IdleMind's page

Go visit Quincy market if you want good eats and a nice outdoor enviornment, Boston Common, of course. The waterfront is nice. If you can get upstairs at the prudential center, that's a good place to be for a view of the whole city. The area around MIT/Harvard is excellent for barhopping.

-Idle

This is a discussion of the topic of weather you should simply follow the Pathfinder game as written, allowing everything presented or alter the game based on what the DM feels is underpowered/overpowered or "Broken".

I strongly follow the idea that the game should just be played as written and trust the designers to make a quality balance game for us.

I think it should be as simple as if its in the rules you should allow it.

One thing i have loved more than anything about Pathfinder is that the designers actually answer questions rather than simple say "ask you DM", the statement just makes me lose all respect for a game system.

You know DM fiat is part of the RAW right?

-Idle

I was talking with a friend at 2 a.m. and I thought I'd start a thread here based upon it. (This can't be good...)

So last night we were discussing the flaws and considerations of pathfinder and other role playing games in general. Role playing games are far different from things like chess where there are simple defined goals and unbendable rules. The nature of role playing games is that expansions and new content are expected. Here are some questions we have been pondering:

What, as a gamer, do you like to see in your games?

As a player who also enjoys competitive games as a primary form of entertainment, I play RPG's as a source of completely non-competitive non-closed system enjoyment. For that reason, crunch, while a necessary evil in games, is very very unappealing to me because the idea of having to have system mastery over something which is a an imagination exercise seems trite.

What do you hope to see from the people who produce role playing games?

I want two things. Highly detailed settings with lots of interesting places and ideas; and a developer who understands that a decent metabalance is important.

How much do you hold the producers responsible and how much do you hold the people who demand change responsible for the way a role playing game evolves?

I rest the blame with both. Producers want to make alot of money for both success and to keep the game line going. I blame players because I feel that the playerbase largely needs to be spoonfed new content or they cry like children who don't have all the toys

Do you prefer a game that's complete and playing a variety of ways within that finely tuned system? Or do you enjoy a game that begins with a finely tuned system, yet continues expanding upon it to make it more interesting, perhaps at the expense of the original balance the game had?

I prefer the former, but I understand the latter is inevitable.

Is power creep okay?

It's not ok; but it is inevitable.

Do you think Pathfinder is destined to end up like 3.5? With so many options and broken combos that GMs have to start arbitrarily banning certain content?

I think because one of Paizo's "unsaid" selling points is "we are not 3.5", Probably not. If anything like whats happening with the current "asian/gun backlash" is going to continue, that particular customer base will stop patronizing Paizo.

What are your feelings over things like Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat? Do you think it will change the game for the better?

It's better and worse all at the same time. Archetypes are an amazing idea, then they go and ruin the whole concept by introducing "alternate classes". I also feel like no mater what supplements they release, the system has inherited the problems 3.5 had. PF 2.0 might be able to overcome these things; but not the current version.

Ugh, I feel like I'm throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Feel free to discuss whatever question you like.

I guess the overall thought I'm trying to communicate is that expanding the game with new content is all well and good, but expanding the rules can be somewhat perilous to the balance of the game. ...and from what I've gathered, people love Pathfinder because it's like the d&d 3.5 system we all know and love, except balanced. What do you think about the future of Pathfinder, balance, power creep, etc?

Final thought: power creep is inevitable because gaming is a business, and the grass us always greener on the other side.

-Idle

I discussed with my players the idea of changing the game to E7, but not giving full casters access to 4th level spells except as "ritual" spells, and they loved the idea.

I find approximating the value of bonuses from magic gear and finding another way to give them to PC's adds to the feel. The only magical items I have in game are consumables, or artifact level magic items, however to compensate; I've created a more in-depth masterwork system.

I also give out Feats EVERY level, but I use an even slower progression than the slow progression in PF core.

Wealth, as a consequence; has become something PC's use to tangibly affect the world, rather than just a PC's trade wealth for direct bonuses type of thing.

All in all, I am getting exactly what I wanted out of E6 (now 7)

-Idle

People play games to have a good time. A humorless campaign would feel like another day at work- nobody wants that. As to why those specific genres, I've never noticed such a trend. My gaming groups tend to like all kinds of humor (though most of it tends towards the suggestive side). Now allow me to pose a question:

Would you prefer that your players be into slapstick?

I'd give anything for them to bring forth humor that didn't scream "look how clever and intellectual my humor is". So if pies to the face are what I need, then so be it.

-Idle

Query as title indicates. Serious question.

Please don't tell me it's because it appeals to a more intelligent mind. Puns are insufferable =(

-Idle

Have the PC's learn a lesson about influence.

Have them tasked to do a certain thing; then have a rival group who happens to be in favor with the queen swoop in and usurp their efforts, and make sure to hint that the other party, despite being under-geared or even under exp'd managed to succeeded by dearth of influence. (Having those Royal Guards while raiding the thieves guild sure did make it easier, or something of the sort.)

Also, the implications of this thread harken back to the age old problem: Magic Item Economy. If your gold isn't spent on it, your losing the game.

Makes me sick.

-Idle

Quoted alot of stuff and said some insightful things.

Honestly, this is a matter of personal taste; and for me it comes down to a simple aspect- fluff is not tied to mechanics.

That is what makes PF/DnD a suboptimal storytelling experience at its core for me.. Fluff can be tied in by the individual DM/GM but everyone is not working from the same framework by the core rules; unlike a storytelling game, say Werewolf or Immortal, where the fluff are the rules and everyone has the same standpoint of the who's and why's.

Allow me to elaborate, for simplicity.

In a storytelling game, the mechanics of what you can do are strongly tied to the fluff of why you can do them; and not being able to to something for a fluff reason is just as valid a reason for prohibition as not being able to do it for a mechanical one.

In PF/DnD, fluff and mechanics are estranged, one might even say divorced from one another on an intrinsic and fundamental level.

Again, this is my opinion on the matter, not holy writ.

-Idle

So, rather than for escapist purposes, you play games to give yourself an artificial sense of worthwhile accomplishment?

Seems sort of insulting wouldn't you say? Especially considering that is pretty much the only reason people do anything entertaining. /blanket statement.

-Idle

juanpsantiagoXIV wrote:

Indeed. Some deaths should be due to simply random chance rather than all of them being about choice.

Why?

Equality is good for the soul. A PC can random crit a giant and fell it in one shot... sounds like a bad day for that particular giant.

But more seriously; I like it because it increases the impact of levels. When you are level 1, almost everyone or everything in the world is more powerful than you; but somehow you are not shown that thanks to level scaled challenges.

Similarly, at 20th level, you face 20th level challenges. There is never a time to reflect on "wow we are cooler than 99% of the population and we earned it through the slings and arrows of an unjust and unfair world".

In an unbalanced world where everything isn't scaled to CR and random chance has more of an effect, accomplishment becomes that much more satisfying, because the forces arrayed against you are so much more difficult.

To use a personal example; as a kid I would play video games on the hardest difficulty I could, right when I got them. The few times I scaled it back, there was that sick feeling of taking it easy, and I knew that I hadn't really accomplished anything- the world just gave me a teddy bear and said "See? Your special, just like everyone else!"

Also, I can't believe I am going to agree with Cartigan here; but... if you want a game that is geared towards an interactive storytelling experience... DnD/PF is (incoming pun) subOPTIMAL in that regard, imo.

-Idle

So I am going to be starting a new campaign for my PF E6 group.

For purposes of this example, assume we follow WBL and characters are built equivalent to characters in normal PF.

The concept of the game is the player characters are all on a passenger ship which gets caught in a tempest, for nearly a week, casting them adrift. After being some of the few survivors left when the boat finally hits land (and wrecks); the come to realize they are in a place they have never seen or been to been to before.

The themes of the game I want to espouse are teamwork, the unknown, and a lack of a societal safety net. If the characters wish to survive; then they must work together and adapt to the conditions they find themselves in.

The players are aware this will not be a normal PF game. I have not told them the details; so my queries are thus:

What character options should I encourage/discourage players from taking in order to ensure their characters are not useless in this type of game?

There are some other setting specific queries as well; for example:

*What of a Cleric's spells? Can his god reach out to him here? I would find it certainly unfair, and a Cleric certainly unplayable if not. What suggestions would you have to play up a disconnection with his deity without penalizing him system wise?

A Cleric can be a heavy hitter in this type of game- magical healing, endure elements, create water- a bunch of survival related spells. He just suffers from a lack of church organization.

*Rogues have alot of highly specialized skills which tend to lend themselves to an urban environment. They also have alot of useful dungeon crawling skills. In an exploration/survival game, can anyone tell me what kind of things I should steer a would be Rogue player towards/away from to ensure they have fun and are useful?

*Wizards also lack a societal backdrop. It is unlikely or rare they will encounter societies advanced enough for Wizard colleges; so learning new spells outside of their level mandated ones would be difficult. Also, as much as a sore spot as it is for people; wandering to the market to buy spell components isn't that easy either. What suggestions would you make to work around these setting limitations?

I'll post more as I think of them; and as I flesh out the setting. I just wanted to get some feedback before I sit down with players to do character creation.

-Idle

1. Attacking an opponent 4 times with a greataxe in 6 seconds
Acceptable

2. Slamming the ground with your weapon, causing a shockwave/ripple that damages opponents in a line
Not Acceptable

3. Cleaving through and killing 6 armored warriors with one attack.
Acceptable

4. Taunting your enemy, forcing him to attack you and not your allies
Semi-Acceptable

5. Drawing upon inner strength, regaining lost hit points a few times a day
Not Acceptable

6. Managing to hide from a peasant that's looking at you from 30 ft away with no cover in broad daylight
Unacceptable

7. Running across a pool of water, like a small lake
Acceptable

8. Jumping 50 feet long after a running start
Unacceptable

9. Roaring load enough to deafen or stun enemies temporarily
Unacceptable

10. Slicing the air, creating a vacuum wave that cuts your opponent from a distance.
Very Not Acceptable

-Idle

Not to barge in or anything, but...

You have recently separated. You are still in the aftershocks of that. My experience generally shows that once a relationship has been interrupted, it is over. Whatever the reason, if one part wants to end it, the reason is good enough. At the very least, a year-long break is required to gain perspective, the same time traditionally given to deal with grief after someone's death.

Don't win her back. Shape up your life. Live the way you'd want to live. Focus on other things, like work, hobbies, make yourself a good life. If you do, good things will come to you, including love.

And perhaps one day, your ex will return. But don't do this for her. Do it for you.

I just read through this whole thread; and while many great pieces of advice are echoed here.; this is honest, painful truth.

Love is a consequence of who we are, not something we can strive to purposely attain. Love thyself, then love will come to you.

-Idle

Those sentiments are all well and good, and I'm fully capable of adapting to whatever social situation is at hand and having fun as it's collectively understood, still...

What I hunger for, what I desire after 30 years of RPGing, is not the old standard of fickle fate, "them's the breaks", slow plodding rise to greatness.

What I want is a manifest destiny of awesomness. Every character I want to play comes with the assumption that I am THE ONE, the divine hand meant to save the world and undo the calcified traditions that hold back the free peoples from gaining victory.

If I may make a suggestion, play Exalted. The entire game is based around that premise of a "manifest destiny of awesome" as you put it. It's a great game, give it a whirl sometime.

-Idle

I modify my fluff to mean that magic is a science whereupon the caster draws from the ambient energy of the world around him to create an effect, one tailored from a specific set of gestures and components to create an end effect: Chemistry, as it were.

My fluff regarding limitation is that the energy is channeled through the physical body, and the mortal frame can only handle so much of it at one time. Higher level/More spell slots represent the casters ability to channel energy more efficiently and less harmfully.

-Idle

Edit: This works only for Wizards, I have similar fluff for Clerics and other caster types, but this is the one that comes up the most.

Playing for money or not makes no difference.

I'd like to hone in on this for just a moment to say this is definitely not true. If money or competition were involved, there WOULD become a "right way" to play- the way that makes you win/get money.

Thus, RPG's in general are always casual, and never serious. You just can't get up in arms about something which has no intrinsic right/wrong or win/lose. It is only as good as the fun you have. There are no other absolute values.

-Idle

Stuff

Take a step back for a moment.

Your arguing.
On the internet.
About a game.

A game where you pretend to be people/things you aren't.

Your arguing about how people should respect you for your knowledge of such a thing.

This is not, in and of itself, ridiculous to you?

-Idle

Caineach wrote:

And add me to the Pete Townshend, who? list

And statements like this are sublime in their irony.

Wasn't Pete Townsend busted for child pornography? Apparently, his generation wasn't the only thing he was concerned about.

(Apparently, he was cleared of charges because he was just "conducting research... or for being a rockstar).

Back to the original topic: I can't take gamers who ask for respect for experience in their hobby seriously. I've been gaming for 20 years, and you know what? It's just a game most of the time.

While it may be true that for some brief shining moments a game in a microcosm might wax religious in experience or meaningful in it's intensity or depth; that certainly isn't the baseline.

C'mon guys. It's just DnD. If people were playing this for money, for competition (implying that you could win), or for anything more than just a good time MAYBE you could make an argument about a right way to play, or knowledge demanding respect... but it isn't, and you can't.

-Idle

I'd just like to throw in some crunch, if I may, and at the same time bump E6:

In an E6 game, your charisma score is a MUCH bigger effect on any social skills you use than in a normal game. Since your skill ratings will only go up to 6 ranks, that -4 to +4 modifier for your charisma has a much longer lasting effect.

That being said; I wish there were more hard uses for CHA based skills. Diplomacy covering almost every social interaction except being a liar really dumbs it down. A little more "social combat" would go a long way, imo.

One DM I played with applied an across the board penalty for lower stats, which essentially was a doubling of the penalty. 8-9 was a -2, 6-7 was a -4, ect ect. This of course wreaked havoc on the system; but yeah, I can see where he was coming from.

Atm though, my solution is the same as Kirth's. CHA has to be more hardwired into the system, because as it stands, there is no reason NOT to dump it other than nostalgic clinging to something that isn't true anymore.

-Idle

I hate alignments, but are a necessary "evil", because of spells like "protection agains X","holy word"...etc. The cleric was 15th level...a bit excessive?...yes, without doubt.

I´m thinking I´m too strict with alignments...

In case someone else didn't do this already:

http://alzrius.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/removing-alignment-from-pathfinder- part-one-classes/

Trust me, it's better this way.

-Idle

So after reading through this thread I've pretty much surmised it goes like this:

OP + Most of the First Page: Boy, look at those jerks!. I' glad I'm not a jerk. Yeah! We also agree with how much of a not-jerk you are thus making us not-jerks by association.

Everything Else: Internet Bile.

I hope I just saved someone walking into the thread some time. I really shouldn't have to say this but... your game style isn't better than anyone else. That's the rallying cry right? It works two ways.

-Idle

Alot of Good Stuff

This echoes my experience almost to the letter, sans the specific details. My players heavily cleavaged ELVEN blonde lesbian was named Cherry, and my friends parents confiscated all my DnD books because they were misguided christian zealots.

Although I fall very heavily on a distaste of optimization; it has it's place, and the above post has elucidated why quite exactly.

-Idle

** spoiler omitted **

very very impressed with the game so far.

-Idle

Ok, when is this coming out and which platform will support it? Wii???

Just got back from my FLGS, they had an advanced copy.

Platform: PS3/360.
Releases this upcoming week, Tuesday I believe

Game-play is silky smooth, its a frantic, high damage fighter. Alot of sandbox toys to work with; the depth is definitely there. I know the hardcores will be happy for another 10 years.

Casuals will also like the neat little touches, like paired character special intros- for example, Ironman tells Bionic Commando (Spencer) "you couldnt afford the whole suit, just the arm huh?". Genius.

-Idle

I find that most people don't understand the commitment of monogamy when they make it.

Ask yourself this question:

Did you go into the commitment of monogamy ignorantly?

Your answer will become clear based on that answer.

-Idle

Reserved for listing.

I don't know about you; but I really hate Feats which aren't really spectacular besides provide a bit of generic crunch. I'm big on at least SOME tie to fluff with my mechanics; and when I look at Feats that are not all all "Feats" of anything; one of the biggest perpetrators is "Weapon Focus"

+1 to hit with a chosen weapon. Whoop-dee-do! That is so stale and generic it's like eating bread left out in front of a fan for a few hours.

What's even worse is it's a prerequisite for cool feats which actually DO stuff. So to my mind, it's the worst of the worst- it is flavorless and boring; and it's a Feat Tax style feat.

I would like to clarify; I have no problem with class abilities being heavily crunch oriented. With fighters now having Weapon Group bonuses; Weapon Focus is getting exceptionally redundant for them; whom I would argue are the most common purchasers of this feat.

Anyways; my idea is simple. In PF we have introduced "Weapon Tags" for a weapons ability to do various kinds of things. Some weapons even have special mechanics or modifiers. So here is my suggestion: We write up Weapon Focus as an "access" feat. What Weapon Focus does is allow you to use a weapon to its fullest potential by design. This grants you access to the weapons "Focus" ability. Each weapon will have a Focus Ability.

I would like some suggestions on what some focus abilities might be. I'll be reserving the next post for a working list.

Some Design Parameters:

1) The relative power of a Focus ability should be scaled to it's class. A Simple Weapon Focus Ability should be slightly weaker than a Martial Weapon Focus Ability, and so to should an Exotic Weapon Focus Ability be slightly stronger than a Martial one. The reason for this is to provide further distinction to class proficiencies, as well as the fact that your paying a feat for Exotic Weapon Prof.

2) Keep it as simple as possible. Avoid the urge to design entire sub-systems for a weapons focus ability unless ENTIRELY necessary.

3) Don't worry so much about the overall balance of these abilities on your first try. We can always tweak it down or up later after some play-testing and general consensus.

4) Keep in mind these abilities at BEST should border on Extraordinary, but by no means should ever wander into Supernatural territory.

I'll be adding some initial ones later on in the day after my brainstorming session with my players concludes. They suggested I post here to make use of the pool of ideas.

Have at it. Or don't.

-Idle

If death is non-existance, and my only life's familiarity is existance and perception, and sentience... it fills me with great fear to know I will lose those things someday and have no conception of what it would be like without them.

Death is scary. Guess that just makes life more valuable.

-Idle

I'd like to chime in here from a different perspective:

Aside from RPG's, one of my hobbies is tournament level fighting games (Street Fighter/Tekken ect). The game balance is very important to the tournament health of these games, but interestingly; 90% of players couldn't tell you what is broken and what isn't. They all *feel* they know, but honestly they don't. Why is that? Because in order to understand the system of the game you need to push it to the limit to find its flaws. This is generally done in tournament play. Most players never reach this level.

Now lets flip back to RPG's. The point is pretty much the EXACT OPPOSITE from a tournament level fighting game. Were not here to eke out every bloodless edge we can find out of the system to win. We use the rules as a framework to life our imaginative fantasies into a more tangible realm. Winning has no tangible definition in an RPG.

Cleaning up some misinterpretations for ease of use is one thing, but a balance patch? I don't think it's ever really warranted.

Unlike in a fighting game, in RPGs, if something is unbalanced to one group, it can often be chalked up to any factor BUT system flaw, and at the same time, just as easily fixed regardless of the source of the imbalance. It could be chalked up to GM style, bad luck, bad build. Rarely is it the systems fault because SO MUCH of the game is just invented on the spot. It's not a closed system. House rules exist in pretty much EVERY game. Don't listen to people who tell you "If you houserule, your not playing Pathfinder".

I know there are some who might disagree with some of my asserstions. I think they should give fighting games a try. =)

-Idle

Edit: Edited for clarity, and minimal hostility.

You mean being a Wizard as it is is boring??? Check your average gaming group. How many folks volounter to be the cleric? Or is that the root behind this?

Your on the right track with your asserstion. Spoiler tags to not derail primary thread purpose.

-Idle

I'm also just not personally sure the school system being used here breaks itself along enough nuanced lines, or it in fact trying to shoe-horn spells into one school when possibly they extend across multiple.

I'm not either; but from my perspective if I don't shoehorn it in; I'm pretty much committed to re-writing Cures method for each school it CAN fit into, or writing similar spells with different methods but similar mechanical effects. Then if I do that; I'm almost certainly committed to the domino effect of doing that for just about EVERY other spell in the game.

I know it's a minor point of contention; but I'm trying to play up Wizardry as a pseudo-science; versus other forms of magic as "focus energy through a paradigm and stuff happens" as a way to make Wizardry more interesting.

-Idle

I'd like to take a minute and insert the fact that if detect magic's trap-finding use really annoys your rogue in how it belittles him; or your GM in how lame it is to spam it for that reason; I would advocate changing detect magic's range to "touch" as per some awesome house rules I just read.

(Shoutouts to Kirth Gersen defending the rogues honor)

-Idle

Conjuration makes about as much sense as any other school and a bit more so than some. Maybe you're summoning spirits of life and healing, outside of evocation and illusion practicaly any school can come up with a mechanism for healing with a minor adjustment to the method.

Debates about this are about as useful as trying to figure out the mechanisms for mass loss or gain with polymorph and wildshaping.

Bolded for emphasis.

To some, myself included, the method IS the focal point of classification. This is why in my OP I clarified the nature of healing magic for purposes of my home-brew for which I was attempting to categorize. I then went on to muse about it in the normal paradigm. Your point holds plenty of weight if we do not define the method of how the spell works, but in this case, I did specifically:

In my homebrew; Cure spells work because they induce the body to repair itself, at a rapid rate. They do not just "poof" the injuries away.

-Idle

As title implies- what kind of sense does that make?It's normally not an issue I would suspect, however, it has suddenly become one for my home-brew game due to some changes in the way magic works.

I intend to remove the Divine/Arcane line and school the divine spells as appropriate.

In my homebrew; Cure spells work because they induce the body to repair itself, at a rapid rate. They do not just "poof" the injuries away.

Even so, under the normal paradigm this makes little sense.

Were I to alter it; to which other school would you suggest?

The two I was thinking were Transmutation and Necromancy, but even Evocation has a strong case made for it. From the PRD for your perusal:

Necromancy

Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force.

Transmutation

Transmutation spells change the properties of some creature, thing, or condition.

Evocation

Evocation spells manipulate magical energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, an evocation draws upon magic to create something out of nothing.

Your thoughts?

-Idle

I'm currently running an E6 game with an Ancient Mediterranean feel to it.

The basic gist of the setting is all (but one of) the major PC races existed prior to the coming of the gods, and the gods offered humanity a pact of worship which (almost) all sentient races accepted. The Gods are modeled after Greek/Roman gods, with some minor changes (Medea went from being a Witch to the Goddess of Magic, for example).

Some other major changes: (Spoiler Tag to save space/TL;DR)

This thread is pretty schizophrenic so I'll try and address the two major points:

Gunslinger as written is not worth playing. The reasons have been elaborated on far better than I could by other posters. I just want to give a +1 in support of that point; so the purpose of the thread is not forgotten.

Niche Disparity/Spell Creep or whatever you want to call it- Prof Cirno pretty much nailed it. As an aside, why is it do you think you see so much more E6/Low Magic/Caster Nerf threads on these boards compared to pretty much everywhere else in the PF world that discusses these things? It's my personal belief that is not co-incidental. I think this is so important, it probably deserves it's own thread to make sure the relevant concerns are seen by developers.

-Idle

As long as casters possess versatility and power with very little limitation; then I will always advocate nerfing them in some fashion.

That, to me, is really the heart of the issue. If you want magic to be able to "magic your problems away"; then there needs to be some kind of legitimate consumeasurate cost.

Spells per day is not a true limitation (thanks 15 minute adventuring day).

Component costs are too cheap, thus making them irrelevant.

Components at a low level are hand-waived away in the rules.

Spells don't have inherent drawbacks as written as in previous editions.

Is there ever a reason to *not* do a repeatable spell action? (Lets say Haste). The only reason I can find is eventually you just get re-usable or permanent items to hand-waive the need for those spells... AGAIN. Those items are made by....

There is some kind of thought in the minds of some, including myself, that if you have great power it ought to come with some risk. Let me tell you, Wizards and Sorcerers, and to a lesser extent Clerics and Druids have pretty much 0 risk and drawback, and that's a shame.

-Idle

Forcing Divine casters to choose between prepared and spontaneous spellcasting, either keeping a prayer book of spells, using Wizard rules for spell aquisition, or having a small fixed number of spells known, like a Sorcerer, and therefore not having *every* Cleric (or Druid) spell available to them, could also cut down on those two classes in particular.

This is perhaps one of the best ideas I've ever seen. I am dealing right now with the "Cleric Sameness" problem for my own home-brew game. I hope you don't mind if I adopt it for my E6 game.

-Idle

One thing that I'd do in a campaign that was specifically geared for low magic would be to get rid of detect magic, or modify it to a point where it isn't this "auto-scan" activity that can pinpoint things.

I'd probably go through the magic list to find other spells that make it too easy to get information. That is one factor that I find robs a lot of the mystery in the game, is that it is too easy for players to find out exactly what is going on, both in-game and meta-game.

I just adopted Kirth Gersens houserule for Detect Magic; which is to change the range on it to "Touch". This solves a TON of the meta-gamey autodetect problems. I highly reccomend it.

-Idle

Seems to me a lot of "low magic people" just dislike wizards/sorcerers/casters and only bring them down in power but don't bring martial/melee characters down as well (or in the same amount)? How is that fair to casters?

It's not fair, but that is inherently because full casters are better from a balance standpoint anyways. Nobody cares about bringing casters down because they are the prime source of the "broken" parts of the game that most low-magic people rail against. They make the magic items. They have abilities which obsolete other classes. Their powers aren't "Feat Taxed".

-Idle

Other things to keep in mind:

You need to throw out parts of the system that are built on certain progression and gear assumptions.

Instead of using the CR system; you ought to just throw it out and gauge the parties power level through the understanding of their capabilities.

More opponents that are humanoid and have class levels. This has already been discussed.

DR to anything that isn't mundane should also be thrown out. Think about it. A monster with DR 5/Magic could in theory destroy entire towns before a Caster or guy with a magic weapon is found. Remove alignment based DR's too. Replace with things like DR/Silver or DR/Cold Iron, or even specific damage types- DR/Slash or DR/Bludgeon, ect.

Alternate Masterwork items should take the place of low level magic items. Example: A weighted Mace which makes it slightly inaccurate in exchange for more damage (-1 to hit +2 to damage) or weapons which buff combat maneuvers (Sword-breaker dagger gives +X to sunder, blah blah)

If your going for the "Magic is wonder" approach, don't allow any magic item which only provides a mechanical bonus with no other attribute, For Example:

A +1 sword is not ok, but a Sword of Flaming Burst is ok.

A ring of protection +2 is not ok, but a ring which summons a magical suit of Leather Armor and bestows upon the wielder the armor proficiency to wear it is ok, as long as the duration is temporary.

Require magic items to have a material component for creation. You can just assign a component cost if you want to crunch it away; or actually make the PC's acquire it otherwise.

Wands and Rods are also huge perps of magical "too muchness". When you can get a rod or wand of EVERY utility spell in the game; it gets too easy. I would suggest getting rid of them entirely.

In order to balance this out, you need to give out more Feats. I suggest giving out 2 feats at first level; and then a Feat EVERY level.
Lower the Feat requirements for many feats.

Just some suggestions, pick and choose. I'm sure none of them are original.

-Idle

Play E6- that was my temporary solution until I could rip the system apart and put it back together again (which I'm still in the process of).

-Idle

Kirth; what effect did you find changing Detect Magic's range to "touch" have? I'm considering doing this myself.

-Idle

Bettie Page? :)

Actually that is a perfect description. Thank you!

-Idle

Lindisty wrote:

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:

Just in case my humor might have been taken as dismissive or head-patting (in this instance), let me assure you it was not.

I recognize that you didn't intend it that way, but it certainly did come across that way to me.

That's because you have a feat spent for Skill Focus (Perception) to arrive to that conclusion when you took on the Inquisitor class to pronounce your judgment.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

I failed my save and fell for this post. I admit it.

On a lighter note; I kind of like the variety in cheesecake offered in Paizo products. The characters don't even have to be partially nude to evoke the cheesecake stereotypes. It's less Boris Vallejo and more... you know I don't have a followup for that.

-Idle

I don't buy the 'always relevant, whether it's appropriate or not' explanation, either, for what it's worth. Or at least, I don't think that a woman's sexuality is any MORE relevant to any given artistic context than a man's sexuality is. Human beings are human beings, and sexuality is part of all of us. Having sexuality emphasized so dramatically and consistently in art, and especially in ways that make the subject appear passive, is something that happens predominantly to women. If a male character's sexuality wouldn't be considered relevant in a particular artistic context, why would a female character's sexuality be relevant in that same context?

I'm sure this has been brought up before; but given the majority of the target audience that cheesecake art appears in is adolescent males. I'm not saying the end justifies the means; but it's not exactly as if it's not smart business.

Again, I'm sure you've heard/read that before; but I'm wondering what your take on that position is? Consider this curiosity and not a "challenge".

-Idle

To the original point; Cheesecake are was defined pretty well by Lindisty.
I also find nothing wrong it it, personally.

I don't see what the big deal is. A person liking cheesecake art certainly isn't causing the decline of western civilization.

-Idle

I think you are missing the fact that IdleMind is saying that fellow players, not the DM, are allowed to arbitrate what you can and can't do with your character.

You simplify down an argument down to a half-truth in order to support your tunnel vision. From what I'm gathering, this is an "as usual" proposition. Refrain from outright lying when you misinterpret my position; please.

Again, if you wish to disagree and debate, start a new thread.

-Idle

IdleMind wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

Except the group isn't the arbiter. The DM is.

In a fantasy-land where RAW is the only rule, and human nature and other relevant factors never come into play; yes the DM is the arbiter.

-Idle

Apparently you play some sort of fantasy D&D where the DM is just another player instead of the guy in charge.

If you wish to continue this argument; go ahead and and start a new thread. We've sidetracked this one enough .If you do not wish to do so; my final response is "lol".

-Idle

Except the group isn't the arbiter. The DM is.

In a fantasy-land where RAW is the only rule, and human nature and other relevant factors never come into play; yes the DM is the arbiter.

-Idle