A small interjection but between the "Life isn't fair" quips and the "Pathfinder isn't balanced" lines from those that I can easily infer think that means the situation is fine, it bares asking;
Is a negative attribute of something, by it's sheer existence, worth accepting? I know Pathfinder isn't fair/balanced but why does this inherently mean no work should be made towards amending that? Indeed, why is life being unfair an excuse for something that is, by far, more designed, maintaining that status?
To put it one way, sexism is a negative attribute of our lives that creates inequality and I would personally be extremely shocked to see anyone here say "suck it up, life isn't fair."
I know the scale is, by several orders, different but why is it unacceptable there but not here? I mean, those who opposed the OP's suggested idea argued it created a power disparity (exacerbating that which may be already present). Why is the fact one already exists justification for furthering it?
I simply cannot see the mechanism for the train of thought.
Now, for a particular sticking point in this thread:
Personally, if I like nuts and I'm doing all the work, then the allergic guy is SOL. Yes, I really believe that. And I'd be sure to tell him up front so he could pick up his own dessert on the way over or just not come.
Honestly, back here, you completely and utterly missed the point as I see it, from the very people you argued with, this player did not have the very forewarning you are giving in your response to the hypothetical scenario.
Now, whether it existed is a different matter. And that is one that really demands a post-script of the conversations before the campaign but if I turned up to a game, with an idea in mind of a character who used a spiked chain, for example, and a few weeks into the game, you told me "they don't exist in this campaign" without an offering of a chance to redesign or discuss it, I'd be upset. Rightly so, I'd posit, because something I had planned and expected you would provide for, has been completely shut down, without prior warning before commitment.That said, the Paladin did not lose anything planned but did have an interference with said plans. Which I can see would cause discomfort. Presumably the Paladin player felt he had not been forewarned which is why he complained.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the stuff being introduced is already an established part of FR lore.
Who. Cares.
It's HIS game, and he's free to alter the lore and canon as he sees fit.
Just going to put in my 2 cents here.
Giving x levels of wizard to the group is a bad idea. The group wizard is going to get exponentially more out of it than anyone else, and unless the players want to start investing their assets into it (EG becoming eldrich knights/mystic theurges) then they're getting levels that are effectively deadweight to their chosen career.
Let's look at it another way: imagine you've got, say, a wizard who gets 5 levels of barbarian dumped on him. Those levels mean that he's going to have to get a LOT more experience in order to improve his spellcasting (the entire reason he became a wizard), his physical stats are probably not good enough to support suddenly becoming a melee monster, and when he uses rage he loses access to his spellcasting and most of his existing skills. The benefits are either useless (better BAB, proficiency with Armour and Martial weapons. whoop!) or not worth it (extra hp is nice, but not THAT good). Also, odds on no favored class bonus for those 5 levels.
The paladin in this instance wouldn't be able to combine his newfound spellcasting with armour and shields, and the drop in relative BAB and HP means that he's not really suited to the front lines any more anyway. If the encounters don't scale then you have a 10th level wizard steamrolling CR5 encounters while if they do scale then the paladin is now a half-assed caster AND a half-assed warrior, becoming effectively a laughing stock.
On the IC side, I can imagine that the Wizard will be furious as he's spent however many hundreds or thousands of hours learning magic from the ground up, understanding every element before moving on to the next one, ect. Then these scrolls show up and suddenly the group meatheads are tossing around spells it took him decades to master.
Also, where is everyone getting their spellbooks from? Are they all going to take turns going through the Wizard's spellbook? I can't see that going well.
From the Paladin's POV: What is the most iconic way of getting vast amounts of arcane power minus the study and practice? Dealing with a powerful outsider, often a Devil, for magical might. Damn right he's going to be suspicious of these scrolls.
[What??? Have you actually played this game? Pathfinder may be many things, but it is certainly NOT "fair" (if we define fair as meaning equally powerful or balanced, as you seem to do above).
I agree with this, but the rest of your statement I don't agree with. However with that said two classes don't have to be equally powerful to be equally useful(which is sometimes confused with balance), and in this case the GM is not being fair. Not only that this item does nothing to promote character development even if everyone did accept it.
If he wants to promote interaction he can try to put a reason in the story to make them want to care, but giving more power after complaining that players only want to kill things is NOT the answer.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, Pathfinder isn't completely fair. Which is all the more reason not to exacerbate the problem by giving the.wizard free levels that make him a better wizard, and giving everyone else free levels that make them a crappy wizard AND substantially delay their progress in the actual classes they want to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Responding to the OP: I'm not sure if I quite understand the scenario here. Are you essentially offering the player a free level of Wizard that does not affect his leveling in his main class (i.e. sweet bonus) and he doesn't think the bonus fits him, or are you making him derail his build by forcing a multi-class? One of these is fine and one isn't.
Because the stuff being introduced is already an established part of FR lore.
People keep saying it is only 4 levels, and you can catch up. It is not 4 levels, but potentially 50 for each reader.
The scrolls were a Major Artifact from FR, and intended as a capstone for the adventure party. They were not meant to continue as adventures much after reading because they became OP magically.
If you want to let the party gain an artifact for more than a small amount of time, you will have to warp the expectations of everyone.
I think the SLA nerf rather than levels might work best for keeping the flavor. Consider that gnomes became illusionists because of one gnome gaining a glimpse of the original magical items.
/cevah
Simply put.... Most people that play pathfinder or D&D just want to kick in the door, slay the whatever, get the treasure, and repeat over and over. Now I fully acknowledge that the creator himself said that was the point so I'm NOT saying anything against it. But especially with as many modules and premades as there are, it is very understandable why many people that take on the role of GM don't want to create their own material or story. The game itself either is formulaic OR players perceptions are making if more popular to played in a formulaic way.
I personally don't like the lack of personality, originality, and fun of the game as late but if u have fun then go with it.
Wait, when did the creator of Pathfinder say that the point was kicking in the door, slaying the whatever, getting the treasure, and repeating? Seems like an awful lot of effort going into the lore for that sort of approach.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I read a bit of this topic and I'd like to give my own opinion.
I'm intentionally ignoring the entire flame war between what is fair, what isn't, and what pathfinder is supposed to be.
So, firstly, if his dwarven paladin is distrustful or arcane magicks, or even powerful relics, then is he really not "in-character" if he refuses to use them?
Secondly, this problem would come up if a particularly dastardly rogue stole all of the scrolls and read them himself when the party was camped. He would still be 4 levels above the party (4 of them being the new classes) and the rest of the party would be SOL anyway. So whether or not the Paladin reads the scroll should have no bearing on the story.
Thirdly, there are a GREAT NUMBER of ways you can award a Paladin for his beliefs. Perhaps an aspect of his god grants him another paladin level for devout service? In this case you don't even have to make the scrolls into more of a mcguffin than they already are.
Lastly, you can always try to compromise. Bard is a spellcasting class after all, and it is treated as Arcane. Perhaps the Paladin has taken up singing Battle Hymns? As an addendum to this point I'd like to say that perhaps you should reinforce the idea that this extra level won't affect his character mechanically as it is a "Free" level. Should the campaign go to level 20, perhaps the party members are actually level 21
As a side note, I would have handled this differently as these items are relics of a mysterious nature with no real explanation, and even the elves wouldn't use them, so I would have used the Mythic Adventures ruleset and given everyone either the heirophant or archmage path. A level might upset a player, but I haven't met too many players who were too miffed about earning Mythic Rank.
This actually sounds like a pretty cool idea for a campaign as long as the GM told people in advance. And just having the characters all be descendants of a race of powerful spell casters is not enough. Also from what I remember of the Forgotten Realms the Netherese were an ancient human race of wizards. I am not really sure how a dwarf paladin can be a descendant of a race of human wizards, unless he is playing a half dwarf.
Any good GM who is running should always give the players an idea of what kind of campaign he is planning to run. This allows the players to build appropriate characters for the campaign. This is also not to say that the character cannot decide to play and oddball character, but the character should be able to function reasonably well in the type of campaign the GM wants to run. Changing the type of campaign in the middle of the game without the approval of the whole group is a bad idea.
It sounds like the original poster actually listened to what people were saying and learned from it. It sounds like he is a decent GM who is willing to listen to other people’s opinions and actually learn from what he hears. This is the mark of a very good GM, and he has my respect for that.
Why does everyone keep saying four levels? There are FIFTY scrolls, so you can get FIFTY levels.
This is a campaign capstone artifact, not an item for a continuing campaign.
/cevah