| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules for creating wondrous items say: "To create a wondrous item, a character usually needs some sort of equipment or tools to work on the item. She also needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being the item itself or the pieces of the item to be assembled."
If the character has never even heard of a particular item, how would they know what "sort of equipment or tools" they would need?
Since you missed it last time it was posted...
Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting a magic item comes into question.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
BigNorseWolf, there has been debate on whether or not an intelligence of 3 allows an Animal Companion to fall into the second paragraph.
People debate anything. You know that.
So on the one hand we have the statement that Animal Companions fall into the first paragraph.
Under the heading of nonsentient animal companions, a direct statement that they are controlled because they're non sentient, AND a clear reason why they're on the list, AND the word "generally"
This could not be clearer.
On the other we have the statement that creatures with a 3 intelligence fall into the second but NO corresponding statement that animal companions are exempt from the first paragraph and thus fall into the second.
No indication except the direct statement that animals are in the first paragraph because of their int score, that it generally includes animal companions and might not, define a sentient creature as int 3 and can understand a language (which int 3 critters can explicitly do as per the monkey see monkey do blog)
Then, we have the previous Dev statements (and blog) that even a 3 Int Animal Companion requires Handle Animal. That again, puts it back into the first paragraph.
There is very little you can't get a critter to do when it has the right tricks.
In any case, none of this changes that Rheydn's statement is incomplete at best and that by default rule, ACs are controlled by the GM.
Depends on what you consider default. In the players handbook example the player was controling their pet and it was running on his init.
After that point the GM may rule that an AC with an int of 3 falls into the second paragraph or the GM may choose to assign control of the AC to the player for ease of gaming.
No. They will almost always asign all critters to the pc for ease of gaming. A dm would have to have a very good reason for controling something smarter.
But the player should understand that the GM can assert control over the AC anytime because...that is the default rule.
Thats the same rule for sentient critters and the same way i said it works in practice: player runs it, dm veto's some actions.
Sooooo, if I played a campaign where the communities were nomadic bands on a huge plain... With no other settlements available... WITHOUT surprising anyone with this... Could I possibly be playing Pathfinder anyway? Or am I playing some other game? More generally, what could be removed from the game before I was not playing PF? Bags of holding? Orcs? Elves? Wayang? Dorn-dergar? Falcatas? Or would removing the possibility of having bags of holding make it impossible to play PF, even if everything else remains? Would it change anything if the campaign played out in a massive extradimensional space, meaning bags of holding do not work by the rules?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sooooo, if I played a campaign where the communities were nomadic bands on a huge plain... With no other settlements available... WITHOUT surprising anyone with this... Could I possibly be playing Pathfinder anyway?
You'd be playing in a campaign with mobile communities, which would have GP and caster limits. If you were stepping outside the rules for what was available in your nomadic bands, then you're playing modded Pathfinder.
Or am I playing some other game? More generally, what could be removed from the game before I was not playing PF? Bags of holding? Orcs? Elves? Wayang? Dorn-dergar? Falcatas?
Yes, if you're removing stuff from the core rules like Elves and bags of holding, you're not playing Pathfinder so much as modded Pathfinder. Because you have actually removed material that is normally available in default Pathfinder. This would be akin to saying "We're playing Pathfinder, except there's no such thing as experience points", which is something a lot of people do.
Or would removing the possibility of having bags of holding make it impossible to play PF, even if everything else remains? Would it change anything if the campaign played out in a massive extradimensional space, meaning bags of holding do not work by the rules?
A campaign that takes place in an area or world that prevents the use of standard magic items falls into the same category I mentioned before, where campaigns - like Eberron - note special changes that make it different from the standard game.
AFAIK, when you start changing the core assumptions of the system (the system already has several scales for magic availability, experience pace, and treasure availability baked into the game) you aren't really playing Pathfinder anymore. You're playing modded Pathfinder.
Now most of us do play a modded Pathfinder in one way or another, in one campaign or another, in much the same way I ran a campaign not long ago that had far fewer spellcasters out and about in the world and purchasing major magical items wasn't really much of a thing (but I had implemented a custom magic item creation system as well), and I listed the changes to the system and made them part of the handout showing where the game went from being Pathfinder to not being Pathfinder.
This isn't rocket science.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Sissyl: Don't let anyone tell you what you can do with your home group campaign. Nobody posting on these forums (with the possible exception of a developer or two, maybe) have the authority to dictate which set of rules you have to be using in order to be playing Pathfinder.
The point isn't to tell people what they can and can't do, and it's not to identify the One True Pathfinder.
The point is to achieve an understanding of how the default rule set works, in order to understand what effects changing those default rules will have on the game. Pathfinder is a very complex game and it has a lot of moving parts, and not all of the parts' effects on each other are obvious to everyone.
Vanilla Pathfinder -- by the book -- is a very fun game, which is why it's so successful. There are a lot of role-playing games out there that are not nearly as much fun, which is (part of) why they're not as successful. And if you make a change in the rules,.... well, there are a lot of rule changes that may make it more fun for your group, but a lot of them will also make it less fun for your group. I think that PF is a pretty good game, which means that there are a lot more rule changes that will make the game less fun rather than more.
The Pathfinder economy system is actually pretty weak, but it's a lot better than previous economy systems in the D&D version tree, and it's also a lot better than most of its competitors. It's already pretty unbelievable, but most of the economic changes proposed actually make it more unbelievable, which (for me) breaks verisimilitude and immersion.
One of the key design decisions PF designers made was to make the crafting economy easy and simple, to empower players to play the characters they wanted to play. We've seen other systems that didn't make this decision, and they were generally worse games. So it strikes me as very odd that someone, knowing that a difficult and complex magic item economy is a Bad Thing, would want to rip out a easy and simple one designed to avoid that problem and create a homebrew system specifically designed to be a Bad Thing.
* Hey, the game is more fun if we do X!
* Great! Let's make a point of doing Y instead!
<shrug> Whatever butters your own crumpet, I suppose.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much what Orfamay Quest said, as they said it better. :)
When we're on the boards, we're usually talking about Pathfinder. Not Pathfinder +/- stuff. Pathfinder's built on a pretty solid game framework that's been getting tweaked for close to 20 years now and it's at a really sweet spot compared to where it's been.
It facilitates a good game. It's not perfect, but it's damn good.
An Aside: Deviating from Pathfinder much is actually a pretty good way to get most anyone I know to bow out of a game. Most of us want to play Pathfinder (ideally Pathfinder + Dreamscarred Press material). Most of the players I know have no interest in someone's GM whimsy adventures, nor someone's "magic makes you age 20 years when you use it" adventures, or whatever else.
i.e. If you can't play any race described in any supplement with any equipment, class, feat, and so on, it is no longer Pathfinder, which would mean you and your friends would not want to play? Just for clarification, you know...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even things like Craft feats - When someone takes Craft Wondrous Item - do you assume that their character is knowledgable of all wondrous items? As in, they can just scan through the items and decide to create any of the ones that they meet the prereqs for?
Daily spellcraft checks are rolled testing the crafters knowledge and skill.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
i.e. If you can't play any race described in any supplement with any equipment, class, feat, and so on, it is no longer Pathfinder, which would mean you and your friends would not want to play? Just for clarification, you know...
Ommissions/additions/changes to standard rules should be highlighted prior to the beginning of the campaign.
I know I keep a word document that I update before beginning new campaigns. I also use this file to track rulings and clarifications I make. Consistency and transparency are important, your players should know what to expect before they make a decision.
i.e. If you can't play any race described in any supplement with any equipment, class, feat, and so on, it is no longer Pathfinder, which would mean you and your friends would not want to play? Just for clarification, you know...
You answered your question. A supplement is something that either adds to the existing material or makes some sort of addendum. Without falcatas, it's still Pathfinder (just sans a supplement).
When you start screwing around with the base assumptions of the core game, it's not. Which is why, when I ran a campaign that had little to no focus on wealth, and little magic trade going on, I noted it to the players, added some additional rules, and explained the change.
We could continue this circle of "clarification" some more, though I'll get few posts in before work.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here, I'll make this really damned simple.
If your campaign makes it so that you cannot trust this when you're getting ready to play your game, then it's not Pathfinder anymore.
And if your GM doesn't tell you why you can't trust that ahead of time, you can't (or shouldn't) trust them either.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
An Aside: Deviating from Pathfinder much is actually a pretty good way to get most anyone I know to bow out of a game. Most of us want to play Pathfinder.
Speaking for myself only,..... yes. This is also why I'm not a fan of 3PP content. As Ashiel said, the core PF system has been hammered out over something like 20 years, and most of the major issues are either fixed/errataed or they're baked so deeply into the system that you can't pull them out without a complete rewrite. Paizo is a good place to work and has its pick of game designers and writers. I've also had occasion to compliment them specifically on how good their editors are. Many of their supplements are widely released as playtest versions so that literally hundreds or thousands of people can find any and report any issues.
Hairy Mongrel Press's Ultimate Cupcakes supplement has none of those advantages. A lot of the time, Harry himself is the writer, the editor, and game masters the playtest group. I find that most 3PP material breaks if you shake it too hard -- in fact, I find that most 3PP material breaks if you look at it in too loud a voice.
Homebrew material is in the same position, only often even worse. I find that most homebrew material is imposed by the game master to "fix" a problem that only he is having with the game. I also find that little of it has had any sort of playtesting or even critical analysis, so it's likely to have unexpected negative consequences. And to be frank, when someone comes along and says something like "crafting is too easy; I want my players not to be able to get the magic items they want to have," I wonder whether the expected consequences aren't themselves negative.
I don't know how many people here are familiar with Toyota's "5 Whys" technique, but something similar is relevant here. If there's a house rule you want to propose, dig deeper and figure out why you are really wanting to propose it.
Too often, it turns into this:
I don't want people to know how to make every wondrous item.
Why? I want people to have to go on a quest to find how to make magic items, which will discourage them from doing so.
Why? I want to reduce the availability of magic items.
Why? I feel that the player characters are too powerful.
Why? The players are able to take partial control of the narrative, and it's a problem.
Why? The players are trying to tell a story and it's interfering with my ability to tell the story I want to tell.
Especially when the proposed rule changes are simply putting limits on players, it usually doesn't result in an improvement to the game. PF assumes a certain power level at a certain numeric level -- this is one of the things "baked in" to the game. Saying "I want 8th level characters, but I only want them to be as powerful as 6th level characters" simply means that the characters are losing more than the game expects them to. And most people don't think losing is fun.
But it also reduces player empowerment and by extension, player involvement. And that, again, is generally not fun.
As I said earlier, PF is a pretty good game out of the box. A lot of people have tried to make it as fun as they can. Which means that most easy fixes have already been tried internally, and they didn't result in improvements.
i.e. If you can't play any race described in any supplement with any equipment, class, feat, and so on, it is no longer Pathfinder, which would mean you and your friends would not want to play? Just for clarification, you know...Those are your words, not Ashiel's (or the words of anyone else, for that matter). I can't claim to have direct knowledge of everything Ashiel thinks, but I can say from past discussions that he prefers it if you respond to what was actually said, not what you want him to have said.
I <3 you, 137ben. :)
Yes, if you're removing stuff from the core rules like Elves and bags of holding, you're not playing Pathfinder so much as modded Pathfinder. Because you have actually removed material that is normally available in default Pathfinder. This would be akin to saying "We're playing Pathfinder, except there's no such thing as experience points", which is something a lot of people do.
Just in the interests of fairness (and demonstration), this is something we do at our table. We eliminate experience points and level by milestone. Here's my take on the 5 Why's for that decision:
I don't want to use experience points
Why? Experience points are a nuisance to track on a per-encounter basis.
Why? XP wastes the GM's time.
Why? Instead of doing math for each encounter, the GM should be spending his or her time designing interesting encounters.
Why? Because the encounters are fun.
Why? Because the game masters that I have are generally pretty good at balancing encounters without the crutch of a per-encounter XP budget.
I actually learned something in this process. Pathfinder-without-XP is not universally a good thing, but dependent upon the skill of the GM. (I might have to start recommending that my novice GMs pay attention to this. Whooda thunk?) But I'm pretty happy with any root-cause analysis that ends with "because it's more fun for everyone that way" or something similar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, if you're removing stuff from the core rules like Elves and bags of holding, you're not playing Pathfinder so much as modded Pathfinder. Because you have actually removed material that is normally available in default Pathfinder. This would be akin to saying "We're playing Pathfinder, except there's no such thing as experience points", which is something a lot of people do.Just in the interests of fairness (and demonstration), this is something we do at our table. We eliminate experience points and level by milestone. Here's my take on the 5 Why's for that decision:
I don't want to use experience points
Why? Experience points are a nuisance to track on a per-encounter basis.
Why? XP wastes the GM's time.
Why? Instead of doing math for each encounter, the GM should be spending his or her time designing interesting encounters.
Why? Because the encounters are fun.
Why? Because the game masters that I have are generally pretty good at balancing encounters without the crutch of a per-encounter XP budget.I actually learned something in this process. Pathfinder-without-XP is not a good thing, but dependent upon the skill of the GM. (I might have to start recommending that my novice GMs pay attention to this. Whooda thunk?) But I'm pretty happy with any root-cause analysis that ends with "because it's more fun for everyone that way" or something similar.
Indeed.
As an aside, using XP values to help newbie GMs design encounters is still pretty handy even if you opt to go with a milestone approach. The system Pathfinder uses for building fun and balanced encounters is top notch, IMHO. Even if you don't actually use the XP value as a reward, it's a good benchmark for not overwhelming or underwhelming your players too frequently. :D
EDIT: I mostly keep XP around because XP doesn't detract much from my work with GMing (if at all) and it can feel like a reward unto itself. XP can also be used as a sort of soft-reward for doing things you want to encourage more in the game for whatever reason (such as when the party accidentally makes their own side quests :P).
i.e. If you can't play any race described in any supplement with any equipment, class, feat, and so on, it is no longer Pathfinder, which would mean you and your friends would not want to play? Just for clarification, you know...
IMO, I don't think it is helpful or productive to tell other people they're not playing Pathfinder because they choose to make minor alterations to the ruleset.
If you say you're playing Pathfinder, but its in a campaign world where elves don't exist, that is still Pathfinder, as far as I am concerned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since I keep mentioning this campaign I did where I threw a lot of the core assumptions of Pathfinder off the rails, let me elaborate on it so as to show you what I mean by "not Pathfinder anymore".
The campaign was designed with the following assumptions.
1. It was going to be a slow advancement campaign (core Pathfinder)
2. It was going to have little emphasis on treasure, WBL be (sorta) damned (not Pathfinder)
3. It was going to have lots of small villages and lots of superstitious folks and actual spellcasters were rare (not Pathfinder).
Because these assumptions were part of the flavor I was going for with that campaign. Specifically, a low-key fantasy with elements of mystery, horror, and superstition.
Recognizing many of the repercussions and furthering the flavor of the game, a few other changes were made.
1. The crafting system was revised (mundane and magical), allowing players more freedom for creating their own stuff.
2. A system was set into place allowing players to use their skills to acquire materials to brew potions or craft magical items.
3. Most magical items that could be traded (such as potions) were made by experts or the (infrequent) adept (or hedge witch) that made their potions out of various herbs, animal bits, etc.
4. The new system assigned certain values to using parts from creatures to create magical doodads. Players didn't just go out and buy magical items, and they rarely found tons of money while hunting things like werewolves and wights, but they could certainly fashion a cloak of resistance out of the werewolf's pelt or something to that fashion.
5. The added system also functioned as a springboard for plot or interest related things. Certain materials when used in large enough quantities would leave lingering auras. So if you for example used a lot of elf blood to create your ring of protection, it would have an aura of necromancy in addition to its other auras. This also gives rise to evil cultists doing things like abducting and murdering people to ritually harvest their goodies to make magical doodads.
But all of this was made clear upfront. It was clearly explained where, how, and why, the game wasn't Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i.e. If you can't play any race described in any supplement with any equipment, class, feat, and so on, it is no longer Pathfinder, which would mean you and your friends would not want to play? Just for clarification, you know...IMO, I don't think it is helpful or productive to tell other people they're not playing Pathfinder because they choose to make minor alterations to the ruleset.
If you say you're playing Pathfinder, but its in a campaign world where elves don't exist, that is still Pathfinder, as far as I am concerned.
I would strongly assume that would be one of those things that falls into "noted as difference by campaign", which I mentioned (like five times). Just like Eberron explains that it has some differences from the core game and it tells you where the game ends and Eberron begins.
If you said "In this campaign, elves don't exist" that's one thing. Elves not existing isn't an assumption of Pathfinder but the campaign is making a change to the game. If you just let your players assume that elves exist, and later discover that they don't exist (especially after making an elf), you're just a b$$~*&*%.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am surprised that word/term was censored by the forum filter. My but we were apparently foul mouthed little miscreants as children. XD
An Aside: Deviating from Pathfinder much is actually a pretty good way to get most anyone I know to bow out of a game. Most of us want to play Pathfinder.Speaking for myself only,..... yes. This is also why I'm not a fan of 3PP content. As Ashiel said, the core PF system has been hammered out over something like 20 years, and most of the major issues are either fixed/errataed or they're baked so deeply into the system that you can't pull them out without a complete rewrite. Paizo is a good place to work and has its pick of game designers and writers. I've also had occasion to compliment them specifically on how good their editors are. Many of their supplements are widely released as playtest versions so that literally hundreds or thousands of people can find any and report any issues.
Hairy Mongrel Press's Ultimate Cupcakes supplement has none of those advantages. A lot of the time, Harry himself is the writer, the editor, and game masters the playtest group. I find that most 3PP material breaks if you shake it too hard -- in fact, I find that most 3PP material breaks if you look at it in too loud a voice.
Homebrew material is in the same position, only often even worse. I find that most homebrew material is imposed by the game master to "fix" a problem that only he is having with the game. I also find that little of it has had any sort of playtesting or even critical analysis, so it's likely to have unexpected negative consequences. And to be frank, when someone comes along and says something like "crafting is too easy; I want my players not to be able to get the magic items they want to have," I wonder whether the expected consequences aren't themselves negative.
I don't know how many people here are familiar with Toyota's "5 Whys" technique, but something similar is relevant here. If there's a house rule you want to propose, dig deeper and figure out why you are really...
I flagged your post as abusive because you go beyond criticizing the content of 3PP and go into the territory of insulting said publishers.
Paizo has very high respect for the third party market and many of the freelancers they employ have had past experience as freelancers for 3PPs too. Not to mention Mark Seifter was previously a very well renowned third party freelancer. To call said writers mongrels is as bad as to call Paizo a group of Mongrels since Paizo started as a 3PP for 3.5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I flagged your post as abusive because you go beyond criticizing the content of 3PP and go into the territory of insulting said publishers.
Paizo has very high respect for the third party market and many of the freelancers they employ have had past experience as freelancers for 3PPs too. Not to mention Mark Seifter was previously a very well renowned third party freelancer. To call said writers mongrels is as bad as to call Paizo a group of Mongrels since Paizo started as a 3PP for 3.5.
You're...joking right?
EDIT: Not only was everything he said pretty darn accurate, he clearly wasn't calling 3PP mongrels. "Hairy Mongrel Press's Ultimate Cupcakes" was obviously a satire of the naming model a lot of 3PP things use. The first thing I thought of was a gnoll.
Like Fat Goblin, or Dirty Kobold, or...
And since Dreamscarred Press, it's pretty fashionable to add "Press" too.
EDIT 2: And I say that as someone who has published material 3rd Party. Everything he said was 100% accurate. Frequently you've got 1 guy working on the whole thing, doing the writing, editing, layout, etc. Sometimes the material gets playtested, sometimes it doesn't. I've provided feedback and help for a few friends of mine who 3PP, and they have all the same issues and pitfalls.
It's not easy.
Would you call Jason Bulhman a hairy mongrel? If you wouldnt then why is it all right to call other developers that?
I would be insulted if you called me that as would any other person in the 3PP market.
Hence flagged for abuse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Context. It really is important.
EDIT: He also didn't call anyone anything. You're taking the torch and running away with it. You're inferring something that wasn't said, I guess because your butt is in desperate need of some hurt and is willing to find it wherever it can.
Context: 'I do not like 3PP material at all, so when talking about it I will refrain from using neutral language and instead use negative language so I can get away with insulting it indirectly'
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess he was inferring cupcakes are made by hairy mongrels then? Damn, how harsh he is towards bakers!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sooooo, if I played a campaign where the communities were nomadic bands on a huge plain... With no other settlements available... WITHOUT surprising anyone with this... Could I possibly be playing Pathfinder anyway? Or am I playing some other game? More generally, what could be removed from the game before I was not playing PF? Bags of holding? Orcs? Elves? Wayang? Dorn-dergar? Falcatas? Or would removing the possibility of having bags of holding make it impossible to play PF, even if everything else remains? Would it change anything if the campaign played out in a massive extradimensional space, meaning bags of holding do not work by the rules?
If you're using the Pathfinder rules, even a subset of the rules because of campaign-based environments, you're playing Pathfinder. Full stop.
Humans only campaign using the PF mechanics? Pathfinder game.
Dwarven wizard only campaign using the PF mechanics? Pathfinder game.
Roman Legion-inspired game with extremely limited magic using the PF mechanics? Pathfinder game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dear Agony Aunt,
I dream of one day writing a parody so clear and obvious that no one will be able to willfully misrepresent it. Will this ever happen?
Confused Ilithid
Your affectionate aunt
Context: 'I do not like 3PP material at all, so when talking about it I will refrain from using neutral language and instead use negative language so I can get away with insulting it indirectly'
Insain Dragoon: I think you're adding a negative twist to the post that isn't there. I know I took nothing negative from it. 3PP CAN swing wildly in quality from crisp professional products to something that didn't even get a pass with a spell check program.
As to the name, I know I wouldn't be surprised to see "Hairy Mongrel Press" as an actual name of someone publishing. Dire rugrat, dire squid, fat goblin, flaming crab, Geek Industrial Complex, Misfit Studios, Storm Bunny Studios, Straycouches Press, The Knotty-Works, Thick Skull Adventures, Total Party Kill Games and Toxic Bag Productions are ALL real publishers. Does "Hairy Mongrel Press" REALLY seem out of place?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, if you're removing stuff from the core rules like Elves and bags of holding, you're not playing Pathfinder so much as modded Pathfinder. Because you have actually removed material that is normally available in default Pathfinder. This would be akin to saying "We're playing Pathfinder, except there's no such thing as experience points", which is something a lot of people do.Just in the interests of fairness (and demonstration), this is something we do at our table. We eliminate experience points and level by milestone. Here's my take on the 5 Why's for that decision:
I don't want to use experience points
Why? Experience points are a nuisance to track on a per-encounter basis.
Why? XP wastes the GM's time.
Why? Instead of doing math for each encounter, the GM should be spending his or her time designing interesting encounters.
Why? Because the encounters are fun.
Why? Because the game masters that I have are generally pretty good at balancing encounters without the crutch of a per-encounter XP budget.I actually learned something in this process. Pathfinder-without-XP is not universally a good thing, but dependent upon the skill of the GM. (I might have to start recommending that my novice GMs pay attention to this. Whooda thunk?) But I'm pretty happy with any root-cause analysis that ends with "because it's more fun for everyone that way" or something similar.
I do this as well. It eliminates a lot of unnecessary bookkeeping. The APs already tell the GM what level players should be at each point.
"Hairy Mongrel Press's Ultimate Cupcakes" was obviously a satire of the naming model a lot of 3PP things use.
I was just recently alerted from another thread to the existense of the Chef Class from the "Flavour Handbook", published by Duck and Roll Games. It also has 11 food-themed archetypes for core classes. I have no idea if it's any good (I haven't bought it). The 10-page free preview doesn't have the word 'cupcake' in it, though. Maybe the full product does, but I'm not buying it just of find out.
Would you call Jason Bulhman a hairy mongrel? If you wouldnt then why is it all right to call other developers that?
I would be insulted if you called me that as would any other person in the 3PP market.
Hence flagged for abuse.
Even if he did(and it doesn't seem like he did), Hairy Mongrel is pretty much the weakest insult imaginable. It is out there with "Your father was a hamster, and your mother smelled of elderberries!". Honestly, I would be more insulted by someone thinking I could be actually insulted by it than by the insult itself(which quite clearly wasn't there)
Sooooo, if I played a campaign where the communities were nomadic bands on a huge plain... With no other settlements available... WITHOUT surprising anyone with this... Could I possibly be playing Pathfinder anyway? Or am I playing some other game? More generally, what could be removed from the game before I was not playing PF? Bags of holding? Orcs? Elves? Wayang? Dorn-dergar? Falcatas? Or would removing the possibility of having bags of holding make it impossible to play PF, even if everything else remains? Would it change anything if the campaign played out in a massive extradimensional space, meaning bags of holding do not work by the rules?If you're using the Pathfinder rules, even a subset of the rules because of campaign-based environments, you're playing Pathfinder. Full stop.
Humans only campaign using the PF mechanics? Pathfinder game.
Dwarven wizard only campaign using the PF mechanics? Pathfinder game.
Roman Legion-inspired game with extremely limited magic using the PF mechanics? Pathfinder game.
I think most people actually agree with this, there's just the caveat that any major changes to the game's core assumptions need to called out as such and explained well ahead of time.
If someone invites me to join a game of Pathfinder, then by default I'm going to assume it's a game that follows the core rules and baseline assumptions of Pathfinder. If it's a human-only no-spellcasting classes game using PF mechanics, the players ought to be informed of that when they get the invitation for the campaign, because it's a big change from default Pathfinder.
I think most people actually agree with this, there's just the caveat that any major changes to the game's core assumptions need to called out as such and explained well ahead of time.If someone invites me to join a game of Pathfinder, then by default I'm going to assume it's a game that follows the core rules and baseline assumptions of Pathfinder.
That's very important, because a lot of Pathfinder players aren't in it for the mechanics.
One of the members of my old gaming group, for example, didn't want to play in anything that excluded non-humans. (Part of his fantasy escapism.) Another insisted on playing a spell-caster in every game. (Part of his fantasy escapism.) A third wanted to play a Jew in every game, which is "interesting" in worlds like Golarion that don't appear actually to have real-world religions.
For myself,.... well, I'll single out Ashiel's post here:
The campaign was designed with the following assumptions. [...] Because these assumptions were part of the flavor I was going for with that campaign. Specifically, a low-key fantasy with elements of mystery, horror, and superstition.
I'll pass, thanks. I hate horror. One of the few times I deliberately broke a game was when I was recruited into a Cyberpunk game that the GM decided to turn into a Call of Cthulhu-punk game. Lie to me about what I'm getting into, will you?
The Pathfinder mechanics aren't what define Pathfinder, not for me and (I suspect) not for a lot of other people. Just as Star Wars D20 wasn't really D&D, despite using the d20 engine, so, to me, a historical game based around Spartacus' rebellion isn't Pathfinder, either. At a very minimum, Pathfinder (to me) is a high fantasy game, so if you're not playing something recognizably high fantasy, it's not Pathfinder, even if you use the same mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People debate anything.That's debatable.
No it isn't!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No it isn't!People debate anything.That's debatable.
Or is it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is interesting that there appears to be a sharp divide here. On one end, excluding bags of holding makes the game "not Pathfinder". On the other, human only, no magic is still Pathfinder.
I would like it if we could drop the idea that the players are not informed. It has never been a discussion. Of course they would be informed of how the game works. Unless, of course, I plan to sneakily lure you into a game of "Pathfinder" and only then sneak up on you that "by the way, bags of holding do not exist, MWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!".
My view remains, all the elements of the game (races, classes, feats, spells, whatever) ARE optional, and you would still be playing Pathfinder. At least so long as you just take something away. If you add things, I agree that it can get muddier. Still, as long as the stuff added follows the general style of Pathfinder (a version of halfling that has +2 to Charisma instead of Dexterity would be a different sell than a four-dimensional creature composed of pure faith and so on), I don't really see a problem with it. At least not one that would make the game suddenly "not Pathfinder".
As for "modded Pathfinder", I will just challenge you to find ONE GM who plays "unmodded Pathfinder". Maybe you can find one, I dunno... but the sheer amount of stuff that exist for it is becoming rather... cumbersome. Nor, would I add, do I see it as any sort of ideal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is interesting that there appears to be a sharp divide here. On one end, excluding bags of holding makes the game "not Pathfinder". On the other, human only, no magic is still Pathfinder.
I would like it if we could drop the idea that the players are not informed. It has never been a discussion. Of course they would be informed of how the game works. Unless, of course, I plan to sneakily lure you into a game of "Pathfinder" and only then sneak up on you that "by the way, bags of holding do not exist, MWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!".
My view remains, all the elements of the game (races, classes, feats, spells, whatever) ARE optional, and you would still be playing Pathfinder. At least so long as you just take something away. If you add things, I agree that it can get muddier. Still, as long as the stuff added follows the general style of Pathfinder (a version of halfling that has +2 to Charisma instead of Dexterity would be a different sell than a four-dimensional creature composed of pure faith and so on), I don't really see a problem with it. At least not one that would make the game suddenly "not Pathfinder".
As for "modded Pathfinder", I will just challenge you to find ONE GM who plays "unmodded Pathfinder". Maybe you can find one, I dunno... but the sheer amount of stuff that exist for it is becoming rather... cumbersome. Nor, would I add, do I see it as any sort of ideal.
I don't think he was using "modded Pathfinder" as a negative connotation, and I think Ashiel said basically everyone plays modded Pathfinder.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people are way too quick to throw around the words "house rule."
A house rule is supposed to be used to modify an existing rule in the game or add a new rule entirely.
For example, house rule: Scrolls have a 10% chance of failing.
Not a house rule - This large town doesn't have any tigers for sale.
IMO, item/race/class/service availability fall into the "not a house rule" category.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except if the rules say that the towns should have tigers, and you change that, you just house ruled. As noted before, it's not complicated.
Well, do they?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that was just an example, not a statement of "all towns/cities must allow tigers".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, do they?
I don't really care, one way or another. But they do in fact say that you can find spellcasting services of X level, at Y price, at Z sized communities.
That said, the community GP rules mention that they also are used for valuable nonmagical purchases, such as armors as well (which means you're likely not buying any plate mail in a thorpe or hamlet either). Unless animals are noted as being different from other items in terms of availability (and they don't, to my knowledge), so they probably do.
Now that may or may not be a good thing. The ability to purchase tigers is something outside of the core, added by a supplement (there are no prices for tigers and such in basic Pathfinder), so you might just decide to not use that supplement or only parts from that supplement if you think the availability is questionable (though frankly, if we're talking 1,000 gp {a number I saw somewhere in the thread, not sure if it's accurate}; a tiger costs 16+ years worth of living expenses for the average dude so you probably get 'em from an exotic animal dealer or something; like that dude in peddling Giraffs and stuff in Gladiator).
My point was, and is, that if you change the core assumptions of the game you need to detail it ahead of time. It's not complicated, it's not elitist, it's just common courtesy. If I'm running a game and I change something from the basic equipment section, it's my responsibility as the GM to tell you where it deviates from the norms of Pathfinder and how. I'm being a jerk otherwise.
For example, if players know that they can't walk into a town and buy basic potions, scrolls, and spellcasting services even though the core rulebook says these things are available, then they'll very likely have reason to shy away from playing non-full-casters, because if you can't go to town and get restoration cast on you, then you'd best have someone to do it themselves (which further craps on mundanes, since they now have no reliable way of getting certain services even when the game says they should).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Item/race/class/service availability can very much be house rule depending on the context of it not being available. The core rules allow you to choose the core races. If I say I humans do not exist in my game that is a house rule. If I say no humans live in a certain city that would not be a houserule since there is no rule saying humans must be present in every city.