Nardis's page

What you're describing is a side-effect of the min/maxing. The game gets tilted towards that one character, and everyone else has to wait there turn. The thing is, the player hasn't done anything wrong, and the GM is ok with the build.

If it were me, as a GM I'd equip opponents with spells like Ray of Enfeeblement or Slow, and target the super strong PC. I wouldn't do this relentlessly, but I would make it a component of the game. It shouldn't be done to discourage the player, but the combat prowess could certainly draw a strategic response from the opposition. Stuff like this won't kill them, but it will change how they can engage the encounter.

I hope this helps. I've been in your situation before and its frustrating.

Nardis wrote:

I don't recall seeing this in the FAQ for the playtest, but I'm curious about whether or not Paizo will continue to maintain the PRD. Has anyone seen/heard anything about this? I use the site often as a reference tool, and I'd hate to see it go. Anyone have any insight on this?

Check out the Playtest FAQ page.

One of the questions they answer is
I want to keep playing PF1

FAQ wrote:

we DO plan to keep paperback Pocket Editions of First Edition rulebooks in print as long as enough people are buying them, so even in the era of Pathfinder Second Edition, First Edition adherents should be able to find their preferred version of the game in print without too much trouble. Our First Edition PDF products will also remain available.

Paizo hasn't updated the PRD in a couple years despite releasing material under the OGL, and I can't help but wonder if they aren't going to jettison their (now) 1sr Edition PRD. It costs money to maintain this stuff, and while they'll keep first edition in print, and keep selling PDFs, it isn't clear whether they'll keep the PRD site up. I understand if they don't, but I really hope they keep the PRD site going.

I don't recall seeing this in the FAQ for the playtest, but I'm curious about whether or not Paizo will continue to maintain the PRD. Has anyone seen/heard anything about this? I use the site often as a reference tool, and I'd hate to see it go. Anyone have any insight on this?

I knew I could count on the message boards! Thank you

I've just had a frustrating discussion with someone who sounds, at least to me, to be taking liberties with the "free" wording in the descriptions of Spell strike and Spell Combat. Could anyone out there more in the know than myself help with this?

For example, I'm copying this out of the thread:

"When you cast a spell that allows a touch attack, you get to make that touch attack as a free action. Nothing in those descriptions changes that rule, so it's still in effect. Therefore: Attack and spell (in any order), then free action melee touch attack to deliver it (or weapon attack if you use Spellstrike) "

Where does it say this in the Magus description? Can someone help?

Also, don't forget that encounters don't have to be monsters. You can build environmental hazards, traps, and crafty NPCs. Since the only PC is a magic user, maybe downplay the physical confrontations, and promote skill checks and incorporate the character's magical abilities into your design.

Another note is that, this is as much about you as GM as it is about the player/character. Since this is your first time out, don't forget to allow yourself to explore the game by incorporating things you might be curious about. Try working things into your design you'd like to see in games, and see how it goes.

No. Not any more than it already was. The GM's job for the most part is to taylor your game to fit the style and type of players you have in your group. You don't seem to be doing that. Your player has changed the way he plays with his new supplements, so you must adapt. Set limits. I have had more problems with min maxing than anything else, so limit how high or how low an ability score can go at character creation for starters. Ban stuff that isn't making it fun for you as well as them. Just because you are the GM, doesn't mean you shouldn't have fun to. After all you put more work into a campaign than any of the players do. I like to see my players succeed, but I want it to be because they were clever or lucky, not because they had overwhelming numbers on their side. Your players will talk about the close victories for years because they outsmarted the bad guyway before they ever talk about the quick victories they achieved because of broken builds. YMMV though.

Agreed 100%. After a series of unsatisfying gaming sessions, I spent a lot of time on message boards, reading through rules, and so on only to realize that I wasn't putting out a varied game experience for the players. If the game looks tired and predictable, the first place to look is at the person running it.

I'm legitimately enthusiastic about this book, and what it portends for my own games.

The Ultimate Campaign book has some rules and guidelines for constructing buildings and creating/founding organizations. It's probably worth a look through for what you're discussing here.

I don't about you guys, but I'm excited about those upcoming flame decals.

Tround wrote:

I would like to see a new edition of the game, with both the current and the new edition being supported.

That certainly is the trick isnt it? To be compatible at all I dont think a radical design change is going to work. Though to change some of the "no" answers to "yes" answers around here you need radical change. Way too difficult to support old and new versions of the game. I'm curious to see what Paizo's move will be.

I agree that this is tricky, and I used to think it would be a challenge until I saw that White Wolf/Onyx Path was able to support both old and new lines for the World of Darkness games. They just treat it like different product lines and let things go in their own directions. I don't see why this couldn't work for Paizo as well.

Do I like Pathfinder? My answer is "yes, but.."

The game has a lot of features I like, and over all I think Paizo has done a good, not with just the game, but with building a positive brand overall.

My main critique is that, I think it's time for a new edition. All of the supplemental material, rules erratas, and FAQs are more than enough of a base to begin development of a 2nd edition that addresses some of the problems people have with the game. (Personally, Pathfinder has a serious problem with being unbalanced. Every PC is a glass cannon, or the potential to be one, but that's my opinion.)

I would like to see a new edition of the game, with both the current and the new edition being supported.