(ahem) pushes up glasses- "Baby's first D&D" only had three classes: Fighting Man, Cleric and Wizard. Gygax then added the Thief, shortly thereafter for a grand total of four. With AD&D the classes expanded dramatically.
This seems like a disingenuous argument if we're only talking about ONE fantasy race in a vast spectrum that has some distinct sexual dimorphism and characteristic roles within their culture, while most other races and cultures have more varied and flexible roles for the sexes.
I want this player for my campaign! If you don't like him, send him over! He sounds like he is proactive and interesting and will give you a lot of adventure hooks that will happen organically.
If/when he does something so outrageous (which can be fun- at least to me) that causes people in Greyhawk to react- don't be afraid to send in the authorities. Then when the PCs need a place to hide/change their identities they will need to do something for that favor. Bam, there's an adventure hook! Not to mention all the people wanting to kill that PC (and his allies). Which is great.
Talk to the player, let him know that you fully expect the other PCs to get sick of his shenanigans and kill him at some point and will allow that to happen. But if he's the player who wants to do whatever he wants, he'll probably do whatever he wants anyway. Expect a crazy campaign ending in a ball of nasty bloody death. But at least it won't be boring.
No. I've been GMing for decades. Pathfinder is just another version of D&D as far as I'm concerned. I use the rules the way I want to use the rules. For the most part I use them as written, but I'll throw in home brew material, allow stuff in that I liked from 3.5 (even 3.0), use critical hit and or fumble tables from time to time.
The players will know my house rules from the outset, and have always been cool with them - because I run a fun game. I don't bow to the "gods of Paizo". It's head scratching to me that so many do. In the AD&D days- every table I played at had house rules they used, it was pretty known and accepted as the "wild west" and every game would have some commonalities, but unique variances, depending on what worked for that particular group.
Bracing for a charge didn't happen in small skirmishes that are generally fought by little groups like in D&D but in large infantry groups where, like another poster said, where the charging group really couldn't switch out of charge without being trampled by his own forces. But it would still be useful, tactically.
DMs (yeah, I'm old school) should allow smaller maneuverable foes to switch tactics easily, but not stupid animals. A wild boar will charge right into a spear. Wild boars charge, and impale themselves. That's what they do.
I think the Unchained Rogue is pretty good. I MIGHT play one in a grittier low magic game. Who knows. Generally speaking I like more options, but I think they have a point. The boards do not represent reality for most players. Some players want a PC that can scout a little, do decent damage, disable traps, and that's enough. The Unchained Rogue does this.
Now, I like a PC that does a lot of a lot, and has a lot of tools at my finger tips, and has multiple solutions for problems that can arise in the dungeon.
I played an elf archeologist bard, focused on archery. And I must say, it was awesome. I disguised myself with disguise self. Disabled all traps easily. I could dispel magic, I had access to divination spells (clairvoyance was very useful for scouting), I had invisibility. I had a few CLW at my disposal (I didn't tell the party I had this) that I saved for myself when I got in a jam, as well as dimension door to "poof" when need be- into or out of trouble. I found all the treasure, bypassing most monsters. I couldn't have done most of this as straight rogue, and my archery (boosted by well-timed heroism spells) was fairly decent as well. I was the sneakiest bastard of them all.
I liked the concept so much that I've played this concept on multiple occasions and will do so again.
My two cents from my recent experience.
Eh, developers don't know everything. If I have a Player who is investing in Silent and Still Spell, then I'm going to let them have their fun. Some things the developers say make no sense. This is my game and your game, not their game.
Yeah, I don't buy it. If you cast with Silent and Still Spell it's a stealthed spell, unless it's obviously casted from your location- like a fireball is streaking from the caster's point of origin, as is magic missile, but a silent and Stilled FEAR spell- there's no way to know who casted that sucker. That's why the caster invests in the feats. That's how I would rule it.
I just add in whatever gods I like, clerics can get powers from faith alone. I have an NPC that worships an obscure 2nd Ed elven deity from dragon magazine. I have a PC warpriest who came up with his own Philosophy that he follows that is perfectly valid divine power source. I'll make other changes as it suits me. I'm the DM, it's my world now. Bwahaha!
Clerics always had some good defense spells and combat abilites in the game. I never had a player unhappy with the cleric PC, and I GMed a lot of AD&D. The cleric healed, but always contributed in a lot of other ways. I never played one in AD&D, but I usually preferred a multi-classed thief.
Edit: That's a lie, I played a cleric/ranger once...
Yes, this. Gnome Illusionist/Thieves and Elf and Half-Elf Magic-User/Thieves saw a lot of Play in AD&D. As well as Fighter/Thieves. I played all of these. I loved having thief skills, but I wanted other goodies. Most games I played in rarely got to high level (either due to character death or player attrition or whatever) so racial level limits didn't dissuade me.
That's actually so much more interesting to me, than a PC wearing all their wealth. Actually doing things with their wealth like... a mage commissioning a tower, getting hirelings, or hiring spies, donating to a mage's guild. A warrior building a keep and paying mercenaries, and maybe a low level cleric to help keep them healthy. All the cool stuff that people do with their their money. Love that sort of stuff.
I dislike iterative attacks (past 2. Two attacks is okay.) Just really slows down the whole process when you get to high levels and PCs are full attacking for 3 (or 4!) attacks and then when you factor in haste, and two weapon fighting, the round takes forever. A holdover from 3.5 that I never liked, and never could find a good solution for without fiddling with the whole system...
Robert Hetherington wrote:
Okay, I don't get this. I am not a member of PFS so you'll have to forgive me. Is PFS a video game? Because if it's a roleplaying game and your character owns a human being, and they are in an encounter and the PC tells the human being your PC owns "Hold my torch". (Because you are feeding and clothing, and hopefully treating this person well...) Why wouldn't this person hold your torch?
If I was GMing I would not have the slave go into a dungeon with you. Superstitous fear would keep them out (see Indiana Jones and the temple of doom for example. Even the scout wouldn't go into the dungeon) But sure a slave should carry a pack, and hold a torch. I would probably have a slave fail perception checks though. It's not a henchman. You don't put your slave on guard duty. Your slave carries things, fetches things, and can do other things depending on its skill set (like you said, not combat related).
Technological innovations can leap forward suddenly and unpredictably. Look at our history. Someone takes a chance, makes an innovation or there is a war and a sudden need or perceived need and there can be huge changes very quickly.
It all depends how the GM wants things to play out in the game. Do you want an industrial revolution in Golarion? Go for it. The technology IS there, and there are people who know how to use it. You could posit any number of scenarios. It all depends on how you want things to play out as GM.
OP, just do what YOU want for YOUR GAME. All this Psychic vs. Psionics is just semanics. Psionics, psychic, magic, divine, thaumaturgy, voodoo, radiation, demonic, angelic, biochemical, ki, midicholrian count, slack (all hail Bob), blah-blah-blah, are all fictional conceits for power sources that are not real and do not exist.
In a lot of (most) fantasy fiction there is little difference between Arcane and Divine sources of supernatural power, much less a THIRD source of supernatural power. So, decide how you want to flavor it.
Personally, I'd feel that usually simpler is probably best. Do you like the term psychic or psionic? Are the terms interchangeable in your world/campaign? Are there certain classes excluded? (Do you have both Psychics and Psions?) This is the fun of world building.
My two cents.
Spider-Man probably does have above average charisma. Even as Peter Parker he had two girls vying for him in college for him at once (Gwen and Mary Jane). Though so does Logan despite his occasional grumpiness. He has tons of friends, everywhere, is loyal to a fault, and is the guy you want to have a beer with and have your back in a fight- and women throw themselves at him despite the fact that he's a short guy.
I love it. I'd set the whole campaign in my front yard, and make the PCs insect sized. Lots of insect enemies, of course, but regular humanoids, and normal sized humans and stuff being more like forces of nature that are to be feared rather than fought. Instead of extra planar stuff, you'd have to meet the sage who lives in the strange realm called the "Sock Drawer" which is an epic adventure to get there... Could be really cool.
When I use Golarion, I do whatever I want with it and ignore written canon (sorry Paizo).
I haven't decided if Create Undead is evil or not yet. I do kind of like Neutral/Mindless Skeletons and potentially having a Neutral (or even a Good?) Necromancer who has skeletons doing his bidding. Such a necromancer would have bought the corpses from the living before they died, and cared for them especially well, preserving them with dignity.
OTOH- I kind of like old school "evil" skeletons and zombies. Right now I'm leaning towards the former. I'll decide if it comes up based on the needs of my game, that that will be canon for my campaign.
It would make more sense that Assimar, Dhampir, and Tiefling didn't have set age ranges since there entire race is nothing but human mixed with different types of immortal beings. So for character creation someone could pic wich other races age range they wished. As for elves I have always had a problem with then taking nearly 100 years to become adults, it never made sense to me.
I liked that how it was described in Races of the Wild, a WotC product, where an elf was physically and emotionally mature (by human standards) at 20 or so, but was not considered an "adult" by elf culture until 100, and didn't have full rights and privileges in the culture (which makes a little more sense).
Not sure how this jives up rules wise with Paizo stuff/stat stuff or whatever.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
This is so true. I played a high level wizard in 3.5. I was completely munchkined out. I felt like an untouchable god. I had to restrain myself from solving every problem, and let some of the other players do stuff and played him like Doctor Who. When they couldn't solve things, I took over and just "won". The only time I worried was when melee foes threatened to close, but I had ways of deal with that as well... (of course. Of course I did.)
I think Anthony Hopkins kind of showed up for a paycheck for the Thor movies. He was perfectly serviceable, don't get me wrong, but I don't think he was "into it" at all. This was more like, "Okay, put me in the damn costume and I'll look this script over 15 min before. What, I'm the king of this... is this a planet or what? It doesn't matter. Okay, I'm angry in this scene. Fine. Let's go." He's perfectly professional, just not his cup of tea. Collect the paycheck and move on. Then he'll move on to some theatre or something he likes better. That's my guess :)
Another way to view a D&D/Pathfinder "athiest" is to take the planescape view, which is vaguely similar to a variety of gnostics in ancient times.
There are gods: they simply aren't worthy of worship. All gods, whether "benevolent" or "malevolent" are simply higher order beings, not much different than powerful men who have tapped into a divine source. In fact, a once mortal being can ascend to this plane of existence. An "athiest" cleric might feel that it is his duty to liberate sentient beings from the tyranny of these beings, and allow sentient beings to rule themselves without the guidance of the gods. (That's how I do it in my games...) HOW they do this you can determine for your game.
(Are they overt? Covert? Engage in sabotage against temples? Teachers and scholars? What are the tenants of their philosophy? Etc.)
I'm not all too keen on the Pathfinder naming conventions myself. I think -don't be bound by Paizo. They aren't paying you (are they?) So you don't need to stuck to a single word when naming your class- it's your creation. I kind of like clunky/cool names for classes like "Witch Assassin" and weirdzo names. I'm playing a "Witch Assassin" sounds WAAAY cooler than "I'm playing an Athame" so be bold, says I.
I personally wouldn't like it, but every player is different (I like to to be as unique as possible in the party and with a three player party that is certainly possible) It really depends on you. You're both going to be throwing arcane spells, hitting with weapons- most likely in a one handed style, and there's only so much you can do to differentiate. Sure there are SOME things you can do- absolutely (choosing different spells, different races, different weapons, and different archetypes) but at the end of the day you're still both Magus and filling the same niche.
One of you can choose a different role to play. If she's got some back story that she wants to idealize... well, it's probably going to be you , cupcake.
Don't worry, someone will come along in a moment and tell you and me that everything I just said is wrong and nonsensical :)
Some GMs don't want the PCs to feel "cool", I've seen this happen multiple times as a player. It's strange. Once in a while, when PCs are high enough level, and they are in a new location, I will have them attacked by low level bandits or thugs or whatever so they have the opportunity to show off and scare the hell out them. (My players often aren't "obviously" high level and keep the "bling" to a minimum, and keep their bling hidden away, so it makes sense.) But then I will give them level appropriate challenges too.
What's the katana good for?
Making people who don't know what they're talking about argue "What sword is the best?"
I put myself in this category.
I put pretty much everyone in this category, unless you've been going around killing people with swords. Hopefully, on behalf of your feudal lord- in which case you're a time traveler- then: Awesome! Can we meet for lunch or something? Message me. Have someone show you how.
Or you're a psychopath (if you've been killing folks with swords without being a time traveler that is...)
Or you're one of the few people who make swords in the present. Not QUITE the same, since you're not actually using them to kill people (as that's what swords are for) but I'll give folks who are making them some credit as that's an art form and some of these guys know their stuff.
In my opinion usually it IS better if a more socially adept PLAYER has a PC who has the "face" skills. Face skills aren't THAT hard to come by, a number of traits allow for Diplomacy, Bluff, or Sense Motive. Diplomacy sees the most use in my game. The OP could find a solution where his Priest focuses more on Perception and Sense Motive and still is a great investigator, where one of the more "talky" PCs takes care of the Diplomacy (maybe trading out some skill points and/or a trait to become more Diplomacy focused). Doesn't mean that the priest can't do Diplomacy (he could "aid another" with the more verbally adept player's diplomacy efforts with a skill roll).
Any way, my two cents, not everyone has to be the best at everything- in the game or in real life. Some are better with the social aspects of the game, others with the tactical, others with the rules, etc, etc.
I thought the original Dragonlance stories were good enough to make into movies. Though you'd have to have a creator who would want to stay true to the source material. Folks LOOOOVE Tolkien, but even he got watered down. With D&D/Dragonlance or anything it would easy to make crap because a director who hadn't grown up with it would just see it as a way to make a buck, and wouldn't be beholden to the source material. So it would likely suck, just like the cheap looking D&D movies suck. You can make good looking low budget movies, actually I liked Peter Jackson's earlier outings Fellowship, The Two Towers, before he got crazy with the CGI (the final battle in Return of the King, for example...)
To the OP: So, I have an idea that this post may get deleted by folks who think this is an unpopular opinion, but...
I haven't played in convention games in years, they are always mixed experiences. Sometimes great, sometimes not so much.
It is possible to have a bad experience with a GM who is not focused on making the game FUN for players. Unfortunately, everyone's definition of fun varies. I've GMed convention games of my own design (not PFS) and I focused more on the roleplaying and puzzle solving aspects of the game, and less on the combat/tactical aspects which have dominated modern rpging.
My suggestion would be to keep experimenting. Don't focus over much on this one experience. D&D can be a lot of fun. But you have to find the right mix.
It doesn't have to be convention games (which are the most swingy in my book as you can have a boring or irritating time if the group doesn't gel or if random GM is not up to par, or it could be great, luck of the draw). Putting together your own group the best way to go, even if you have to teach yourself the rules.
You can do it with Pathfinder if you enjoy the complexity and crunchiness, and it has plenty of support as well. But so do a lot of other systems that offer different kinds of things. With a group you know, you can figure out what's FUN for your group. My two cents.
Joe Hex wrote:
Personally, I always found the Bard just-plain-weird. Who breaks into a performance in the middle of heated combat? I always think of how bonkers, Michael Jackson's "Beat It", or Pat Benatar's "Love is a Battlefield" video always stuck me as a child. I never understood how a cheesy dance is keeping them from being stabbed...
Yeah, I agree. I actually really like Bards and Wizards. Though re: Bards the ones I like are the ones who use Oratory on the battlefield. (Who could be played as a battle commander even, using buffs, with knowledge of enemy and terrain, inspiring allies, etc.) and a Dwarven Chanter (or possibly a war drummer) which for some reason makes sense to me. But busting out a lute on the battlefield? Seems corny.
"The Wizard has a dominant school" only in the land of character optimizers, which is not the world many (I'd wager to say most) people play in. I agree though that a Wizard will beat most Bards- if both PCs are perfectly optimized and played to perfection, and with optimally chosen tactics and the dice equally favor/disfavor both, and the terrain does not benefit either build. Sure. Wizard wins.
If I had to rank it- random Wizard vs random Bard in random terrain, I'd give it to the Wizard 7 out of 10 times vs. the Bard (or nearly any other PC) because Wizard is at the top of the power curve. But, there are too many factors to discount (player choice, random chance, spell selection, build idiosyncrasies, etc. etc.)
I've had a monster attack a paralyzed foe for example, but never do a full CDG, just enough to scare the hell out of players, like: "We better help our paralyzed buddy pronto!" Usually, though, it's a fairly stupid monster. If it was an evil intelligent NPC, and the PC had been a persistent threat, I MIGHT CDG the PC, but then I would give the PCs a heads up... "You realize by the look in the evil cleric's eyes that he means business, and intends to slay the paladin. What do you do?" Etc...
Frenzied Berserker is hilarious. I would allow one in as a GM, as it's a fun ticking time bomb, and it would make me laugh if the Berserker started to go apesh!t on his comrades. Though all foes must be dead first, but once that happens... look out!
If the PCs want to kick that character (not the player, hopefully!) out of the group in character, I would also allow that (and tell the player that this is a possibility- but let him make a new PC if it comes to that).