Well this encounter was 2 PCs against 7 of them.They don't have a high AB, but they get 3 attacks. With 7 of them, they're going to get some hits
And the save is DC 13. Even with a +6, if you get tagged twice, you'll probably fail one of them. And it's essentially a SoD, at least as far as the fight goes (or permanently, since they can then coup de grace you).
Sure, they're not that tough, but they're CR1. What do you expect? It's the exact problem with SoDs. A couple lucky rolls and you're gone.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
As I think we all went through last time around, the potential for death (or at least the appearance of such) is definitely a good thing.The question is more about the likelihood and the circumstances.
I've never seen anyone play or even credibly heard of anyone playing in the style Tinalles describes: Functionally unkillable, no matter what you do. I've also never played in a "Don't bother naming characters until one reaches 3rd or 4th level" game (Well, I did start a game of Dungeon Crawl Classics, but it fell apart.). I've heard them more credibly described.
Velcro Zipper wrote:
Looks cool. I'll buy that.
Wondered if Warren would be back after his foray into novels.
Lots of characters worked in The Avengers, as I recall...
But most of them had been introduced in their own movies (Iron Man, Cap, Thor, Hulk) or as bit parts in the other movies before the Avengers (Fury, Hawkeye, the Widow?).
This would be closer to introducing all of them in the second Iron Man movie. Which was actually a Iron Man/Thor crossover.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
It's also a solution to the problem of "What do the characters do with all this cash?"
And the christmas tree effect is now part of the reason martials can't get cool toys. They need to channel their WBL into gear to boost the numbers instead. A Cloak of the Bat is a much cooler toy than a Cloak of Resistance, but you need the Resistance.
There's a huge gray area between "serious chance of death in every conflict" and "Cannot be killed no matter how stupid you're being".
I've played many games where no one died, including some where I know the GM was fudging to keep us alive. I've never played a game with a actual guarantee of functional immortality. I've also never seen anyone act as if they were guaranteed to survive. That's the surest way to get the guarantee revoked. :)
Of course, my reaction to something like the mooning would probably be more like "Really now? Are we going to game? Or should we play Munchkin instead?" Rather than killing the PC on the spot.
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
You're right. I was just remembering what happened onscreen.
Still, there's a certain elegance in talking your enemies out of killing/torturing you and into killing each other. Even if the last bit wasn't really the intent.
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
There's some squabbling, but none of them die. At least in the movie. I think the book ends up basically the same.
I wouldn't bother, but Orthos hasn't seen it:
They reach a deal to use Wilmer as a fall guy. When the bird turns out to be fake, Cairo and the Fatman leave to keep looking for the real one. Actually, I think the deal falls through when the bird is fake and Wilmer goes with them, but I'm not sure.
Spade sends the police after them and turns O'Shaughnessy in as well
Go watch it.
Seriously. Drop whatever you're doing and go watch it now.
Edit: Alright. Maybe not quite that good. You can afford to wait for some free time. But absolutely worth watching.
Average Asgardian isn't that strong? Check out the Thor DW follow-up episode of Agents of SHIELD. That dude stopped a knife and crushed it. With extreme ease. And he was not a great warrior but a conscripted mason.
Isn't that strong as "not in Thor's class, but still clearly superhuman."
Or just because you're really tough and can actually hit harder than the laser rifles can. Or throw things that do more damage.
Would you rather have Thor shoot you with a rifle? Or throw Mjolnir at you? Or just a small rock, for that matter.
The modern day Pathfinder character is not always limited to narrow and specific roles, as they would have been during Gygax' days. Pathfinder, with its archetypes, alternate racial traits, social traits, and now story feats gives a player the ability to create a truly rich character that may not fit at all into the stereotypical view of the Ranger, Wizard, etc. Nowadays you can be a cleric that severely limits their casting ability to become more like a fighter. What role does that character play? Gygax might have trouble with the answer to that. I also think Pathfinder does an excellent job of providing support for creating a character with a rich, complex, intricate, and very real history behind them. The character background options from the Ultimate Campaign book were the factor that clinched my purchase of that hardcover book. There are a wealth of ideas there, and they provide even the least creative of individuals the ability to create a truly realistic character with just the rolls of some dice.
But it's not just the mechanics. People were doing this long before even kits appeared in 2E.Gygax here seems to still be responding to a purely token playstyle, probably stemming from the wargaming roots. You can see a lot of it in early discussions in Dragon, for example. (When did Gygax write this, btw?) Taking on different roles and personality based on class is a step away from that and towards making the characters actually distinct personalities and not just stereotypes of their class.
You could even argue that the increased mechanical support for different roles/backgrounds/personalities is a step backwards. There are more options, but you're kind of going back to building the personality around the mechanics. Not sure I'd actually buy into that, but it's an interesting thought.
Or to talking and deals. (and doublecrosses and backstabbing:)
Have you actually seen the Maltese Falcon?
Mark Hoover wrote:
I'd say actual permanent death. Whether that's because you're too low level to afford a Raise, lose the body and can't get True Resurrection, or whatever. It only counts if they don't come back.
If I was counting the number of times I've killed PCs and looking at whether I was a "killer" GM or a "coddler", I wouldn't count anyone who made it to the next session.
John Woodford wrote:
It's not just a 3.x thing, though I'll agree that it does help. But I've been playing with non-disposable characters since pretty early in 1E. Basically as far back as I can remember, it's been about the story and the characters, not about survival and the thrill of finally getting a character to high level.
For backup characters it really depends on how often it happens. If it's maybe once a year, it's not really worth making up a character ahead of time, keeping him leveled up appropriately and making sure he's still what you'd be interested in playing and would fit with the group.If it's every couple of sessions, sure.
There's also the question of where the backup character comes from. Are they actually following you around, traveling with you as henchmen/cohorts/something, but not actually taking part in the adventuring until someone dies? Do you always find a convenient prisoner or wandering stranger right after someone dies?
Deaths are pretty rare in our games and even if you had a backup, it probably wouldn't be until the next session that we'd find a way to work you in, so there's really not much point.
Lord Snow wrote:
Umm. They are "the gods of a myth of an ancient civilization".
That's the point.
It would be an entirely different movie/genre if they all wore business suits and carried guns or wore shiny jumpsuits and carried lasers, but still were the gods of Asgard. Not necessarily a worse movie, but far more postmodern/deconstructionist.
They beat the Dark Elves way back when because they were badass gods, not because they had better tech. This time they got caught off guard and took a lot of damage before they could recover, leaving them open to another attack.
I suspect the big change since Gygax wrote this is that people do the same thing, but they're playing their character, not their class.The concept is the same, but it's more nuanced and flexible now. Not all the fighters are the same. Nor all the mages.
But the general rule remains:
Make sure that your actions, decisions, and behavior as a player are faithful to the role of the PC you are representing.
I see what you did there. :)
No. I never read that one. But it's been spoiled for me. So I don't have to.
Sure, it certainly works for some styles and it sounds like you make it work, but it's not always just about 'I know what I want and I want it now!' There can be valid reasons for the PCs not being able to wait for things.
I've played whole campaigns that took place before we would have had to break for winter. And we've often followed the bad guy to his far-off lands.
Scott Betts wrote:
But you're also assuming that the hardware requirements for the desktop OS won't go up. What's the last version that happened on?
As long as the GM actually works with them to make it happen. Or warns them up front that it won't.Requiring PCs to wait on crafting times to get items and then throwing time-sensitive plots/threats at them so they can't wait around for items is a crappy bait and switch tactic.
And given the fast pace of some games, an item you can't take with you NOW, is worse than useless: I put some money down on an expensive item. am told it'll be ready in two weeks and go back to adventuring, since the evil overlord won't wait. I'm now underequipped, since a good chunk of my WBL is tied up in an item I don't have yet and by the time two weeks have passed and I get the item, I'm 3 levels higher, I've got a ton more money and am looking at the next upgrade. It's not just "player expectations" or entitlement or whatever. It's use value. And in the fast paced world of adventuring, things depreciate quickly.
Nor do I really see what's so damaging to disbelief about a highly magical world where you can buy magic items. A world with as much magic floating around as the typical D&D/PF world, but none of it is for sale is much weirder.
It doesn't have to be crafted for you. It could be a matter of looking and asking around the city until you find the one guy who's got X and is willing to sell. Then you play that process out or abstract it as much as you want.It still doesn't have to be a single store with everything stocked on the shelves.
And remember that the guidelines set the price for commonly available fairly low, even in big cities. At high levels, you'll have trouble buying whatever you want. At low or mid levels, it won't be too hard to find.
The trouble with "waiting for crafting" is that it only works in some game styles. And in others isn't a limit at all. In a sandbox, where the PCs set their own schedule, have a home base and just go out an adventures when they're ready, it won't be a problem.
Scott Betts wrote:
It is possible that an OS can be designed to provide an excellent mobile user experience and an excellent desktop experience. It's just much harder than designing an OS to do one of those well.
It's also possible that Microsoft can do it.
But there's a big difference between possible and likely.
And an emphatic NO right back at you.You're occasionally cut off from supply for awhile, but rarely for long and usually at low levels where it matters least. And they often go to great lengths to make sure you can: In WotR, you find a settle beneath the city where you can rest and trade, probably before you hit 2nd level. In S&S, even when you're shanghaied you can buy stuff from the quartermaster. In RoW, it's not long from the portal, before which you can return to the starting town, to Nadya's town. Later in RoW, when you're far from sources of magical supplies, you're deliberately given a way to contact an interdimensional merchant.
Sure, you may be away from stores for part of an issue, even a level or two, but rarely longer. The assumption is clearly that most of the time you'll be able to resupply and equip as desired. They are certainly not short on treasure or magic. I don't see any reason why characters in APs wouldn't be able to have the standard Xmas tree ensemble if they wanted. I haven't done the math for WBL, but from what I've heard it tracks close enough. And frankly I'd be shocked if it was otherwise: If Paizo's flagship product ignored its own guidelines.
How are the APs "a guideline in running a campaign without the Xmas tree ensembl"? Don't they assume the standard access to magic items? And give out ~WBL?
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
As I said, it works better if it's a general campaign rule: Everyone gets an item that grows with them. Less treasure is handed out overall.It's a little harder to figure out what special item the casters should have, but it can work out.
It can even be a plot point/unifying theme for the game.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Of course, you can just give out less gold to compensate for that. Especially if each PC has a special item, so the balance between characters stays the same.
So am I seriously reading that magic enhancements are such an integral part of the PF dynamic that you cant really play without them? Player skill and ability will falter at some point in the face of the higher threats?
For quite awhile, you can get by by just fighting weaker threats. If you're using mostly humanoid, classed enemies, then you can just not give them items either and things will stay fairly balanced. Casters will dominate more and sooner, that's about all.Monsters generally aren't heavily equipped but have the equivalent built in. Your PCs will be hit more often and fail saves more often, as well as taking longer to bring the monsters down.
Various forms of DR will start to be a problem though. Less so if you let your PCs get weapons of special material, particularly adamantine one - but that starts to run into the same thematic issues as magic.
You're also going to have problems with some of the utility items, but that's harder to quantify.
It's also a formula that doesn't involve the kind of power curve you get in PF/D&D. Conan in the later stories is more worldly wise and experienced than he is early on, but he's not that much tougher. He couldn't blow through fights he would have lost earlier.Some of the gear issues go along with that. Along with basic 3.x assumption that PCs get a good deal of their power from equipment.
Scott Betts wrote:
If you've got enough things running, the Alt-Tab interface can get quite cluttered. It's nice to be able to close down the ones you don't want.And of course, you can do so.
And Metro apps never have data or state that might need to be saved? Or possibly shouldn't be saved?
I hope most things I need won't be Metro apps, when I am eventually forced to move to 8 (or more likely whatever comes next.
I agree. I tend to use Windows in different ways than perhaps intended, being a Unix person by nature & habit, so I often find many things about Windows frustrating. The idea that it knows better than I do what I want is one of the biggest.
We're still using 7 at work, so I don't know if this applies, but I found the following advice on microsoft's site:
Which does suggest there are reasons to close apps, even if they don't slow the machine down.
Wow, all this talk has me wondering if I shouldnt have stuck with my Hyborian Campaign where the setting doesnt even entertain such notions. I run a pretty low magic game certainly, I prefer them, but if the very mechanics of Pathfinder REQUIRE this sort of dynamic, Im going to be doing a lot of adjusting along the way.
I do like the Hyborian style setting for that. That's how cash motivated adventurers should work. Steal treasure from the ruined temple, deal with the monster/curse, then go back to the bar and drink/gamble/wench until the money runs out. Repeat.
Conan didn't spend his looted gold on better gear. He barely carried gear from one story to the next. Hell, he lost entire armies between adventures.
They don't require it IF you can make low CR encounters tougher without magic.
It's not the low CR encounters that are the problem. Those are easy to make tough without magic.
It's balancing the high level/high CR encounters when the PCs don't have the expected gear.
Which is all pretty much how it's usually handled. Either handwaved or roleplayed out as something more complicated than walking into a store. The term "magic mart" is generally derogatory. Or adopted as short hand for "You can buy magic items, one way or another." It's rarely used as an actual store with shelves of magic items with prices on them.
As for haggling, as you say that's not what the game is about. It's not an economic simulation. Prices are fixed for simplicities sake.
The other point of a magic mart (in the looser sense) by the way is to give the PCs something to do with their treasure. Finding great hoards is part of the game. Spending it on gear gives you something to do with it rather than saving it up to buy land to retire on, which doesn't fit with every game. Also gives you something to do with any gear you can't use or have replaced.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
So post on it. Maybe it'll inspire another debate.
The only reason this thread really sticks around is that BT comes back and spews a bunch of links onto it, some of which inspire other comments.
Scott Betts wrote:
That doesn't make any sense. They're not going to make the user experience the same across all devices, but they're going to make sure that all software works on all devices?
I suppose if the underlying OS is the same, programs might compile and run on all devices, but they'll suck unless designed for each. The display is different. The user interface is different. The processing power is different. Programs need to be designed to work with the capabilities and limitations of the hardware they'll be used on.
Dan Armstrong wrote:
Or leave the mechanics discussion out of it and say that attempting to kill or threatening to kill legal characters based on their class/race/whatever is not allowed in PFS. And that walking out on games at the last moment is allowed, but isn't going to be appreciated by the players or the event coordinator.
If you think gunslingers are unthematic or overpowered, that's fine. It's your opinion and it's completely up to you. But if you aren't willing to put that aside and be an impartial Judge, then PFS isn't the place for you. At least not in open games.
There have always been markets of one type or another trading in rare and valuable things. Back pretty much as far as we can trace.Of course, a group of wandering adventurers may not have access to them. And the most powerful items aren't likely to be sold openly, since they're "change the fate of kingdoms" type items and will be proscribed for that reason.
Which is, of course, reflected in the guidelines in the rules. There's nowhere big enough to buy or sell a +10 artifact sword.
The original comment was about regular magic items being rare enough that no market would develop. Leaving aside that such rarity would lead to an increase in price, which doesn't happen under PF rules, there would still be some form of market. You might have to go to a bigger city to seek out someone with the right connections to sell it or to find whatever you're looking for.
The idea that magic items cannot be bought or sold, but must remain forever with whoever made or finds them just doesn't work.
Andrei Buters wrote:
Depends on the game setting. If the organizer can schedule things such that he doesn't have to run for people playing gunslingers, great. Maybe that can work out.
If it's more of an open walk-in kind of game then his suggested approaches are all really bad
A is worst. C means you don't have a reliable GM, which might be worse than not having one at all. B might be closer to acceptable if it wasn't framed around "my intent to kill his character".
I'm not too fond of the idea either, personally. One of the things I hate about PF/D&D3.x(and earlier versions to a lesser extent) is the magic item treadmill and how gear dependent they are. But given that, which is baked into the default assumptions and even into the core rules, it's pretty hard to justify not having some kind of market for magic items. They're too easy to make. The PCs find too many of them. The PCs are generally too focused and have too specific needs to rely on looting everything they need. Unless the GM specifically arranges for that, which can be just as jarring as a magic mart. The PCs in every published adventure I've ever seen, back to 1st Edition, find far more magic than they can use. They need some way to sell it. Which implies a way to buy it.
And again, it's not necessarily a single store with all the items lined up for sale on its walls. Just that things appropriate for the town's gold limit can usually be found for sale somewhere in town.
Matt Thomason wrote:
It may also be a dozen different stores or individuals who only have a few things each, but together make up a dispersed "marketplace".
And there are actual guidelines for what's available in what towns and they're more limited than many complainers seem to think.
I think the difference in your style isn't that you don't want Magic Marts. It's the drastic drop in magic items. At least if you keep the numbers down as much as you suggest when the characters reach higher levels.
I assume you'll also ban the item creation feats? Or just arrange for not enough downtime/cash to make use of them. Because one PC crafter could easily craft more new items than your kingdom has seen in decades.
In short, PF is designed around far more common magic items than your game. In anything like the default setting, the magic market, in some form, makes sense.
A focus on story and lack of concern about balance is fine. I tend to swing that way myself.Along with the rarity of adventurers.
Still, focusing away from the larger world and down to the particular PCs: Do they simply not find enough magic that they wind up with extras to sell? Do you tailor the equipment found to the needs of the PCs, so that they find little armor or weapons, for example, that they can't make use of?
Or is your game even more magic-rare than I'm assuming? Your numbers seem to suggest that your entire group of PCs might find a single magic item in a year of game time, but probably won't. (~6 groups in Taldor, 1-2 items found per year.) I wasn't really expecting essentially no magic items in a PC group past the first few levels.
And that's basically it for me. I'm fine with fantasy with guns. I'm not comfortable with essentially pirate-era (or later) firearms in a world where everyone else uses swords, bows and armor.Especially if these guns are only used by an elite handful of adventuring types and even the more primitive ones haven't been broadly adopted for war, where the "fire once then spend a minute reloading" nature works much better than for adventuring.
Of course commoners aren't going to be buying magic items, beyond possibly cure potions and the like. But nobles, merchants, other adventurers?And you didn't answer the question about selling? Not PCs making items to sell, but PCs trying to turn the stuff they find on their adventures into cash (or other, more useful, magic items). Can they do so? If so, there's some kind of market that the PCs should be able to buy from.
I get your point about rarity of mages in the world. As far as world logic goes, it makes sense. But it doesn't help with game balance within the party when the martials fall even farther behind at high levels because they can't get the magic gear they need.