I am running and will run Pathfinder for the foreseeable future. My groups have not been focused on the 'necessary' equipment. Typically they just divide what they get and move on.
For me and my groups, Pathfinder as a system will continue to work for us and not against. I have been running Rise of the Runelords for the last year (in book 4) and have just started a promising Kingmaker Campaign. One is focused on combat and tends towards tactically analyzing battlefields. The other group just spent 2 sessions organizing trade agreements with kobolds and negotiating a reduced tax debt for an NPC (no combat at all).
Pathfinder has worked well for both styles as well as for new players and experienced. I know for sure that 3 of the players starting out in my games have gone on to GM their own. For me and mine, it works. So far I am happy with my switch from Rolemaster.
, a growing gap between those rules and fantasy archetype,
I don't get this one. I like that each campaign winds up being basically a different subgenre. I've GMed a western setting, Feudal Japan setting, Feudal-ish Japan with magical giant robots setting, horror setting, scifi setting, and space fantasy setting. The only linking factor is really that magic still existed and was prevalent.
The rules are divided enough where you can easily ban or include things based on what kind of technology level you want to flavor the world. Now unless you're playing virtual Lord of the Rings and you're players are going "Well Technology Guide is Paizo so I should be able to use laser guns.
You guys have likely been using them without even knowing it.
The Big Six items are:
Stat boosters (Belts of Strength, Headband of Charisma etc.)
Cloak of Resistance
Magical Weapon
Magical Armor
Ring of Protection
Amulet of Nat. ArmorThese items are deemed 'necessary' for survival at higher levels. Some classes don't need all 6 of the items, like Wizards, or some need alternative items, but in general, these are the items almost every character ends up with.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I/we fall into the "don't care about them" category. They are certainly nice to have and no one will kick them out of bed for eating crackers, but a large number of my past and current players aren't as interested in them as they are other magical devices. They're expected and ordinary in their minds.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I/we fall into the "don't care about them" category. They are certainly nice to have and no one will kick them out of bed for eating crackers, but a large number of my past and current players aren't as interested in them as they are other magical devices. They're expected and ordinary in their minds.You guys have likely been using them without even knowing it.
The Big Six items are:
Stat boosters (Belts of Strength, Headband of Charisma etc.)
Cloak of Resistance
Magical Weapon
Magical Armor
Ring of Protection
Amulet of Nat. ArmorThese items are deemed 'necessary' for survival at higher levels. Some classes don't need all 6 of the items, like Wizards, or some need alternative items, but in general, these are the items almost every character ends up with.
That's actually one of the main reasons I'm not a huge fan of how the Big Six items work in Pathfinder. The Big Six are very much expected and ordinary. It's hard to get excited about getting another +1, but sooner or later you need those bonuses just to survive.
Magic items that let you do something new and interesting are far more exciting than ones that just add flat numerical bonuses. Problem is, Pathfinder is very much a numbers game; no matter how good your tactics are and what creative solutions you come up with, eventually dice are going to be rolled.
I really like Pathfinder.
Does it have faults? Course it does!
But it does more stuff awesomely than it doesn't, and I have great fun playing it with my friends.
I look forward to Unchained, and hope it will make my games even more fun. If the game was not fun to play, I would play something else. Right now, I only play Pathfinder, but have played many systems in my time.
I love all the options that are coming out, and I love being able to make just about any character concept I can think of using the Pathfinder rules. I look forward to every new set of options, which enable and empower me to create even more different character concepts.
And I really enjoy the forums here too. Reasoned discussion between adults is also great and fun.
Hmm, I seem to be very happy today. Did I accidentally take my meds twice this morning?... ;-)
You guys have likely been using them without even knowing it.
The Big Six items are:
Stat boosters (Belts of Strength, Headband of Charisma etc.)
Cloak of Resistance
Magical Weapon
Magical Armor
Ring of Protection
Amulet of Nat. ArmorThese items are deemed 'necessary' for survival at higher levels. Some classes don't need all 6 of the items, like Wizards, or some need alternative items, but in general, these are the items almost every character ends up with.
Actually I've used magical weapons/armor if I find them and once a stat booster. Nothing else. Most of the time someone else really needs it and for the last few campaigns I've been experimenting with providing my own buffs because I rarely got loot directly related to me. Campaign before last I was running with a blackblade dex magus and the only item that actually benefited me was the dex booster. The entire time through Curse of the Crimson Throne that is the only big six that I had (okay, I had the blackblade) I was literally shirtless and had the best AC in the party.
Actually I've used magical weapons/armor if I find them and once a stat booster. Nothing else. Most of the time someone else really needs it and for the last few campaigns I've been experimenting with providing my own buffs because I rarely got loot directly related to me. Campaign before last I was running with a blackblade dex magus and the only item that actually benefited me was the dex booster. The entire time through Curse of the Crimson Throne that is the only big six that I had (okay, I had the blackblade) I was literally shirtless and had the best AC in the party.You guys have likely been using them without even knowing it.
The Big Six items are:
Stat boosters (Belts of Strength, Headband of Charisma etc.)
Cloak of Resistance
Magical Weapon
Magical Armor
Ring of Protection
Amulet of Nat. ArmorThese items are deemed 'necessary' for survival at higher levels. Some classes don't need all 6 of the items, like Wizards, or some need alternative items, but in general, these are the items almost every character ends up with.
Oh, I totally understand, and that's why I said 'in general'.
Classes like the Magus can often times get away with not having several of the Big Six because of spells and class features.
The reason why they are deemed 'necessary' is because they fill in some major holes characters can have at higher levels. Like, without a Cloak of Resistance, more often than not, your character is going to have a very low save compared to his other saves that exposes a major weakness. Like a Fighter who might have a solid Fort, a decent Ref (since Ref only means save or damage anyway), but a crappy Will save unless he's got that Cloak. With out it, he's all but guaranteed to fail Will saves directed against him.
As a spell casting, I need like 1-2 items. Without them I only notice a minor decrease in effectiveness.
For a martial, if I am not geared, I really feel it. I might as well not be wearing armor for how often everything auto-hits and I might as well not call out my attack unless it is a crit. Don't even get me started on saves.
You guys have likely been using them without even knowing it.
The Big Six items are:
Stat boosters (Belts of Strength, Headband of Charisma etc.)
Cloak of Resistance
Magical Weapon
Magical Armor
Ring of Protection
Amulet of Nat. ArmorThese items are deemed 'necessary' for survival at higher levels. Some classes don't need all 6 of the items, like Wizards, or some need alternative items, but in general, these are the items almost every character ends up with.
That's actually one of the main reasons I'm not a huge fan of how the Big Six items work in Pathfinder. The Big Six are very much expected and ordinary. It's hard to get excited about getting another +1, but sooner or later you need those bonuses just to survive.
Magic items that let you do something new and interesting are far more exciting than ones that just add flat numerical bonuses. Problem is, Pathfinder is very much a numbers game; no matter how good your tactics are and what creative solutions you come up with, eventually dice are going to be rolled.
Do you mean like when the Mid level fighter is carrying his weapons in a modified Golf Bag? So when the Frost Giant shows up out comes the Fire sword etc.. In one game I had a 12 level Paladin had 6 weapons he rotated through( A fire, cold, acid, Electricity, Holy and Law, and a keen silver.. But a melee type really needs a number of weapons to match the arcane types.
I like Pathfinder but I need a break from it. ACG really has me bummed and I think I'm going to hold off on purchasing anything till that is sorted.
I like Pathfinder but I need a break from it. ACG really has me bummed and I think I'm going to hold off on purchasing anything till that is sorted.
See the ACG has done the opposite for me.
I feel like spont feats goes a long way to addressing the martial vs caster disparity, and investigator does a great job at making a direct damage skillmonkey that can skillmonkey as well or better than the Bard with minimal combat investment (4 feats and 1 talent, 14 in dex and str).
If I didn't have a laundry list of psionic classes I wanted to play an MMM warrior and investigator would defiantly be on my *soon to play* list.
|
For the most part I like Pathfinder. To the point where I can no longer play in a game of 3.5. AS I lkike what they did with some of the classes. I don't have any anger towards the devs. Just a lot of frustration as to me at least in some cases they just don't listen. What I mean by that is that they can't seem to find the right middle ground when designing something new. At this point with all their knowledge and experience they should be doing it in their sleep. Either a feat is too good like Sacred Geometry. Or not that good like Slashing Grace. It's one thing if they did their own thing without feedback. Instead they do get feedback and it gets ignored. Usually for the worse instead of better. Which leads to them making the same mistakes in designing new material.
I'm sure someone will point out that they don't have to listen to feedback. Which is true they don't. Then again why bother with feedback at all if they are going to do their own thing anyway. The D&D community for better or worse is a very vocal community. Paizo was imo opening a can of worms when they started asking for player feedback. When gamers give feedback they eventually wan the developers to use it. Ignoring it as I said above gives way to frustration and a lack of faith in the developers. For me what impressed me the least with the ACG was when a poster asked for better quality control and were told "well it's simply not possible". At this point its a unwilligness to do do better. When your release for Gencon is poorly edited with mistakes ad a wrong cover uyou strive to do better. Not say that your unable to imo.
I still enjoy the game and will run and keep playing it. I don't think the rpg or the devs are perfect. If I see something I don't like I will comment on it. Whether I like the rpg or not.
As Paizo can't be given a free pass for criticism because people have a lot of emotion invested in it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You'll find that most people who like Pathfinder rapidly come to the conclusion that it's in their best interests to stay the hell away from these message boards,
Sadly, this is becoming increasingly true. I've been a Paizo fan & customer since the RotRL AP/Golarion announcement. I spend a lot less time here these days than I used to because of what these forums have developed into in the last six months or so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like Pathfinder but I need a break from it. ACG really has me bummed and I think I'm going to hold off on purchasing anything till that is sorted.See the ACG has done the opposite for me.
I feel like spont feats goes a long way to addressing the martial vs caster disparity, and investigator does a great job at making a direct damage skillmonkey that can skillmonkey as well or better than the Bard with minimal combat investment (4 feats and 1 talent, 14 in dex and str).
If I didn't have a laundry list of psionic classes I wanted to play an MMM warrior and investigator would defiantly be on my *soon to play* list.
The content of the ACG is awesome. But the editing really kills it for me. And the lack of dev responses assuring things are being looked at is also disappointing me. With the exceptin of Liz who did kindly tell me that they are listening. Which I am very grateful for, but there needs to be an easier to access announcement about it. I mean, we got a whole blot post about the mismatched title for the ACG. I just want a topic that says the equivalent of "We're sorry and we're looking into it". I feel they used to be more transparent and engaging on these issues than they are now. Maybe it's a result of dealing with angry fans that cant express criticism without insult. That can wear on a person after a while. Who knows.
I'm also worried Occult Adventures will suffer the same fate, since GenCon is coming earlier next year. I don't know, I just feel less confident in Paizo lately with the handling of the ACG. So I'm taking some time, waiting for some word about the ACG being sorted. That and I'm still unemployed :/
I'm sure someone will point out that they don't have to listen to feedback. Which is true they don't. Then again why bother with feedback at all if they are going to do their own thing anyway. The D&D community for better or worse is a very vocal community. Paizo was imo opening a can of worms when they started asking for player feedback. When gamers give feedback they eventually wan the developers to use it. Ignoring it as I said above gives way to frustration and a lack of faith in the developers. For me what impressed me the least with the ACG was when a poster asked for better quality control and were told "well it's simply not possible". At this point its a unwilligness to do do better. When your release for Gencon is poorly edited with mistakes ad a wrong cover uyou strive to do better. Not say that your unable to imo.
Well actually they did use a lot of the feedback in the ACG. They just didn't use all of it. Sometimes for good reason. Other times, like in the case of Dex to damage, it was for a bad reason.
Also, a link to where they said more QA is impossible? I want to read the actual quote before I decide on spending money on Paizo products again.
|
|
Well actually they did use a lot of the feedback in the ACG. They just didn't use all of it. Sometimes for good reason. Other times, like in the case of Dex to damage, it was for a bad reason.Also, a link to where they said more QA is impossible? I want to read the actual quote before I decide on spending money on Paizo products again.
While I will still buy more Paizo books I'm not expecting the editing to get better. Here's why.
A lot a cool stuff, but some major weirdness. It feels like the people who wrote the classes, the people who wrote feats, and the people who wrote archetypes had minimal communications. Also feels like the people who wrote feats and archetypes weren't around in the respective feedback threads for the playtest. Too many oddities and unwritten things in this book makes me feel a little disappointed as I read. I'm used to missing and the occasional oddity within Paizo books, but this book has too many.
Maybe SKR was right about the production schedule being too crunched and how trying to get this out by Gen-con constrained them a lot. I would have preferred this stayed another month in development and editing.
You have no idea how many moving parts there are to a book like this. With so many new classes and things that rely on them, simple changes to a class feature can ripple throughout the book. I'm not saying its perfect (it isn't), but I don't think it is in any way more or less flawed than previous years' Gen Con releases, including the Core Rulebook. I dare you to do better.I also doubt that another month would have brought it to your level of satisfaction. Please, do not misconstrue that as saying you're impossible to please. What I mean is that everyone has a pet issue with a book like this where they disagree with decisions that were made. Something left out they wanted, something included they didn't, or just something they wanted not done to their own personal taste. It's easy to say that if the book had more time, or more developers, or a different developer, that it would match the mental ideal the person built during the run up to release. It's sort of a way of saying "I'm right, and if Paizo had just tried harder, they would have realized that." Even though that if the book was different it would be some other person making a slightly different complaint about the thing that was different.
Okay. Which classes get an extra page, out of the 10 new and 18 old in the book? Or are you going to give them a paragraph each, letting that information dangle off to the next page and making header placement awkward? The publishing industry calls those things 'orphans' and they are considered to be bad.
And which feats and spells are there 'just to take up page count'? There are way easier and less error-prone ways to fill space than developing rules text. Perhaps you meant spells that are developed to fill a specific space on a page (i.e. "We need a spell of about 250 words, and the title has to be alphabetized between 'Pe' and 'Pr'")? I have no idea how many of those are actually created, but I'd like to give the developers enough credits that they try to create a spell that is interesting and useful within those constrainsts, because if they just want something no one would read twice they could just use Lorem Ipsum. Or perhaps you just like to assume any option that you don't personally think is worthwhile must have been created for bad reasons?
Also, you'll note that if something is created to fill a space, it is because that space needed to be filled. The feats chapter can't just end halfway down a page, for instance. Well, it could, if you filled that space with a half-page art, but that still doesn't let you start the next chapter a half-page earlier.
Do you know how important Christmas (and the associated season) is to the American retail economy? 'Black Friday' is called such because for many retailers it is the day of the year where they become profitable (i.e. out of the red and into the black.) Video game studios can live or die based on if their product reaches stores in time for Christmas.Gen Con is a big deal for tabletop RPGs. And Paizo, among may other things, is a business. You might prefer that they ship mid-september or something, but showing up to Gen Con with that year's release is a big deal.
They can't finish later - the only alternative is to start earlier. But I think you can agree that running another year in advance of the release schedule is unfeasible. Perhaps they should havecut one of the rounds of playtesting to get more development time. Would that have been better?
That's a lot more involved than saying it's an unwillingness. Those are genuinely good reasons to meet GenCon releases. Still, that doesn't bode well for Occult Adventures. I have a feeling history will repeat itself and Occult Adventures will be another editing mess due to rushing to meet the new GenCon date. It's a heartbreaking shame to me, because I genuinely like the people that work at Paizo and I really love Pathfinder. But if nothing can or will be done about the editing issues, and if GenCon is going to continue to be the focus of Paizo at the expense of quality control, then maybe it is time to move on.
That really sucks. But I don't want to spend money on a poor quality project. I guess thems the breaks.
|
|
That's a lot more involved than saying it's an unwillingness. Those are genuinely good reasons to meet GenCon releases. Still, that doesn't bode well for Occult Adventures. I have a feeling history will repeat itself and Occult Adventures will be another editing mess due to rushing to meet the new GenCon date. It's a heartbreaking shame to me, because I genuinely like the people that work at Paizo and I really love Pathfinder. But if nothing can or will be done about the editing issues, and if GenCon is going to continue to be the focus of Paizo at the expense of quality control, then maybe it is time to move on.
That really sucks. But I don't want to spend money on a poor quality project. I guess thems the breaks.
I will concede it may not be unwillingness. Yet while I will still buy product I expect the poor editing and mistakes to continue.
Huh, so that's the infamous Big Six list. I...am not sure why I expected it to not hurt my soul inside. For some reason I'd held out hope, but those hopes were dashed, as hopes are.
Of the items on those lists, only the following are 'essential':
- Stat boosters (this is accuracy and damage for melee, hit points for everyone, and save DCs for casters)
- Cloak of resistance (dem saves)
- Magic weapon (melee only; casters don't need this. They might like it, sure, as something to stick their utility properties on, but no needed).
- Magic armor (as a place to stick useful armor properties)
Rings of protection are handy but not needed. Amulets of natural armor are much less handy and should be replaced at around mid levels if you've got 'em and in any event are not needed. If you're looking for defensive items, tactics like miss chances (cloak of displacement in whatever flavor you like, nightmare boots), faster movement (quickrunner's shirt), teleportation, or flight work a lot better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, Ross was pretty passive/aggressive there. If Paizo dropped the ball on editing, then they dropped the ball. The take away is 'do better' and not 'improve my process for me.' There is always room to do better. If not, then you've reached the end of your ability to compete and might as well close doors. If that means releasing a couple fewer products per year, then so be it. Nothing Wizards can do will drive away their customer base faster than if Paizo's product quality plummets.
I will concede it may not be unwillingness. Yet while I will still buy product I expect the editing and mistakes to continue.That's a lot more involved than saying it's an unwillingness. Those are genuinely good reasons to meet GenCon releases. Still, that doesn't bode well for Occult Adventures. I have a feeling history will repeat itself and Occult Adventures will be another editing mess due to rushing to meet the new GenCon date. It's a heartbreaking shame to me, because I genuinely like the people that work at Paizo and I really love Pathfinder. But if nothing can or will be done about the editing issues, and if GenCon is going to continue to be the focus of Paizo at the expense of quality control, then maybe it is time to move on.
That really sucks. But I don't want to spend money on a poor quality project. I guess thems the breaks.
I understand that there will always be mistakes. That happens with any book. But the ACG was a whole different level of unacceptable, worse than Ultimate Magic / Combat. And if this is the future of GenCon releases, then that is a tragedy. The content in ACG is awesome, but it is held back by the editing.
Huh, so that's the infamous Big Six list. I...am not sure why I expected it to not hurt my soul inside. For some reason I'd held out hope, but those hopes were dashed, as hopes are.
Of the items on those lists, only the following are 'essential':
- Stat boosters (this is accuracy and damage for melee, hit points for everyone, and save DCs for casters)
- Cloak of resistance (dem saves)
- Magic weapon (melee only; casters don't need this. They might like it, sure, as something to stick their utility properties on, but no needed).
- Magic armor (as a place to stick useful armor properties)Rings of protection are handy but not needed. Amulets of natural armor are much less handy and should be replaced at around mid levels if you've got 'em and in any event are not needed. If you're looking for defensive items, tactics like miss chances (cloak of displacement in whatever flavor you like, nightmare boots), faster movement (quickrunner's shirt), teleportation, or flight work a lot better.
Except you can't use cloak of displacement with cloak of resistance and the cloak of resistance is the most important of the 6. Thus you lose miss chance, and in order for AC to remain competitive against enemy attacks you need amulet of natural armor and ring of protection.
Disclaimer: Obviously characters that use spells or feats will be able to boost their AC back up to normal levels, but short of using resources this is pretty much the only way.
So invest in the boots, or another form of miss chance or non-AC defense. The thing with focusing on AC is it takes a lot of resources, still doesn't always work, and has a very hard time keeping up with the nastiest kind of attack that's gonna target it - touch attacks. Miss chances? They just work.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I loved Pathfinder as is. Then I started reading these forums. I've liked it less and less ever since. Less to do with the system, more to do with some of the types of people attracted to this type of system.
I can understand this leading to having contempt for fellow gamers (I have plenty of that myself thanks to my online participation here and other message boards), but I don't think I have ever let it affect my ability to like a game...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I loved Pathfinder as is. Then I started reading these forums. I've liked it less and less ever since. Less to do with the system, more to do with some of the types of people attracted to this type of system.I can understand this leading to having contempt for fellow gamers (I have plenty of that myself thanks to my online participation here and other message boards), but I don't think I have ever let it affect my ability to like a game...
Agreed. As long as the neagative gamers are out there somewhere but not in my group it doesnt affect me at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's actually one of the main reasons I'm not a huge fan of how the Big Six items work in Pathfinder. The Big Six are very much expected and ordinary. It's hard to get excited about getting another +1, but sooner or later you need those bonuses just to survive.Magic items that let you do something new and interesting are far more exciting than ones that just add flat numerical bonuses. Problem is, Pathfinder is very much a numbers game; no matter how good your tactics are and what creative solutions you come up with, eventually dice are going to be rolled.
You generally need some of those items to thrive, sure. But you don't need all of them, nor do all of the ones you have need to be maxed out. Yet all 6 of these are part of the Big 6 because, necessary or not, they are very valuable compared to most other magic items. Their benefits are consistent, easy to calculate, hard to forget about, and relatively cheap. For those reasons, they kick the butt of many if not most conditional-use items, like rings of shooting stars, which are generally sold off at first opportunity to get one of the Big 6.
I thought blind fight was only from concealment caused by darkness.
Fair enough.
Am I the only one around here that doesnt know or care about what the heck the big six items are? I spend entire campaigns not buying anything but starting gear and ammo and didn't not accepting loot unless nobody else could use it.
My games rarely involve crafting (the player's aren't that interested in it) and tend to be pretty magic-light. I've still got some characters of level 10+ running around with nonmagical weapons.
The game still runs pretty smoothly - I just need to make sure not to throw some critter at the PCs that they have no way of dealing with (i.e., incorporeal monsters against a group with no magic). I haven't run into a situation yet where I feel like I'm making the PCs suffer for not buying cloaks of resistance or the like.
Am I the only one around here that doesnt know or care about what the heck the big six items are? I spend entire campaigns not buying anything but starting gear and ammo and didn't not accepting loot unless nobody else could use it.My games rarely involve crafting (the player's aren't that interested in it) and tend to be pretty magic-light. I've still got some characters of level 10+ running around with nonmagical weapons.
The game still runs pretty smoothly - I just need to make sure not to throw some critter at the PCs that they have no way of dealing with (i.e., incorporeal monsters against a group with no magic). I haven't run into a situation yet where I feel like I'm making the PCs suffer for not buying cloaks of resistance or the like.
This right here more proves WHY the "Big 6" (or if nothing else, the "Big 4" of Cloak, Sword, Armor, and Stats) are so important.
You need to specifically tailor encounters against the lack of some of them.
This is one reason why I switched to crystals.
There's a third party thing where you put gems in you items for effects. The gems have four different 'grades' with increasingly stronger but the same effects. I just let them key off of the weapon's enhancement bonus. For example, normally if you get a grade D gem you get that effect no matter what but in my game's case if you slot in a D gem into a +3 weapon you get the grade C effect.
After that It was just a matter of giving a means to translate BAB to enhancement bonuses (representing warrior's spirit or whatever. Sometimes 'disciple weapon runes on the weapon) and when I feel like making them non-magic reflavor the gems into TMs from pokemon that you put on your items.
Am I the only one around here that doesnt know or care about what the heck the big six items are? I spend entire campaigns not buying anything but starting gear and ammo and didn't not accepting loot unless nobody else could use it.My games rarely involve crafting (the player's aren't that interested in it) and tend to be pretty magic-light. I've still got some characters of level 10+ running around with nonmagical weapons.
The game still runs pretty smoothly - I just need to make sure not to throw some critter at the PCs that they have no way of dealing with (i.e., incorporeal monsters against a group with no magic). I haven't run into a situation yet where I feel like I'm making the PCs suffer for not buying cloaks of resistance or the like.
This right here more proves WHY the "Big 6" (or if nothing else, the "Big 4" of Cloak, Sword, Armor, and Stats) are so important.
You need to specifically tailor encounters against the lack of some of them.
I agree with this: Big 4 is mandatory unless you are a caster and only need the Big 2. PCs eventually just need some of the bonuses if they are going to keep up and you as a DM aren't planning on limiting your monster choice or adjusting them to compensate. This is an issue if you like magic-lite, which I also enjoy, but using an innate bonus system works out rather well; the one I use was from a someone on this board and gives a number of points at each level that can be spent on increasing stats/saves/weapons/armor, but the weapons and armor bonuses apply to whatever you happen to be using. Yay, you can now effectively golf bag if you are into that.
, a growing gap between those rules and fantasy archetype,I don't get this one. I like that each campaign winds up being basically a different subgenre. I've GMed a western setting, Feudal Japan setting, Feudal-ish Japan with magical giant robots setting, horror setting, scifi setting, and space fantasy setting. The only linking factor is really that magic still existed and was prevalent.
The rules are divided enough where you can easily ban or include things based on what kind of technology level you want to flavor the world. Now unless you're playing virtual Lord of the Rings and you're players are going "Well Technology Guide is Paizo so I should be able to use laser guns.
Sure, my comment isn't about technology level in a campaign. It's about what I perceive as a trend towards "rules for rules sake", rather than rules whose origin is emulation of a fantasy (or sci-fi) archetype that exists in the human collective subconscious.
Of course, there are inevitably those players who do complain about any campaign setting that excludes any option available in any splat book, forever. That's a different issue (though also possibly related to what we mean by liking Pathfinder "as is".)
I agree with this: Big 4 is mandatory unless you are a caster and only need the Big 2. PCs eventually just need some of the bonuses if they are going to keep up and you as a DM aren't planning on limiting your monster choice or adjusting them to compensate. This is an issue if you like magic-lite, which I also enjoy, but using an innate bonus system works out rather well; the one I use was from a someone on this board and gives a number of points at each level that can be spent on increasing stats/saves/weapons/armor, but the weapons and armor bonuses apply to whatever you happen to be using. Yay, you can now effectively golf bag if you are into that.Am I the only one around here that doesnt know or care about what the heck the big six items are? I spend entire campaigns not buying anything but starting gear and ammo and didn't not accepting loot unless nobody else could use it.My games rarely involve crafting (the player's aren't that interested in it) and tend to be pretty magic-light. I've still got some characters of level 10+ running around with nonmagical weapons.
The game still runs pretty smoothly - I just need to make sure not to throw some critter at the PCs that they have no way of dealing with (i.e., incorporeal monsters against a group with no magic). I haven't run into a situation yet where I feel like I'm making the PCs suffer for not buying cloaks of resistance or the like.
This right here more proves WHY the "Big 6" (or if nothing else, the "Big 4" of Cloak, Sword, Armor, and Stats) are so important.
You need to specifically tailor encounters against the lack of some of them.
I'm more concerned about the divide where casters only need two while martials need all four. If classes do not get anything past their starting gear I would like to hope that class features would keep them on par with each other. (disregarding other imbalances.)
Martials need all 6. 10 points of AC is not something the martials can ignore. Without those two items they might as well not wear armor.
Martials need all 6. 10 points of AC is not something the martials can ignore. Without those two items they might as well not wear armor.
Generally agreed, though I would say there's some variance for certain builds/classes. Rangers can survive without an amulet since they can eventually just cast barkskin on themselves, paladins get a deflection bonus to AC while smiting, etc.
This right here more proves WHY the "Big 6" (or if nothing else, the "Big 4" of Cloak, Sword, Armor, and Stats) are so important.
You need to specifically tailor encounters against the lack of some of them.
Well, yes and no, I think. Running adventures exactly as written probably requires a closer adherence to those expectations. However, tweaking encounters to fit a specific party is something that, in my experience at least, tends to happen no matter what game I'm playing.
Example: a few sessions back I threw a bunch of golem encounters at the group and the sorcerer player felt useless. That was a goof on my part. In a more recent session, I added a large monster to a swarm encounter so the fighting types in the group would have something to do while the spellcasters launched fire and lightning. These are considerations that had nothing to do with what magic plusses the group had and everything to do with just making sure the whole group got to do something fun.
Sure. But when a GM advertises for players for a Pathfinder game and they show up and your game is E6, low magic, non-vancian, alignments are gone,, etc aren't they being a tad disingenuous?Bonus explanation: Pathfinder is among the easiest systems to find a game for. Sure I love a few smaller systems out there, but I'd have trouble finding players for them, much less a GM so that I could be a player.But I ask then- there are plenty of great FRPG without Vancian or without alignments or that are classless, etc. Why not play one of those? Why the NEED to change Pathfinder to meet your particular wants?Can't speak for everyone, but maybe even the drastic changes are (at least in the eyes of those clamoring for them) still smaller than going to a whole different game? I mean, theoretically, if someone wanted to change anything up to 49% of the Pathfinder system, then it's still "easier" (in at least some sense of the word) to change Pathfinder than to switch to a different game.
Or at least, that's my speculation.
My advice for people that to make low magic work in Pathfinder is generally to find a system that's designed for that type of fantasy, because I haven't seen any rules that make it work well. Why do they want to homebrew it for Pathfinder though? I'm guessing it's the convenience of getting a group together. You can advertise your low-magic Pathfinder game and get more interest than [obscure system] because people only have to learn some houserules to a system they already know, than an entirely new system.
And I'll take alignments gone for any game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I'll take alignments gone for any game.
I like the alignment system, if only because it helps give you a foundation for building a character's personality upon. Some people can't just spit out a character all willy-nilly, and the alignment system is a good crutch for "how would my character respond to this situation?" It gives a good introduction to roleplaying, and helps you define motivations for those who don't want to crank out half a novel every time they play Pathfinder.
My advice for people that to make low magic work in Pathfinder is generally to find a system that's designed for that type of fantasy, because I haven't seen any rules that make it work well. Why do they want to homebrew it for Pathfinder though? I'm guessing it's the convenience of getting a group together. You can advertise your low-magic Pathfinder game and get more interest than [obscure system] because people only have to learn some houserules to a system they already know, than an entirely new system.Sure. But when a GM advertises for players for a Pathfinder game and they show up and your game is E6, low magic, non-vancian, alignments are gone,, etc aren't they being a tad disingenuous?Bonus explanation: Pathfinder is among the easiest systems to find a game for. Sure I love a few smaller systems out there, but I'd have trouble finding players for them, much less a GM so that I could be a player.But I ask then- there are plenty of great FRPG without Vancian or without alignments or that are classless, etc. Why not play one of those? Why the NEED to change Pathfinder to meet your particular wants?Can't speak for everyone, but maybe even the drastic changes are (at least in the eyes of those clamoring for them) still smaller than going to a whole different game? I mean, theoretically, if someone wanted to change anything up to 49% of the Pathfinder system, then it's still "easier" (in at least some sense of the word) to change Pathfinder than to switch to a different game.
Or at least, that's my speculation.
Have to agree on this, to an extent. Assuming book access and familiarity with the system aren't crippling issues, you're almost always better off with a system that's designed for a more low-magic approach than you are with trying to modify Pathfinder to fit that niche.
Granted, access to books and familiarity with the game system are pretty big issues.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I'll take alignments gone for any game.I like the alignment system, if only because it helps give you a foundation for building a character's personality upon. Some people can't just spit out a character all willy-nilly, and the alignment system is a good crutch for "how would my character respond to this situation?" It gives a good introduction to roleplaying, and helps you define motivations for those who don't want to crank out half a novel every time they play Pathfinder.
Alignment when used that way is great. It's an RP enhancer, a guide, a helping hand if you will.
The problem comes from the devs imposing their moral worldviews, sometimes in a contradictory fashion, on the actual RULES of the game.
It morphs it from an enhancer into a detractor, from a guide to a rule, a helping hand to a RESTRICTION on your roleplay.
No, your necromancer can't be a good guy. Because rules.
That otherwise nice fellow who ritually imbibes his opponent's blood out of respect for them? Evil, because alignment rules.
Got turned into an undead? Want to RP your character fighting his new urges, struggling to remain good? Screw that noise, undead are always evil, and your alignment explicitly shifts to evil upon becoming one.
THAT is the part of alignment I hate, and do without.
And I'll take alignments gone for any game.I like the alignment system, if only because it helps give you a foundation for building a character's personality upon. Some people can't just spit out a character all willy-nilly, and the alignment system is a good crutch for "how would my character respond to this situation?" It gives a good introduction to roleplaying, and helps you define motivations for those who don't want to crank out half a novel every time they play Pathfinder.
Alignment to facilitate roleplaying is cool with me.
Alignment as rules annoys me though. I'll take my chaos monk and lawbarian just fine.
Though it goes beyond that in that I tend to not like fluff-as-rules in general. When I GM I tend to be flexible about "Special" requirements on PrCs and tend to ignore stuff like Druids not being able to wear metal or only worshippers of Cayden being more bold while drunk.
Not that any of those are necessarily bad things (except the last one, screw that noise) I just feel that it constrains things a bit based on the opinions of someone who isn't even in the game.