I prefer at least some ambiguity on questions of morality.
In what way? The Good answer is not always the right one. That is why Evil likes to say that Good is dumb.
The ENTIRE POINT of different alignments is they have different ideas of what the best thing to do is. The 'Powers that Be' have different alignments and different agendas. Asking Iomedae if you did the 'right' thing will result in a different answer than if you ask Desna (because Iomedae prefers order) or Asmodeus (being he's Evil).
Because in that context, you're not really asking if you did the 'right' thing: you're asking if you did the LG thing (or CG thing, or LE thing). You're asking if you did the right thing according to the higher power you ask.
Now, that's a really helpful answer if your character worships Iomedae and wants to know if he did right by her, but I don't see how that situation changes if you allow Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos to be defined subjectively.
'Good vs. bad' and 'right vs. wrong' are subjective. That is fundamentally what drives conflict. 'Good vs. Evil' and 'Law vs. Chaos' being objective (or subjective) doesn't change that.
My issue is that there always is a "Good or bad" answer that is readily available and always clear. When I mentioned the "right thing", I meant the "Good thing". What's Good or Evil being objective removes all doubt and mystery. There's simply never any question about whether an action is aligned in a certain way. Necromancy is an egregious example of this. Regardless of whether you caused the death of someone, it's an Evil act. It just is. It doesn't matter if you use it to better the conditions of the living and use only mindless undead without souls, it's still evil and you will be judged and punished for it when your life slips away. It's not even a subject of debate, the gods/the universe have just apparently arbitrarily decided that it's worthy of punishment. There's no grey area and I just find it very boring. It's fine if you prefer it that way but it is certainly not my own preference.
Archetypes. Not so much the Archetypes themselves. That so many are poorly designed. Either their not taking at all. Too strong. With the devs refusing to find a proper middle ground on designing them. I mean really the Brute Vigilante. At the very least write that such archetypes are mean as npcs.
Let's not forget the lazy, copy-paste ones like Monster Tactition or Sanctified Slayer. I'm okay with it if it's giving something that belongs to a class that sucks horribly (like trapfinding from the rogue) but if it's a class that can function normally with ease (like Slayer or Summoner) I start having issues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My issue is that there always is a "Good or bad" answer that is readily available and always clear. When I mentioned the "right thing", I meant the "Good thing".
Assuming 'Good' is 'Right' is your value judgement, not the game's.
It isn't always 'readily available and always clear', though. Even paladins cannot detect evil constantly, and there are definitely ambiguities in how that spell works. Unless everyone in the world wears a phylactery of faithfulness, not every action is going to get a definitive sorting into the nine alignment buckets.
Necromancy is an egregious example of this. Regardless of whether you caused the death of someone, it's an Evil act. It just is. It doesn't matter if you use it to better the conditions of the living and use only mindless undead without souls, it's still evil and you will be judged and punished for it when your life slips away. It's not even a subject of debate, the gods/the universe have just apparently arbitrarily decided that it's worthy of punishment. There's no grey area and I just find it very boring. It's fine if you prefer it that way but it is certainly not my own preference.
I actually agree with you on this. But my beliefs about alignment descriptors on spells and necromancy are complicated and involve the compromises between making the game a world simulator and making it a fun game (with the default assumption that characters are closer to the Good end of the spectrum).
The short version is that I find it excessively reductive to try to define the alignments of specific actions. Intentions matter, nothing happens in a vacuum, and context is important. It is much easier to describe the overall alignment of a character with a set of beliefs and a full history of actions.
The implementation of the unwritten "all magic sparkles" rule and the limited options for stealth casting leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I understand that something so potentially powerful as stealth casting in full view of the public should be hard to do, and probably regulated to high level play, but even with a high-level character who dedicated nearly all of their resources to the task--you're still likely to fail in Pathfinder.
That takes so many great tropes off the table as to be frightening--even ruining certain monsters and encounters published by Paizo themselves!
I agree only with "The implementation of the unwritten "all magic sparkles" rule"... I want that written, notarized and sealed in unbreakable glass. You are bending the very fabric of reality.. that should not ever be hidden.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike alignment because it causes alignment threads, which are Evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike alignment because it causes alignment threads, which are Evil.
You're Objectively wrong.
Can we all just agree that the alignment system was a really bad idea? And that tying spells and class features to it just causes arguments?
Agreed. I'd be down for a removal of alignment and stick classes like clerics and paladins to codes depending on the deity in question.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I for one love the alignment system (and the debates too).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I too enjoy alignment and having features tied to it.
You know what I dislike? Complaints about alignment. Seriously? There's 9 options. You can't find one of 9 options to fit what you need? There's over 30 classes and hundreds of archetypes. You can't find one of 30 classes to fit what you need? You have to be a paladin, but can't be lawful good? Seriously?
Seems like the kind of people who will find something to complain about even if they hand-make the game themselves.
No he's not. They're in Bestiary 6 as one of the new daemons.I dislike alignment because it causes alignment threads, which are Evil.You're Objectively wrong.
Totally should be a new daemon. But it would be a little metagamey, no?
Breastplate Armor.
Every warrior should be wearing this in some form. There is no way that "a single piece of sculpted metal" should provide 6 points of AC. Don't get me wrong, breastplates are very cool but 6 is too much. It takes out a lot of interesting variation. I cant believe that a Helmet does nothing to protect you but covering your chest makes you nearly invulnerable. Yeah "Fantasy" blah blah but let me believe it is plausible.
If you believe that a value of 6 is too much for breastplate, how would you change the value of chain shirt? or studded leather? or plain leather armor for that matter?
Context matters.
Pharasma sends you to the place that best embodied your beliefs in life. Sometimes, if you're even good (lowercase) enough at it, for example, you get to skip the awful life of being a Lemure and skip right to being a Devil! You should be happy! It's your ideal afterlife, where everything is right as you believed/acted.
Pharasma sends you to where she thinks you BELONG. Which means basically if you're a lawful good person who was ritually sacrificed on the altar to Asmodeous, you're going to Hell, no matter how saintly you were in life. There's a special golem introduced in Shattered Star and used during the Rune Season in PFS where rules like this come into play.
That's why so many heroic adventures are about preventing acts like that.
Pharasma sends you to the place that best embodied your beliefs in life. Sometimes, if you're even good (lowercase) enough at it, for example, you get to skip the awful life of being a Lemure and skip right to being a Devil! You should be happy! It's your ideal afterlife, where everything is right as you believed/acted.Pharasma sends you to where she thinks you BELONG. Which means basically if you're a lawful good person who was ritually sacrificed on the altar to Asmodeous, you're going to Hell, no matter how saintly you were in life.
That's why so many heroic adventures are about preventing acts like that.
Hmm, I would have thought that anything that damns souls or whatever would have bypassed the boneyard entirely. Do the setting books actually say that Pharasma considers getting run through with a dagger after some chanting as reason enough to send someone to the lower planes regardless of who they are?
Hmm, I would have thought that anything that damns souls or whatever would have bypassed the boneyard entirely. Do the setting books actually say that Pharasma considers getting run through with a dagger after some chanting as reason enough to send someone to the lower planes regardless of who they are?Pharasma sends you to the place that best embodied your beliefs in life. Sometimes, if you're even good (lowercase) enough at it, for example, you get to skip the awful life of being a Lemure and skip right to being a Devil! You should be happy! It's your ideal afterlife, where everything is right as you believed/acted.Pharasma sends you to where she thinks you BELONG. Which means basically if you're a lawful good person who was ritually sacrificed on the altar to Asmodeous, you're going to Hell, no matter how saintly you were in life.
That's why so many heroic adventures are about preventing acts like that.
Did you miss the word "ritual" in my statement? I'm sure you've watched enough adventure movies to understand that it's not just running someone through with a daggger while mumbling an idiot chant. Rituals are if nothing else, a long drawn out process, drawn out just enough to give the hero a chance to do his or her thing to save the prince(ess).
Did you miss the word "ritual" in my statement? I'm sure you've watched enough adventure movies to understand that it's not just running someone through with a daggger while mumbling an idiot chant. Rituals are if nothing else, a long drawn out process, drawn out just enough to give the hero a chance to do his or her thing to save the prince(ess).Hmm, I would have thought that anything that damns souls or whatever would have bypassed the boneyard entirely. Do the setting books actually say that Pharasma considers getting run through with a dagger after some chanting as reason enough to send someone to the lower planes regardless of who they are?Pharasma sends you to the place that best embodied your beliefs in life. Sometimes, if you're even good (lowercase) enough at it, for example, you get to skip the awful life of being a Lemure and skip right to being a Devil! You should be happy! It's your ideal afterlife, where everything is right as you believed/acted.Pharasma sends you to where she thinks you BELONG. Which means basically if you're a lawful good person who was ritually sacrificed on the altar to Asmodeous, you're going to Hell, no matter how saintly you were in life.
That's why so many heroic adventures are about preventing acts like that.
And then the prince(ss) goes to the afterlife and ends up before the God whose task it is to pass judgement on them. I question the ritual thing because "I know you are here because some Asmodean upstarts are trying to usurp my place as the ultimate judge of your soul's fate with some cute magical hooey that I don't give the slightest damn about, and you know what...I am totally down with that. Off to hell with you. Say hi to Azzy for me" doesn't really sound like the sort of thing Pharasma would do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I too enjoy alignment and having features tied to it.
You know what I dislike? Complaints about alignment. Seriously? There's 9 options. You can't find one of 9 options to fit what you need? There's over 30 classes and hundreds of archetypes. You can't find one of 30 classes to fit what you need? You have to be a paladin, but can't be lawful good? Seriously?
Seems like the kind of people who will find something to complain about even if they hand-make the game themselves.
But.. You don't understand! My concept of a Chaotic Neutral knight errant that plays by his own rules only works if he's allowed to be a Paladin!
Who will smite the dragons!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And then the prince(ss) goes to the afterlife and ends up before the God whose task it is to pass judgement on them. I question the ritual thing because "I know you are here because some Asmodean upstarts are trying to usurp my place as the ultimate judge of your soul's fate with some cute magical hooey that I don't give the slightest damn about, and you know what...I am totally down with that. Off to hell with you. Say hi to Azzy for me" doesn't really sound like the sort of thing Pharasma would do.Did you miss the word "ritual" in my statement? I'm sure you've watched enough adventure movies to understand that it's not just running someone through with a daggger while mumbling an idiot chant. Rituals are if nothing else, a long drawn out process, drawn out just enough to give the hero a chance to do his or her thing to save the prince(ess).Hmm, I would have thought that anything that damns souls or whatever would have bypassed the boneyard entirely. Do the setting books actually say that Pharasma considers getting run through with a dagger after some chanting as reason enough to send someone to the lower planes regardless of who they are?Pharasma sends you to the place that best embodied your beliefs in life. Sometimes, if you're even good (lowercase) enough at it, for example, you get to skip the awful life of being a Lemure and skip right to being a Devil! You should be happy! It's your ideal afterlife, where everything is right as you believed/acted.Pharasma sends you to where she thinks you BELONG. Which means basically if you're a lawful good person who was ritually sacrificed on the altar to Asmodeous, you're going to Hell, no matter how saintly you were in life.
That's why so many heroic adventures are about preventing acts like that.
It is the sort of thing Pharasma would do, because it HAS been done. There are actual story mechanics which will get your character's soul sent to a plane where he or she would not otherwise belong.
Pharasma is not the Abrahamic Yahweh or Yeshua. Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are irrelevant to her. When you stand to her in judgement she is not judging how good, or evil, or orderly you were. She is judging as to which plane or deity has the best claim on your soul. And there are rituals and monsters which will put an overriding claim on your soul. Such as the altar golems dedicated to Lissala, or the rite of ritual sacrifice.
Just because Pharasma is a judge, does not mean her main concern is justice.
It all boils down to fate.
And if your fate was to get massively screwed over, you are massively screwed over even in afterlife.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Name one rule or subsystem?
Runner-Up: Magic item dependency.
But, the actual winner for me is... Spellcasting, in its current incarnation. It's a combination of three things:
1) The Game of Trumps: A vast array of spells - and certainly the most popular ones - function on a basis of trumping the system. It's as if two games are being played; one by the non-casters as they use the game mechanics to navigate the world, and another by the casters as they reach past their comrades to lay their trump card over the top of an obstacle. Whatever the challenge is, magic almost always has a better-faster-cheaper and more reliable solution.
The thing is, the game of trumps is not being played between the characters and their adversaries. It's being played between the player and the GM. It is a metagame of system mastery.
2) The Vancian System: Conceptually, the idea of having magic be a limited resource isn't a terrible idea, however it does not actually do at the table what it is intended to do. The intent was that casters sit back and use their spells sparingly, gradually diminishing in power over the course of the day until they were completely depleted. The actual result of the system is that parties generally buff up to the eyeballs for the highest chance of success, blitz as many encounters as possible and then retreat to rest for the day after 5-15 minutes of action. In part because encounters are design around the party having magical resources on hand, and thus people are usually averse to fighting without them.
From any kind of narrative perspective, this is horrible.
Additionally, the default of having prepared spells expend themselves like ammunition is immensely unintuitive.
3) Absurd Divergence in Power Scale: A 1st level wizard is almost comical in their ineptitude (yes, it really is), relying almost exclusively on their teammates to keep them alive and feed them enough XP to get to 5th level where they can start pulling their weight. Conversely, a 15th level wizard dictates the very nature of the adventure at that point, as not only are the spells incredibly potent, but they can completely retool their character on a daily basis.
I have nothing against spellcasting classes. The concept of wizards and clerics is cool - I just find the magic subsystem inherently unsatisfying. Hybrid classes, such as the bard, inquisitor and magus I find a lot more enjoyable to have at the table, because while they are spellcasters, there is more to those classes than just their spells.
Edit: I should also point out that the decision Paizo made to stick with the 3.5 magic system as-is, with only a light rebalance of the crazier spells was the right decision for Pathfinder. Revising the magic system to eliminate or reduce the problems listed above requires a significant amount of work, and would produce a game that was distinctly different to 3.5 - which was not their objective at the time.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dumping Cha as a viable PC option.
Especially for nasty, ugly, clever, wise or brutish PCs.
Optimising is fine, and some stats should be weaker than others. On the other hand, Cha is what makes a PC a PC; Cha is not about prettiness but about force of personality, Cha is about how much one affects the world around you. Nobody cares about a low Cha person, even if they think themselves are important.
Yes this breaks down a bit because of racial stats - a Dwarf is often interesting but has a racial penalty to be dull - but more often, especially with optimisers (whom I suspect theorise rather more than play the game) it becomes something silly like:
- Crazy maniac Barbarian. Maxed Str, dumped Cha. With a couple of feats and the Omen trait he can be scary, but because board-reading players think Cha doesn't matter they dump it. As a GM, that's great - if their half-Orc hulk has less force of personality than a commoner child, they can suck it up.
There is a silly thing that says low-Cha Inquisitors can be good at being Inquisitors. Fine, so long as you concentrate on torture and hunting and never on information or actual Inquisition.
Even with a class that Cha does not matter at all, dumping Cha is horrible for a PC with a sane GM. Mechanically, a Witch can dump Cha to 7 and it won't make any difference with her other talents, but really? Really? I'm a GM who has to buy that one of Golarion's best enchanters has a 7 Cha?
Maybe it works in some situations for the Witch. I apologise for the stereotypes, but imagine a fat and ugly hedge Witch with a pig familiar brewing potions and casting CLW for the rest of the village. That's fine.
PC witches sneer at that amateur stuff. They have to break the enemy ASAP then send in the troops once the battle is half-won.
As a GM, I'm not having it. The Barbarian, the Inquisitor and the Witch are as different as player Classes can be, all can be 'min-maxed' with 7 Cha and might be an extraordinarily potent 3-person party - (all skills, 9th casting, Max BAB , maxed skills in most areas)...
... Nobody cares. Nobody cares about you at all.
BUT
I will praise Paizo for making it clear, with feats and abilities, that high level PCs need high Cha.
I'll give you a clue Cha dumpers - Deific Obideince only costs 1 feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A 7 Charisma is only a -2 on checks and rolls. That's basically a 10% difference. That's practically nothing. I think that perhaps you're making it into more than it is, mountain out of a mole hill as it were.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The charisma issue would be a lot less if PCs could use that or wisdom for will saves. As it stands you can't dump dex because AC, initiative, and reflex saves (those are important dammit,) you can't dump Con because HP and fortitude saves, you can't dump int unless you want a low amount of skill points, this just leaves strength and charisma to be dumped d, and even then you only get to dump strength if you don't plan to be in melee.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like how Kirthfidner does ability scores, it's changed to:
Str: melee hit/damage, carry capacity
Dex: ac, initative saves, thrown weapons
Con: hp, fort, death threshold
Wis: perception, save vs illusions and [curse] effects, projectile attack rolls
Int: Skills
Cha: Will saves, spell saving throws (for all classes)
Which balances out the desirability of each score.
Basically wisdom represents insight and charisma represents force of personality.
Interesting. I don't know how I feel about how projectile attack rolls are on Wisdom though. I can understand where he's coming from there with experience making you better but that goes with most everything. Actual good aim does still require an amount of physical aptitude of some form.
|
|
A 7 Charisma is only a -2 on checks and rolls. That's basically a 10% difference. That's practically nothing. I think that perhaps you're making it into more than it is, mountain out of a mole hill as it were.
Ravingdork, you have a fluid understanding of how to balance power and mathematics. You are the best I have read about how to make a rule work.
But I'm a GM. If you have a 7 Cha, you are socially useless unless you have the ranks or other abilities (like trait switches). People just don't care about you, they don't listen to you.
Your party saved the kingdom? It was the Paladin, the Oracle, the Arcanist and ... oh, that guy.
Having said that, mechanically you have a point, RavingDork; as you always do : +2 points of Int will almost always compensate over a Cha penalty. It works, it works fine.
It works just fine, in a robotic way. It's fine for those who have never used, or for whom Charisma is scary.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A 7 Charisma is only a -2 on checks and rolls. That's basically a 10% difference. That's practically nothing. I think that perhaps you're making it into more than it is, mountain out of a mole hill as it were.Ravingdork, you have a fluid understanding of how to balance power and mathematics. You are the best I have read about how to make a rule work.
But I'm a GM. If you have a 7 Cha, you are socially useless unless you have the ranks or other abilities (like trait switches). People just don't care about you, they don't listen to you.
Your party saved the kingdom? It was the Paladin, the Oracle, the Arcanist and ... oh, that guy.
Having said that, mechanically you have a point, RavingDork; as you always do : +2 points of Int will almost always compensate over a Cha penalty. It works, it works fine.
It works just fine, in a robotic way. It's fine for those who have never used, or for whom Charisma is scary.
It doesn't always have to be wholly social ineptitude that causes the reduced CHA.
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
They could be average in terms of social queues but due to the many battles, they are scarred and/or slightly disfigured to the point that others may find them slightly uneasy. Or they are viewed as perfectly fine and average member of society but doesn't people would shy away from being lead by the person.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or just don't dump any stat...and take a less extreme range.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't always have to be wholly social ineptitude that causes the reduced CHA.A 7 Charisma is only a -2 on checks and rolls. That's basically a 10% difference. That's practically nothing. I think that perhaps you're making it into more than it is, mountain out of a mole hill as it were.Ravingdork, you have a fluid understanding of how to balance power and mathematics. You are the best I have read about how to make a rule work.
But I'm a GM. If you have a 7 Cha, you are socially useless unless you have the ranks or other abilities (like trait switches). People just don't care about you, they don't listen to you.
Your party saved the kingdom? It was the Paladin, the Oracle, the Arcanist and ... oh, that guy.
Having said that, mechanically you have a point, RavingDork; as you always do : +2 points of Int will almost always compensate over a Cha penalty. It works, it works fine.
It works just fine, in a robotic way. It's fine for those who have never used, or for whom Charisma is scary.
I totally agree. Ideally, the GM and player will both discuss what they want it to symbolize within the game.
It could mean the person really knows how to put their foot in their mouth. Or it could mean they are merely bookish and antisocial. Perhaps they are well-spoken, but horribly scarred.
It could be just about anything. Or practically nothing. In the end, I'd recommend going with what's fun.
As a GM, I wouldn't have every NPC hate or not know the guy. I would ask the player why he chose such a low score, and how he expected/wanted it to be reflected in the game world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I totally agree. Ideally, the GM and player will both discuss what they want it to symbolize within the game.
It could mean the person really knows how to put their foot in their mouth. Or it could mean they are merely bookish and antisocial. Perhaps they are well-spoken, but horribly scarred.
It could be just about anything. Or practically nothing. In the end, I'd recommend going with what's fun.
As a GM, I wouldn't have every NPC hate or not know the guy. I would ask the player why he chose such a low score, and how he expected/wanted it to be reflected in the game world.
This is what I went for with my current 8 CHA kineticist. She is a little show off-y (and rightfully so because she's the best!), can be impatient, and sometimes says what's on her mind instead of biting her tongue. And even then, that's not her full personality but just a few aspects of it. She had even recently adopted a deity.
Don't aim for a 2 dimensional character personality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another problem with charisma is that you usually only need one or two party members with decent charisma for social skills and everyone else can dump it to hell.
I'd have more of an issue with it...but there's also a lot of classes that kind of need to dump it to survive, with special mention going to the magus and the monk. I say go easy with cha punishment on MAD classes and classes that lack spells, but go all out with a SAD class like a wizard or a witch.
Of all of the rulesets inherited from Dungeons and Dragons 3.0, the Cleric of an ideal, or essentially the godless clerics has always been the one that grinds my garters.
It always came off as for what it was originally intended... a sop to please Fundamentalist mommies and daddies that their local Dungeon Master wasn't going to introudce Tommy and Susie to pagan worship.
It's also a popular avenue to munchkin together two powerful domains.
They are one of the few things that are non-negotiable exclusions from any campaign world I run.
2) The Vancian System: Conceptually, the idea of having magic be a limited resource isn't a terrible idea, however it does not actually do at the table what it is intended to do. The intent was that casters sit back and use their spells sparingly, gradually diminishing in power over the course of the day until they were completely depleted. The actual result of the system is that parties generally buff up to the eyeballs for the highest chance of success, blitz as many encounters as possible and then retreat to rest for the day after 5-15 minutes of action. In part because encounters are design around the party having magical resources on hand, and thus people are usually averse to fighting without them.From any kind of narrative perspective, this is horrible.
Additionally, the default of having prepared spells expend themselves like ammunition is immensely unintuitive.
The thing is that it wasn't the intent. If you've ever read the Dying Earth books, the way classic wizard spells are expended int the is EXACTLY the way it works in the books which provide the complete rationalisation for why it works that way. Gygax invented the system used in AD+D because his inspiration for wizards is Turgan, not Gandalf, and not Merlin. Turgan who's considered so great a magician that he can memorise a staggering FOUR spells. Given that one of them is The Most Excellent Prismatic Spray, those four were sufficient to do the job. Erick Wujick was so fond of the system he used it for the chassis for his magic in Amber Diceless.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're assuming that Gygax didn't take his pick of inspirations with an eye toward making the game work. He could have been wise enough to realize that letting players make Merlin or Gandalf meant the dude with a sword had nothing to do. (He came from a wargaming background, after all.)
Also, have you read the Merlin saga of the Chronicles of Amber? Zelazny himself describes a magic system damn close to Vancian (except that it actually fits the modern 'prepare' terminology better than Vancian's 'memorize'). Using that type of system for Amber Diceless is appropriate to the source material, not because of a designer's pet mechanic.
You're assuming that Gygax didn't take his pick of inspirations with an eye toward making the game work. He could have been wise enough to realize that letting players make Merlin or Gandalf meant the dude with a sword had nothing to do. (He came from a wargaming background, after all.)
Also, have you read the Merlin saga of the Chronicles of Amber? Zelazny himself describes a magic system damn close to Vancian (except that it actually fits the modern 'prepare' terminology better than Vancian's 'memorize'). Using that type of system for Amber Diceless is appropriate to the source material, not because of a designer's pet mechanic.
I have both the Merlin Saga and the ADRPG books. I also have read a couple of the Dying Earth novels, and the way the Amber characters cast their magic and the awful amount of work spell preparation takes. By the rules, an ArchMage level wizard would take more than a day to memorise his spells if he was refilling all of his slots. (15 minutes per spell level for each spell slot) In addition to that, Amber characters had to spend time maintaining their prepared spells, it was enough of a hassle that most of them wouldn't bother with spells at all. Even Merlin slacks off of doing this until things really start getting hairy for him.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another problem with charisma is that you usually only need one or two party members with decent charisma for social skills and everyone else can dump it to hell.
Ultimate Intrigue strongly implies that having antisocial characters standing next to the one highly-social character during a social situation is about as effective as having the full plate fighter sneaking alongside the nimble rogue prior to an ambush.
It even specifically calls out Bluff:
This, of course, just penalizes the low skill-point characters who don't have the skill ranks to invest in bluff.
And the character who HAS invested resources into bluff.
As it should, if you ask me.
As it should, if you ask me.
Again, fighters get the short end of the stick.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love when people lose their mind over dumping and make mandatory minimums. Well, love in the way you love to watch a car wreck. Not in person, or hopefully real, but it is entertaining if you can disconnect.
If 12 is the lowest you allow, 12 is effectively dumping.
The only reason you think 7 is dumping is because 5 or 3 aren't options in point buy. The mentalities are the same if you say 12 minimum but I'll give you 30 point buy, and the player still takes a 18 on his primary stat and puts the minimum possible on the rest.
Mandatory minumums do not change player mentalities, and odds are if that kind of thing bothers you, they'll do something else that bugs you. Maybe play a witch character but use the sorcerer class. Maybe cast alignment based spells. Maybe roll their eyes at your social intreague. Maybe solve a problem that has a possible nonviolent solution with violence. Whatever else you don't like...
Don't play with people you who have a style that bothers you so much you feel the need to change the rules to fit them into your mold. It will make both of you happier. Or, realize they have a different style, and don't let it bug you so much - but if you think changing the rules will stop them from bugging you, you're so beyond wrong we need a new word for it.
That is not to say rules changing shouldn't happen - but to improve the game itself and not to hammer a player to fit your mold.