Search Posts
Just wanted to check in on this one, since it was ordered July 22. I know it contained some clearance items, and you guys may have a backlog with customer orders since having this sale, but it's been a few days since it disappeared from my account. I thought I'd check since Gen Con always puts a big dent in my wallet and I didn't want a surprise because I'd forgotten about this. Thank you!
Well, since you are apparently part of the evolutionary ladder a step well ahead of me with my "old-school" mannerisms </snerk>, maybe you could enlighten me, o wise one. You can roll for that, by the way, because I wouldn't want to pull you from the humdrumness of real life to do anything like actually devote brain cells to thinking. I'm done here, thanks.
Then how exactly are you going to run the game? Only smart people get to play Int based chars because they would obviously be the ones with the knowledge skills required to KNOW stuff? Only people naturally gifted in gab playing faces? Rlly? Srsly? It's not that hard. I don't require my players to playact everything, or know everything. But I require them to actually interact once in a while like anybody would in any social setting, and once in a while to crack a book beyond the ones for gaming. And I definitely require them to do something besides roll the dice and expect me to come up with the scenario for them. That's beyond just roll-playing. That's straight-up lazy. By bloody lieing to him - otherwise you wouldn't be using bluff. What if the player isn't good at making up stories on the spot? A game isn't an actual situation so the set up isn't really there that might encourage some one to make up a convincing lie. Assuming the person playing the face could even do it anyway. Again-- that's just laziness. It's letting the dice do everything for you. In some peoples' games, that's acceptable and maybe even expected. For me, that's a step slightly above Monopoly. I don't play RPG's to let the dice handle every situation for me, and when I'm a GM, I expect the same. You don't have to be a thespian or a fireside talespinner, nor do you have to know everything... But if you can't even make an honest effort to try, then I don't care if you roll a 65 on a check like that, and if you are just gonna look at a puzzle, throw your pencil down and say "this is no fun, why does some long-forgotten ancient tomb have some stupid waste of time puzzle keeping us from the good stuff?" I'm going to have limited pity for you. If your creative abilities are completely constrained to character builds and number crunching, you probably aren't going to have fun in my games, anyway, because my games are more about story, not MMO aspects. Puzzles are inherently unfair to the game, not only because most DMs aren't going to adhere to the rule of 3 because maybe if players wanted to play mindbending games, they would? What if the Wizard's player is terrible at word puzzles while the Barbarian's player is the Bobby Fisher of word games? Why would the Barbarian solve the puzzle he couldn't even read while the Wizard couldn't? Challenge ratings for combat aside, I don't much care about the whole 'ultimate fairness' aspect to the game. No one magically flitted into the character's nurseries and touched them upside their heads with fairy wands and said "You are hereby going to be able to pass every challenge the world throws at you." If you're interested in winning every time out whether you deserve to or not, go out for Little League. Everyone gets a trophy for that these days. As far as your barbarian/wizard comparison, check out the LOTR movie (I do not know if the book follows the same, so I won't speak on it). Who comes up with the answer for how to enter the Mines of Moria? Not Gandalf. Gandalf knows the word, yes. But Frodo figures out it's a riddle. Frodo, the little git who spends the rest of the trilogy demonstrating how to make faces like he's sat on a rusty spear and essentially being the male equivalent of a damsel in distress. Could he read the message? No, Gandalf read it off to them. Haven't you ever worked on a problem until your brain was ready to crack, only to have someone else point out something so mind-numbingly obvious that you missed it completely? The whole "Low INT character came up with a solution when a High INT couldn't" argument's a cop-out, not a valid gripe. It's a team game.
Always on the role side. Rolling has its place, but IMHO it's one of the biggest drawbacks to the game that so many areas for interactivity and cognitive thought have been relegated to DC checks, and players have grown to get upset about it if you suggest otherwise. Like if you make them actually come up with the story they're telling the guard to try to slip past him. Player 1: "Look, I rolled a 32 on my Bluff." GM: "I realize. I'm asking, how are you trying to bluff him?" Player 1: "By rolling, duh. I rolled a 32. Do I get past?" GM: "I mean, are you telling him some sort of story, posing as someone else, or just pointing off to the side and saying 'Look!' while you rush in?" Player 1: "Yeah. That works. I rolled a 32." Player 2: "Can I attack yet?" Player 3: "Geez, man. What's next, are you gonna throw puzzles or some crap at us?" And minus that last line, I've actually witnessed that in a game. That's why I like puzzles, riddles, and things that actually have to be roleplayed and thought out, rather than just putting a dice in someone's hand and saying "Pass or Fail. Roll."
True, but leaving it in for anything and everything causes the game to have as much intellectual stimulation as watching reality TV. "Sorry, you rolled a 3 on your knowledge check. You can't help them come up with the answer, because your character is too busy eating rocks." There should be a balance to everything.
I don't get the hate, either. Personally, I love puzzles and riddles in my games; they're a great and IMHO vastly underused staple of the genre. I've 'inflicted' them on my players, and generally, they enjoy them. If the players get too stumped with a puzzle, I allow rolls to help the characters along, maybe figure pieces of it out, but I try my best not to give the answer just based on a roll. There's much more of a feeling of accomplishment to beating that particular obstacle when they figure it out without rolling a DC 25. Too many games that I've run across boil down to (insert roll here) for everything. Games feel really trite and lazy when the whole thing boils down to constant dice vs. dice IMHO. As it stands, my players have already gotten used to not having to come up with their own stories to get past the guards (and instead just roll for a Bluff check) or figure out on their own if someone's pulling the wool over their eyes (Sense Motive); they don't have to be convincing at threatening someone (Intimidate) or playing peacemaker (Diplomacy). Maybe I expect too much to actually have them think and role-play, but I've always figured that's the primary difference between 3.5/PF and just playing the Miniatures games.
As the title says. It's no reflection on the quality of the product or the people who work for the company. My monthly finances are just telling me I really have no choice in the matter. (Man, I agonized over this... I hope to get back to being a subscriber sometime in the near future.) If it would be a problem to cancel me before this latest shipment is out (I notice I've received the one week or so warning e-mail, so I don't know if the order is already in process), I can make do with this being my last shipment. Whatever is easiest on y'all. Thanks again!
A new game system or change in genre or world can often do wonders. Sometimes that can help revitalize some of the "new shiny" feel that made the game what you loved before. I'll admit that our group was undergoing creative lag for a while, and part of the reason on my end (as GM) was the system itself... I didn't mind 3.5, but our big combats were sluggish, and I honestly felt less like a storyteller and more like a statistician when it came to making up adventures that would challenge my players-- and that's okay... there's nothing wrong with admitting that a game works really well, it's just not a great fit for you as a GM, which was the case with me. At any rate, I suggested I try to run a more old-school-style (Latest Edition C&C, actually; the SIEGE system is pretty streamlined, but enough of it has its roots in 1E/2E that it feels old-school) campaign in a world I'd created a long while ago but never touched as a GM. It was great to see the enjoyment that rolling for stats, learning the ins and outs of a new system, and finding out about a world they'd never seen before brought to them. On top of that, some of those old dusty storylines I'd considered unusable fit perfectly in with their characters, and even advanced themselves in ways I'd never have figured. We had enough fun with it that the other GM in our group tried an old-school Basic D&D game and was ecstatic about the way the old creative juices percolated just looking at some of the old books we never thought we'd use for anything but fluff. Try a new system for a couple weeks, see if that helps. Heck, try an old system; if you don't like it, at least you might bring about an appreciation for what you currently play or a new way of looking at some of the things that may have grown stagnant!
PS: There is nothing wrong with holding back by the way. Players just need to know when it is going on if they have a weak character so they dont walk in on another DM's game wonder why they can't get away with the same things as they did at another table. I totally agree with you in that there is nothing wrong with holding back once in a while-- fudging the twenty that would kill a player's character (and maybe, effectively, the party) into a devastating blow that cleaves his magical armor and renders it useless instead, for instance, or for the sake of a more compelling story. But I don't know that I would ever personally tell my players that I held back on their account or anything. If so, it would take an immense amount of tact on my part to say it and not make it sound like, "I let you win." I'd rather have them celebrate their victory, feel like they accomplished something unbelievable (which most likely they did) and had a great time. Telling them that they shouldn't have won, but I fudged a roll or knocked down the CR of the BBEG would almost seem like a hollow victory.
I've mostly used a rolling system of 4d6 drop lowest, reroll any score lower than 9, scores placed in any order. If a set of scores is really bland and average (say, mostly nines, tens and elevens or no single score above 15), I might offer another d6 to distribute as the player sees fit, or allow him to drop a point or two in one score and raise another. It gives a moderately high average, with an opportunity at a few good scores. I find I like that better than a point-buy, myself; the players usually have a choice of any character archetype they'd like; and it works pretty well for the campaigns I run. (Course, the campaigns I run are largely old-school or based off it, anyway. I run a Castles & Crusades campaign, my bud runs a Basic campaign.) 3.5/Pathfinder generally tends to work better from a point-buy system because the character creation process is centered on constructing a character-- in some cases, laboriously constructing a character-- starting on an equal, balanced footing. The "randomness" of character creation in 3.5/PF is completely based on the player choices of score placement, skills, feats, and so on, rather than 'luck of the draw' dice rolls. And as a system, it works fine... I'm just not as fond of it because A) character rolling has proven much faster in my group than character building, B) it fits the more 'old-school' feel of the games we run, and C) because I just rather like the arbitrariness of dice rolling character stats.
As much as I hate to cut back, a new house payment is soon to be added onto my bills so I'm going to have to look at cutting back on my subscriptions. So for now, I'd like to cancel my subscriptions to the Pathfinder RPG, Pathfinder Companion and the Pathfinder Module ongoing. We'll see where that leaves me, because I'd really like to not have to completely cut myself off my monthly Paizo goodness. Thanks in advance!
I'm glad to see this come out and was very glad to get it as part of my subscription! I'd unfortunately also have to admit this is the first Paizo product in the Pathfinder line (AP/Module/Companion/Chronicles) whose cover art just didn't "Wow" me, grab me by the throat or anything. Not that it's bad or anything; it just didn't look up to the usual high standards I've come to expect after previous books. Fortunately, the inside pretty much makes up for it!
Hi all! Usually, I have my preferences set to "All orders to ship when my Pathfinder Adventure Path is Ready to Ship," and I really haven't had too much problem with that. However, I was wondering if it would be possible to supercede that this month, and go ahead and ship what's already in my sidecart? I'd be perfectly fine with the AP shipping on its own when it arrives, or even having it held back until the next month, whatever would be easiest for y'all. But I'd really like to get the Bestiary ASAP for a game I'm running later next week, so I'd like to go ahead and pay for/ship my sidecart. Thank you in advance! - Mark
Heya all, I'm a little new to the thread, but I wanted to post my thoughts. First off, thank you very much for the links to The Quick Primer for Old School Gaming. I used to play a lot of 1E/2E, and in the intervening years, forgot a lot of what made me love those years so much, when the DM tended to make rulings, rather than they (and the players) hunting down rules. My group and I (Six players, the majority of which have only played 3.5 in the last few years) have recently begun playing C&C, and I think we're all sold on it. The speed of combat, the simple elegance of character creation, the enjoyment I can get as a GM of creating and describing the world, rather than having to adjudicate Feats and Skills... all of it has brought back the enjoyment of gaming I used to have a long time ago. (That's not to say anything bad about 3.X, PF or even 4.X. It's just that much of my time as a GM in those systems used to be spent ensuring that the combats and obstacles were a challenge and not a walkover for their particular character builds, and combat often degenerated into hour-long drudgery, whereas with C&C I feel confident I can adjust those things on the fly and combats speed by-- we had a twelve round combat with a group of orcs that might have taken half the gaming night in 3.X.) I heartily recommend C&C; the SIEGE engine is not without its faults, but it's a fairly sturdy and very adaptable system, open to a lot of easy tweaks with Challenge Ratings to make ability checks and saves easier or more difficult. I wish the Castle Keeper Guide would see print sometime soon, but it's by no means necessary for play. I remember 1E fondly, (haven't tried OSRIC yet) but I think C&C has a leg up in my humble opinion. Even if it's not a particularly new concept, I like the idea of tying the saves to ability scores... and I really like the ease of assigning base challenge ratings for primary/secondary abilities. I also like the way players can (if they don't non-human multi-class, for instance) have the choice of at least one of their prime abilities... It makes for a bit of customization without going whole hog into character building the way of 2E kits or 3.X/PF. This probably rambled. But I did want to voice my thoughts about how much I like the C&C system. My friend swears he's going to run a Labyrinth Lord game soon, and I look forward to it. I very well may try OSRIC out, too. We've sort of re-found ourselves in Old School gaming, and it's been a breath of fresh air.
I've tried HL and RPGXP, and I think both are pretty decent. HeroLab seems to have a little less of a learning curve for customization, but it's hard to beat the export capabilities and sheet options of RPGXP (3.5 style, DMGII, PfRPG, PF Society, Monster Stat Block style sheet and IIRC, BB Code and HTML for online PbP games.) RPGXP used to have a pretty devoted 3rd party support network that input datasets for some of the WOTC splatbooks, and they have had free datasets here for the first few PF adventure paths, but I don't honestly know if they've done a full dataset for the PFRPG yet, while I'm sure HL has. Both have limited trials, though. Might be worth it to try both (or all three!) and see which one you find easiest.
I'm actually very happy with the big ol' sized book, and most of my gaming group are in awe of it. In fact, a couple who were kinda meh on the idea of picking up the hard copy have changed their mind after flipping through it. But I should probably insert the caveat that my group is experienced, and big, heavy, nasty, family-bible-thick books of rules with lush art are more of a source of pride to them than a negative. I can see the opposite side of the argument for new and never-before gamers, about how a huge thick book of rules might be intimidating to a first-timer... but then again, it seems to me that the rules themselves can be a little intimidating if you've never done 3.5 or PFRPG before (or haven't played any RPGs at all), anyway, no matter the format or heft of the rulebook. My 3.5 PHB is half the weight and size of the PFRPG, and I still know newbs whose brains throb when you start working with them on Character Creation.
...to all the Pathfinder Society GM's, Organizers and fellow players that helped make Gen Con a blast again this year. I really enjoyed myself at each of the events (including the Interactive!) that I went to, and look forward to doing it again next year! Hope you had a great time in Indy! (And yes, even if I'm Chelaxian, that was not just "sucking up to curry favor.") XD
Mine came yesterday. I made it well known that "if a big package arrives for me, I must be told. Period. End of story. Don't care if I'm in the bathroom, sleeping, or whatever. Let me know." Seconds later my mailman knocked after dropping off the mail, with a big parcel. I've been spending the last 24 hours in random fits of glee.
Possibly, but not necessarily. This could easily be a 3rd party add-on after the official rules come out in August. The status effects should all be listed, so I'd imagine it will only be a matter of time and effort for someone to create some sort of chart aid that lists varying degrees of danger for effects. That would make it easy for someone to adapt to a number of different gaming styles, from Hardcore Tomb of Horrors-Style Mass-Character Shredder to SoS-Free Attention Deficient Player Coddler. One could even ramp up the effects so that the legit Pathfinder rules fall somewhere in the middle, so say Nauseous can only be cured with a spell rather than with rest, or Petrification has a negative to its DC for recovery, or the like. Of course, I still hope that the SoD's stay in Pathfinder, regardless. I find they generally make the game more challenging, and our group does much as was suggested earlier-- have a secondary character, run a monster, or be a ghost for the duration of the combat, and have fun while your cohorts are killing or being killed. I never even heard of the SoD/SoS issue till 4E came out. We always just dealt with it. And 4E's attempted 'fix' of that was one of the major points that led to me NOT picking it up. To each their own, I guess.
While it's been a little while since I've been able to churn out good writing in the same manner I used to (I used to laugh at the idea of three pages a day, until real life intervened), I would definitely be interested in joining a writing club for reading and critique, especially one centered around Golarion. So that would be a "count me in".
Okay, said I was going to and got caught up with a lot of other stuff. Thanks in advance, Clark! (I'm figuring that SIAC, spell capitalization and points off because I cut off my Cost when I cut/pasted it killed this one. (And yes, I actually cut off the cost BOTH times. (facepalm) But I'm curious if you agree or had other reasons besides.) Medusa’s Charm Aura: Moderate Abjuration; CL: 10th
Description The braids of this thick bronze bracelet are designed to look like interwoven snakes-- each captured in writhing fury, as though poising to strike. Following their contours draws the eye to the bracelet’s centerpiece: a small, stylistically-carved relief of a medusa’s face, with its deep-set eyes closed in repose. The bracelet is cool to the touch and appears to exude a greenish luster in torchlight. Upon donning the bracelet, the wearer receives a +1 resistance to all Fortitude Saves. If the wearer twists the medusa’s face on the bracelet’s face so that it is inverted, the eyelids will open, revealing a pair of tiny gleaming rubies. While the eyes are open like this, the wearer is granted the ability to cast the following: - Neutralize Poison, twice per day
The medusa’s face will remain inverted and the eyes will remain open until one of its spells is expended or one full minute passes; after which it will automatically rotate itself back, closing its eyes. Construction Requirements: Craft Wondrous Item, Break Enchantment, Neutralize Poison, Resistance. (Cost, cut off: 14,500 gp) Again, I really appreciate it!
As part of the effort to dial back the power of spellcasters a bit, esp. in the land of "save or you're screwed" spells, we talked about recovery saves. I can grudgingly deal with recovery saves as a nerf to spellcasting, because it seems as there's quite a bit of in a snit about "Save-Or-Sit-Around," whether from the player end or worries for the BBEG, so it's probably already a done deal. Personally, if that goes through, I'd really like it to be focused on spells only, rather than also gelding creatures' extranormal effects, like gaze weapons and the like. The idea of rewriting so that you die in a couple rounds from, say, a banshee's scream (assuming that you don't get buffed in the interim) or 'get better' from looking at a medusa by making a recovery save in the 2nd round of the effect strikes me as hopelessly videogamey/MMOish and not very true to the mythical feel and roots of the creatures. I also don't know that I like the idea of making them an end of round swift action if the spells are going to be save-every-round-until-you're-all-right. I'd almost feel better off with a move action or (I'd even be okay with a standard action, but I can imagine the response to that) made on your turn. That way, if you make the save, you can still make a partial action, but shaking off the effect is taxing, so you don't go from fully affected to pulling off a full attack. (Of course, given my preference, I'd keep spells with SoD/SoE's as they are. I think it gives more of a real dangerous flavor than the cop-out MMO "damage" that I feel a couple of my favorite spells have turned into and the flat-out impotence most appear to be in danger of becoming, if public opinion is to be believed.
ROAR GROWL Snarl Scowl Mope... and sighed acceptance. Okay, that's done. I hate to admit it but looking through the responses on the top 32, I can guess a few reasons why my item didn't make the grade, but I'll likely go ahead and post it tomorrow to confirm my suspicions, if that's okay. But I'm still taking my days off work, all the same. XD Thank you very much, Mr. Baur, Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Reynolds, for all your hard work (which is likely just beginning)! Here's to hoping next year I wow yas.
Thank you. This has been a big gripe to me all throughout these SOD/SOE threads. While I can do a degree understand the mindset of "It means my character's been invalidated by one bad roll," (understand it, yes, but still don't agree with it) this sort of mindset has really stuck in my craw since it was brought up. In the gaming group I play in, it would be considered extremely rude for a player to just walk off and not pay at least some attention to what's going on because they were taken out of gameplay, no matter if it was a single-roll fail or massive HP damage in the eighth round of a twenty round combat... hell, if nothing else to root for the party to win. And besides, since casting Flesh to Stone, Dispel Magic, Heal, or using Stone Salve are all standard actions that can be taken within the midst of combat, there's actually more chance for a character to recover from those 'instant-out' SOE effects in combat than there is for a character that's died/fallen unconscious from damage < 0 HP... so what happens when the healer dispels the domination/compulsion effect on the PC whose player is doing other things?
At the risk of tangentalizing a thread that's probably gone a ways away from the OP, I totally agree and move we get rid of dice altogether, because to-hit rolls always seem to have that niggling 5% chance of failure that is completely level-independent, and I have far too many damage rolls that fall on '1' and kill nothing. I think Pathfinder would be better served by being a diceless, freeform game where death only occurs if A) you are an adversary of the PC's, or B) you are painfully obnoxious and subject to group vote that your character should die. Like, if you forgot the chips or something.
If too many more of the SOD/SOE spells get blanket-damage pansified (see Finger of Hit Point Removal; Disintegrate (if damage > opponent's HP); discussions of tier-effecting Flesh to Stone, Multisaves vs. Any Spell That Causes My Character to Be Out Of Game for Any Length of Time; 4th Edition), I'll very likely end up houseruling something that has some actual teeth, myself. I already plan on doing that for FoD, Disintegrate, and a few others, to bring them back to a former level of effectiveness. What I'd really prefer to see is something that like there to be some sort of chart that allows for the groups that actually want to have the worry of SOD/SOE spells they can have it, and if a group is worried that will cause someone to plop down with a case of the pouts after failing vs. domination they can tier/dumb down/multisave/negate the effect. I doubt seriously that's going to happen at this point of the game construction, but maybe some 3rd party type will prep something up once PF's in full release. :shrug: Oh, in 2E, yes, at 11th level a fighter had to roll an 8 or more to save against Petrification, for instance. But those saves never got to the point of ridiculously (I save on everything but a 1!) easy until 15th level or more, unless your DM was a total pushover and handed out magic items du jour for nothing. There was always close to a 50% or so chance to miss right up till 12th, and there were no "Kid Gloves" and HP hacks on the spells. Disintegrate didn't poo-poo you for HP damage and if you were dropped to zero THEN you were dusted. Finger of Death actually killed you, regardless of your health or lack thereof. Of course, if a character back then actually got ashed with a Disintegrate spell, and the DM ruled that they couldn't be resurrected, then it would take 10 minutes tops to create a new character... unlike now, when a character has to be painstakingly built. Which I guess beggars the question: doesn't anyone bring backup characters with them so that if a character does die the GM can insert them in at the next opportunity and not force the person to sit twiddling their thumbs?
I wouldn't mind subscribing, although I'd (or rather my wallet would) be more in favor of that if it were done so that the release of the HC books coincided with a lapse in some of my other subscribed stuff, the way the usual Chronicles/Modules/Companion pieces do, so I don't find myself with a sudden $100 monthly bill and a whole lot of explaining to do. And, if so, what I'd probably like to see is: Bestiary: A couple of them would be nice, unless you treat them more like the ecologies-style books for monster types, like you did with Classic Monsters Revisited, in which case I'd be ecstatic with as many as you wanted to churn out.... but barring that, I'm sold on at least a couple of them, as long as it doesn't get to the realm of ridiculous-- like, say, dropping a new HC Bestiary on us yearly, for half a decade. I mean, out of all the monster manuals, 3rd party source material and Tome of Horrors, (which I consider almost indispensible), I'm pretty sure my group has only used an amount equal to one total book of creatures-- max. Alternate Rules: I like the idea of a collection of homebrew rules and variants, ala Unearthed Arcana, (although I really like the concept of GR's Mastermind's Manual, too. The idea of a huge list of really simple, minor additions or changes to singular rules that the GM can opt to use appeals to me a great deal!) Things that CAN be added to the game without backbreaking it, at a GM's discretion. NPC books/GM Helper books: I don't know who first suggested this, but they get a major kudos from me. Anything that has pre-fab cut-and-paste stats that I could adjust for my campaigns is a boon to me. Hell, anything that helps make my life as a GM easier and helps me create so that I can focus more on the story and less on the rules engine is a boon to me. Beyond that, I don't much care for PrC's... not because they're overblown or too/not powerful, but because they've shifted from being a really cool GM tool-- something to reward characters with-- to being something I constantly see players couching their character builds around. (Oh, there's nothing really in his background that suggests I need this skill/feat, and it's really kind of useless for me now, but it's a prereq for X PrC. Or, we're starting this campaign at 7th level, so I'm going to pick up X PrC from this splatbook.) I don't mind seeing new ones, and in fact have worked on some, myself. But I've grown a little disenchanted with them in game. I'm one of the few, probably, who doesn't much care for the Psionic Handbook, just cause I'm not big on the psionic flavor... it just feels too modern/supers/sci-fi for my fantasy tastes. If one gets put out, I may look into getting it (especially if it's well sub-$35), because I'd like to have a complete Pathfinder set, and so I'm familiar with it when members of my group inevitably go "but psionics are so coooool, and they're not really all that different from magic, etc., etc., etc." Ditto Epic Level, IMHO. It'd be nice, but I'm much more comfortable playing low to mid levels than getting characters past Lvl 20. To each their own, though. I'm sure I can come up with more, but I'm at work, and any ideas I start to formulate inevitably get blown up by some minor crisis here.
Wow, I'll admit I really didn't think about that and my word count was pretty close to the 200 word limit. I guess on mine it'll depend on whether the word count gets generated from it being copy/pasted from the actual response or the Reply To box.
With complete respect, I can see and even understand your point... I just don't feel as if they need to be changed. I like the element of risk that they add to the game, and I like that they urge characters to pre-plan and work together when they know they'll be facing creatures with SOD-style SLE's and attacks, or mages, in order to avoid those effects, rather than rushing headlong into danger because they automatically get a rules-enforced safety net. The fact that element of immediate and lethal danger has been stretched out to "round-ending save-to-end or get progressively worse until the real effect is reached" is one of the things I specifically don't care for in 4E. Again, that's my opinion. But I think it's fair to say it's not a completely unpopular one. So, no, I don't mind that SOD/SOS spells and SLE's circumvent HP's, really. And I don't really mind the binary affect/nothing nature of them, either. That's the whole point of them. IMHO, they're meant to be a different dynamic. They're meant to be incapacitating, deadly, terrible and mythical, and are obviously designed to be all-or-nothing shots, which is why a save usually negates them-- rather than causing partial damage-- and why so many of them only target single creatures. So there is a sort of checks and balances system with them, even if it sounds unfair to some because "one bad roll" can do in my character.
Total agreement with you, brock. Especially the part about simple customization of a save-or-die, save-or-(ability)-damage or save-save-save. (Or even save-save-save-fudge-as-necessary, for people who don't want to lose their characters when the 3rd save fails... and I know they're out there, because I've gamed with types that get bent out of shape when their 3rd straight attack misses, let alone when their character's life or death is hanging in the balance). Personally, I don't think anything has the tension/relief as when you know your character's been targetted for a SOD/SOS and making the save. Or when you're the one casting it and your adversary JUST misses it. I don't personally much care for the idea of multisaves, because A) it hurts the immediacy of the effect and instead extends it over multiple rounds B) which a GM would now have to keep track of in addition to everything else s/he already bookkeeps. And I definitely don't like just hashing everything out to blanket damage-- because as I've stated in other threads, IMHO that just kills a lot of the tasty flavor in favor of more raw numbers, (like we don't already have enough of those freefloating around.) But for those who enjoy that sort of thing, I think a chart like you've mentioned in this (and other) threads is about the best case scenario. Have a page near the front reserved for Gaming Styles where you can chart up variant ways of dealing with SOD/SOS rules. My personal take is that if the prevailing mindset is "We have to do something about SOD/SOS because when my character's not doing anything/incapable of doing something, I'll get bored and go read a book or play a video game and overall not have fun," well, then it's not necessarily a system mechanics problem. At some point, whether by design of the story or a bad roll of the dice, a bad, incapacitating roll will very likely happen, and the only way to completely negate it is to nix the possibility that any player-character can be killed. And what fun would that be? If, however, the mindset is, "I don't want to hinge whether my character lives or dies on one roll," there should be ways around it without destroying the save mechanic and completely emasculating-- or killing the flavor of-- the spells in question. Action/Luck Points, Feats/Buffs to allow rerolls, or the like. Even Good GM Planning/Storytelling and Fiat bonuses might be possibilities, if the GM really wants to reward good play by characters who take the extra step of trying to be prepared.
I completely understand the "one roll that decides my character's fate sucks" mindset, and I've had it happen to my characters enough that I can relate to the sense of frustration when you bomb on the Save. That really sucks, I know. But it really sucks when the monsters roll a 20 and confirm, too. (Whether or not you're using the Crit deck. And my group doesn't bother with confirms, a 20's a crit, EOS.) And it really sucks when you're rolling an attack and watch a 1 come up. (Whether or not you're using the Crit deck.) In either case, the battle could be won or lost on that roll of the dice, too. My old GM used to say that a character would only die if two things happened. 1) He/She did something stupid, and 2) He/She rolled bad. It sounds simple, but it's fairly good advice, and I tend to play more like that, anyway. If the characters ignore the hallway full of statues with horrorstruck expressions on their faces, or discount the stories of the locals who won't go near the ruined keep because of the "unearthly wailing sounds" that come at night, I don't feel like I should have to pull my punches when they botch their roll. Maybe some sort of caveat be placed beside the chart (above, which I think should be adopted to appease everyone regardless of game style) that suggests if you play a more 'lethal' game, you might want to likewise consider increasing the ableness for characters to recover from lethalities by making recovery magic/potions/the like a bit more abundant. I dunno. What I do know is that personally, like I said, I don't care for the flavor of straight HP or ability score damage for save or effect spells, and I'm not even really big on the tiered system, especially for spells like Sleep, which used to be a first-level staple. I like the bigger than life danger of the instant incapacitation, not having every creature and spell become a variation of ability drain and HP damage.
I'd have to agree with the keep SOD's side. By the levels a character has to be to run into SOD's more often (real SOD's, not simple incapacitation spells like Hold Person/Monster, Sleep and the like) they're generally much better equipped to handle them. On top of that, I've found in our games that starting about 7th level, with even basic "to save" buffs from the party's Bard/Cleric/Druid, the chance most SOD/Save or Suck spells have of working when used by an equivalent CR creature is actually closer to 50%. Natch, that also means the chance of the mage in the party affecting a given creature in an encounter is about 50%, too. (Discounting SR, which can make it even more difficult.) So about half the time a mage casts a Save or Incapacitate spell, it does nothing more than waste a spell slot. If anything, I'd almost argue for making SOD's more effective, rather than dismissing what makes them both cool and dangerous for yet another blanket-damage or ability drain/dmg spell. I guess if I had a gun to my head and had to take an alternative, I'd opt for the multisave idea, where Gorgon Breath, for instance, slowed, paralyzed and then petrified, with each missed save. But that still doesn't sit well with me in that it takes a lot of the really immediate and dangerous mythical flavor out: "Oh, no! I heard a banshee! In three rounds (if I don't make my concurrent saves, possibly with the added help from two rounds of buffs cast after the fact) I'll die!" But that's just me. I like SOD spells; it's just another link to 1st Ed., when the games I played weren't quite so tac-simish.
I submitted an entry through the admissions thingee, but afterwards I just got the message "Click Here to Submit an Entry" on the RPG Superstar main page. Is this normal, or should I be seeing a different message? If I submit the same entry again, will I be disqualified? I was pretty sure my first one went through until I read this thread. Then I couldn't for the life of me remember if I'd seen the "Thanks for Entering" or "Click Here to Submit an Entry" message. So if there's two of mine about an hour apart or so, that would be why. >.<
Lifeboater. I had gotten out of gaming for a few years, after the demise of 2E and the loss of a few gaming buddies to Real Life™. When I found a new group, a few months ago, they were playing and enjoying 3.5, and I found that I generally enjoyed it as well. Sure, there were things I didn't care for (such as play at above level 12-13), but most of those things I didn't much care for in earlier editions, either. The problem was I had been away so long that there were so many fluff and splatbooks, as well as rule changes from what I knew, that I would be way out my league trying to help GM without heavily restricting everyone to core rulebooks plus a couple extra splats tops. When Pathfinder Beta came out, it offered me a new, more level playing field. Even with back-compatibility, I don't mind saying "Let's stick to core classes until we get a handle on the differences between PFRPG and 3.5." On a whim, I read over a couple adventures, and loved how well they were written, and how nice and in full color the art and maps were. That sold me to buy a couple more, then subscribe... and superscribe... and try out the Companion scenarios at GenCon. I've slowly come to understand why so many here have been so rabid about Paizo. From their customer service to their appearances in the forums to the writing in their adventures and rulebooks, you can tell they care about their gaming. They won't ever please everyone, but they do a pretty good job nonetheless.
That's part of the problem... the mid-majors (MWC, MAC, WCC) aren't given that chance most often to prove that they're better than any of the "big boys". A team like Florida won't pick up Utah in their out of conference schedule because A) it isn't an automatic win, (such as Citadel or Directional Louisiana) and there's a chance that on that one given day, they'll lose (see Boise State/Oklahoma, Appalachian State/Michigan), and B) if they don't, it negatively influences their strength of schedule, in the minds of the idiot voters, who might penalize them later in the year for beating up on who they consider a walkover. What I'd like to get rid of is the conference tie-ins. I'm from Indiana, and we have a ridiculously good (currently) undefeated team, #12 Ball State, that won't even get a sniff at a decent bowl because of conference tie-ins. Instead, they'll have to play a Big Ten #7 team in the Motor City Bowl, which is like half a month before the January bowls, or a Conference USA also-ran in freaking Toronto. And if they were given leave to go play a team like Boise State, it would only be in the Humanitarian Bowl, which oh by the way is on Boise State's home field. That's crap. And you know what? They might be another Hawaii, who gets shellacked by a big brawny musclebound SEC behemoth. They still deserve the chance to pull off the one-in-a-million. that goes for Utah and Boise State, too. They defeated everyone on their schedule. That's more than 95% of the FBS teams can claim.
I would like more bard-only spells to make bard casting relevent at higher levels. More spells like Inspirational Boost from the spell compendium, that increase the effectiveness of bardic performances. bard only spells that provide larger bonuses than the Eagles Splendor +4 to charisma. Bard specific enchantments, buffs and maybe even illusions. Glibness is fun - what else can we do to give bards some fun options that you can't get any other way. Total agreement. I'd be totally in favor of more bard-only spells, especially higher-level ones... anything that makes the bard more of an attractive alternative for reasons beyond the simple fun role-playing aspects is a plus IMHO. |
