I think most people who had an issue (including myself) were referring only to the magic item gimping issue.
I can dig it, really, but to be fair that's how the guy runs his game; its all subjective - you think its a gimp, I think its awesome; some people are crying "FOUL" that the DM did something that he felt was interesting, I personally love it when unique, interesting things go against the norm and give me something interesting to embrace or overcome.
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE:
In a recent game, I botched a roll whilst creating a Scroll of Mage Armor which I had intended to sell. I failed by such a small margin (1 point, actually) that I didn't even realize I screwed up. I sold the scroll, and three days later I was being hounded by Dottari demanding a bribe, plus compensation for harming a Cheliaxan citizen. Ultimately, as I see it: magic is as exact a science as an inexact science can be.
I guess my whole point is that the dude did what he did and (as I said before) we can't assume the group dynamic of people we've never met before is so obviously tantamount to our own personal experiences/peer groups; its been way hostile in this thread over some really simple differences in playstyle - not that humanity hasn't fought wars over less - but that still kind of bugs me.
So it's just OK to assume the other guy was dumb? And don't make the mistake to think that it's anything other than an assumption, unless you were there with them and know all the facts.
Its far fairer to cry "Dumb" on someone knowingly expending spells in a wild magic zone than it is to proclaim the DM a spiteful individual, unless you were there with them and know all the facts (said I as I paraphrase my first post in this thread).
Once the "are you sure?" warning has been issued a DMs hands are clean, I can't see a DM as spiteful when a character willingly goes through with whatever prompted the "are you sure?" in the first place.
So, he runs things like that. I just feel its a bit unfair to jump to conclusions and assume that the decision was spiteful. The subject title is referring to a caster's decision to expend every available spell he has in a wild magic zone, something that's ostensibly dumb.
Otherwise, having a sword that attracts rats doesn't seem all that spiteful. Just saying. Of course your mileage may vary, but still, in a world of magic, where magical things do magical stuff, when you burn a magical item whilst simultaneously working over a sword, maybe something magic might happen, you know? I rather like the idea. Maybe you don't, ok, great, we get it. We even get that you wouldn't ever play in/return to a game that was being run in such a fashion. Fantastic. But that's all like, you know... your opinion man.
So now that we've covered every base that's been covered by everyone else who felt that base needed to be covered; you can now share with us your opinion - what exactly would you do, as a GM, given the situation presented in the OP?
I don't think the player sounds "dumb" at all. Has anyone in defense of the player considered that he intentionally destroyed a magic item in his forge, at the same time he worked on his weapon for a reason? Maybe, if anything, the player is upset that he destroyed an item of a certain value and all he got was a whistling effect that called rats that didn't do anything.
I was going to say something along the lines of this. But the Aardvark beat me to it.
Either or, I really fail to see how OP has done anything wrong (except maybe misused the word "dumb"); God forbid a PC should suffer a negative experience during his ascent to King Victory in the Land of Nice Things Happening to PCs (which, I assume, is not the campaign setting OP is running).
I can think of a lot of items that are far, far worse than a 1/4 chance that rats/mice show up when you toss a sword end over end. And I can think of far worse ways to rid oneself of a curse than being clued in to the mystic forge on magic mountain. Ultimately I can think of far better ways to rid oneself of a curse than the method the PC in question seems to be considering. Seriously, are people really going so far as to say that since the player/character ostensibly feels annoyed by the consequences of his actions (which I feel are fair, all things considered), the DM has dome some terrible wrong?
Can we, for just one moment, please get off our ten-foot-high horses and maybe instead of assuming we understand how the group dynamic of people we've never met before is so obviously tantamount to our own personal experiences/peer groups, can we maybe just answer the guy's question instead of being hostile? Maybe kind of like how Jose did?
By the way, thanks Jose.
Now if you'll all excuse me whilst I dismount my ten-foot-high horse...
OP: I would just let the dice decide. Roll those wild magic rolls for each spell used in the zone, and come what may, for better or worse. Best case scenario, and nobody permanently turning into a tie-dye squirrel statuette, there's always that magic forge.
Well, to be fair, I meant that I was going to make sure all of my "checklist" was in place before making sure the moving parts worked well. Not planning on having a monk/fighter/cleric/rogue
For sure man, I can dig it; as a funny little aside:
Rogue/Monk may work out as well - completely removing the necessity for two-weapon fighting feats (via FoB) though it would limit your weapon selection something fierce (due to FoB), the monk offers a lot of inherent nifty-mobility-tasty-goodness that blends well with the aforementioned stances, stack that with the rogue, and you'd be sitting pretty. Though you'd likely need a few more levels of rogue than the fighter/rogue combo.
I know, this really isn't design by any kind of optimization . . . ;)
Au contraire monsieur, this is what optimizers do: we take a concept and make it work as well on paper as it does in your head ;D
I could realistically take the time to jam something out sometime after my spread of classes today, but until classes are said and done I don't really have the proper time to crunch the numbers, nor a complete enough understanding of your concept, but I can definitely point you in the direction of multi-classing rogue/fighter.
- Swashbuckler/Two Weapon Warrior? Is that even possible? I don't currently own an APG, so I'm not clear on the rules -
Focusing on the fighter levels (think in terms of Fighter 14/Rogue 6), and ensuring you have a high enough dexterity to achieve access to feats like Wind Stance and Lightning Stance (which shouldn't be an issue if you're planning on two-weapon fighting). Light weapons are likely your friends here. Shadowdancer would be an option late-to-endgame, if you found yourself so inclined.
Oh, you're still a Transmutation spell? Darn. Your utility is still limited when your caster is inside a 10' wide, 10' tall hallway and is in fact not located in/around an out-of doors environment? Dang. You may or may not have been included in the generic "Fly/Feather Fall/what have you"? Drat. Your name is Overland Flight instead of Dungeon Flight, and you're intended to be used to allow one person cover great distances over a small amount of time? Damn. I wish you were enough to make my observations seem paltry and pointless, but alas, you're just not the spell for me.
Come on man, I used Fly as an example because it was easy, the rest of my post was almost completely ignored. If you don't have access to Transmutation you don't have access to Transmutation, nuff said. Even if you did, great, you're flying all day, nothing about that involves playing Pathfinder in a "right" or "wrong" way. Either or, if I saw a man in a dress, and he was rapidly flying down my trapped hallway: I'd hit him with a judicious application of Dispel Magic right as he flew over my spiked pit trap.
Edit: Diffrn't strokes for diffrn't folks. This is about handing out magic items and the way it affects the world, not the utility of a spell a wizard may or may not have access to. My two cents are in the pot on both subjects, let's get back to our regularly scheduled programming:
Who likes my nifty little table-thing? It makes sense, really, I swear. Feel free to try it out.
She has the organization down, but she fumbles with the execution? So she's new to the game.
Try this: tell her that every decision she makes during character creation/development is a mechanical decision which will inevitably help or hinder her with certain in-game actions (it seems she already knows this, but work with me here); then explain that having a positive modifier in any stat does not constitute a guaranteed success (id est: with a +5 modifier you can still roll a minimum 6 on any test, enough to fail most simple challenges by 4), and that dice are fickle creatures - if she continues to lament her dice, recommend she purchase a set of GameScience dice, which are about as precisely random as random can get (and guaranteed to be spirit/luck/curse-free, or your money considerably wasted.
Point out the "Playing the Game" chapter (specifically chapters 7 and 8 in the core) and explain carefully what she did wrong, and show her how she can avoid those same mistakes with her next character, I'm sure she scraped her knees when learning to ride a bike, a PC death due to misusing/ignoring Combat Actions isn't all that different - except that it hurts a lot less, and your mom doesn't ravage your tender skin with an ample dosage of Hydrogen Peroxide.
Ultimately: I feel the most important thing to stress is that Pathfinder is, above all else, just a game. Pathfinder is not serious business. I regularly bring a six pack of beer to my every-other Friday game, another friend brings a six pack to our every Wednesday game; its all about sitting back and playing cops and robbers, acting like you did when you were a kid and nobody was watching, just with a little more structure and organization; I don't know the girl, so I don't know how well telling her to relax would work, but I would just tell her to take her time and relax; get familiar with the character she's made and the rules that apply to it; show up and have a good time.
That's technically true and yet... in the practical sense irrelevant.
Past a certain point, if he falls into the pit, he's doing it wrong. He should be flying basically all day. If he's not, you can't balance the game around his bad choices any more than you can balance the game by assuming that fighters will only wield simple weapons.
I disagree on both counts.
Firstly: It's completely relevant, in that certain casters will never have access to Fly/Feather Fall/what have you; restricted schools can be a pain at times, but them's the breaks. Furthermore, the spell Fly only lasts a maximum of 20 minutes (at caster level 20) without the aid of Extend Spell - which would increase its duration to a measly 40 minutes (hardly enough time to fly all day) for the cost of a 4th spell level slot. Further-furthermore any item that would grant the spell as a spell-like ability/free spell per day/charge would be as limited if not moreso than the caster's ability. Realistically you may be able to squeeze out two hours of flight in a day tops (and that's with a generous application of items/scrolls, and far too many spell slots dedicated to doing so); most of that two hours (or less) would be better spent scouting/doing recon out of doors instead of flying through a dungeon for fear of falling into a pit trap the rogue should have located/marked/disabled/found a workaround for.
Secondly: No choice is a bad choice if the choice helps you realize your concept. My Evoker does just fine without Transmutation and Illusion spells, thank you very much.
Past a certain level, a caster will never fall into a pit trap again. Past a certain level, neither will a fighter (in a campaign in which he has a pretty good pick of magic items). If you're setting up your game such that the first one of those statements is still the case and the second isn't, yeah that's going to skew the ability of those two kinds of characters to contribute.
I'd argue that the caster will only be allowed the advantage of 'never falling into the pit again' if he takes the time to acquire the spell that will allow him said advantage; lacking the spell, he's likely still going to fall into the pit regardless of his level. A fighter will at least have a decent chance at a save, and the HP to absorb the damage.
Just because a dwarf built a very nice bridge, it doesn't mean that any dwarf anywhere can do just the same anytime they wish.
Edit: I realize this argument doesn't necessarily relate to the topic at hand, but I feel its worth pointing out regardless.
I was attracted by the fact that a lot of the Pathfinder guys did some quality work on my tried and true favorite setting ever: The Forgotten Realms. The rest of the story just involves me spending money on Pathfinder products, playing the game, and posting my excellent and goodly opinions here on the boards.
If you are not going to hand magic weapons to the party, then you don't make them face an incorporeal enemy; or, if you do, you will provide them with an alternative way of dealing with it.
Words of wisdom. I cannot begin to explain how frustrating it is to find yourself on the receiving end of that sort of treatment.
OK OK Maybe I can...:
I distinctly remember a Shadowrun game that ended halfway through the first session; during character creation the GM decided he did not want any of the PCs to be Spellcasters or Deckers of any variety, we made our characters and went on our merry way slaughtering a corporate drug-production facility before being blocked by a twelve-foot thick composite metal firewall that we were ill-equipped to get through, and one tiny computer terminal (a terminal nobody in the party had any clue how to use with any real efficiency), after about thirty minutes of "Can I do this? No? OK, how about thi- No?" we all stood up, thanked the GM for his time, and walked out.
Any decent DM I've ever played with would have about half of that conversation at most before ruling that the wizard spent the round puzzling about what was going on and didn't get to take an action.
So long as he (the wizard) got to make use of the knowledge gleaned by the round of puzzling, sure, he (the DM) would be pretty decent.
This, more or less, explains my opinion about certain 4E rules/mechanics, and completely negated the need for me to post my long-winded, well written opinion on this particular issue. Bravo.
I tend to operate on a system that offers a bit of flexibility, but maintains a bit of order when it comes to me controlling my game's power level. Generally speaking: it's sort of a guideline, and there's no guarantee the game will end up going with the flow[chart], but I certainly tend to try to keep it within the parameters I set for myself if only because it helps me keep the power of the players - and the game itself - under my control; it goes a little something like this:
Lvls 01-5: +1 Maximum with a level-appropriate enchantment, extremely minor artifacts/accessories that offer little to no mechanical benefits (think a magic comb what'll make you pretty and such, and may grant a +1 to persuade in certain situations).
Lvls 05-8: +2 Maximum with 1 powerful, or 1 moderate, or 2 minor enchantments, level-appropriate artifacts/accessories with moderate mechanical benefits.
Lvls 09-12: +3 Maximum, etc.
Lvls 12-16: +4 Maximum, etc.
Lvls 17-20: +5 Maximum, etc.
It should be noted that while I primarily run/play in high-magic settings (mainly Faerun and Gloraion), and I am a huge proponent of crafted magic items, I tend to keep the available magic rare; just because a Red Wizard can make a +3 Flaming Bastard Sword in 2d4 months doesn't necessarily mean he will, especially if you're not a regular and trusted customer. Additionally, I mostly take the time to create magic items myself, rather than relying on a random-roll table; I really truly feel that players appreciate it far more when Slashos the Barbarian finds a paired set of Thundering- and Shocking-enchanted handaxes that they can put to use, as opposed to yet another +1 [ludicrous enchantment] [ludicrous exotic weapon] that they'll never use and will only be able to sell for a pittance of its actual value. Finally, I do not believe, not for one moment, that you should ever dig through a monster's treasure stash and find a +1 anything; he should be using that item against you with impunity, and you should pry your prize from his cold, dead, scaly/greasy/slimy hands. The only exception to this is the Dragon's Hoard.
Post Script: I forgot to mention wealth. I tend to treat wealth the way the ancient civilizations of our world did: in relative terms. You don't carry around 10,000 gold, its far more reasonable to cart around several Ingots/Gems/Precious Stones/Materials that are far more easily explainable than walking around with nearly 500lbs. of coinage in several large sacks. Buy an oxcart (or buy a minor bag of holding), put your goods on/in it, and roll on down the avenue. Again, the only real exception to this is the Dragon's Hoard, but then again, you can always buy another oxcart.
Why do I fudge? Well I certainly don't. Most of the time; it's entirely circumstantial really.
If I'm running a one-shot vicious combat-heavy dungeon/castle/country raid I keep it on the up and up, I will not fudge a single die. And if you get double-critical loving from Smograt the Warlord's Orcish Double-Axe, well, get ready to feel the thunder and the lightning; oh yeah baby it burns so good; HEADSHOT!!!; etcetera.
If I'm running a campaign that's all about the heroism and reviving that classic D&D feeling, complete with help from a book like Classic Treasures Revisited (like say the Kingmaker campaign, like I've been running in the recent past), I might allow myself the indulgence of not ingloriously tearing a player character (and ostensibly: a future king) throat out with a Kobold spear.
tl;dr - Depends on the mood/feel/goal of the game.
I like Alignment. Except for the whole 'applying a subjective morality methodology to an objective pantheistic universe id est: There is a plane of existence consisting of Pure Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. Good/Evil/Law/Chaos Gods live there.' And that just seems sort of ludicrou- Oh? Really? Someone has already said that about eleventy-billion times? Maybe that's because it seems like something that might make sense; speaking of sense - there's my two cents. Sheboygen out.
I've got a bag that originally held about $200 worth of some asian tea. One of my fellow gamers' had a brother who was really into tea, and he buys the primo stuff on a regular basis, he handed it over to his brother and told him to give it to one of his Warhammer FRP guys for use as a dicebag.
It even came with a little pouch that had a small cloth (made of the same fabric as the pouch)folded into it, the cloth has a symbol/some asian character embroidered into it. I keep it in the bag, because I think its kind of cool.
I have no idea what the name, type, or brand of tea was in the bag prior to it belonging to me, but I'd like to, sadly, I've had little success in finding anything remotely similar.
I think the target argument needs some consideration of their implications. Suddenly there are a slew of additional spells that Constructs are immune to.
Well, for one thing - all of these shaping spells assume that whatever you're shaping is sitting perfectly still and allowing you to shape it, as opposed to desperately trying to bludgeon you unto death.
In all honesty, we're looking at a set of utility spells designed to let you make furniture or escape being caved-in/prison. Trying to turn it into a combat-applicable spell changes the dynamic and requires the spells be a bit more detailed than "you can make doors and chairs and windowpanes."
Everyone is entitled his own interpretation of the rules.
Yeah, but sometimes the rules don't leave any room for interpretation. Especially when you're looking at it from multiple angles. No amount of opinion can change that, especially when you factor in the 'Animated Object = Creature' fact, and the 'Golems have spell Immunity thus rendering Stone Shape useless even *if* you could use it' fact. You can houserule it to suit your tastes and your games, but that won't change any of the facts.
I'm with the OP, myself, let it work once for the sake of moving the game along, then investigate the issue further when we're not busy running/playing an adventure.
Blackerose wrote:
I think the clincher here is the Wisdom/Charisma rule, when defining what is an object, vs what is a creature. You could make the argument that all creatures are objects without this, and that would break spellcasting entirely
Spellcasting doesn't really need any more "oomph" than it has right now, I'd say.
I know I can be kind of textually abusive, but it's only because your opinions do not matter when compared to my shiny, golden truth. After all, I am only The Greatest Man That Ever Lived.
No, but seriously, if it looks like there's no hope/reason, I tend to avoid the thread (and its subsequent progeny) entirely, when it seems that people are only reading half of what you type, and ignore the context entirely in order to happily misinterpret and confront you, that's a good time to make one final explanation, and should that not work, bail.
I think one of the big issues with forums, especially forums designed to host discussions about RPGs, are that despite the concrete rules in place, there's still room for interpretation, and variations of play-styles bring about different understandings. In short: it is entirely subjective. And when we go off of the subjective we're working with our personal (and sometimes emotional) experiences on any given subject, and that can get nasty reeeeeeeeally quick.
Want a prime example? Look at every single Paladin thread ever conceived in the history of D&D forums, ever. Disagreeing with someone's views on how a Paladin should behave quickly turns from a theoretical discussion about an imaginary knight (who worships an imaginary deity on an imaginary planet) to how you're personally supporting the rise of the Abyssal Legions to conquer that same world via the tactical application of unwinnable "kill the baby or let the planet die" - "that cute kitten is a rape demon, but it doesn't know" - "the shopkeeper screwed you out of a silver piece" situations. But I digress.
It's why I try to stand as close to the middle ground as I humanly can, and stick to the game as advertised, packaged, and delivered. It's also why I try to stress that my opinion is only my opinion. Either way, Evil Lincoln, you've got my empathy.
Ok, ok, ok, Tomb of Horrors was a bit much, I admit. But my main point was more about how you can place a Kender in an extremely deadly situation (like something an adventurer would be dealing with), sit back, and watch disaster unfold while the Kender innocently mutters "oops" - and should anyone besides him survive, will somehow not be required to shoulder any of the blame for his ludicrous behavior lest he "feel sad" and break the hearts of millions across the nation. He won't learn anything from this entirely avoidable mistake, he'll get happy eventually, and go on to happily say "oops" and mutilate another 4-5 people again.
Regardless, I wasn't shooting for making my point about efficient characters, it was more about not being shoehorned into playing with someone who not only thinks, but is encouraged to believe that Mischievous/Quirky/Curious/Chaotic Neutral = "lolsorandum I accidentally the whole party, also I pee on the King's shoes and steal Queen's ruby necklace."
The point I was making is that there must be a condition of blameworthiness; an acknowledged communal benchmark that enforces culpability on the player level; the uncrossable line, or that one straw the camel looks at really funny just before you hear a cracking sound. It's not really just about Kender it's about people who play them, people who play like them - "I can constantly do [something disruptive/unintelligent] because it's what my character would do, and acting against me is an example of: destroying my free spirit/ruining my RP fun/being oppressive" - and having an amicable accord with those people when it comes to game time... for example's sake, something along the lines of:
"Alright Chris, you get to play the [norm breaker], and I'll accept that you're behaving like this because it's bred into your character's nature and your character cannot control it. In return, I expect you to not be upset when I reasonably (and ICly) refuse to adventure with your character simply because it is in my nature as a survivalist and adventurer who wants to live long enough to enjoy the fruits of my labor, and I do not appreciate having to tell you to stay the hell out of my pockets, and I do not care one bit for your belief that the ideals I value are not real to you and therefore do not apply to you."
More or less, I expect to be able to dole out what I'm forced to deal with, and since I abhor PvP, so the only available methods (in my mind) are a sit-down IC/OOC discussion about what exactly is happening and why. And when necessary, drastic IC action that involves demanding the loose cannon either be tied down, or cast off the ship - I like the idea of the lodestone, or the amulet, I'd go so far as to include a cursed (irremovable) ring with a constant Zone of Truth that only affects the wearer.
Again, it's not a kender-specific issue, but they seriously embody what I feel is a serious faux-pas when it comes to D&D.
For the record: I'd happily take Tika Waylin and good ol' Fistandantilus McGee in a heartbeat.
I hate Kender too. Because there's nothing even remotely funny or novel about some brain-dead idiot man-child turning around, grasping his lower lip and moronically stammering "OOPS!" with huge puppy eyes as a wave of acid comes washing over your entire party. Why not? Because the jackass will do it again in another three minutes given half a chance, knowing full well that it's another potentially deadly trap... screw it, I'm impulsive, it says so in the book! Culpability be damned! Oh hey! My friend's spellbook, he doesn't need that right now, right?
The worst part for me is that not only are they truly, irrevocably unlikeable, but the same fluff (the stuff that says they're nothing more than a band of impulsive Pikeys) goes on to describe them as almost immune to the dire consequences of their own self-righteous screw-ups, and apparently they're loved by all but the most callous, cold-hearted villains the world has ever known, ever (or maybe just anyone who values their privacy/property). The sight of a sad Kender is enough to move most people to tears? Well why exactly is the Kender sad? I assure you: t's not because he just killed his whole party over a stupid, it's because he doesn't have anyone to annoy anymore.
I pose a challenge most sincere to any and all who claim Kender are actually worth their salt: Run Tomb of Horrors (3.5 - as it is manageable), allow a Kender into your party. The rest should be self-explanatory.
Excuse the rambling begining, I thought it would be worthwhile to establish some context.
I've been catching up on two other games aside from Pathfinder lately, in particular, Rogue Trader and A Song of Ice and Fire. Conceptually, one of the interesting things about both of these systems is that they both introduce epic "scope" even at their very early levels. Massed armies, politics, and regional/global/galactic concerns, and even esoteric things like leaving a legacy, family or just a damn big bank account...
+1 to your whole post, sir. It's always gotten under my skin when someone goes on about how games never reach "epic levels", as if it were the levels that make the game epic.
I've been involved in a once-twice a month Song of Ice and Fire game, starting out as a small, single-holding house of bannermen for the Tullys, the timeline is set during the opening of A Game of Thrones; we're three sessions in, and the eldest daughter of the family is marrying into Tully blood, we've already killed off The Late Lord Black Walder Frey (tossed him off a rampart and into the Trident), are near open-war with the Blackwoods (the Brackens are on our side - of course), we've hung a Lannister, and are building military forces up like it was nobody's business, because if we don't: it doesn't matter how tall Ser Daeron Pyke (my gargantuan man-bear-pig) is, or how hard he can swing that flail of his, an army is still an army. Pretty epic for being three sessions in, I'd say. We're also way in over our heads, I think we've got a total of 70 troops, not counting myself or our Tourney Knight.
I suppose all you need to do in order to make a game 'epic' is to establish that the PCs are in a position of power (no matter how small) and give them challenges that reflect said position.
Played and beat it twice with my favorite character from Mass Effect 1. Paragon/Renegade bars are a maximum. Mother of God, I think I'm failing English 102 Composition because of this game.
If walls could talk... well, they'd be as clever as me.
Of course, I actually listened to that persons argument, instead of dismissing it out of hand. But I don't mind dancing with you, as long as you like.
My terms are as follows: Capoeira; a bridge in Brooklyn; Gypsy music; Freestyling allowed.
If you lose: you have to buy the bridge.
If you win: you win the bridge.
Regardless, I didn't dismiss any argument, there wasn't anything solid enough to merit being considered an argument. I merely questioned a story (and rightfully so, I suspected something was up when I read "epic levels" directly after a slew of multi-multi-multiclassing), and how that story can contribute to this discussion in any way other than "I got a special allowance and I succeed because of it; I am multiclassing, and you can too!" It's like saying you got a strike when you've been bowling with gutter guards.
"Public forum, differing sides. If I wish to participate on one side, I am allowed. If you do not wish to discuss with me, you need not reply to me... The very nature of a forum like this is that anyone with an opinion can contribute it. You don't have to like it, and you can ask me to stop. I may even oblige."
If walls could talk... well, they'd be as clever as me.
Majuba wrote:
But really he's right - I mean what *are* the odds of anyone matching the uber-kewlness that was my character. I don't see how anyone could be as unique and wonderful as me - it was totally one in a million.
Well, being slightly more intelligent than your average summoned Dire Badger (in that you can use magic items) is no mean feat I tell ya what. Of course, the chances are pretty good, depending on whether or not someone playing 3.5 has a DM that allows them to ignore multiclassing penalties and the party is willing to pick up the slack.
In Pathfinder, all classes now have to give something up in order to gain from multi-classing, even the fighter. The point is to keep multi-classing from being the choice that it is stupid not to take. I might even play an Eldritch Knight sometime since the PrC is much improved over the old version. The old EK lost spellcasting to gain a high BaB, but the designers neglected to include hit points as a class feature. It was used almost entirely by ray specialists. The new Dragon Disciple actually gains spellcasting levels, a vast improvement over the old one which gave a few crummy spell slots while granting zilch to the caster level. The same for the Arcane Archer. Some multiclasses actually seem to me to be MORE viable than they ever were...
I'm with you there, I don't really feel that there's a penalty, per se, it's just a matter of sacrifices, give up one skub to gain a sprocket. I'm fairly confident (I believe I've expressed this before) that people can make an Eldritch Knight work (and work well) given the opportunity, it just takes a specific goal and some planning on the part of the player.
Well, discussing with someone who dismisses your words wholesale and doesn't believe a thing you say is rather fruitless after all.
Had I read something believable, I might have been more receptive to the idea that he had a uniquely useful badly managed character. Really, his main selling points were that he could flank stuff, sometimes someone tried to attack him, he muled the party's happy sticks, and once he hit level 31 or so, was actually really, really powerful (sic). I've known wizards/clerics who could summon things that could do all that and more, and would be kind enough to bring you a bag of celestial potato chips.
Either way, I'd prefer if the conversation was kept on sane ground, not "Well, in 3.5 I once paid a hefty XP penalty several times over and made this wacky dude, the party didn't have to prepare Gate/Planar Ally; Greater, so obviously this is admissible evidence of how multiclassing like a psychopath is actually a workable option." I'm not trying to knock the guy's fun or anything, but just because it might have worked (under whatever circumstances he claims to have made them work) in doesn't mean that anyone else in the history of D&D will ever pull it off again.
Now, about that bridge... are you interested?
EDIT:
Majuba wrote:
I wonder what he'd say if I told him the point-buy equivalent of my rolled stats was negative.
I won the bridge from Shakespeare in a game of Pazaak.
A preface: I've been playing in a continuous 2nd edition campaign for roughly two and a half years now. My GM has been playing in a continuous 1st edition campaign for roughly... well, a long time. My GM is also the owner of my FLGS of choice, and at Gen-Con he drilled the GW guys left and right, eventually they sent him an early demo-copy of the complete box-set game.
The game itself; There's a short adventure that comes with the box set. That's what he demo'd all day. We sat down, Highwayman, Slayer, and Elven Envoy, and went on a merry chase to rescue a lost merchant (for our various reasons, of course).
The first thing that occurred to me was that I was playing an RPG version of Chaos in the Old World, I don't say that to be cliche, the game is something between Chaos in the Old World and HeroQuest, without a board to play on, and a very abstract "in melee/medium range/long range" system (which I admittedly liked) to determine exactly where you are on the battlefield. The setting itself is on a card with a vague name/descriptor i.e. "The old dirt road."
Power cards take place of combat actions, and certain card abilities can be "slotted" into the party, offering some special ability or bonus to the party as a whole; the cards have two sides, one green and one red - this ties into "cautious/reckless" slider on your character card/sheet; the slider has a direct effect on the amount of dice rolled (and I believe kept, it's been a while so forgive me if I'm wrong), and the overall damage/effectiveness of each particular card.
The dice themselves I absolutely hated. Sure, they were easy to use, and they made perfect sense if you had the proper card in-hand, but those damned dice were just getting on my nerves; I really preferred my d100 roll versus a percentage, also, losing a die from this custom-crafted set would be a nightmare.
Skill checks were a pain for me as well. The process by which you roll say... an Intimidate check, seems convoluted, but it could just have been me being stuck in my old 2ed ways. Same for Fate Points, I don't know why, but the party pool idea didn't sit well with me.
Overall, though, the game was fun, quick, and easy to learn, the new character "sheets" (essentially decent stock paper stuck together like post-it notes) were really cool, and the game pieces are all of a really high quality, and I really enjoyed the one-shot, I just don't believe I could regularly participate in a 3ed campaign.
I prefer the crunch of the old system, for example: when Father Frederick (my priest of Sigmar) got the left side of his face (and his eye) sliced open, he gained +10 to intimidate and -20 to Fellowship, and had to roll half his Perception for Visual Based checks. Weeks later, he caught a flail to the same side of his head and gained a permanantly pocked, scarred cheek - the left side of his head has been concussed, stabbed, and otherwise abused so much that he lost hearing (you guessed it, roll half Perception of Hearing Based checks), gaining another +10 to intimidate due to his gruesome visage. It really sucks hard since he can't see/hear squat from the left, but there's nothing half as cool as being this guy (<- really, click this link), and intimidating people on a dice roll of 87.
You just can't do that in 3ed, the critical hits are far more frequent, and far less devastating than they used to be, and are really more like minor speedbumps than majorly debilitating, or life-threatening injury, part of the appeal in WFRP, at least for me, was that getting pummeled gave you a scar, and that scar gave your character... well... character, always RP-wise, and sometimes mechanically too; WFRP 3ed is a good game, it's just not for me.
Concerning Stefan:
I can appreciate a tough, challenging game, but I refuse to suffer. WFRP isn't a game about wading in rivers of crap and then dying, it's about wading in rivers of crap, living, and then finding a bigger river; the thought of living in a world like that is frightening to say the least, and your chances of survival are nigh-on zilch to begin with.
Wizards don't have it even remotely close to easy - they start with an average Toughness of 31, and no more than 12 wounds (and that's if they're a lucky human). Aside from the weapon skill they roll at creation, they get a common hand weapon, no weapon training, no armor, 1d10 gold crowns, a quarterstaff (their only real nonmagical defense, because of the parrying property), a hand-written set of rules and regulations (imposed upon them by a collective of people who would make Tomás de Torquemada convert out of disgust) thicker than all of the Encyclopedias Britannica's volumes stacked on top of each other, and the general mistrust/disdain/hatred of 98% of the entire population of the Empire.
If they manage live up to career 2, they have to somehow manage to get upwards of 500-1k gold crowns, or go on some ridiculous quest for one of their betters (likely in some Skaven-infested abandoned Dwarf mine to get about a thimble full of gromril dust, and gods help you if any Dwarfs find out what you did), just to acquire a Libram which allows you access to better magic (and a decent chance to sprout a crown of toes from your head every time you try to cast it), and that's when you're casting in uncorrupted areas, or aren't around Tzeench and that extra d10 the GM likes to roll just to see if you guys managed to get the same number.
Honestly, it's pretty a fairly impossible task unless the guy running the game likes the idea of WFRP being combined with bunnies and fuzzy wuvvy-duvvy kittens.
The only time I could ever agree that wizards might have it easy is when you compare them to a divine-casting priest - if only because the priest starts out much in the same way as the wizard, except with no magic at all until career 2, and no good magic until career 3 - at which point he agrees to allow his deity to emboss etchings of holy symbols into his forehead/strike him down/otherwise rip his soul from his body for even asking.
YEs you lose abilities in one class when you go into another if you want to take a level in each base class, all those classes where level 1 has a +0 BAB that is what you get.
I guess that technically assuming appropriate alignment changes ect you can have a bard/cleric/druid/monk/rouge/sorcerer/wizard which is a 7th level character with a BAB of +0...
What is the complaint you still have one very versatile character....
Please, let's not ever walk down that road of non-think again.
The complaint would be one of the most ineffective individuals ever known to Pathfinder; the saves would be hilarious in a "why bother rolling?" kind of way, and the fact that at 7th level you're facing dangers that none of your level 1 class features and abilities are even remotely capable of handling. Granted, you'd have access to a wide variety of skills - none of them would do you much good in a fight, except for the ones that let you run, hide, or otherwise escape, but you'd be tops as far as making Knowledge:Local checks, crafting clubs, and dancing jigs goes - and sure, you've got access to a plethora of 1st level spells, cantrips/osirions(sp?), so on and so forth - so there would be a bit of versatility, but in the end you'd be a king among insects. The kind of guy that 1st level adventurers look up to before they hit level 2.
These are my "methods" of running NPCs in my games. I find that complicating these things makes them seem less like a process and more like a narrative, which my players like. Obviously you CAN relegate your clerics to selling their spells for cash, but I think it's one of the most boring things you can do with magic users in a game.
That's fine, it comes down to a difference of playstyle, but I tend to play Pathfinder/3.5 as it's advertised: get a reason to find a hole, find said hole, kill whatever is in it, take its stuff, sell it in town and move on to a bigger town; occasional improv acting in between spurts of violence - I let pre-published settings and adventures tell me what the NPCs motivations are, if they have any at all - I couldn't care less what some aging Cleric of Huff'n'Puff the God of Marshmallows thinks, not unless he's going to be a major part of the game's plot.
Regardless of different playstyles, none of our discourse has done anything to change the fact that Reincarnate sucks.
... people don't play in games that are 80%+ role playing and thus want a character that isn't worthless until level 20 and is less likely to die when confronting a Troll.
That, too. I've said it before, but I feel it bears repeating: Pathfinder is a classic D&D setting featuring a guild (of people called 'Pathfinders'), who are impetuous maniacs who make their living by exploring dark, dangerous places and fighting things most normal people would run and hide from.
This is especially true for Pathfinder Society, the official pathfinder metacampaign/plot. While roleplaying can (and does, if Aziz the Great has anything to say about it) occur, is mostly focused on solving a potentially deadly problem; so wanting some sort of solidarity from a multiclass build isn't really that out of the question. Especially when it can get your character killed forever.
Funny, I hear about people who changed careers all the time, and they're never described as hopelessly behind people who didn't.
I've been inclined to agree with you for most of this thread, but I can't do it here.
Multiclassing isn't a career change, it's taking part in two careers at once; you don't ever stop being a Fighter after you've learned to be a Wizard - you still use all of your collected knowledge to succeed in your goals (even if some of the knowledge it a bit behind/dated). It's not like going from being a Garbageman to a Lawyer.
I would recommend you look into Fables for a bit of inspiration, there are tons of volumes, and a few add-on books that give you a good feel of a dark, grim, mature twist on all those classic tales (ironically, all one-time dark, grim, and mature tales, before Disney got a hold of them). I recommend 1001 Nights of Snowfall, it's an excellent short read that really helps set the kind of mood you might be looking for - pocket fairy tale dimensions, a safe haven (named Haven) on the "prime material" plane, and an evil overlord entity conquering lands left and right, its fantastic.
I know you didn't ask for advice on a system, and I'm sure you're using Pathfinder/3.5, but I feel it bears saying: I think the best system to run that kind of game in would be New World of Darkness; everything you'd need in one simple ruleset, with variant rules for each specific creature. I'd look into it at least.
I don't do this often, but I'm going to go for a point-by-point talky-talk. Here goes. This is directed at Madcap, in a very particular, rigid order (also, I'm starting to feel like this discussion belongs in another thread):
Concerning 'Divine Miracles' vs 'Manufactured Products':
Finding divine magic at a D&D temple is about as miraculous as finding a movie at Blockbuster. I should know. I've done both. In fact, not only I found them at said places, but I've [as a DM] also cast divine spells in D&D, and rented movies out to entertainment-hungry consumers. Sometimes in the same week. The main difference? Nothing, really, since both are commonplace in the respective worlds they occurred in. Consider - If a person walks into your place of business, and presents you with a problem, say... "My friend is dead..." or "I need Schindler's List..." - It now falls on you, the prospective provider of a service (in this case either a Resurrection, or a WWII Drama) to take stock of what you have on hand or can acquire in the next 12-24 hours in order to satisfy this need, and then inform the person in need of this service about your ability (or lack thereof) to satisfy said need. - It's like Dork Lord said: Clerics in temples don't memorize healing, disease-removing, poison-cleansing, life-restoring spells for no reason; for relatively little effort (considering that their part in the process is to ask their deity for the spell, then cast it) those spells are nothing if not a largely quantifiable source of income for a temple, and as far as a commodity goes: healing and life-giving magics in a world chock-full of adventurers is a lucrative business that is more than capable of funding, erecting, and maintaining a grand temple in some mighty nation's Capital city.
Concerning 'Getting to 7th level' being 'a significant achievement':
According to the random-roll D&D demographics, as long as you are in/around a Town (1-8k people) there is a high chance that you're always going to have at least one level 7-9 Cleric, maybe one or two of a higher level (about 8-10) and enough lower level clerics to point you in their general direction. That's just for a "Town" - the number of capable casters only gets higher when you move on to "City" (8-12k people) and "Big City" (12-100k people) - for NPCs, hitting level 7 seems less an achievement than just, well... not dying before you turn 40. Fairly simple when you life a comfortable, cloistered existence casting spells in exchange for donations to your patron deity's temple (where you live) and the most stress you ever encounter is when you're arguing with those zany War-god followers across the street, or when some idiot adventurer up and dies and his friends can't wait until morning to bring him back.
Concerning spellcasters 'not having to sell anyone jack':
You are absolutely correct. They do not, in fact, need any need to sell anyone any thing. They also do not need to live a relatively safe existence inside a city's walls, or within a guildhall, nor do they need to take your money in exchange for what amounts to extremely simple tasks (on their part)... that's their choice, except its not, its the DM's choice. Regardless, the entire D&D schema reolves around small groups of impetuous individuals discovering, recovering, and protecting various people, places, and things for whatever reasons they may. Those individuals need support, and you can make a good chunk of change by simply setting up a kiosk outside a famous dungeon and waiting for them to show up.
Concerning plot progression and 'immersion':
Aren't those the same thing? If someone is interested in the plot, then one can safely assume they are 'immersed' - for me, as a Player I am thrilled by the literary aspect of the whole thing - I get to participate in a story that I have a hand in writing. That said, I don't know, or care what the Cleric's motivations are, his concerns are not necessarily my own, and I'm not a mind reader. However, if he is willing to offer me a service, I am willing to compensate him for his efforts in whatever way I can, as long as I get to keep telling my part in the story. As a DM, the NPC cleric in a settlement always serves a purpose, it changes by deity and changes by alignment and changes by race, but I can assure you: it doesn't ever involve sitting around and denying adventurers access to his magic, not unless he has a damn good reason involving something beyond the cleric saying "You want to PAY me?! SUFFER, POND SCUM!"
Concerning letting 'Derpface' rot in hell; stealing other peoples' belongings; 'feeding the children':
That is simply ludicrous. I mean that, what was going through your head when you wrote that? Why would a Cleric with access to life-restoring magic (much less Dimension Door) rob a bunch of bloodied adventurers and then turn their money over to a Political figurehead in order to gain accolades and make himself look better by 'saving the children'- really... I mean, if he's got those kind of resources, there really are tons of people starving, and he's really that into charity, wouldn't it just be more prudent to sell whatever lets him Dimension Door, buy a ton of provisions, prepare lots of Create Food and Water & Heroes Feast spells, and get to feeding the 500 with two fish, four loaves of bread, and a really big bucket? I know that this might seem nitpicky, but if we exclude the snark about the Dimension Door spell - ex: if he was a Cleric with the Travel domain... why is he staying anywhere for longer than a week? (oops, sorry, I'll stop, I promise) - it really seems far more reasonable than trying to rob 3-5 heavily armed individuals, as opposed to taking their money for doing next to nothing on your part.
Let's be honest:
This isn't Warhammer Fantasy RP, where if you manage to survive long enough, and aren't rolling in corruption points, you might be one in ten-thousand people who can call on their god and receive an answer (and even then he might just be pissed enough that he embosses his holy symbol into your forehead). This is D&D, where there are clerics who worship merchant gods, good gods, evil gods, nature gods, war gods, healing gods, and law gods (and many other gods of any particular creed that regularly allow their followers access to a bit of their divine power, if the follower asks really nice at the proper time of day), could reasonably be compelled to cast a spell, for any number of reasons (ranging from money, to greed, to shared faith, to information, to the kindness of their hearts/charity,) maybe even at a hefty discount, on behalf of the only 4-6 PCs in the entire game world.
Umm... you go into a temple and pay the cost for them to cast the spell plus material components. Just like you would pay for any other spellcasting service. It's like saying "what's the deal with that guy at Best Buy selling all those people those televisions? Doesn't he have a backstory? Is he just a 'sellbot'"?
Actually, yes he is... that's all the guy at Best Buy is to me and and all the guy at the temple of Sarenrae is to my characters is the guy who I'm paying to resurrect my fallen comrade. Nothing more. To worry about the NPC's backstory is in my view pretty unrealistic unless the DM actually feeds the party a plot hook via said NPC. Otherwise, he's just a service.
+1, with an addendum: look at my little scenario, near the very end, see it? The word "... negotiates ..." followed by "... the casting of Raise Dead." That's the beautiful clincher in D&D: we managed to get a sweet deal for Barry since: we were known for working on behalf of the hobgoblin settlement, and Barry just so happened to be a worshiper (in both name and deed) of said cleric's deity (some monstrous race god with the war domain, from the Forgotten Realms, it might have been Tempus, or maybe it was Garagos... Probably Garagos).
The cleric's backstory went about as far as "I live here, you're helping us, and he prayed to the same god... sure, I can cut you a deal if you throw in that potion of Barkskin and the cost of the diamonds; and you killed the Malarite druid too? Heck, I'll even cast restoration on Triple-B, I never liked that guy anyway."
[le snark]Honestly, I wish that I could walk into Wal-Mart with five friends, kill half of the employees, run the other half off, stick the GM's head on a pike and march into Best Buy, using my deeds as leverage to either be rewarded with, or recieve a discount on a +3 LED HD 1080pi 24" Monitor. Life would be far simpler.[/le snark]
DoveArrow wrote:
I think one way to solve the problem is to give players a 50% chance of having their characters come back as their original race. Otherwise, they must choose a new race from the list.
I think this preserves the random quality of the spell, but doesn't hose players by transforming their characters into races that don't fit their builds.
Personally, I like those odds, but not enough to ever gamble with them. I think it can be dealt with by just making the penalty harsher, like taking -3 levels instead of the regular two. That way the spell can still suck (like all but the finest resurrection spells), except now the penalty for only having access to a Druid is that his nature-worshiping-ways aren't conducive to pleasant returns from the afterlife. You could ever argue that the reason the extra negative level comes about is because death is a perfectly natural part of life, and the casting of "Reincarnate" - including turning an older body to a young one again, is very, very unnatural.
