Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Augmented Aethership Captain

zagnabbit's page

689 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 689 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
If we're returning it to anyone, how about the Natives?

Well the "Return to Russia" petition seems to state that Russia explored it before the Colonial Americans as a precedent for a claim, it would be hilarious if there were a petition to return the whole of North and South America to it's indigenous inhabitants.

Alaska actually has a fairly large Seccesion Movement, but they want independence, Not Putin. The economic ramifications of this sort of thing never really occur to knuckleheads that push for them.


So the next version of the game should just scrap stats all together?


Lol.

Agreed. I need to go dig up that WotC thread. It's been too long since I read it.

But I'm going to bed instead.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
zagnabbit wrote:

An observation on this thread:

The optimization crowd is looking for combat effectiveness but seems to have detached role playing into a free form side game.

The role players want the mechanics enforced in the PC's personality.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Thee are no such "crowds". Kyrt-ryder is a roleplayer, and so am I. We also both enjoy optimizing--at least, I do. This isn't roleplaying vs. optimization, regardless, it's two different ways to roleplay.

zagnabbit wrote:

So the original arguement was correct. The 3.x rulesets have driven the "Pure" Role players to other systems. Everyone that is left is, at some level, a mechanical or technical player.

Or maybe the "pure" roleplayers were always better suited to "pure" roleplaying mediums like free-form roleplay.

D&D is a mechanical and technical game. It always has been. It is a game where you roll dice and add your modifiers.

Whether or not 3.0 emphasized the "game" aspect, AD&D was hardly a "pure" roleplaying game. Anybody who says otherwise is fooling herself.

Pardon, I meant no offense.

I'm not grouping anyone. That's for each person to decide where they fall.

Although the response is not getting at it. If you dump it do you play it? Or do you offset it with skillpoints and feats and a bunch of thematically contrasted elements? So as to make the initial dump irrelevant?

That's what the Stormwind Fallacy FAILS to refute or disprove.


Kyrt has a point there.


An observation on this thread:

The optimization crowd is looking for combat effectiveness but seems to have detached role playing into a free form side game.

The role players want the mechanics enforced in the PC's personality.

So the original arguement was correct. The 3.x rulesets have driven the "Pure" Role players to other systems. Everyone that is left is, at some level, a mechanical or technical player.


I should better elaborate.
When (Stormwind) first posted his "Fallacy", it was during an intense period of discussion of whether optimization was really just power gaming and whiter it was killing role playing.

I am not now, nor was I back then arguing that opers were pgmers or that either precluded old school role playing. The original premise was that you could do both well. In practice it's a grey area.
While "experience" could lead to some tactical know how, it's a far reach to get that 7 INT fighter to call out orders like he's Hannibal or Rommel. That's where the initial Discussion came from.

The " Role Players" were butt sore that the Optimizers were dumping stats but NOT playing those stats with any discernible accuracy related to the actual stat value. To them that's "cheating" or "Poor Role Playing". Whether it's a valid point is another discussion that's outside of the Fallacy being a Fallacy.

Now my borrowed example above is a strong one for 2 reasons.
1) Kyrt is not dumb, in fact he's possibly brighter than some of the people he plays with (I do not know him or his group beyond years in an online forum).
2) He dumped INT.

Anyone can dump any stat, the RolePlayer's arguement at that time was that Not Everyone was or Could RolePlay the dumped stat. That hasn't changed either.

It's not fair to say that Optimizers can't Role Play, it is fair to ask if they are Role Playing mechanically.

That is the core element at work.

Can you make a satisfying character that is both optimized, playable and mechanically demonstrated through Role Play?

This forum is full of rules savvy members that can Role Play well. I'd really like to play with Ashiel for an example ( who is out of thread).
I occasionally tease him for it but Black Blood Troll (also out of thread) borders on rampant Munchkinism but almost always to support some radical character design that's only purpose is to be Role Played in an elaborate fashion.

I have no idea however if their role playing reflects the PC's stats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
MattR1986 wrote:
When you optimize you remove that choice of trying to play a 10 strength barbarian from your creative repetouire.

There are plenty of ways to play a 10 strength barbarian. A casting-oriented Druid, for example, makes an excellent 10 strength barbarian. Bard would be a good class for it as well. Or maybe a Magus who channels the power of his ancestors.

Now if you're looking to play a Strength 10 Barbarian classed character... I'm sorry, I can't see that being a legitimate option within the rules as written. Maybe a weapon-finesse based Barbarian including the Frenzy alternate rage from 3.5, with access to dex-based damage somehow?

Quote:
Really, how many ways can you hash out a story of why your orc barbarian has an 18 str and 5 charisma?

More ways than I will ever have time to play.

Quote:
Sure you can come up with interesting stories and rp but only after you've limited yourself to a mechanical box and chose optimized stats over where an unorthodox build may take you.

That's because we're playing in a system where mechanical choices determine success or failure and the degree thereof.

Quote:
When is the last time you saw a genius 18 str fighter?

Depends on how you're defining genius. If you mean high Int? Not very often, because the system doesn't give Fighters enough incentive to have a high intelligence. If you mean a brilliant tactician? Not only have I seen a few, I've played a few myself.

I am bolding the part where the fallacy is a fallacy.

The Stormwind Fallacy fails to account for how the roleplaying set applies the rules. It assumes that role-players have less "system mastery" than optimizers. That system mastery is in effect the road to victory.

To the role-player, the above example is tantamount to cheating. The genius tactician who dumped INT is not following the rules and is thus not that gifted in System mastery. He's no different than the wizard who dumped his STR down to something in the 5 or 6 range but never operates under a heavy load; despite his clothes, spellbook and a
dagger constituting a heavy load.

The term is overused. The concept is not all encompassing. The application of it in forum threads is often knee-jerk.
It also sounds pretentious and is off putting to new players.

I'm a better than average RPer, I am also a reasonably sound optimizer. Much like Kyrt I spend a Looong time "building" a character. I do however fall into the camp that believes you should "play your stats".

That's where the Stormwind Fallacy fails I think. It actually gets used as an excuse to only consider the 6 stats as math boosters and not as driving parameters of character design.

PS.
I'm not picking on Kyrt, he's smart and knows how to RP. He just gave the clearest example of what I see as the Stormwind Fallacy's failure.


I thought it was fine before.

The 2 level dip to MoMS was actually fine since the trade offs were significant to most classes.


Casters aren't limited resources after lvl 5.
They can make their own wands which effectively ends them running out of spells.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm late to this.

He ONLY thing wrong with Crane Wing, was that it's a defensive tree that paid off.

This game hates defense.

That's why DMs hate monks.
It's why rogues are squishy.
It's why fighters only get 1 good save.
It why armor, as a sub system, is lacking.

It's why Power Attack is a foregone conclusion but Combat Expertise is derided.

The ONLY thing that matters is Offensive capacity and anything that deviates gets a healthy dose of Nerfium.

Stuff like this just shows the cracks in d20 system fundamentals.


I have a simple guideline;

Does it slow down combat? Does it slow the game itself?

If yes then it's gone.


This is why point buy is inherently lame.


Also, when trying to "fix" a class it's useful to identify if it's the class that doesn't work, or the background rulesets.

MAD classes suffer when compared to SAD classes.
The Pally and Bard struggle a little here too. The Monk is the Most MAD.

I'd rather see an adjustment to SAD classes that forces some diversity of builds.

On the monk itself, in my experience it does work, IF the player is very versed in combat rules. Especially Grappling and special actions. It's not a good class if the player isn't versed in specialized combat rules.

The point of the monk is not straight up unarmed combat, there's a fighter archetype for that. It's as a defensive class. Most optimizers aren't looking for defense, they look to maximize offensive potential.

Also the monk remains the best Dip class ever any buffs to it will just exaggerate that.


Bumping Monks to full BAB is not a good idea.

I would argue that they should get more skill points (6 per level), since they spent more time in school than everyone else.

I'd also add to Ki Pool.

Spend one point to add a +4 bonus to the next attack

Spend one point to add a +4 bonus to the save DC of a special monk attack.

Spend one point to move up to 3 squares during a Flurry of Blows attack routine.

Spend one point, as an immediate action, to convert 50% of damage from an enemies attack into nonlethal damage.
OR I'd bump up Wholeness of Body.

I'd let them flurry with light weapons.
Like Daggers, the first weapon every martial art on earth teaches.

A rewrite isn't necessary. Just adjust Ki Pool to let it cover the basics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think preppers get a bad rap.

I'm a former boy scout, farm kid, recreational hiker.
I like the woods.

I live in a place that,most years, gets at least one hurricane. We are far enough South that 8 inches of snow shuts down everything for at least 24 hours. Twice in the last 5 years I've gone without household electricity for 5+ days.

My two closest major population centers have major military installations.

I keep some basic "need that" stuff on hand. Including a serious Water filtration system. A .410 shotgun (for squirrels and raccoons in an emergency). Some more than First Aid medical supplies. I have a well as well as a city water hookup. Space blankets, MREs, portable fuel etc.

Also some seed stock that is NOT genetically modified, self replenishes and is designed for long term storage.

I'm not even remotely worried about Zombies, space invaders, Al Qaeda or the seemingly overnight collapse of the entire National, State, County and Municipal governments.

I am aware that our infrastructure is susceptible to Environmental and possibly Viral and Bacteriological events. There's not much wrong with a "just in case" plan. Much like training my kids how to get out of the house if it's on fire. I've planned how to feed my kids if groceries and water aren't moving.

Now the guys who are stockpiling weapons and dry goods in underground bunkers, well they have a hobby, an expensive hobby. Maybe they really think the fit will hit the Shan, maybe they just need an excuse for being grown men who still like to build "forts" and collect weapons. I like both of those myself, but my Paizo budget precludes an underground fortress.
Most preppers are just planning out for inconvenient situations, they don't make for good television though. Just like most Jr Beauty Pageant contestants aren't Honey BooBoo.

Also these guys are rookies. A serious Preper would acquire either a decommissioned military or modern Luxury yacht Diesel/Electric Submarine.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think Summoners are overpowered.
I do think they can SLOW DOWN COMBAT. I hate that at a table.

I also have an old 3.5 houserule where any form of summon spell is creature specific, where MSIV doesn't summon a variable critter, it summons a Bralani named Ted, Ted has a character sheet. If the summoner wants to summon something else he needs a different spell, with all the costs for a different spell, as well as slots and memorization requirements.
This solves a ton of Summoner Stupidity.

I allow Leadership.
I put restrictions on it. Spellcasters can get an apprentice with it. Warriors and Rogues can attract anything. Barbarians can get barbies, Druids, bards and Bats. Monks get monks. I roll up the cohort. No min/maxed point buy. I pick the feats, name etc. Cohorts who exist solely to craft/buff don't exist. Crafters are capitalists, they work for money not praise.

I do ban the Pit spells.
Not sure if they are overpowered I just dislike them.

I did ban Echo Spell.
It as to much at high levels.

No one has actually played a Gunslinger in a group I've participated in. I can't decide if I like the firearm mechanics. Touch AC is kinda odd to me since I know from a Principles of Engineering class in college that the Spaniards put that ridge along the centerline of their breastplates to deflect musket balls.

I lock out high level play by preference.
That's not a ban, but I hate running games with players over 15th level. Too much stat prep. I'll play as a PC, but I've got more important stuff to do with my free time.

I try to encourage E8 games, but that's not always an option.


Aww you'd miss it.


That stance will end Internet forums as we know them.


Agoraphobia is the fear of being in a wide open space.
Arachnaphobia is the fear of spiders.

Hating gays is not a phobia, it's a prejudice.

Gays are becoming more accepted almost daily in the Western World through exposure. Exposure breaks down prejudices, it also helps with phobias. But a true phobia is very different than a prejudice.


I think Bolka offers some significant opportunities to explore the nature of Dwarven Society.

Others have touched on it.
Dwarves are frequently portrayed as a race that has a built in flaw, low birth rates coupled with a high mortality rate.

They are also seemingly "Traditional" or "Conservative".
Yet that means they are traditional within their own structures and conservative is Implicit in a long lived race. It does not mean they echo our own socio-political quirks.

Dwarves are almost universally participants in the "Clan" structure. I think the implications of that are lost somewhat on gamers that exist in a society where having 4 generations of a family under one roof is an exception rather than the norm. Neither do most of us live in neighborhoods populated by blood relatives.

For Dwarves, marriage is likely, less a social contract that promotes stability than a mechanism that generates genetic diversity. Clan structures are already incredibly stable by design yet it offers the added complication of isolationism (particularly given traditional dwarven homesteads).

Dwarves need babies, but they probably don't lack for parents. Clans can provide multiple, closely related members to mentor the younglings. It's the generation of young that is key to dwarven society. A goddess of Mariage would certainly prefer heterosexual pairings as it would facilitate future generations however pairing opposite gender homosexual members of the race could provide complex, interlinked familial ties that serve to strengthen the traditional Clan Structure as well as generate much needed genetic diversity. Moreover this structure could lead to situations where polygamy would be desirable.

The built in desire to procreate is well established in the Human species. Most of my lesbian friends feel their " biological clock's ticking ". More than a few of my gay guy friends occasionally wish for kids. A large number of both groups have gone against their basic natures to facilitate having kids. It's common among us.

It should be common among Dwarves, perhaps dwarves even having stronger inborn impulses than humans considering their low birth rates.

I'd think it interesting if Bolka encouraged more complex Marital Constructs to facilitate the continuation of the Dwarven Race. Put aside our prejudices towards sexual orientation and polygamy. Also set aside the notion of polygamy being detrimental to women.

What If?
Bolka allowed same sex marriage, under condition of multiple pairings. If a female pairing were to take one or more male pairs into an "extended marriage". This would be a unique method of interclan exchange, thus creating much needed genetic diversity as well as strengthening the bonds between clans. This structure need not be only applied to homosexual pairings as the greater population could benefit from cross pairing sexual congress.

One factor that would make this practical, it's likely that the ovulation cycle of dwarven females is measured in months, if not years. Constant cohabitation isn't necessarily needed, given their long lifespans, cohabitation could be problematic in some instances. The traditional "DwarfHold" is a very communal existence in practice. Such a system would allow for small, isolated groups to remain viable over long time periods.

It also allows for interesting familial relationships for PCs.
A birth mother.
A father that raises you in conjunction with your mother.
A (perhaps more than one) potential biological father who takes an active interest in your development.
One or more "Second Mothers" who are more than willing to step in as a surrogate, should the need arise.
One or more "Second Fathers" who will oversee your training in Crafts or martial skills.
Siblings, of a sort, within a decade of the PC's age.


As an odd aside, one of the peculiar features of Golarion; the nations on the Inner Sea are very stable, at least in name. While all of them have undergone changes in leadership and political philosophy the actual borders of Andoran, Cheliax, Taldor, Ossirion and Rahadoum are relatively static. Nex, Geb and Nidal are literally millennia old and pitifully static.

I blame High Magic as a stabizational force with no real world equivalent.


I think monks are great.

I think PCs should occasionally die. Mine do, sometimes in spectacular fashion.

I think that the multitude of anamorphic PC races is stupid and distracting.

I feel that if you play a Wizard, expect to do some serious accounting.

I steal spellbooks, sunder component pouches and target animal companions.

I think games should start at level 1, advance leveling is for weak players who lack SKILLZ.

I don't believe that 5 new weird monsters are as good as the sorely neglected old beast that has been forgotten.

I like rolling for stats.

I think that SAD classes + point buy is incredibly poor game design.

I think PC paladins are completely justified in killing other PCs that are obsessed with making them fall.

I believe most people on the interwebz who argue that casters rule and Martians drool, fail to adequately follow rules for Line of Sight/Effect and somehow don't comprehend that everyform of PC flight is slow their AC is subpar and that most opponents should have ranged weapons. Also few "dungeons" have 30 foot high ceilings.


One thing that hasn't come up in a month of debate is the ROLE of spellcasters in these fantasy armies.

A great many assumptions are being made as to spellcasters as support troops or artillery. Perhaps as communications and logistics.

More likely they would be in charge.
Of the army and at the #s being fielded, the nation that raised that army.

The magical arms race would have far more drastic ramifications on a campaign world than the complexity of the military.

Nex and Geb, in Golarion went to war. They used Golems and Undead and permanently damaged the ecology of the world along their border.

In Greyhawk, the Invoked Devastation and the Rain of Colorless Fire left a huge chunk of the Continent uninhabitable.

Historically, spellcasters are aware of what happens when spell battles reach the scale of military engagements. It's bad for all involved. In 4 of the most popular game worlds, arcane magic breaks down. Divine magic, has a far more dangerous consequence. Direct intervention of the divine. Proxy wars are fine but once the Flamestrikes start it's a worse scenario when Iomedae and Gorum get personally invested.

These are literary cop-outs maybe; but nations that can field large contingents of spellcasters are going to have large groups of spellcasters that know their history. I'm not saying that militaristic mages are unlikely, just hat they are unlikely under some mundane King. Also there would be divisions between Divine and Arcane casters that are politically complex once the egos of 5th level plus casters come into play.

Magical Detent. it's an obvious outcome.


I can agree with that Sunderstone.

I find that there is less roleplaying going on with pickup groups.

I can always play a mini skirmish game in an hour if I want die hard tactics.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Zag, only up to two talents are feats. You can't take the one for a combat feat more than once, and one of them HAS to be weapon finesse. Congratulations all rogues are now finesse builds, and they can never be that good of TWF so they're gonna have to go dervish.

Mages won't really hurt because only one, maybe two metamagics have prerequisites. Other than that, they're almost entirely spell dependent, not feat dependent.

Edit:
Nope sorry, there's up to 6 combat feats they can get.
Improved steal
firearm Training
Combat Trick
Finesse Rogue
and Weapon Training
Strong Impression

So you can no longer be a TWF and you can't be a good strength person really.

the Firearm training will be useless with weapon Finesse as well as the strong impression.

... yeah. This isn't going well for him.

Not at all.

That list isn't bad, in context.

This featless system would somewhat hinder TWF in nearly all classes, even fighter as most TWFighter builds are using more than just bonus feats to pursue that path.

Mages would suffer. Improved Inititive is gone, so is Dodge. Crafting is a serious deliberation now.

This would be a different game. Feats are that integral.

TWF would be Monk/Ranger territory.

Going first, largely the Rogue/Ranger.

I'd wager PCs crafting would Vanish. Beyond Potions and Scrolls anyway.


I think the Scorpion Whip was originally just a feat tax added to the regular Whip to allow lethal damage.

That tax was totally worth paying.

You lost 5' of reach though.

@BBT.
The idea of a 2 handed whip dealing 1.5 damage hurts my head. I was pretty good with bull whip tricks as a kid.
There is no real world advantage to using 2 hands. The additional length for a large whip would make it snag constantly.

Whips are like spears in that weapon size is kinda meaningless if you think about it.

It's never come up but I'd houserule whips to not be usable with Power Attack. And to take a to hit penalty for 2 handed use. I'd just kill the strength bonus on damage all together.

Given equal skill; a whip wielded by a 9 year old girl would do the same damage as Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime. It's about speed and precision not strength.

Yes I know, I'm of no help to you here. 8)


I'd be willing to play this game.

I think fighters, rogues (talents are feats) and monks would be better comparatively.

Barbs, pallys are gonna hurt.

Druids get acceptably powereddown.

Clerics and mages have to start making some tough decisions.

This is not a horrible idea for an experiment.

A LOT of stuff will all but disappear though.


If I can have
Shield
Mage Armor
Blur
False Life

Up all the time, why play a fighter? Or any armor using class for that matter. Mages become tanks.

See I broke it already.

Wait for it;
TRUE STRIKE!
everytime. No more dice!


That never happens at tables IMObservafion.

Players tend to expect a certain social standing. Even if they are seedy adventurerers, they expect to be treated like dangerous exotic animals, and get cranky when they get politicked by the faceless masses.

You do point out an aspect of the game that is intriguing, one where being a spell aster has a significant downside in social settings. But that's gm fiat on flavor. Players don't usually like being the pariah. Unless it's a moody, emo, dark elf pariah, then it's cool.


As a house rule try this;

Allow CE to be reversed.
As in take a -1 to AC (regular and touch) and Gain a +1 to attack.

I guarantee people would use it.

Not that it's needed. The secret to CE is that it stacks. It works in under water combat. While squeezing etc.

One of the things I see in low level games is that people PUMP AC early on. They do it with magic, armor all kinds of stuff but the defensive stack on CE, def Fighting and Crane is silly effective.


^ not a competition but For the Win!


You can trip, disarm, dirty trick or whatever WithOut taking taking Combat Exp.

You're just better if you take CE.

Ever try to disarm someone for real? It's dangerous. The ability to buff up your defensive fighting abilities is invaluable in that situation. Thats CE.

The game over favors attack, since some twerp with a CLW spell/wand is always standing behind you.

But seriously? The ability to perform a combat trip in a defensive fashion shouldn't require the ability to just do combat in a defensive fashion? That's counterintuitive.

Combat Maneuvers are harder than just hitting something with a stick.
So it stands to reason that pulling off a Maneuver without getting smacked would require some basic training in just not getting smacked.

The only issue I've ever had with CE is the Int. Req. It should have a prereq that's kinda doable across classes regardless of the available point buy. Maybe allow a Dex sub or Wisdom?

Or just pick, or write up, an archetype that gives up something for a free feat.


Feat Tax/ n.
A mythological element of rpg design cited by gamers in a discussion of mechanical elements of game systems.

Tehehehe.

Combat Exp is a good feat. Just because you never use it is not an indicator of it being lame. It represents a characters ability to do more than just club stuff to death in battle. To use style and finesse to alter combat. Much like tripping or disarming. It's also awesome in those rare instances where you get ambushed in the middle of the night and all you have on is smallclothes. Unless you sleep in armor (which requires a feat).

Improved Inititive is one of the 5 best feats ever. It isn't strictly necessary ever, but who doesn't take it eventually?

Weapon Finesse is a solid feat but can be completely ignored if you like. Folding it into a weapon is ok I guess but it's also power creep. Look at Dervish Dance and it's near ubiquity in certain optimizer threads. I understand the urge to have all combat abilities be ruled by a single stat but it's bad design.

Now an actual feat tax is needing to take Skill Focus; diplomacy to enter a PrClass. It's there to deliberately stall entry past 3rd level or some such but it usually fits in thematically so it's "tax" value is questionable. Actually it's only questionable if you think skills are dumb and useless.

I think the term is overused and wildly inaccurate.


Sorry but 90% of all of the mechanics are combat focused. In most RPGS actually.

The other stuff doesn't need rules.

It's near heresy to say so but you can play twice a week for 20 years with just the CRB and scratch paper if you're good at the "other stuff".

I do like your post above about green sprites, I may steal that.


To the OP.

Yes lots, but they don't haunt the forums.

Most forums of any sort will rot your mind worse than junk food, heavy metal and Beavis and Butthead reruns.


As a house rule I let peeps cast a spell from a book they don't "know" yet with a substantial casting time. Hasn't effected anything ever really. Not that the option ever gets used much. It's a combat game. Long cast spells are available but seldom viable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a huge fan of Vancian Magic, yet I think it is a necessary "evil".

One of the great killers of spell point/mana systems is that there are no fundamental rules for magic beyond Spells Known/Slots per day. Anything is possible via magic in D&D. Scaling power levels are also "off" as some splashy abilities are available at relatively low levels.

Death/Gravity/the Vacuum of Space heck even the basic laws of Matter and Energy are only minor inconveniences in the face of a D&D spellcaster. That lack of limitations leads to an assumption that no barrier could be imposed and you get "Rocket Tag".

Spell Points/Mana systems just exacerbate relative power inequities in the system. There can be no balance between classes when you have characters that can just go nuts at every encounter. Up thread someone pointed out that in Dying Earth, Vance's spells were "auto wins"; this is true of D&D in most circumstances.

The Spells are to Powerful.

Most systems with a point system recognize this and power down the magic. Sadly these systems fail to capture the wider player base because they want the potency of D&D magic. It's just that some also want the handicap that goes with them to vanish. The true God Wizard.

I've played lots of variant systems. Some good, some not so great. Over and over I find that balanced systems where the Mage just spams "magic bolt" for 1d6 damage fails to capture the players sense of the dramatic nature of spells. very few of these systems have spell lists even 10% of the size of the standard d20 system, much less the add ons.

On the other end of the spectrum; Allowing players to spam Lord Voldemort's Death Curse or "Sectum Sempre" is a terrible idea in a game that requires some degree of challenge to keep players engaged.

I've yet to see a game where spamming spells is a good thing, story wise. The CLW Wand is a possible exception, yet without it, the "15 minute" adventuring day would be just the adventuring day. Everyone would be beat up enough in most campaigns to call it for a few days of rest. Rememorizing would be a non issue.

"The Blade is Faster than the Spell"
A Mechanic that has slowly disappeared with each iteration of D&D is casting times. In AD&D the best spells were often hampered by onerous casting times. That has changed. Now even Summon Monster can be performed as a Standard Action and sometimes even as a Free.
No one Spammed Summon Monster in AD&D, it was horribly inefficient at 1 minute to cast. It was great as a prep spell but not mid fight.

With the current action economy, most fights are over pretty quick. Would the spellcasters be satisfied only getting off 1 or 2 spells in a typical encounter and likey doing nothing but casting a spell for the first 3 rounds? If so great you can ditch the Vancian system and spontaneous casting all together. Everybody knows everything. The spellcaster auto wins and the rest of the party just blocks until he gets off his Wish or whatever. The other players become very important and melee is fundamental to most encounters which become capture the flag (enemy spellcaster).

None of my players want to be the wizard in that scenario. they want to "do something" every round. That's the essence of D&D, which is where the Spell Slinger comes from I think. Sure we have some literary battle mages but most of the rapid fire spellcasters are post D&D fantasy.

Just one old guys opinion but given the Standard Action casting time and Vancian Magic system D&D is sorta stuck. You can't ditch one without the other unless you want a game that's all spellcasters, players and monsters.


Good science fiction is always a cautionary tale. But Hollywood needs hype so laser beams and planets exploding is expected for a trailer.

That's a pretty impressive cast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Callous Jack wrote:
This can only end well...

I've said this before regarding other applications........

The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS brand name is only worth a nickle outside of the gaming hobby. In truth, I feel that putting D&D into the final title of any live action film is a bad decision on a studio's part.

It carries connotations of high cheese and pre- pubescent silliness. We may hold the name D&D dear, but we are a TINY minority.

It was a good deal, at the time, for TSR to let Soloman have a continual license to make films branded as D&D. In context; the company was failing, the hobby was flooded and the former player base were writing their own stories only slightly influenced by the game. Those stories were just as likely, even more likely to be turned into celluloid. There was a real chance for the brand name to be circulated and recirculated in a different medium at NO COST to the company other than having their brand name attached to yet another bad "B" film.

No, Hasbro would never allow such a deal. Which is why Hasbro still hasn't made a film or allowed a film to be cut of any serious work. They slacked off on Dragons of Autumn Twilight, which Should have been a money maker, they've yet to do a Drizzt movie or adapt a single one of their enormously successful novels into a feature film.

Prior to LotR (which is a D&D movie, since D&D is a LotR ripoff at it's core). The idea of a well produced, Oscar caliber, sword &sorcery film was a pipe dream. Now with the insane success of Jackson and Columbus with the Harry Potter films and Martin with GoT, the studios will greenlight anything for preproduction just to have something that could be a hit.
Sadly, too many of the properties are in the hands of less than competent or less than influential people because they were optioned out prior to the current film trends.
Martin held on to Game of Thrones, which his contemporaries thought was dumb. LotR has been held by every major studio in the last 30 years. It took that long to get it made, competently, which with that property even coked out, transient, mid level film execs knew would destroy their careers if they goofed it.

A film based on D&D is silly, since D&D has mined (or robbed) everything. I'm not sure that you couldn't make any generic fantasy film and use most of the basic elements without stepping on any legal toes. A film based on The Icewind Dale trilogy or Dragonlance maybe has merit though DL is probably too big in scope.

If Hasbro/Universal wants to make a movie let them. If WB/Soloman wants to make a movie, let them. Heck if Paramount wants to make a Blackmoor game movie let them. Let them all vet realeased at the same time ( like Armageddon/Deep Impact, Mars/Red Planet, or the 2 Snow White movies). No film is going to be good unless they take it seriously and the D&D name pretty much GUARANTEES that it won't get taken seriously, not even by Hasbro. Who hasn't learned from their mistakes and seems to think that their IP covers everything, it doesn't.


Trust in the local currency is a big deal. One not supported in the core rules. The money changer was rampant in 1st Ed games. Bit I haven't seen deviated coins since Forgotten Realms.


I've regretted taking Abjuration as as on opposition school on 2 different occasions. Now you're not planning on anything past 5, which takes out the best stuff. But still.

Shield is Wonderous at low levels, Prot from arrows is nice too. But the Resist energy is money.


Ahhhh, another meme I've managed to cut out.

It's hardly a tax. Most of the BSF's skill points would otherwise go to either Perception or Intimidate? They still do, it doesn't take max ranks to mend chain mesh. A single point investment in either Craft (arms and armor) or Profession (Soldier) will do.

And yes there are benefits for the wizard in harvesting body parts Knowledge (biology) or Heal.

Not being able to buy "cool stuff" in an equal manner is already written into the core rules with the default crafting system and the wizards free bonus item crafting feats. The cost of the feat is far less of a hit for a caster, who's real class feature is spellcasting, than a fighter whose class feature is combat feats. Rogues are even worse off, though they could steal magic items for free I guess, but that'll blow the WBL guidelines out of the water pretty quick.


Lol
That made me smile.


Paldasan wrote:
zagnabbit wrote:


The Spell Component Pouch is a glaring Achilles Heel for the prepped caster. I don't think it's a douche move to target it as such. It's not considered a douche move when you hit the fighter with Will Save Effects every other encounter (which happens in every game I play in as a pickup).
Except that the caster can be hit with the Fort Save Effects every other encounter too, so SCP =/= Will Save Effects.

Except, in practice, this seldom seems to happen.

Perhaps because the Fort Saves have a better chance of outright killing a character where will save just make them suck.

Also;
What's BSF? Help me out you lost me on that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thats not quite fair.
Many of us who played the older editions of the game have been less than comfortable with the Magic Big Box Store that the game has devolved into. Gygax called it the "Monty Haul" campaign and it was something that was frequently avoided by long term groups but really popular with the newbies and the munchkins.
Many of those same players are still using their old homebrew campaign worlds or one of the older Pub worlds like Greyhawk or FR. Neither of which was designed as a place where you could pick up a CL 17 magic item as easily as a sway backed horse.

Also not everyone is convinced that the component rules are "flavor text". They are mechanically grounded rules. That the M is handwaived but the S is not is part of the reason for the thread. With each edition of the game the spellcasters get more powerful. But how much of it is a lack of system balance and how much of it is player base laziness?

If players disagree with a relative magic level they are welcome to do so, but if they aren't volunteering to run games as a GM then they can only complain so far. I play with a guy who outright bans spellcasters in any form. I like wizards but I still play with him because his games are fun.


I'd actually agree with the availability of odd items issue.
But that is not to say that you could or should be able to reload for free anywhere on the planet. A village like Sandpoint has some stuff available, but not everything.

I also practice a theory that spell components are one of the best impetuses to an unforeseen adventure. After years of it it's pretty rare that the fighter doesn't opt to tag along with the wizard as he scrapes poo off rocks:
A) because it's funny to watch and mock his buddy in the process
B) because something exciting might happen
C) it beats staying in town and doing a "real job".

The Spell Component Pouch is a glaring Achilles Heel for the prepped caster. I don't think it's a douche move to target it as such. It's not considered a douche move when you hit the fighter with Will Save Effects every other encounter (which happens in every game I play in as a pickup).

Quote:

Paldasan wrote:

What I want to know is does the OP make his players get wax for bowstrings, oil for wooden weapons, whetstones for edged or pointed metal weapons, basic smithing tools and an anvil to repair dents and chips in metal armor, leather strips for scabbards and ties? Do archers have to restring their bows at the start of each combat or is it okay for them to walk around with strung bows for hours (stretching the bowstring and making it useless), after rain (does it ever rain?) do players have to get the rust out of their weapons?

I'm not the OP, but I'll answer.

To a certain degree, yes I do. It encourages Skill Usage. Specifically Craft, Profession which are kinda ignored in some games. My players tend to take them and I ensure that there are benefits beyond just not having gear degrade. In the end my goal is not to punish players but to leave them with more well rounded characters. *

I do use a variant magic item crafting system, that doesn't require spellcasting and also offers some non magical masterwork mechanical advantages. So there are strong reasons for non casters to take craft skills without getting feat taxed into obsolescence. .


Hush CHRIS!
I can't amaze peeps with my appraising skills if youse tell everyone how I do it.


I'd actually suggest dipping some kind of monk if the zen archer is too close to your no supernatural clause.

3 levels of base monk gives you the save bonuses that replicate all 3 save feats.
More skills.
Evasion, which is useful in Anti-Blaster roles.
Dodge as a bonus feat, as well as a possible monk class boost, for your Touch AC.
Improved Unarmed Strike, just in case you get hosed by a Shatter or Grease spell.
Depending on the build/Archtype Stunning Fist, which is not the best save for most casters. Or maybe Punishing Kick, which is ruthless when you "base" a caster.

Grappling, casters suck at grappling. Even Druids who might, might be ok at it will be at a disadvantage if you focus on it. Defensive Casting is not hard to pull off, but doing it grappled is near impossible.


If it's not PFS, just ask your DM if you can swap Knuckle Axe for Kama. My players do it all the time, especially with the weirder monk weapons.

1 to 50 of 689 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.