The Sword's page

The Sword wrote:

5. Having to buy the hardback version of information that has already been reprinted many times and is in some cases obsolete is just a step too far. Or rather, having to buy the pdf as well as the hardback is a step too far.

I mean, I love Kingmaker, but there is a limit.

And so, one does just what you have decided: you buy only what you want/need, and nothing further. I don't see why that's a problem.

Yes of course. It maybe this products unusual circumstances of being a reprint and having a 5e alternative. But for me buying 5 different versions of a product (6 if you include the CRPG) isn’t normal.

keftiu wrote:

The Sword wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

This is a special situation to other books of this sort. This was crowdfunded and there are specific rules that cause them not to be able to offer that.

Can you clarify why that is the case? As has been said elsewhere, plenty of rpg kickstarters still offer pdf and book combined when it comes to post pledge orders.

I’d be very interested to know what rules you are referring to?

Presumably something to do with this not wholly being a Paizo product? Legendary Games was involved. It could also be a term of the crowdfunding platform that was used.

To clarify, I don’t see this as a crowdfunding rule, it is a choice we’ve made in gratitude to our backers.

I see. So effectively inclusive pdf’s have been made a backer reward so you don’t want to undermine that by also offering them with the post pledge sales.

I understand that. I think it will annoy and put off a lot of future purchasers. I will just buy the pdf for instance and miss out on the hardback, because the pdf is essential but the book is nice to have - but I’m not going to buy the an AP five times.

1. I already have the 1e version when it came out.

2. The pdf of the anniversary edition is essential for me for practical reasons.

3. The roll20 module for the maps and the tokens for online play when it is released.

4. I’ll need the 5e book of conversions of the monsters and NPC stats that are already in the main book, because there isn’t a 5e version of the main path.

5. Having to buy the hardback version of information that has already been reprinted many times and is in some cases obsolete is just a step too far. Or rather, having to buy the pdf as well as the hardback is a step too far.

I mean, I love Kingmaker, but there is a limit.

This is a special situation to other books of this sort. This was crowdfunded and there are specific rules that cause them not to be able to offer that.

Can you clarify why that is the case? As has been said elsewhere, plenty of rpg kickstarters still offer pdf and book combined when it comes to post pledge orders.

I’d be very interested to know what rules you are referring to?

Wait until you get to feats...

I believe the Open University are running a course on feat selection. It’s done over two years and the end examination involves soloing a Pathfinder society module.

The scary thing is if such a thing existed i’d take the course. I feel your pain.

You are correct. However the belts of giant strength are pretty rare items and I guess you just wouldn’t add one to the party treasure unless it made sense. Legends are filled with stories of people getting immense strength or speed so i can see why they are in there. However they are far removed from the existing big six.

Not every combat is an assured thing, but you don't have to think no-name nobody goblins are going to kill you on a random encounter.

...

Unheroic is Lancelot riding into Camelot to rescue Guenivierre and being challenged by 3 squires and dying instead of rescuing her because he's that weak.

Unheroic is Han Solo dying in the attack on Maz Kanata's from two stormtroopers before he even has a chance to heroically face his son.

Unheroic is Darth Vader being killed outright in Rogue One because he cannot march right through and slaughter all...

Yeah it doesn't sound like you've played much 5e if this is how you describe the encounters. The goblin has a +4 to hit and deals 1d6+1 damage and has maybe 7 hp with AC 15.

The 11th level fighter PC has about 90 hp, can heal mid combat, attack three or four times at +8 or so, with AC 20 ish.

The squires/goblins/rebel troopers don't kill the PC but they may knock a couple of hit points off.

I don't think you understand the principal of bounded accuracy. It is about preventing auto success and auto fail. Preventing combat becoming trivial unless DMs are locked into combats with a narrow range of CRs. It prevents AC being meaningless because all monsters hit on +20 or more.

In 5e the low level PCs can take on the Red Dragon becasue it is physically possible for them to hit it but they need to do it in several stages with a cunning plan and a way to heal up otherwise they will get roasted. In existing pathfinder this is impossible, the lower level PCs can't scratch the thing.

So much good stuff - a lot of which our group ported across into PF anyway.

**NO BRAINERS**

Short rests - wow, these speed play up so much and make clerics less of a must have.

Inspiration - simple and rewards role playing

Legendary Monsters - the most awesome way to make end bosses feel strong without needed to have a horde of minions. Maybe create a legendary template.

Death saves - prevent point of death being a mathematical calculation and throw in some jeapardy.

**DEFINATELY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED**

Spells known - makes wizards flexible but not too flexible. They become manageable at all levels without having a degree in accounting

Scaling magic - magic that uses spell slot to scale rather than doing it automatically.

Cantrips - scaling base attacks so wizards don’t need to fire crossbows!

Stat based saving thrones - makes working out saves so much more intuitive and adds a new dimension to matching spells against defenses.

More hp for monsters - 1 hit kills are much less of a thing.

Remove feat chains - it means reducing the power of some feats but so much more elegant.

**CONTROVERSIAL BUT AWESOME**

Bounded accuracy - AC now means something rather than being a waste of time, auto fail and auto success are less of a thing (in 5e you just don’t roll for trivial difficulties) encounter balance is much much much easier, and everyone in the party can contribute. Fighters feel good because they get multiple attacks not because they’re better than a rogue with a dagger.

Concentration - the single most elegant way of speeding up combat, preventing one encounter days and curbing the nonsense of some wizards over level 5. But I accept that it is anethama to the proponents of the god-wizard.

Magic Items - they feel special, they add choices, rather than increasing the stats of existing choices. Love the reduced book keeping.

Fitnesse weapons - they make all PCs awesome in combat and the fighter is differentiated in other ways. The fighter is now awesome by the way and one of our most popular classes.

Tie stat increases to class - allow but discourage excessive multiclassjng by making stat increases a class ability at key levels. Flex these levels to balance classes.

*******

In summary a lot of people are saying 5e is dumbed down, which it isnt. To any outsider it is still a game with complexity, with hundreds of choices, hundreds of spells, dozens of feats etc etc. in comparison to Pathfinder with 10 years bloat there are less options but not when you compare it to 3.0 when it came out.

In 5e when you want to be a specialist in Varisian artifacts you take proficiency history and write it in your background, you tell your GM and when Varisian artifacts are in the game he gives you advantage.. In Pathfinder 1e you want a trait that gives you +1 on history checks dealing with varisian artifacts. A feat that allows you to decipher the uses with a DC 25 know(arcana) check and gives +1 to spell level when using the spells cast from varies Ian artifacts etc etc etc. The problem is the mechanical differences for Pathfinder in most games are either trivial or incredibly good depending on the campaign. Whereas the potential for RP and fun is still there in 5e there just isn’t a specific feat or trait for that choice.

5e is simpler but it isn’t simple. Instead it’s more intuitive and arguably more powerful because you can do more with the rule set as a player and DM because the space to invent has been built into the system. Rather than requiring specific permissions and exemptions to do anything.

Paizo should make intuitive and clear rules a key part of its design structure.

I always describe special effects like these with a few seconds of extra detail. You feel ‘waves of heat radiating down your arm from the bite’, or ‘the wound burns like ice’. You can then ask for the save and describe the effect.

If it’s an effect you don’t want them to know about - an assassin has poisoned their meal with a slow acting toxin - then find a way to get their save bonuses and abilities in advance. For instance by having an unimportant save vs poison somewhere else in the adventure and ask what their modifier are.

I think if you want to keep mechanical knowledge from players it’s better to put that extra bit of prep - rather than the players feel they’re being jerked around on a string.

What suprises me about this thread is just how many people think that casters and martial are balanced. That is a substantial proportion of votes. Particularly considering house rules and long encounter days weren’t very popular.

Clearly it isn’t as big a problem across the board as some would believe.

Hmm, here are three good reasons...

Firstly wizards don’t have access to a PFSRD. Half the spells and items described above wouldn’t even be known to most wizards because they’re scattered across the universe. You can search something out to buy, learn or invent if you do know/can’t imagine what it is. Therefore not all wizards have access to demiplanes, simulacrum, clones or even lantern archon spam.

Secondly wizards aren’t carbon copy cutouts learning the same dozen Uber spells. They specialise, have their own fields of academic study and interest and limited resources not least of which is time. The descriptions above rely on the - prepared for anything - schrodingers wizard. For the reasons already given those wizards don’t exist outside players heads.

Thirdly, where there are wizard tyrants bending people to their rule, there are adventuring bands/crusades making sure they don’t get to do it for long. A wizard is still only one man/woman but a group of individuals will always have an advantage in action economy if nothing else. Also once your wizard has used their lantern archon spam their multitudinous enemies know how to counter that ability.

Good thoughts, Sword, I'll add some maybes:

If that such fashion comes to be then certain aliens would be excluded as well, unable to match trends due to anatomical/genetic differences. This may lead to an alien counterculture, i.e. Vesk grunge & Shirren beatniks, who start their own looks.

I expect that with an unlimited number of worlds part of the fun of world building will be deciding which cultures feel differently about all these things. Part of the joy of GMing in Starfinder for me are the ways I can make different worlds stand out as unique culturally, rather than just environmentally. I wont be using the majority of alien races as I plan on running Starfinder in the Dark Heresy, 40k universe.

Back to the original question which was about cultural implications living in a universe where you can appear however you want not about gender identity.

It's worth reading Pandora's Star by Peter F Hamilton. It details a world where you can undergo a rejuvenation process to appear at any age you desire, and undergo surgery to effectively appear however you want just like the serum. At the same time you can also be reborn into a body back to the last time you memories were downloaded into a server. They call that second life, or third life.

A couple of outcomes are described

- The population is split into the jaded middle class that can afford the procedures and the poorer classes for who it would represent a significant expenditure. Not dissimilar to modern society.

- Experience and novelty is far more important where people can all look classically beautiful. What a person does and how many times they've done it is more important than what they look like, doing it.

- Natural looks gain a value in and of themselves, as opposed to artificially created looks, even if the difference isn't obvious at first glance.

75 credits may represent a much larger proportion of a persons disposable income than the 1 credit per day figure would suggest. After all how much of your income goes on food as opposed to all the other things in your life you spend money on. I can definitely imagine cultures where it would be frowned upon to put your superficial appearance ahead of other spending priorities.

Just a few thoughts

It is ironic that Pathfinder was designed to be backward compatible for people who weren't ready to give up on 3e but in reality isn't and people can't use their 3e materials. While at the same time becoming much worse than 3e in terms of bloat and complexity.

There's irony there.

The best suggestion so far was to drop the pronoun entires and insist on names being used to identify the subject every time.

The Winking Skeever!

Of course, the energy drain may not be as traumatic as the Rogue scene in xmen. It could easily be seen as a lethargy to feeling of being run down. Perhaps their heads feel stuffed with cotton wall or forgetful.

The Way of the Wicked deals with a lot of these criticisms of evil campaigns. By having a very strong patron and authority structure, severely limiting the chances of PCs betraying each other (using an interesting mechanic), had a very story and task driven adventure structure and uses good antagonists that exemplify everything you love to hate about goodness.

To be honest if a DM can enjoy role playing the villains of a campaign I don't see why players couldn't enjoy it too?

Technically the author can write any ability they like. If they create an adversary that can do something as a standard action then that's what it can do.

I'm not really sure what the problem is.

The difficulty is, by developing the idea further and using it for your story you become complicit in the original story. It also tacitly condones such behaviour and reminds the PCs that they did something heinous.

Lets be clear, there is no 'good punishment' that you can dish out to your players that will make things balanced and yet still leave your players satisfied. Unless they enjoy doing terrible acts and then being punished for it (lets not even go there.)

I wouldn't flip the monopoly board, I just wouldn't want to develop a fundamentally flawed storyline and would prefer a clean slate. Honestly the situation of adults fighting against their will is pretty horrific and brutal, using children was really just clumsy.

However, if you are determined to plow ahead. Is there any way this Dark Stranger can have been toying with the party and the 'children' were polymorphed adults wearing faces the party knew (if they indeed are people the party knew.) Perhaps the party members can glimse a figure in the crowd that looks like someone the party killed - the player doesn't know if they are having flashbacks or being fooled. The stranger actually has the people the PCs fought captured and is using their hair/nails/blood etc to grow dopplegangers etc they can use?

I don't really care about the legal ramifications of what the age of majority was in a faux analogue of Victorian England. The law can be whatever you want it to be as the DM of that world.

However I will say, players being forced to role play fighting children, or willingly killing children is pretty sick whichever way you square it. People can justify it by saying oh, back they would have been adults... but the point is you and your players live now and do understand how bad it is.

To be honest, if that happened in our game, knowing my players, the campaign would probably end. Everything I tried would be to walk back from that and undo the damage. Let's be honest this is a role play game and I'm surprised that's how some people get their kicks.

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay had a few issues but the first edition was for me the most fun to DM and play. The career system was really interesting and represented a wholy different style of profression, magic used MPs to limit usage and the critical hit tables were brutally hilarious. Combined with this the first three modules of the enemy within campaign are seen as being some of the best in the industry, particularly for their time.

It's well worth taking a look.

I also agree that 5e is probably the best system on the market at the moment. It has the balance of simplicity while having a robust stystem and the maths works really welll for me. Very satisfying.

The example of this combination of choices and the arguments people are giving for justifying their combination is the reason Pathfinder has reached critical mass and is about to collapse into a black hole. This isn't a role playing game anymore it's a morass.

Luckily the back hole contains Starfinder and a clean new rule set.

I say clean because the argument that a light bringer elf should benefit from a shadowbound curse makes me feel dirty. *shakes head sadly*

Whilst talking about stereotypes I think there is a risk that racial anomalies can become clichéd. Humans raised by dwarves or elves seems to be overdone, as does the ubiquitous good aligned drow. The danger is that these become just as one dimensional as the stereotypes they're breaking. Instead of getting under the skin of the race, you actually park all that to one side and don't engage with anything.

I'm not saying these concepts can't work. Just that they aren't inherently better. Tension is good for storytelling, but I like variety I also like to see character backgrounds reflect their racial choices. There is a lot of material there for people to work with and not every adventurer needs to be an iconoclast.

Do role play race, otherwise what's the point. You can either enjoy age old stereotypes...
and let's be clear that can be a lot of fun... drunken Scottish (I personally prefer Welsh, or Yorkshire) dwarves and all the rest.

However I see outlook as being more important than mannerisms. You don't need to talk in a funny voice to role play, you just need to immerse yourself in the characters point of view.

Taking dwarves for example. How would dwarven psyiology effect dwarven psychology?

- Would living hundreds of years give you a different opionion on things that are transient or fleeting, would they be less important? What about things that are built to last? How would you

- If your family has been around for hundreds of years, how do you feel about them. If ancient history is only two generations away, how does that affect your feelings about the past? Does it become more important or more mundane. How does how you feel about the past affect the way you consider the present and future.

- How would an innate resistance to magic or poison affect your paychology. Would you be more willing to put yourself at risk or indulge in such things because you had developed a Resistance, or would the opposite be the case. How would you feel about people that didn't have those resistances.

- Does having innate proficiencies mean you have an innate fondness for some things. Alternatively if you haven't pursued those skills do you feel guilty, or a longing - or even a rejection or rebellion.

These are just a few examples of how racial abilities could affect psychology. Every game world/setting/regions non-humans could have different backgrounds but the abilities are clear to see. Have a think about it and see what inspiration you get. Maybe brainstorm ideas first and get some stuff down on paper.

If you want more inspiration try and track down an article called non-human psychology for the old WFRP game, it was published in a book called Apocrypha Now several years ago but there may be excerpts floating around somewhere.

In some campaigns the solutions proposed of 1. Find and employ a sphere of annihalation. 2. Transport and imprison on the bottom of the ocean. 3. Find and convince a psychopomp to stand guard over its prison. 4. Find and convince an immortal angel to stand guard over the prison; all sound pretty damn amazing to my mind.

In campaigns where wishes grow on trees and players are allowed to simulacrum into creatures they've never personally seen then it isn't a challenge at all. However I know in the games we play these things would be awesome challenges in and of themselves.

Of course as in all encounter or adventure design having just one creature is a fairly limited concept and the doomsday cult/fallen angel/angry psychopomp that let the thing free in the first place could all add substantial complications. The Tarasque is a creature of plot and story and it deserves a good plot to make it truly come alive. Flicking to a page in the bestiary and rolling initiative doesn't really work for this beastie... or any epic adventures to be fair.

I agree, the series suffers from long periods where you don't find out what's happening to x character as well. All the above issues can be picked up by a good director and actors I reckon.

I think what I find interesting compared to Game of Thrones is where in that series it seems like everyone apart from the starks are effectively greedy, selfish sons-o-b#!@*es, in Wheel of time there is generally a lot more positivity. People don't need to die every five minutes to maintain shock factor. Don't get me wrong I love game of thrones but I find WOT far more satisfying (and less emotionally traumatic) to read.

Also let's not forget that pretty much everything Matt does from Fires of Heaven onwards is just awesome. Freaking Awesome. The medalion, the ashanderai, the hat... everything! He also has the best prophecy I've ever seen. "To marry the Daughter of the Nine Moons. To die and live again, and live once more as part of what was. Give up half the light of the world to save the other half!" Delivered as the Aelfinn are carrying him along above their heads to throw him back out of the gateway. He he

Spoilers a plenty here so I've hidden. Even though I would assume most people posting on a WOT topic years before TV release must have read the books.

Regarding the Shadar Lorgoth Battle:

For me Wheel of Time has more moments of awesomeness then any other book or set of books I've read. When then they happen they actually bring tears of sheer exhilaration to my eyes. I can forgive the shawl adjusting and someone reparative gender stereotypes because he manages to create something so vivid and deep that when the foundations of the world get shaken you recognize that truly momentous things are happening. That level of investment is built up over the series because of its depth.

Truly awesome stuff. I just hope they do it well. For me Dumai's Wells could be the most incredible moment in TV much better than the shock tactics of GOT. The build up to that scene is palpable and torturous and the release is ecstatic! Some really clever structure there!

+1 to PK The Dragon

I know it seems counter-intuitive at first but sometimes I think it is helpful to remember that a game like pathfinder is not the same as live action role playing or acting. Remember we don't want to restrict people into only playing characters they can socially represent. To put it another way, PCs are an abstract concept and it's not necessary (or desirable in some cases) to restrict them to realist behaviours.

For instance we don't limit conversations to 6 seconds in combat. We also don't limit decision making to 6 secs per round, or we would have a chess clock on the table. The game rules are an abstraction used to represent several things. If a group of adventurers spent every waking hour together for a period of months or years they would get to know each other pretty darn well - in particular their tactics and style of fighting. This can't be replicated 100% in game terms - it can be take into account though.

For this reason it makes sense to encourage players to adopt tactics and communicate among themselves to represent that shared bond and harmonising. By the Gods, I'd much prefer a party that acts considerately to each other and tactically than one that plays every man for himself! It's just more fun and they're less likely to die.

Planning and deciding tactics is fun. In my opinion anyway, at least as fun as rolling dice and making characters. In our group the stuff that takes the time is the deciding what to do, particularly when there are mysterious situations. Predominantly TTRP is a cerebral exercise not a physical one so let's exercise those mental muscles.

Lastly these out of game conversations can represent things other than a straight up conversation between two characters. John asking for help because his character is bleeding out and down to 3 Hp might represent the pangs of guilt the cleric character feels as he watches his friend bleed out, or it might represent the ever widening pool of blood on the floor. You can't rely on the DM remembering to describe these details. Similarly agreeing what order to fight in or to hold actions could represent players discussing combat tactics over the campfire at night and rehearsing scenarios like a football team does.

I've considered restricting decision time making in rounds, time for conversation and player knowledge. Ultimately I don't think these things make the game more fun, or particularly realistic, they just cramp style where we're already required to suspend a lot of disbelief. I think the DM should make it clear where abuses are taking place - for instance where secret knowledge only possessed by one character is passed on before they could physically do so. Other than a rough and ready approach is best.

On the flip side, of course there may be times where you want to actively limit knowledge. To my mind it helps for the DM to spell these circumstances out as they occur. For instance when DMing the curse of Strahd I wanted to retain the fear of the unknown element for people to whom zombies and Vampires are almost a cliche in ttrpg terms let alone film and TV. As a result I took the 'Walking Dead' approach which is to say I asked the players to pretend their characters had never heard of zombies, mummies or vampires and act accordingly when they see them. The walking dead is a lot more terrifying for Rick and crew because they haven't been raised on Zombie films. The characters may have heard vague rumours of necromancers but are only vaguely aware of what they do. Subsequently Strahd is a Devil who feasts on the blood of the innocent and not just a Christopher Lee clone. This does require thought and no little imagination but it's a role playing challenge just like any other but one that I actively discussed and explained at the start.

This is the exception that proves the rule though and becomes more effective and powerful if a light touch is used at other times... enforcement of character knowledge should be used when it will improve the fun or teamwork of the game and not because of arbitrary rules intended to stifle communication.

Just my thoughts.

Don't let us tell you how your players are though! You'll know that better than us! It maybe that they love this kind of thing and are you used to a character or two dying every session.

I'm sure there is a Knights of the Dinner Table sketch where Bob dms for the first time
And describes a room with a pit trap covered with a carpet...

.. that or my selective memory is concealing the fact that this was also me.

I've been lucky that I play with long term friends and family. That has to be easier than balancing a flgs game.

I may have told this before but the worst GM fail story I've seen was actually my own. I was fairly new to GMing and was running an evening session, we had a long 8 or so hours to fill and people had travelled a fair way to get there.

I was running a pre-written module about murders set in a roadside inn. Lots of intrigue and suspicion, lots of suspicious NPCS where essentially the players discover who are cultists of an evil god.

The first encounter was in the taproom of the coaching inn having just arrived. The Pcs introduced themselves to each other then I described the taproom to them.

"A noble and his wife, two dwarven craftsmen, a stern looking roadwarden and a group of three cultists..."

I then paused. Looked at the players, they looked at me. I looked at them and then I just bent down and rested my head on the table quietly. With nothing else prepared and too little experience to wing it we just ate and chatted for the rest of the night.

I stick to preprepared notes now, instead of summarizing text on the fly.

It's lucky that John snow wasn't part of an adventuring group, otherwise Longclaw would have been sold to a Tyrell and the proceeds split. John would then have died beyond the wall.

It is a DMs responsibility to make treasure interesting, relevant and rewarding. The best method of doing that is to put some thought into what might benefit the characters and stick that into the loot. Instead of giving people pointless items. Better to give them a gems, or an art object like a gold stature of a nude elf than a dagger +1 that no one is going to use.

Ravingdork wrote:

Not only did the GM and wizard player get shatter wrong, they couldn't have detonated all your bombs at once since, per the rules, all of your bombs are inert, disparate substances until you attack with them.

i said grenades not my class ability bombs. grenades. and you have to make a save for the shatter spell. and because I was tired of the wizards spotlit stealing and going against the plan to do so. and the fact that i was not paying attention to the fight to focus on disabling the device (in character). i chose to fumble the saving throw with the DM's go ahead. first time for that. that in turn shattered a vial of alchemist fire catching the pc on fire lighting all the grenades on fire causing them to explode and thus destroying the bottles and vials of alchemical weapons that he was carrying around on his chest. the pc's bombs never exploded just his alchemical weapons dealing over 150 dmg to everything in the area of the explosion.

It's sounds fairly cinematic to me, by which I mean a fitting end for an alchemist character you seemed to want to die. In a home game, slavishly sticking to the precise wording of every rule isnt the only way to play the game. Particularly when when common sense, plot, style and player intention favours another way. The rules for how a crate of grenades explode is very unsatisfying and implausible.

It sounds like the wizard player is the problem (or not if they were aware of the alchemists feelings).

If seems like some key issues are

1. Why isn't the party loot being shared equally?

2. Are you comfortable with PvP?

Both these are group issues not GM issues. Of course everyone saw what they wanted to see and jumped on the bandwagon of Terribad DM.

Regarding magic items (which was after all your original question) I would say the point to get magic items is the point where it would be fun which to mind my mind is the first session. I'm also a firm believer that you can have too much of a good thing and that the Christmas tree effect is bad for the game.

I've seen new player wealth dealt with in several ways. It can be a concern that a new player with the benefit of OOC knowledge and full access to the lists can get an unfair advantage over other players (obvs not the wizard though in this case). As a result some GMs like myself prefer to agree a few reasonable items or provide character specific loot at an early opportunity (which may include taking it off the dead character). If you join the party by being freed by them for instance you're not gonna have your kit in the cell with you.

Let's be honest even though I don't agree with punishing death, some particularly strict DMs dock levels or even make players start again at level 1.

My suggestion is to explain your feelings to the DM, and maybe express concern that this feels like a low magic campaign. Give him the opportunity to redress the balance at the next loot opportunity - easy enough.

I'm sorry to say though, that there is absolutely no requirement on GMs to provide all the big six items and full access to buy items. If you expect this you're begging to be disappointed. Many campaigns run on the assumption that you find your items as loot. Some campaigns may require item access for players to survive but certainly not in all games. Witches in particular can perform very effectively without the big six.

I've never understood the high level NPC complaints about the realms. Your PCs only meet Elminster if the DM forces that down their throats, unless they go looking for him. Then there's no guarantee he'll have time to help or even see them.

If you are really lucky you might get to blag a 5 minute conversation with Bill Gates. It is highly unlikely that he would drop everything and devote the full resources of Microsoft to what's going on in your little corner of the world.

I actually like a world where there are plausibly higher level characters - good and bad - that your PCs can interact with when the reach higher levels. After all how many campaigns have we seen where the PCs reach level 15+ and all of a sudden big level characters seemingly appear from nowhere (no back story or place in the setting).

As for the setting being generic. Don't forget that if this is your first fantasy RPG then generic is not a bad thing. If it's the first time you've done something then you don't care if you everyone else has adventured in the realms for 40 years. What goes on in other groups doesn't carry into yours.

A particularly memorable encounter (though I can't remember which novel) involved a door warded by a magical trap that had cross-crossing magical wires - almost like a complicated bomb. The wizard protagonist looked at the arcane pattern and was able to disarm the trap by cutting/disabling the strands one at a time tp the point where the trap collapsed harmlessly on itself.

It seems to me that using Arcana or even other skills could be a great way to create new and interesting challenges, particularly if magical and non-magical elements are used.

It also reminds me of Aviendha picking apart a spell in the Wheel of Time series and the disastrous consequences when that fails. I wonder what else the Arcana skill could be used for.

A DM Douche in PF is as bad as a DM Douche 5e. If they're trying to screw with you it will happen. There is still a whole lot of discretion and judgement built into Pathfinder. After all what is the DC/Cost to fix a compenent piece of a greater whole?

There is a definite lack of examples for DC setting in 5e. Even in the modules. Even finding things like breaking down a door or picking a lock isn't obvious.

I think players can still craft items in 5e. No feats are required but the player has to find a formula or research one and gather ingredients just like in AD&D.

Just out of interest do people use 10 coins per lb or 100 coins per lb for coinage weight?

At the risk of rebutting your response, I don't think I rebut all of people's opinions.

That said I like my opinions to be challenged because that's how they become tested. Several posts on here have changed my mind about how I view 5th edition and as I'm not interested in organised play I can pinch things from Pathfinder to improve 5th ed just like I pinched things from 5th ed to improve Pathfinder.

I guess traditionally, wizards spent gold on spell research (and those spell components can be bloody expensive)

Clerics spend it on the faithful, either good acts or items to glory the church - decorate the local temple, soup kitchen etc.

Rogues and fighters are trickier if you aren't interested in founding some kind of organisation. Though acquisition of wealth is its own reward to some.

It is a fair question though.

In the words of Arthur King of the Britains

People talk about gold and 5th ed a lot. Having played AD&D before I never saw ththe lack of magic mart a problem. In fact it, I'd largely cut it out of Pathfinder, allowing item purchase in game as part of quest lines. That hasn't changed with 5th ed.

Also to put it another way. What you a person in this world do with huge amounts of gold? Enjoy it probably.

Bell of Lost Souls PETA link

Whoop whoop, managed it!

I've seen the full letter. It wasn't calling for the public to ban Warhammer it was asking games workshop not to model fur. Still very odd, considering the models are space Vikings. What do they expect them to wear ... Spandex. Good find on the article though.'very entertaining.

Not only is my method of rolling dice better than everyone else's, I also crack my hard boiled eggs from the pointed end. Anyone who does it the other way is clearly doing it wrong.

My preference is to roll in view. This because when you roll that crit and a player character dies you can go through with it knowing you were honest and they accept it because they know it wasn't fudged.

However there are instances when I don't...

1. When it's a roll they shouldn't know the outcome of. Crucial stealth checks for instance,

2. In a survival horror style game where I want the players to feel like they are missing information. For instance it's all behind the screen in the curse of strahd game I'm running.

3. When blaggy metagamers use the dice to weasel information out that their characters wouldn't have, then go on to abuse that information.

You are well within your rights to say you'll be rolling behind he screen but be ready for the backlash. You maybe faced with the decision of dropping DMing as if they won't play, you've got no game. Ideally decisions like this would be made at the start.

One suggestion would be to start rolling a few dice in secret on the grounds that they don't know the outcome. Just three or four rolls per session. Once they're used to this, slowly increase it.

Just be aware that this is a marmite topic on here. People will either flame you For destroying player enjoyment or defend to the death your right to bear concealed dice.

Does everyone realize we're just telling stories. Take a step back and remember that it's all just made up. The designers certainly don't care, half this stuff is just the things they made up in their living room.

Golarion isn't Pathfinder

Your Pathfinder isn't mine.

We get to pick whatever we want from whatever sources and use it to entertain ourselves and fellow players.

There is no heresy. Only new life

I love you all.

The Sword wrote:

I read it twice and politely requested clarification.

.... which I refused to provide, since the answer I gave was complete and accurate.

This post is as surreal as some of the suggestions in this thread. lol.

I love the Legolas bits. I'd be quite happy with that right through. Which I guess is what the fighter/ranger is now.

I guess there is a difference between saying a fighter isn't powerful enough vs saying a fighter doesn't affect the world in the way I believe a high level character should. Whether a fighter or any other martial class is crappy will depend on what you want to get out of the class.

I'm all for bringing in the short rest long rest mechanic personally.

They aren't Fighter vs Wizard problems. Those are bad encounter design, poor GM and bad advice for new characters.

Definitely the "range of character options" thing. I played my first 5e game today and while I'm really enjoying my Arcane Trickster Rogue...I feel like my path is set as far as what abilities I get going forward to 20. And after I play this character, I will probably not want to play a Rogue again.

The scarcity of Feats (both in number and frequency, and potentially even existence) and small number of build paths for characters (Rogues have 3, but the other classes seem to usually only have two) means the game seems like it would get old after a while.

Some feats are effectively chained together so you get all of them in bulk rather than slowly over levels.

Some feats aren't required anymore because you don't need feats to do those actions - (combat manouvers etc)

Most feats aren't relevant because bounded accuracy removed the need for endless pluses.

There isn't much left after that particularly because a lot is covered off in the archetypes.

The hardest thing for me to get my head round was that it is the characters decision in game that makes the difference not the decisions at levelling up. Once I switched my thinking the whole game opened up for me.

The only reasons to forbid someone playing a martial are as follows:

A- you refuse to allow Martials to perform appropriate to their tier.

B- you take the game past level 12 without nerfing magic and the opposition.

As to why I would do it? Because I don't want to see yet another player heartbroken when he realizes that his party mate solves all the problems by summoning a horde of angels and his badass BMX skills accomplish nothing of value.

My definition of 'demigod or not' is what the spells are doing.

Take a look at 7th level spells. That ain't 'human' level magic anymore.

So you save people from themselves. How very paternalistic of you.

Best character in our skull and shackles campaign - swashbuckler
Best character in our Warhammer Fantasy campaign - scout ranger
Best character in our northlands campaign - sword and shield fighter
That is in both terms of interest and ability to get stuff done.

I always thought that sketch would loose its potency if instead of being a guy on a bmx it was a 6'2" Arnold Swartznegger equivalent in a suit of adamantine full plate and a sword five long, moving through a series of small dark rooms.

I can't really see any grounds for separating 7th level magic from 6th except it is more powerful. It all breaks reality.

[edited text because I got ninja'd, then got ninja'd again lol. Kurt is one step ahead of me every time. He doesn't have the foresight spell up]

Fighters can do a wide range of things that are extraordinary. Using feats and archetypes. They are getting twice as many feats as most other characters. Feats let you do cool things. Blind fight for instance. They don't let you do everything, but then again neither should they.

Anything else is for mixed martial caster classes of which there are plenty to choose.

Regarding the tiers and media characters how did you decide where to put people?

Surely demi-God status is what mythic is for? The ability to not die and/or high star points/templates.