eilar's page

Goblin Squad Member. Organized Play Member. 7 posts. No reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists.


RSS


breithauptclan wrote:

Yes, absolutely. And a GM that can do that is definitely the GM that I want to find and play with.

But doing that kind of campaign balancing is not an easy task. Especially for new GMs.

If anyone can come up with a magic mechanic that would allow a new GM to easily create a balanced campaign with an unbalanced player party, that would be ideal.

So you want a game where everyone is balanced - sorry but I find that boring. People aren't balanced in the real world everyone is good at some things and bad at others that's what make life interesting -same with a game. It seem people want a video game where they can have pve or pvp and it all works with no real input from gm. D&D was about a PARTY. Yes the mage did great at killing lots of little guy but sucker at the boss and could fight 1 maybe 2 battles in a day. The Rogue was the opposite ie could do his stuff all day and was great vs bosses but sucker versus minions. The cleric hkept everyone alive and acted as a backup fighter and t uu e fighter kept it all together because he could fight all day every day. Balance without being Balanced.


breithauptclan wrote:

Yes, absolutely. And a GM that can do that is definitely the GM that I want to find and play with.

But doing that kind of campaign balancing is not an easy task. Especially for new GMs.

If anyone can come up with a magic mechanic that would allow a new GM to easily create a balanced campaign with an unbalanced player party, that would be ideal.

So you want a game where everyone is balanced - sorry but I find that boring. People aren't balanced in the real world everyone is good at some things and bad at others that's what make life interesting -same with a game. It seem people want a video game where they can have pve or pvp and it all works with no real input from gm. D&D was about a PARTY. Yes the mage did great at killing lots of little guy but sucker at the boss and could fight 1 maybe 2 battles in a day. The Rogue was the opposite ie could do his stuff all day and was great vs bosses but sucker versus minions. The cleric hkept everyone alive and acted as a backup fighter and t uu e fighter kept it all together because he could fight all day every day. Balance without being Balanced.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is there ever going to be a bundle for pdf's of the old issues of pathfinder companions?? Although I don't have necessary want all it would be nice for backup and 45 * $8 is a no go.


I disagree the gm chair is NOT a democracy. The GM makes and modifies the rules as he wishes and the players vote by participating or not. But every change does NOT get a vote. If one of the players wants to sit in the GM chair and make the rules then they can start their own game but most don't want to but would love to set the rules for the gm. so sorry the GM SETS the rules and they are not voted on!!!!!

As for being an a#~ h&$@ you obviously are only a player and don't GM.

You can discuss it to death if you want but it won't change Paizo's rules and it shouldn't. But maybe it will change some gm's worlds.


I don't know what the problem is -

If you are the GM Change it

If you are a player talk to your GM and see if he will change it.

Every game is different and every gm can run his or her world the way they want. The rules are just guidelines - don't believe me look it up!


Power Word Unzip wrote:


In the coming years, I do think a 2nd Edition of Pathfinder that builds upon the original while simplifying play would be a great thing for the hobby. For all the things Wizards of the Coast did wrong with 4th Edition, that focus on making it easier to learn and play is something they've done right.

Please Please please Do Not "Simplify" this game,

D&D was and Pathfinder is a game for Intelligent people, there are plenty of games for people that either are not smart enough to play it or are to lazy to learn ---- please so many other games have become so "simplified" that it makes me cry.


To me the worst thing is everyone got a bonus except the Basic Wizard.

Sorcerers are much better spellcasters in 3.5 and yet they GAINED abilities. The only thing wizards had was flexibility and that is useful if you have a god gm that knows how to make their wizards useful. Average Gm's (and poor ones) Wizards are not worth much.( I still see the wizard as what spellcasters are supposed to be but then I began with original D&D and all the old fantasy books.)

The Hate of spellcasters is very evident on this board and not really understood
A fighter vs a wizard:
If the wizard has range and if he gets the first spell off and if the fighter fails its save versus one of the few kill spells the wizard wins otherwise the fighter wins every time. That's alot of ifs to allow the wiz to survive. Everyone says wiz have such power, they can kill 100's of monsters with one spell(sure if the monsters are alot lower level and not a challenge to the party anyway). Try taking a wizard though a equal level dungeon (Say he has 20 healing potions) and take a fighter of the same level through the same dungeon (with the same # of healing potions) and see which one last longer. - anyone want to bet on the wizard? I thought not so why the hatred of Wizards??? Why does everyone want to wimp them out?

4th edition to me was put together to make all the classes EQUAL but to me they all seem the same. Yes they call their abilities different things but they essentially have the same powers - that is why I liked 3.5 and Pathfinder so much better that 4th ed.