Why can't our bosses understand how hard it is coordinating our schedules for RPG time!?! Solved that one by organizing a game with my co-workers, calling it a "team-building exercise"!
wading neck deep in lava Heck, just keep one finger poking up out of the lava.
Basically, if you have teleport and long range scrying the "long desert journey" campaign is pretty much out. And as long as everyone knows that it doesn't have to be a problem. But if the GM is like "oh no, I statted out this entire desert because it had not occurred to me that you would bypass it with teleport! Now that you have decided to use the spell that is part of your class mechanics and hence something I tacitly approved when you chose the spell, I will punish you!" well, that's bad. Yep, just so. And this is where GMs who play (the complete version of) Pathfinder need to give teleporters a reason to go into the desert, and not just through the desert. Otherwise, as noted previously, it's not the PC's story -- it's someone else's story. It's really not hard to give the PCs reason to go into the desert. Here's a simple one: the BBEG casts misdirection and sends a underlying into the desert in disguise. The misdirection points to the underling, so the PCs go to the desert to find the BBEG, but only find the underling. Still in the desert, still having a desert adventure, and still one step closer to the BBEG, if they capture that underling. I also urge folks to try giving up the "journey through the desert" for this party. If the party wants to Scrye-and-Fry, let them! The battles become scrye vs misdirection, teleport vs dimensional anchors, teleport chases. It's a much more investigation-based campaign, but it works just fine, and is loads of fun, and most importantly, it is that party's story.
Tacticslion, I thought you made some good points, though I no longer remember specifically which good points were yours :-)
magic being rare and mysterious is fine as a literary concept, but loses its luster quickly when a person is devoting an entire play session to being a wizard and nothing else See, for me, that's exactly as it should be. It took a rare player that wanted to struggle through to become a powerful wizard ... just like a typical fantasy narrative suggests. It meant that in game, just like in fantasy literature, wizards were rare compared to fighters and thieves. Only the players who were seethingly patient and clever were ultimately rewarded with the terrible power of high-level magic. Later, players came along and wanted to be wizards without any of the work, and they were gratified, so of course nowadays there's no reason to be anything else. Power with no effort -- that's what lacks all fun for me. Where's the challenge? Frankly, I'm glad to see folks realizing the folly of easy wizardry ... again.
So what would you say about a level 6 spell like say Scrying can be defeated by a something that isn't even a spell. Even better! And another good example of how magic acts in a believable fantasy narrative -- that is, it has limitations. And what self-respecting BBEG would spend years creating a lair, and not put a sheet of lead lining in the walls? Of course, if your players read every detail of a spell, and use it to their advantage, that's "good play". If a BBEG does the same thing it's called "DM Fiat". Makes no sense to me.
Most of these limitations were lifted in various house rules because they slowed the game down unfunly (no one used speed factors, for example) or because people thought it would be more fun (item crafting is fun, because you can actually play with all the cool trinkets listed). That wasn't the way I saw it happen at all. I never once heard a single complaint about the limitations to wizards being unfun, or slowing the game down. I believe that was a social phenomenon that came later, and was perhaps retrofitted into history. Not the way it actually happened, from my observation. Basically, the game is more fun if magic is less restricted. That's one of the clear lessons of forty years of history. But this also suggests that if you're trying to restrict magic, most people will think you're making the game less fun. Yep, that's the exact attitude I'm talking about. For me, and those I have gamed with, the opposite is true. In fact, we don't even think of it as "restrictions", because we never felt entitled to unrestricted power in the first place. Meanwhile, the newer school of player feels that "restrictions are less fun", but then this is the result -- and it doesn't sound like it turned out to be that much fun after all, based on the comments in this thread.
There are some false assumptions here, the largest of which is that a spell to counter teleportation needs to be more powerful than teleport trap. Redirecting a teleport attempt is a much more powerful effect than, say, simply blocking a teleport attempt. Or a spell that blocks the scrying attempt that allowed the characters to teleport right into someone else's lair in the first place. Or a scrying misdirection, that leads to the characters' teleporting intentionally to the wrong location. I could go on. Bottom line is this: if a 5th-level spell is powerful enough to transport a party across the world to a specific location, then the "guidelines" for spell creation should allow for an equal-and-opposite effect by a spell of the same level.
All you'd be doing is reintroducing the problems that led to them being removed in the first place, and you would still have people complaining about the magic system and it's unfair weight on the system. The only real difference is that different people prefer different solutions; the base problem was there from the very start. I've played OD&D, and every version since then, and it's never been my experience that the expansion of supermagic that is evident in Pathfinder was based on any sort of problem or instability within the system. It was, rather, a social phenomenon based on the differing attitudes towards gaming espoused by an emerging generation of players. The rise of popular retro-clones demonstrates the early game's continued feasibility even today. Of note is that in early editions it was very, very difficult to keep a magic-user alive long enough to gain any real power. This was both good for game-balance and narratively sound. I do agree that trying to retrofit that into Pathfinder is a lost cause, given those aforementioned attitudes prevalent in the game's playing populace.
Pathfinder is a magic-heavy world. All these examples of wizards doing whatever they please with no chance of failure ... that's not "DM fiat", that's DM laziness. In a world infested with magic, do you really think you'll be able to Teleport right to the BBEG's lair?? That wouldn't be a very Big, or very Bad evil guy, if you ask me. Sounds like you have players that are magically active, and bad guys that are magically inert -- just sitting around waiting to get killed in a dungeon somewhere. Why is it you allow PCs to scrye on BBEGs, but don't assume the reverse is happening with similar frequency? That the BBEGs aren't using just as much magic to find and kill PCs that use magic to find and kill them? If magic is so powerful, how come it can't be used by bad guys to prevent assassination with the same rate of success? Makes no sense! Sure, if you play all your monsters as if they have no clue that powerful wizards exist, of course wizards will have an easy time of it. This isn't "tailoring" adventurers to casters, it's just providing verisimilitude in a magic-heavy world. In such an actual world, magic is defended against actively and ferociously ... of course. It would be like constructing bank vaults out of wood, and then complaining that burglars are too powerful because they have dynamite and sledgehammers.
Realism applies to magic too. You can call it "nerfing", but it's really just getting rid of the insane lack of verisimilitude that 3.x magic introduced. Magic is the stuff of great power, and the idea that it can be wielded without care or possible consequence is, to me, the very height of unrealism. So in a sense, we can also solve the problem by adding more realism, rather than less, if only we can get past the idea that it's equivalent to "nerfing" the superpowers 3.x players have come to feel entitled to.
I couldn't agree more. However, everything 5e improves in this regard is done even better by other versions of D&D. I can certainly see the reasons for moving away from Pathfinder, but now that retroclones and OSR is a thing, I don't see any advantage to 5e in particular.
Agreed, and to expand a bit: most people I've seen play murderhobos do so because they can't (or can't be bothered to) come up with a more interesting motivation for their character. It's not so much that being a murderhobo is inherently attractive for them, it just winds up being the "default motivation" for the lazy or unimaginative. That said, I think getting rich is a fine motivation in itself, and when done well can divorce itself from the concepts of "greed" and "evil" just fine. I like to think of such characters as "treasure hunters" rather than "murderhobos". I also think a large part of problem is that XP is typically rewarded only for overcoming encounters, which in turn often means killing or beating your opponent into submission. It used to be that XP was awarded for each gold piece recovered, a rule that was later eliminated presumably because it seemed to make greed the only viable motivating factor. Ironically though, that greed served to reduce the murder aspect: since XP was so much more plentiful from treasure than from killing, players were best off avoiding monsters whenever possible if they could get at the gold another way. Pathfinder murderhobos may be after gold in part, but most likely they'll be looking for XP with at least equal gusto, and thus be killing everything they can their swords on.
I suppose liking Pathfinder "as is" means also enjoying new material as it comes out? Or does it mean "given the current published material only"? If the latter is the case, I guess I've liked it as-is for some time, since I play with only the Core Rulebook. If the former, not so much. For me, added complexity, added rules, a growing gap between those rules and fantasy archetype, and increasing focus on character abilities rather than player abilities change the tone of the game in ways that makes the experience much less fun for me. I find it unfortunate that Pathfinder continues this trend from its predecessor. I love what Paizo has done for the gaming community though.
This is a great example. Some players will try to build a "Gandalf", and in order to do so they will evaluate the character, and find the necessary mechanics to match it, coming up with an Aasimar Fighter/Druid, or whatever. The opposite approach is the player that notices some Druid mechanic that, by the numbers, works really well with the Aasimar, "dips" into Fighter for an extra feat or two to make the mechanic work even better, and winds up by accident with a character that could be "Gandalf", though they have no actual interest in Gandalf, only in the Empowered Heightened Maximized Stone Entangle Attack (or whatever -- for the people who actually think I'm trying to quote some real optimization) they've created. I've played with and GM'd for both sorts of players -- and for me, the first type brings the fun at the table to a whole new level. Your mileage may vary, though I suggest you try both (if you haven't) before deciding which is most awesome.
This thread is super-interesting to me, as I really like adding flavor through language. Measurements are a great way to do that, but I don't really care what language the game books themselves use, as it's easy enough to translate, often without requiring conversion. Feet become "cubits'. Yards become "strides", etc., as others have mentioned. True story, in rural Nepal, footpath travel is the norm (no roads), and distances are typically measured in rice, as in "Pokhara is 5 bowls of rice away". If your character asks a peasant for directions in my campaign, they're likely to get such an answer, and translating becomes a job for the character, rather than the player. In that sense, I feel the translation process actually adds verisimilitude and thus aids immersion.
For me it's not theory craft. I have played APs, home games and PFS. By about 5 or 6 a caster is able to keep up with the martials. By the time you start getting to about level 9 they have elapsed the martials. By about level 15 a martial stands no chance against them. If that's not theorycraft, then I have to wonder what sort of game you're running where martials "stand no chance against" spellcasters. Is it a character-vs-character arena or something? The reason this doesn't really happen in real play for many of us is because at some tables characters actually work cooperatively, rather than competitively. The notion of "which character could do this solo" never comes up, because characters never work solo. Likewise, the notion of "I have spells that make me immune and you don't" never comes up for the same reason: spellcasters working as part of an adventuring group are just as likely to imbue the party martials with the same immunities. Pathfinder (and its predecessors) is designed for characters to work as a team. Any class comparisons that pit characters against each other to determine which is best, is most certainly theorycraft in any game I've played in (well, since I was 12 years old, anyhow, when we did compete/battle/etc with each other, and one always had to keep their eye on the party thief).
This is an interesting board on which to ask this question. Most folks here play Pathfinder of course, and most feel like they wouldn't play such a game because it lacks options, and more options are better. The ironic thing is that Old-Schoolers like the sort of game you're describing for exactly the same reason: more options. And therein lies the rub: the Pathfinder game system is bound by the printed options available to players. If you don't have the right Feat, Skill, Magic Item, racial or class feature, then you can't do it! In a game like OD&D, on the other hand, characters are expected to make up the the wild things they try, and rulings are built on-the-fly for them. Options are literally unlimited. As an old-school guy myself, would I play in your game? Absolutely! And if you use a system that rewards creativity rather than one that is bound by published rules, even better for that sort of thing. Whether or not simpler class choices results in more enthusiastic role-playing I think depends largely on the GM and players involved. I do believe that rules-bound, splat-heavy games like Pathfinder have spawned a whole generation of players who don't know what it feels like to make up their own flavor or tactics, so fewer choices for such players isn't going to be very much fun. Still, there are plenty of us out there (not necessarily on this board) that relish and seek out the simpler campaigns. Anecdotal note: our current group plays Core Rules Only, and it is almost painfully fun, every week.
I have played in one such campaign, in which our party consisted of seven Magic-users, each with a different specialty. It was tricky, but loads of fun. I have also DM'd a long-running campaign involving an all-Paladin party, riding oversized hobnailed Reindeer in a frozen northern wasteland. The party was tough -- took out a Young White Dragon (3e) at 2nd-level. We got to really explore the whole Paladin thing in depth, without any inter-party tension. It is one of my most treasured DMing experiences.
I think we all get it. You don't like the jump rules. You don't like people who play by RAW. Good for you. Please now inform the rest of us on what is the correct way to play. I fear I may have been doing it wrong. Simon, I don't mean anything personal towards you or anyone else who plays by RAW or who has a different interpretation of the rules than I do. My apologies if I sounded intolerant due to my surprise, it was not intentional. My point is not that RAW is bad, rather it seems to me that your reading of the rules is not in fact RAW, but itself a creative interpretation. You are of course entitled to your interpretation and to play any way you choose, whether it is called "RAW" or not.
It gets better. Apparently "RAW" (as used by others here) means you not only overshoot your mark, but never land, so I guess your monk starts levitating after every successful running jump check. Not sure how he gets down ...
The lawyerism that reads that rule and decides that a character is incapable of jumping less then the distance rolled on a die is boggling to me. Seriously, do people actually play this way ... and still manage to enjoy themselves? It's pretty simple really,
The base DC to make a jump is equal to the distance to be crossed You don't miss a skill check because you exceed the DC. The distance calculation is used only ... if the check fails or, presumably in the case where you're simply attempting to jump as far or high as possible, without a specific goal in mind.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned as far a I saw, is that swarms which climb or fly would be likely to spread out in three dimensions when otherwise constricted, rather than necessarily occupying more grid-squares. A swarm of spiders restricted to a 5' corridor would not extend 20' along the corridor floor, but more likely 10' along the floor and 2.5' up each adjacent wall. A flying swarm might likewise expand in an upward direction, given space to do so, rather than horizontally. I think whatever shape keeps the members of the swarm in the closest proximity possible to each other would be the shape the swarm tended to take, even in the face of hunger, because swarms act as a single entity (otherwise, every hungry swarm would just immediately disperse when faced with multiple enemies). Something to consider if you allow swarms to re-shape themselves.
As a spellcaster in such a setting, I'd be looking pretty fondly towards the Silent Spell, Still Spell, and Eschew Materials feats.
As long as we're waxing nostalgic, one of the funnest campaigns I ever had the joy of playing in was a Spelljammer game. Not that I'd necessarily want to try to revive that mess of unworkable rules ...
I miss not feeling guilty whenever I refer to spells by preceding the name of the spell with the wizard who created it. Some of the spells just sound awkward without it as well -- could the name Transformation for a spell be any more generic and undescriptive?
I miss the Olde Days, when no maps were drawn on the table at all, all descriptions were verbal, and a character had to explicitly carry ink, quills, and parchment to create their own map as they went, or risk being hopelessly lost. Descriptions took the form of: Player: I look right, into the archway, what do I see?
etc ... Players who lost their mapping equipment would still receive the verbal instructions, but were forbidden from recording them. At the end of the dungeon, the players were left with their own replica of the GM's map, which we'd then compare, for fun.
The idea that "other classes are better rogues than rogues" is an unfortunate by-product of an every-player-for-themselves mentality. It's not a contest. The best parties are the ones that work together, rather than each member attempting solo heroics alongside each other. Sure, an invisible bard or sorcerer is better than a rogue of the same level at sneaking around. But an invisible rogue is best of all. Rogue or Sorcerer? No! Rogue and Sorcerer. This is just an example of course, that can be extended to any scenario where one class's abilities are "better" than another's for the same task. Try combining them, and most importantly remember that all parts of a combination don't need to originate with the same character.
I am always surprised by threads that talk about "having" to play a Rogue. I think Rogues are way underrated, and I love showing off what a skill-based character can really achieve. (see also: Batman kicking Superman's butt!) Saiyagamitar has not created a profile. |
