REDACTED 642674's page

I have played in a group that handled this issue this way (note, I don't agree with it):

At the start of your turn, you state all your (or the monsters) actions that you plan to take. Then you roll the dice and take the chances. If a monster drops after first round, sorry charlie, you committed to your actions.

The point of the above way (declaring actions before rolling) was to simulate a simultaneous 6 second round... shrug... yes, four people could basically waste their attacks while the fifth drops the goblin with 1 HP and the other six with 12 come running up your backside.

First, I am not saying this is the way to handle this (I don't do it this way in the games I run now). Second, it harkens back to days of old where everyone declares their actions before the dice start to roll (if you've played that way).

Why? PF has archetypes and PrC’s. Multiclassing is often either a sub-optimal or munchkin choice.

Firstly, I agree in most cases with you. Some people aren't interested in the most optimal though and if they want to handicap their character, more power to them I guess. To me, PF just makes multi-classing too sub-optimal...

With that said though, I still find some PrCs useless (ie Mystic Theurge)... To take those classes in Wizard and Cleric at lower levels just puts me a whole spell level or two behind the rest of the party. A Wiz3/Clr3/MT1 is much less effective to me than a Wiz7 or Clr7.

As a DM, I have been known to multi-class a villain or NPC at times for a particular flavor. Most of the time though, the primary villain or antagonist is a single class...

Not sure if this has been discussed on the forums (search didn't reveal anything).

Has anyone though about or even tried implementing the following rule:

Top-Tier classes use the Slow XP Progresion
Mid-Tier classes use the Regular XP Progression
Low-Tier classes use the Fast XP Progression.

Similar to the older versions of D&D where the thief required only 1250 xp to reach Level 2, while the Wizard required twice as much (2500).

Used in this manner, a low-tier class (like a rogue for example) would routintely be 2 levels ahead of his wizard and cleric companions.

I've seen options for balancing the powerful classes vs. the weaker classes (different point buys, etc.); but never this.

I guess the question is, is this enough to balance out the tiers?

Assuming the game was played "as if" you were using the normal XP chart. If the APL was 3 (so you are starting to fight ogres, groups of orcs, etc.) would you rather be a level 2 cleric, or a level 4 rogue?

I agree with most of the other posters... low level, the casters are typically pretty weak and get much stronger as the levels go on. The fighters are less effective than wizards at high level... if you mess with the XP progression, it will screw too much with the rest of the system. At high level, a caster is devestating but super squishy at low levels... which makes sense really.

If you have real issues with XP system, you may want to look at some of the systems that don't have "levels" per se. Personally I'm glad they flattened out the whole XP progress thingy in 3rd edition the way they did.

I've ran games where the players amassed huge wealth in terms of ships, and stuff like that. One group even went so far to capture like 6 ships. They ended up running a mercantile group that ran itself when they were off adventuring... so every month or so, they got an additional couple thousand gold.

If they wanted a powerful item, they had to manufacture it themselves... that is, take the feats, learn the spells, and do it. If they knew a powerful mage, they may help, at the expense of performing quests for them...

I've pulled a stunt where like 30k gp were "stolen", but they had the chance to find the "thief" and get it back, and then some... just to take it? No...

If you give them a problematic item/gold/etc, then talk to the group out of character and discuss it. You'd be surprised how cooperative most players are.

Celendria deBois wrote:

Umbral Reaver, actually I know I've seen that list before so Azure_Zero is right... I'm just observing more of the #1s and #2s in my gaming area than I am #4s and #5s... that was all my question was.

The list presumes a dichotomy that does not exist. This is not one scale. It's two (or maybe more).

A single person can sit at both extremes of the scale simultaneously without contradiction.

Okay, you got me. <falls to floor faking bullet hit>

Pathfinder is a simulator that uses numbers to simulate combat and interactions. It is a complex game with a 550+ page rule book and is based entirely in the realm of mathematical systems. The skill system distills the 'combative' aspects of role playing to a numbers game as well as investigation and information determination.

<snipped/>

It is far less common to find someone who wants to role play that chooses Pathfinder over some other more RP-focused system. We just aren't optimized for that kind of game play.

Thank you for your post.

The next time I go to the FLGS, for reference, I'll have to check to see what "Story-Telling" games (I believe that is what White Wolf describes their games as) have a Medieval/Fantasy aspect.

As I said above, I'm more in the middle liking both aspects but you are right about a numbers simulator.

Number-crunching can be complicated. People seek help with it, either in person or online (mostly online).

Roleplaying is so subjective that people don't need/want help with it, so you don't see them online asking for tips as much.

So if it seems like there are more number-crunchers, it just looks that way because they're more visible due to asking each other's opinions on things.

Thanks Jiggy

I haven't quite thought of it that way

So this is the new "old-school" vs. "new-school" thread.

The one where somebody says new school players are all roll-players, and old school players are all role-players, and they're not trying to say that's bad, but they still took the time to say it in a public place so you can certainly infer that they don't agree with it.

Since I posted this, I'll address this post directly

It's not that I disagree or agree with it. It is what it is. New school gamers have new needs and desires than old school gamers do/did. People will gravitate toward a group that meets their needs.

Despite what others have said or implied, I really was just asking a question if that was a "change in the wind". Sorry if I ruffled feathers.

As a DM, the only time I get picky about the placement of spells is when the player is taking a long time to find the optimum placement (I mean more than a minute or so)...

In a game I played once, the wizard spent 6 minutes figuring out the optimum placement for Firesnake. It all came down to killing 7 mobs vs 6 mobs... sigh... 6 minutes is a long time to have the other players sitting around getting bored.

For swimming and climbing, Armor Check Penalty is usually enough for me.

This is especially true as I see the Swim skill very rarely taken, so even a low Armor Check Penalty is pretty drastic.

I ran a swashbuckling campaign once, and the players wore their medium and heavy armor on the deck all the time... until one player fell overboard in a storm and drowned. None of the players had the Swim skill...

They were like 5th level at the time, and the water a few hundred feet deep... This was back in 3/3.5 edition when Swashbuckling Adventures came out.

Celendria deBois wrote:

By and large though, these were all wanna-be-thespians and were great role-players and not roll-players (I am referring to RP vs PVE/PVP in WoW terms).

Then you were lucky to meet so many people that matched your playstyle.

Actually I have always been more of a "Balanced" player. Most of those were more of the "Extreme Role-player" style. Not sure I could handle them any longer (lol)

In the group of 6 I DM with now, I have the following:

1 Role-Player
2 Balanced
3 Power players

We had 2 additional Extreme Power gamers but they didn't last more than a few months because I didn't meet what they wanted in a game. They found another game with a 4e group that was also at the game shop.

Umbral Reaver, actually I know I've seen that list before so Azure_Zero is right... I'm just observing more of the #1s and #2s in my gaming area than I am #4s and #5s... that was all my question was.

You're definitely right about power-gamers and rules-lawyers... they've always been around (even before games like D&D).

You're probably right about meeting more.

I know when I was playing back in the 80s (yes I'm that old lol), it was really hard to find fellow gamers if your friends weren't interested in it. In the 90s, had a much easier time in college, but most of them were playing either White Wolf games or Ars Magica when I was there. A few played 7th Sea. By and large though, these were all wanna-be-thespians and were great role-players and not roll-players (I am referring to RP vs PVE/PVP in WoW terms).

I've noticed in the couple of years, especially since Pathfinder has come out, that more and more of the players are number crunchers looking for the optimum damage output and less that are role-players... I am not saying that this is wrong, just an observation.

I know that each group is different, but is that what most old-time DMs are finding as well? Are gamers by and large just number crunchers now? Up until games like WoW, Rifts, etc I've just not heard RPGers consistently talk about "damage builds", etc.

Again, I'm only asking a question, not meaning this as a flame

As a DM, I usually don't pay attention to encumbrance. It's usually not worth the pain to track it. Most players will only carry the things they actually need.

However:

If they are swimming, I make them look at what they are wearing and carrying... sorry, swimming in plate armor? You're going to pay for it... If they are climbing a rock face, I make them do the same. Climbing a sheer surface in plate, yes, you can fall and get hurt. To that character carrying 200 arrows, 100 torches, 5 50' segments of rope, 4 bows, 4 swords, etc and not have it stowed in Bags of Holding (or equivalent)... yes, that's a bit much. I had one character carrying 100 days of feed for his horse... in his "backpack"... nah, don't think so.

You know, the one thing I don't remember seeing in here... one easy way to slow down the archer... if they are on a long adventure, how many arrows have they used, and how many can they carry? A quiver holds 20, and an efficient quiver holds 60 if I recall... Making them keep track of how many arrows they have can also shut down an archer when they run low/out.

Gnomes, Halflings, and up until recently Half-Orcs. I can't bring myself to play a Halfling... maybe it's my feeling that they are useless annoying Hobbits. I've also found most small races are not compatible with me and my style.