|
Makarnak's page
266 posts. 1 review. No lists. 1 wishlist.
|
I sent this to customer.service, but I felt the need to express it in a more public forum as well. I hope that's appropriate, and that this is the appropriate place:
Dear Paizo:
I just wanted to thank you for some recent exceptional actions, and express my positive support for them.
First, the packing of Ultimate Magic was a welcome change. The secure and protected corners kept it from a fate that seems to strike some of the hard backs that I received (notably the Bestiary 2). The addition of this packing was a wonderful example of Paizo as a company responding to its customers. Thank you.
Also, the addition of the PDFs to the maps and map subscription is incredibly useful. While I like playing with my group in person, I usually must do it from across the state. PDFs make setting up random encounters and off-the cuff situations easy to do on VTT programs. Thank you.
Please keep up the good work, and thank you for the good work already kept up!
--M
Ok, I'll clarify. I've been reading posts about verisimilitude, posts about intrusion into theme and posts about anachronisms with flintlocks and Western-style abilities.
I'll say this, looking at the rules as they stand for the firearm, I'm surprisingly pleased by the result. I could take exception to a few things, but really in the end, it's a way to simulate fantasy firearms fairly well.
I had some experience designing musket rules for a fantasy Napoleonic 3.5E game I dreamed up. I wanted to make them impressive enough that they would be a useable weapon, realistic enough that you could nod towards realism but still jump towards heroic adventure stories, and playable enough that players wouldn't complain about them in the context of the game. It was a gold-plated pain in the a** to do it right, and I had to do it with a ton of optional rules from Unearthed Arcana and Star Wars. In the end, I achieved a semi-functional result that satisfied my desire for realism balanced with some playability. People fired and then switched to bayonets when things got too close.
What people didn't enjoy was spending five rounds reloading their guns when the guns were their primary weapons. And they were trained to reload faster with feats and class abilities.
So, onto what I do like in the gun rules. I like the fact that they're expensive to purchase/own. This makes them rare and pursued by only the folks that want to play that type of character. There is a very real fear that firearms would change the landscape of combat for D&D characters. That fear is real because firearms DID change the landscape of combat very dramatically. But by keeping the cost excessive, that fear becomes less important.
I would also think that they would be hard to sell for any price. After all, they require expensive ammunition, they're a new technology, an unknown quantity. If someone came up and offered you a bazooka, but you only had to pay half the asking price for it, aside from the novelty, would it be worth it to purchase, especially at that price? A bazooka is just a tube without a rocket. Especially since there are easier to use weapons that do just about the same thing readily available... (ok, so the bazooka isn't the best analogy, but still...) Will some characters use it anyways, with the price tag, sure! A pistol tucked into a belt is a classic element. Will it replace the longbow? Probably not. Which is as it should be. Otherwise
That aside, the rules give them something exceptional. Yes, you can hit a touch attack every round. Yes, the Tarrasque will be shot every round, with its touch AC of 5. Magic missile hits every time. You don't even need a roll! At first level!
And if you spend a few feats, you can perform full attacks with a musket. IRL, with a musket, three rounds a minute was impressive. A skilled gunslinger can reload six times or more! (Rapid Reload, Lightning Reload Deed, Signature Deed (Lightning Reload) and enough iterative attacks to make it worth their while). Even with revolvers, this ability doesn't get THAT out of hand. Especially since a revolver takes a heckuva lot longer to reload than a single barrel. Though the Lightning reload might need to be reworded or limited in that case, but not really. It's an 11th level minimum ability.
The archer in my game deals out heavy damage with deadly aim, and the same could apply to Gunslingers, so I see nothing that isn't comparable except for a bump in the price. Come to think of it, a masterwork composite strength bow probably cashes in around 1,000 gp, so the cost isn't that prohibitive, especially added to masterwork arrows. A +1 arrow is roughly 40gp. Is a +1 bonus worth touch attacks at close range? It's apparently worth around 1/4 of that.
Yes, lead balls should be cheaper, but again, maybe it's a limitation of the fantasy firearms. It works both ways. If you want to reload quicker, then you need to have better ammunition. Or, think about this one, if you want, you can buy the ammo cheap, but then spend ten rounds reloading.
As for the targeted shots, trick shots and extra fun things, those give a bit of fun abilities that cancels out the cost and action penalties that a gunslinger suffers from with the firearms.
The more I look, the more I see that the gunslinger is more than just a damage dealer. The limited amount of grit (since it's based on WIS, but not level), balances out some of the exceptional things they can do.
If anyone in my group is reading this, skip the next part:
I do think that folks need to be reminded of the caveat that if you don't want it in your game, you don't have to have it in your game. Same goes for Ninjas, Monks, Rangers, Paladins, Fighters, Dragons, Longswords, Gold Pieces or that annoying guy that always eats anything that isn't behind a lock.
In the end, PF and D&D are cinematic games. We don't roll for infections, organ damage, broken bow strings or stubbed toes. Firearms misfire because it's cinematic for them to do so. They pierce armor because they function differently to give them a different feel. In the end, hit points represent luck, and not actual wounds, and firearms are just as abstract. Long may it be so. If I want wounds, I'll play a different game. If I want long reloading times, I'd probably play a different game.
Just my 2cp. Thanks.
OK, I'm a little confused as to how or why this was moved to the General Discussion. Thanks.
So, I was plotting out my Oracle of Flame's revelations, and I noticed that Fly is not a class skill of the Flame Oracle (who can take Wings of Fire as early as 7th Level). All the other winged Oracles receive fly as a class skill(wind, heavens, etc.), and the Nature Oracle (which doesn't seem to have a flying ability other than the 8th level spell animal shapes) has fly as well.
Why doesn't the Oracle of Flame have fly as a class skill?
Does having this revelation count as having a natural fly skill allowing them to treat it as a class skill?
Should they have the Fly skill?
Thanks.
Ok, this is a long post, but as a DM I feel like I'm butting heads with one or more of my players. It's frustrating and a bit awkward, with both sides making passive aggressive comments, and the nature of the campaign (Council of Thieves) makes it even more difficult.
I've been gaming off and on for over twenty years now, and being a DM most of that time. When I moved away from a long time gaming group in 2001, I stopped playing for a while. Thanks to the advent of a little thing known as the internet and the magic of webcams (and now virtual table tops), I was able to rejoin my old group first as a player, and then, when the current DM became too busy with school and work, as the DM. I was just happy to be able to hang out with my good friends once per week and do something I enjoy.
Now, all of that's well and good, and I'm fairly certain there's no real out-of-game tension. There are four players in the group.
Here's what's grating on me, and causing friction with players:
1) I have someone who's walking very close to the line of being dead weight, especially on the roleplaying (as opposed to 'roll' playing) side of things. If it's not listed on his character sheet, he can't seem to come up with anything to pursue/do. He made a halfling druid (min-maxing strength, so that when he hit wild shape he could make the difference, despite my warning about how everything changed in PF), and then, hitting 4th level, decided that his character sucked (because of the change I warned him about) and so changed his character. Eager to get him to DO something, I let him change. Now he's an archer, and every problem looks like an archery target. Sigh. I've tried to get him to talk and interact with NPCs--flirty ones, angry ones, helpful ones and more, but to no avail. When everyone is out checking with contacts or interacting with the characters, he's doing 'nothing' yet again. Other players are even trying to draw him in, if even for a moment, but it doesn't seem to be working.
2) One of the players, who is usually (and is now) the nominal leader of the party, and usually the most helpful person in the group, has taken in it in his head to irritate and conflict with nearly every single NPC. If the NPCs don't bow and scrape and sit quietly and don't ask for a share of the treasure, they might be OK. This is a real problem in that the adventure hooks come from NPCs. And those NPCs aren't usually the most likeable characters (Robahl, anyone?).
And while I don't necessarily believe in the 'wake-up-the-dragon-so-it-can-be-a-fair-fight' paladin, he's probably the most lying, cheating, unhelpful paladin that I've ever seen. It's not that he's committing evil acts, and his unlawful acts might be justified, and are juuuust this side of chaotic, so that he's not reeeeally doing anything wrong.
3) Us vs. Them. In Council of Thieves, it's hard to remind the PCs that they're in an oppressive, lawful evil society without making them so afraid for their characters that they can trust anyone. This is doubly true because the very first time the PCs meet the Children of Westcrown, their supposedly secret meeting is discovered by hellknights. Therefore, there's no trust between the PCs and the Children, and it works both ways... despite trying to be helpful to the PCs, thankful for their help, but also demanding recognition for their help, and an appreciation that they're as much at risk as the PCs.
This PC vs. NPC spills over to immediately helpful NPCs as well, including one 'party member' NPC Oracle that was cast as an old, trusted childhood friend (but was becoming a hellknight of an acceptable order). He was insulted and belittled enough times that I finally decided he wouldn't put up with it anymore. I tried to replace him (he was the party's primary healer), but that character was insulted and belittled, and won't be very helpful at all. It can't even be really justified in terms of 'roleplaying' because the new Archer was immediately taken into the group at the same time as the replacement healer and became 'us,' but the healer was ridiculed.
One player is trying to pull everyone together, but he's not the most effective. The silent player is just sitting there, because he can't make a roll to do anything. The other two who are adopted sisters (in the game) are the best roleplayers, but most of that consists of ridiculing the NPCs, including the pictures that I personally drew of some of them.
4) Rolling. I'm a firm believer that there are some rolls that PCs usually shouldn't know the numerical results of for whatever reason. Sense Motive and Perception, maybe Bluff. Sometimes, just making the roll gives away something, and knowing if you've rolled high or low is usually enough to verify their result (so why bother rolling?). I get snarky replies when I roll those checks for them, well, from one or two of them. I've explained why I roll those checks, but they sort of got away with it from a previous DM, and it gets a little old explaining. Also, it's not a hard and fast rule, sometimes I have them roll, sometimes I do, depending on the situation.
5) I'm not perfect, and neither is the situation. So, I'm not blameless. The players have some rational reasons to not trust/dislike the NPCs (Robahl!). A bad experience trying to free a slave, because the slave wasn't fawning and grateful (since they were basically throwing her from a relatively secure and long-since tolerated life as a slave to being a vagrant with no money, job or possessions). The Children's one brush with the law was their first impression of them, so they don't trust them there. I encouraged the PCs to take leadership rolls with the Children, if they thought that they could do better, but instead, they were more concerned with buying the shop of the murdered swordsmith so that they could turn around and sell their adventuring spoils for full price (despite the fact it wasn't exactly a sound business investment, and they hadn't reckoned on the fact that they're in an oppressive society with taxes!). I've tried to accommodate different play styles, which doesn't help. And again, the NPCs are usually so ticked at the PCs that it's a chain of hostility. Yes, Cheliax can be unfriendly and unforgiving, but the people might not be.
Plus, when I play up the oppressiveness of their society, it seems like I'm just trying to play GM Fiat Smackdown. When they wanted to start the business, I painstakingly dug through my old D&D books to find rules for running the business. I researched (all the way back to the AD&D DMG) the cost of the house. I accounted for the previous owner's debt and taxes, and the fact that the Chelaxian government wouldn't really care about the niceties of 'fair', I checked what the capital outlay would require to start the business, what assets the business already had, (even pricing, tool by tool, the forge and shop from Aurora's Whole Realms Catalog). I tacked on an excessive but not overwhelming 'inheritance tax.' that had to be accounted for, just to be Lawful Evil, because, what's more Lawful Evil than taxes, right? So I'm trying to say yes to their plans, but it seems like I'm saying no all of the time.
6) Distance. Playing over a webcam is a trying experience for those that have never done it. It's very hard to read people's reactions and moods when you can't see all of them. It's hard to keep people focused when you can't watch them to see when attention drifts. It's easy to be irritated in an already tense situation when folks are whispering away from the microphone. I think I might have to ask them to do some rearranging so that I can see most of them. Or something. This also doesn't help them us vs. DM mentality.
7) The very act of typing this has helped a little, and given me some ideas. But it's such a hazy area that it gives me a headache trying to solve it. In some places, I've bent over backwards, in others I've tried to stay firm, in others, I've just pointed out that it's not a friendly place. I think I'll have to talk to the players at some point. I'm resentful because I spend a lot of time prepping for the games, building virtual table top maps, tokens preparing handouts and scenes, drawing characters, charting out the world and characters, that having it ridiculed gets irritating. Don't get me wrong, I usually enjoy DMing, and they seem to be interacting with the game world.
I guess I'm venting primarily, but I'd love to hear advice from other DMs. This is an interesting and unique resource. If you've made it this far, thanks for reading. (It's not usually interesting to read other folk's problems).
Thanks
--M
A recent post in a different thread got me thinking about a dream that I had in college. It was a little weird, because in it, I was in a class with all of my friends/D&D buddies. When asked to turn in an assignment, I did, but none of my friends did, and I was asked to join the other diligent students behind the professor.
The professor then stated that he was tired of all the late assignments, and then pulled out a machine gun and gunned down the class (IN THE DREAM!)
Distraught, I spent the rest of the dream in the college bookstore looking for a scroll of raise dead that I had seen when I bought my books (or, so I thought in the dream) so that I could raise my friends. I was worried about how to pay for it, but that would be dependent on how much it cost. At the time, in the dream, it was completely rational.
So, I was wondering if anyone else has had RPG/D&D intrude upon their dreams in a similar or even a more dramatic manner. Ever play a fight back in your head? Ever look for your +3 calculator to help slay the accounting demon? Ever slow dance with Elminster on the Eiffel Tower? Ever party with drow at a biker karaoke bar?
Let's hear your stories!
(While I did originally want to mix in sci-fi/fantasy dreams, it might be a bit too broad a topic. I did, after all, have an entire episode of Buffy be created in my head one night.)
This is a bit of a conundrum, blending 3.5, PF, and the APG Pathfinder info. I have a player with an Oracle with the Battle Mystery (or is it Focus?). He asked if he would be able to choose spells that are tied to the gods that his mystery is connected to (i.e. Gorum, Cayden, Rovagug, etc.). Oracles supposedly do not have a single god, but draw their powers from the gods tied to their mystery.
So, could an Oracle choose spells (remember, they have a limited spells known) tied to those gods (such as from Gods & Magic or Dwarves of Golarion)?
Or, would they need to also have a 'patron' deity and can only receive choices from one. Also, what about the deity-specific 'specials' such as Cayden's create water turning to ale or wine, or his cleric's spontaneous casting of knock?
Now, since we were playing a one-off, I just said that he could choose one deity and gets all the applicable powers as if he was a cleric.
A case could be made for a lot of different reactions:
1) they're not clerics, so they don't get ANY of the special spells or abilities.
2) they have to choose a patron if they want the special spells or abilities, and they get everything or spells or abilities (like lower-level spells, such as a 3rd level Neutralize Poison)
3) They can choose any of the spells from their associated deities, but get no special features (since they have limited spells known, this isn't too overwhelming, since they have to eat up slots to do it). But it does make me a little nervous, since Rovagug and Cayden wouldn't see eye-to-eye.
I was just wondering what other folks think of this.
|