARG. Your only forced if someone actually holds a gun to your head. It's not Paizo fault or whatever their 2E ends up being if fans cannot control their spending habits. That's like eating at mcdonalds all the time then complaining it's their fault that one gains weight or gets health problems.
Almost as bad as " I have to buy books because as a DM I can't say no to my players" argument. As if Paizo fault that they can't refuse player requests at the table Or is in the wrong for doing what successful rpg companies are supposed to do.
The problem about a rules compendium is if Paizo makes it a part of the official rules or not. If they do fans might complain about power creep, rules bloat or Paizo trying to make money off of them with a new book. They make the rules unofficial and fans will complain that they are not as well as the same arguments above. I'm glad I don't design rpgs. We gamers just don't know what we want.
I would be very surprised if in a new or slightly updated edition there will be no reprints. They reprinted stuff like VOP and other rules from 3.5. Not entire books yet they did. Again it needs to be repeated Paizo is and never was a non-profit organization. They created the company to work on a product they enjoy as well as to make a profit off it. No one at least the smart entrepreneurs start a company without the intention of it making money at some point.
I don't understand the logic. Paizo can release either a new edition or a slighlty tweaked one. Yet they can't do anything new or innovative or different that envolves anyone spending a single extra penny. Or thy threathen a boycott. So Paizo has to invest time in playtesting, printing and paying employees etc. Yet they can't be expected to profit from it. That's crazy and insane. One might as well ask the Paizo employees to work for free. I'm sure their starving families and piles of bills that add up will thank you for it.
Both postiions on the topic should be heard in this thread. Both from those who want to see change and those who do not. I respect thgose who do not want to see anything changed. Allow those who do the right to post what they want to see changed. Without all the doom and gloom pity parade hyperbole
Yet I'm assuming the same thing was said by 2e players about the changes in 3E. I don't think that rehashed edition with new cover and interior art will sell this time around. With gamers having access to 3.5 and PF paizo will need something new to make players try a future edition. In the end gamers complain about a rpg not having enopugh changes or too much changes. It's a catch-22. Damed if you do and damned if you don't.
At the same time we as fans can't assume that something new will mean the doom of D&D either.
You do realize that no one is forcing you to buy anything right. Or be happy about it. Paizo should not be held hostage to fans who don't want anything changed. I'm not saying it had to be different like 4E. I'm not wasting money on rehash with new cover art because if tradition or a fear if change. I'm done with paizo if they don't at least include some new material. Why do some fans automatically assume the worst.
There are plenty of versions of D&D for those who don't want anything to change that can still be played.
I echo the general sentiment of wanting to see SC return. I get that they possibly want to make a newer system. Yet imo they should do a PF version. More of a fanbase with fans who liked the 3.5 version. Myself I don't disallow 3.5 material. Just to lazy to convert. So if someone else can do the converting for me so much the better.
No one is saying money is not a factor. Except paizo is not a non/ profit organization. It's just that to me at least that their seems to be a misconception that any company trying to make a profit=bad. A company can't very well keep taking a loss in profit. Simply because buying another edition might be expensive for some of the fanbase. Which with the online srd is really not going to be a issue. With it bring free.
Dammit Pan you made some good and logical points. I see why the rules are different. Still I do think imo everyone should use the same set of rules.
If Wotc can manage to produce a edition that is modular it would imo put them ahead of their competition. Espcially if they produce products without stats. With the ability to then download stats from their site as needed depending on the edition being played.
Either in a blog or the core book for a 2E or 1.5 admit that one of their goals is to make money and a profitable edition. To silence one and for all the gamers in the hobby that seem to think that profit=bad. How and what exactly are they supposed to pay their employees with. Or pay rent. Or publish the new books like the APG and the ARG. Do you think JJ or anyone else that works for Paizo is loosing sleep because they publish a profitable edition of a rpg. As for the whole computer, rpg, car companies that make new product equals scam naive line of reasoning. Well I hope that your still driving a car that is at least five years old and a use a cellphone just as old. Otherwise you just lost any moral high ground. Accusing a company of scamming anyone while driving a newer model of car. With a Ipad 2 or 3 tucked under one arm. A Iphone 5S attached at your hip is being not only a hypocrite. As far as I'm concerned a poster child of hypocrites.
Crafting. The game attempts to emulate crafting in terms of how long it actually took to make a suit of armor. D&D is not a historical accurate rpg. With ways to reduce the time with feats and magic no reason why anything espcially regular items should take so long to build. If I was playing Ars Magica it would make sense not D&D. It's alos ot worth crafting anything because the amount of time it takes vs the amount of GP is imo hardly worth it. Same thing with skills. Make 12 ranks in Bluff count for something more than just a better chance to bluff. Give me more options the more skill points I spend in a skill. Faster to bluff someone. Easier to bluff a group or in combat. Bluff a group of people etc.
Giving certain weapons better advantages such as guns. Guns historically changed the face of the battlefield once they were safer and easier to use. So did bows then crossbows. If one weapon gets to target something other than regular AC it has to be done across the board to other approriate weapons.
I'm firmly in the camp that martials deserve nice things. I'm not asking for them to be the equal of casters. I do think that Fighter at least need a upgrade. Before anyone says "no you can't that breaks the immersion of the game". Why is it okay for Wizards and to a lesser extent clerics and druids to bend the laws of reality to their will. Yet seeing a Fighter leap from roof to roof like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon suddenly involve a loss of immersion.
Feats. Fix Feats. No feat taxes. If I have to take sunder and improved sunder I want more than just a lack of AOO as a benefit. Have the improved version give a character a better chance to sunder. Stuff like prone shooter should not be a feat. Make them scale like spells over time. Another reason I don't play Fighters is because the bread and butter feats are just so damn boring. Yay dodge gives a +1 to
While I despise Vanacian Casting I see why it needs to be in the game. I never liked and still don't liek the reasons given about casters forgetting spells. No reason they can't offer it and other optional casting systems side by side like spell points.
Alignments keep them as well. I want to see in point form what I can do with a alignment. Not some vague generalization that really says everything and nothing at all. Can I attack a enemy by suprose I wan a yes or no answer. Can I steal something from someone else I want a yes or no answer. THe Palladium set of rules has it's issues. It's the only alignment system where I never ever had trouble at the table. As well classes dependent on alignment like Paladins should have the option of being lawful good or not. No it's not going to ruin the game either. Nor do care about tradition. I have seen here and elsewhere where DMs allow players to take the alignment of their gods. THe hobby has not ended overnight and it never will.
Home games, society and tournament games all should use the same rules. I don't like how PF society uses one set and my game another. I never understand and never will why they are different.
Errata should be fixed at the source. Not just by the fans. No reason why Paizo can't first do errata nbefore asking the fans to do it. We truly don't need another repeat of the Great Crane Wing Fiasco of 2014.
Whatever the edition to be created It must have all levels of play in mind from the start. No releasing lwevles 1-20 then 5 years later Mythic levels. Espcially if 5E allows all elves wit the core.
Give the DM and players ways to reward thinking outside of the box. In yesterdays game. I l jumped off the roof the hut to attack a Vrock. It was either do that. Or make a hole in a stone hut or climb done. Instea all I ended up doing was getting a AOO. For doing something cool and courageous. Sure the DM could have given me a bonus yet again the system imo does not reward outside of the box thinking. In a newer edition that imo truly needs to change.
A release date of withing the next 10 years or so. Not 2045. I'm going to be 70 or 80 by then. I probably will no longer be playing rpgs at that age. And seriously guys 2045. Why not when Buck Rogers body is found frozen in space.
Lastly I need more than just a rehash with new cover art to get me to buy any other edition of PF. Already some in the hobby refuse to play the current version thinking it just 3.5. with house rules. I don't see a 1.5 with little or no changes doing that well with fans able to just from 3.5., and PF 1E
That's the beauty of it though. One does not have to switch to the lastest version of one does not want to. Sometimes rules can only be kept unchanged for so long before fans stop buying and move on to other systems. Palladium Books is a good example. They used to be in the top ten alongside Wotc and White wolf. They refuse to implement major changes. With the result that they fans moved on to other rpgs. I get the point about too much change driving away the fanbase. Not enough changes can do the same thing. Mind you then one has to buy as many books as possible. If you wait too long buying books for a older version can get expensive.
CoC needed some newer material. Only so many times a company can rehash the same system. As well they face competion from Realms and Trails of f Cthulhu. The same rules with new cover art were just not going to cut it this time around.
For me to get a PF 1.5 it would need major or if not major significant changes. As again I will not be buying a rehashed set of rules with new cover art. People mention backwards compability imo that ship has sailed for the most part. DMs who called long and loud for material from 3.5. to be used in PF are now probably the sames ones going "PF and only PF material at table and nothing else". So while some want to use previous material most imo do not. I'm not saying making the current material incompitable. I want a 1.5 goals to be more than just a cosmetic change. As well Paizo is a business not a charity or a no-profit. They need to make a profit to survive as well. If the current version of the rules no longer makes them a profit they can't keep publishing the same ones at a loss just to make some of the fanbase happy.
@Snorter I'm not saying don't defend yourself on the boards. Reference the posts not the poster. I have been having discussions with
Thanks for the open mind Memorax. That's all we're asking, that you keep mechanics with mechanics (including social skill checks) and leave roleplay with roleplay.
Sometimes one can disagree with someone else and still be part of the hobby. While engaging online and real life debates. Or that sometimes I might be wrong and need to admit that. I'm 40 years old The days of me engaging in a endless "I'm right your wrong. No your wrong I'm right" are behind me.
The beta is old news lets not get into that again.