discosoc's page

I don't restrict classes for balance reasons since I can deal with that as a GM during gameplay. I do restrict classes for flavor reasons, if they don't make sense for the setting. The "eastern" classes are good example. Alchemists usually get restricted unless the player REALLY wants to play one, and even then they have to deal with things like vials breaking and stuff whenever relevant. I usually restrict the summoner simply because that concept is already handled with either the druid or wizard/sorc.

Stuff like that.

It would change, racial modifiers.

Outside of that your charisma is the same.

I believe only the physical abilities get adjusted (STR, DEX, CON). You remove those, and apply the ones (again, physical only) for the new race. INT, WIS, and CHA are left alone.

well, looking at the weapon and now knowing that I was thinking of the wrong weapon anyways, I wouldn't have allowed it. i was honestly thinking of the compound.

Yeah compound bows are a fairly recent technology (last 80 years or so).

Although monks might start out as Bruce-Lee type fighters, they very quickly move into mythical/magical tropes where they eventually transcend their mortal bodies into perfection.

Trying to apply physical logic or make comparisons to swords with that kind of concept is pointless.

discosoc wrote:

So a Composite Longbow (+3) would have a value of 400 GP, a Craft DC of 21, require about 134 GP in materials, and probably a week of time to craft it, assuming he can reliably hit that DC.

I'm still trying to figure out where you got the 134, iirc the craft cost is one half of what it takes to buy it, mine came directly at request of player, and works just as well as building a new one besides not having an old one to sell.

Step 3 under the Craft skill:

"Pay 1/3 of the item's price for the raw material cost."

Since a Composite Longbow (+3) would have a value of 400 GP, 1/3 of that is roughly 134 GP.

Pan wrote:

Thats not how I interpret apearance. Its not pure physical attractiveness otherwise you wouldnt be scared of cthulhu you'd want to hump him. It's about how the individual carries themself. Through your appearance you are more noticable and therefore can effect those around you better because of it. You could have a scarred face pirate captain who is fugly but he uses his ugliness to intimidate people thus explaining his Cha bonus. If your body is changed through various means, you would adapt the way in which you use your charisma bonus not become more/less ugly.

And yet that scarred pirate would be just as good at getting chicks into the sack as he would be at intimidating, short of skill points.

If he chose to apply his charisma through charm, sure. That would be kind of weird and out of character for a typical fugly scarred up pirate captain who rules with fear and intimidation, though. But if the player has no interest in RP and is looking to work the mechanic over the table, then that's a player/GM issue.

And yes, I could totally see such a hideous pirate managing to legitimately attract women through charm if he actually wanted to. The guy would be *Swag Incarnate* not to mention in a position of power. Something lots of women place more importance on than looks or even personality.

This whole "debate" is mostly the result of people not actually knowing what the word charisma means when they learned to play (usually as kids). So they try to simplify it down to how good someone looks, which obviously causes problems.

Charisma can very well be the result of the person just being very attractive, but that's just one non-exclusive possibility. A high charisma score represents your ability to influence the way people view and feel about you. That influence could be the result of having a perfect body and wearing nice clothing, or it could be the result of having a ton of confidence and natural "leadership" ability. It could be the difference between being incredibly ugly and often scaring small children, or being incredibly ugly and simply make people feel bad for you while causing children to laugh.

In the case of reincarnation, although you have a (sometimes very) different body, you are still you. If you had a high charisma and get reincarnated into a Troglodyte, your charisma still shines through. It very well may shine through *differently* but you still have it. In your case, your ability to influence people is no longer the result of having large boobs and a nice smile, but maybe the result of having a 1000 yard stare behind some eyes that have obviously seen some sh*t go down.

On the flip side, if you were an ugly Orc and got reincarnated into a hot elf body, your charisma isn't going to change because you still identify as an orc, not an elf. You'd retain the same mannerism, vocabulary, and habits as you did when you were an orc.

Xenops Wrangler. Focuses on summoning huge flocks of small birds that emulate AOE spells like fireball, obscuring mist, etc.. Except it's a ton of birds and not actual fire or mist.

What are some of the better ways you guys and girls have seen or used to start a new group together? Do you just assume they all kind of know each other and let them sort out the details? Do you run an introductory adventure meant to convince complete strangers to together for a common cause? I'm just curious what everyone's experiences have been.

One of the more interesting that I heard about was the group was all summoned by some powerful wizard to fight his enemies, but died right afterwards. The demon or dragon or whatever killed him was so amused that it just left them alone assuming they would vanish after a few rounds. I think they spent the next few adventures just escaping the dungeon.

Anyone have some good stories?

I assume you mean "composite" bow, since compound bows are a bit... different.

Anyway. Just have him make a new one. Upgrading a bow seems kind of weird. According to the CRB, each +1 adds 100GP to the cost. So figure out what strength bonus he wants to use, then go with the crafting rules.

So a Composite Longbow (+3) would have a value of 400 GP, a Craft DC of 21, require about 134 GP in materials, and probably a week of time to craft it, assuming he can reliably hit that DC.

If he was absolutely dead set on upgrading it, maybe because it's like a family heirloom or something, I'd just have him do the exact same thing as above, except he pays something like 1/6th the value rather than 1/3rd in materials to represent already having a significant portion of the bow to work with.

In that case, to upgrade his Plain Old Composite Longbow to a (+3) version, he'd pay 200 GP for materials, it will still take a week of time to craft it (unless he rolls high enough to reduce that), and the DC would still be a 21.

Feel free to double check my numbers, but I'm pretty sure that's accurate for you.

I know this is an old thread, but...

The problem isn't power creep. It's that Pathfinder decided (rightly so) that there were way too many prestige classes, and ended up duplicating those problems by adding new classes with nearly every book. The end result (class/option glut) is the same.

They hit the right note with class archetypes, and should have stuck with that. There's not reason a Ninja couldn't be a Rogue archetype, or even prestige class, for example.

It's funny that now I have to use the SRD because I have so many books with so many options/feats/classes/etc spread out everywhere, that it's the only way I can effectively reference them. Most of our players haven't even bothered purchasing even the CRB, let alone the other stuff, simply because it's way too much needless info.

Anzyr wrote:

I would argue that "Fighters fights, thieves steal, cleric heals, etc." is pretty limited roleplaying. Class balance is important because class mechanics inform players roleplaying, and roleplaying a weak class is only different from roleplaying a strong class in the context of what mechanics that other has or doesn't have. A Bard for example, can totally be roleplayed as a smooth-talking, nimble-fingered thief, who also happens to be capable of whipping up a spell or two, inspiring the party and dishing out respectable damage.

It had to do with how players received XP. Everyone got a little XP for helping kill a monster, but a huge chunk actually came from doing class-related stuff. Fighters got extra XP for killing things. Thieves gained XP every time they used their thief skills. Wizards got XP for casting spells or creating scrolls. That kind of stuff.

So if you played a thief, the game encouraged you to actually pick locks, sneak around, steal coinpurses, etc. The Wizard was encouraged to cast spells (although due to how long it took to memorize spells, they had to anticipate how likely they'd have a chance to rememorize those spells any time soon).

The system wasn't perfect, but it was obviously not setup to make sure that the thief can fight as well as the fighter, only in a more "thief-like" way. Even levels weren't meant to be balanced with each other. Thieves required less XP to advance in levels than fighters, most races were limited to how far they could advance in some classes, and sometimes you had restrictions in place like the Druid not being able to go past level 16 (or something near there) without becoming part of a/the druid circle leadership.

And since there really weren't "builds" for different classes other than a weapon type or spell selection, the primary way to differentiate yourself from another character of the same class was in how you roleplayed.

lol, well yeah. Go back far enough and you'll find that Elves were a class. The genre has really changed a lot.

I would argue that "Fighters fights, thieves steal, cleric heals, etc." is pretty limited roleplaying. Class balance is important because class mechanics inform players roleplaying, and roleplaying a weak class is only different from roleplaying a strong class in the context of what mechanics that other has or doesn't have. A Bard for example, can totally be roleplayed as a smooth-talking, nimble-fingered thief, who also happens to be capable of whipping up a spell or two, inspiring the party and dishing out respectable damage.

It had to do with how players received XP. Everyone got a little XP for helping kill a monster, but a huge chunk actually came from doing class-related stuff. Fighters got extra XP for killing things. Thieves gained XP every time they used their thief skills. Wizards got XP for casting spells or creating scrolls. That kind of stuff.

So if you played a thief, the game encouraged you to actually pick locks, sneak around, steal coinpurses, etc. The Wizard was encouraged to cast spells (although due to how long it took to memorize spells, they had to anticipate how likely they'd have a chance to rememorize those spells any time soon).

The system wasn't perfect, but it was obviously not setup to make sure that the thief can fight as well as the fighter, only in a more "thief-like" way. Even levels weren't meant to be balanced with each other. Thieves required less XP to advance in levels than fighters, most races were limited to how far they could advance in some classes, and sometimes you had restrictions in place like the Druid not being able to go past level 16 (or something near there) without becoming part of a/the druid circle leadership.

And since there really weren't "builds" for different classes other than a weapon type or spell selection, the primary way to differentiate yourself from another character of the same class was in how you roleplayed.

I'm generally against being too heavy-handed with the adjustments on the fly. If a trap can one-shot a rogue, for example, it just means the rogue should have known he wasn't in any condition to go scouting for them. Maybe he had a head wound or something, and wasn't thinking clearly...

Or when a fighter walks up and the planets align just right for so that he one-hit-crits the BBEG; don't take that away from him. Players don't get to experience many of those moments, both good and bad, so you really should let it sink in. The rogue will get rezz'd and hopefully the player puts more thought into future actions. The warrior gets a story to take home with him, or maybe decides to use that encounter as a reason to justify the leadership feat or something. Who knows.

What I am all for is long-term adjustments. If you see a trend where your players are walking through encounter after encounter without a sweat, then go ahead and bump up the difficulty. Because truly, that's what the actual BBEG would do anyway, if he noticed he was being chased by a deadly group of adventurers who are cutting through his ranks like butter. Maybe their sheer power is enough to push him into bargaining with a demon or something.

Whatever you do, just make sure the adjustments you make are explained in a way that makes sense to the characters, not necessarily the players. And do not get in the habit of fudging rolls (good or bad) because players pick up on that. At best, they'll just get more brazen and stupid with their actions knowing you'll pick up the slack. At worst, they'll resent you for it because they can't count on the rules actually being used consistently.

If people don't like that classes are not balanced in Pathfinder, I think that is a major point to hit in a thread asking if anyone likes Pathfinder "as is". Since certain classes are not very capable "as is" the likely answer to that question is that the game while good could use improvements. Which I think I summarized quite nicely on page 1 (biased).

I generally don't care about class balance. That's a fairly new concept for RPG's, where they tried to make sure every class is equally capable *during combat*. Before 3e, D&D was a lot more RP-focused, even during combat. The fighter would fight, the thief would steal, the cleric would heal, the Paladin would moan and complain, etc..

I also play with people that share the same opinion, so we generally don't find ourselves complaining about this character doing too much, or that one doing too little.

The trap on the bridge was pretty bad. I think I rolled something like a 31 to detect it, and still failed. If it's that high, why even bother making it a trap? They obviously intended you to fight the thing.

And of course that just brought up another issue of that fight being crappy for anyone without decent ranged abilities.

Zark wrote:

discosoc wrote:

My group is just really burned out with Pathfinder, after a year and a half of playing. Combine that with about 10 years of 3/3.5, and it becomes a pretty heavy dose of fatigue.

I think a lot of people are in that boat, which is why 5E seems to be doing so well. It feels like the anti-3.5 version.

Are there other people out there that starting to feel burned out with Pathfinder? I though we was alone in this. I’m not being sarcastic. We even have one in our table top group who has bought 5ed players guide.

The best advice I can give if you're experiencing Pathfinder fatigue is this:

1. Swap DMs every so often:

I expect that most groups do this, but for those that don't: F!#*ing do it already. Players become better players when they DM every once in a while and DMs become better DMs when they play every once in a while. I would say to do it at least once every three campaigns.

2. Play with different people/invite a new player

Part of the fatigue from Pathfinder, IME, comes from playing with the same people every week. You pick up tendencies, play similar characters, have stale combinations of game mechanisms/rules, etc. You enjoy playing with them, but it can become repetitive and create system fatigue. Playing with others, or more drastically, being DMd by someone new can really help break monotony, and lessen system fatigue.

It's something that my group is very firmly looking at doing right now.

3. Play some other games one night

Anything (except Monopoly, Risk, Diplomacy, or Mario Party) that you can sit around a table and play together. Settlers of Catan, Twilight Imperium, Stone Age, Carcassonne, freaking poker. I'm not even suggesting another TTRPG, just another game for one week to take a mental break from roleplaying.

We already do all three. It really is just Pathfinder fatigue. Or, more specifically, 3/3.5 fatigue. Stuff unique to Pathfinder certainly adds to it, but it's the overall design that's wearing thin.

Advice wanted:

If you were using the free Lite version, would you rather have the banner ad always displaying (not great on small screens), or would you rather have a large ad that pops up every now and then?

Have full-screen ad that gets displayed every time you open the app (or switch back to it). With a "continue to app" button on the bottom to skip past it.

Having said that, I despise ads, so I wouldn't even try your product if it were free unless it did something I truly needed. Recording a character on my phone is not that.

discosoc wrote:

thegreenteagamer wrote:

My question was, as I stated in the title, to see if anyone plays an unmodified, RAW Pathfinder, since I often see so much banning, so much customization, so much house ruling, so much complaining, and so much general disapproval of the system as it is on the boards.

For what it's worth, my group is playing without house rules.

Without house rules that you know of. It's not actually possible to play PF by RAW.

Sure it is. House rules are RAW, under the most important rule section. But that shouldn't matter unless you are just looking to be facetious by insinuating that since the rules aren't 100% ironclad, every group must be using at least one house rule to plug the holes.

discosoc wrote:

I think Paizo definitely has their work cut out for them, and I'm not sure how the Unchained book is going to really change things. My guess is that anyone who's interested in what Unchained has to offer (streamlined options for combat, redesigned classes, balancing, etc) is very likely looking at moving to 5e right now, rather than waiting 8 more months for a Unchained.

So basically, Paizo is in a rough spot right now, in that although they are doing very well, they appear to be reacting to the industry rather than leading it. I'm interested to see how things shape up over the next year.

Unchained and Occult Mysteries being among the upcoming releases does seem to at least indicate that Paizo agrees that some of their class design has fallen into a rut. While the ACG put out some nice classes, none of them really felt all that different from what we already had. Really, the whole hybrid class concept ends up smelling a bit like "We're running out of ideas, so let's rearrange our old ideas in new ways."

I'm just not sure how they can make Unchained and Occult Mysteries work, while not also making people feel like they wasted money on the other books because 60% of them are no longer accurate. Of course, that's not so much a problem with Unchained or Occult Mysteries as it is a problem with releasing a bunch of adon rules for your product as an income source.

I have a feeling Unchained and OM will end up being great books with great design changes that unfortunately appeal to a fairly small number of groups. Basically, those who haven't invested too heavily outside of the CRB, haven't already jumped ship to another product, and don't love the complexity and crunch of Pathfinder as it currently stands.

My question was, as I stated in the title, to see if anyone plays an unmodified, RAW Pathfinder, since I often see so much banning, so much customization, so much house ruling, so much complaining, and so much general disapproval of the system as it is on the boards.

For what it's worth, my group is playing without house rules. If we wanted to fix Pathfinder with a bunch of house rules, we'd just go play something else. Which it looks like we are going to be doing. I think that's the point of everyone here complaining. At some point, people realize that if they are having to house rule 30% of the game to clear up inconsistencies, balance issues, or just clunky mechanics, they might be better off playing a different game.

Of course not many people purchase $400 in books and then switch systems on a dime. It's a slow process for most, and often requires some kind of alternative to show up. Right now, Pathfinder complaints have been getting worse and worse simply because it has become clear that 5e isn't going to be the failure that 4e was.

Remember, Pathfinder exists because people didn't like the direction 4e was going to take, and they felt like 3/3.5 was still fairly fresh. The landscape has definitely changed in the last 6 years, and the tactic of "more of the same" obviously isn't working as well as it used to.

I'm currently running a modern supernatural game using AFMBE, and a Pathfinder game. That's probably around the standard Pathfinder to non-Pathfinder ratio in terms of games I've run since Pathfinder has existed...so getting burned out because you've not played any other systems is an alien experience to me personally.

But then, I pretty much skipped 3.0 and 3.5. I mean, I played a couple of games of them...but it was just that, a couple, and brief at that. So, during that whole era my games were exclusively non-D&D. Pathfinder is what got me playing a D&D-like game at all after years of not doing so.

But basically, I think switching game systems is perfectly reasonable, but don't think it has a lot to do with the age of the system, more to do with fatigue from dealing with only one. Mixing it up is a pretty solid plan, IME.

We purposefully skipped 4e; it just didn't feel like D&D as much as an MMO on paper. A few of us in my group (myself included) are AD&D 2E guys, and 5e really feels like a step in that direction.

What I'd love to see Pathfinder do is just simplify the core rules significantly, get rid of the CMB/CMD redundancy, and pare down or combine a ton of feats. I'm not overly concerned about "class balance" or whatever, because a decent GM can reign that in well enough.

One of my friends (who doesn't play in my current group, but does play) also mentioned that he's tired of feeling like his characters only start to get access to fun feats/abilities/spells after about level 10 to 13. As someone who plays fighters 9 out of 10 times, I can relate. I look through the feats and it feels like level 1-10 is spent taking feats that server no purpose beyond allowing me to take the feats I want later on. It's like "oh cool, in 8 months I'll be able cause bleeding on a crit..." That feels like something I should be doing at 5th level.

Anyway, we are possibly switching gears in another month or so, after the current module winds down, and giving 5e a try. It was interesting how our group kind of had all this pent up frustration with Pathfinder that I guess no one really wanted to bring up previous (didn't want to rock the boat maybe), and as soon as one of us mentioned having a 5e PH, it was like the floodgates opened, and suddenly everyone mentioned that they've been making characters for it and everything. Kind of weird.

I think Paizo definitely has their work cut out for them, and I'm not sure how the Unchained book is going to really change things. My guess is that anyone who's interested in what Unchained has to offer (streamlined options for combat, redesigned classes, balancing, etc) is very likely looking at moving to 5e right now, rather than waiting 8 more months for a Unchained.

So basically, Paizo is in a rough spot right now, in that although they are doing very well, they appear to be reacting to the industry rather than leading it. I'm interested to see how things shape up over the next year.

My group is just really burned out with Pathfinder, after a year and a half of playing. Combine that with about 10 years of 3/3.5, and it becomes a pretty heavy dose of fatigue.

I think a lot of people are in that boat, which is why 5E seems to be doing so well. It feels like the anti-3.5 version.

I have a thing or two to say.

Sean is and always will be, in my opinion, one of the most over-opinionated developers out there. His way or the highway, which is fine. He has the job at the big gaming company, not us so talking down on him is pointless as the rest of us are ants. Also, he doesn't listen to what the players want, he gives them what HE wants, and then tells complaints to shut up.

Now this isn't a personal attack, this is quite simply what he demonstrates.

There is a severe problem with "flavor" vs. power. And that is playability. I want to play Eli from Book of eli. But I couldn't do that. I have a severe physical disability, I'm dead session one. I've always wanted to play a blind character. I've wanted benefits (as flaws should always give benefits to create balance) but not things that replace sight. Maybe I want to have a keen sense of smell and hearing and be able to feel magic in the air. I can't do that. If I play a blind character, I'm dead.

So moving on from that, that's just what you have to accept. Quite simply, if you're playing Pathfinder, you're playing in someone else's sandbox. This isn't your game, this is theirs. IF you don't like it, don't complain, houserule. If you're not the GM, talk it over with your GM. Most GMs will give you a second to state your case and if it doesn't impede balance, will house rule it in. Because quite simply, if you play everything by the book, you're playing the game as SKR wants it played, not as you want it played. If you want more flexibility, I recommend Mutants and Masterminds, Neccessary Evil (Savage worlds) and other rpgs that actually listen to their players. Otherwise, just play Pathfinder.

*Note, I play Pathfinder every week and love the system. But we do feel the need to houserule some things because lack of creativity, or at least play testing. Now this isn't an attack, though it will be responded to as such, but more like a plea for the pathfinder developers to LISTEN TO THEIR PLAYER BASE INSTEAD OF BEING ARROGANT. Neil Spicer says something, people listen because he's not arrogant about it. People like SKR however are, and let their jobs go to their heads. Which is fine, that's their choice.

Wow. First of all, a GM cannot cheat. It's their game, their story. Your players are simply a part of that story and are contributing in that manner.

That doesn't mean your players have to do nothing to affect the story, but certain things are done for a reason. Reacting to the players means the players have full control of the story, and that's not how it goes. You have no clue how many times in the past 10 years I've been GMing other games that I've had to steer players in the right direction. Allow me to explain why:

Bad guy Vik is a behind the scenes kind of guy. He has everything he needs to become a great, evil god save for one object. This object will come to the Pc's attentions through information obtained by a specially gifted oracle. But wait, when the PCs are meant to save that oracle, a dick rogue kills the oracle and she dies. So the DM is supposed to let everyone continue the story up until the point where the enemy becomes a god and destroys the world because a player decided to be a dick?

Or should the DM compensate and give them a free hand out to know this is going to happen?

Most of the time, this game isn't a sandbox. It isn't run by the players. A player plays to get involved in a pre-made story and to influence it, but over-all most players know they are the most important characters in this story and that if they mess up, alot is at stake. They are given a reward, that reward is leveling up and gold and the power to influence the story in crucial moments, but they can't control everything and you have to learn to deal with it.

Now to answer your dumb question "When did this become story hour?" How about when the game was invented? Read a module. Does the module say: "If your players decide not to kill the stag lord and take control of the stolen lands, that's ok this isn't you telling the story." No. It says that if players don't do something, X happens. X is usually bad. The PCs have the power to influence world events, but they have to realize the DM is putting alot of time and effort into running this game. It's his/her game, and you're just playing in it. A DM cannot cheat.