GM 1990's page

THAC0 is basically the same as BAB, only counting down instead of up. In AD&D AC started at 10 and went down from there, so old AC 0 is the same as new AC 20. If your THAC0 is x, it means you need to roll x to hit that AC. So, in modern parlance that means you need to roll x to hit AC 20, which means THAC0 x is the same as BAB (20-x). Simple as that.

I remember as the 2E PHB and DMG came out trying to convince my group we should switch to THAC0 using a similarly simple explanation. It never took, which was crazy because our group religiously followed the Weapon vs Armor Type adjustments from the Unearthed Arcana which -really- messed with your To Hit rolls. It presumed an AC9 was shield, AC8 Leath+Shield, etc. So some weapons got some nice bonus vs some armor types, even heavier armor for some weapons like a pikes, pole-arms, and military picks.

It probably didn't help that we'd been playing roughly 4yrs through college at that point, and didn't really even like much of the 2E things. We were already using UA, Wilderness and Dungeoneer Survival guides for non-weapon proficiencies and plenty of house-rules/classes, so there was less to be desired in changing at that point.

If it wasn't for THAC0 and the whole decending AC, I might not have even looked at PF to teach my kids, but I wanted something more simple. (not claiming PF in general is simple...lots of crunch, but the concepts are easier for us)

11yrs old and it was the '81 edition of the Red Box Basic D&D. Rules, a module, -and- set of dice with a crayon.

I remember seeing adverts for it in comics for a while and was just amazed at the concept of taking on one of the roles shown in the pictures. From the second I opened the box and holed up in my room going through Keep on the Border lands by myself I was hooked. Quickly convinced my parents to get the Expert Blue-box. Until my last move a couple years ago I still had the Isle of Dread module that came in the Expert box.
I didn't play a lot in HS just the one off pickup game now and then, as nobody else gamed, and that was during the "D&D is satanic" years.

Started AD&D in 89, my first year of college, and pretty much played weekly (or multiple times a week for the next 4 years, primarily as GM).
Long break:
Last year introduced my 12, 10, 8, and wife 47 to PF. The 5 and 7 year old don't get to "fully play" yet, but have jumped in and tossed some goblin attack dice from time to time.

So my thing is this, if I have players who aren't going to metagame exclusively to their own advantage? Then sure, let them roll everything, perception, disguise whatever. Because then I can TRUST them not to be dicks and use out of game knowledge to possibly get a leg up.

For example: Me calling for a Perception check automatically alerts the players that there is something to check for. Even if they all fail the roll, the players know there is something there and automatically have their characters start making adjustments to be aware of something in the room or that there is something in the room that can and needs to be found.

In the same sense that people call out railroady GM's as bad GM's?
I call these types of players Bad Players because they purposefully break immersion for a perceived advantage.

As a result, because I know everyone isnt perfect I use Passive Perception for certain things. I keep an index card with all of the PC's perception modifiers on it +10. Whenever they run into or pass something that normally would trigger a Perception check I consult the card. Those who have a number high enough to beat it get alerted. Those who don't? Don't.

If a player hears something in a description or realizes something because of the environment that their character is in and they call to make a Perception check? Then they roll. But if they walk into a room and the invisible assassin is standing still in the far corner of that room waiting to strike? There's no observable stimulus for them to react to. So their Passive perception comes into play.

If that Assassin strikes and remains invisible and the PC's call for Perception checks then, because they are aware of danger, there IS observable stimuli (that fist sized hole in the fighter's chest and armor...) then they get to roll.

I do sort of the same thing with disguise. Although Disguise is usually easier to adjudicate as they PC's usually have enough time to prepare and take 10 or 20. But in the cases where it's a rush job? In...

As you point out, even if you have players who'll try not to meta, some of this is just impossible to keep separate in vs out of character. Its a little bit of a catch-22 for the players IMO. If I'm trying not to meta, then am I punishing myself and possibly others by not asking for another roll or taking safety precautions? But if I do take precaution after knowing we all rolled horrible on perception, am I meta-gaming (almost border line cheating?).

I only do a few, and typically tied to things where the player not knowing if they passed or failed has potential to be more fun for our group.
I have the PCs AC and passive perception #s on my headsup display, but don't keep track of anything else, so its not a lot of extra data for me.

Appraisal is an example that easily goes meta when players roll. First player rolls a low number (5 or less). Either I tell them they have no idea the value, or that its a fake, or worth 1000's of GP. In all 3 cases, someone else in the party is probably going to roll, often only because everyone at the table knows the original info given by me is bogus. If player 2 rolls high, they also know that data is right. On the flip side, if I roll behind the screen, ask for the PC's modifier, and then tell them its a fake. Someone else can also check it, and perhaps you end up with arguments about what it is worth. Later when they try to trade it there are RP opportunities and some one-upmanship in the group.

Trap finding. I don't use RAW, only rogues can find most traps in my game, and I don't allow "take-20" which presumes you fail many times. So the party rogue has 2 choices, take-10 or have me roll. In either case, "not finding any traps" is never a sure thing. It has added to the suspense and enjoyment for us, and not a few chuckles out of character when the trap-free chest/door/etc blew up in everyone's face. It's an inexact science after all, of course I also have to keep a straight poker face or its pointless. Trap finding is one where a high-roll is more of a meta-game problem. Lots of doors/chests aren't trapped, so rolling low doesn't really tell you anything obvious. However, rolling high, you have a pretty good certainty that no-trap means no trap, or you found it and proceed with disarm attempt.

So really not that common, as I ponder it. The question I've posed to the group is to consider from their personal stand point, "if I (or another player) rolls a 1 (or a 20) on a check, is it going to trigger me to roll for my PC or affect what I do in game?" If you think the answer is yes, then it might be one of those skill check moments that the GM to roll for you. In that regard, there are not really a lot of times it will add to the enjoyment of the game.

Thank You James and Paizo Staff for making my family's "game night" something memorable every week!

I introduced my wife and 5 children (12-also GMs, 10, 8; and the 6 and 5 year old watching/rolling goblin attack dice) to PF a little over a year ago. We game weekly, alternating between my home-brew and my son running RotRL. I can say for our family, it is the most enjoyable indoor time we spend together every week. The rest of the week, the kids talk about their PCs, PCs they want to run, and the 10 and 8 are creating story ideas they want to GM when they're older. I'm amazed how well they RP between funny, very serious and how just like adults....they never do what I thought the PCs would do. I'm sure they'll be lifelong gamers.

Question:

Have you gamed with children? What was your impression?

It sounds like you're holding yourself to a double standard and its creating problems for you. You want this encounter to be more difficult than its going to play out based on your experience with your group.
You're willing to change some enemies -

I was planning on making the lord of the fort an unchained rogue already, but had forgotten that I could do it to his smuggler minions as well. Will definitely be doing that.

and maybe some traps (it wasn't clear to me if this was part of the AP as written)

EDIT: I intend to have a teleport trap spell in place, which will put the PCs in the fort's cells

but holding yourself hostage to the clerics book stats because -

I pride myself in running modules as written, unlike other GMs who change so much at times that people begin to wonder why they invested in the module in the first place.

You're making yourself do cheetah flips trying to make the cleric live a couple rounds longer, when AC (perhaps combined with the 30%miss for wind-wall) and HPs are the easiest way to do that and its more transparent to the PCs than some of the other suggestions, which may come across as GMetagaming. That's not to say a few of the other ideas won't make the encounter more fun for the PCs, but where are you violating your personal goal doing some changes but not allowing yourself to change the base-stats of one piece of the module?

Awesome for you!!

I love GMing and did it exclusively through college, and then running a game for my kids starting last year. When my 12 year old wanted to start a game I was more than willing to be a player. I think I like GMing more than playing, but as you point out being able to just sit down with my dice and not have to think about how I'm going to react to what ever hair-brained thing the party does is such a relief on his week (we alternate each week).

I let the kids and my wife pick their class first and then picked up the missing role as well, I figure I get to run the whole world when I GM, I can play support role in my son's campaign.

What makes a magic item special is story. But D&D and Pathfinder ignored that story. Magic is "cheap" even when it's expensive. People sell off old magical equipment and buy new stuff like they're trading in their car.

No one should trade in a +1 sword because it's vendor trash, or have a dozen magical weapons they collected over time and then sell them all to get a somewhat more powerful item. That diminishes them all.

I just implemented ABP for this very reason. I'm going back to more of my 1E style of magic. Unique items, some things for out of combat, and materials required. I looked at the UChained, but want to keep it a little simpler than that.

The roll in order method is much like Warhammer FRP where you roll you starting class too. If you want to play a wizard this campaign but rolled a 7 for Int I guess it just sucks to be you. Why not roll for alignment too? Maybe gender? Why not race too> Since the dice are making all of your decisions instead of you, this is just another form of roll-play instead of the role-play that you claim it is advocating.

Fair? How exactly is it fair when one person rolls awesome and another rolls like crap? The one with good rolls is going to dominate and the one with crap rolls is going to struggle to be adequate. Sounds like at most one of those people is going to be having fun. That is not any definition of fair for any game I want to play.

While its not a game style you'd want to play, there are groups who enjoy PF w/o as much focus on everyone's stats, or picking the class you want first, and then designing the stats to fit.

Some people still like going in with a blank slate and figuring out the character while they're rolling. You don't pick up the dice planning to be anything, you figure that out as the numbers begin taking shape. What are the numbers telling you about this PC? That's role-playing in my book.

And there are also player types who don't really care about mediocre stats, or being the best at anything, the casual gamer is just there enjoying time with friends. While PF is very mechanics bias, it's unlikely you'll produce an "unplayable" PC even using 3d6 in order. Even if every stat is under 10, there are player types who aren't going to look at that and toss in their dice, even while the player across the table is musing over where they're going to put their dump-stat 12.

I don't think either method is particularly more inclined to RP or not RP, they're both methods of stat production. I like rolling, but I blame that on my rewards center and dopamine (same reason I liked jumping out of airplanes I guess - you want to talk fair...think about jumping a parachute packed by someone you've never met)

It depends on how you and your group define "fair", and if relatively equal stats is that important to your group.

1. Everyone uses the same method = fair.
2. Everyone gets the same relative outcome = fair.
3. Everyone risks being the lowest roller for a better outcome than their peers = fair.

The difference is point-buy gets 1 and 2, and never 3; while rolling gets 1 and 3, and a chance for 2.

And thus enters player psychology and our brain's reward centers and who is more inclined to want to stimulate those compared to others. Is it more "enticing" to you to have a known outcome even though you know its cap'd and you will all get the same relative result; or to risk an even lower outcome for the chance to roll higher?

Its the casino model. Casino's are a thing because the house -ALWAYS- wins more than it loses - meaning gamblers -always- lose more than they win. Your safe "game" in a casino is putting 20's in the change-maker and hearing 100 quarters pile into the tray. You will never see someone doing that (except on an episode of "Mr Obvious"). But people will toss money in slots all day "hoping" to win more than they bet, even at risk of losing.....and they know over 50% always lose.

In a gaming context, one big difference is some players will still feel great about coming out with lower stats, and will enjoy playing up some flaws associated with them. Although, there are 2 kind of people who leave a casino happy -1. Winners, 2. Someone who saw it as a form of paid entertainment and didn't expect to win.

GM 1990 wrote:

Tacticslion wrote:

Actually, Tangent, I'm going through feats and prerequisites right now and the "13 score limit" isn't true anymore (though there was a time when it was true). There are now feats requiring you to push STR, DEX, INT, WIS, and CHA (maybe CON? I don't think there are many, if so) to various potentially rather large heights (minimum 13, for the start of different trees, though; some up to 25, though I think those are rare).

It was eye opening, for me.

To do several "kinda neat" things in combat, I require higher stats I several scores as my minimum than I do in a single score to enact godlike feats of reality alteration and otherworldly creation.

Because of this, I'm contemplating one of two different rules, if it comes up in games: purely martial characters get higher point buys than their counterparts (with a magical "break" event may happen of someone becomes a full caster); or fighters reduce ability requirements by an amount equal to 1 plus half their level.

I don't want my players to qualify to do things only because they've got a shiny belt on that they can't ever, ever take off, or else.

Just shared this on another thread - but:

Putting it in perspective, it would be like having Crafting Feats require min 13 WIS (and some 15, and some 17), and MetaMagic requiring 13 CHA(and some 15, and some 17), and any Focus Spell require 13 INT(and some 15, and some 17). A caster could still be good at their type of spell magic - which is their main thing but if they wanted to do other things that are typically referred to as "Caster Feats", they'd need to put at least a 13 in a stat which they really don't normally invest in. Each caster would have to boost 3 stats to get access to all the things casters can do, or be forced to pick and chose.

Exactly! That's exactly what I mean! It's kind of overwhelming.

I think I just accidently found my next house-rule.

Yes well, it's a good thing I'm given an hour to reflect.

I was wrong to say that.

faster than some of us. I know there are a few out there I wish I could go delete right now. I guess I never considered asking Liz if she'd demo a few for me. Kind of like a voluntary amnesty delete box program :-)

Actually, Tangent, I'm going through feats and prerequisites right now and the "13 score limit" isn't true anymore (though there was a time when it was true). There are now feats requiring you to push STR, DEX, INT, WIS, and CHA (maybe CON? I don't think there are many, if so) to various potentially rather large heights (minimum 13, for the start of different trees, though; some up to 25, though I think those are rare).

It was eye opening, for me.

To do several "kinda neat" things in combat, I require higher stats I several scores as my minimum than I do in a single score to enact godlike feats of reality alteration and otherworldly creation.

Because of this, I'm contemplating one of two different rules, if it comes up in games: purely martial characters get higher point buys than their counterparts (with a magical "break" event may happen of someone becomes a full caster); or fighters reduce ability requirements by an amount equal to 1 plus half their level.

I don't want my players to qualify to do things only because they've got a shiny belt on that they can't ever, ever take off, or else.

Just shared this on another thread - but:

Putting it in perspective, it would be like having Crafting Feats require min 13 WIS (and some 15, and some 17), and MetaMagic requiring 13 CHA(and some 15, and some 17), and any Focus Spell require 13 INT(and some 15, and some 17). A caster could still be good at their type of spell magic - which is their main thing but if they wanted to do other things that are typically referred to as "Caster Feats", they'd need to put at least a 13 in a stat which they really don't normally invest in. Each caster would have to boost 3 stats to get access to all the things casters can do, or be forced to pick and chose.

Oh come on! I deleted that! I went too far, I admit it, my apologies.

...not before some of us saw it ;-)

Meh, by level 10 death really just costs a bunch of gold and a week of recovery to get rid of the negative levels. It's levels 1-6 where death is an actual issue.

Not in every game, but wanting to make death, magic rarity and other things different than the CRB model only works if its enjoyable to your group.

No small amount of the debates here on the forum are result of all of us experiencing the game through our own groups and then expressing ourselves with our own bias. We could all play a tape of a recent session, then ask 7 people (one from each of Robin's 7 types of players) to describe what they saw, and if it looked fun...and if you just read those 7 write-ups not knowing they all watched the same video you could think they were talking about different games.

Whether its C/MD; boring/non-boring; home-brew/AP; PFS/online/family game; etc, the people are what makes your experience unique and affect it at least as much as the written rules.

@MeanMutton:

Indeed. I don't really mind this because the party will ultimately get to use stuff designed for levels they'll never reach. Giantslayer caps at 17th level (not a hard cap, just how it works out), as do Hell's Rebels and Mummy's Mask. The final battles in all 3 will be epic.

@GM 1990:
And basic D&D was even worse. My mom recently told me she still has some of my books from then. I need to do a search when I'm back at her house this summer.

Yep but those paper books hooked my imagination back in the 70s. Somewhere in the last 2 PCS moves I lost a few moving boxes. Inside were a few years of Dungeon, Dragon mags, but also my Isle of Dread module from expert and Caves of Chaos . :-( I do still have my orange 20side from my basic box...its not playable though..will roll for a while before finding an edge.

Yes it's far better than nothing, but he should have a free Advanced Training when he gets the training or WT lv1. That would at least help him catch up AND still have feat trees as his special thing.

You'd find similar outcomes with Ranger and Swashbuckler I imagine due to the pre-req free bonus feats and abilities with a specific weapon that mimic WT, and in Swash case gets Vital Strike 3 levels sooner than Fighter can take the feat (5th vs 8th).

I've got the fighter getting an Advanced selection and the training tier at each tier, gets them going faster in the level of game we're most likely to play in our game. Even with the two handbooks, some house ruling is in order to really make it come into play for some groups who cap out around 9 or 10th level in a campaign.

For those playing APs or high level, it's nice, but as you point out - you're still sacrificing so much because there is this perception that Fighters get such a mountain of feats they can use it as the payment for bolstering it as a core class. They don't get to skip any pre-reqs (like several classes now), and through 10th level only get 2 more than Ranger and 3 more than Wizard.

Starting around 5th level (and more options each level), when a combat begins I can cast:

Summon Mon "nth" - getting attacks/damage/flanking helper, for 1rd/lvl (often the whole combat); and 2d round,

cast several spell options that last 1rd/lvl which allow me to make attacks (Flame sphere or Ball Lightening for example) or CMB actions (Forceful hand=bullrush for example) using only my move action; and 3rd round,

cast any blast/control/buff spell I have, use a wand, or use a weapon with my standard action.

The only round I really sacrifice is round 1 when I have to spin up the summons; at that point I'm adding to the party's DPR and probably helping the front-liner/rogue with flanking; and building my actions per round. If I really wanted to get after it, I could meta-magic a quick-spell.

That's enough for me. I don't see how I could possibly complain that potentially my -3rd- (free daily refilling) attacking option each round just doesn't do enough damage at higher levels. I could have a 3rd or 4th level wand for my standard action, when trying to conserve my spell slots.

There are feats, and abilities that suffer the same "mid-late game irrelevance". Wpn Focus (+3 vs +4 early is good; but +20 or +21 less so). Toughness (8 vs 11hp early is difference between dying and attacking again; 100 vs 110hp, less important).

That's not to say - don't do it for your game. But offering some things for consideration about if its needed or even going to come up very often at higher levels when things like wands are available.

ryric wrote:

These abilities exist entirely so your caster doesn't have to resort to a crossbow at level 1 unless you want them to. That's pretty much their whole purpose. You're not meant to use them once you have enough spells to have staying power. They suck because they are a patch on a 3.5 problem. They are not intended to be useful past level 2 or so.

I know that's why they exist, but that doesn't really change the point. They're still cruddy as all hell.

In fact I'd argue that actually makes it even worse. Because we're taking an already substandard casting style (blasting) and then loading it up with a power that everyone knows is terrible and just there as filler if you run out of spells.

That's the question the topic post was getting at. Why would you do that? Go out of your way to give an already mediocre build an absolutely terrible opening ability.

Is it really "terrible" in the first few levels though? How much damage does an opening ability need to be good enough for your game style?

A goblin has 6 hps for example, and CR1 monsters "avg" 15 (according to the PRD monster creation guide). You're targeting their touch AC, and on avg going to (1d6+1=4.5 damage) so, 30-50% of their HPs when you hit.
So its its doing more damage than magic missile, cantrips, and more likely to hit so more avg DPR than crossbow at early levels levels. Its also, doing the same avg DPR as PC with a long-bow. (1d8=4.5)

For me, that isn't terrible opening ability.

It doesn't scale, but many things don't, and are higher level casters underpowered(?). Maybe in some games/styles, so in those cases maybe your scaling of the d6 would be an easy implementable compromise for a house rule for when they're out of meta-magic'd AoE spells and still want to roll a hand-ful of dice each round (which is pretty fun for what its worth).

Saethori wrote:

You are mostly correct. The only exception is that precision damage is NEVER multiplied on a critical, even if it's a flat number and not extra dice.

All your examples are accurate.

Actually there is no generic rule preventing precision damage from being multiplied. Sneak Attack was prevented by virtue of being extra dice. But the Swashbuckler's extra damage is specifically called out as not being multiplied it the ability. There would be no need for that caveat if there was a blanket prohibition on precision damage being multiplied.

Its worded similarly in rogue and ninja sneak attack. Its called precision damage (because some creatures are immune to it), and then noted as not being doubled on criticals.

This additional damage is precision damage and is not multiplied on a critical hit.

There is a call-out box next to it which talks about the difference between which creatures are affected by precise vs crit damage.

Although, I can't think of an example of precise damage that is multiplied?

Why do they have to do increased damage? The abilities that stay relevant throughout a carer tend to not be damage ones - instead why not put a rider on the damage that is thematic to the concept they come from?

Fire blast:
1d6 damage + 1 per 2 caster levels and the next fire spell is a -1 (plus 1 every 4 caster levels max 5) on the save made.

Or

1d6 damage +1 per 2 caster levels and the target can not use evasion on the next reflex save he makes...

Just tossing out ideas...

Not bad conceptually. I would try to keep anything like this as an immediate affect though. PF combat is already so detailed, I wouldn't want to also have to remember, which enemy now had something that took affect on their next save vs x.

These abilities exist entirely so your caster doesn't have to resort to a crossbow at level 1 unless you want them to. That's pretty much their whole purpose. You're not meant to use them once you have enough spells to have staying power. They suck because they are a patch on a 3.5 problem. They are not intended to be useful past level 2 or so.

From a 1E background, I have no issues with those or the cantrips for this very reason. its about flavor not really function. once you've blown your best spells, you can use crossbow for higher damage-dice against a creatures normal AC, or your cantrip/school ability against their touch. But at least you can use magic for your attacks, its not 1 spell/lvl and then sling attacks.

Complaints about this are going to vary by player type. Someone more along the thespian lines who wants to role-play up the wizard being full-on magic user, and less concerned about comparing DPR with the power-gamer's PC is going to enjoy it, and not have less fun. Flip those player style though, and it becomes a problem because their effects compared to other spells, attack methods, and APL appropriate enemy stats becomes statistically irrelevant after a few levels.

GM style and encounters per day also play a role in whether this becomes an issue even for a more power-game inclined player type. If you're only seeing 1 or 2 encounters per day, that caster may need to dip into those abilities so infrequently that it isn't noticed. My current wizard in our RotRL AP uses them to extend his spell list (4th level at this point); I don't expect to use them much later in the game, but with pearls of power, etc I'd like to think I can fall back on 1st, 2d, and even 3rd level blast spells after I've used up my fast-balls.

If the idea is that after you've used your x level spells for the day, you should still have a DPR that keeps relatively close to say a fighter/barbarian/paladin/rogue-sneak-attack, and targets touch-attack which will nearly be 100% hit at higher levels....then house rule it up.

In 1E days, 9th/10th level was significantly different than it is today. Weren't dwarves capped at 9th?

APs in particular are all designed to go to around 16-18. The additional stats from a 25 point buy or even a 40 point buy aren't going to make the difference for 1-hit kills at level 16. I've not yet seen an encounter in the later books that will result in the scenario Sunstream described, but I can't say it doesn't ever happen, either.

I know the Order of the Amber Die crew ran through Giantslayer using the standard method and wound up with rather epic stats, but STILL basically lost against the final baddie.

True. All demi-human's had caps on different classes, only humans had unlimited advancement. There were also some minimum pre-req stats for some classes, and of course "10% bonus if you had a score over X in the class prime requisite".

Wait, what. How are you all getting 30PB with 4d6 drop lowest?

As far as I'm aware, it's roughly equivalent to 18.7 point buy.
4d6 drop lowest reroll all 1's is around 20.7.
2d6+6 is around 25.7.

In my case, I worked the numbers backwards. How many "points" would you have needed to get the array each player produced with 4d6. None of my players were under 28, and one was almost 40. Saying it approximates something around a 30pt buy just puts a ball-park number on what you're going to be seeing.

Thanks for all the replies,everyone.

What my real concern is about whether or not players will have fun in combat; I'm not trying to kill them, but I want them to feel like they accomplished something instead of just walking through encounters. But from what everyone is saying building encounters to match the party should always be possible.
I see a lot of mention of early game, but I was thinking more of late game where things like belts+6 and tomes+5 become craftable. I don't want the barbarian in the group using Greater Vital Strike with his 36 str to one-hit the biggest threat before the Druid gets a turn.

I've personally never played that high level, even back in my 1E days we tended to top out around 9 or 10th.

You'll read plenty of people on the forums who have, and the general theme of late game (15-20th) is that it is difficult to avoid just the scenario you describe. Its often referred to as "Rocket Tag", both sides have potential to drop the other fast.

That being said, if you start your game at 1st, and build up, you'll learn what the players can do as they gain those powers. It doesn't mean it'll change the late game, but you'll grow a set of skills in encounter design as well, and may be able to continue to create fun, challenging, and memorable encounters even at high levels.

I feel like these types of creatures as well as some of the iconics at higher levels (beholder, flayers) enhance encounters in 2 different ways.

1. Newer players with no idea about what they are or do.
The effect on these players is that surprise, shock, etc the first time they encounter a monster using certain effects (including things like level or ability drain per attack). Players will remember the first time that ever happened, as well as how they responded.

2. Experienced players who've read the bestiary cover to cover or remember them from the MM, MM1, FF days.
The effect on these players is also going to be surprise, and perhaps fear/dread....because they know what's coming. In their case, they may have the right tools at hand, or know the best tactics so it may not even affect them by the end of the encounter, but that doesn't mean it was a walk over. These are creatures that can be used to illicit a response from the players, and if you had that effect, then it was used successfully.

15 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend my country. Today my service has been fulfilled. I now swear to continue this support to all mankind. To my fellow Pathfinders, I swear to Explore, Report, and Cooperate for as long as I am able.

Awesome!! Thanks for serving - its a small % that do, and many realize deployments are dangerous and hard on families, but have less appreciation for just how the military life-style can be hard on families and friendships. Moving frequently, sometimes living in foreign countries, missed birthdays/anniversaries/graduations just due to training exercises, etc.

Enjoy your new free time and stability!

...I've not yet figured out what I want to do when I grow up, so for now I'll keep lacing the boots up each morning.

HyperMissingno wrote:

Blood money needs a 24 hour delay or possibly more on when it can be healed. People talk about crafting wrecking WBL, well this smashes it into pieces and only in the caster's favor this time, giving them free permanant arcane sight, see invisibility, symbol of whatever, the list goes on and on and you just need someone packing restoration to make you all better.

Blood money is never going to be errata'd because it's not even from a source book, it's from an AP.

Yes, it's a super powerful spell, but it's from like a tertiary source. I just ban it, and I ban very, very little.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Well, little exploits like the Geas abuse and Blood Money crap is a whole other story. A GM can handle those. It's bigger than simulacrum nonsense.

Geas and simulacrum are core spells, and a lot of the things I see get described as "abuse" are just players thinking they're using the spells as intended. I think there are even Forgotten Realms books where the casters are actually portrayed as "abusing" those particular spells.

Blood Money is an AP spell created for a particular character, and abusing it usually requires things like body swapping and using spells from other power sources. Geas and simulacrum can be broken just using them exactly as written and presented in the CRB. When you're using something exactly as it's presented in the CRB, I don't think it's fair to call it abuse.

I agree and really when we explored those spells in a set of threads about game altering/game breaking spells (and we covered wish, simulacrum, etc) I can only remember 1 example from a real game that most of us thought would have had to have been banned. The theory crafters didn't seem to actually have gotten anywhere in normal gaming groups.

A lot of it can be handled just talking with the players and ensuring you agree on what the intention was, and what's reasonable and prudent for your group.

RDM42 wrote:

SO martials are always useless so long as you disallow any of the options which can shut down a caster, because, while shutting down a martial is fair shutting down a caster is unfair. Do I have it?

Probably not, but if you had a specific example which doesn't involve a GM having to go out of his way to target a caster feel free to post it here.

Also most of use don't think martials are useless. Taking arguments well out of context does not help your position, which at this point is not well understood. If someone did say they were useless then quote and address that person

Otherwise it just looks like passive-aggressive posting.

I can't speak for RDM, or some of the other GMs that posted, but it does often feel like if you say, you made an encounter (not an adventure, and not a campaign...an encounter, 1 part of 1 session) that included something like a no-teleport, or anti-magic, or SR monster you're immediately targeted by a couple zealots, with implications that its bad GMwrongfun, stealing agency, hating casters, shutting down players, etc. Not even removing ever possible spell option....either, just using things that exist in the game to provide -your own- players an enjoyable session.

While you'll hear nothing but crickets if you say you created an encounter that was DR/xxx and your group's melee characters had to use their back-up weapon to be "most effective".

its a double standard for some people on the forums, that's what gets old, as well as the "always/never" or other extremes that get tossed on your post regardless of if you clearly stated "sometimes, or infrequent". And I've created a house fighter to give them more toys....I know magic changes the options to characters, and I'm ok with that. So its interesting who will attack you for explaining how you operate your game, and why you do it that way and how you work -within the CMD- to create fun encounters for your players that include variety over time.

That right there in bold is the problem though. There are *NO* non-GM fiat counters to spellcasting. You literally just posted antimagic as (presumably) an effective method of dealing with casters in a thread where I explained in great and copious detail how useless antimagic field is against casters. Furthermore you seem to believe that high SR creatures are somehow a counter to casters, despite me pointing out that SR is joke. So what are your non-fiat counters to casters? Because the two you listed there are completely worthless as counters and I am genuinely curious to hear what you think counters spellcasting.

So back to this. I don't look for ways to counter or shut-down a player - not fun for me or them. That list I gave was an example of things that actually all have some kind of in game affects. you've called a couple of them "jokes" - how so? Sure you can come up with situations where they do nothing, but you're asking the rest of us to just ignore the things they do affect if we're to agree with you.

When a monster has SR, and a spell doesn't work on it, how does that make it a joke? What does that really mean in your game, because you seem to think high SR never works on any caster, despite the fact that it can affect spells to varying degrees at different levels.

Its a roll, its not 100% either way, its a tool that affects the encounter in a way the party may not experience often. Not shut down the caster, but add something to the encounter that's been included even in the Bestiary 1.

So, how do you adjudicate SR if its on a monster stat-block?

Do you ignore the spells and affects that -are- affected by anti-magic shell?

They're options for a GM to make encounters different and interesting and remove some possible solutions. Not intended to punish, "remove agency with out consent", etc, and if you look at crit/precise you would have noticed I wasn't talking specific to players of casters either. None of them require GM fiat to be incorporated into encounters, but I'm not look for a 100% thing to stop players from solving the challenges.

Is it only "worthwhile" if it has 100% success to shut down a player option? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

You've sat back and pointed to some ideas, placed them in your own constraints and said they were a joke and only work with GM fiat. Do you have any advice, ideas for others about how to make encounters interesting and memorable as magic comes on line?

GM 1990 wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Inflammatory? No. Challenging? Yes.

I do take it as inflammatory and baiting because of the wording you're using Anzyr.

Although, I clearly stated lots of things about how I GM and how my group enjoys this game, you want to ignore that and use language like:

Anzyr wrote:

This deprives the players of agency within your game. If you players have agreed to be deprived of agency then that's fine, but if not you are doing your players a grave disservice.

You're even implying things about my players, which in my case are my spouse and children.

Read your statement - However you might have intended it, your paragraph only allows 2 options for my group. Either they've just agreed to be deprived of agency "and that's fine", or I'm just not allowing them any. Which answer would you pick if someone applied this to you and your gaming group? You've loaded the question.

Although I laid out the context, you're also taking the text out of it and applying it differently to set this up.

I stated it was for sparing use to create new challenges to remove -some options-, and use in moderation. Go back and re-read it, its ideas for how to create challenges for players to enjoy. You're implying its removing -all choice-, thus "the disservice of removing their agency".
Its never all or none for me or my group.

I would say you are reading things that are not there then as nothing in the post is inflammatory.

If you use fiat, you are depriving your players of their agency. I did not say "all of their agency". Merely the agency you are using fiat to deprive them of. And that does deprive of players of their agency in that circumstance. That's a fact. Full stop.

And those are the only two options in that circumstance, there is no false equivalency here. Either you have done the players a disservice by depriving them of their agency when you use fiat, or they have agreed that it's OK and is therefore fine. There is a third...

Ok.

Inflammatory? No. Challenging? Yes.

I do take it as inflammatory and baiting because of the wording you're using Anzyr.

Although, I clearly stated lots of things about how I GM and how my group enjoys this game, you want to ignore that and use language like:

This deprives the players of agency within your game. If you players have agreed to be deprived of agency then that's fine, but if not you are doing your players a grave disservice.

You're even implying things about my players, which in my case are my spouse and children.

Although I laid out the context, you're also taking the text out of it and applying it differently to set this up.

I stated it was for sparing use to create new challenges to remove -some options-, and use in moderation. Go back and re-read it, its ideas for how to create challenges for players to enjoy. You're implying its removing -all choice-, thus "the disservice of removing their agency".
Its never all or none for me or my group.

That right there in bold is the problem though.

Are you really intending to be inflammatory or am I mis-reading the tone of this?

Its a problem for who? Because its not a problem for me or my players, and I didn't say you and your group are wrong if you don't agree or imply that of anyone else game.

I don't need to worry about "non-GM fiat" ways to "counter" PC actions, because the way we play the game its not a competition for me vs my players, but if its how you play the game that's ok too.

As far as GM fiat - which is sometimes tossed around as a disparaging term, I don't have any problem using it if I feel like I need to or it'll enhance the story overall. As I've matured as a GM, the confidence to both overrule players, even in the face of a rule; or allow a player to do something cool contrary to a rule or how I'd planned a session is something I've become comfortable with.

I literally don't have any problem saying "you try X, and it doesn't work/or this happens instead of what you expected", if I feel it'll add story affect and end up making a more enjoyable and memorable encounter.

And I don't have any problem letting the PCs accomplish something cool that I didn't plan for or that isn't covered in the rules.

for example, one of the PCs has had no memory of her past for about 9 months of this campaign and until recently couldn't get it back. There is no non-GM "fiat" way to do that, but it fit the story arc and built up to a key point for the group.

If you're truly interested in coming up with some ideas to use in your game, pick a spell we probably discussed it in my "Game Altering (or Game Breaking) Spells: XXX" series of threads. If we didn't cover a particular spell I'd be happy to thread it and get several GM's input on how they handle it in games.

You can enter a castle via teleport. You can charm you way in. You call planar monsters to assault the place for you. With the right spells you can just destroy the place if you can't find a way in. I could keep going, but my point is for the NPC to have a perfect counter to whatever the player came up with as a commonly occurring theme is going to look very suspicious

All of those, and scaling the walls, sneaking in through sewers, disguising yourselves as guests, etc as well.

I look at it as my job to over time make scenarios where any of them are possible from one to the next, but some of them are impossible from one to the next as well, and that includes some forms of magical problem solving. It doesn't mean a caster would sit out a session anymore than the rogue if sneaking in doesn't work. Gaining access to a location is often just step 1 of several challenges/encounters of a session. It just means for a portion of that particular session/adventure, different options need to be considered than how the group did it previously, and that means different players will be important at different times than previous sessions as well.

I don't look it as my job to think of every possible solution and counter it. I prefer to make some possible obvious solutions (if they have less experience), and some impossible ways. "No...but" is also acceptable GM tool for me.

It seemed like a reasonable approach. XD And, of course, defenses are never absolute - the PCs probably CAN find a way around them if they try, but they will have to actually plan and work for it instead of just casting stuff.

I think this is a really important point. Know your group and know what they enjoy and keep it challenging and fun for them.

There seems at times to be a presumption when GM's respond to some of the "what-ifs", by how it works in there game that its bad GMing. It's assumed to be bad GMing because its taking away a possible solution, which is also presumed to be something only a bad GM would do. That's an unfortunate stereotype and also has to presume its the GMs normal way of running a game. Maybe those people experienced it from a GM who did it -a lot- or always had a counter for everything the PCs tried, because that GM was trying to win. I feel sorry for people who've had that experience - I would walk out on a group like that pretty quick.

For some of us, taking away an obvious and perhaps easy solution from the players from time to time is part of what our groups enjoy. Even at 1st level, is it more enjoyable problem solving to:
a. Walk across the bridge?
b. Have to figure out how to get across the river now that the bridge is washed out?
At the same time, if every bridge is washed out, the solution eventually becomes so repetitive and mundane that its pointless to use that challenge. I wouldn't do it as a GM any more than I'd want to play in a game like that.

For me, as magic comes online its the same concept for designing good sessions, hooks, and story arcs. Teleport makes travel somewhat trivial, so just accept it. Then from time to time, create situations where teleport doesn't work. I won't speak for other players, but for me - I would appreciate having to think through a different solution to the problem presented.

So why is it unfair for the moments to use the spells design to counteract common magical effects where...

I think it generates lots of heated posts because sometimes its assumed if you do this as a GM its because you're just "sticking" it to the casters. However, I don't think I've ever read that it was "sticking it" to the fighter when describing how dominate person vs the fighter/barbarian turns them into the anti-party "blender of death". (C) Ssalarn. Either of them "could" be a sign of group dynamic problems, and if used a lot are not going to be fun IMO.

I use things like this in moderation, and for our group that adds to the enjoyment (because sometimes things not working how you thought it would and suffering a setback also makes ultimate success more enjoyable.)
For example, first time the group encountered one of their antagonists body guards the fighter(archer) rolled a max-damage crit, that would have killed him or nearly anyone in the party for that matter. Everyone was going bonkers....

....and then I described how he "Bruce-Lee'd" her arrow (used his deflect arrow feat). That was about 8 or 9 months IRL ago....they still talk about it, and they still don't like that guy.

So anti-magic, no-teleport, crit/precise immune creatures, high SR creatures, etc all have a place in the game and all can add to player enjoyment (not just a GM Power/hate move). But use in moderation like anything.

Although a lot of people are saying they're not bored in their games, I'm actually hearing that their lack of boredom is more based on what they were able to do to get around the boredom of straight combat, rather than finding combats interesting in and of themselves. Is that right?

For my group its the mixture of combat, skill challenges, role-playing, back-story development, scheming against the antagonist, having set-backs, etc.

I try to keep one combat different from the next with terrain and enemy abilities. Most recent combat had a 2d story balcony area, archers setup there while some mooks were in the main floor of the inn the party was assaulting. There were tables, ranged attacks, stairs to contend with, and multiple enemy. Using battle mat with lego's and blocks for the 2d story it adds the visual to see how cluttered the battlefield was.

Previous combat had only 2 enemy in a small guard-shack, but one of those had DR 10/silver (werewolf). Prior to that it was a random encounter with Otyugh who crawled out of the sewer and was trashing the farmer-market area - he had a couple villagers in his tentacles when the party arrived.

So even combat can continue to be fun if the GM tries to mix things up with terrain, abilities, and monsters the group has never fought before. I often just reskin something to match my idea. I wanted a meat-eating tree in a swamp, so I used Octopus stat-box (vines to grab, and a mouth to bite) and described it as a large dead tree-stump with vines growing around it.

GM 1990 wrote:

The Caster is never going to be using magic to "solve" a PC story-line for the fighter in my game, because that wouldn't be using choices, it would be stealing the other players spotlight.

The trouble I found playing higher level casters, is that it can be difficult to know when to back-off and let another player solve the problem. Especially when it comes to expending resources and taking risks. Sometimes it is obvious that Mr Disable Device should get the opportunity to open a lock before the knock spell is used. Other times it is difficult to know if you should just shut down an encounter with a feeblemind spell or flesh to stone or whatever. When a PC gets killed, and the wizard could have just ended the fight, but did not want to steal the spotlight, things get weird. I also recall an incident where my wizard was taken out by a feeblemind, when I had decided that using that spell myself was too disruptive to the campaign. The unspoken agreement to share the spotlight and not disrupt the campaign is going to vary from player-to-player and player-to-GM as well.

Having to make those kinds of calculations all the time makes it difficult to get into the mindset of my character, who would always uses his powers to their fullest in an adventuring situation.

EDIT: I should also note that having to constantly worry about your character being overpowered affects more then just when to act. I found that buying/crafting items gets difficult when you are already very powerful. I way making items for Dex rather then Int because getting a +8 or +9 modifier was just over the top. There were several spells that were too disruptive to the campaign to memorize. Several items (staves and rods) that just made me better at what I was already too powerful. The truth was, by the time I got to 15th level, it was difficult to use any of my highest level options without disrupting the game.

I can see this - its why I chose not to use color spray in our last game. It didn't affect how much fun I had, but it surely was going easier on my GM, and it also let the Paladin, Ninja, and Ranger wade through the goblins and goblin dogs.

The group dynamic I was getting at in what you quoted though was storyline aspects that I try to include for every player tied to their back story. I guess its the same kind of politeness you're pointing out though. Its rude to not let the other players get their interaction when the GM clearly is targeting them and not you. So long as the GM spreads that around, whether its combat, skill challenges, or character progression tied to their back story its more likely everyone will have more fun.

Yes, but that -- AGAIN -- is part of the issue. An experienced player probably wouldn't consider the mending cantrip to be "stump the GM" any more than they would consider making sure to take a ranged weapon to be "stump the GM." Things like that are part of what mark an experienced player.

A table dynamic where the player and GM start going back and forth as in this example isnt a system thing for me though. The mending spell wouldn't come up for me when I GM because the water cantrip would have been a fine and viable solution to a resource issue. Its unlimited...but its one of their cantrip slots, that's fine for me. As GMs gain experience these kind of things generally don't bother them or disrupt the game.

Editing your comment,

Quote:

You as GM create a challenge, some of the PCs -should- have ways of solving it.

.... because in each of those, frankly, rather simplistic, situations, there are easy magical solutions that can and will completely trivialize whatever the GM had planned for tonight. He wanted a stealthy, trap-filled, Metal Gear Solid infiltration and spent hours designing a maze of twisty little ventilation shafts, air ducts, and secret passageways -- and instead, the PCs are willing (and able, barring heavy-handed GM intervention) to walk in like they own the place due to a single spell.

I think I look at game prep and sessions different.

If it "trivialized the whole night", I would feel like I didn't do a very good job of designing the myrid of encounters for a particular adventure/session, nor did I do a good job of reacting to the player's choices and keeping the session going. Its pretty rare I spend hours designing something that is pretty obviously going to be trivialized by 1 player. I never know how the players are going to approach a given problem, but I have ideas, and I know what is on all 4 character sheets. They'll make choices I never though of that make an encounter easier (or sometimes bad choices that make something much harder than it needed to be - frankly this happens more in my game), but that doesn't typically invalidate the entire night. Deciding -not- to do something is about the only way a whole game session of prep would go unused, and even then its setting there to be used later.

That's just my game though. If -the group- wanted a stealthy metal-gear infiltration, and they've got piles of magic, then an idea I would use is making them infiltrate a well guarded and magically protected/warded place. Its an Ocean's 11 type scenario, and if that's the challenge desire I'd picked up on from the group, then its not "shut-down the caster" mentality, its make a challenge that can't be easily overcome with a couple unique spells, while still giving every player something to do.

The GM isn't particularly going to enjoy this, and the wizard's player isn't particularly going to enjoy the obvious ad-hoc obstacles thrown in his way by an unimaginative GM. But most importantly, while the GM and wizard are glaring at each other, the figher and ranger's players are not going to enjoy being completely shut out of the ability to do anything, because they can't actually solve this problem with their own abilities.

To me this is a group dynamic issue that can't be solved with game rules. You have a GM and a player (and maybe 2 other players) with different ideas about how they want to play this game, and are looking at how things have happened with an PC vs GM, only 1 can win mentality. That has to be discussed and solved out of character. Again something more likely to happen with inexperienced or immature individuals, and I look at avoiding this as a large portion of the GMs job. Be open about the game you're going to run, get player buy in, and if there is a player who's not happy with the type of game or the way you're going to adjudicate things its going to have to be discussed and smoothed over or the group won't have as much fun.

The GM shouldn't be spluttering.

A key skill of a DM is to know your party.

A new GM might freak out, and frankly if the player is trying to play "stump the GM" its not any more acceptable to me than the GM putting holes in all the canteens.

I don't see any issues with any of those examples. You as GM create a challenge, the PCs -should- have ways of solving it. sometimes those ways will be mundane use of magic, sometimes it won't. Magic will almost always give them some additional options, that's they system, and I don't have any problems with that.

Trying to play GM vs PC by shutting down magical options is just as bad as a GM telling a player they can't flip a table over, or swing from a curtain because the GM didn't think of that and it'll mean the PCs solve the challenge -differently- than the GM planned.

I prefer to look at most situations as "some PC spotlight time", and by knowing my groups composition as well as each -players- style of play, I put things into play for everyone. Sometimes is the wizard, others the rogue, others the fighter. That includes not just combat, skills, abilities, but story line components from each PCs backstory. The Caster is never going to be using magic to "solve" a PC story-line for the fighter in my game, because that wouldn't be using choices, it would be stealing the other players spotlight.

Its another example of how group dynamics can be the most important thing in any game. If even 1 player looks at using magic options as creating an unfair advantage or the GM does, or a player wants to show everyone else how they can steal the spotlight with any ability or just by never letting others speak, these have nothing to do with the mechanics or system. its about the group and how you like to play the game.

Intuitive solutions being blockaded by rigid selection of tools is problem of all classes, wedged into Pathfinder as a whole.

Even playing full caster can be hell if you did not take "the right" spells. Nobody wants to have a shingle froe, barleycorn measuring tool and- no wait a bottle opener is actually useful, but what I really wanted was just an adjustable wrench goddormit.

Bottle opener and rope. Only a fool or someone with a death wish steps out their door lacking either.

GM 1990 wrote:

Some of us want to keep some classes "non-casters", its iconic, and frankly, if everyone is a caster, that to me wouldn't necessarily be fun or lend itself to individual PC's utility in a given session.

*bangs head against table repeatedly*

Why do some people think that what C/MD believers want to turn martials into casters?

Actually there are many opinions about "what" CMD is, and I just over the last several pages of this thread have read at least 2 opinions that going "only 4/6 casters" would be a solution.

So....some people do propose that as the solution for their game; and some, like myself don't. That's all I was point out, and its accurate, not even my opinion or what "some people think" - its been stated in this very thread.

Make sure you realize the monster that hits for 1d4 +10 wisfom drain no save is supposed to be 1d4 + 1.

That was an exciting instant kill for our barbarian.
I know its not a real kill but functionally its the same in combat.

Is that a typo somewhere in RotRL? if so I'll have him check it out tomorrow and fix it before I forget.

By normal I meant no GM modifications to make it more difficult.

edit: In a later chapter(s) there are some hard hitting bad guys so that might be an issue for the ninja.

Ah, ok, its the only AP we have so I didn't know if they'd adjusted some in later releases.

Well, my son mod'd 2 encounters.
Max HP on the opening scene goblins, and an early crit on the Paladin had us in serious risk of TPK. And for some reason...he thought a -dire boar- would be cool for the boar hunt with Aldair. Ninja boy was gored to below 0 in one shot, Ranger near 0 on round 2, some lucky round 3 rolls on our part ended it. (we're using the 5E death saves, not normal PF rule).

I think that's made him nervous about tinkering, but we've pretty well steam-rolled everything since including everything on Thistletop so far, so I'm advising him he could probably get away with max HPs now, that opening combat was just a bad-luck crit, and poor rolls on our part.

Ninja boy is going to suffer like all rogues I fear...stealth and overconfidence are dangerous mix when you're in light armor and d8 HP. Have seen it in his play style already....but I admire it :-).

Of course the best wand, is cure light wounds. Are you a cleric? Does being forced to be a heal bot, because you have a unique concept and build that can't worry about testing every scratch? Make a CLW wand. Crafted quickly, and you can shove it on whoever has UMD so they can heal themselves! In all seriousness, wands and staves are the easiest work around to limited spells a day, and they don't really take too long to make. Worthwhile investment.

I'll confess - this particular wand I have a love/hate relationship. First impression, I just don't like the idea of that easy of healing because of some 1E ingrained bias - it just feels cheap at times to me (on the one hand). Then...at the same time as a GM it actually allows me -a lot- of flexibility to push the party deeper into an encounter day by keeping everyone's HPs up. it could actually be argued that CLW wand is one of the few ways to ensure "casters" will run out of spells before the fighters have to stop for HPs.

I probably got the most GM enjoyment out of it running oneshot dungeon crawls, you can cover a lot of dungeon rooms when HPs are less an issue.

If is is the normal AP, and you guys optimized decently well you can be ok, assuming you stay with the wizard.

Its the Anniversary Edition - is that normal?

I wouldn't say "fully" optimized, but using a 4d6 stats, we're pretty high on bonus already at 4th level. I'll lean heavy on summons and conjuration control spells (took focus and augment so far); and with my ASI my INT is now 20 (Human), so I'm comfortable I'll be able to control with some nice high DC Reflex save spells and help with flank buddy summons.

The wife's Paladin has 18CHA, and high Str and just picked up Hero's Defiance(?) and Greater Mercy so I think we'll be ok with LoH, and my CLW infusions for now. Paladins....tough to kill anyway, I'm not worried about her.

Daughter's Ranger has best stats of all, she rolled just ridiculous, right in front of me too. I think her low stat is 12, and now her dex is 20, and a 16 Str Bow with rapid shot next level(5).

Son's ninja is arguably the weak link....and he's TWF, got Mirror Image and a ki-pool...and I'm willing to help him out with PfE or Shield Wand buff to his AC.

Probably just my 1E nervousness of lacking a full healer class.

I've also had issues where a martial character's lack of tools has led to real table conflict. I can recall a player who'd made a Fighter getting really frustrated because he felt like he never got to do anything (before it comes up, this was a human Fighter with a 16 STR, 14 INT, and 14 CHA built on a 25 point buy, so it wasn't an over-optimizing towards combat thing). He was a younger guy in a group with some older intellectuals and a lady whose favorite in-character pastime was making friends and building networks of contacts and people who owed her favors, so combats were often few and far between. This kid was so frustrated at not being able to participate meaningfully in a lot of the encounters they faced, and he'd get doubly frustrated when the others tried to throw him a bone and "let him" kill something, because he knew that he was ultimately playing a fundamentally different game from everyone else, but he didn't want to have to deal with spell lists, and spell slots, and DCs, and everything else. Now, ultimately we found a way to get him set up with a character who could play the same game everyone else wanted to play, but the initial issue was severe enough that he was kind of hyper-sensitive to the issues of being a non-magical character in a magical world.

I also don't "interfere" much as a GM. I present the world, the issues, and the NPCs, but I try to do as little as possible to directly intervene in the development of the story. I don't fudge dice rolls, I don't spare the party from the consequences of their own bad decisions, and I don't deus ex machina and save important people they want to kill or kill people they want to save. When I'm the GM, I'm the arbiter and narrator of the story the party tells, and the voice of the beings they encounter. Sometimes, party members will die, and they know it. Sometimes there will be challenges where they failed to acquire the tools to deal with it, and things will end poorly. Generally my players respect and appreciate that, and prefer it to "GM cheating" (not my words).

Early on in my gaming career I had some GMs who wanted to tell their story with the party as cast members whose actions often didn't really do much to change any of the actual outcomes, and occasionally they'd just fiat something into not working like the rules said, and I never appreciated that. If the players don't have real agency, I'm just not interested.

I also don't like "ambushing" people with rules changes just because myself or an adventure writer didn't account for the capabilities of characters of a given level, so my houserules are few and available prior to character creation.
I view the rules as a social contract- they define the game we all agreed to play. Changes to that contract should be approved by all participants. Rule 0, to me, is sometimes necessary, but the less you have to use it the better a job you're probably doing.

A lot of this speaks to both table variation, play style, and just general maturity of players and GM as well.

Its not easy even for me, my wife asked a few times about how much notes and etc I kept in advance. I told her - almost none. I try to prep the encounters that I figure you'll go towards, but basically every session you guys do something I never saw coming, so its easier to just roll with it. I have the main plot arc in the back-ground, I think about what the antagonist organization is doing in response to your actions/inaction and be ready for the next session in 2 weeks.

Its a weird irony, I feel like the less I write-down, the more likely I am to let the players solve things they way they want. There's a balance, you need to be organized to a degree to GM a good session, but I believe as you said in another post - good luck trying to know what your players are going to do -any session-.

Say my group wants to recruit an ogre thug actively engaged in robbing them. Like, they're so impressed by the way he just brained their steward that they decide they'd rather have him on their side. If I have a Rogue in the party, what does he do? Diplomacy takes a full minute (10 rounds in combat) and doesn't work on hostile opponents. If my skill-monkey is a Bard though, he can whammy the ogre with the old charm person and then engage in Diplomacy with a docile and friendly, if brutish, individual, improving his attitude enough that when the spell wears off he might still decide to stick around, or at least leave on friendly terms.

Having the choice to resolve an encounter by alternative methods is often something reserved solely for magic, and I usually find that to be a bummer. Or, there's a way for a non magical class to do this thing, but it involves them dedicating a much, much larger portion of their resources to do it, often permanently.

I'm going to use this portion, hopefully, to highlight where the two sides could easily talk right past each other; but how IMO the way you worded it helps explain that it isn't "can vs can't", but as you state more choices.

My thoughts: Even if no one in my group had Charm, and they tried to negotiate, depending how they talked through it or parley'd, I would still probably give them a chance to roll it out, regardless of RAW. It's most likely going to make for a better story anyway. In fact, I'd be more likely to let them succeed just using RP, than if the ogre made his save vs the spell (would really make him angry). However, I can see what you said, and the way you worded it and mechanically, charm person at some tables is going to be the only viable option, or even if negotiations are allowed, is going to have a chance of increasing the effectiveness that only a spell can do. I certainly wouldn't disallow the bard from trying to cast it, and frankly the other PCs probably would be happy to have the assist. Objectively, its another tool, and its a tool that only a caster has even though either method could succeed, albeit once combat started only certain styles of play would afford the group a chance to parley and succeed (unless there are some Su I don't know about that can give you some significant bonus to diplomacy?)

How it can get talked past during some C/MD debates: Sometimes this would get written differently, or perceived to be saying - "only a spell caster could solve this problem". When its written different, or perceived different the response is more likely to be. Ssalarn is crazy...there are rules explicitly saying I can try Diplomacy with my fighter/rogue/barbarian (really anyone w/o charm person I guess). So the debate rages because the person trying to explain their view of CMD didn't demonstrate how it would be done at their table without magic, and then how it would be done additionally (choice, not can/cant) with magic.

Not playing tonight, may as well try to help bridge the gap on explaining.

C/MD in our game tonight was actually the martial doing something w/o needing GM approval that significantly impacted the narrative.

My daughter's at a sleep over which I forgot about, and thus.....we're not playing. darn fighters really really keeping me down.

And the one-shot I was supposed to run for my son and his friends tomorrow cancelled.

I guess I will be unleashing some serious GM stockpiled rage on Sunday....

I don't generally allow a 15 minute adventuring day. My PCs are usually running against a shot clock. There are many times where the casters tell the Martials, "Ok, were going to sit back to conserve magic." Or have said, "We're out. You guys take it, we'll do what we can."

My plots rarely require magic. There are always ways to do things. I don't run plots where villains appear invisibly, blow off target's heads, then take the head and dimension shift back to their secret lair in a pocket realm.

I tend to do a lot of the same. As Ssalarn has pointed out, everyone has "HP" as a limiting resource too. So for me the perfect hard-session is one where I gauge it out so the caster's burned through all their spells (or at least their best ones, with just bonded item slot left), the groups down to just a potion or 2, but near max HP, and needs to make one last push to the final room. Its hard to do, but in the group where I'm playing the wizard, so far I've been hesitant to blast away early, I'd rather leave spells on the shelf when we culminate than blow them on first contact. At higher levels it'll probably not be as big of a deal with things like pearls of power, and just raw # of spells per day.