Jack ShortCandle's page

Greetings,

It's really a nice idea. And, honestly, not so hard to use it (will not make the game slow down).

Greetings,

The wizards, besides their high intelligence value, do not have many skill points. The barbarians are not the "clever" ones, and they usually focus their skill points in survival and other wisdom based skills (like perception). So, there's a lack of roles in your party. You have the muscles, and the spells, what about a street smart? Or a diplomat character? Or a sneak and peek style?

If I were you, i'll think about this options:

Rogue:

Yeah, lots and lots of skill points. Very versatile class, and very useful too. And are not so bad at all at combats. But... unfortunately, no spells.

Cleric:

Heal and a bunch of useful support spells. Are also acceptable warriors. But you'll have the same issue of the other two ones, lack of skills.

Bard:

Can heal a little bit, can fight a little bit, and has a good set of skills. It's quite versatile, but quite fragile too. Think about it.

Inquisitors... maybe. I'm not quite familiarized with them.

Greetings,

I thing that you're not considering a bunch of things.

First, I'd like to think the character creation as a blanket of fixed size (the adventure character creation points). With this limited blanked, you pull it the way you with to, trying to cover the parts (roles), that you wish for your character. For eg, if your character focus all of his skills, attributes and feats on defensive combat, it's quite probable that your character will be "weaker" in other aspects. That's the idea of roles in parties.

And, even with 21 AC, you can be outmatched by mind-effect speels, combat manovers, etc. So, you're not getting the big picture.

Personally, I rather versatile character. Even if they don't become the better of any role (combat, spell, skill, etc), they are reasonable with many of this roles (and make the game much funnier to me).

You don't need to be a "godly" Paladin.

Your paladin, even been a character full of values and codes, still it's a human (or an elf, or an orc, or dwarf...). I mean, it's still passive of the flaws and desires and feelings of a human.

All the man has it's weakness.

egg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Soth

"Human" character are funny to play.

1) Sure, I think this "advanced combat" must be implemented gradually. Let the player take the initiative to use new tactics, and then explain the rule.

2) Year, it's not a "nice" task, but sometimes seems really necessary.

3) I've never played the Published Adventures, usually I use scenarios ,like Dragonlance or Ravenloft, or creating the own world. But now I'm getting old (college, work... ) and it's becoming harder and harder.

4) Agreed with Laurefindel. Less players will make the few ones to interact more with the NPC's and the plot. On large groups, usually each player take it row on the campaign, like the Fighter just combat, and the thief do the talking, it's hard to conciliate all this flavors. In small groups, i believe that is possible to make something extremely on demand, easier to conciliate the two or the players flavors. The few actions for 2 class habilities looks like an interesting challenge.

MurphysParadox,

Thank your for the hints.

1) I think I've expressed myself badly, by limiting the skills i mean: Not use secondary skills usages, like feint with bluff, or provoke with intimidate. It's not forbidden to use this abilities, but just avoid teach all of them, it make the game more complex and slow.

2) The talk with the troublemaker already happens, and it had little effect, we're gradually obtaining "success". Breaks are a nice idea, and can be helpful.

3) "so the GM doesn't get burned out making up stories and worlds and maps and monsters and plots."

Heheh, this happens a lot.

4) I've never heard about this gestalt characters before, but seems a nice idea. This'll make the few character more self-sufficient.

Thank you a lot.

Everything that was written in this topic will be carefully.

Att

Laurefindel,

That's really a great point of view.

I'll try it this weekend.

Thanks! Really appreciated.

Greetings,

Remembering that the rules are just a model that you can personalize.

I see a paladin as a champion(a follower) of a principle/deity. The standard Paladin is the good-old-fashion-knight, but it's a little limited after a few adventures.

As GM, I Allow to play with Paladin (or Anti-Paladin, what does apply better) in any align. But, the PC must have a strict code of honor, or ideal, or principles. So, even with other aligns, it's a character that follow some kind of code.

I usually create my characters with low constitution score. I particularly think that a low-value constitution can be bypassed with high AC or high Fortitude. Good tactics in combat also reduce the amount of damage you'll take in combat.

Also, for me intelligence it's very important, and usually is high even with non-intelligence casters. High INT make the character more versatile.

There's no need for phobia in low values. Think it like a trade off. 10 is the average. Usually we're not average at all.

Don't see the low score characters as handicapped, but as specialized ones.

Greetings Everyone,

I would like to ask you for a few hints based on your on experiences on GMing and playing.

For a better understanding:

We're from Brazil, then:
- It's hard to find players at all.(There're few players here)
- It's really hard to find "good" players (good = interested in devoting to the games, come to the sessions, read the rules, follow the campaign, etc)
- Most of players "knows" English, but hardly knows well enough to follow understand the Pathfinder rules, spells, etc. Who has a better English understanding has to "teach" who hasn't, this create a "overhead" during the sessions, especially on combat.

There're only to skilled(experienced) players, me (Who actually is not the Game Master, but it's considering) and the other one, who is the actual GM and it's "suffering" (it's a little frustrating for him, create all the world, the plot, the NPCs, prepare sheets...). There are 3-4 friends, neighbors, most of them really beginners.

Well, now that you got the context, let'me show the issues and how we're dealing with:

1) Issues with rule understanding:
- Limiting the content only to the CRB.
- Using more "powerful" characters (25 points).
- We're printing little summaries of the rules, actions, movements, attacks...
- Avoid using skilled monsters and skills usage.

2) Issues with player concentration and attention.
Sometimes (the real problem is, this happens a lot) the players get distracted or talk off game excessively. There are a lot of unnecessary jokes too, this "breaks the mood".
-We encouraging PC to pay attention giving extra EXP for important campaign relevant discoveries and side quests solutions.
-There's only allowed to talk "in-game" (this is really hard to apply).
-Punishing unnecessary jokes or jokes that are not funny at all. (Because we're having to much trouble with some players "bullying" others).

3) Sandbox vs Rails Campaign:
This is actually our main discussion (between me and the GM). He GMing style is extremely Sandbox(but I particularly argue that the adventure must start in rails, and them gradually turn into a sandbox). The last adventures results in all PC get killed by NPC, or killing each other. On his adventure, I usually play as a "pivot".

4) Adventures with 1GM and 1 or 2?
I've grown up playing in adventures with 4 or more players (usually 6, in AD&D and D&D3.0). During many years I've not played, and a few months ago I start again with the pathfinder. So, I would like to ask, what do you think about few-players adventures?

Thanks for the support, I'm really interested in another points of view.

Att,

Jack ShortCandle.