DGRM44's page

One of the things that I see a lot of people post is "how complicated Pathfinder is". To me it's one of the more stream lined and easy systems out there.

Try creating 3 fighters, 1 cleric and 1 mage all level 5 as enemies in an encounter using Core rulebook. Then tell me how streamlined pathfinder is.

So what are the good rules-light(er) d20 or PF based systems? I'm curious.

Check out Castles & Crusades.

This is excellent post:
Bounded Accuracy

So instead of just raising the DC for higher level characters, and all the extra work that comes with that, just give a slower more reasonable progression for everyone. What a concept!!! Keep things simpler for the GM and make the game scale and relate better to real life.

Oh, I agree with you, and I know what you need! E6, or maybe E8! That will solve it.

But Next seems like a better solution (thanks to bounded accuracy).

What is E6 and E8?

A 10th level character focused on a skill should always succeed at things that he struggled with at first level. Just like a few goblins are a challenge at 1st level, but aren't even a speedbump at 10th. For mid level characters, simple environmental challenges aren't a problem any more.

The problem for me and my group is we need something a little more rooted in reality. We want fantasy and magic, but we want it to scale closer to reality. Even the best navy seals crashed their helicopter when trying to take out Bin Laden. PC's should gain power and skills, but there should be a ceiling that feels real. A system and experience that relates closer to the real world to make the game a better "Role Playing" experience. Something that the players can relate to. Currently pathfinder is a super hero comic book in DnD terms with the power levels. It feels like a super's game, not a classic fantasy role playing game.

Of course we play with adults....

Well darn it, I guess the 5 year olds I play with just don't have a clue. Thanks for your insight.

Another change I would make is split the Core Rules into two books. And then write the players book in a much more user friendly manner with more examples and step by step guides on how to use the system. Thus new players could learn the game easier and quicker.

It sounds to me like you want a lower power level than PF. I think the problem is you'd like to run a grittier, simpler game and you're using a high magic, simulationist system to do it.

Maybe a grittier, simpler high magic game of pathfinder? :-)

I got pretty good as a GM using the rules, and if I could memorize all the powers and avoid cross referencing I would still play PF. Its really the prep time that has put me in this position. The high level stuff I could probably continue to deal with using house rules, but the prep time (when done correctly) is just too much. Think about creating 1 wizard, 1 cleric, 3 fighters all 5th level as npcs. And they may only last one encounter against your players. Easily an hour of prep time to write these guys up correctly.

But shouldn't a character once they reach a certain level succeed? Why should they struggle throughout the entire game? Whats the point of leveling if you will always suck?

Whats the point of playing when you always succeed? Where's the challenge or fun in that?

When you say you "like pathfinder", what do you like about it?

I like the core system. The classes are all done pretty nice. The wizard and sorcerer options are cool. The clerics healing power and how he harms undead vs. turn is good. The combat system is good. Most of the spells are really good. The monsters are nice. All the artwork is top notch. Basically, I would do the following to improve the game.

1. Remove unlimited 0 level spell casting. In place I would give additional power that could be used 3 times + prime attribute. Keep 0 level spells, but only 1x/day like all spells.
2. Lower AC for everyone.
3. Change the skill system to either have much fewer ranks in skills or just make skills trained/untrained and give a standard bonus to trained.
If I hear the phrase "Perception check" one more time I think I will scream. Maybe get rid of Perception as a skill and have the players role play what they do. I don't know. Somehow skill power needs to be reduced.
4. Change Monsters so that they are simpler to use and have self contained stat blocks. Also come up with an easy system to create your own monsters.
5. Take the existing NPC templates and expand on them. Again, would love it if they can be self contained, however with spell casting it may be difficult to list the details of every spell in the stat block.

Spells may be something we will always have to cross reference. I think all other powers could and should be in the stat blocks.

Create a system to quickly generate NPCs of a vast variety and power levels.

6. Make magic items rare. Don't allow people to buy them from every city in Golarion. Maybe the rare merchant might have a few prized items for sell, but magic items should be rare and expensive.

That's what I would change in PF 2.0. Would some of these changes require some other tweaks? Likely. Dmg. from weapsons and powers might have to also be throttled back a bit.

It has an unlimited number of uses per day, it's not free (from a roleplaying/in-character perspective). He has to go through life invoking the nature spirits dozens of times a day, over and over, for what is usually no gain and is occasionally a very minor benefit.

From the players perspect he just had to say "Guidance" and we all new what it meant. I don't force them to act out every spell, this isn't a LARP. So there is no real cost. Could I rule as a GM that the player gets tired of doing it? Possibly, but RAW there is nothing to assume any 0 level spell tires out the caster.

That specific one can't, because the skill roll literally cannot fail.

This is a great point. When characters get to a certain level their skills are just ridiculous, there is almost no point in rolling anymore. Unless you as a GM make the DC higher than it should be its pointless. Just tell them "You succeed." The power curve in PF is too much. Players are mortal gods by 10th level (or earlier).

If they stepped away and made their own new game totally separated from 3rd edition D&D? Well, they seem like good guys, I bet they could make a good game and I might really like it.

I think they could also, but I don't think they would have to step as far away from 3.X as you think. 4e went too far, DnDN seems to be trying to pull it back a bit. We will see how it all turns out.

Detect magic can be an issue. One house rule I've seen that I wish Paizo had thought of when updating was changing the range to touch.

That is a great idea, I may have to steal that one :-)

ECL is better epic at +4 or +5 than at +3 i.e.

I'm not familiar with the ECL acronym? What is it?

DGRM44 wrote:

But I guess we will not agree on this point.

Nothing in this thread ever deluded me otherwise.

Even in disagreement hopefully we can have a healthy and respectful debate. Many great things spring from questioning and debating the status quo.

What about food? How will they avoid starvation?

Oh wait, the ranger has a +10 Survival check and can forage for food. Nevermind.

It's very clear that Pathfinder does not model the game you want to play. Nothing wrong or right about that. It is what it is.

At least he has to make a check, so this can still create suspense.

It also makes perfect sense in role to NOT. Both are equally viable playstyles. Find the group that shares your playstyle.

I disagree, if the group is on a quest and you withhold a free power that makes no sense to me. Its selfish. But I guess we will not agree on this point.

The druid most likely wouldn't help the town out unless they gave back to the forest, replanting trees and such. If they were on friendly enough terms, he would show them where another water source nearby was so they could build a new well.

LOL!!! Pretty much every Druid player I have run across loves gold as much as trees. They can use the gold to buy themselves a whole forest.

Never said I don't include the spell. If you're going to call playstyle a house rule, we have no common ground for this discussion.

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk about this in any way, I'm just saying if you have a free power it makes perfect sense in role to use it as much as possible when you can to give your group an edge. A +1 is always a good thing, and again its FREE.

But you're not roleplaying it. You're just saying 'I cast guidance on everyone for their +1 to this roll'. At least that is what I'm seeing.

I'm saying if you as the character have the free power, then it would be anti-role playing NOT to use. Who in their right minds in a dangerous world would NOT use every free power they have? That would not make any sense at all in that game world.

More on Create Water. A towns well dry's up and desperately needs a new water supply. A druid shows up and makes a small fortune selling his water.

Because my character might get really tired of casting the same spell over and over. Or he might find that an insulting use of magic on trivial tasks. It might be that my cleric only offers a prayer when his ally is about to attempt something of note. A +1 bonus is not critical to success enough to demand using it for every action. I've never seen such a thing in the fiction I enjoy and see no reason to include it in my games.

My group wants to use every power they have at their disposal. If its free, and you don't use it that is selfish and I would want to kick that players butt in-game. And in real life. Help your team mates out, DUDE ITS FREE!!! It could save our lives. Even in roleplaying, it makes no sense to hold back free powers from your team mates.

And to your second point, that is why we house ruled it...and you don't include it so in a sense you house ruled it also.

I would have just asked him to consider it from the characters pov and decide when it was thematically appropriate to do such a thing.

I'm not aware of any house rules in my statement. I get that you have a prejudice against these rules, but please respond to what I actually say.

Why is not thematically appropriate to cast Guidance before every potential dangerous situation? Is the Druid and the rest of the group "thematically stupid"?

Create water is another one. The group is making their way through a wilderness, supplies are running low and they need to find water quick. Its a race against time, a little mini-challenge if you will.

Wait, the druid can cast 0 level create water. No worries about that critical supply. Unlimited drinking fountain. Nice.

DGRM44 wrote:

Everyone who has commented above on 0 level spells has proven my point. None of you use them RAW. You either tell your players 'its not appropriate' or you try to 'distract' them from doing it. Regardless, you are circumventing the rules to make your games better. I say, lets just FIX THE RULES. We all know unlimited 0 level spells is silly, you have all just said so in your own ways as you don't allow it in your games in one way or another...and why? Because it is annoying as all H**L.

I have said NOTHING of the sort. Again, why do you get to be the arbiter of the right way to play for me and my group or anybody else's group but your own?

I stand corrected sir. Your group likes it and that's fine. I house ruled it because it doesn't work for my group. My players are very smart, and even though they are reasonable and allow me to plug the holes, they will exploit them as long as I allow it. It doesn't make them bad players, it just means that if there is something they can use to give them and edge, they will. I would do the same thing.

The issue I have with detect magic, is sometimes I don't want the group to know an item is magical right away. We all enjoy some mystery, so if the magic users can only cast it 3x/day then they use it a bit more judiciously and I can inject some mystery and intrigue about certain items...which they can decide should I use it or save it? But you lose that if your magic users have magic detecting "vision".

I also suspect a lot of your problems might simply result from you and your group being unfamiliar with Pathfinder. I can't imagine how much trouble I would have had Dming for Pathfinder my first time last fall, without several players in my group being experienced players, and able to help with rules. Prior to last year, my last experience with DnD was 3.5 over 5 years ago, so coming into the game new and having to DM new players = ouch.

LOL! I would say our problems partly arise from us being TOO familiar with Pathfinder. Look, I have house ruled out most of the issues, my biggest issue now is really the complexity, and I think you are right. Its time to move on to another system that is faster paced. However, I can still hope Paizo updates PF and takes my feedback into consideration.

Because doing this makes the game worse for everyone that either doesn't have or is tolerant of "min/max players."

That makes no sense, if you don't have min/max, then my fixes will not affect your game. However, to your second group it will most definitely affect them and I agree, they will not like it.

Everyone who has commented above on 0 level spells has proven my point. None of you use them RAW. You either tell your players 'its not appropriate' or you try to 'distract' them from doing it. Regardless, you are circumventing the rules to make your games better. I say, lets just FIX THE RULES. We all know unlimited 0 level spells is silly, you have all just said so in your own ways as you don't allow it in your games in one way or another...and why? Because it is annoying as all H**L.

Being able to do something isn't always justification for doing it. I would have just asked him to consider it from the characters pov and decide when it was thematically appropriate to do such a thing.

So they wrote rules for us to change or ignore? Why write them like that in the first place if that's not how we are going to use them in the game? If I am a player and I have something I deem as useful, Im going to use it. That is me trying to bring all my powers into play as much as possible. Why wouldn't I want to do that, even if it is annoying? If we all house rule this, then just dump it out of the system and lets put in something we all will use.

I dont know, I think that there's a large human element to being a DM rather than the rules just being programming code that a DM complies and spits out.

I agree with everything you said, however if the rules can be improved to help GM's deal with some of the more min/max players then why not? Not all people are the same and over the years I have dealt with quite a few different player types. Some are difficult, and some a breeze. I have made changes to PF as needed to address issues and its worked out, its just Im ready for PF to go ahead and fix some things that I think are good and ready to be fixed.

It's a playstyle issue in the sense that it's not mechanically breaking. A +1 for everyone at the start of an encounter isn't going to make a huge difference. It's more the bother of doing it every time, and the jokes about it, that would irritate me.

If you wanted to leave it in, I'd remember that it does take time, make noise and others can notice it or you and react. And throw in some encounter where you don't have extra rounds to cast it.

But mechanically, at best, it's +1 on one roll/character/encounter.

The 0 level spells in pathfinder are silly or annoying. I think they should be done away with and replaced by something more useful or interesting. How many people really either

Did I mention Detect Magic??? My Druid never met a room he didn't cast detect magic in. He used it like a flash light. Its ridiculous and silly.

To me this normal in any system I have ever played. I adjust the game to fit my player's playstyle, power level, and tactics.

I would also suggest in dealing with this in other ways than just bonus to hit barbarian...

1) Increase the HP of the creatures...all mansters and NPCs stat block assumes a average roll for HP...so increasing the HPs is well within the rules.

2) Increase the number of enemies...more enemies means more chances to hit that high AC and they can get things like flanking(well if the barbarian is low enough level). It does mean more exp...but you can fix that by awarding the exp as you see fit.

I know this might not be helping as you seem to have decided. It is just my nature when I hear about a problem to just fix it than to sit around and complain about it...not that complaining is all bad...and I do hope your critism is seen my Pazio staff members...and even make a couple of changes would be ok...I really just hope they don't solely listen to you and others with similair complaints and critisms.

I appreciate your suggestions and where you are coming from. I have made all the adjustments you mentioned and others, however the system absolutely allows for min/maxing and darn near encourages it. I think the game could be improved for everyone and I am not talking about ripping the guts out of PF, just dialing the power down a bit in the core rules. Also, I hope I am not the only one Paizo listens to as well. I hope we can all have a conversation and reach some compromises so that we can all enjoy the game.

As for your second statement...what they are saying is it would take a separte casting for each person. It does say under the spell Target:One living creature.

Right, he would cast it once for each member of the party. And then they would enter the creepy cave. Or move to the next room etc.

It's more of a playstyle issue than a rules issue. My players have never been the cantrip-masturbation types.

Its in the rules and he chose to use it. I can't blame him for taking advantage of the system, its the system that allows it. So, I finally capped all 0 level spells to 3x/day. He was fine with it.

Casting Guidance is a touch spell that takes a standard action to cast and as far as I can tell only works on one person at a time. For the Druid to cast it on a party of 4, he would have to take 4 standard actions (which would probably be a waste, as the druid should have far more effective things to do in combat). It also only lasts a minute and is discharged the first time the player uses it.

He would do it all the time...you see a cave up ahead "I cast guidance on everyone", you see a farm house "I take Guidance for $100 Alex"..."You smell smoke", "No, I smell Guidance!". It was annoying.

Also, no where does it say it can only be cast and active on one PC at a time. 0 levels are unlimited usage.

Also how did somebody get 25+ AC at first level?

My mistake it was a Barbarian with a 20 AC, but still he would go to the front and destroy the monsters and was rarely hit. I had to start giving some of the low level monsters extra bonuses just to hit him and challenge him.

But you asking Pazio to make changes to their system because your group is having problems is really just foolish.

I think it is foolish to assume the PF system will not change. Eventually.

DGRM44 wrote:

John Kretzer wrote:

Um...gee Condscend much?

Yea, you got me. Sorry.

Um...are you seriously here...or are you being sarcastic. You do know tone does not translate to text right?

I was serious, I was irritated and condescending in my post and you called me on it. My bad.

If unlimited 0 levels is your problem than maybe PF is beyond your ability to run.

0 level Druid spell :Guidance: +1 on one attack roll, saving throw, or skill check

It got pretty old to have the druid say "Wait, I cast Guidance on everyone in the group". I don't know how many times I have heard that, why not just give them all a permanent +1 and be done with it.

Um...gee Condscend much?

Yea, you got me. Sorry.

Let me just go ahead an apologize to all you power gamers who are horrified at my suggestion to remove AC25+ for first level characters, or unlimited 0 level spells, or making my job as a GM easier by simplifying monster and npc creation. I know you will rail against these ideas, and that's fine. Lets see how DnDN turns out as a product and if it addresses my concerns as well as how it does in the market.

That's funny, because I found your tone negative too, but I still responded to you anyway with an honest answer. And no I didn't read every post, just the first page. Didn't know you had to read an entire thread to respond.

You're doing it wrong. If you're only using core rules, the PCs shouldn't be too powerful at all.

You make the assumption that "I'm doing it wrong." Really? Thanks for clarifying that, now can you tell me how to do it right? Because little ole stupid me has no clue. Also "I didn't do the research on Mythic powers". Wow, thanks for that insight. I guess I was wrong and Mythic powers in its concept is the opposite of what it intended, which is to create high powered dare I say "MYTHIC" level characters and monsters. Yes, different style game indeed, heading in the wrong direction IMHO.

Your players might not like being under your thumb all of the time though. And maybe they like PCs and combat strategy that is more complex.

This is by far my favorite as this implies I am a power hungry GM just itching to torment or otherwise destroy my players. Since you know me so well, what is my favorite color? Animal? Food?

I wouldn't bash, because bashing gets you nowhere.

So exactly how do I give constructive feedback to improve a game system I like and a publishing company I like? Keep quiet in the corner? Really? What you call bashing, is an attempt to improve a system I enjoy playing.

Have fun trying your new systems and see you back here soon.

Your whole post was very condescending and it sounds like you didn't read a lot of what I posted in this thread. Your assumptions are incorrect and there is no need to respond in detail as most of this is a rehash of things discussed. Also your tone is much too negative to warrant taking seriously as a positive contributor to this thread. Have a nice day.

However, scope of player power is also about the type of stories you can tell. Really buff PCs do things like frontal assaults on fixed positions. Really buff and really fun, but more Conan and less Game of Thrones in terms of narrative.

If you want a game where players must think in more real world terms about tactics and threats, it is harder to do that with Pathfinder than with other systems like C&C and even Dungeon Crawl Classics.

Well said, I completely agree.

I GM'd Champions for five years, back when it was one of the most complex systems in the world. I tried running a 3.0 game once. Never again. Life is too freaking short to spend an hour making a character that will last for three rounds. And at least Champions was built on a basic chassis that made sense- it was easy to cost out effects. Pathfinder effects are basically pulled out of someone's rear, because there is no parity between cost and effect, you can't judge power levels between classes, EL is a joke, there's weird synchronicies between different abilities... it's a huge mess. I have yet to be in a Pathfinder game where a GM didn't get something massively wrong, and that was just in the areas I knew about.

As for " making the world not encounters", yeah right. How many GMs have 1st level characters encounter adult black dragons? "Well dragons do get their wealth by raiding towns. Now make new characters." I've known only one GM who didn't carefully sculpt the opposition to match the characters, PCs in that game tended to live less than half an hour. Even with the mess that EL is, it's a better guideline than "This monster seems neat, let's see how many seconds the PCs last against it."

LOL!!!

Life is too freaking short to spend an hour making a character that will last for three rounds.

Exactly!

Float melee monster into air out of its reach. Fill with arrows until dies. Drop to loot. Repeat.

That's a great tactic and should work sometimes, but other times the monster will have friends or make its saving throw.

On C&C -- I love parts of it, but hate some of the stuff carried over from 1E. Things like levitation being a super-powerful offensive spell are deal breakers for me. Yes, I could house-rule the entire spell list, but I'd rather not have to.

I'm not sure how Levitation is a super powerful offensive weapon, they can only levitate themselves or another being. They can't move horizontally only vertically. and they have to make concentration checks to cast additional spells while levitating.

From my experience with 4E I found it great to GM. It was fast, easy and great to use. Very GM friendly and made making adventure so much less time consuming. Problem was no players followed. A player can always step to be the GM but a GM with out players has no game.

I never wanted to GM 4e because it lost the feel of DnD and the game just didn't click for me...Dragonborn? I don't know exactly what it is, but 4e lost something. Maybe the system is great, I don't know.

I dont know if there will ever be a practical way to bypass the task. DMs need to prep, they will always need to prep in a game like pathfinder. There are far more colaborative systems out there, like fiasco, where everyone is involved in creating the story, but if the dm sets up the world and the story and the player's act in it, the dm will have to prep.

Prepping is part of the game, I am all for prepping. Creating the encounters is a fun part of being a GM. I am talking about streamlining the activity of prepping, not doing away with it altogether or changing it so that everyone participates in it. I would like to be able to add monsters and npcs to my encounters with no cross referencing of rules needed...or very very little cross referencing. That would be a major help in my prep, then I could focus much more on encounter design and a lot less on "If I add this monster what does he bring, oh wait he has this and this and let me see what these do again? Flip pages/mouse click prd, Darn, I can't use him he will destroy my party...let me keep flipping and looking up and clicking and on and on it goes."