I hear how real world bases break immersion and don't make sense, but I see a lot of D20 fantasy as being a close real world analogue, except that it's a real world analogue of a very localized area. Like... a super-idealized England/Spain/France area with the conventions of a Renn/Medieval festival, occasionally with a vaguely Norse nation somewhere on the borderlands because viking raiders are awesome.
But that's not a close real world analogue; that's three nations and the conventions of a Renn festival hardly correspond to that of any of them at any specific time. Galt corresponds to a very specific decade in French history. If you look at Tien, it's not some super-idealized east Asia area; there are close copies of Vietnam, immediately post-Maoist China, etc. It makes the pieces stand out more and feel less as an organic whole.
(Golarion is not the only place this is problematic, as other D&D settings suffer from this to some extent. A Traveller book called "101 Religions" also very much frustrated me for having Judaism with the serial numbers filed off, Judaism with the serial numbers filed off, Judaism with the serial numbers filed off (yes, three times), Speakers for the Dead (no filing done), worshipers of Levis Repsley.)
I was looking for a god for my cleric; maybe darkness domain, maybe madness domain. Then I found Tsukiyo, which is both. My only problem is that the description in Dragon Empires Gazetteer is pretty terse; there's no much more then http://www.pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Tsukiyo . Any advice on how to play a worshipper of this jade god of the moon and spirits?
When my players are... I no longer feel bad for DMs who hate on whiny players, also i have results about the entire party of wizards thing
One comment after all this hullabaloo? Expecting players of a certain age to RTFM is hardly onerous nor unreasonable.
I'm pretty sure that none of us could ace a serious test on the Pathfinder rules system. Even at a lower level, I can't recall a single college class that's actually made it through a textbook the size of the core rulebook in one semester. That's a heck of a commitment you're demanding from people to play the most popular RPG on the market, and I suspect if people were held to it, it would no longer by the most popular RPG on the market.
When my players are... I no longer feel bad for DMs who hate on whiny players, also i have results about the entire party of wizards thing
This thread really has no more reason to exist for discussion of my actual campaign, but more along the lines of when it is okay for a DM to stop doing his players favors.
What is "doing his players favors"? You should work for the game to be the most fun for everyone. If doing them favors makes the game more fun for everyone, do them favors.
I find that DMs like being hardasses better then players like playing with hardasses. I know some people like to make every victory count, but I think there are a lot of beer-and-pretzels gamers out there who just want to play without stressing out over every tactical detail.
I know that last week, had I as the GM known that our fighter was starting the day down 10 ST, I would have pointed out that the cleric should have memorized Restoration and done something about it. It was the players' mistake and she (and probably he) should have known better, but that didn't make it the frustration it added to play any more fun.
I could see keeping a bunch of lvl 1 monk/ lvl x rogues on board just to fight off such a beast (say, statistically, 20 of them... ensuring that the kraken will be stunned for one round allowing full on sneak attacks until that rogue's next turn).
I think this is one of those cases where acting as if the game rules are the world rules get silly. In game, a 5% chance of something ridiculous is usually fine; outside the table, I think the world has more realistic probability curves, so a 1st level NPC monk has effectively zero chance of stunning a kraken.
In APs, they usually have some stuff in the bestiary that's not in the adventure itself. The Prince in Chains is just one of them. I find him unlikely to show up here, but you can if you want. He is, however, an adventure that's likely to be a lot cooler for the GM then the players, assuming they don't know who or what he is.
On a separate note, the Danse Macbre was less then fun for my party. He dropped half the party through failed saves, so half the people got to sit there and watch the other people in the battle. Save or be incapacitated is problematic.
VM mercenario wrote:
Which is not the case in that quote.
I can't buy a paladin where people who know him can't trust his word, where they're forced to parse his statements like they would a devil's. I can accept lying under coercion much easier then technically not lying on a day-to-day, uncoerced basis.
"There are broken things in 3.5's utterly massive amount of splatbooks and extra material" is in no way equal to "Pathfinder has broken classes".
Saying that "none of Pathfinder's official set of classes is broken" is not equivalent to saying "there's no such thing as a broken class."
The "broken" classes comes from when someone is better at optimizing than the rest of the players.
Certain patterns in what those who are better at optimizing are playing is irrelevant, of course.
I had a 3.5/Pathfinder mix game. High power. High Min/Max. I told them to bring it on. I had a cleric who took my PF conversion Paladin Prestige class. He had a 3.5 feat that let him memorize wizard spells(Sword of the Arcane Order). He was a full Cleric caster, with Paladin abilities, and he could memorize wizard spells. I was ok with all of it. Had no issue... except for one thing. He had really REALLY good AC. It was hard to hit him.
So there are broken game features. Good to know.
I talked to the player. We came to a compromise.
I.e. do the stupid thing, what your character wisely wouldn't do, and what you weren't planning on, for metagame reasons. It's hardly a position without drawbacks; as a player, I'd rather have free reign from a restricted selection then have the DM shadow my choices later.
Most classes will be fine.
That's virtually equivalent to saying that there are broken classes.
When did Thron become the Prince in Chains? Was it before or after the Age of Creation?
When Zon-Kuthon came back from where ever came back from. Besides the fact that it was before Starfall, I don't think they've specifically said, and they haven't bothered to be consistent about that period of time; all we have is various stories, similar in some ways and dissimilar in others.
remember that someone that has a 7 int has a IQ of 70, with that IQ they would be lucky to know 1 or 2 skills trained after that they would be untrained in almost everything. Its not the skill points that need to be changed its the ability for people to dump stats that needs to be changed, think if someone had a 70 IQ would anyone want to adventure with them for any amount of time, would you want them on watch at night or watching your back?
INT has no clear connection to IQ, and certainly not a simply * 10. One in a billion is six standard deviations; there's no reason to expect any human on Golarion to have above a 100 + 6 * 15 = 190 IQ. But human characters with 20 INTs are a dime a dozen, not unique.
If 10 is an average stat, then "no dump stats" means that you can't have a character who is subaverage in any way. That's quite a limitation on character concepts.
Because CR's are just a very loose guideline that's not very good (better than in 3.5, but still hardly what I'd call reliable.)
Which doesn't really answer my questions about level and XP, or even CR. And of course CRs aren't very good if you have a character labeled as 1st level in a "can't-be-broken" class that gives them DR 15/- and BAB +10. CR and level are based around the concept that power level can be quantified and thus there can be overpowered classes.
There is no such thing as a broken class... only broken games. Any and Every class can be the catalyst for a broken game if allowed to do so. Its the job of the DM to make sure this doesn't happen. If you police your players its impossible to create a broken class.
I do police my players; I don't let them take broken classes. I completely fail to understand why you would play a game with this elaborate system of CRs and levels and XP if you didn't believe that it mattered.
In real-world mythology, Devils are original fallen angels while Demons are the result of the death of the offspring of Angels/Devils and Humans.
In what real-world mythology? I find little evidence that devils, plural, exist in standard mythology; Devil usually uniquely refers to one being.
On a side note, the whole Angels/Devils mating with humans (typically females) is the origin of the tradition of women covering their heads and faces in the Middle East; to hide them from higher beings that would covet them.
I don't buy it for one second. Perhaps that's been put forward as an excuse, but the real reasons are sociological, not mythological.
Terminal velocity is 60/mph varying slightly by wind resistance.
It depends on the creature, but human skydivers hit around 55 meters per second (120 miles per hour), unless they're actually trying to gain speed.*
* http://hypertextbook.com/facts/JianHuang.shtml http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=15562
In my current campaign, I keep reading these morale blocks that tell me when the NPCs will retreat, and I've learned to ignore them. Very rarely do NPCs foolish enough to interact violently with the PCs survive to get away. I'm not sure I'd expect much more if the tables were turned.
So how does anyone know how many spells a cleric (or sorcerer) has left for the day? OR that a cleric can covert spells into cures? would they know that?
Because they can count. Because they aren't stupid, and they've probably talked to other professional adventurers or clerics before.
You can simply say i dont have spells left for that, Im sorry,
Yes, you can lie to your party members. I don't see why you should expect them to back you up when you need help.
By not healing you are doing wrongbad things?
Many countries have "duty to rescue" laws that make your inaction criminal, even for random strangers. Failing to provide assistance (at no cost to yourself) to people you are thrust into life and death circumstances with is pretty bad; I think soldiers and police officers have killed their own for that action.
so if someone is injured, I MUST heal them because Im the cleric, so I can NEVER cast my flame strike or earthquake or whatever I MUST convert it into healing?
I see the strawman is out in full force. I clearly said "There's a lot of tactical choices that get left to the player, but if the character has daily resources left over that could help the party, if you're part of the party, you have to use them." It's not about tactical decisions; it's about wasting resources that could have gone to helping your party.
Dark Immortal wrote:
So if someone is playing the sorcerer with a bunch of spell slots left and the appropriate spells, you're cool with your character outside in freezing cold weather instead of inside a Tiny Hut or safely protected from everything in a Mage's Magnificent Mansion? I'm not. A party member has to support the party. There's a lot of tactical choices that get left to the player, but if the character has daily resources left over that could help the party, if you're part of the party, you have to use them. If you don't, it's no better then attacking them.
This case, withholding healing was part of an ongoing PvP action that had the effect of making the cleric's opponent hurt for the next day. That's par for the course; the cleric not expending remaining spells for healing is a PvP action.
John Kerpan wrote:
You brought up the fact that getting treasure gave you XP, and then in the next breath you are criticizing someone for mentioning the fact that thieves could get treasure by ignoring monsters and stealing treasure. Is there any reason to believe that you are posting with any intent but to cause arguments?
If you paid attention to what I was writing, you might have reason to believe that.
The point is that he's wrong for saying that 3E made some major change here. Using the official rules, 3E's XP is given for the exact same reasons as 2E's XP was.
Maybe, maybe not. A scenario like this could make a fighter more of a detriment then an advantage.
The point is, when they get back to town, if they kick the fighter out, the player of the fighter is probably going to be pissed off. That's why a player "playing his character" against the party's wishes is problematic, because such players rarely accept the other players playing their characters and refusing to travel with the troublesome PC.
No those weren't optional rules, you got 1 xp for every gp recovered. Most XP was gained in 1E through the mountains of treasure recovered vs. the monsters killed (which were much less of a reward than they are now).
1E had official XP for treasure rules. The 2E rules that give XP for treasure were optional and only for rogues.
Lord Snow wrote:
There's a quite a bit left undone at the higher levels. Crown of Fangs has pretty much all the significant work left undone.
I don't get it. Maybe the paladin should feel guilty for lying to the demon under torture. But in real life, what you do under torture is not held against you, at least not by reasonable folks. Lying under those conditions is not deep evil, it's not venial sin, it's an action taken with no good options under extreme stress. To punish a paladin for that, much less make him fall, is completely unfair.
There were optional rules for the rogue classes to get XP for treasure. Yes, the optional individual class awards disappeared after 2nd edition, and optional rules for per-adventure awards (that could have the characters doing anything) showed up. That's hardly "Third Edition is the one that took away practically everything else a character could do to earn XP."
Why is there this idea on the forums that proliferates that a player can't play his character but must concede to the party's wishes?
The problem is, none of my characters would have traveled with the fighter after this point. A couple of them would have left him to die. From everything I've heard, the same players who will play the fighter as attacking something the party absolutely doesn't want to attack will get all upset when the other players play their characters and tell his character to get lost (or just let him die).
There has been XP for killing things ever since original edition. Third Edition is the one that took away practically everything else a character could do to earn XP.
The good old AD&D DMG pages 84-86 give XP for 2 things: monsters slain (slain, not defeated) and GP values of treasure taken. One sentence handwaves "Tricking or outwitting monsters or overcoming tricks and/or traps placed to guard treasure must be determined subjectively..."; another couple paragraphs suggest that 1,000 XP can be given to raised characters. Comparing the 2ed DMG with the 3rd edition DMG (pages 36-41 in 3.5) I don't see substantive difference; both put a lot of emphasis on defeating monsters and offer a little handwaving on story rewards, with some optional rules tossed in there.
There's many sources for the information on Gorum besides FoB, like Gods and Magic and the Inner Sea Guide. As much to the point, the little the Core Rulebook gives about him says he's a CN god of strength, battle and weapons, and gives domains Chaos, Strength, Destruction, Glory and War. So he expects you to show strength, earn glory and destroy stuff, not sneak around and avoid fights.
(The gods aren't OGL, btw.)
I don't care who you are in the party. If you have on your character sheet, in whatever form, n times per day heal xd8 damage to any person, and you have uses left over at the end of day, you use them on your party members. There might be specific circumstances where you don't, but in general, if you don't, you're just hurting the party for no reason. So unless your cleric took spontaneously inflict wounds, or really burnt every single spell that day, the cleric should be healing at the end of the day.
(As for this case, I wonder about a cleric of Gorum who disapproves here, and don't find withholding healing reasonable. I might dump the fighter, though.)
Complete and on a budget don't usually work well together. Everything but the Inner Sea Guide is focused on one land. I suppose if you wanted the whole world, you'll want the Dragon Empires Gazetteer. If you're using it as gaming material, I wouldn't worry about complete and focus on the books for the areas you're interested in .
As written Korvosa has an on going thing with wererats. that wouldnt really stand if they had a large ratfolk population.
I don't see why. You've got a nasty murderous shapeshifter problem, you have a nasty murderous shapeshifter problem. The fact that Korvosa tolerates the humans that they look like most of the time doesn't stop that.
A Ratfolk walks into a bar, HEY Buddy! In comes a Wererat.... we dont serve your kind in here!
I suspect there's a lot of bars in my Korvosa that don't serve ratfolk. There's no trivial way to tell a wererat in human form from a human, but a wererat in hybrid form is trivial to tell from a ratfolk, as a wererat will point out they have DR 10/gold* and your bouncer is no threat to him, or just kill the bouncer.
(*What, you thought they'd tell the truth?)
Andrew R wrote:
do keep in mind haflings are not like humans with dwarfism. they are the size of a 3-4 year old.
They're the size of Verne Troyer (he's actually short for a halfling.)
Getting the whole pregnancy started might be a traumatic experience...
I suspect there's at least a dozen couples where one is average human height and one is halfling-size planning on getting it on tonight. This is not something new to humanity.
I mean a ratfolk in CotCT? holy cow the town would kill it on sight!
In my CotCT? Old Korvosa had one of the largest ratfolk ghettos on the planet. Right next to the kobold ghetto, and you can read any description of old NYC to see how much fun that could be.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Ignoring the difficulty of a Small mother carrying and birthing a baby that'll grow to medium size,
Humans have done it quite often, and while Small size humans usually take medical intervention to give birth, a Caesarean (as per the name) is not advanced medicine, and clerical magic should help the mother survive it.
I just got a D30 again. When asked by the clerk, what game it was for, I said it was for Pathfinder, for the GM when the PCs were killing monsters too quickly.
But seriously, the advanced template gives a +2 to all rolls; this is just +5 on average, maybe round it up to a +6. (But it's more swingy, letting the monsters hit PC ACs way more often. Which is part of the point...) Move the crit range to the end, with +50% on the range (20 -> 29-30, 19-20 -> 28-30, etc.) Like Advanced Creature, we have to add HP, AC and CMD. 3 copies of advanced would be +6 hp/HD, +12 AC and CMD for CR +3, but I think advanced is a little powerful as it is; a CR3 Advanced Aurochs is almost strictly better then a CR 4 Bison (Bestiary pg. 174). Maybe
Daddy's got a D30 Template
Opinions? I want a chance to pull this out and put the fear of the D30 into my players, but I want to be fair about it.
However, if I was given the "too powerful" reason if I was new to a table/GM I would quite likely visibly roll my eyes and give a perturbed "whatever" as I moved on to the next class idea.
So you'd be rude to the GM but wouldn't argue it.
There's a lot more low-level games then high-level games. Focusing on wish misses the wide world of low-level play. Moreover, in all these discussions, I've never got the impression that anyone decided to play a synthesist summoner for any reason besides power. I have got a lot of people telling me that it is more powerful and yet I'm a bad GM for not letting them play it.
WoW-talk usually seems like post hoc ergo propter hoc. Someone sees a trend (whether or not it actually exists is not measured), WoW happened, so therefore WoW caused it. GURPS existed way before WoW, and for me at least, I got into GURPS because AD&D didn't satisfy my desire to control the build of my character, and I would expect that D&D 3 and successors were just following the same desires, to have choices and not have character building dependent on a roll of the dice.
however when I see a character planned to 20th level and with a shopping list of items I do despair
Some people like to plan ahead. Some players are looking ahead in my campaign, but they still have to adapt to what they they're dealing with right now. Some of the magic item stuff I avoid by giving them more powerful (yet quirky) stuff then they could buy.
As for individual weaknesses ... I don't know if you go out of your way to exploit individual weaknesses or not. But there are quite a few enemies that you have to have the right tools to deal with. The game is a lot more complex tactically then AD&D 1; when most higher-level monsters have DR 5/something or can fly or turn invisible, it behooves characters to be able to respond them, and naturally they (and their players) are going to plan for that. I imagine certain parties of characters spend their nights running simulations of monster attacks and planing how they're going to deal with them, and that would include a list of what items they need.
If you want to internalize the argument make it about you that's your right.
When someone says certain GMs that include me shouldn't be GMing, you can't expect me not to take it personally. If he didn't mean I shouldn't be GMing, then he shouldn't have said that.
Doing extra work to support characters is the GMs primary job.
I'm here to have fun, not do extra work to support characters I didn't want in the first place.
If you let in an "x class here" into a "x class unfriendly campaign here" and don't change anything up all you're doing is setting a player up to be disappointed.
Er... yeah. You're the one arguing that I should let "x class here" into a "x class unfriendly campaign", though.