Is the intention to put all the guild ideas into this one thread? If so here is a counterbalance to all that snooty Lawful happening up there. ;)
Name: Sons of Cayden (SoC) Alignment Axis: Upper right corner. Lots of CG and CN. A little bit of N and maybe NG.
OOC Structure: A group of guild officers make day to day decisions and are ultimately responsible for the well being of the guild and its members. Periodically there is a turnover of the people in charge. This concession is only because Athenian Democracy is probably a bit too messy but we can try it first.
RP Level:We can take a vote on that once there are people to vote IC Structure:Republic. A Council (the above mentioned officers) votes with the ability and expectation for members to weigh in on matters which interest them.
Purpose: To make a place in the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Story everyone knows: As the tale goes, during the life of Cayden Cailean, the future god , on a whim, helped a young pickpocket escape from the city watch. When he became a god, this pickpocket was his first cleric, and aside from the official churches, he founded an underground society for those who were ostracized by the various powers that be.
The Real Story: The story about the first preist of Cayden Cailean is just that, a good story and if so many people didn't repeat it as the gospel truth it would be easily recognizable as ridiculous. What actually happened is that about 30 years ago a priest had a falling out over his double dipping in both the local temple and thieves' guild.
He moved an started his own small cell of thieves to fund his retirement, but eventually branched out into the occasional freelance good deeds for those he thought were unfairly marginalized by the authorities. The beneficiaries of his actions gathered around him and the Sons of Cayden were born, with his original companions as the shadowy...
It's a simple question that, I think, a lot of us all deal with. Now, I'm not necessarily talking about teamwork at the table. People who all get together and play the same adventure USUALLY engage in some form of teamwork.
However, from an optimization perspective, collaborative character building seems like it'd be more popular than it is.
A little backstory:
My best friend and I were recently starting a new Pathfinder game, and we decided to make our characters based off of teamwork. So, we picked the two classes that are normally the more ignored ones: Cavalier and Rogue. You see, by themselves, many people are often unimpressed. Rogues do poor damage, and the Cavalier usually seems pretty bland.
However, teamwork makes this combination a wonder to behold (and I'm not just talking about the feats, but I'll get to that in a minute). The rogue will be taking the weapon finesse/Two-Weapon fighting approach, with an emphasis on getting Menacing weapons ASAP, and the fantastic Butterfly's Sting feat, while the Cavalier will be picking up a rockin' x4 crit weapon, and a decent dexterity modifier so he can pick up combat reflexes.
Now, I'm sure many of you can see where I'm going with this, but think about it for a second. Not only does the rogue have a dedicated flank buddy, but once the Outflank feat comes into play, he'll be getting a +6 or more on his flanking attack rolls. In addition, the Cavalier gets to enjoy the best possible crit range EVER (15-20/x4, essentially), while the rogue gets to use his highest static melee damage in the game (say what you will about strength, the Rogue increases by a flat ~3.5/2 levels). In addition, thanks to all the hit bonuses, the rogue is getting bumped up into auto-hit territory, AND he still gets his cool effects (Assault Leader and Strength Damage come to mind).
Now, with a bit of really simple teamwork and coordination, two somewhat bland classes have become quite powerful. In fact, it's downright awesome.
Now, my point: If something this simple is...
A lot of it has to do with the group and the GM. As a GM, I'm not a fan of builds as you describe. This holds surprisingly true for me as a player. The game is already designed around ever escalating bonuses, to the a point that borders on a realm I don't like to approach. It creates more work for me to create enjoyable challenges for the group or some pretty ridiculous foes to face as a player. As an aside, my long time, soon to be defunct group prefers the "I want my moment in the spotlight" style of game. Now, whether htye have that style because I somehow discouraged more of a collaborative approach to character creation or I have tailored my GM style to fit their needs is another question all together.
However, my own perspective aside, as I said, it dep[ends on the group.
Let's say that, as many devout christians and other religiously spiritual individuals postulate, that God/the Almighty/Allah/Supreme Being or whatever other label has been given is indeed omnipotent and omniscient. Being OP and OS and time being meaningless, having just existed and then one day deciding that something was better than nothing, created everything in existence. Then it would stand to logic, that in order to create mankind, God KNEW evolution AND natural selection were the best tools to create. All in all, it's Intelligent Design using evoultion AND natural selection.
I believe in god. However, science should stay out of the realm of faith and faith should stay out of the realm of science. I say faith, because I am of the opinion that religion - ORGANIZED RELIGION was created and exists for one purpose and one purpose only - CONTROL of the masses. Science explains what can be observed objectively, faith 'explains' what is believed - no less true than that which is observed scientifically.
Wow, a vow that requires a real sacrifice. I'm with SKR on this. I havea group of 7 players - 3 of them make every character min/maxed/optimized to the hilt, the rest make characters that are sup-optimized/make 'poor' chocies, choosing skills and feats that add MECHANICAL flavor to their character CONCEPT, rather than optimizing there charaters. The only difference I see, is the M/M/O players play suicidal, seeing surrender or running away to fight another day as not being an option...they despise any and all FAILURE/WEAKNESS in regard to there chaarcters; the sub-optimized players see nothing wrong with surrendering OR running away OR failing OR having a character that has weakness. Both groups role-play, just with different approaches.
I hope there are more mechanical additions to the game that add flavor wihtout granting the ridiculous - Book of Exalted Deeds Vow of Poverty with or without Vow of Peace. However, with this being the internet (messages are literal and all-encompassing meant to apply to everyone), here's the qualifier - THIS is me and by no means meant to imply anything for anyone else.
Male Human Fast Food Manager 3/Press Operator 6/Opto-Electronic Fabricator 4
While Gendo is deeply concerned for Master Heywoods well-being and the loss of the tome, he takes some small comfort, as one of Master Heywoods many wise saying comes to mind "pateince is the companion of wisdom". Feeling a bit less out of sorts, he takes a moment to take in the festival, those celebrating and not, the decorations, everything, which acts as a catalyst for another of Master Heywood's sayings to come to mind "enjoy when you can, endure when you must".
If the opportunity presents itself, Gendo will acquire a mask of a simple animal - badger, bear, owl, or what is available, before moving deliberately through Three Oaks seeking the cottage, with the door having the grain wreathe decorated with blue and white flowers.
Male Human Fast Food Manager 3/Press Operator 6/Opto-Electronic Fabricator 4
Ok, here he is, Gendo, LN Human (Tian) Monk. Worshipper of Mimir.
Gendo:
While he may act in a calm, controlled, and deliberate manner, in truth he is a tightly wound coil waiting to spring at all times; a side effect from getting bullied a lot as a child while growing up for not following the one true faith. He's got a lot of anger and resentment from being bullied, however, he lives by the motto, that everyone has emotions, acknowledge them, understand them and what evokes them, never act upon them. Speaks tersely, feeling that speech is a commodity that should be used appropriately. He has been known to silence people with a simple look. He believes that everyone has value, and that the Dwarves have forgotten that, that they need to be reminded.
Gendo is an orphan. His mother had gotten with child by a warrior passing through Three Oaks, freshly conscripted by Thane Sparkhammer for militia support. Who his father was, is unknown. Sadly, his mother died moments after giving birth to Gendo - living long enough to allow him to suckle at her teat for the his first feeding, and name him Gendo. A passing entourage of worshippers to Baal, had overseen the birth and declared that the tragic events surrounding Gendo's birth were an ill omen - that Gendo would be a cursed person.
Zachary Steadwatch convinced the Baalites to turn Gendo over to the hands of Heyward Ironhead, the Dwarven monk who lived outside the village. Steadwatch argued that Ironhead's aesthetic lifestyle would serve Gendo well, perhaps enough to allow Gendo to find a way to rise above his tragic entrance and cursed existence in this world.
When they sought out Ironhead, explaining the cicumstances of Gendo's birth, he stoically agreed that he would teach Gendo the true way and insure that he was a productive individual.
More to come...
Here's the link to the sheet I have for him on myth-weavers.com
http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=292826
Still have a few gold left over from purchasing equipment. For the most used to purchase food and lodging when necessary.
I'm still interested. I got caught up with real life here the last couple of days before the holiday weekend. I'll give you a right up tomorrow, if that's ok. If not, and you've alreayd got things finalized, I'll hold the character for another opportunity.
Go ahead and get me that write-up when you can. In the meantime, what alignment were you thinking of? I've already got an angle to get you introduced, but having that info will help.
I was looking at the monk being LN and a worshipper of Mirri.
I'm still interested. I got caught up with real life here the last couple of days before the holiday weekend. I'll give you a right up tomorrow, if that's ok. If not, and you've alreayd got things finalized, I'll hold the character for another opportunity.
I like how the Dresden Files RPG handles alignment or moral compass or whatever you want to call it. You either have the Freedom to Choose/Freewill or you have Nature. Mortals have the capacity to choose, make decisions...supernatural critters and other non-mortal whosits must OBEY there nature.
How is this relevant? The feat mentioned in the OP is perfectly acceptable. Outsiders must obey there nature, which is much mroe closely tied to the alignment of their plane of origin than alignment is for non-outsiders on the Prime Material Plane.
Mainly just flagging this to see if it's still even a possibility.
As a suggestion, you could do something along the Voyager lines...
Crew is primarily a bunch of Cadets fresh out of the Academy finishing up there training tour, when ship gets pulled to one of the other Galaxies in the local group...either by some unknown entity, Q, or a random Wormhole that opens upright where the ship drops out of warp, causing a lot of damage, and the catastrophic loss of all but a handful of Junior officers - Lt being the highest rank, Capt. and all senior command staff die. I know it was done in an episode of DS9 with cadest running a ship lost in the Gamma quadrant.
I must add, that while I do not have much experience with PBP and am Pathfinder light in knowledge (thought do have core rulebook and advanced player's guide), I have been RPing since 2E DnD was first released in '89.
Just exactly how limited are humans in regard to the weaposn and armor that they may own? Also, with humans be subjugated, exactly to what degree? Looked upon with disdain? Treated worse than a beggar? Relegated to a do as your told or..."call the cleaners, there's meatpie to clean up."?
I'm interested in playing a Human Monk. While he is pursuing an aesthetic lifestyle, he's out to prove that humans are better than what they have become or been relegated too.
Movie Buffy. Without it, there would never have been the TV show. Michale Shanks quote about Daniel Jackson in movie compared to Daniel Jackson in SG1 TV series is proof in the pudding.
Player One: I no longer invite to my games. 3E had just been released. He, like others in my group, got a hold of the PHB, made some characters, and we play tested th system to get a feel for it. The guy went over th PHB so much, he could quote, almost verbatim, page numbers and passages for rules. Everytime I tried to make a ruling (as I was the GM) based on what I understood the rules to be, he would immediately interject and state the "rule". He did this every session until the rest of my group said they didn't want to play 3E anymore because of the rules crunch and rules "lawyering" that the one guy was doing. Game died. Group disbanded for a few months. Guy was told by me and rest of the group that it happened because of his constant "that's not what the rules say". We eventually returned to 3E, but less one player.
Player Two: Guy was playing a Bard in a Medieval campaign. Two people in the group were playing lordling-noble heirs. Every chance the guy playing the Bard got, he would antagonize the characters for being nobles, espousing that nobility was not a birth right. What no one could figure out was why he was doing it. The GM set up things that the nobles were very generous to the people, and the guy playing the bard had written a background describing how his parents were childhood friends of the current nobles, yet he would constantly antagonize the other players. IT got to the point that each session became about the how he'd antagonize and how they'd react. Game ended pretty quick. Guy playing the Bard was asked to find a different group.
working on this free form magic system for a home-brew fantasy version of V6.
You dont need to have read the rules to help me on this one:
Most Mage Pursuits(the closest you come to a class in the game's otherwise skill based system,something like the background packages in some computer games)
give 20-25 Mage points(depending on the discipline etc)
Now the way those are spent depends on the potency of the spell; there are four tiers:
Horizons(none to 1 Mage point)
Tier 1,where there are the basic mundane and utilitarian spells: 2-4 Mage Points
Tier 2, the basic bulk of spells in the system; medium to expert magic spells: 5-9 Mage points
Tier 3,Epic 'level' magic, casting requires artifacts or it could take days(or a group of spellcasters); 10-15 Mage points
My problem is with regeneration...how quickly should they get points back?
I was thinking at a rate of 4 points per 8 hours originally,but I am not so sure now.
There will be magic items and potions to help on that but I am thinking of making them somewhat scarce
What do you think?
Cheers beforehand
What exactly powers magic? And how does the caster unleash it? Is it some kind of raw energy that is physically channeled through the body? IF so, than base the regeneration rate on the character's stamina/constitution/fortitude.
The other thing to do, is base the regeneration rate on the skill rank the caster has in there arcane/caster skill.
My hats off to you for letting your kids RP. Me personally, I won't encourage, or allow (if asked about it), my own kids to RP until they hit mid-ish teen years 14 or so.
How to fix the martial-caster disparity and move away from Pathfinder Ars Magica;
The only issues I ever saw with martial-caster disparity, is that all spells 7th level and higher should be relegated to levels 21+.
Also, multi-class casters take a bite in the rump with the spell capabilties that they have at the time of multi-classing. Take for instance a 5th level Wizard who mutli-classes into a Fighter. The spells the 5th level wizard remain at 5th level of power, yet his BAB, Saves, Skills, and Feats improve, dramatically as a Fighter. So what I did was take the Effective Caster Level and integrate into multi-classing. If you are a caster who multi-classes into a non-caster class (Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, etc.), your effective caster level for the spells that you know and can cast improve by 1 level for every 2 non-caster class levels you take. So, a 10th level (5th level) Fighter-(5th level) Wizard, has an effective caster level for all spells of 3rd level or lower (3rd lvel being the highest spell level to which he has access) is 7th level, instead of 5th. Meaning, you cast Fireball as though you were 7th level (7d6) damage or Magic Missile would deal 4d4+4 damage. In the event that casters multi-class into other caster classes, your effective caster level improves on a 1 for 1 basis. So, for a 10th level character (5th level)Wizard-(5th level)Druid. You're effective caster level for the spells you can cast - 3rd level for both, is 10th level. Yes, it's different magic, and the source from which it is drawn is different, but it is still magic.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
How to make it so that every single wizard is not automatically a specialist;
In addition to the multi-classing above, do what Mike Mearls or Monte Cook did in one of there supplements. Metamagic doesn't use up higher level spell slots. Instead, you gain the use of a particular Metamagic feat ability 3 times each day, more if you select the same Metamagic feat more than once. Also, grant the Wizard the benefit of bonus feats every other level as the fighter, except they may only be used for Metamagic feats.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
How to make Charisma something other than an auto-dump stat;
Easy: Charisma is the basis for Will saves.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
How to alter combat maneuvers so that they can actually get some use;
Find a copy of Iron Heroes and take a look at the Feat Mastery introduced. I've modified them for my homebrew, throwing out the token pool aspect all together.
Probably explained this horribly, but hopefully it gives you the idea of what I'd think would be cool.
Basically what you are describing is a very open talent system. And it works ok for very small games. The moment you start expanding them it gets very very messy, and makes building a character something of a chore. That is because there is no real structure to a character besides what you choose, everything is a choice. If there are only a few choices no big deal, but if there is a large amount, it becomes overwhelming and time consuming.
It is one of the reasons my group has almost stopped playing star wars saga edition. In that system there are a couple 'classes' which for a barebones framework for a character (BAB Defences, skills and hp). Then each level you get a talent or a feat. Feats are what they are here, and talents are like class abilities. And when there was just the first book it wasnt much of an issue.
But when the system expanded, it started becoming difficult. Abilities were spread all over the place, and it takes literally hours to go through all the books and sort out which talents make sense for your concept, and then a fair amount of time after that to actually choose between them. When we got into high levels my prep time as a dm skyrocketed making npcs.
Take your example. Imagine as a dm you needed to build an npc cleric. Imagine how much more time that would take in your system then it would to build one in the current system. Now multiply that buy the dozens of npcs that appear in a typical adventure. For a player, it becomes a hassel, for a dm its a nightmare.
I rarely do prepping as a GM, other than spending 5 or 10 minutes prior to a session and then jotting down a few sentences based on what the players did in the previous session or so while the group is getting their dice and sheets out. Doesn't matter if the group is 1st level, 5th level, 15th level, or higher, it's all the same to me. My group hates it when I plan, as the sessions get very dry RPing wise or way, WAY to tactical combat-wise.
Actually, I just completed a Star Wars Saga campaign. I thought, still do, that the way character abilities are handled was great. The biggest issue I saw, was not so much the expansion and addition of extra talents, it appears that not enough thought was given to how well the additional talents balanced with the core talents. Far too often I saw my players make some pretty savvy chocies in regards to talents and feats, creating real nightmare characters that made it almost impossible for me to create a challenging encounter for them whether it was for combat or not.
Rather than see the addition of anymore NEW core or base classes or prestige classes. I'd rather things set-up where it is only the base classes, and you have the choice of either taking the listed class-base ability or ability increase (such as Uncanny Dodge to Improved Uncanny Dodge) OR provided you meet the prerequisites, you choose a prestige ability a prestige ability.
For instance, in order to qualify for Discover Omen and Favored Pilgrim, the first two prestige abilities granted by the Brightness Seeker prestige class, you would need to meet the prerequisites: iron will feat, elf, perception and survival 1 rank, and knowledge-nature 1 rank and knowledge-religion 5 ranks, or vice versa.
So, let's say your an elf 3rd level cleric, you meet all of the prerequisites and decide you want the prestige ability Discover Omen. Rather than take the improvement to Channel Energy that you would gain at 3rd level, you take the Discover Omen prestige ability. Next time you gain an ability or ability improvement you take Favored Pilgrim. Now you can take other prestige abilities that have those two prestige abilities as prerequisites (all other Bright Seeker prestige class abilities) or continue on with improving your core class abilities. In this example, 2 improvements of Channel were sacrificed for the prestige ability; so the next time Channel Energy would gain an improvement it would be to 2d6 and continue from the point.
Probably explained this horribly, but hopefully it gives you the idea of what I'd think would be cool.
Could be a lot of fun. Never looked at the idea before. Don't know if I would go within the confines of the movie, or work on something that takes place afterwards.
Spock had arranged for the surviving Vulcans to relocate, but the deal didn't pan out.
Adrift in barges, and various transports, they roam the quadrant looking for their place in the galaxy...maybe they look to Romulus now for a new home.
An early form of the Maquis arises, led by a group of rogue Vulcans. They have a lot of influence and have the means to topple the Federation.
Annexing a world for their own purposes, they destroy a handful of Vulcan transports en-route as an example that they care little for the well-being of their own race. These Vulcans are single-mindedly looking for revenge. They have allowed their emotions to rise
With armaments secured, they turn their attention to Romulus, the birthplace of Nero.
Everyone has a Defense, that basically encompasses parrying or deflecting incoming attacks.
Defense is for the most part static, all classes begin at 10, dexterity still applies.
You gain a level/experience bonus to defense equal +1 to defense per every 2 points of BAB gained. This bonus did not apply to touch attacks. Anything that caused you to lose your Dexterity bonus also caused you to lose your active bonus to Defense.
Shield provided there bonus to Defense instead of AC.
Armor provided Damage Reduction rather than a bonus to Defense. The DR granted was equivalent of the AC bonus it would have granted (DR8 for Plate armor). In the case of magical armor, say +5 Full Plate, the +5 granted a Defense bonus to Touch Defense and Defense; and the DR granted by the Armor would apply to magical attacks from spells. The DR would stack with class abilities, such as the DR gained by Barbarians. The DR from armor did not provide DR against magic, unless, it had at least a +1 magical enhancement.
A unique exception to Armor DR, is if the Armor was crafter from unique materials, such as Mithril or Adamantine, in that in the case of +5 armor, the +5 would translate into a bonus to DR.
It kept the numbers needed to hit low, leading to characters being hit more often. However, the DR gained from wearing armor helped to offset that issue.
The only casting issue I have from Snyder is Amy Adams for Lois Lane. Olivia Wilde would have been a better choice. I also have concerns with Snyder after seeing Sucker Punch - visually entertaining, horribly, horribly written story. The guy is great with visuals. Also, General Zod should have been saved for a sequel, perhaps start with Luthor who is the one entity that General Zod would view as something on par as he viewed Jor-El.
I'm interested. Either campaign idea is fine by me. Of course, you could always run in the revamped original era following up on events in the Star Trek reboot.
... Having stat maximums is silly, the average player character gets to be superhuman at one point or another in every game system, why limit one of those points? I wouldn't play in a game with maximum stats, it doesn't make sense to me. The monsters can get stats in the 30s-40s, why can't the PCs?
Quite frankly, life just isn't about being equal or fair. There is no such thing as a level playing field. Compared to a lot of people, I grasp new ideas, concepts, and skills quickly, applying everything I learn much faster than others. Compared to others, not so much. From my perspective it doesn't make sense to NOT have limits.
Here are some recent houserules that were made in my games, due to everyone being tired of the ever escalating system of d20 mechanics.
AC caps at 35. That includes bonuses for attributes, armor, magic, shields. Supernatural beasties, Dragons, Tarrasque cap at 40.
Attributes cap at 30 FOR EVERYTHING. Supernatural beasties cap at 40.
There is no natural increase in number of attacks per round. You either get a single attack, or you use a full round action to do a full attack with melee or ranged weapons (this does not apply to spells).
Full Attack: Anyone may attempt multiple attacks each round. You may declare a number of attacks equal to 1 plus your Dexterity modifier (which means you need to have a minimum of a 13 Dex to attack multiple opponents). ALL CLASSES EXCEPT THE FIGHTER suffer a cumulative -5 penalty for each attack when making multiple attacks; The fighter and the Monk when fighting UNARMED only, suffer a cumulative -3 penalty for each attack when making multiple attacks.
All monsters, without casting ability, spell-like abilities, and just plain like to pound on you Trolls, Ogres (not including Ogre Shaman), are treated as Fighters in regards to multiple attacks.
Ironically enough, that last one was something that my group threw at me. In short, if you do a cap, go with the old 1E/2E cap of 25, or bump it to 30.
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
The question:
Are the following lies or cheating:
1) Feint in combat - this question is 2 fold, one is the combat maneuver and the other is more general.
Can a paladin use feint (combat maneuver) without violating his code of conduct? Feigning is basically a lie with body language no?
All combat styles incorporate feints into the fighting style. If you don't or can't feint you can't be a good fighter (full BAB)? So does this mean paladins who fight at full BAB needs an atonement?
2) Can a Paladin lead men into battle? Sun Tzu said "The Art of War is the Art of Deception." So can paladins use strategies and tactics when leading men into battle? Or are they restricted to the mindless charge which would guarantee their utter and total loss almost every battle?
I haven't read anyone elses responses to this, so bear with me here.
In regard to your first question, can a Paladin feint in combat. Absolutely. While he is a shining beacon of good, champion of justice, and whatever deity to which he owes fealty, he is first and foremost a warrior. Wielding a sword is a warrior's tool, feinting being one of many techniques applied in it's use.
As for question two, see question one. Charging can be a strategy all it's own. Look at the bext rendition of Arthurian mythology in the last 35 or so years, the movie Excalibur. It could be argued, many of his knights were Paladins, Arthur himself even. Yet, they waged war to bring peace to the land. At the end, when the knights were vastly outnumbered, a fog came about, Arthur commanded his few knights to use speed of horse in the fog to deceive Mordred's army with how many were actually coming to attack.
Thats why i think it should be like 4th ed for saves.
My issue with that is, then characters have more dump stats.
How do have more dump stats?
Str still gives melee AB and damage
Dex still gives AC
Con still gives hp
Int still gives skill points.
Wis now gives ranged AB
Cha now gives inititive.
Cha now gives initiative? That sounds odder than using Charisma for Will saves...and my games use Charisma for Will saves.
I housruled a long time ago that Will saves were based on Charisma, as I've always felt charisma was as much being about one's personal magnetism, likability, persuasion, as it was about personal confidence and sense of self and conviction...essentially one's ego. Which to me and my player's is more closely related to Willpower than Wisdom. Which my group has always made it more about being common sense and awareness of one's environment - perception.
SO all in all my group doesn't have any dump stats.
I'm curious, since you've not disconnected wisdom from will saves, why isn't it a dump stat now for non clerics and druids?
Sounds like you've just shifted the problem over a stat.
Not really. There are two key skills that still require Wisdom: Perception and Sense Motive are two that are useful to EVERYONE. Dump Wisdom, and anyone trying to sneak up on you is get the drop on you so much, at some point, you're going to get your clock cleaned but good, if not be turned into a blood pudding right away. There is also Heal and Survival. I don't know about your games, but in mine, no matter the group, whether they have Perception or Sense Motive as class skills, all of my players put something in those skills.
But how many of them took alterness? (or its pathfinder equivilant)
About half. Most of the time, they take Skill Focus, feeling that that is a better use of a feat - +3 to a skill (+6 once hit 10 ranks in said skill), rather than taking a synergy feat which grants +2 to 2 different skills.
I housruled a long time ago that Will saves were based on Charisma, as I've always felt charisma was as much being about one's personal magnetism, likability, persuasion, as it was about personal confidence and sense of self and conviction...essentially one's ego. Which to me and my player's is more closely related to Willpower than Wisdom. Which my group has always made it more about being common sense and awareness of one's environment - perception.
SO all in all my group doesn't have any dump stats.
I'm curious, since you've not disconnected wisdom from will saves, why isn't it a dump stat now for non clerics and druids?
Sounds like you've just shifted the problem over a stat.
Not really. There are two key skills that still require Wisdom: Perception and Sense Motive are two that are useful to EVERYONE. Dump Wisdom, and anyone trying to sneak up on you is get the drop on you so much, at some point, you're going to get your clock cleaned but good, if not be turned into a blood pudding right away. There is also Heal and Survival. I don't know about your games, but in mine, no matter the group, whether they have Perception or Sense Motive as class skills, all of my players put something in those skills.
I housruled a long time ago that Will saves were based on Charisma, as I've always felt charisma was as much being about one's personal magnetism, likability, persuasion, as it was about personal confidence and sense of self and conviction...essentially one's ego. Which to me and my player's is more closely related to Willpower than Wisdom. Which my group has always made it more about being common sense and awareness of one's environment - perception.
SO all in all my group doesn't have any dump stats.
I just went through a sort of self-realization in regards to my GMing style. I was dismayed to discover that my group was having more fun in two other games in which they were participating with two different GMs. Now I'd been questioning myself for some time as a GM, and what I was seeing with myself was exactly what my player's were frustrated with. The discoveries I made are (well 3 out of 4 reasons anyway) why I am stepping down as GM, for a good long time, perhaps evena permanent GM retirement, and just play to get some perspective.
My GM Flaw 1: The story is more important than the player's choices. I covered this by being avery generous GM...only so long as the choices supported the furthering of the story.
My GM Flaw 2: Story not detail. My group, transformed into the opposite.
My GM Flaw 3: I run games in which, in any single enounter, if the group is not the underdog, then it's not worth the time to be an encounter. For instance, in my Star Wars Saga game that I am ending this weekend, the group - 7 Players, are all 16th level. They're wanted by the Empire. I won't send a bunch of red shirt scrubs after the group. My stance being that, no one that is 4 or more levels lower than anyone in the group, even with friends to help, is going to be dumb enough to go after the group. My group disagreed.
My group see the next as a flaw, I do not and never will.
Group Persepctive of what is a flaw: I will not open a book during a game to look up a rule. I will make a call in the moment and then consult the book later. This goes for whether or not the ruling goes for or against the player. I see the job of the GM as keeping the game moving and with 7 players in my group, everytime there is a rules question in the middle of combat, if the book was opened, the group would lucky to see one encounter a night or see more than 3 or 4 "rounds".
After seeing Sucker Punch this weekend, it makes me cringe to think that Snyder is at the helm of the Superman reboot, particularly with casting of Amy Adams as Lois Lane - an admittedly better casting pick than Kate Bosworth. I had high hopes for Sucker Punch and basically feel as though Snyder should strictly stick to directing and keep his mits out of writing. Visually, the movie was entertaining, but he has shown he can do visually entertaining movies WITH a decent story, provided he's not the one who came up with the story. In short, Suckered is all you get with Sucker Punch.
Pay off my mortgage, buy a new car, set-up college savings funds for kids, go back to school. I'd still work. A million dollars doesn't go very far these days. I'd have to have 10 million to live the "dream":
I call work, my boss picks up...
"Hey, Pat, this is Dan. I won't be into to work tomorrow."
"Sure. Is everything ok?"
"Yeah, everything is great."
"Then why are you calling out."
"Oh that. I'm rich. So, I won't be in for the rest of my life. Have a good one! Bye."
<click>
...ALSO! what is ridiculous is a character at lvl 12 with merely +1 gear. He must be slapped. this is by no means fair!
Not everyone who plays PF or DnD or any other fantasy all have magic and magic items in abundance. Most of my campaigns top out with magic gear maxing at +2, generallt stop campaigns as soon as spells hit 6th level. However, from was described with by the OP, heavy magic module, +1 gear is out of place.
Well, with me having ceased gaming due to player's telling me what are and aren't in the rules, derailing whole game sessions, and that I can't just play without the GM running asking me how I would handle the situation, my POV is sort of moot, however, like something else everyone has, I'll state my opinion.
Don't bother upgrading. Everytime the game changes, inevitably, there is going to be a lot of comapre and contrast, edition wars, and discussions of what is good and not good about a system. Stick with the system you like best. PF is an exception to the rule that different does not equal better when compared to 3E/3.5E. As much as you can play a game with whatever set of mechanics you want for whatever setting that can be imagined, there will alwyas be one set of mechanics, subjective to individual gaming groups - even individual gamers, which will apparently reflect what the group/gamer feels best suits a particular setting or style of play. For me, science fiction games (Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, Serenity, Battelstar Galatica, Doctor Who, or whatever) should be straight skill-based games. On the other hand, again for me, Fantasy based games should all be class-level based systems.
Look up the 2E class sourcebook, The Complete Druid's Handbook. It has the best description of playing a True Neutral character I've ever come across, at least for me. I'll grant that it definately has a druidic tilt to what is presented, yet it can very easily be adapted to non-druid characters. As for an actual example, the movie Silverado, mid 80s tribute to spaghetti westerns with Brian Dennehy, Jeff Fahey, Kevin Costner, Linda Hunt, John Cleese, Danny Glover, Kevin Kline, Jeff Goldblum, Scott Glenn and others. Specifically, Kevin Kline's character Paden, who happens to be an old friend of Brian Dennehy's character (main antagonist). Paden ends up staying out of things do to Dennehy's character figuring out what, rather who mattered to him. He does get involved when he judges his "friend" has gone too far, but it took a lot. The point being Paden, worked with the protagonists (good guys) and the antagonists (bad guys) during the movie. Incidentally, it can be considered a chessy movie, but Silverado still holds for me.
I shudder to think that a GM would allow something with such a ridiculous AC as 58 or 79 in the other build for any character. Expecially if it requires a Tarrasque to roll a 20 to hit or any other mega monster baddie for that matter. But then that's me and by no means indicative of anyone else.
How about a lot of racial/cultural weapons, similar to how the Thrikreen of Darksun had the Gythka, Chatkcha, Kyorchka, Ko, Lajav, and the Zerka. That sort of racially devised uniqueness would add a huge level of coolness to the game. It would alos add another measure to differentiate between being human and non-human.
...The thing I never understood is the system elitism I see. The idea of 4th ed(or insert whatever RPG you care to mention) and nothing else mentality. Never understood how the system can tear groups apart.
For me, it comes down to initial impressions and familiarity. I have always associated the mechanics of a game with the setting. Mechanics I find disagreeable will turn me off to a setting.
3E and d20 mechanics nearly destroyed DnD for me. Way to codified and defined - all but completely impossible to have truly imaginative game play due to overly defined rules. I actually loath it more as a player than I do as a GM. I loved and still love 2E mechanics. I play them now only because my players like'em. Real life didn't cause my gaming habits to move from two or three times a week to once every 3 weeks, the mechancis involved with playing DnD did. Stupid? Maybe. Warranted? For me, absolutely. Fortunately, New Haven Games is creating a modern updatd version of 2E DnD using some modern game design that keeps the 2E flavor. I may finally get my wish to have 2E style gaming return to my groups.
d20 mechanics have destroyed Star Wars as an RPG for me. The last incarnation in the Saga system moved a step toward the old d6 system awesomeness, but still fails on every level - destiny, classes, levels - CRAP.
It all comes down the first impressins and familiarity.
That's interesting; I guess I never pictured WoD appealing to the same crowd as DnD. Do they play both because they genuinely like both or because they have a few friends that are playing both but they themselves really are only particularly interested in one of them? I'm curious how much is genuine interest and how much is "well, my friends are playing it, so I might as well"? Neither is a bad reason to play, but the ratio can be an indicator of how likely it is to happen in a different community with different social groups.
Me personally, I enjoyed both as well as Earthdawn, Shadowrun, Rifts from that era. I did not enjoy MERP, Rolemaster, the D6 based Star Wars, or Ars Magica (mechanically speaking, i did crib some ideas for Vampire/Mage from it); all of which I played because a friend was into it.
Interesting...I loved Shadowrun, D6 Star Wars(D64LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), Marvel Super Heroes, and White Wolf.
Look up Cinema 6 RPG, which is a streamlined cleaned up d6. The group doing it is called Wicked North Games.
As far as Wisconsin goes, I would have rather seen the collective bargaining raight kept and the unions destroyed. Yeah, the public employees of Wisconsin agreed to every concession asked for by the Governor, but what about next year, the year after, or the year after that. Our consumption based economy is collapsing before our very eyes, and measure being taken now are too little too late. We've got a 14.7 Trillion dollar debt in this country. $14.7 Trillion!!! What's the solution? The same thing every administration has done up to and including Obmama - raise the debt ceiling and print more worthless money. The US dollar only has any kind of strength because as of right now, it's the World's reserve currency and has been since WWII. How long before the rest of the world decides that the US dollar isn't good enough any more and some other currency becomes the World's Reserve Currency, whether it be the Euro, the British Pound, or something else? When it happens, and IT WILL HAPPEN, history isn't going to call the financial distress of the earlier 20th century the Great Depression, it'll be sometime in the near future.
Interesting point. However, the magic of Shazam is in turning Billy Batson into a superhuman Champion for good. It's contained inside a physical form, not externalized like a lightning bolt or a Banshee Wail for that matter. So the magic is basically a moot point. Now, as far as stats, take a look at the Mutants and Masterminds DC Heroes stats for each:
I may be late on this one, but this would be my interpretation.
Magic Missile can target up to 5 creatures, no two of which can be more than 15 feet apart. By 9th level it deals 5d4+5. With Intensify Spell, it becomes 10d4+10. If it gets Empowered as well, then it becomes 10d4+10 + 1/2(5d4+5) (or 1/2(10d4+10) if you're going for really powerful magic). Add on a 10th level Arcane Trickster SA of +5d6 with the Surprise Spell ability, and this nets you 10d4+10 + 1/2(5d4+5) + +5d6 SA total either delivered to a single target or dispersed to up to 5 targets each receiving a single magic missile from the same SINGLE SPELL, dealing a minimum of 2d4+2 + 1/2(1d4+1) + however many SA dice the triskster wishes on a single magic missile 1d6 to 5d6 with no more than a total of 5d6 SA damage being dispersed throughout. The kicker being that the Surprise Spell is used for a SINGLE SPELL that deals damage to a FLAT-FOOTED opponent. I hesitate to use powergamery and munchkin as descriptives for the OPs original question, particularly with what those terms imply and evoke form gamers, but it is how it feels to me. Not that I am any kind of authority, especially with the item I submitted for this years Superstar contest.
@The Thing From Beyond The Edge: I wish I had had your experiences, I probably would have a more favorable opinion of unions. As it is, I see them as being a nuisance, based on admittedly limited experience, and quite possibly with poorly handled/run Unions.
"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill.
Unions are imperfect, but the alternative is worse.
The wages paid to the workers is based on what the owners believe the worker is worth, based on the value of the skills he provides.
The same people who decry "class warfare" when you question CEO salaries cry about overpaid Union workers.
When the question of returning taxes on people making over 250,000 dollars a year to 1990 levels, they screamed it would destroy the economy.
But pay-cuts and lay-offs for those making far less are good for the economy.
Full disclosure, I am a state worker. I've been furloughed for an average of 9 days a year for the last two years. While I'm not at real risk of layoff at this point, many others are. And many quality people in important jobs have been let go.
I get that the Union is imperfect. I really do. I think mediocrity and even failure can be overly protected by Unions, and that is a real problem. But it is also a real problem that the higher paid managerial staff are rarely laid off, while the people actually producing outcomes are considered "The problem" in the budget.
Unions are flawed. But, like democracy, the alternative is far, far worse. And depending on the good will of employers to do right by the workers is just ridiculous.
As the OP stated, we wouldn't have any benefits at all if not for collective bargaining. People were literally killed by employers trying to get the rights we take for granted.
The only time I've ever seen a slowdown in the workplace, the company, a printing company, let go of 50% of the salaried managerial staff, approximately 12 individuals. Then to further cut expenses in the long run, they offered a severence package to all non-salaried employees in which they would receive 3 weeks pay for every year they had been with the company. Additionally, they would continue have company paid medical expenses for another 6 months AND they could file for unemployment, which the company would not nor did not fight. The company hadn't given any raises - merit/time on job - for 4 years at this point and was doing everything possible to stay a float. The company was non-union and did did everything possible in a very honest fashion, as far as I could tell, to dissuade the place from becoming a union shop. Everytime there was talk of unionizing, the HR Manager would stress that all a company had to do with a Union is have discussions in 'good faith'. I have no problems going without raises if it means I have employment. Hell, I worked without medical benefits for 10 years, and would do so again if it meant a choice between having a job and not having one - and yes, I do have a family, wife and three kids.
@The Thing From Beyond The Edge: I wish I had had your experiences, I probably would have a more favorable opinion of unions. As it is, I see them as being a nuisance, based on admittedly limited experience, and quite possibly with poorly handled/run Unions.
Pay attention to details about what she says she wants, she'll forget.
When she's done something wrong, and it's something important to you, don't let her turn it around and make it your fault.
DO NOT COMBINE YOUR FINANCES!!! Keep separate accounts for each other and then get a joint account for household expenses.
The house is our castle, it's her place to express her style. Claim one room as your own, your man-cave, and let the rest go, except if she wishes to make things a little too femine - yes it's possible - our pink colored half-bath on the first floor is proof!
I second having a hobby or other interst of your own, her too, even if your a very close couple. Everyone needs there own space.
If she wants to get busy -nudge, nudge, wink, wink- DON'T SAY NO.
Don't allow sex to be used as a weapon, either by you or her.
They were good at a time, much like armed rebellion, but both are potentially dangerous to our society today
What a terribly crafted analogy. In what possible way can you support your offensive, reactionary platitude? I'm honestly intrigued, politics aside.
Zo
I find it offensive to be forced to pay a protection racket in order to hold a job. I find it offensive that the worst workers i have ever witnessed were protected time after time by union thuggery. I find it offensive that my hard earned dollars are stolen pay check after pay check to fund the democrat party.
Unions ONCE did something good, today they drive up costs and protect the dead weight workers,
I find your generalities offensive. Being a union member, I can tell you for a fact there is no dead weight in the trade unions. If you don't produce each and every day you're gone. If you don't show up on time each and every day, you're gone. If you do manage to produce and show up, but your quality of work is sub-par, you're gone.
I know for a fact that this is true in the Sheet Metal, Plumbers, Electricians, Operating Engineers, Ironworkers, Glaziers and even the Carpenters unions. These are the ones I interact with on a daily basis. These unions produce high quality, well trained workers year after year. As for other unions, I will reserve comment, as I have little first hand knowledge.
Our union representatives work with our signatory contractors to develop training and sales programs that grow our market. If that means no raises or even pay cuts during lean years, then that's what we agree too. Unions should be about working together, companies AND workers to achieve greater rewards for everyone. Fair wages for an honest days work is and should be a two way street.
Blanket statements are not called for here. Speak clearly and cite specifics. Otherwise you're just another empty windbag.
I was part of a Grociers Union working for Acme markets 22 years ago and as a member of Teamsters Union several years ago. I was also a supervisor for a furniture manufacturer 12 years ago, that was Union-based - Teamsters, for non-salaried employees. I vehemently disagree that the individual that has the most seniority and/or experience as being the sole basis for granting a promotion or raise. Raises and promotions should be based on ability and merit. Yes, in some instances, the individual with the most seniority and experience is the best suited for a a particular position, but not nearly as often as I've seen in Unions. My experiences with Unions have been the opposite. I've had more success in companies lacking unions than those that have them. I believe they served a purpose at one point in time. Not anymore. I work for an opto-electronic company, that split off of Lucent Technologies just before the bubble burst in 2000. Recently, the company is experiencing a dramatic upswing in business. They have brought a good number of people on board that worked for the company before the bubble burst, some wth 20 to 25 years of experience, back when it was a Union based company. I've got 3 years of total experience in this field, and have recieved four promotions in that time, working from a basic Operator to a Technician, just recently. Several people, I'll call them old guard, who survived the down-sizing, are raising a stink because I got the technician position. Not a single one has shown the capability to work as quickly, accurately, and efficiently, nor pick-up and learn skills as quickly, nor troubleshoot there way through problems that inevitably arise. I don't know why that's the case. The entire time I've been with this company, everytime I would accomplish more in one shift than most others accomplish in two, someone has always complained that I was takng shortcuts, not following procedures. No matter how many times I demonstrate this not to be true, someone always whines and complains about it, generally a member of the old guard who remembers when the company was a division of Lucent and was a Union shop. Most of the old gaurd, always say "You won't get recognized" or "Don't work like that, they'll expect it from you all the time then, worse they'll expect it from everyone else". I work for me and me alone. I bust my rump for me and me alone. I don't hold anyone else to whatever standard I set for myself, but I will be damned if I'm going to worry about whether or not I get comapred to others or they get compared to me. Doing the best I can do at work or anything for that matter, I work the way I do for personal satisfaction and to have a littel pride in a job well done. If I get recognized for it, as I have in every non-union job I've ever held, AWESOME. If not, I'm not concerned, I know I did a great job. If this company was a Union company, I'd never have gotten the promotions, because somebody else with the most seniority would have gotten the position. yeah, I'm not big on unions.
There is no proof that such rules will be 'inevitably broken'. And your statement should end 'won't make my game any more fun'. Your game is not the metric Paizo is measuring by.
I notice a lot of posters seem to put this sort of correction when someone posts an opinion. Is it really necessary? It just seems to be a nitpick to me. Just because someone posts something doesn't mean that there's is the only opinion, just stating there own, as I am stating mine now. Grow up people. Having to claim things as my, mine, my group, my opinion, or what ever else is a qualifier is redundant, pointless, and a complete waste of time. If you can't figure out that I am stating my opinion, without me saying it, there is something wrong somewhere and it's not me.
