Dr Lucky

pming's page

266 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 266 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Hiya.

SmiloDan wrote:
I appreciate all of that, 2097, but I miss weapons having special features (besides reach and finesse), so I thought having it be a feat would bring some of those interesting features back for those who want them, but still having the baseline weapons be relatively simple. The Shove action in combat is great for bull-rushing and tripping, but (I think) there should be a way for specially trained folk to do special things. I also like that baseline characters can try (and succeed!) at all sorts of special maneuvers.

I'd make use of the Advantage/Disadvantage system FAR more than adding/subtracting bonuses....as the Adv/Dis system was designed to get away from that kind of "death by numbers" mentality.

In any 5e game I run, if someone wanted to try something specific with a weapon, I'd look at what they were trying to do and if it was an attempt to "negate" something in the game. In the flail example, well, flails were designed to get around shields. I'd rule that *anyone* could try and use it that way. I'd simply have them roll at Disadvantage. Now, for a Feat...I'd simply word it so that it got around the Disadvantage aspect of trying that "trick". Many other feats do it this way, why not continue the pattern? For example, Crossbow Expert allows you to shoot someone who is in melee with you using your regular attack...not at Disadvantage as everyone else would have to do. So, a "Flail Expert" might allow the user to "Attack around cover or a shield without rolling at Disadvantage". This doesn't "add" anything to the rules, it simply uses the rules that are already there in a slightly different way.

One thing I hope they (5e developers) continue to do is stick to their guns with regards to "bloating the system". Bloat is bad. Don't give things that "break" the Basic Rules, and don't simply tack on a bonus number. The numbers thing is a horrible way to go, because after a very short while, a munchkin player will be able to pick a class, race, feat and arch-type and by level 4 or 5 have something like "Attack: +19 to hit (+2, +4, +1, +1, +5, +2, +3, +1) because they took "the right class/race/feat combo". Better to have them with "Attack: +7", but have 3 special things they can do without Disadvantage (or that they can do with Advantage).

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

dariusu wrote:
It goes off of total level for all of them. That character casts all of his cantrips as a 20th level character.

Nope. Re-read the info on Multiclassing on page 164 (?) of the PHB. Basically, it's kinda convoluted. The Wizard and Cleric add together, and you get 1/3rd of your Fighter level (rounding down...so 1 level). This gives you a "Level 10 Multiclassed Spellcaster" (there's a table for it in the Multiclass section that tells you how many Spell Slots you get). The level at which you cast the spell, I believe, is the actual level of the class you have (in other words, 5th for Wizard, and 4th for Cleric). The Warlock is the fly in the ointment; They have "Pact Magic", and there are rules for that in the Multiclassing section as well.

As I said...convoluted.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hiya.

(semi-OT: If you want to watch a movie about what an *actual* D&D game session is like...go watch Your Highness. Best dang D&D movie ever, IMNSHO. :) )

^_^

Paul L. Ming


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hiya.

Snorter wrote:


As someone who's always aimed to play this way in every edition...I don't see how the new rules promote this.
What am I missing?

Granted, I've only read the Starter set, not the online rules or PHB, but what I've read would actually discourage this kind of descriptive approach.
Players make more effort with descriptions, when they believe they will be rewarded for doing so (a +1 here, a +1 there, the distraction allows for a stealth roll in the first place).
The rules I've seen, there's no reward for going the extra yard.
Any advantage beyond one, unopposed advantage is a waste of effort.
You can have advantage for the sack. OR the soot. OR the shadows. OR the slow approach. OR for having Stealth as a trained skill.
You got one, or you got all? Same difference.
And if the target is trained in Perception, or has any situational advantage whatsoever, the whole description is for nothing, whether you had one benefit, two, or a dozen. All cancelled out.

Given that any PC who intends to be stealthy, such as Rogue or Ranger, will automatically get 1 instance of advantage from their class...why bother trying for more?

What am I missing?

I think you're looking at it as a binary thing. It isn't. The thrust of 5e's rule set hinges squarely on the DM's adjudication role in the game. All through the rules are little blurbs mentioning "talk to your DM", "ask your DM if he's using this", "your DM may do something else", etc. This kind of "loosey-goosey" wording isn't for everybody; people who want to see absolutes in an RPG will likely find 5e's general tone undesirable. So it's not that you can have advantage for the sack, OR the soot, OR the shadows, etc. The DM takes the whole thing, not trying to break it down into "bonuses", and then decides if the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. If he does, he may give Advantage...if he doesn't, then you don't get Advantage. He may opt for something in between...not giving Advantage, but giving you a +1 or maybe +2 on your roll. It's all about the current in-game situation and what "feels right for everybody". As I said...loosey-goosey.

As for the Rogue or Ranger "automatically get 1 instance"...you may get a bonus too. You can have both, but again, it's up to the DM to adjudicate this kind of thing.

All that said...one thing I for certain; the 5e rules play quite different from what they read. I, and my group, were all completely surprised that we actually liked 5e. We all have between 15 and 34 years of RPG experience each, and so we're pretty good at reading a rule book and noticing things we won't likely enjoy or think will "work" for us. We were reluctant at 5e. But, me and two players had about half-hour to kill before the other players arrived for our normal game, so I whipped out the Starter Set, they chose a pre-gen (halfling rogue and human fighter (archer)), and they found themselves on the Triboar Trail on their way to Phandalin. We only played for about 20 minutes. But in that 20 minutes, the game's ease of play and quickness of resolution made a *big* impression on us. Nobody was 'worried' about getting a rule wrong. Nobody was concerned about how something was specifically worded. The focus was on the intent of the rule, not the letter of it. All in all, the next session we played 5e as a full group. We've been playing it every weekend since. To us, 5e flows naturally and frees up everyones mind to focus on the campaign setting, the story, the role-playing, and all that other stuff without constantly thinking of math and specifically worded bonuses. In that sense it has lead to much more player involvement and description of action.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hiya.

Terquem wrote:

Have you ever run a game set in an above ground ruin? With partial walls about three feet high, you know you describe this to the players and they are like, "meh, okay, so put the grid down and let's fight the monsters," right?

So last weekend I ran an off the cuff improvised 5e game for two players, playing a Bard (Charlatan) and a Wizard (Hermit)and these two fellows were attacked by grindylows in a watery ruin. A couple of the grindylows scrambled up the ruined wall and attacked the characters with spears from an elevated position.

What happened next warmed my aging heart. The players started asking specific questions about the walls, where they were broken, crumbling, how they could get up on the walls and get in on that advantage nonsense. Having this new mechanic, brought these players into the game in ways that Pathfinder never did (and they both are veteran Pathfinder players)

I'm not sure where I related this before, but yeah, same thing happening here. In stead of:

DM: You see Merchant Filder talking with a town watch Sargent about 50' away at the opening of the street into the alleyway you are hiding in. He looks around, places some coin in the watchman's palm and they continue whispering.

Player: I Sneak down...got a 19. Did I do it?

...in stead of that, I now have this...:

DM: You see Merchant Filder talking with a town watch Sargent about 50' away at the opening of the street into the alleyway you are hiding in. He looks around, places some coin in the watchman's palm and they continue whispering.

Player: What's around me? Are there piles of refuse? Garbage, crates, that kind of thing? I'll take some soot and cover my face, arms, and shiny metal bits on my armor and stuff...weapon blade, belt buckle, etc. Is there something I can carry in front of me...like maybe an old potato sack?

DM: Yes, lots of shadows and refuse in the ally. You paint yourself up and hold the potato sack in front of you as you creep forward...roll a Stealth with Advantage. :D

Basically, my players are FAR more engaged in their characters surroundings and what is actually going on in the imagination realm. They are much less involved in flipping through umpteen books to try and find "bonuses" to add together.

After our first month and a half of 5e...I can honestly say we will never be going back to Pathfinder (or any "d20" style game, really). Not that we were ever big fans of them, but 5e sealed the coffin of d20-style games for us.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

Charlie D. wrote:

We are playing D&D 5E at 15th level. The party has a barbarian, cleric, paladin, ranger/rogue (arcane trickster), and wizard.

The wizard does fire off some attack spells. He has also cast haste and invisibility on others. He had his familiar fly up to a cloud castle to get a rock so he could teleport the group up safely. Blink is a favorite defensive spell to cast that can him completely off the battlefield.

**snip**

Teleport is a good example. Without thinking to send his familiar up to grab a rock, the spell can misfire. The spell in a vacuum isn't an instant win or a instant problem solver.

I'd just like to add a bit here. If I was DM'ing, I would not have let "a rock" qualify. If you read the description of Teleport, it mentions "Associated Object" and gives examples. It is the examples that are most telling; "..a book from a wizard's library, bed linen from a royal suite, or a chunk of marble from a lich's secret tomb". Those are all significant items...not just "a rock". The item should be just that "significant" to the area. For the cloud castle thing...I probably would have required something a bit more specific...say, a key to one of the doors in the castle, for example.

Of course, thats me. :)

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

Haven't played very high level yet, but so far (with a cleric, sorcerer and wizard) in the group...everything is running just fine.

The feeling we are getting is that casters tend to rely a bit more on thinking outside the box for what to do. I'm finding that the players are taking more time and expending more effort on what is actually happening in the current situation/round than they are pouring over the books trying to find the next spell to cast. I get the feeling it's because of the 'free' cantrips; the players are just playing the game, and if some situation pops up during the round that makes them think "This would be the perfect opportunity to cast sleep!", they take advantage of it. I guess it kinda boils down to a bit more resource-management in terms of spells. With the way AC and Damage is now, the casters are more likely to try and contribute something to the combat that isn't just a spell...mainly because they generally have a decent chance to do it (as opposed to a 3.x/PF/4e style game where a non-caster's to hit chance is so far outclassed by the likely defenses of his opponent as to make any choice other than 'I cast a spell', pointless).

Spells are turning out to be very 0e/1e in terms of effectiveness. They may not work all the time, but when they do...boy, are they useful! :)

As for "artillery casters". Maybe at higher level it will start to become more noticeable, but I don't think it will ever be a "thing". The bounded accuracy thing is really helping with keeping the numbers down...which in turn is keeping player engagement high; nobody is searching through books looking for some way to get another couple bonuses to hit, or some tricky means of getting an AoO, etc. The players are playing the game, without worrying about how the mechanics are going to work. I see 'artillery' style spells being used similar to just that; fire off a big spell in the first round, then move on to more precise stuff.

PS: As for the magic items thing...I don't see any magic items really showing up that "break" the rules. From what I read, and how the game plays now, I think magic items will be more along the lines of allowing a better, or more-often style ability use (re: "recover 1 spell slot per character level after a short rest", or "gives disadvantage to saves against all fire-based spells the caster casts for the day", etc.). I don't think they'll be putting out things that allow "the caster can concentrate on one extra spell at a time", or "the wizard may prepare an extra 9 spell levels worth of spells". Those two things would directly unbalance the rules; the former examples just 'add to' the rules. Big difference...break vs. add. :)

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

Well, as the OP, I'm going to have to say "Sorry for riling everyone up, no hard feelings".

I still am not convinced of the problem, mainly because I've never experienced it, and the examples I read sounded like the explanation of why spellcasters were over powered was because they can cast spells and non-spellcasters can't.

I agree some spells are overpowered (to some degree), and the perfect spell used in the right situation can easily change the course of an adventure/campaign/story/etc. However, that doesn't, in my eyes, make them "overpowering".

Like the other two or three folks on here who have never encountered this problem, I don't think we will ever really "get it" or "see it" until we get in on a game where we see it happening. I guess it's kind of like someone trying to explain how some strange creature looked...fifty people may describe the same thing, but the 3 people who haven't might not be able to fully grasp just what that strange creature actually looks like until they see it for themselves.

Thanks for the replies at any rate. It definitely gave me a few ideas on what to keep my eye out for in future PF games I run.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

Bob Bob Bob wrote:

Alright, time to take the bait.

**snip**
I'm not seeing anything here a martial can do that's similar without an epic survival check, though I guess Deflect Arrows might count as a smaller portion of Wind Wall.

Uh, what does a martial based class have to do with a spellcaster casting spells? Just because one class can't do something another can doesn't mean that it is "more powerful".

I'm getting the distinct impression that I'm old here... Are there any other players/GM's that have been playing D&D for, oh, lets set the bar lowish at 20 years that see the "spellcasters = win" thing?

I read all the spells Bob Bob Bob posted, and I see...spells. I don't see *any* game breaking things going on whatsoever.

^_^

Paul L. Ming (the even more confused now...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hiya.

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Last session of D&D.

Our APL 8 party took on 3 CR 9 Demons and a CR 13 Glazrebeau.
*snip*

Glitterdust. Great spell. Definitly helped even the odds. Exactly what a spellcaster is supposed to do. That, however, doesn't mean he "dominated" the encounter. He helped. *shrug*

Grease. Range 25' + 5'/2 levels. At level 9, you're looking at a range of 45'. If you were at the base of the "cliff", it couldn't be higher than 45' (assuming your GM lets you target spells to an area you can't actually see...). If you were, say, 20' away from that 40' cliff...you were out of range. I'm thinking your GM dropped the ball here, or we don't have enough info.
Also, I'm assuming those dancing demons were all size S or T? Because if they were M, they'd have to be holding hands. If size L, you'd only be able to get 1 of them. Max.
Lastly, if we are talking Vrocks (which I think we are...they are Size L, so only 1...but for sake of argument...), nowhere in the description of the Dance of Ruin does it say they have to be on the ground. They should have just flown up and did their aerial dance version.

Lucky your GM wan't paying attention... ;)

^_^

Paul L. Ming


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hiya.

cnetarian wrote:

A level 1 sorc with the color spray spell, which can usually affect at least 3 opponents and often end a combat by itself, takes an opponent out if they don't save. Compare to a level 1 fighter who, during the time it takes the sorc to cast color spray, can make one attack, which is more likely to miss than the sorc be saved against, and might do enough damage to take the opponent out of combat. Sure the sorc can only this around 4 times/day but that just encourages the party to stop after the sorc has blown his load.

Color spray, end encounter. Great. Two rounds later the ogre 'brute' in the next room comes to investigate. Now what? Another color spray? Ok. So, you've taken out the first 'guard room' of the complex. The bad guys will change guards or at least come to check up on them in...at most, say 2 hours. So, you have 2 hours to run away. Or continue on deeper into the Dungeon of the Iron Master so that you can rescue the merchants wife and kids before they are cooked and eaten in 5 or 6 hours. Yeah...hmmm....

;)

This is the sort of "proof" I get all the time. It's proof of one thing; a wizards spells are powerful. That's it. It doesn't prove that they somehow are "better than everyone else at everything". More diverse? Sure! Capable of 'ending' an encounter in one or two spells? Sure! But when pressed to actually "adventure" with everyone else...I still don't see it.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

Bandw2 wrote:


no what happens is people aren't able to accurate relate 30 ft when the game is scaled down an arbitrary amount for figurines. people might think 30 ft is bigger if they don't have a grid, or smaller, and this applies to GMs as well. hence, the GM will have to think out arbitrarily whether or not people are actually within 30/whatever ft of the target, because there is no set scale.

This actually makes a lot of sense. My wife, for example, has difficulty estimating distances. Something that is 30' away, she'll say is 50', for example.

Nice catch! :)

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

Chengar Qordath wrote:


In my experience, when it's all pure imagination most AoE spells/effects only hit as many enemies as the GM thinks would be reasonable for keeping the encounter balanced/interesting. When there's a map, a single well-placed battlefield control spell can easily turn an encounter into mop-up. Without one, no matter how big the spells AoE, how well it's placed, and how restrictive the terrain is, the GM can easily get away with "You hit two of them, and one makes his save the rest just around it."

Then all I'd have to say to that is...you need to find GM's of a higher quality. A GM should never, IMHO and IME, "arbitrarily decide" stuff just to make an encounter more challenging or easier. That is NOT the GM's job whilst the game is in play. A GM should only adjust the easy/hard scale as appropriate to the situation and combatants in game. As I said in another post, stupid creatures should do stupid things, smart ones should do smart things. Just running baddies as nothing more than AC/HP statblocks sucks almost all of the thrill out of an RPG combat encounter.

This does (the grid thing), however, raise another question. Are more modern-day players simply less capable of imagining a situation in their head? I don't mean that as an insult or anything, simply an observation. Maybe growing up with uber-realistic video games, nigh-perfect 3d in movies, etc has caused some folks to rely more on visual representation than verbal? Showing a 3d rendering of the entrance to a dungeon to some players, and then describing it to other players....would all players be able to recall what the entrance of the dungeon looked like? How different would the descriptions be? Hmmm....would be interesting to find out!

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

@thejeff

What were they doing? Generally, trying to cover aspects that the other PC's in the group didn't. If we had a lot of damage-dealing types, the wizard/sorcerer/cleric/whatever would focus on spells for stuff other than dealing damage. In our games, we don't coddle players or their characters. If a group gets some bad dice rolls and makes a couple of ill-thought out decisions...we do as Gary would; let the dice fall where they may. This means that we tend (well, use to...of late my players have started to make very "independent" type PC's, not very 'group oriented') to have well-rounded groups.

I think Craft (magic item) has only really happened a handful of times, and only with the simple things (potions and scrolls). We don't use the "Magic Shoppe"...never have, never will, so "perfectly customized items and spells" isn't going to happen. In short, we pretty much play with the assumption that nothing is assumed. ;)

Now, we have had effective spellcasters; they excelled at what they did...cast spells. However, at no point were other PC's rendered impotent as far as contribution to the game. If a wizard can cast a spell that destroys an entire encounter...great! That's what a wizard is supposed to do. This just allows the party an opportunity to get closer to the BBEG without expending other resources. However, we have NEVER had a spellcaster be able to finish/complete an adventure "all on his own". There is simply no way that would happen. He may get close, but after that, without anyone else to protect him, he's a gonner.

I'm thinking that many people look at PC "balance" as simply level-to-level and situation-to-situation. When you look at the power of a spellcaster over a 2-year long campaign...we've never seen the "spellcaster = win" thing play out. Ever.

Earlier, @Bandw2 said basically, any situation you give can be handled by a prepared wizard better than a prepared martial..

I think this is the most succinct thing I've ever heard to describe what's going on. However, I don't think "better" is the appropriate word. I would use the words "in more ways". That I'd have no trouble swallowing.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Hiya.

Blueskier wrote:
The grid is RAW and RAI. if using your imagination leads to less mooks being trapped by AOE effects then the imagination is working against the caster in an unsupported by the rules kind of way. My point is casters seem sucky in the op's table because they are going out of their way to make them so (not that there is anything wrong, have fun any way you like, etc).

From my reading "5'" and "square" are the same thing as far as the RAW. What I see is that "if you are using a grid, we assume 5' per square". Movement rates are stated in feet. Spells use "feet", not squares. Weapons have ranges in feet, and Reach listed in feet, not squares. So, basically, using "squares" is an option for those who want to use miniatures. It is, to my reading, NOT "required"...so saying that "imagination is working against the caster in an unsupported by the rules kind of way" is outright incorrect.

The reason why we don't see the "uber-caster" syndrome is still kind of a mystery to me. I'm guessing that our play style may be the reason, but as I said, one player still insists wizards rule.

Artemis mentioned the "15-minute work day" (re; when the caster(s) get out of spells, they rest)...and his contention that it's a GM problem has a deafening ring of truth to it. If a PF GM basically just sits there on their side of the screen and does nothing more than roll for monsters and read boxed text, treating the actual world in which the PC's inhabit as nothing more than a static backdrop...yeah, I guess I can easily see spellcasters as being seen as "overpowering". But that's not a rule-problem; that's a "GM doesn't know how to actually GM" thing.

I agree with Artemis's post. Players who expect the world to revolve around their 'heroic characters', with little or no consequences for their actions, deserve exactly what they get (and in my game, that frequently means TPK's). A hill giant should make stupid tactical decisions and have no idea how to cope with even simple battlefield control (re: throwing down a bunch of caltrops); hill giants are stupid, and a DM should play them that way. Likewise, a group of bandits should be about as average as anyone else; maybe not tactical genius's, but smart enough to adapt to 'typical' battlefield situations. And a storm giant should have multiple ways to deal with many battlefield situations, mundane and magical. If monsters are played with as much intelligence and forethought as your typical computer RPG mook/BBEG is...no wonder "spellcasters = win".

*sigh* I think I'm just going to have to accept that I'll just never "get it". I searched threads, read a ton about this phenomenon, and they all seem to say the same thing "If *this* is the situation, here's how wizards win...but if *this* is the situation, then here is how wizards win....and if the situation happens to be *this*, then here is how they win". Great, but those are individual single-special-situations that have, IMHO, absolutely NO bearing on how an actual game session/campaign plays out. Running away from a battle that goes badly for you is probably a good thing....just don't expect those bandits or the storm giant to sit around waiting for you to come back fully healed and prepared...

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

Ok, someone in another thread said:

Pretty much every time I see someone talk about pathfinder, and every time I play it, I find that pretty much every martial class lags behind spellcasters.

Can somebody please, for the love of [insert favored deity here] explain this to me and my group? We played 3.5e for about two years, and gave PF a shot as well (another 8 months or so; we still try it every now and then), and only ONE of us (group of about 9 total) stands by the "spellcasters = win" idea. He's attempted to 'proove' it to us, but ever time he tries he's using "perfect, single situations" to do it...never being able to back it up when we toss in normal, every-day campaigning situations at him.

So, using ONLY THE CORE RULES (we don't use any of the other, er, 'stuff'), does the "spellcasters = win" thing still stand? How?

Every time we played 3.x/PF, spellcasters either were average with everyone else or just outright *sucked* compared to a martial-based character. The only thing I can conclude is that our "1e AD&D Style" of play is some sort of natural "power balancer".

PS: We also don't use a grid; we just use that thing called an imagination, and sometimes a blank sheet of paper with dots and whatnot to indicate approximate overview of a particularly detailed battle...if that makes any difference.

[EDIT: I just thought of something; I actually do think it's our 1e AD&D style that 'fixes' it. We use the campaign world to dictate what rules we use....we don't use the rules to dictate what the campaign world is. For example: A town on the front line between two warring lords...the [u]rules[/u] say it should have 3d4 Minor and 1d6 Medium magic items available...but "campaign common sense" would dictate that should be reduced to pretty much 0 and 0, as all magic is likely to have been bought/used. That's just one example, but it applies to pretty much everything in our campaign; if it doesn't make sense, we ignore it...even if the RAW says otherwise. Maybe this is significant enough a factor? }

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

pres man wrote:


What kind of armor, by the way, only has arms and limbs covered and not the torso? I'm just wondering so that I can perhaps combine it with a breastplate armor for my character and get twice the armor bonus.

The answer is: Someone who want everyone to focus attention on one area to attack. Kind of like how, as some have surmised, Batman has a big yellow ellipse with a black bat-symbol right in the center of his chest. It draws the bad guys attention to it, so when they see a "moving shadow" out of the corner of their eye and then turn their head...they see the yellow ellipse and shoot for it. Which, obviously, has the best armor protection.

With Crowe, same thing but in D&D terms. Y'see, Crowe obviously wants people to try and stab him in the chest/abdomen. It's all a ruse, however, as Crowes player hides all Crowes HP's in his arms and legs. ;)

^_^

Paul L. Ming


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hiya.

Zalman wrote:

I miss the Olde Days, when no maps were drawn on the table at all, all descriptions were verbal, and a character had to explicitly carry ink, quills, and parchment to create their own map as they went, or risk being hopelessly lost. Descriptions took the form of:

Player: I look right, into the archway, what do I see?
GM: A stone corridor, 30' on the right, 40' on the left, corner right. There is a stone door on the left-hand side of the corridor, 20' away.

etc ...

Players who lost their mapping equipment would still receive the verbal instructions, but were forbidden from recording them. At the end of the dungeon, the players were left with their own replica of the GM's map, which we'd then compare, for fun.

What's this talk of "Olde Days"? When I first started reading this thread I was confused for the first half-dozen posts...then I figured everyone *must* be talking about "1-inch/5' 'squares' for miniatures" type maps. o_O Is this really the norm? Do most people play with mini's on big-@$$ maps? (I feel so old!)

I (er, we, my group and I) have pretty much never really done this. I have used a smallish whiteboard, with tokens, mini's, or whatever. But we found it more of a hassle than a boon. Besides, at the end of the adventure, the player(s) have a map that they drew themselves...with their own notes, scribbles and whatnot as well. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, is cooler than seeing a player whip out a binder with a hundred-odd pages of notes, maps, scribbles, drawings, handouts, etc. for his 14th level character that he's been playing for 4 years. To be able to look back at where the character has come from and where he is now, with all the accompanying paperwork to show...it's, well, it's really frickin' cool is what it is.

Yeah, we may be old, but the old way is the best way, IMHO. You can keep your digital-projected, full-color, blown-up, miniature-friendly maps...give me a fresh pad of graph paper, an HB pencil and a pink eraser any day of the week! :)

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

IMHO, if you want that "stealth experience" you'd be better off playing a game that has less rules/numbers. The MAJOR problem with PF is that it rewards "crunching the numbers" and can actually penalize "roleplaying". No matter how you describe how and with what your rogue is going to approach something, it will *always* boil down you your d20 roll vs. their d20 roll. If they have better numbers, they win; doesn't matter if your plan was virtually flawless, meticulously planned out, and executed with uncanny precision...if the DM doesn't give appropriately ridiculous bonuses, the dice decide; not you. Unfortunately most DM's of PF I've talked to don't really know how to actually "DM"...they know how to run a game (this is a whole other thread, so I'll leave it at that). They will look for a bajillion different modifiers through dozens of PF books they bought at the cheese-shop...but they won't just "make something up". If they can only find a total of +4 to your roll, that's all you'll get. They won't say "That plan is AMAZING!...that's +12 to your roll". So...you roll, he rolls. Who really cares how much thought/planning you put into it.

So...with regards to PF...I think you're looking for a game that isn't there. PF, like 3.5e, is ALL about the numbers and how many Feats you can bring to bare. Yes, groups can 'ignore' the numbers game and play more loosy-goosy ...but all it takes is ONE small incident in the campaign and BAM! The numbers race is on.

I suggest going with a different, more open-ended RPG (just about any retro-cloned D&D version will work, really; Labyrinth Lord, Dark Dungeons, Swords & Wizardry, Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea, etc.). What your character can do is what you describe your character doing, and your DM giving you a chance to do it. Rules are definitely guidelines because theres usually not much 'number crunching' needed. (re: "Test of Dexterity" covers pretty much anything nimble/sneaky like; DM gives +/- based on you, the player, describing what and how you are doing something).

Sorry for the long post there. The numbers-focus thing about PF is one of my sore spots for this game system...

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

o_O

I guess my experience with PF is just so far out on the edge of what is considered "normal play" that I don't "get it". Admittedly, we've only played PF for roughly a year total (not continuous). I guess we are "on the fringe" for a couple reasons:

(1) We also use the core book and the Advanced Players Guide. Period. We don't allow, use, or need anything from any other source. So a "fetchling Umbral Sorcerer"...???

(2) My DM'ing style is definitely "old skool" (it's the only way I really know how...old dog, new tricks and all that...;). If the PC's start to infiltrate the Evil Cultist lair, then turn back half way through so they can "rest and stuff", well, chances are they will die quickly in their sleep. The bad guys don't just sit around waiting (unless they are dumb, of course); they pro-actively defend themselves. So, having all these cool powers and spells to bump-up "thief" skills *will* run out....when they do, you're left with a guy who can get his butt kicked the next combat (sorcerer) or a guy who can fight a bit and sneak a bit (but not nearly as good as the rogue can).

(3) Rogues have something called a "thieves guild". ;) That is a HUGE advantage for a rogue. When the brown stuff hits the spinning blades, and those Evil Cultists come looking for some payback...the sorcerer has...well, nobody (sans other PC's), and the bard as...uh, ditto. The rogue? An entire enclave of other thieves (and all their 'contacts'...like city officials, merchants, 'questionable' clerics/casters, etc).

Of course, if the group/DM focus on the Game aspect of RPG to the general exclusion of the RP part...well, yeah. I guess I can see Rogues "sucking". If you put a long distance runner against a 100m sprinter...in a 100m sprint, the long distance runner will loose pretty much every, single, time. Other way around, however...and it's a whole 'nuther ballgame. :)

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

Tels wrote:


No, I was looking to be able to use Snap Shot feats and the Stand Still feat to be able to 'control' my area by preventing people from moving past. Kind of like shooting at someones foot to stop them from moving, or nailing their cloak to the earth etc. I just thought it would be a fun and thematic little combination.

Uh...ask your DM? The rules, ALL OF THEM, are the baseline from which all DM adjudications are made. The rules are the _baseline_, they are not the _end-result_. If your DM thinks that's cool, yay you! If your DM think's it's cheese...well, there you go. If you're trying to get some rule to point to and say "Nuh-uhh! See! Rules says yes!", you could be in for a rude awakening (hint: the DM is always right...even when he goes directly against the rules!).

Personally? If I was your DM I'd just make up a new Feat and call it "Trick Shot: Pin Foe's Movement". Then toss on some requirements and write it out describing it's use for "pinning" an opponent to some surface (as per your description). So, once again, talk to your DM. :)

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

claudekennilol wrote:
I see a lot of posts implying that rogues aren't worth playing, why is that?

Because far too many people think of the MMORPG version of "rogue". In other words, "Rogue = the main damage-dealer in the party", and not the actual "D&D" RPG version of "rogue = thief who avoids combat, preferring to gain treasure via stealth, planning and patients".

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

...amateurs...

Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl. 1e AD&D. I was DM and the players managed to successfully screw themselves *royally*. They managed, through dumb luck, ill-placed spells, and party split up to pretty much bring the entire rift down on them. Luckily for me, my players at the time were smart little buggers, and worked together like a well-oiled killing machine. Somehow, they managed to barely survive (a few henchmen and many hirelings did not, but still...).

Anyway, I don't remember the number of rounds, but the fight itself lasted about 6 hours game time. And in AD&D, 6 hour real-time combat would be roughly 30 seconds to two or so minutes. I figure...150 rounds wouldn't be out of the question. And in AD&D, a round is a minute long...so the PC's were fighting, "in game", for roughly an 2 and a half hours! O_O

Crazy fight. Hellufun...but crazy. Odd turn out for that adventure. Pretty much did it "all" in one fight...afterwards there was only one thing left for the PC's to do; go through pockets and look for loose change. ;)

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

OPTION 1:

Grab an eraser and erase the "E" part of your "NE" alignment.
Continue playing as normal. You can probably get away with all the stuff you did before, but if they catch you, it's game over.

OPTION 2:

Tell the DM you want to make a new character and that your old NE fighter has wandered off to some far away land to visit his sick grandmother or something (evil people have families too!).

OPTION 3:

Buy some deadly poison and the first chance you get, poison and kill them in their sleep.
If/when they b!tc# and moan, point out that you are evil and that they, the players knew in advance you were evil and were going to carry that to their PC's, it was only fair that you could do the same thing...only you are EVIL and can kill them with impunity, not needing to "prove they are good" or something.
Rinse/repeat as necessary until they stop trying to make characters specifically designed to kill your character and your fun playing the game with him.
(NOTE: If they come up with some truly munchkin characters to kill you...switch characters on them; whip out some LG gnome wizard or something. Nothing says "Hi! I'm innocently naive, Good and in need of protection!" like one of those...especially played right. >:) ).

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

I ran this semi-recently (6 or so months ago it ended; lasted 6 or so months too). I set it in the River Kingdoms...'ish. I put it right at the 'border' between the SE River Kingdoms and Galt. I decided that Homlett had gone through several "changing of hands" over the years; some bandit guy claims it for a few years, then Galt tries to claim it "back", then it's left alone for a bit, etc. In the end, the River Kingdoms gave up because it was too far south, and Galt figured it was to far north to maintain. Homlett (and Nulb...but Nulb is more 'in' the RK) became a more or less independent town. The "friendly rivalry" between the worshipers of Shelyn (St.Cuthbert) and The Old Way (druidic) fits well into this area I found.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

Me, I'd really like to see an AP that doesn't take place over a dozen plus levels. I'd like to see an AP that goes from 1st to 5th. Or even 7th to 11th, or 5th to 10th, etc.

Location wise, I wouldn't say no to a well-made AP in Numeria. :)

^_^

Paul L. Ming


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hiya

Arch_Bishop wrote:
It's a complicated feature but when used right, can produce many and various effects and ,in many cases, way too effective ones. Given the right circumstances, a single "charm person" can turn around and change a whole adventure, important event, the outcome of an encounter etc.

*sigh* The game isn't about, specifically, a series of "encounters". It's about what story those series of encounters tell. Just because the story goes off in a different direction that the one the module/GM planned for doesn't mean the wizard suddenly "broke it". It's just a different story...and one that is usually more surprising than the original.

Quote:
Of course, experienced GMs know how to handle such things , via direct or indirect counters,conditions etc.

Experienced GM's know how to go with the flow and adapt to the story the *player characters* are writing. Inexperienced GM's are the ones that "handle" it by (usually) blatant manipulations that more or less force the story on the players and their campaigns. IME at any rate.

Quote:
Too much versatility squeezed in this mechanism and many spell descriptions leave space for potential ab-use.

Abuse? I can see "abuse detrimental to a particular GM's campaign", sure. For example, if a GM's campaign has 'mental affecting' spells as some sort of evil-never-to-be-used type thing, then spells like ESP, Telepathy, Dominate, Charm, etc. would likely be considered "abuse" if someone used them all the time.

Anyway, as for the original Q...we played 3.x for about a year (I'm still stunned we lasted that long!). During that time we found spellcasters (specifically arcane casters) to be woefully innefective. One player really tried to make a wizard that was overpowered...didnt' work. All that it took was one or two bad rolls and blammo...dead wizard. Eventually he did make a character that 'broke' the campaign; a half-golem/half-minotaur hulking hurler. Sick, sick, sick! At that point we stopped.

But it wasn't because magic was uber-powerful...it was the opposite; because magic-defenses became uber-powerful.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

Thanks for the advice guys...I'll have to dig into it all a bit but it looks good at first glance.

One thing I/we decided on was to nix the current XP system. Still using the advancement stuff...I think I'll use my old stand by; "Fast" for level 1 - 3; "Medium" for 4 - 6; and "Slow" for 7+ (if we ever get there...). I'm also using the Palladium Fantasy RPG XP rewards system. In it players receive XP for 'doing stuff' like "Clever, but futile, idea; 25xp", "Endangering the characters life to help others; 100 - 200 xp", "Killing or Subduing a Major menace; 75 - 100 xp", etc. In this system, it doesn't matter how weak or powerful an individual PC is in a group; it's the overall groups power level (and luck!) the determines how much XP an encounter is worth. So if the group totally walks over an encounter that should have been above their capability, they get less XP because it actually wasn't difficult. Likewise, if they get their butts handed to them and barely survive an encounter they should have had easily, they get more XP.

Anyway, I've got work to do. Thanks again for the suggestions! :)

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

revaar wrote:

Honestly, it seems like Pathfinder isn't your bag to GM. Simplifying monster blocks will be fine at lower levels, but once you hit 5th level and up, monsters start having fancy abilities and will just keep getting more the higher you get. The players will also be expecting and planning to counter these abilities. Just giving them HP blocks with an AC won't be very rewarding for them.

Maybe you should find a system that better suits your style? Check out Dungeon World and 13th Age. They might fit you better, since they are both much more free form.

Agreed, PF as is is not our cup-o-tea (all of us...not just me). That said, there is a reason for us playing it. My wife, without getting into too many details, had a rather nasty relapse of her MS. It affected the frontal lobe pretty badly...she forgot a LOT of stuff. Recovering, but will never fully recover. She really enjoyes RPG's, but knows her brain isn't up to what it used to be...we did play a lot of D&D style games (BECMI, Dark Dungeons, 1e, Pathfinder, etc...). She remembers "AC is how hard to hit the opponent", "Roll d?? for damage", "Roll d20 for saves", etc. And, with PF, it's simple for her to remember "Roll high...always".

Anyway, there are a lot of things we do like about PF...but none of us really agree on all of the things we like (e.g., one player HATES the way Feats are done...another loves it but HATES how multi-classing is done, etc.). So...we like a lot about PF. It is also dirt simple in terms of general mechanics for my wife to remember. It is a "version" of D&D, and we like that kind of base-adventuring premiss as a game (kill monsters, take their stuff, let a story develop from all that).

I already talked to my players about my simplification stuff on my end...they all thought it was just fine. We're all old farts (youngest is, I think, 31?...after that, its all high-30's, low-40's). Also, they trust me and know my DM'ing style. Apparently they like it because they've been gaming with me for between 12 and 28+ years). *smiles a bit, with warm-fuzzies filling my old heart* :)

I suppose, due to lack of replies, I'm going to have to do it all on my own. No worries. That's part of the fun of DM'ing anyway. :)

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

Ok, we played a game of Pathfinder last night (normally we're a BECMI/DarkDungeons/1eAD&D group). Anyway, I wasn't really looking forward to DM'ing it as the NPC and monster stat blocks make my eyes bleed. I don't have the desire nor the time to "master" the PF game to the point...all my mastery space it taken up by the aforementioned games.

We started the game; a cavalier, oracle (lore; healing), rogue and fighter. I made a bunch of random rolls and quickly ad-libbed the lead in. After a basic set up and hook, they set off to explore a ruined tower along the lake shore about 10-hours ride in order to see if an old guy went there to recover a specific book (army roster/muster book). Anyway, details not important...

...So they go to the ruins and head in. At this point I get that Oh, for the love of the gods, *why* did I agree to DMing this game system again?!?... feeling wash over me. I tell myself...Screw It! (tm)...and whip out my old "Dungeons & Dragons: Monster & Treasure Assortment" book (circa 1980), and two pages printed from Basic Set #1 that have a simple table to help a DM 'stock' a dungeon with monsters, treasure, traps and other wierdness. I start rolling after I scribble down numbers in the rooms of the Dysons Delve map I printed off of "Sir Aleisters Watchtower". First 10x10 room after the door...two d6 rolls indicate "Monster" and "Treasure". Roll %, "Orcs (2-5)".

...It is at this point that I decided to just "go with it" and not even bother looking up "orc" in the PF Beastiary I. I subtract the listed AD&D AC of 7 from 20 and get a PF AC of 13. I decide to use it's HD as a Saveing Throw, if it was needed (it wasn't). I keep the HP as is. I give them each 1 spear to throw and one make-shift club (1d4). Fight ensues, PC's win. Roll % for treasure....3x 100gp gems (!). Ok, whatever...I guess there's a reason for it which I may come up with later.

...anyway, the point is this; I've been toying with the idea of "drastically simplifying" monster/NPC stats when I DM Pathfinder. As a DM, I don't have the same restrictions as a player (obviously). I also don't have the luxury of focusing on a single set of stats, abilities, items, spells, etc. So...I need to simplify. I need to simplify a LOT!

Has anyone developed some uber-simple method of codifying a monsters stats? My preferred method of DM'ing is to have base guidelines, notes, and other 'loose ideas' for something and then fill in the blanks (re: wing-it) using all that point-form stuff as a sort of skeleton. Admittedly, I do have 30+ years of experience as DM, so it's not hard for me to do this without seriously throwing balance out of whack. That said, I do like/need some kind of skeletal structure on which to make logical choices and keep my game consistent. I'm going to write out a one-page 'template' with my "simple stats" info sometime tonight, but I'm looking for input from anyone who's already done this. So...ideas?

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

Or, for something really crazy, don't allow +#'s to damage. So that Gargantuan Abbyssal monstrosity doesn't do "3d6+15"...it does 3d6. An adult blue dragon's bite doesn't do "2d8+12", it does 2d8. And yes, the barbarian doing 1d12+14 now does 1d12.

Stronger, magical, or some other adjustment can be used for non-combat stuff, as usual (e.g., bonus to make a skill check or save). But, dropping the sometimes rediculous bonuses to damage would cut waaaaay down on rocket-tag.

*shrug* Just a thought.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

My suggestion is to tell the players the basic story outline about the Adventure Path. Seriously. If you are going to be running, say, Savage Tide...

Spoiler:
...just tell them the basic outline. For example:

"You all have lived in a big sea-side city called Sassarine. It's in the sub-tropics, basically. You guys get hired by a rich check named Lavinia who has problems with her nutty, probably evil, hedonistic, greedy brother. You do some basic pirate treasure hunting and find something really powerful. A lot of ship and ocean going adventure for a while, then you shipwreck on the Isle of Dread (where you were heading to anyway). Trek across it to a certain location, set up a town, do some exploring of the isle, etc. There's more pirates, some ancient temples and tombs, that kind of thing. Eventually you figure out that a major demon lord (or lords) are trying to destroy the world, basically, so you oppose them and fight the big bad Demon Lord at the end. So...sound fun? Wanna do that one?"

When I told my players they were uncomfortable at first. Then I explained...it's called an Adventure Path for a reason. I told them they had to basically "go along" with the story, at least try and stay around the edges. They thought about it, and agreed. When the blunt-force-story-hook-trauma to the head smacks you, don't fight it. Just go with it (e.g., Mystery Men scene with The Spleen is getting his leg humped by a skunk, and Invisible Boy says..."Don't worry. Just go with it."). When making characters, tell them to make guys they think would be good, knowing the basics of the AP...ships, water, wilderness survival, human/pirate fighting, demon hunting.

This took a HUGE load off my shoulders right away. I didn't have to worry about a player deciding to play a book-worm sage-type city boy mage who can't swim. Or a fighter specializing in heavy armor, sword and shield. Or a dwarven cleric of the god of the mountains who's afraid of water.

So, with AP's, give the players the "synopsis" of the "story". Think of it like a movie trailer. You're going to see a movie, and you know the general premiss and maybe have an idea about what's going to happen, but the trip along the way to the end is what you're paying to see. Think of an AP like that; a series of adventures with a more or less per-determined ending. Taken that way, you're players will thank you, and you'll likely find yourself a LOT less "controlling" because you won't have to be.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Edit: I just re-read that. Did I just equate AP's with having your leg dry-hummped by a skunk? ... ... That can't be good...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Hiya

Lemmy wrote:


Here's a build, you tell me if you'd really play it. So far, nobody has agreed that they'd do it, but it has awesome diplomacy and bluff and intimidate skills!

Human Level 5 Fighter
Str 18, Dex 10, Con 16, INT 7, WIS 7, CHA 7
SKills / Level : 2 (human + minimum)
Feats : Skill Focus (Diplomacy), Skill Focus (Intimidate), Skill Focus (Bluff), Persuasive
Favored Class Bonus (Skill points every level)
Skills : Diplomacy +8 (5 Ranks + 3 Focus +2 Persuasive - 2 Stat), Intimidate +11 (5 Ranks + 3 Focus + 3 Trained +2 Persuasive - 2 Stat), Bluff +9 (5 Ranks + 3 Focus + 3 Trained - 2 Stat)

Yes, no problem....he'd be a lot of fun...

Salvatore Kreegston. Grew up just at the edge of the 'bad side of town'. His father, Salvatore senior, was an ex-enforcer for the Galboni clan (a rough thieves guild), now he runs a (mostly) upstanding restaurant. After the birth of young Sal Jr., Sal Sr. was not going to have his son grow up the same as his old man. During his young teen years, however, the Galboni clan constantly tried to recruit young Sal. Due to his already impressive physical stature, even at age 16, Sal was good at the 'muscle' part. His father would have none of it, and forced Sal to learn how to resolve things through talking, not fighting (any trouble with the law that Sal Jr. had, ended up costing Sal Sr. *much* more then he could afford due to all the dirt the law held over him for his previous lifestyle). Sal Jr.'s lack of personal willpower and ego didn't let him stand up much to either 'side' (his fathers "learn how to talk it out with people, go legit" or the Galboni clans "learn how to knock out people, you'll go far"). The end result; Salvatore Jr. learned how to fight and was a natural...which was good, because he had no official training due to his fathers forceful teaching of the arts of the silver tongue. But at the same time, learned how to read people and tell them what they wanted to hear (or scare them into not asking in the first place). Now a young man, Sal has finally acquired the courage to strike out on his own. With no professional skill at much of anything, the high-risk, high-reward path of an adventurer seemed like the only choice. He is now searching for people he can trust, being smart enough to know he isn't smart enough to do it on his own.

Hmmm. Yup. Sounds like fun! :)

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

Wow.

Let see....I've run....

Age of Worms: (first three adventures) with...
* Powers & Perils
* Marvel Super Heroes Advanced
* The Arcanum
* * Converting it for use with Star Frontiers
* * Converting it for use with Gamma World 3rd Edition

Second Darkness (first 4 advantures):
* Pathfinder
* Dark Dungeons (BECMI/RC clone)
* * Converting to Gamma World 3rd Edition

Savage Tide (from first 2 to slightly more...:
* Fantasy Elements (my own RPG system)
* Dark Dungeons
* Call of Cthulhu

Kingmaker:
* Dark Dungeons
* Gamma World 3rd Edition
* Basic Role Playing System (Rune Quest II rules, basically)

So...yeah, for someone with multi-decades of GM'ing under my belt, converting any module to any system isn't a problem.

Paul


Hiya.

I'm right there with you, OP. We've *never* found casters to "win", then then again, we play with an eye towards simulation and story...so core book only, no taking X unless you can show your character had a chance to actually learn/acquire X, etc.

Casters have usually been balanced with everyone else, or slightly weaker IME.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

I primarily use "Dark Dungeons" (a BECMI/RC clone...look it up) for my Golarion campaigns. We tried to use the PF rules for the "Second Darkness" AP. With the PF rules, we all felt "rushed" through book one. It's like we *had* to do what we suspected we were supposed to, because if we didn't, we wouldn't have some particular piece of equipment, or have a certain amount of gold or XP. By switching to a different system altogether, it freed me, as DM, from trying to force stuff; I felt more able to just "wing it". The players also felt less constrained, knowing that their power level wasn't going to increase in leaps and bounds. So, the 2nd level fighter would have an extra 2d8 hp and +2 to hit by the time he hit 4th. That's it. All the other classes were basically the same. A *small* upgrade here and there every few levels (like a new spell level, or another weapon proficiency to improve with, etc.). We found the PF system "forced" us to think at least one or two levels ahead so that we would make sure we had the pre-req's for some skill, feat or PrC or Class. It took away from just outright enjoying the game and letting the story unfold naturally through the characters actions.

So...yeah. Dark Dungeons. :) I've also toyed with the idea of using the Rolemaster system. For some reason it seems like it'd fit fairly well...

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

IMHO, the main problem with fighters is how adventures/modules are written nowadays.

Go and pick up a BECMI or 1e AD&D module and run it as PF. When you have a dungeon with 30 rooms, and 20 of them have monsters/baddies in it...*and* you have a 1 in 6 chance of a random encounter every 10 minutes. Well, lets just say that the Fighter will ROCK. Your 'special shtick' PF classes with severely limited 'special tricks' will feel the hurt right quick. And the fighter? He'll be shining. After an hour of play, you'll hear all the wizards, witches, cavaliers, etc. whining about how they 'cant do anything'.

So, while the other classes were adapted to fit the current adventure/module design, the fighter wasn't. So, the fighter basically kicks ass, then has to "sit around" while everyone else complains that they need to rest up. When everyone is good to go again, they get to use all their neat-o tricks and special doo-hickys so the player of the fighter feels like he 'cant do anything'.

My fix? Don't run a campaign based on player character expectations of capability. In other words...random encounters, monsters that will press the attack, bad guys that don't wait around for two days doing nothing after the PC's just wiped out a third of their forces, etc. Yes, my campaigns in PF are deadly...and my players LOVE it. They know they can expect bad guys to act intelligently (well, as intelligently as their INT/WIS scores are). This lets the players plan and use tactics that don't involve only "numbers and bonuses".

-_-

Paul L. Ming


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hiya.

I've been playing SF off and on since it came out back in '82. Last I played it was last year (winter of 2012).

The best thing about SF, IMHO, is it's capability to be used for just about any style of campaign. I've run campaigns where the PC's hire themselves out to do whatever, I've run space pirate games, I've run corporate espionage games, I've run UPF starship-focused games, I've run games where the PC's all get transported to the FAR edge of space and have to find their way home. The beauty of SF is in it's far-reaching averageness.

The races are interesting enough to be desirable to play, but vague enough that a GM can add/subtract/multiply stuff to a race to get a totally different feel.

One thing I've always LOVED about it...is how seamless the character-to-starship rules are. It's dirt simple to have beginning characters be members of a ships' crew by simply giving them one single aspect of a starship skill (e.g., give a Tech PSA character "Astrogation - Find Location" and you've got yourself an ensign navigator in the making).

The fact that the "bad guys" (Sathar) are ever present, yet ever in the shadows gives you total freedom on how/what is going on in your campaign.

Great game. Great community too. Love it!

^_^

Paul L. Ming


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hiya.

Caveat: I'm a crusty old grognard...so...

We got to Fighter 22 (Friend), Magic-User 20 (Me), and Fighter 21 (Friend)...dropped to 15 after a REALLY bad fight with a vampire. This was all in 1st Edition AD&D. We played roughly 16 - 20 hours a week during school (weekends), and probably about 20 to 40 hours a week during summer vacation. This was all in junior high and high school up here in Canada. We would test new games every now and then (Star Frontiers was big for one summer, but Gamma World, Basic D&D and even Dawn Patrol at one point), these never lasted more than a few weeks to a month, tops.

So, time to get to roughly 20th level in 1e AD&D, playing an *obscenely large* amount of time...6 years. If I had to guestimate the 'straight through' playing time...I'd call it 4 to 5 years of 'straight' 1e AD&D.

[Grognard Voice] Young whippersnappers nowadays, all expecting to get to level 20 in a year or two? Poppycock! Why, back in my day, you were lucky if your 1st level character survived the first battle! If you played well and used yer smarts, you could maybe survive to level 2! Getting to level 3 wasn't much better, but if'n ya did...well, that's something to be proud of! After you hit 4th or 5th, miracles of miracles, the skies the limit! Well, assuming you don't do anything too foolish and go off half-cocked believing yerself invincible or some other such malarkey! Kids nowadays....level 20 in a year! Balderdash I say! [/Grognard Voice]

** ;) **

^_^

Paul L. Ming


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hiya.

...or, as an alternative, let "creative" (re: ones that build a battering ram, or go back to town and get a crowbar/sledge/spikes, etc.) players bypass the door and then let the chips fall where they may...

That's my preferred method anyway.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hiya.

They only need to add one sentence to make it perfect now:

"The GM should use his judgement for situations that don't seem logical, with the stipulations above used as a guideline, for final determination if Stealth is broken or not."

Problem solved.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

Only two, really, for me. (1) pretty much anything dealing with "5' step" and (2) pretty much anything dealing with "AoO". And, seeing as those two are joined at the hip for pretty much *everything*, well, lets just say combat is painful to deal with. I suppose that's why we pretty much had to just outright ignore both of those when they refer to "absolutes" (re: "if X leaves 5' of Y, then AoO"). In our game, every situation is looked at as a unique one and the rules used as guidelines for the likely outcome.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

What I've used in the past (and present, actually), is that I use a rough "Availability/Quality" rating for towns and other settlements vs. various trade type good. For example, a town may have:


    * Silver (Gd)
    * Woodwork (Av)
    * Ironwork (Pr)

When someone wants to sell something made of Silver, they get a lower price because the settlement has a "good" amount/quality of silver, so less demand. If someone wants to sell a suit of plate mail, they get a higher price because the settlement has a "poor" amount/quality of iron, so more demand.

I use this for the chances to find an item as well.

It's a fast and loose type system, but makes it REALLY easy to jot down during game play and remain consistent for the next time the PC's come through.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

Dark Dungeons ( http://www.gratisgames.webspace.virginmedia.com/darkdungeons.html ) Fast n' fun! I've adopted it's method of to-hit to all of my "ascending AC" *D&D games (basic, AD&D1e, AD&D 2e, Hackmaster 4e, etc).

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya

MyTThor wrote:
I tend to not play stealth-based classes. Can someone sum up what the horrible problem with stealth is that everyone seems to acknowledge exists?

I think it primarily comes down to people misinterpreting "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game" as "Pathfinder Combat-Minutia-and-Rules-Lawyering Game". I come to that conclusion because when I play other roleplaying games, like, say, BECMI (Basic D&D), the Thief class basically does the same thing as the Rogue class, yet we never have any "rules fights" over weather or not the Thief can sneak up behind the guard and backstab him in the middle of the day.

So...talk to your GM about how he likes to roleplay. If he's more "make stuff up" than he is "but the rules say", you'll have a lot of fun playing a stealthy character. If he's more of the later type...well, using the PF rules, you may run into some problems.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

Why not..

My faves...

Powers & Perils ( www.powersandperils.org if you want the rules). An old Avalon Hill rpg. So many cool things and a unique "classical fantasy swords & sorcery" feel to it. Skills increase seperately as you use them. Spells, same thing. Opposed combat resolution. Just lots of good, meaty stuff!

Call of Cthulhu. System is simple, setting is awesome, and I've *never* had a 'bad game' playing it. Ever. And their SAN rules? Perfect.

Gamma World 3rd Edition. Yes, the one with the 'colored chart' resolution method. It definitely could have used another couple rounds through the editor, but, as a heavily seasoned RPG vet, I have no problem GM'ing this game. Creation is half the fun, after all! ;)

Marvel Super Heroes Advanced Set (MSHA). The old "FASERIP" system. Pure, unabashed, mighty marvel mayhem! It can handle street-level vigilantes, to cosmic-power-wielding entities.

Hackmaster 4th Edition (e.g., the first edition). Based on 1e/2e AD&D with *heavy* modifications and copious amounts of add-ons...this is just one fun-as-hell fantasy game systems. It's built akin to 1e/2e. In other words, it's very modular. If you don't like something, don't use it...the system will run just fine. Just about every session I've ever DM'ed has had at least one memorable event or incident that we still remember years later.

Star Frontiers. ( you can get it all , free, and legal, at: www.starfrontiersman.com ...just look on the left under "Releases" --> "Digitally Remastered" ). For space games...this is my go-to system. Like all old TSR games, this puppy is infinitely mutable. You can run world-based special-forces combat campaigns, world-hopping mercantile campaigns, epic space battle campaigns, and anything else you can think of. All easy to add your own special rules to give the campaign your own feel.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

I'm curious as to why this is bothering you. It's some special kind of damage that is healed in a specific way..."only in a holy place". I guess if I were you, I'd ask the DM what constitutes a "holy place". Don't bother trying to get into an "arms race" with your DM...you'll loose. Guaranteed.

So...rather than trying to work against him, work with him. This vile damage sounds like it's something specific to your guys campaigns. That, believe it or not, is a *good* thing...it helps make your campaign unique.

That said, your DM is new, so he's likely to make a whole mess of "mistakes" before he figures it all out and feels comfortable enough with it all.

Anyway...yeah, ask what constitutes a holy place. Get him to think about his "vile damage" as it would pertain to his campaign world...not as it pertains to rules. He's most likely thinking "I want my players to feel threatened when they are in a dungeon...if they can heal more or less at will via cleric spells, positive healing, cure light wounds wands and potions, etc, they'll not feel very threatened... hmmm...oh!...I know! ...I'll just make up some new damage they can't heal that way!". If that's as far as he takes his thinking, that's bad (and expected for a newbie DM). But, if he thinks about the consequences of having such potential damage in his campaign world, things will start to fall into place and he will logically (in the terms of the campaigns reality, of course) figure out what would likely have come into being to counter it. I can see a LOT of different things that could have happened because of that...like...


  • each town would have at least one or two holy places
  • clerics/clergy would have an elevated social stature...
  • ...which would give cleric/clergy a lot of political sway
  • there may be an opposite..."blessed damage" that can only be healed in an unholy place (re: for use against undead, demons, evil clerics, etc.)
  • commoners may think of someone with vile damage as being "contagious"...
  • ...and if no holy place is around, the only option/protection is burning at the stake
  • etc, etc, etc...

The point is, work with it, not against it. :)

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya.

My suggestion: Tell them that AoO's will be in the game, but they will NOT BE GUARANTEES. In other words, if it makes zero effin' sense for the fighter to get an AoO against someone behind him because that person pulled out a potion to drink, then the fighter *doesn't get an AoO*.

For me, that's been the biggest hang-up over AoO. The "abolutism" of it all. If X, then Y...regardless of the situation. This, IMHO, is just a plain old *bad* idea. So in my games, everyone knows that if I DM Pathfinder, AoO's are NOT guaranteed. If you have a feat that gives you some AoO, but in the current situation your character would have no idea what the other guy was doing/or did, then no...you don't get your AoO.

If my players ever said "We all quit if X", I'd turn around with..."Oh, ok. I guess someone else can GM the next campaign". Players like that are self-entitled dingleberries, imho. I can understand a fierce desire to not play in a game you wouldn't like...and I respect that...but as a player, using a threat like that is just so un-cool it's...well, I can't print that here. ;) If players really don't like "X" in a game system, and I absolutely love it, we play some other system.

My 2¢.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Hiya

Kthulhu wrote:
That website has gotta be all kinds of illegal.

I assume you mean the one for the Marvel Superhero Advanced site I posted? No, it's all totally legit, with WotC permission. Feel free to DL and play all you want. :)

^_^

Paul L. Ming


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hiya.

Tried a few, read more.

For me, FASERIP Marvel Super Heroes Advanced easily beats them all. It is long OOP, but you can get, legally, all the books and goodies at: http://www.classicmarvelforever.com/cms/ I have never had a bad time playing that game. It handles heroes from street-level vigilantes, to cosmic-power wielding demi-gods (Kirby bubbles n' all! ;) ). Fast, simple, flexible and infinitely expandable.

The Champions book for the HERO system intrigues me. I own it (PDF with print outs), and love the idea behind being able to "build whatever", and that everything is based on points; from animals, to heroes, to vehicles to super-secret villain lairs and spaceships. That said...wow. The build-up time for creating all that stuff is NUTS. In my opinion, it's best feature (points for everything) is it's Achilles Heel. I would happily play in any HERO game...as long as someone else could make my character for me and I never had to deal with "points".

I've heard good things about Villains & Vigilantes. I have an old PDF of it. Interesting, but never played it. Maybe one day, when the new version is released.

The old DC Heroes (boxed set version) is pretty slick. Played that a few times. The ability to "push" your stat/power up to 4 points was hard for us to swallow though. Effectively, if you could lift 400 pounds, you could "push" it and possibly lift 6400 pounds. No. Sorry. No. Just...no. Oh, and the fact that Lex Luthor had about 7-septillion dollars (which, iirc, at the time meant he had more money than there was on the planet). Still, we did have fun.

Lastly, Heroes & Heroines. Wow. A decidedly "half-baked" system. Points based, and simple, but with a large number of powers that were quite customizable. I did run a few sessions way back when, and they ran pretty smoothly for the most part. Had to come up with a lot of house rules, but I had a blast creating my own super-hero "world", with its own heroes, villains, history, etc.

So...there you go. My go-to Super Hero system is definitely MSHA (FASERIP), bar none. Matter of fact, I may switch our current "zombie apocalypse" campaign to it. No "super heroes", so to speak, but it would be easy to do.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

1 to 50 of 266 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>