Lefric's page

23 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


Sean Mahoney wrote:
Lefric wrote:
The AP's, OTOH, seem to do that ALOT. I left the Savage Tide campaign my group was running, for example, becuase I find it to be the most railroading plot I have ever seen. "Go to A. Kill X. Go to B. Solve puzzle M. Then, Kill Y. Go to C. Solve puzzle N, which is only solved by killing Z." There is no roleplaying involved. You simply move from one interchangeable fighting encounter to another of the same type. BORING - and terribly railroading. I expect better of Paizo's writers, and was terribly disappointed.

I am curious Lefric, did you read the adventures or was this your experience as a player only? I ask because what you describe of STAP is not what I have seen myself. I am wondering how much of what you are describing was poor DM presentation of the adventures rather than poor adventures.

I know that I have played with other players who HATE any pre-published adventure as they find them flat, boring and restrictive (unless I didn't tell him I was running a pre-published adventure, then it was the best adventure ever). I have also played under DM's who just couldn't bring the pre-published adventure to life at all for those of us playing and they did feel very much as you described (two side notes: 1) later reading the adventures I was able to see how great they could have been 2) the flat pre-published adventure was a step up from this guys literally random adventure design).

I guess my point is that in my experience the whole railroading thing seems to have far more to do with the DM than it does the adventure, pre-published or not.

Sean Mahoney

My experience with Savage Tide is solely as a player. I haven't read the AP as I don't enjoy the AP's enough to subscribr to Pathfinder, but I will admit that the DM's inablilty to bring the adventure to life may be a large part of the problem. There were several examples of bad role playing in the campaign - whatever the pirate queen's name was? We killed her, only finding out later she was supposed to help us. Why my wizard and my buddy's rouge/fighter felt that "We will kill your employer _AND ALL HER FAMILY_" was evil and left us no option other than to fight. Funny that. That screwed up the whole plotline as the DM simply dropped the plotline rather than retrofit.

Heh. One example of a time when a little railroading would have been good, me thinks.

Gamer Girrl wrote:

That sounds like you had a lot of fun, M :)

I've found many of the "accusations" of railroading in the APs to be curious. My own opinion of railroading is when the GM, regardless of the players actions or stated doings, progresses with his plot, and we, the players are just along for the ride. (Been there, done that, with four separate GMs over the years ;p Some worse than others)

Maybe my group is different, but we go into a campaign, specifically the first three APs, with notes from the GM on what is expected of us as characters and players. We design our characters for the AP based on the notes ... in my Crimson Throne campaign, I asked the players to be long term citizens of Korvosa, if not natives. My players complied beautifully, and not only worked up backgrounds but gave me families and friends to play around with <eg>.

They have their own lives (a Sable Marine, Apothecary with a family owned shop and priestess of Shelyn all have things outside the adventure to be worried about) that they deal with but also have a desire to protect "home" ...

I realize there are certain presumptions made in the APs, but all games have those ... if you, as player, are not going to bite at the plot hooks presented, why are you there? That's the point when a talk between players and GM needs to happen, to find out what folks are looking for in the game.

Just some random thoughts.

First, I want to say that I agree with most of what your're saying, and I'm in large part playing devils advocate in making this argument. So....

The fact that you make the players sync their back stories, and more importantly, give them fixed things to have as a part of their background, is railroading in every sense of the term.

OTOH, When I DM, I have a plot in mind, nothing more. I have encounters that will happen. How the players arrive at those is completely up to the ideas they come up with - and me to work those encounters in. As long as you know your players, you don't ever have to railroad.

The AP's, OTOH, seem to do that ALOT. I left the Savage Tide campaign my group was running, for example, becuase I find it to be the most railroading plot I have ever seen. "Go to A. Kill X. Go to B. Solve puzzle M. Then, Kill Y. Go to C. Solve puzzle N, which is only solved by killing Z." There is no roleplaying involved. You simply move from one interchangeable fighting encounter to another of the same type. BORING - and terribly railroading. I expect better of Paizo's writers, and was terribly disappointed.

Zuxius wrote:
Tharen the Damned wrote:

So what does WoC make superior to other publishers?

I think it is the hardboundness of their books. Hardbound lasts longer and protects what is inside, eh, better. I want a book that lasts. If the book is soft then it won't last long. That is why WotC creates superior books. They are made good.

I went to college too.

I hope your kidding. Seriously.

WOTC's all hard-cover policy was a strike against them before 4.0. Now, Every splat book / campaign book / rules expansion out there is a $35 (or more) hardcover.

I can't afford to pay that much for 2 pages of content I actually want to use.

Fine, I'll admit hardcovers last longer. So why doesn't WOTC follow the example of EVERY OTHER PUBLISHER OUT THERE and publuish a soft cover 6 months to a year after they publish the hard cover?

Oh, right. WOTC is all about gaming their way, and if your way isn't their way, your not playing right.

Abraham spalding wrote:
Lefric wrote:

Mages have plenty of buff spells in the status quo, Mac. Mage armor + shield and an average dex along will get that low level wizards AC up to 20 or so. Start throwing in magical toys, couple with the buff spells that continue to improve (if only marginally so), and, well... light armor just doesn't stack with most wizard buff spells, so the wizard shouldn't need it.

And it the wizard is getting mangled, the Player has already screwed up anyway, IMO.

Or, OTOH, he's a wizard and deserves to die. :)-

Here's the thing: You don't grab armor for the AC bonus, you grab it for all those nice little abilities it can give you:

Heavy Fortification for example, or an armor crystal (if you use MiC).

Also it depends a little on what type of character you're playing, a Gish might prefer armor so he can save his spell slots (few spells actually affect touch AC so on that front armor and spells are about even).

1) What the heck is a gish?

2) if the wizard needs to rely on heavy fortification, or needs to use an armor crystal, I repeat: He has already screwed up.

3) many of the armor spells are better than armor as they apply to touch AC. Thus, armor spells are in many ways superior, seeing as how the wizard is more likely to be hit by an orb of acid spell than a great sword.

Mages have plenty of buff spells in the status quo, Mac. Mage armor + shield and an average dex along will get that low level wizards AC up to 20 or so. Start throwing in magical toys, couple with the buff spells that continue to improve (if only marginally so), and, well... light armor just doesn't stack with most wizard buff spells, so the wizard shouldn't need it.

And it the wizard is getting mangled, the Player has already screwed up anyway, IMO.

Or, OTOH, he's a wizard and deserves to die. :)-

David Fryer wrote:
Honestly, I have pretty much outlawed the leadership feat from my campaign. My players are such number monkeys that there is no way that they could be stopped from ruining the play balance. However, if I were to allow them, they would either be spear carriers or they would lay back and guard the character's base of operations. By the time that players reach the point where they can start getting followers and cohorts they should be settling down and setting up shop somewhere. They will need someone to keep the lights on and the fire going while they are gone.

This has been my experience as well, but even more so. In my expereience, it is simply better to have a player play a second character. The cohort is always a couple levels behind, and therefore unless they are a pure heal-bot, arn't up to snuff for what the party is fighting; this is espically true for fighters and rogues. In fact, a rogue cohort I had was the worst. She really, really needed the two levels of skills, AC, and BAB to be anything other than a target.

Further, there is the issue of jealousy, especially if your players are immature. I once had a cleric that I took as a cohort simply because the party needed a healer. When I pointed out that it was unfair to expect me to pay for him / equip him totally out of my share of the loot, I got yelled at by a couple people. When I pointed out that I nerfed my own char. to do so (using a feet, giving him part of my share, etc.) - for the good of the party - those same players looked at me as I was speaking to them in Klingon.

As a result of these two situations, I now never take the leadership feat (even if I can) when plaaying, and have banned it from games I GM. It is much simpler to just have people play two PC's. rather than having one player with two nerfed chars, neither of which are what they could be without this feat.

And as for followers.... They are known as "targets." what good are they in a campaign when the party is 7th level or more? "Yeah, I have these 8 people who follow me around. All they do is get in the way when we fight, becuase they simply can't stand up to what we're fighting these days without getting killed. I try to tell them to go home, but they just follow me around. And then they expect me to pay them! Sheesh."

An even more broken part of a broken feet. Even when I allowed the feat, I did away with followers.

Wait, let me get this straight:

We're worried about turning a game about violence, carnage, and combat into something more friendly toward the family?

We're worried that the parent might not want to introduce eight - year old Timmy to D&D becuase of the concept of half-orcs being born of rape?

I cry Bravo Sierra. Big time.

It's like the old South Park on Ninja skills. We can do a whole episode about putting a throwing star into a kid's eye, but we show his naked animated butt walking across the screen, and that gets edited? Uh-huh. Priorities

Never mind, as some posters have suggested, that you need not even tell little Timmy where half-orc come from, but only that he is big and strong like Mr. Worf. The fact that you are teaching an eight year oldf to play a battle-focused RPG means that if he can handle the violence, he can probably handle a half-orc. If he can't handle one or the other, he isn't mature enought to play anything by My Littl Pony the RPG anyway.

1) Babylon 5
2) Trek: TOS
3) the original Battlestar Galactica (the new one has become a POS)
4) Firefly
5) Buffy / Angel

Matthew Morris wrote:

That was one interesting thing about Hollowfaust. The fluff pointed out that a level 1 Hollowfaust necromancer was about 13.

A friend wanted to run with that, a little Melissa-Gilbert-as-Laura-Ingles character with a gingham dress, pigtails, a Hollowfaust hat and a skeletal cat familiar.

Dude. That is creepy. Creepy with a capital C. :)

OK, I hafta say it, but I hated "The Matrix."

I mean, come on! 1) Why do robots care about pollution enough to use PEOPLE as a power source? Build lots of really polluting nuke or fossil fuel plants! They won't suffer from a bad environment! 2) Assuming they do, why do they give a flying leap about keeping us happy? We're vegetables! Hook up an IV and you're good to go! 3) Woah! KEANU CAN'T ACT!!!!

Truly, that was the most pretentios pile of dragon doo-doo I've ever seen (I never saw the second and third, simply 'cuz the first was SO BAD!)

(And I also agree with the Dark Knight comments from back at the top.)

YOu totally made the right call. Were the paladin playing in any group I run, or any group I play wiht, fot that matter, he would have been gone long ago. Such childish behavior is uncalled for. If, as your last post says, other people have had to get up and walk away to avoid ripping him a new one _repeatedly_, he needs to go. He's just killing it for everyone else, IMHO.

Bellona wrote:

I don't mind the boots and other stuff, but if it's a re-imagining, they could have at least replaced the miniskirts with something more practical. <sighs>

As I understand, the storyline involves young Kirk during his cadet stage of life. But according to canon, if I recall correctly, Kirk first met Spock during the first episode of the Original Series. (The one where the Enterprise broke through some sort of galactic boundary and two important crew members - including Kirk's original BFF - got crazy god-powers.)

Nonetheless, I am looking forward to the movie.

You recall incorrectly. In "Where No Man Has Gone Before" Spock was already Kirk's science officer. He became XO after the other guy (Gary Powers? Name slips my mind) ascends to godhood and dies.

Dragonborn3 wrote:

after reading the post about the r dogs i came up with my character for

the crimson throne room campiagn. His name is Cephalus and his dog's is
Lelaeps (both are names from greek mythology) and the dog works better
with this concept than a wolf. The only qeustion i have is should Cephalus be human or half-orc?

That really depends on what you want him to do. If you plan on going into melee (not in wildshape form) the strength is where its at. But if you plan to have him be a summoner or ranged caster (love the splinterbolt!), the extra feat is very nice - esp. to pick up, say, augment summoning as well as one of the healing spell buffers at level one.

My advice is to figure out what type of druid yo want to play and spec accordingly. Druid's versatilty is also their weakness. They can do everything - but shouldn't. Pick something for him to be good at, and go with it.

Stewart Perkins wrote:
So overwhelming like for the most part? I have the d20 stuff except for Saga, and while I kind of like it it's just too D&D feeling for me. We have been talking about making the setting from scratch using Mutants and Masterminds though, that would definately put all characters at an equal balance as far as overall strength (we're thinking prepackages as the only "restriction" )

Yes, Def. overwhelming. D6 might be the best _role-playing_ system I've ever seen. The lack of classes gets rid of the desire to level up, and focuses on story telling.

Just don't expect to do much starship combat - the rules for that are far, far too dice intensive.

But for character scale - even with jedi (where the systen again gets clunky with the number of dice) - it rocks. I just wish I could get my current group to give it a shot.

crosswiredmind wrote:
veector wrote:
I think he specifically says "Why do you come here?" or in other words, "What value do you get out of coming here when it has been shown that Paizo does not support products you are interested in?"
That is not how it reads to me at all. BTW - Paizo does support 4e. They sell the game and they provide a forum for people to talk about it. They also sell some awesome accessories that I use in my own 4e game. Just because they do not publish 4e material does not mean that they do not support it.

Well, that is exactly what I meant. Paizo may do some 4E products. Fine. But if coming to this forum ticks you off, and gets you to either 1) rant on something that makes you mad, or 2) respond to a rant that raises your blood pressure, then why do you do it?

CWM, you seem to be the biggest 4E supporter on these boards. Fine. You like 4E; I am ambivalent about it at best. As for me, I come here to watch the flame wars - they amuse me in a black humor sort of way.

But you seem to need to defned 4E all the time, knowing that most of the posters here seem to disagree with you, and knowing that Paizo is 3.0 company. And you also seem to feel the need to get upset when people who arn't pro 4E are suprised that you are upset about that fact.

I know my logic is a bit specious, but consider this: People who are leaving forums becuse of one companies stance, or percieved stance, are missing the point. The gaming hobby is not benefitting from the "version wars." I have had people walk away from tables I have been playing at over such percieved slights. In short, why? IT'S A GAME, PEOPLE! But we continue to go to places and quarrel over such things. So CWM, and other pro 4E people, if coming here gets you ticked off, then why do it?

So if that is saying go away, fine. If you want to take it that way, that's your perogative. But what I am actually saying it don't get so worked up over something, and hurt the hobby as a whole. Let's just play whatever game we enjoy and quit worrying about it.

The solution to all this is simple. STOP ARGUING

If you get so offended that people would trash 4E, why are you coming to this site?

Yes, Paizo has bent over backward to appear fair and keep these boards civilized.

Yes, they have done more than enough to appear edition neutral.

And, in principal, they are totally neutral.

But folks, they started their own game using the 3.5 rule set. That makes them what they are, and nothing more. So - take it or leave it - they are anti 4.0 - simply by the fact that they have a well known (prolly the most well known) and much played system that isn't 4.0.

If you are a 4e fanboy, knowing that, why do you come here?

It's like the old joke: A man goes to the doctor and says "Doctor, it hurts when I do this!" The doctor replies, "So then don't do it!"

And to all the hawks of both editions - back off! It's a game! When I went to GENCON, the big thing I and my friends were wondering about is this: Is 4.0 and the permanenent fracture the edition wars have caused good or bad for the hobby? 3.0 and the OGL made lots of sub-games using the OGL rule set. But was that good? I don't know.

Now, in a post 3.0/3.5 world, other systems are re-emerging / emerging. Again, is this good? Before, if you rp'd, you probably knew D20 and could drop into whatever game was being played, regardless of genre, because everything used the same rule set.

This isn't true anymore. Again, good or bad - whose to say?

The only thing I can say for certain is that we are all gamers. Back off the editon wars and GAME ON!

*steps off soap box*

Antioch wrote:
Andreas Skye wrote:
Antioch wrote:
The bard is a problem class in this instance. Sure, you can cure...eventually...and crappily. You can also fight...crappily. Is there anything the bard can do well? Sure: roll ridiculously high Diplomacy DCs.

And that can just save the day in more than a few campaigns... convincing a bunch of Riders of Rohan to go lift a siege anyone? Seducing the jailer?

If you see the game as (mostly) a series of dungeon/wilderness forays, bards are a bit on the down side. If you play a complicated overarching campaign which includes negotiation, alliances and espionage, the "4 core classes" (thinking of a rogue concentrating on sneaking and trapbreaking) are going to be in deep trouble if they restrict their development to their standard roles. Of course, that's a matter of diversity in DM / published module creativity. But some systems do encourage combat powers and others are more diverse in letting you have fun with any role... I remember one of my players who player a morbid physician, with Expert (Scholar) levels and little Fighter/Rogue skills... He was ok with a crossbow and nice at non-magical healing and many lores (plus intimidate!), but, more than any other thing he was fun to have in the party:

[Mother with baby afflicted by mutating disease]
Mom: Can you help him?
PC [Rolls Profession-Physician to diagnose, good success]: "My advice, burn it quick, if you don't mind."

Damn, he was a load in most fights, but priceless for role-play!

Everything you mention can be done by another class, virtually as well as the bard. A cleric or paladin with ramped up Diplomacy for starters, can tackle the pretty tame skill DCs, and anyone can have a character with a fun personality and quirks.

Basically, the bard sucks. Fortunately, I suppose, its not alone: many classes are designed with a purpose in theory but fail to execute properly. That doesnt make them good for social roleplay: it puts them on par with every other class for RP potential,...

Yah know, I'm getting really fracking sick of people badmouthing bards. I'm also getting sick of people who think "every char. has to be able to hurt the bad guys every round in combat, or the char. sucks!"

That is a very juvenile attitude, IMO. Look at real life. Does the electrician have to able to work on a construction project every day, from start to finish, to be useful? Of course not. He is needed when he is needed, and not when their is plumbing to be done, etc.

Now, OTOH, the bard is a handyman, IMO He is pretty good at a lot of things. He can fix the leaky sink, or re-wire the kitchen light, etc. Could he re-wire a house? Probably not. But that's not his job. But he could fill in for the plumber, and is a great assitant.

Now lets look at the bard, who is, rightfully, a jack of all trades and a master of none. Can he fight like a fighter? No, but he can fight. Can he heal like a cleric? Again, no, but he can. My bard was able to fill in for the cleric when he was absent, and the rouge when he was absent. He was even a credible archer, since he had a good dex. Add in the spell casting, the buffs of bardic signing, and the fact that he was so charismatic, he dominated non-combat encounters.... 'Nuff said.

Please don't say my bard sucks. Just because YMMV doesn't make it universally true. And for you to tell me that I can't is just plain offensive. This attitude is more than anything else why I'm anti 4-E. Wizards, or anyone else, telling me how to play MY game....? I think not.

xredjasonx wrote:
Razz wrote:
I don't understand why they are going backwards with D&D.

Razz, I said it months ago that the anti 4th Edition people are just a vocal minority and that Paizo might be making a mistake with the Pathfinder RPG as opposed to embracing and moving on with 4E. They did it to appease people like you as they were afraid of losing business. They still may be hanging on to their core customer base, which is fine. But it's just a drop in the bucket compared to 4E.

Looking now (and thinking about all your inane posts), at the fact the the 4th Edition Core Rule Book gift set is the #3 best seller on Amazon and the #1 best seller on the Canadian Amazon, all I can do is smile.

I have to disagree, sir (and lose the personal attacks as well). Of the dozen + gamers that I play with regularly in three campaigns, the only one I know who is switching AT ALL to 4.0 is doing so becuase he runs a game at a FLGS, and the owner asked him to (to keep bringing in the floor traffic). As it is, he doesn't really like the 4.0 rules, but will use them for that game.

As to the others, I know one of us pre-ordered the 4.0 rules, but has since been shouted down, as the rest of us rage from mildly to rabidly anti-4.0. I myself have seen the PDF's, and while they look nice, all seeing them has done is reinforce the idea that while 4.0 _maybe_ a good game, it is not for me, and really isn't even D&D. As one of my friends said, "They should have simply called it '4.0' and not D&D," or done something like the D&D / AD&D switch from when I was a kid.

In short, I know of three (mild) fence sitters leaning to 3.5 and eleven pro 3.5 people. No one is rabidly 4.0 around here.

I think a lot of people ordered the books simply to have them - even if they have no intent of switching to the game. Or perhaps they are on the fence and don't care, but want the books before deciding - or simply are preoderding them becuase they are collectors of anything labeled D&D (as I know some of us are).

However, that being said. Razz... I agree with the poster who said to let it go. I've seen the books, and I agree - they're not all that great, at least beyond the artwork (I won't discuss the system ;) ). Keep your blood pressure down and go play 3P. You'll be happier in the long run.

David Marks wrote:
I guess I'm the only one who watches South Park here. :P

Nope. I got it and found it funny. :)

First of all, I do agree with the OP, for the most part. Where the logic of this thread breaks down, however, is that while WOTc /Paizo do need to atract new players, that attraction does not have to come at the expense of turning off older players.

The two are not mutually exclusive, and Hasbro (I no longer blame WOTC) seems to believe that they are - at least in terms of the D&D market.

Yes, but there is a difference. They assume that a wizard, for example, is/has to be a striker - and that is the only "role" a wizard can fill.

That's complete and utter Bravo Sierra.

One of my good friends likes to play transumters. His favorite trick, when of a high enough level, is to polymorph into a troll, enlarge himself, maybe pick up a buls strength or other such buff, and wade into melee.

Hardly a striker. Or even a controller, for that matter.

The problem is that they assume certain classes will perform certain roles. Yes, you are right that the roles have always been there. The problem is that they are now forcing people, [i]whatever their class,[i]into fulflling a cartain role, and only that role, in the party.

Maybe that's why bards and druids are gone. They are too good at going "cross-role," so to speak - and bust this silly role stuff wide open.

I love how they assume every party *has* to have a cleric. And since when does a party have to have certain roles filled by certain people?" Why can't the bard be the leader? Or the wizard? Of all the silly 4E stuff, the concept of roles alternatly amuses me and irritates me the most.

As a player, the party I am currently playing in has none (ok, we do have a druid, but he too chaotic to heal), and the campaign I am GM'ing, the cleric is rather martial and only heals the survivors. In other words, their are a few more healing potions given out, and wands of CLW are worth alot.

I suppose I shouldn't be amused anymore at how WOTC bigwigs still assume that the way they play the game is the only way to play the game, but I still am......

If you care about the special abilities, then you're out of luck, I'm afraid. But if it's all about the RP, just play a fighter who "acts" like a paladin. Too many people make characters about their powers - especially paladins. It's the _mindset_ that matters. One of my best characters ever was a dwarven battle priest (of Clangeddin Silverbeard in FR, FYI). I played him like a paladin, but we needed he pure healing ability of a cleric - hence, a very martial cleric. A paladin is just another side of the same coin.
This is similar to my objection to the asassin class. Asassin is a trade & mindest, not a class. Asassin "A" kills by poisoning your drink. Asassin "B" kills you by shooting you with a sniper rifle, and asassin "C" beats your brains in with a crowbar. All three asassin's have killed you....
Same way with paladins/fighters. Just play your fighter as a relgious zealout who wants to share his new found faith after his conversion experience. From an RP'ing point of view, that should be no less satisfying.