Clarification on the interaction of stealth, perception, and switching from exploration to encounter mode. I legit get headaches reading all the back and forth on how it's supposed to be done. I need a flowchart or something because it's way too complicated for my tiny brain right now.
Why did everyone know to use Halfling? I'm terrible at these but trying to learn to build better.
Are there any other places to read more about Casmaron? I read in the Guide about the Minotuar who seiged Absalon, and that really got me interested (especially when they liked TB's recent attack to Voon's also) but I don't know if/where to read more about it? Like stuff about the older ruins, what might have happened, current places, etc? I didn't know if maybe an Adventure Path or other material might have mentioned it?
Do casters do enough damage now to justify waiting around an entire day to get back a handful of spells? With few encounter-enders, I'm thinking it might be a hard sell.
If my Paladin serves a follower of Sarenrae a delicious bouillabaisse, unaware that the Sarenrite is allergic to shellfish, and they die from anaphylaxis should my Paladin fall? Fall into a bout of depression, maybe. Can you imagine the luck?
I think Goblins are a shoo-in to get picked up by Nocticula. How much more Redeemed can you get?
You're not the only one 'doing it wrong', but I'll be darned if it doesn't seem like there's few enough of us. I had the distinct misfortune of playing under a DM who had that 'everything is a trap' problem before, although in his case it was 'everything is a Sivak draconian'. Darn annoying, those Sivak draconians. But I'm usually surprised if an NPC or 5 isn't regularly on the PC's must-visit-to-chat list, or joins the party, or is someone that they buy gifts for at Yule and so on. I can't stand the 'everyone but a PC is a DM trap' method of playing, personally. I'm sure it works for some of course, just...not me.
I was just telling one of my players that he should expect to be broke for most of the summer because Paizo is, and I quote, "gunna take ALL da moneyz". ...not that that's a BAD thing, mind you!
I strongly get the sense we're missing important details here. Any chance of an elaboration, OP? Maybe a 'train of circumstances' to help us get into the mind of the character a bit more? Making a dark pact because of a bad weeks seems to be a serious overreaction to...something. The question is, what?
Hrm...how about a Law instead? "No matter how insane the character, there is always a game being played somewhere where the character makes perfect sense."
Ok, that's what I thought, and you state your reasoning very well. As a side note, why is it so often the rogue who does something like that? *sigh* At least in my opinion, you've done exactly the right thing. Coming off of a bad experience is typically when you have the most solidarity from a gaming group; use that solidarity to express your concern about their characters power levels. Scotty is absolutely right about increasing monster challenges to make up for relative power level ('power' being used as a generic, all-encompassing term); however, I do think that they'll be willing to work with you if you just ask them directly to make new characters more in-line with the expected power of the game. It's entirely possible that they're used to such high scores because the previous DM felt that the game wasn't a challenge without them, thus making scores for both characters and bad guys an arms race of sorts (a problem I found myself getting into not so very long ago), so by lowering their own scores it will likewise lower enemy scores (of hand-created enemies, obviously). This also gives you a chance to get a bit of experience in adjusting CR's and the not-quite-concrete definitions of what CR expects from the party without it threatening a TPK. I wish you the best of luck with your new game, and don't forget to put in a good gnome or halfling! =)
To make sure I'm reading this clearly, the DM refused initiative or anything else and simply allowed attacks/autokill for no other reason than because the offending murderous player wanted to kill more unconscious characters, all while other defending characters were still conscious? If this were the case, I'd fire more than a DM. I hope you and your now-smaller group of players have a new place to play, because in my opinion, it's better not to play than to deal with drivel like party-murdering 'pvp' and other passive-aggressive table behavior. I think you did the right thing walking out, again, provided I've read this right. Regarding how to get them to play lower stats, simply explain to them what you told us: you're just not experienced enough yet, and you would have extreme difficulty in meeting an appropriate challenge for stats like that without the experience, but that you're willing to work with them if they'll start properly low to help you learn. The olive branch typically works pretty well with most players, at least in my experience.
Quoted for emphasis, because this is exactly what I'm talking about. This is why I am genuinely puzzled by the 10 Strength Barbarian. He can have the exact same character -... Expression. That's why. I swear, this article should be required reading for anyone wanting to post on an RPG forum (myself included!): http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/ 90% of these threads are nothing but back-and-forth over the subjective definitions of fun. Seriously...give it a read if you haven't. Back on the quoted post, from the article...
Even though this statement is about skills, it all comes down to the same thing. It's no different than the person who wants to play a 'charismatic character' putting a 16 in CHA instead of merely dumping skill points into Diplomacy and Bluff. It's a statement. It's central. Expression. Either it matters to you or it doesn't, and neither one is wrong. Just like most of the back and forth in this thread, and even the usage of the SF itself.
Shelyn and ZK and Gozreh are all fantastic. But I have to admit, before I opened that Lamashtu pic, I have never really been able to envision anything even remotely scary about that Goddess. My how times change! Spectacular artwork! Glad I've already decided to set aside money for this one, because missing it would be painful.
As a longtime 2E player, I can say that it took me a long time to wrap my head around the phrase 'everyone optimizes'. It is, however, true. It just doesn't mean exactly what it may look like it means. But there are a ton of people on the board who build characters first and use the mechanics to make that character playable. The amount of optimization may vary, but that doesn't make the approach any less useful. For instance, while I may use Intensify Spell to boost up the damage of a lower level spell of my Magus (one method of optimizing a magus that is considered 'standard'; I felt so proud when I found it, only to discover it was a common strategy. Le sigh!), I don't use what I consider silliness like using Arcane Mark to eke out an extra attack via Spellstrike. It's a perfectly legal thing to do, but my players and the other GM's all agree that its beyond the intent of the imagined genre ideal (read: its cheesy to us). Different people have fun in different ways, and the amount of optimization is one of those ways. It doesn't make it wrong, and it doesn't make it 'not normal'. Normal is one of those concepts that is supposedly passing away, and while I highly doubt the truth behind that, it is fair to say that people are becoming more aware of how much wiggle room 'normal' actually has. So yes and no. You'd probably get on fine with my group of old folk, popping health Geritol to simulate in-character healing (hehe!), because like Motley Crue once said, "when I'm enraged, and hittin' a mage, adrenaline rushin' through my veins I'd say we are still kickin' ***" What do ya mean those aren't the lyrics?! =D
I'm with Deadmanwalking and for the exact same reasons. Killing for selfish reasons, and knowing that you will continue to do so for the remainder of your existence is pretty much a classic definition of evil. Whatever has put you in that state is unfortunate, but your misfortune is not reason to preserve your life at the expense of potentially thousands of people over the course of your 'life'. You are not worth that much, as you are just one person just like them. This is absolutely no different than organ traffickers who murder innocents to get organs for someone who is too far down the waiting list to survive. It is unfortunate what has happened, but that doesn't make the activity any less evil. It is wholly irrelevant whether or not they are strangers.
I'm glad I came along with subscription funds right at the end of an AP I don't even have the book for (WotR), in time for one that interests my longest-term player (MM), and one that interests me on deck (IG). I really lucked out in my opinion. To those of you on the fence thinking about unsubscribing but who haven't done so yet or haven't decided, may I gently mention that this kind of thing has been in the FRPG genre since the very beginning. Barrier Peaks may be one module, but there have always been a LOT more elements of sci-fi than most remember, whether it be the nuclear disaster of Blackmoor all the way to the spaceport in Waterdeep and Rafael, the nuclear physicist immortal of the Shadow Elves. Obviously I wouldn't want to talk you into something you don't want, but there is some serious 'old-school' elements in the offing imo...just ones that many have forgotten about. =)
By the way, Rynjin, you talk about people being offended "for" other people. I think one of the really dumb ideas that our society has is that you're not allowed to be offended unless you're a member of the group in question. I think every bigot (to be clear, I'm not including you in this category) weakens and cheapens the value of life and society as a whole. Normally I consider these topics an A-B conversation, and I C my way out of them. Little good usually comes from them. With that said, though, I do see one point of consideration that can possibly do some good. Without going into what I personally do or do not identify as or with, I want to note a consideration to what you've said here. When people get offended -for- other people, they (often unintentionally, to be certain) are making the mistake of applying a hivemind to the people they are becoming offended for. You'll note that even in this thread, the phrase "We're not a hivemind" comes up more than once. Now, in the cases of obvious and egregious offense (like common slurs, for instance), that's perfectly reasonable. By all means, speak up! But once you move past group labels and into specific questions, you are no longer necessarily speaking for anyone. One of the great dangers in the modern world's attempts at social realignment is that certain powerful groups (again, often unintentionally) end up speaking for those who need the agency to speak for themselves. They mean well...but don't necessarily -do- well. Ironically, it is these very examples that many fall back on as 'PC run amok' and 'we have to cater to (group)', when it isn't usually (group) saying them in the first place.
Well bless your heart.
I sense a trap, but... From the SRD: "A line of sight is the same as a Line of Effect but with the additional restriction that that it is blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight (such as Concealment)." So darkness is covered in that line, as is a reference to concealment. From the Blinded Condition (PF Condition cards): "Enemies have total concealment from you." So barring anything unusual or extenuation, the general answer is 'no'.
Sometime lurker from the other parts of the forums here. At first glance, PFO isn't my kind of game at all, but that is because I am only familiar with the 'modern' variant of pvp (read: all griefing/exploiting all the time). I'm open to fresh perspectives on things though, and everyone associated with Paizo has shown the ability to bring fresh perspective to things that I might have once considered 'settled'. With that in mind, I watch, trying to divine the signs to see if maybe I shouldn't take a chance with this one. But I guess for a 'is anyone out there?'-type thread, that's close enough to count. =)
Given that this seems to be a one-player problem, and this player for some reason really enjoys shopping (which, as an aside, is not that unusual. I can happily consume 3 game sessions doing nothing but spending money from a game adventure!), run the shopping with the other player via email/twitter/some-other-social-media-outlet so that game time is preserved. I would absolutely NOT simply make it 'hand me a list and youre done'. If the player truly enjoys that interaction, doing so might be enough to send them elsewhere.
Just taking a moment to voice my support of pawns for AP's. It really helps having some visual markers that are both affordable and evocative simultaneously. This goes for AP pawns as well as Bestiary/NPC pawns. Pawns are an idea that took way too long to hit this hobby imo, and even longer for me to find out about once they did. That'll teach me! <3 pawns.
Wealth by level: While I think its a good guideline when rolling up at a higher level, I positively can't stand trying to pace treasure out to match it in an ongoing campaign. I usually exceed it by 2-3 times as much, but in contrast magic item shops are much more limited and most items must be commissioned, not simply traded for. So you get -more- magic...but its not guaranteed to be the specific pieces you need. This also eliminates builds which are absolutely dependent on one specific magic item (or a very small amount of very specific ones), making so-called uber builds much less useful in my games. Prepared casters 'saving' slots to prepare later: Yah, I'm still a bit too old-schooled for that and furthermore I feel it weakens the appeal of the sorcerer. If you want versatility in spell selection, your opportunity cost is having to prep ahead of time. Batman you may still be, but that one action brings batman down to a much more manageable level. Combat maneuvers: I allow almost all of them to be used as an attack action. I still don't entirely grok the differentiation between why one can be used in a full attack but not another. But that's very much a case-by-case thing, dependent on extenuation circumstances. Still, its very seldom I say no to a CM in a full-attack chain.
Seems to be a very simple phenomenon to me. We think in terms of our experiences/observations. So when new DM's (or even DM's who ran games under an older paradigm) think of fantasy games, they naturally think of fantasy literature and movies. You won't find much of what happens in a modern game of PF in a fantasy movie or in fantasy literature. There's a whole slew of reasons for that, but it leaves the DM without any recourse as to how the game should be run. In their mind, because it isn't matching up to their experiences/observations, something has gone wrong and they naturally come to where people who play the game congregate, seeking help. There they have to learn a whole litany of new terms/phrases/meanings/suppositions. 'Optimizing' (read: min/max'ing to any old gamer who started pre-3.0 and for those of us who started in 2E, the Cardinal Sin of gaming, we were told), 'Action Economy', 'Control Freak DMing', 'Sandbox', 'Railroad', 'Build', 'System Mastery'...the list goes on and on. What I find surprising is that people find that other people need this help...well...surprising. Now, naturally you've got some people just out to stir up trouble and whatnot, but I consider them the outlier. I think most people writing these types of threads to simply be trying to match up expectation and reality and trying to discover where to go from there, often without the vocabulary that has been born over the years to deal with those very same concepts and problems.
...I can't possibly fathom what would possess a person to title a thread that way. Did common courtesy die sometime since 1990? At either rate, I think having some 'out there' AP's is perfectly fine (and in fact desirable). If you don't like them in your Golarion or your world, then don't put them there. I don't think the writers are forced to write what one group wants to the exclusion of everyone else; that way lies entitled madness. TL;DR: Show some respect, both for the writers of this forum's company and for your fellow gamers. It isn't too much to ask.
My current character is a follower of Sarenrae, and when it comes time to pray she'll look skyward, her eyes searching a bit (as if looking for something only she can see, but actually representing the 'questing' nature of most faithful servants) and start with, "Fire of my zeal and Light of my compassion, hear me, I pray." Then, of course, the prayer itself. As it doesn't evoke titles or show a lack of deference but instead the personal things that the Goddess means to her (and most of her followers, I would think), I think it shows a strength of both faith and respect.
Exactly this. Not to mention, not everyone wants to constantly play the super-awesome person who is world-shatteringly powerful on their own. There are a lot of people who like to play characters that, on their own, aren't that impressive but have the power to call in aid. I don't mind being the nobody while my pet(summons) is the centerpiece of attention. The whole individualist mentality has been carried to such an extreme that it is almost a caricature of itself at this point. Perhaps its time we stop teaching the mindset of 'I must fight my own battles'.
Well...I'll put it like this. You are using magic to intentionally and willfully deny free will regarding the flow of information to unsuspecting people. You are doing this on a continual basis, using a method that is intentionally underhanded as you do not wish for them to know that they shared this information with you. You are, for all intents and purposes, stealing directly from their mind and trying to wrap it up in a veneer of respectability. This would be akin to being able to go through your friends' cell phones, laptops, computers, address books, and diaries while they converse with you about pleasant topics, not knowing that you are using them for nothing more than your own personal greed. Do you think your friends would consider you evil, had you this ability? Myself, I would not only consider you evil, but in a world where evil is a tangible thing...I would find you reprehensible enough to build a special prison for you.
Protection from MealyMouthedness/WishyWashyness
This spell functions as Protection from Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, only it targets those without the intestinal fortitude to actually take a stand on something. =}
I make every item available...from a commission. And some hint that such a weapon/item/etc can BE created. A warrior from some backwater village - level 10 or not - isn't going to know what a +5 Shock Touch Long Sword of Deception is (although to be kind, I have generic names for 'Circles' of enchantment power to help players ICly describe the desired power + of a weapon. On the other hand, when commissioning a magic item, the players can mix and match powers and abilities (ie, if the book says its a ring and the player wants an amulet, there are very VERY few times I'll say no). This allows them to create items that do exactly what they want, and to some degree stack up powers on items that will continue to exist in the campaign world after the characters are long gone. I make large cities and 'travelling crafters' prominent enough that the opportunity to commission an item presents itself commonly throughout the campaign (often 3-5 times per level). Shops do exist which carry consumables, also, including most level 1-3 (1-5 in capitals) scrolls. No player has ever told me that they didn't enjoy my take on crafting after playing in the game, and my treasure chart offers enough money to make up for the 'extra' cost of commissioning (area % price increases/decreases, bad diplo rolls, etc) in addition to things that many characters often never think of -- for example, a staple of large shops catering to adventurers is The Big Roll: a leather belt with three specially designed pouches that allow for the quick dispensing of potions (free action to draw a potion in the pouch) as well as one pouch for antitoxin, one for an alchemical product (fire/acid), and one for holy water. 3 potions of Cure Moderate (CL 5), one fire, and one antitoxin are included. It also includes a standard healer's kit and one Druidic Blessing (a leaf that, when chewed, heals 1d6+1 pts of damage/round for 5 rounds), all for 750gp. Players also are allowed to commission special equipment, much like The Big Roll, if they can provide a 'reasonable' design. But pure 'Magic Shops'? No.
All this internet-generated furry stuff...I don't get it. It seems sometime between 2000 and 2009, the players of the genre of gaming I enjoy suddenly became fearful of what the other players next to them considered fun to play. Is the 'I wanna play a catfolk' any worse than 'I wanna play Natas Deville the OH SO EEEEEVUHL powermad assassin'? And, even more than that...do so many people actually sit around a game table and wonder if what the person next to them is playing is a sexual fetish?! That's about the -last- thing I want to think about during a game. Groupthink, it's not a good thing... Fact is, I know that since catfolk have no lore all she wants is to look like a cat and... that's it. She might say otherwise, but the proof is in the pudding. I'm saying no. So instead of asking your player to generate some quality lore, you'll just assume she's a game-disturber (despite your own statement that the character seemed fine to you early on) because someone who wasn't her made a post that you didn't like on a messageboard? Really? Maybe I'm just too old. But I don't think that's the problem. And Cheapy...I have to ask, what's the deal with halflings? I've never had a problem with a halfling's (or a kender's, for that matter) player before (although I can at least see where a kender could be problematic, fwiw).
...bad idea. Probably the WORST thing a person can do is try to 'one-up' the GM. Playing a game of Baby Holds Its Breath isn't going to change one thing, although it may well make your problems multiply. Better to simply say to him that you're not having fun or go on your way. Sure, he can't 'make' you do anything, but he can also make sure nothing -happens-, or that your industry is no longer needed, or... Now, if you were simply to TELL him that you were going to stick around until you can accumulate enough money to purchase X items, and ask how long it might take instead of trying to make a confrontation about it, then you may very well succeed.
Suppose I'll take a stab at this. First and foremost, recognize that the game isn't built to be run this way. It will break down if you try, so you're going to be trying to reflect a situation 'more or less' within the ruleset. As you probably know, the Profession skill is the first place to look. One worker, working for a week, makes X amount of gold based on the result of the check. But how does that work out with multiple workers? If you add a flat adjustment, then you run into the problem of too many workers/not enough chiefs or vice versa. "I'll hire 200 workers" just isn't feasible in most environments, and as the owner you also would have other things to look out for -- overhead, seasonal adjustments, loss prevention, workers pay, possible extortion (although I'm reminded of Batman for that one. "So...you think your boss, one of the wealthiest men in the world, is also secretly going out and beating up some of the largest criminals in the city...and your first idea is to blackmail him?") and so forth. Worker morale and so forth (based on Charisma and pay, most likely) would also factor in heavily in the form of productivity. With all this in mind, after the initial outlay of funds for the horses and whatnot, as a GM I would rule that you would want to make a Profession(Merchant) roll, calculate the gp result, and multiply the figure by a number equal to half the number of workers, to a maximum of 50 or so workers. So if you rolled 5 gp, and had 50 workers, then you would profit 125gp that week. The better of a merchant you are, naturally, the better your sales and profit potential become. However, I would also cap a maximum amount based on the city size (probably 250 for a small city, 500 for the next size, and so forth -- there is only SO MUCH of any commodity needed in a single environment). Just my thoughts, I'm sure others will have some better ones.
Killing kobold babies as a paladin. Hrm. "A painful choice, friends. Merisiel, no, we do not stabbystab the kobold babies quite yet, put that thing down please." "It is a question not only of morality, but also of ethics. How firmly do we believe? These creatures are, to all known purposes, inherently corrupt. Whether by their society or by their soul itself is unknown, save that a couple rare handfuls have gone on to become adventurers. I could strike them down now, and know that no further evil will come from them. I could deliver them to an orphanage, and pray that none of them are truly inherently corrupted, thus risking the lives of many innocents." The paladin takes a deep breath, furrows his brow, then nods. "Or I can leave them as they are. If there is one among their kind who is spiritual enough to be led here, to this place, to save them...then they have earned that redemption, regardless of how they turn out. If their own capricious deities turn a blind eye to them, then they will die as surely as mine own sword could have killed them. Ever do I put my faith in the gods even as my sword strikes those who would do harm...and so then too shall I put my faith in the gods in this case. If one can be redeemed from this hatchery, so mote it be. And if not...then our task has already been accomplished, and nature will take its' rightful course." "Let us be off, my friends."
Stopping by to add my name to the ever-growing list who would love to see a 'Fashions and Architecture of Golarion' product. I tend to prefer to describe what I'm wearing in a city on a day to day basis, and recycling an outfit after only a few days is oh so drab. =)
At a relatively young age, I started playing 2E on the day it released -- literally. I had played D&D BECMI before that, going back to when I was a tender 8 years old. I remember being a young 8 and walking into the Toy Store with my dad, and he'd look at all the toys but my eyes would be on only one section, where they stocked modules, 1E hardbacks, the 81 Moldvay Basic Set, and Grenadier miniatures, along with some of the first of the Dragon Magazines. The old guy running the shop gave away a copy of Dragon with any D&D purchase. His counter was full of dice, and MAN did I love that place. I played 2E until the rise of WW, where some friends yanked me into Mage for a few years. Came back to find that 3.0 had released, so I picked it up, didn't read it real closely -- I figured surely they hadn't changed that much, and where things looked similar I just mentally filled in 2E mechanics for them (that's a hard habit to break!). Then I found out some of the additional books I'd bought were 3.5. Didn't mean much, what the heck is a .5? When 4E released I thought I knew 3.x, but really I knew 2E with a smattering of 3.x content on top of it. It was passably fun I suppose, but stale. Eberron helped a bit. But the first 3 4E books, I picked them up and was like WHAT THE ****?! I started doing backwards reading, going back into 3.x to find out what the heck had happened. And the more I read, the less I liked the direction I could see Wizards going. Then they added the DDI thing, started with the monthly errata spiel and ugh. This wasn't the game I wanted, it wasn't the COMPANY I wanted, and it wasn't the direction I wanted. Enter Pathfinder. By now I had a pretty decent grasp on most of the real mechanics of 3.5 and had let a bit of grognardism go to the wayside to try out the new stuff. And it was fun! But...I knew all the bad parts of it too. Like warriors...something people in my group love. What happened to the Realms. I didn't feel right playing in these settings that had gone on without me into the new 'direction'. Sure, I could run it forever...but I always enjoyed getting a new piece of content about a published world and seeing how close (or far!) my changes were with what the creators were intending. And I couldn't do that anymore really. But Golarion, it reminded me of the old Realms. It was like a fresh start, full of ideas and directions, and products being released to compare my games to, the ideas of my players to, and so on. And it was with a ruleset I was becoming increasingly comfortable with, only better. So let's check out the company. Paizo's approach to the whole thing left me feeling much more comfortable than WotC ever did. I felt comfortable spending my money with them. I felt the line had support, new ideas still to come, and lots of direction. So 5E? It means nothing to me. It's from a company that long ago left me feeling alienated, after a game that shows that either they have NO direction, or their idea of 'direction' is so far off from mine as to not even be in the same ballpark...not even the same SPORT. If Paizo changes editions, or touches up PF, I'll be there for it. I am relatively easy to please, I just don't want to feel that the company I'm paying feels contempt for me. And I don't get that feeling from Paizo. It would take nothing short of a miracle imo for WotC to 'bridge the gap' they've made. As far as I'm concerned, they burned their bridges and told us to go screw ourselves. And, in the long run, I'm glad they did because I found something better. Sorry so long.
Before doing anything like the stuff mentioned in this thread, I would point out that DM's should make sure their PC's are aware that 'the DM' doesn't do ANYTHING to their characters -- their enemies do. Then make sure that this - Rule #1, imo - is always followed. It's NEVER personal, and it's NEVER the DM against the players. If you find it is, it's time to call that night's game and figure out why. That said... 1. Wizards spellbooks' ARE legitimate targets...for a sufficiently intelligent, long-term-planning enemy. Also, probably one of the hardest to pull off.
But really, all these are pretty much common sense. Every class has weaknesses, and most of them are obvious. The question should be, is the enemy intelligent enough (or the gods cruel enough) to create those situations? If yes...GO FOR IT! Just remember to reward your players too, provided they succeed. |
