| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF makes it tougher to start up a free-flowing RP game with a fresh table than most other games.
It depends on what you mean by "free flowing."
If you mean "make up system mechanics on the fly (even if they're different than last week, or even a couple hours ago)*," then you're right: Pathfinder, like 3.x, has a high level of codified mechanics (especially with the expanded rules in other books beyond Core) that cover most situations; even when not explicitly covered, an ability check or skill check can often be stretched to meet the immediate need.
If you mean "tell me what you want to do and I'll interpret it," then a GM with a good grasp of the rules can manage it.
*- Frankly, that's something I don't miss from 1st/2nd Ed AD&D.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nowhere did I suggest closing off entire class features or even whole levels. Rather, all I suggested was restricting what you do with those features. All you did was prop up the strawman. Attack it! It's still moving! Oh s+!*, it's going to bite you! You're infected, oh god! We have to amputate!
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with your suggestions. But I still think the PF rules interfere with the DM-player relationship that I have found in other games.In earlier (and later) editions of D&D, there are enough openings that the DM -must- interpret how things work somehow.
I hear this a lot when people laud 5e and it always makes me scratch my head.
Pathfinder has rule 0, right there in the book. As a DM I can work with my players to change things as we please to make the game better.
But if we DON'T want to do that, we actually have rules that tell us how things are going to work by Paizo's approximation and I honestly cannot fathom at all how that's supposed to be worse than a book just saying "Oh well we were too lazy to write most of the game's rules so just make it up and maybe you'll get it right eventually". Like at all.
Pathfinder's roots like in wargaming. You can't get more rigid than that.
You want free flowing, you want a rules light game such as BESM, or Storyteller, or Cubicle 7.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with your suggestions. But I still think the PF rules interfere with the DM-player relationship that I have found in other games.In earlier (and later) editions of D&D, there are enough openings that the DM -must- interpret how things work somehow.
I hear this a lot when people laud 5e and it always makes me scratch my head.
Pathfinder has rule 0, right there in the book. As a DM I can work with my players to change things as we please to make the game better.
But if we DON'T want to do that, we actually have rules that tell us how things are going to work by Paizo's approximation and I honestly cannot fathom at all how that's supposed to be worse than a book just saying "Oh well we were too lazy to write most of the game's rules so just make it up and maybe you'll get it right eventually". Like at all.
I prefer a game with gaps in the rules because there are some people who say if it's written down it trumps everything (and they generally think rule zero doesn't "count" as RAW on the grounds that it's subjective and ill-defined). Running a game for people with those preferences and then substantially changing the way magic works or criticals work or skills work or...anything else really creates discomfort for them.
We prefer to play games with a large, codified body of rules as close as possible to RAW and to leave our "When in doubt, roll and shout" type sessions for less heavily codified systems. Everyone kind of knows what they're getting then when they roll up characters.
PF makes it tougher to start up a free-flowing RP game with a fresh table than most other games.It depends on what you mean by "free flowing."
If you mean "make up system mechanics on the fly (even if they're different than last week, or even a couple hours ago)*," then you're right: Pathfinder, like 3.x, has a high level of codified mechanics (especially with the expanded rules in other books beyond Core) that cover most situations; even when not explicitly covered, an ability check or skill check can often be stretched to meet the immediate need.
If you mean "tell me what you want to do and I'll interpret it," then a GM with a good grasp of the rules can manage it.
*- Frankly, that's something I don't miss from 1st/2nd Ed AD&D.
I just whipped off the term without thinking about it too much. :)
I think the fact that there's a die roll and rule for everything can be good because outcomes remain consistent. But it also means players look to their character sheet for responses to challenges, moreso than their imaginations. (Or at least more often than in 1st/2nd Ed, to maintain that comparison.)
Similarly, the outcome of die rolls and actions in PF are less subject to interpretation than in other systems. There's less room for DM imagination in a system where (for example) Detect Magic delivers a very particular set of almost scientific results after three rounds of detection.
There's one example of "free flowing", I suppose. Things are more consistent in PF, but also more constrained.
Another example:
It's harder to give players a super weird / random magic item (Bag of Beans for example), because it needs to be equated into a cost so WBL remains accurate. The vast majority of magic items in PF are extremely bland buffs / modifiers, because anything too wild needs another rule or would break previous rules, and people need a rule for every possibility.
A room in a dungeon that says "All shadows cast in this room are infinitely deep holes" (from Blue Medusa, below) become problematic because the PF system makes us feel like we need to know what plane those holes to go; what spell that references; how those shadows interact with every spell, are they magic and how to dispel, why are these shadows inconsistent with how shadows are described in the Shadow Planes Players Companion (or whatever) etc. The DM can't just roll with what players throw at the room, and players are less willing to throw ideas at a room because "what about rules"?
So there's another way that I think the rules restrict "free-flowing" games.
I do love this system though. I'm just saying it makes some things a challenge.
Check out the award-winning Maze of the Blue Medusa system-agnostic adventure. That is a crazy crazy open-ended dungeon that I would love to try with Pathfinder sometime. But a lot of the rooms require player creativity, and not a Skill Check to work out a solution to.
Similarly, I'm playing Caverns of Thracia with a group using Pathfinder. A large part of that classic (and amazing) module is figuring out the rich history of the caverns. Non PF players are invested in piecing the puzzle together using their wits. A few trained-in-PF players aren't thinking that way at all, and want to roll the dice for more information using Knowledge checks.
So Free-Flowing maybe isn't the best term. Creative? Sounds condescending. I dunno.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder's roots like in wargaming. You can't get more rigid than that.
You want free flowing, you want a rules light game such as BESM, or Storyteller, or Cubicle 7.
Your two responses to me have come across as lectures, as though you're trying to teach me something I'm doing wrong.
I'm having a conversation, not raising a complaint and asking for advice.
I am a 30-year RPG and wargaming veteran, and I've played about 20-30 different RPG systems. (I won't admit how many wargames I've played... Or own... :0)
I'm here on the PF forums because I enjoy the game. And I enjoy talking about it.
It is possible to have constructive critical conversations about things we like.
It's also possible that we all play PF differently, and all enjoy it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the fact that there's a die roll and rule for everything can be good because outcomes remain consistent. But it also means players look to their character sheet for responses to challenges, moreso than their imaginations. (Or at least more often than in 1st/2nd Ed, to maintain that comparison.)
I can agree with this. I find myself MUCH more often asking the GM "Hey, can I build X/Use my powers for Y/Modify Z?" in the Savage Worlds and Mutants and Masterminds game I play than Pathfinder.
It's harder to give players a super weird / random magic item (Bag of Beans for example), because it needs to be equated into a cost so WBL remains accurate. The vast majority of magic items in PF are extremely bland buffs / modifiers, because anything too wild needs another rule or would break previous rules, and people need a rule for everything.
Well, WBL is a rough guideline overall, so I've never seen trouble giving my players weird items. Particularly since I play with a (IMO better) version of the Automatic Bonus Progression rules, and have done so for years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, WBL is a rough guideline overall, so I've never seen trouble giving my players weird items. Particularly since I play with a (IMO better) version of the Automatic Bonus Progression rules, and have done so for years.
Oh, totally, me too. My point is that there are enough rules that doing what we do is seen by many to be "house-ruling" and not what the game is about. That's super odd to me.
I think it might also have to do with RPG pedigree. Those of us that grew up with earlier editions might have more tendency towards a little bit of weirdness in the system. Those that began with 3e,3.5,4e,PF, might see a more consistent tactical game as the norm. One is not better than the other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, WBL is a rough guideline overall, so I've never seen trouble giving my players weird items. Particularly since I play with a (IMO better) version of the Automatic Bonus Progression rules, and have done so for years.Oh, totally, me too. My point is that there are enough rules that doing what we do is seen by many to be "house-ruling" and not what the game is about. That's super odd to me.
I think it might also have to do with RPG pedigree. Those of us that grew up with earlier editions might have more tendency towards a little bit of weirdness in the system. Those that began with 3e,3.5,4e,PF, might see a more consistent tactical game as the norm. One is not better than the other.
Well, it is house ruling. That's just not a "bad word" as long as everyone agrees with them.
I'm an odd duck that started with PF, by the by.
But it also means players look to their character sheet for responses to challenges, moreso than their imaginations. (Or at least more often than in 1st/2nd Ed, to maintain that comparison.)Nothing breaks a game as quickly as players exploiting the fact that they between them usually have about four times as much brainpower as the DM and can come up with crazy ideas faster than he can explain why they're too crazy to work.
Have you ever seen that happen? In what rules system? How old were the players? Sounds like a hyperbole sandwich with a side order of hyperbole.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Location: Desertia (shut up its funny)
Quirks: Magic that creates water is heavily dampened in Desertia (yeah I said it again) Spells below 1st level that create or influence water do not work high level spells require a concentration check of X to succeed.
now ask me about blizzardy (that might be a pokemon.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I try to optimize as hard as I can; and yeah, it's caused enough style and personality clashes to end campaigns. "Create Water" to me is a life-saver, and nothing more entertaining that reliably using temporary potable water whenever I can be it to solve puzzles or have an excuse to declare an action, no matter how out of place in general roleplaying phases. Example: In Mummy's Mask, I idled away time by filling the empty shallow pools for my T-Rex AC "Princess" and I to play in whilst my companions were bickering over the next course of action. It kept me from being involved in their wanking (table politics) kept me away from the impending threat of what PCs standing in the open arguing would invite (metagaming). Two positives, one cantrip.
"Rule of Fun" may be the best guideline when you encounter a situation where the munchkining begins demoralizing the DM and other Players, but the group is going to have to reorganize (IE Boot the problem player) if agreement cannot be reached, and at least once I was the one that had to go. More than once, I've found myself complained on (fairly) on the Paizo forums... kinda how I made an account ^_^ to see how accurately I was being disruptive from the community perspective. Breaking the game should be enjoyable, especially for people like me who like a little escapism, rebellion, wit, and sarcasm in my hobby. After a certain point, these PCs go from their humble roots and go on to careers that parallel Superheroes.
System Mastery can and should dictate the effectiveness of the Players and the PCs they roleplay in regards to dice-ruled actions like combat and problem solving (Player Vs Environment PVE). Unlike in video games, the "patches"(errata) may not come as quickly to bring balance back to the playing field, and the most successful FPS and MMOs have continuous balancing acts throughout their life-cycles. That being said, with tabletop RP being a direct personal interaction, one has to balance that drive and competitiveness to where as many participants as possible are enjoying themselves. Why? Because if a Player is always being overshadowed, always being overruled, always being corrected, always being sidelined or passed over, then I won't blame em a bit for walking off the table -they have no investment or true value to or from the group. I feel bad as a DM when Players leave because I couldn't provide them with a rewarding experience.
Regarding ease of breakability (the original thread topic?), I would say that the ceiling of possibility was higher in 3.5 frankly and PF tried from its earliest days to make classes more fun, if not more even. PF to me is more user friendly as its the refinement of that system, and Power Creep can only be voided whenever PF ends its ongoing evolution (Paizo's gotta keep churning out fresh and cool material to reward/lure Players) and the system is retired.
I understand the DM capping rules like E6; it's simply another mode of play, so long as everyone that goes into that particular campaign knows the upper limit and can plan accordingly. I can run it myself; I'd simply have to limit the threats the PCs face because they may not get as many tools as they'd need to counter the increasingly technical enemies/environmental threats.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer a game with gaps in the rules because there are some people who say if it's written down it trumps everything (and they generally think rule zero doesn't "count" as RAW on the grounds that it's subjective and ill-defined). Running a game for people with those preferences and then substantially changing the way magic works or criticals work or skills work or...anything else really creates discomfort for them.
That's a player thing though, not a rules thing. I find that most groups can talk out house rules ahead of time and make sense of them. The only thing I see people really react badly to is ad hoc rules changes that are inconsistent, which feel like they'd happen more in rules light games than more structured ones.
Might just be me but I've seen a lot more rules arguing in games like 5th edition and FATE with people feeling bitter about corner cases or getting frustrated at non-rules being adjudicated differently than they're used to and I can say from experience it was pretty miserable playing a wild sorcerer in the former game while our group tried to figure out how often my abilities should work (wild magic has an activation clause of 'whenever the GM remembers it exists/feels like it')
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer a game with gaps in the rules because there are some people who say if it's written down it trumps everything (and they generally think rule zero doesn't "count" as RAW on the grounds that it's subjective and ill-defined). Running a game for people with those preferences and then substantially changing the way magic works or criticals work or skills work or...anything else really creates discomfort for them.That's a player thing though, not a rules thing. I find that most groups can talk out house rules ahead of time and make sense of them. The only thing I see people really react badly to is ad hoc rules changes that are inconsistent, which feel like they'd happen more in rules light games than more structured ones.
Might just be me but I've seen a lot more rules arguing in games like 5th edition and FATE with people feeling bitter about corner cases or getting frustrated at non-rules being adjudicated differently than they're used to and I can say from experience it was pretty miserable playing a wild sorcerer in the former game while our group tried to figure out how often my abilities should work (wild magic has an activation clause of 'whenever the GM remembers it exists/feels like it')
I kind of agree that it's a player thing, but I think any "which system is better?" discussion is ultimately a player thing.
What I meant was that there are some people (at my table anyhow) who really don't enjoy houseruled Pathfinder (or any heavily codified game - they didn't like houseruled Rolemaster either). For them, if we're going to play a loose game with a lot of "that seems about right to me" rulings, they enjoy it more if the game doesn't have many rules we're ignoring but rather has rules that we have to add.
There are also many players who find it frustrating, no doubt (the wild sorceror thing is a good example). So I doubt it's just you.
I was just helping you with the head scratching. :p
For some in my group at least, no rules is better than rules-we're-ignoring.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It probably doesn't help that 9 out of 10 times I've seen GMs modify the way things like spells and such work, or make ad-hoc adjustments to how they work in some special situation, the results were not good/fair/balanced/fun.
One of the reasons it's generally frowned upon is because it doesn't take very many attempts before the players associate it with pooping in their cheerios again.
I mean, just look at the OP. The whole thread is about nullifying or diminishing abilities that characters have. The players are getting nothing out of this deal except someone screwing with their abilities because they feel like it. Why wouldn't they dislike it? More importantly, why would they like it?
Using the aforementioned create water example because it's an iconic posterchild of this mindset, has anyone ever looked at the sorts of challenges that you face in a desert campaign anyway?
Sand dunes are a feature of hot deserts described in the environment chapter that can change terrain features by creating sloped hills and such. If these form in an area that prevents characters from being able to see out an appropriate distance, characters have to make a DC 14 survival check to avoid getting lost (with a -4 penalty if there's poor visibility such as in a storm).
They have quicksand which is another terrain hazard (which is also found in marshes).
And of course standstorms which make navigation difficult and deal nonlethal damage every hour and make visibility a joke. Which of course is really horrible if a desert monster happens to wander on you around this time.
Worse than sandstorms are dust storms which may very well kill you (see Environment: Weather).
Many deserts are cold at night and hot during the day, which pose their own dangers as well and force you to use endure elements on all your party members.
Food is scarce too, if you don't have someone with a very good Survival modifier.
All of this is not accounting for any desert dwelling denizens that may either want to eat you, rob you, or capture you.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, this is the total opposite problem. I wouldn't want that either. Temporarily maybe, but not as a theme of the campaign.I think that was the point. In earlier editions inherent spells gained were not a part of leveling up.On the other hand, I've played in games where wizards never had a chance to scribe new spells into their spellbook. It really sucks. Inherent spells means that you're never completely boned.
I agree. Though really, I've always sort of thought it'd be interesting if each school specialty has a standard couple of spells they gained of each spell level as the 'school standards'. It would make sure that the PCs had spells, but keep the GM easily able to disallow things like Blood Money without a specific ruling against them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I did try to do something like do "no water in this desert", I'd try and handle it through the rules. Probably have something where the desert is plagued by a small host of haunts formed from a tribe of nomads who died of thirst when their mage died of an illness. These haunts possess travelers, and attempt to feed on any water magic that it's hosts bear witness to (the feeding functions as dispel magic) until they are resolved or destroyed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TBF, the Strategy Guide does have a sidebar about higher powers on page 147. Though, it's more oriented toward king-slaying and how that can be a bad idea at any level. I think the idea of not thinking oneself as Billy Badass comes across fine.
I agree, though, that it's not a dynamic played out in Paizo's material. That could be cool to see.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A room in a dungeon that says "All shadows cast in this room are infinitely deep holes" (from Blue Medusa, below) become problematic because the PF system makes us feel like we need to know what plane those holes to go; what spell that references; how those shadows interact with every spell, are they magic and how to dispel, why are these shadows inconsistent with how shadows are described in the Shadow Planes Players Companion (or whatever) etc. The DM can't just roll with what players throw at the room, and players are less willing to throw ideas at a room because "what about rules"?
So there's another way that I think the rules restrict "free-flowing" games.
I do love this system though. I'm just saying it makes some things a challenge.
Check out the award-winning Maze of the Blue Medusa system-agnostic adventure. That is a crazy crazy open-ended dungeon that I would love to try with Pathfinder sometime. But a lot of the rooms require player creativity, and not a Skill Check to work out a solution to.
Similarly, I'm playing Caverns of Thracia with a group using Pathfinder. A large part of that classic (and amazing) module is figuring out the rich history of the caverns. Non PF players are invested in piecing the puzzle together using their wits. A few trained-in-PF players aren't thinking that way at all, and want to roll the dice for more information using Knowledge checks.
So Free-Flowing maybe isn't the best term. Creative? Sounds condescending. I dunno.
I think you are equating your personal experience with a general truth.
In several groups I have played pathfinder (or similarly heavily codified games in) we have had plenty of creative and off the wall ideas and solutions to problems/challenges.
I think it depends on the PEOPLE more then the game. That said, I do think a certain kind of PERSON is drawn to heavily codified rulesets and others are drawn to more narrative driven or abstract rulesets with less codification.
I think this is a matter of correlation, not causation. If someone is naturally creative and witty, they will be creative and witty in whatever system they are playing. If someone is the kind of person that needs a set of rules and guidelines in order to address a problem, they too will need and follow such a path regardless of the system. Its about the people and the group, not the system. I have many times had my group shake off inconsistencies in rules in favor of rule of cool in games like pathfinder. The only difference being it was out of a sense of fun, not out of a sense of opposition.
In my group, no one would bat an eye about crazy portals that don't make sense within rules outside of the gms notes. They would bat an eye at the 'your abilities don't work in the desert because I don't want them to'. The difference is the oppositional nature of the latter example.
The big issue is that the less codification you have in a ruleset, the better the gm has to be. There are FAR more bad gms out there then there are good ones. The reason you get all the aggressive reactions from people on the boards or anywhere with the "Why cant I make create water not work in the dessert comments" is that most of those people have experiences with GMS would actively try to shut down their solutions to problems for their own more or less petty power fantasies.
MOST gms (IE most people) will struggle to make consistent and 'fair' (read satisfying for all parties invovled) on the fly interpretations of complex rules. Most people don't have an instinctual understanding of statistics, and have significant confirmation bias. That means their 'feelings' about how things are going and what they expected are often way off and so they overcompensate. And those average to bad gms do a terrible job of 'free flowing, on the fly' games.
Just about anyone can run a dungeon crawl and get some monster smashing fun out of it. It takes a particular talent to get in a free wheeling creative inventive open ended game going. Since MOST people will not be good at such a thing, most people have experience of a bad example of playing such a thing. And they will instinctively react to any deviation in that direction based on said experience. That's why heavily codified games like pathfinder are popular in the first place. The experience is far more consistent.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say the problem isn't generally in magic or consistency so much as it is a two-part issue between GMs and players.
1. GM's who make ill-advised, unreasonable, or arbitrary changes to the rules.
2. Players who (perhaps reasonably fearing the former GMs, or perhaps feeling unreasonable entitlement, depending on the player) cry foul when a GM makes any deviations from the rules ever, even if they're reasonable and would contribute to a fun game.
...Basically a lack of trust between GM and player sounds to me like the biggest problem in these sorts of scenarios, and it's a problem that's exacerbated by unskilled or malicious GMs on one side, and entitled or overbearing players on the other, both sides making it harder for the good GMs and good players to trust each other.
I guess I'm in agreement with Kolokotroni, above. It's about the people, and the mixing of people who want very different games together into the same groups can cause problems like this.
It's about playing the game system that supports the type of game you want to run. Pafinder's pretty bad at gritty survival without hacking the rules
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's about playing the game system that supports the type of game you want to run. Pafinder's pretty bad at gritty survival without hacking the rules
I agree with the first half of this, disagree in part with the second. Part of the problem is that Pathfinder is not a monolithic entity; it's something like four different games, depending upon the levels that you play at, and most of the issues with "reliability" are caused by GMs who don't know enough to run high level adventures for high level groups.
That said, truly gritty stuff is pretty well eliminated by spellcasters, but I don't think I'm familiar with any "fantasy" game where dying of thirst in the desert or starving to death is really a problem. Even in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which are well-established as being firmly at the low-magic end of the spectrum, no one was in actual danger from the environment as long as Gandalf was around. Or even Aragorn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also disagree with the badness at gritty survival. There are so many rules around environments, lighting, travel, and so on. These are often DC adjustments or require rolls to do anything at all. The only thing that makes it "easy" that the survival skill gets you enough food for potentially quite a lot of people. Needing multiple rolls in a day is already supported. I'd simply take away the ability to take 10 with it in a survival oriented game. Plus, some hazards are more brutal than their CR suggests. Avalanches, for example, can very easily widely disperse a group making you essentially face a CR 7 encounter on your own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also disagree with the badness at gritty survival. There are so many rules around environments, lighting, travel, and so on.
... most or all of which become completely moot if you have a spellcaster around, which is the point. Lighting is not an issue when the cleric, the bard, and the wizard all have the light cantrip or its equivalent; travel is irrelevant when those three are arguing about whether teleport, phantom steed, communal, or wind walk is the best way of getting off this island where your ship just wrecked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters aren't too likely to be survival experts and would likely get lost if they were trying to find their way around in the wild. From town to town? That's not really gritty survival since you can always just load up on provisions and set out. Being in the bush, the dunes or at sea with minimal supplies tends to be where the grit sets in. Go ahead and wind walk all you want. If you failed your suvival check, you are now lost. Good job
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters aren't too likely to be survival experts and would likely get lost if they were trying to find their way around in the wild. From town to town? That's not really gritty survival since you can always just load up on provisions and set out. Being in the bush, the dunes or at sea with minimal supplies tends to be where the grit sets in. Go ahead and wind walk all you want. If you failed your suvival check, you are now lost. Good job
What classes do you believe are better at survival then druids and shamans?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Druids only get a +2. Shamans get no bonus from the class. I don't see your point, Anzyr. Like I said, if the point of the campaign were surival, I'd just remove the ability to take 10 on that skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if it's a survival game which class is getting a better survival skill than a druid or shaman putting ranks into survival? Now factor in that they have spells to help them find/make food and other really handy spells to have when trying to survive. Removing take 10 doesn't stop casters from easily trivializing a survival game.
I'd also disagree with the badness at gritty survival. There are so many rules around environments, lighting, travel, and so on. These are often DC adjustments or require rolls to do anything at all. The only thing that makes it "easy" that the survival skill gets you enough food for potentially quite a lot of people. Needing multiple rolls in a day is already supported. I'd simply take away the ability to take 10 with it in a survival oriented game. Plus, some hazards are more brutal than their CR suggests. Avalanches, for example, can very easily widely disperse a group making you essentially face a CR 7 encounter on your own.
Right, if you hack the rules you can make it more gritty. The base system however gives a plethora of options, even at low level to deal with the hazards of travel.
Surviving in the wild isn't something the game care about in depth as it has the survival skill which is basically a "you don't need to care about this anymore" skill in this context.
I mean it's only a Dc 15 to avoid natural hazards like say your avalanche example.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of intelligent people who believe this game is broken at high levels. Actually the only serious disagreement on this is where you draw the line. E12 seems to be the standard, but even E6 doesn't really raise any eyebrows. I believe the problem is always there, it is just at what point it breaks it for you.
I don't think hyperoptimization is the problem, though I do think it is a symptom/effect of the problem. I think the problem goes down to a basic common assumption. The assumption is that everything written always and only works as written. We get hundreds of posts on various threads in the forums on how even first level spells MUST always work.
I have seen intelligent people bemoan the fact that the create water Cantrip breaks desert games, but if you suggest that water magic may not work well in a desert you should probably have your lawyer present.
What do you think?
Can you think of other reasonable situations that certain types of magic should be unreliable?
Broken is subjective, and in most cases the person is speaking of "their opinion" whether they like it or not.
As to the water question, even if the GM say no magic to make water until level X, the players will just max out survival and use aid another checks to make it a nonfactor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chess Pwn, if it's survival to track, rangers get 1/2 level as a bonus. So... them, which is rather impressive. Most feats, traits and features that make you "great" or exceptional at something usually are only +1s or +2s.
Firewarrior, did you know can't take 10 with UMD, period, or take 10 to swim in stormy water? That's part of the base game, not hacks. I simply extended it to a single skill. Plus, considering a book that just came out about suspense, anxiety, and horror, I would be way OK with making a central skill check important to a campaign idk... suspenseful. Plus, fog, high winds, and whatnot can up that DC 15 substantially. Which speaks to my main point about survival. Sure, you can look at any single aspect to survival and scoff but when you mix them in other rules that would naturally go with them, they tend to have a cross-impacting effect and can make things actually difficult.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My only disagreement is with your assumption that a "quest for power" doesn't exist. It does in my games and I'd like to think in many others. You wouldn't know it by fading on these forums though.It doesn't from a Paizo perspective. I can't recall a single mechanic or guidance in their APs, hardcovers, campaign setting books or player companion books that even hint at restricting options when you level up, caster or otherwise. It's certainly never been a part of any APs which is where the rubber meets the road in terms of both crunch and setting.
In short, GMs can always do what they want. Saying it happens in your games doesn't really mean much, no offense. It needs to come from Paizo for it to actually be "in" the game.
Read "The Most Important Rule" on page 11 of the rulebook.
I've never seen this restriction printed in any other roleplaying game that gives a huge list of spells and equipment.
Could be that we come from two different backgrounds of roleplaying. I definitely see more 4e and PF players than elsewhere who need rules permission to make a change at their own table. As you said, no offence. :)
Bringing up that rule changes nothing. That "rule" just says the GM can change stuff. Generally people are talking about the game at a base level so eveyrone is on the same page. Anyone can say "but rule 0", but at that point we could be playing entirely different games and still calling them pathfinder.
I want to know if you really needed for me to explain that or if you were just trying to be argumentive?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Druids only get a +2. Shamans get no bonus from the class. I don't see your point, Anzyr. Like I said, if the point of the campaign were surival, I'd just remove the ability to take 10 on that skill.
Well, a +2 is more than most classes would. And they both have abilities which make it far easier to handle rations (goodberry, create water, grove of respite), ones that can protect against the climate (endure elements, resist energy in extreme cases), ways to help find their bearings (know direction, find the path*), and ways to recover from HP loss efficiently for challenges they fail. Not to mention spells like charm/dominate animal and awaken to give a larger group of creatures to make survival checks. Removing taking ten on survival won't prevent these from working, but will put others without such abilities at a disadvantage (for instance, rogues and fighters).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chess Pwn, if it's survival to track, rangers get 1/2 level as a bonus. So... them, which is rather impressive. Most feats, traits and features that make you "great" or exceptional at something usually are only +1s or +2s.
Firewarrior, did you know can't take 10 with UMD, period, or take 10 to swim in stormy water? That's part of the base game, not hacks. I simply extended it to a single skill. Plus, considering a book that just came out about suspense, anxiety, and horror, I would be way OK with making a central skill check important to a campaign idk... suspenseful. Plus, fog, high winds, and whatnot can up that DC 15 substantially. Which speaks to my main point about survival. Sure, you can look at any single aspect to survival and scoff but when you mix them in other rules that would naturally go with them, they tend to have a cross-impacting effect and can make things actually difficult.
I'm aware of the limitations of the take 10 mechanic. I am also aware that in Pathifnder those limitations do not apply to survival.
I never contested that one could not make skill checks harder if they go against the grain of the type of experience that your trying to evoke. Merely that doing so was (and is) 'hacking' the rules, ie changing the game.
As to the DC 15 increasing I cannot find anywhere in the environment rules or in the survival skill that indicates the DC is modified by the environment or visibility. If you could point me in the direction of those rules then I will agree with you. As it stands as far as i am aware it is always a DC 15 check to identify natural hazards and a DC 10 to find enough food and water to sustain oneself.
So to my knowledge without adding modifications to the rules of the survival skill it is very difficult to make surviving in the wild difficult.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So to my knowledge without adding modifications to the rules of the survival skill it is very difficult to make surviving in the wild difficult.
Like I said, if the point of the campaign were surival, I'd just remove the ability to take 10 on that skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to the DC 15 increasing I cannot find anywhere in the environment rules or in the survival skill that indicates the DC is modified by the environment or visibility. If you could point me in the direction of those rules then I will agree with you. As it stands as far as i am aware it is always a DC 15 check to identify natural hazards and a DC 10 to find enough food and water to sustain oneself.
Avalanches start anywhere from 500 to 5,000 feet away and move hundreds of feet per round. They can start pretty far away beyond your range to see them coming.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being in the bush, the dunes or at sea with minimal supplies tends to be where the grit sets in.
You never have minimal supplies with a caster. Whatever you want or need, the cleric can provide it for you.
Go ahead and wind walk all you want. If you failed your suvival check, you are now lost.
Good thing that teleport doesn't care where I start out, then.
... and that's the issue.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
To answer the original question Consistancy, the reliablility of the rules do not break the game. They MAKE the game. I heard someone complain that player look to their character instead of the ether to solve problems. What? looking at what I built my character to do and what gear I have on hand to solve a problem is a BAD THING? What? am I supposed to invent a new character trait to solve every problem?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being in the bush, the dunes or at sea with minimal supplies tends to be where the grit sets in.You never have minimal supplies with a caster. Whatever you want or need, the cleric can provide it for you.
Go ahead and wind walk all you want. If you failed your suvival check, you are now lost.Good thing that teleport doesn't care where I start out, then.
... and that's the issue.
There's the question of where you're going. If you do the direction and distance thing, that can have all kinds of side effects. Is the monster dungeon 20 miles that way because it's really 20 miles away or is the path that leads there 20 miles and it's really only 8 miles away? Did you factor in the elevation change with that know (geo)? It's far from guaranteed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Druids only get a +2. Shamans get no bonus from the class. I don't see your point, Anzyr. Like I said, if the point of the campaign were surival, I'd just remove the ability to take 10 on that skill.
You missed that survival is a Wisdom based skill, or are ignoring it because it hurts your argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You missed that survival is a Wisdom based skill, or are ignoring it because it hurts your argument.
I'm not ignoring anything. Please, keep assuming.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1 Rank, 3 Class Skill, 2 from being a Druid, 4 Wisdom, 2 Aid another , is +12. if more than one person can aid you can't fail, at first level without needing to take 10.