MilesBeyond's page

One of the joys of playing with people who are new to the system - or RPGs in general - is seeing what sort of fun and insane combinations they come up that no one with any experience with the game would ever dream of playing unless they were deliberately gimping themselves. I don't mean that in a sarcastic way - it's actually a lot of fun.

So what's the worst PC you've ever seen that wasn't deliberately trying to be bad?

Specifically, how would you sum up the differences between clerics and wizards in one sentence?

I'm starting a campaign and a couple of people there have never played before. Usually to simplify character creation I'll have them first pick from a category, then choose a class from within the category. So:

Warriors: Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians
Mages: Wizards, Sorcerers
Priests: Clerics, Druids
Rogues: Rogues (duh), Bards, Monks (arguably is better suited for Warrior, but whatever).

The problem is, if someone asks "What's the difference between a Cleric and a Wizard?" I have no idea how to answer that question concisely and in a way that makes sense to someone who's not super familiar with the game rules.

I mean, at first I thought of putting it in MMO terms and saying "Wizards are DPS-oriented while Clerics are more buffers and healbots," but that's a little misleading. Cleric spells still pack a punch, while Wizards have got some of the best buffs and debuffs around. In fact, it's entirely possible to build a Cleric that's mostly offensive in his magic, or a Wizard that hasn't got a single damage-dealing spell, and succeed.

Then I thought about the differences between where and how they get their spells, but is that really going to mean all that much to a first time player?

Really what it comes down to is that they're casters who draw from totally different spell lists. That's maybe the best answer I've got right now :/

Any suggestions?

Here's a system I've been thinking of implementing. I initially designed it to limit "Chaotic Stupid" parties, but I think it could also open up plenty of new RP opportunities and gameplay possibilities as well.

So, the idea is that the players have a Reputation, which is a numerical representation of how other people in the world see them. Let's say it's on a scale of 1-30. High reputation means someone known throughout the land as a valiant hero, low reputation means they are known as horrible people, and mid-range reputation means that they are either unknown, or that people aren't sure what to think about them. The extremes (28-30 and 1-3) are reached very rarely, and represent people of such great virtue or dastardly evil that they become legendary for their (mis)deeds. In particular, once someone reaches a very low reputation, they can expect to be constantly hounded by law enforcement, bounty hunters, agents of good, and adventurers.

Reputation could be for the group as a whole or on a player by player basis, and can be accessible to players or privy only to the GM, all at the GM's discretion. Different penalties and bonuses could be implemented: For example, perhaps once you've reached a Reputation of 25, shady and unlawful organizations will refuse to negotiate with you, and may even try to kill you on sight. If you've got a Reputation of 5, shop owners may bolt their doors as soon as they see you coming down the street, and temples devoted to non-evil deities may refuse you service outright. On the other hand, the criminal underworld might start to actively seek you out for your services.

Reputation gains/losses would slow depending on where you are. For example, for an average citizen to charge into a ruined temple to defeat the undead lurking there might give a substantial reputation bonus, but for someone already known for their heroics, they might get a negligible one, or possibly not even one at all - they are already expected to save the day, so doing so isn't really going to attract anyone's attention, unless they do something truly spectacular.

Similarly, a Rogue who gets a reputation as a cutpurse probably isn't going to become more infamous by picking more pockets. For their reputation to decrease, they'd need to go after a bigger target, or start injuring or even killing marks.

So what's the point of all this?

First, it allows the GM to increase the sense of living in a breathing world that is actually impacted by the player's actions.

Second, it allows for a more nuanced approach to alignment. Players can be "villains with good publicity" - set up a public image to make them look like heroes, while secretly plotting evil; or perhaps a Chaotic Good character may find his reputation dropping because what he considers to be good differs greatly from the society around him.

Third, it provides a sort of warning system for Chaotic Stupid PCs. GMs can warn them that if their reputation drops much lower, they're going to start being pursued by forces of good that they're not able to handle. If the PCs persist, and continue to go around burning down villages and murdering children because "lolol evulz!" then the GM has got a justifiable reason to drop a bridge on them.

Finally, it provides inspiration for new story opportunities. A party of PCs confront and kill an evil tyrant - but without proof of the tyrant's misdeeds, they're seen as regicides and their reputation plummets. The PCs must now deal with being seen as villains by the society around them, and have a choice of trying to clear their name, looking to redeem themselves in other ways, or embracing their fate and seeing what sort of new possibilities a life of crime opens up.

So... What are your thoughts?

Not like the rules. I know that part. I mean in the game universe. How do they actually work? Why do Bards have their own spell tree? Why do Bards use Charisma to cast spells? How do Bards cast spells at all, and why do they cast like Sorcerers instead of Wizards? Is their performance magical in nature? I mean, the CRB says that their performance creates magical effects.

Sorry for all the questions like this. I haven't really played a Bard since 2e. I love a lot of the changes that have been made, but I don't understand them from a lore perspective, and that makes it difficult to RP. Specifically, Bardic magic. I'm used to Bards just being like Wizards, only advancing far more slowly. Now I have no idea how it looks. I mean, it seems like they draw on innate power, like Sorcerers? But they don't have the whole "special bloodline" thing going on that Sorcerers do. But they're also not memorizing spells the way Wizards do. So where is their magic coming from? Why?

Hey everyone, I'm looking for some ways to beef up the Rogue. Bear in mind that right now I'm only using CRB, so let me know if this is covered elsewhere.

Basically, while I love the changes PF made in consolidating skills and adjusting the way class skills work, I can't help but feel as though these changes left the Rogue out to dry. I have no issue with classes being at different levels of power, but the Rogue lost most of its utility as well, and as a result, IMHO, isn't nearly as fun to play. There are two adjustments I think would be a good way to address this:

1) Move trap detection away from Perception.

This is a big one. Trap detection being on Perception not only means that Rogues are no longer necessary for finding traps, but the fact that Per relies on WIS means that Rogues are often going to be worse at finding traps than, say, a Cleric or Druid, or even a Paladin. Two possible solutions for this are to make Perception a DEX skill, or to add a new Find Traps skill, but neither of those seem like very good solutions. Instead, I would suggest that detecting traps should check a different skill altogether. Possibilities would be Craft Trap, Knowledge - Dungeoneering, and Disable Device. My preference is DD, but its a little up in the air. The notion here is that merely being able to see inconsistencies in the surrounding area isn't enough - the character would need a certain degree of familiarity with the nature of traps in order to pick them out. Possibly still have Perception able to detect traps that are <CR5, just for realism's sake (you don't need a genius to figure out what a trip-wire rigged to a net means).

More importantly, this would also mean that traps are now the primary territory of Rogues once again.

2) More skill points.

What I'm envisioning here is that, say, every five levels (Starting at level 5), the Rogue gets +3 points to any class skill. This would be a bonus and so would not count towards the skill cap. The idea here is to remove the whole Rogue 1/whatever 19 dynamic caused by PF's class skill system, where the initial +3 bonus means that a character with a couple of levels in Rogue isn't going to be much worse off in skills than a Rogue with significantly more levels.

Thoughts?