If you can't figure the best way to deal with an unexpected combat situation, use the actor's CMB vs. the opposer's CMD. It's an easy mechanic for things you can't figure out.
If something's easier or harder than normal and you can't find/think of a specific rule to modify the dice, default to a +2 or -2 adjustment to the roll.
Yeah, I get this because I'm usually the non-munchkin at the table. I've learned the benefits over the years of creating more dice-effective characters, but I'm still not as good at it as some, nor do I go optimized in every way. In exchange, I've learned to understand that yes, someone who focuses on exploiting every rule they can to be the best they can be is sometimes going to be more effective than my character. It's usually not too bad, dice being what they are, provided I put in some effort to be a contender.
Maybe you should point out to your friend that there's a middle ground. Only a Sith deals in absolutes. He doesn't have to go munchkin or go home. He can make a BETTER, MORE optimized character, without trying as hard as some of his fellow players. In return he'll be more effective and have more fun, even though he may not truly compete with the munchkins.
Personally I like classes, especially with the way Pathfinder does it (multi-classing, archetypes). You have a decent amount of variation possible while still giving each character a solid core to help the GM and player understand the character's role in the game. If for some reason none of the classes/archetypes are close enough to what the player wants, you can always allow minor customizations to get there.
There are genres for which I have NOT been able to make this work well (Super hero being one), but in general I use modified Pathfinder rules (with some Modern Path sprinkled in as needed) for Sci Fi, Modern, etc.
Yeah, I read the description and all makes sense now. I guess it's not really much more powerful than twf; it does make the magus very effective at low levels, not having to spend a feat and getting 2 attacks in a around (one of which is a touch attack).
I certainly have in the past, though not recently and not with pathfinder. A lot of my kingmaker sessions worked out to pretty improvisational due to the sandbox nature of that AP. As long as you have a good knowledge of the area the PCs are in, some good charts or notes on what they're likely to encounter, and hopefully access to a PC for quick reference to unexpected rules/monsters/spells, it should work well.
If you get stuck for an NPC, an old trick I have is to just rename someone I know IRL and try imagine how they'd react to a situation.
How hard would it be to use SoTS as a module outside of the Kingmaker story line? I have a group which has a small outpost in an a forested area (city managed using kingdom building rules, but has not followed kingmaker AP at all). They've just hit level 16, and I'm looking for a non-dungeon adventure for them to chew on. This seems like it would fit in well, but I wanted some opinions before I buy (I used an alternate ending for my own KM campaign, so I've never seen the product).
I do agree that Pathfinder single-class characters are much more attractive than 3.5; however, I've had fun with my gunslinger rogue and my ninja-fighter(unarmed). Suboptimal though they may be, they're both been viable characters who contribute to the party.
I'm leaning toward just introducing a multiclass NPC and seeing what their reaction is. I can explain the benefits/drawbacks at that point if anyone is interested, and if they're not interested, that's fine too.
I guess it comes down to how you see classes. If they're "character building kits", then jumping in and out of them to get the effects you want is perfectly justified. If they're representations of professions or orders within the campaign world, multiclassing requires a little more explanation. Different answer this question differently, and maybe even differently for different classes.
For example, I see multiclassing into Wizard as a big deal. You can't pick up a book and a week later be a 1st level Wizard, IMO. But a Sorcerer is a natural caster. You could be walking along and one day BAM! You can cast first level spells. Would I restrict a player's class choices based on this? No. But would I require some sort of explanation in story for the Wizard? Yes.
As far as the generational thing, I don't really think that's accurate. My daughter, who loves video games and is always playing card games with evolutions and such, is the best role player in my younger group. Her friend, who's just a little older and has the same hobbies is that one who always sits there and says "I'm so bored" when we're not in combat.
In my experience, role-play vs. roll-play is just a personality thing, and it's a spectrum. Extreme examples of either end should be rare.
Anecdotes are anecdotes.
True. Just saying that there are other sides of the story. I've really come to appreciate rules a lot more than I used to, and I try to apply them correctly, but people enjoy my game because of the story, the setting I present, and the way that I present it moreso than my knowledge of the rules and/or math.
Just about everyone who plays Pathfinder has to understand the math and care about the numbers to some extent unless they are being assisted by someone else who cares about that.
To SOME extend, perhaps. That said, I suck at math, and have been happily running pathfinder since the beta. I've had one player who didn't care for my style because I wasn't a number cruncher. The rest have really enjoyed my games and even asked me to run more.
My current game is "low magic" in the sense that I've removed all ability bonus items and am being real stingy about the rest. I started the characters out with a couple extra bonuses, and I'm handing out a bonus Attribute point at each level (15 point buy initially). That will cap at level 10 if we make it that far. I've also dropped magic only DR by quite a bit: 5 DR drops to 2, and 10 DR drops to 5. I may limit all DR to 5 at most, not sure yet.
I'm fortunate enough to not have any players interested in item crafting; I would imagine you'd have to limit or remove that to retain the low magic feel.
Probably what I'll do is go ahead and explain the concept, as well as why I kept it from them to this point. Then, I'll explain some possible uses based on the suggestions in this thread. Finally, I'll give a warning that bad choices in multiclassing can cause the character to be less effective overall.
That should be sufficient to get them going with my help. Thanks all.
David knott 242 wrote:
But as far as they're concerned, this 2nd part isn't even possible, so they wouldn't ask for it. None of them own the rules, so they only get to see the book really to level up and choose spells. As such, because I haven't specifically pointed multiclassing out (I wanted them to get used to playing before trying to tackle stuff like multi-classing), they have no idea it exists. You're either a Ranger, or a Druid, or a Rogue, or whatever. I don't mind keeping it that way (I kind of prefer it), but I feel I'm cheating the players in a couple ways.
First, if they ever play Pathfinder with another DM(and hopefully they will), they'll look kind of silly never having heard of multiclassing. Second, there are some core rule options I'm still denying them. As more experienced players, I think they should have the full breadth of the rules available, unless I've made houserules saying otherwise. As I have nothing against them multiclassing, I'd like them to be able to consider it, intelligently.
Since you're looking to fill spare time, I'd definitely start big and detail downward. Getting the most important world bits done will take a while, and then you can start detailing specific areas as Joshua Goudreau suggested. Because you have an entire world, you can fill as many specific areas as you want/have time for.
Building inward out (which I generally favor) is a time-saver because you only build what you need; you may never have a complete world using this method, and that's fine. But like I said, it won't use up as much of that time you have to kill.
Several good ideas here, thanks.
I guess my concern isn't that they're completely OPTIMIZED (they're far from it, and I'm not even the best teacher of that anyway), but that they a) don't make completely sub-optimal choices (I once had a D20 Modern character with a BAB of +1 at 5th level), and b) they make choices that make sense for their character. They're just now starting to "get" role playing and I want their characters to continue to make sense as a whole.
I guess if they make a really weird choice, I can always use that as an RP opportunity in itself.
I have a group of young players who've been playing for about a year. I started with really light rules, and slowly added things like criticals and attack of opportunity.
They're pretty good with the basic rules, can choose their own spells, feats, and skills, so now I want to introduce the concept of multi-classing. This, however seems like a big can of worms to me. I know from personal experience the sub-optimal and completely nonsensical characters that can result from unchecked multiclassing.
How do I bring the concept of multiclassing to the players as an OPTION, and yet help ensure they make good choices for character growth?
Also, from a role-playing perspective, I think my bard would be a little miffed if I started handing out free knowledge/local information to a fighter, even if it is only story. Having those ranks tells the DM your character knows the subject, so that even if the DM doesn't decide to require a roll, he/she knows which PC would most likely have the information. It makes the PCs look more realistic.
Having read up on Alkenstar, I think I'll have them develop assembly line technology first, making them a powerful distributor of firearms. While too small to actually wage war on larger nations, whoever has a steady supply of firearms (especially as they become more advanced) will have an advantage on the battlefield, and will have a chance to sway history.
Thanks for the suggestions. I came to some of the same conclusions visa vi magic beasts becoming normal or dying off, undead dying off, etc.
I'm jumping quite a bit into the future, and magic will once again be increasing/returning. I'm planning on having a USA (United States of Arcadia); A cold war perhaps just finished with Cheliax (I know Cheliax is not a Russian analog, but I don't want to just copy Earth, I want the current global situation to be a unique setting, albeit with some similarities to Earth). So the PCs will really have any class available to them, and will be rediscovering undead, magical beast, and magical items in a modern setting.
Any more suggestions about what nations would fall and which ones might come to dominate would be very helpful.
My goal is to get advise as to how to get players to just enjoy a story.
Depending on the individual players, you may not be able to. I have certain players that get bored without a combat every 20 minutes or so. That's just they way they are. I have others that really want to feel like their characters are walking around, interacting with their world at a detailed level. And several more that are in between the two. It really depends on the mindset of the individual how much they're going to enjoy story, RP, or combat.
To ensure that those who CAN get into the story do, make sure your story is interesting, that it doesn't lock the heroes into a single path (for long anyway), and that your NPC characters are as interesting as the monsters. Maybe try some of Paizo's Plot Twist cards to get the Players more invested in the story.
I do inside-out world building. I start with a local area - a single town with a dungeon and the geography within say 20 miles. For example, the campaign I just started (2 sessions so far) is set on a sub-arctic mountain near a dwarven mining town. They probably won't even leave that mountain until level 3 at the earliest. While I have given the global geography some thought, I have very little designed beyond the mountain and the immediate surroundings.
Magic in Golarion being the force it is, I'm doubtful the "future" would play out there the same way it did here, real-world analogues notwithstanding.
For example, Thuvia is described as having an economy almost entirely reliant on production of an alchemical age-stopping formula. What happens when that stops working? No more income.
(I've already worked this bit out; in a desparate move, Thuvia tries to conquer neighboring Rahadoum. This fails thanks to a Rahadoum alliance with Osirion, and the two nations essentially split the Thuvian lands between themselves).
I'd like to try to have a somewhat logical plan for how things move forward as magic slowly diminishes, based at least partially on the level of reliance on magic in current Pathfinder lore. Problem is, I'm only so knowledgable on Golarion. I'm hoping some people will pipe in who have a very strong knowledge of current lore to help get me started.
I'm working on a campaign idea that takes place in a "Modern" day Golarion, the year 9063 AR. To set Golarion on the path away from magic and toward technology, I've created the device of an Astral Conjunction causing a 4500 year magic wane. This would begin in 4713, and would be very gradual, completing in approximately 500 years and leaving Golarion without ANY viable magic for the duration (haven't decided what to do about items).
So, to help me start figuring out what would happen in the history, I'd like some opinions on who would be most effected by loss of magic, and what nations/areas would most likely gain dominance as a result.
Cutting of someone from the game because she don't know the rules well - aka when the technical side of the game go too far ?
I once had the opposite issue; one of my players was ragging on me (as DM) and the other players because of our less than perfect knowledge of the rules. It got to the point where none of the rest of us were having any fun, so I ended up cancelling the game. Later I started a new game without this player. I have one other player who is much more rules heavy, but he gets that I'm not that kind of DM, and so he's adjusted.
I think, like anything else in the game, as long as it's not disruptive, let the rogue have his fun. It could be a plot for later use (eg. The Hobbit). It all comes down to if the players can handle that sort of thing or not. If the PLAYERS are going to get offended, it's best to put a rule in place that such attempts will be noticed, or thwarted by the DM, most of the time.
The DM can always talk to the players and say, "okay, I'm keeping track of how much cash everyone has, and those who lag behind will be given an opportunity to make up for it." That way, if the rogue chooses to steal to get his cash (which is perfectly valid for the character), the other PLAYERS know that his stealing will not be allowed to over-balance the game in his favor.
Due to low player numbers I've pretty much always done this, and I've never had a Player complain. Just make sure not to dominate in any way.
Definitely avoid "optimizing" or otherwise making the NPC awesome. You can use it to fill in holes in the party, but try not to make it so the NPC is "smarter" than the PCs, otherwise he/she ends up solving all your riddles and traps.
Buffing characters are good choices, but straight up combat support is not bad either.
The sniper archtype lists the ability Deadly Range.
Deadly Range (Ex)
At 3rd level, a sniper increases the range at which she can apply her sneak attack damage by 10 feet. This range increases by 10 feet for every 3 levels after 3rd.
I can't seem to find the normal range limit at which sneak attack damage can be applied, simply that "The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot."
I haven't posted in this forum for quite a while because my own Kingmaker campaign is over. However, I've been running another campaign with higher level characters. In this campaign, the characters have come into control of a garrison from which they are supposed to clear some savage forest lands.
I thought it would be a good place to introduce the kingdom building rules, since these players saw some of my previous kingmaker campaign and seemed interested. So, experienced kingdom builders, if you were to make a kingdom from the ground up, what would you do in the first six months or so? How many hexes would you claim, and what would you build? Assume you have the same starting BP as in Kingmaker.