Would be kind of neat plot device/character flavor to have a historically aetheist individual still being granted the powers of their chosen class. Perhaps even haunted by the fact.
Search Posts
I removed a post. Do not post any content that infringes and/or violates any patent, trademark, copyright, or other proprietary right of any third party. Sorry about that. I have both physical copies and digital copies and forgot about sharing out of print third-party stuff =)
Whoa, thanks so much for this. Got some ordering to do!
What product is this re-imagining taking place in?
I'd definitely be interested!
The City of Greyhawk boxed set. I lived in that thing.
Definitely among their best =)
Do you listen to The Sword by chance?
Another perspective on the Fighters vs. Wizards debate. I find this much more believable than the Wizard Win Button.
I like where this is going. My vision of a rogue is The Gray Mouser and the 3.5/PF version doesn't really allow this without sacrificing all utility for the TWF line.
Having a ritual magic mechanic would significantly help fix the caster/non-caster disparagency. Basically anyone can "cast" a spell through ritual if they have the proper combination of skills/abilities. It just takes longer and consumes more resources than traditional casting. It may take an hour to cast Bulls strength but at least a fighter could. Opens up all kinds of avenues for non-caster item creation and pre-fight buffing. Not to mention travel and other things. Each ritual should be unique and difficult to learn, but it puts a lot into play for non-caster BBEG preperation. I'd rather have a magic-item or artifact fulfill this need without adding a new mechanic. Rituals for non-casters doesn't seem thematic to me–just a disassociative way to give some cool powers to non-arcane/divine classes. On the other hand, some sort of basic prestige classes open to fighters and rogues that offer a specific line of higher level abilities would fit since the background flavor can be tied to the choice of the PrC.
Hence the reason I have serious issues with high magic games/magic item super malls. It's really up to each GM to balance the economy in their own games. Sticking to the RAW just leads to broken systems ripe for abuse.
Awesome, thanks a lot!
Is anyone playing or interested in doing something with Pathfinder in the Dallas/Fort Worth area? I just moved here in July and want to game in some capacity. Will definitely check out the available stores in the area as well.
Wow, thanks Mr. Jacobs. I would never have guessed, but after looking at the "probable" map of the other continents it maks a little more sense. Thanks for the clarification.
After playing around with designing my own campaign world and comparing it to Earth and Golarion, it seems to me that Golarion itself is a pretty small planet. The southern edge of the Mwangi Expanse to The Crown of the World is roughly 2800 miles and encompasses climates from deep tropical jungle to arctic wasteland. By comparison the Equator to the North Pole is 6000 miles. This also made me think about realistic travel times between cities in Golarion. As far as I know from just reading the Inner Sea World Guide and a few other reference books, there are no established transit systems like air ships, locomotives, gryphons, etc. So assuming steady horse travel, just to get from Almas in Adnoran to Egorian in Cheliax (as the crow flies) would take around 19 days using the map on page 7 of the ISWG and 48 miles/day for light horse movement. That's two cities relatively on the same latitude. Take Katheer in Qadira to New Stetven in Brevoy (two cities on the same longitude). Easily a month. On the one hand, this makes the isolated genres of each nation a little bit more believable, but it's hard not to imagine some enterprising wizards/engineers coming up with a more efficient way of travel between civilized areas. That's one of the coolest things about World of Warcraft (disregarding the many, many things to dislike about it): the somewhat believable systems of rapid transit whether it be gryphons, zeppelins, or underground gnomish trams.
Let's not forget that alignment takes no consideration for mental health (no, not all "crazy" people are CN). Dexter would take some serious DSM-X rulings to even begin to unearth what his inner being is up to…never mind the axial limits of our beloved alignment system. He's at war with himself and a very complex character, so trying to pin the faults of the alignment rules on Dexter is nearly impossible. For my games, alignment is a function of the game world, much like the Elric stories where Law and Chaos are at war with one another. It doesn't dictate how a person should act or what the consequences are when they don't act accordingly, but rather it molds how the world and the character fit around each other and what big picture concepts they follow and promote. Anything else is just going to cause a major headaches when players act human.
In the end, I don't think the definition of atheist as we know it really applies to anyone on Golarion. Since the divine is knowable and miracles and direct effects of one's faith can be seen each and every day, someone denying those beings is more along the lines of mentally disturbed - since they are denying the provable and knowable. And since faith doesn't really make the gods stronger on Golarion, religions are merely clubs with member benefits. Throw in some Berkeleian idealism in the form of a group of people that start believing in a god that doesn't even exist but suddenly start receiving access to spells and you have the idea for my next campaign! ;)
In actual game terms, it doesn't really matters does it? So that leaves the impact on your setting. Majuba makes a good point about immortal elves emphasizing the mortality of other lifeforms. Or you could say they are effectively immortal in the eyes of other races, but give them their own view of "elf-death" and have it be culturaly important to them and something never to be shared with non-elves. Just don't give them green, blue or purple hair and dances moves eerily similar to Michael Jackson's and you'll be in good shape.
This is really interesting to me, because it puts the atheist on Golarion in an unique position: being undeniably wrong (by definition of the word atheist). It leads me to believe that such an atheist would be a very rare individual indeed, for they would have to be choosing ignorance of the demonstrable and provable (sound familiar?), but in order to gain what? Their ignorance doesn't promise anything or gain them any beneficial comfort since for the most part, the afterlife and role of extra-planar beings are known quantities on Golarion. This is sowing the seeds of many story ideas for me and possibly my own reasoning as to Aroden's death. Wonderful!
What book/source specifically discusses what happens to souls after death (Pharasma's duties, etc). Also, you're saying the difference between an atheist in real life and a Golarion flavored atheist is the fact that regardless of what the atheist actually believes while alive on Golarion, he still ends up going to an afterlife that is associated with his alignment?
Time to order some books! Thanks =)
I don't think it's a coincidence at all =) Do you know where (besides the Inner Sea World Guid) the Old-Mage and/or the Decemvirate are mentioned? I'm getting on the Golarion horse a bit late, but this is definitely the most intriguing plot line I've encountered so far. Thanks so much for bringing it up!
I love where you're going with this...
Agreed, the basic mechanics are similar. Roll a d20, add a modifier. But Talislanta was built around the "Action Table", which made the game tedious because the GM had to determine what a "mishap" or a "failure" was based on the context of the attempted action. I think the system is simple and effective in theory, but when I actually ran a game (granted I was also 15 at the time), it ended up degenerating into so many arguments I would just end up winging most encounters. In hindsight, it might actually be fun to run a 3rd Edition Talislanta game and return to simpler times...
Haha, I'm talking about the Pre-d20 Talislanta, or Third Edition as it is known. It was one of WotC's first RPG books published (code is WOC2002). I remember buying it at the gaming store in the Woodbridge Mall and instantly falling in love with the setting. The game itself though? *shudder*.
I love that so much is left open for us to build upon and make it our own. This is by far, my favorite point. Every culture—love it or hate it—is fleshed out just enough to get the idea, but left open enough to allow endless tweaking and improving. I'm not sure if it's by design, but most of the nations are de-coupled enough from one another, that leaving out the ones that don't fit your personal taste isn't going to upset the very thin meta-plot balance.
Varisians = Gypsys/Eastern Europeans Keleshites = Hollywood Arabs/PersiansMwangi - Sub-Saharan Africans Ulfen - Nords Tians - "Asians" Vudrani - Indians (they even have three spiritual books...) Osirion - Egypt And these are the obvious ones. It's just like the Realms with all of the Earth analogs. Ever check out the Talislanta world books? The game itself was horrible, but the each nation/culture/race was original. I would like to see more of that instead of Golarian's derivative fantasy.
I really like the level of detail for each race/region/continent without it becoming micromanaged by Paizo. That being said, what bothers me the most is the inclusion of every single real world culture. Avistan and Garund alone contain 7 continents worth of Earth history co-existing within the same time period. Oh and those *horrible* revolutionary war uniforms in Andoran.
This a great question. I'm having a lot of trouble reconciling a "medieval" fantasy setting that completely ignores the possibility of magic-users in the potential advancement of the global society. You would think some wizards would get together and figure out solutions to hunger, sewage, irrigation, construction, travel, etc, leaving little resemblance to the historical Earth societies much of fantasy gaming is based on. But I'm a GM, not an author.
I'm having the same problem. Nothing in you signature, the link to the forum post is broken and the verson listed in the Pathfinder Database is from 2009. Any help?
Lots of good info here converging on the same consensus: high level play is difficult, but not impossible. For me, the rules aren't written in stone (well not all of them anyway). If something is sure to break high level play for whatever reason, then get rid of it. Just because the books say wizards can teleport and wish their way out of any situation, doesn't mean your wizards have to. Did you ever see a high level wizard in any of the D&D fiction regularly use these kind of spells to solve problems? That would make for some really boring books... I am huge fan of epic play. Epic in scope and sense, not necessarily in individual power or level of encounters. A good GM can give their game a quality epic feel from level 1+ without waiting for the higher levels, where just creating a single encounter can be a chore, never mind keeping up with a campaign. I haven't had the chance to run a high-level PF game yet, but as soon as I get settled in Dallas I'm planning on it. And I'm sure to tweak and improvise changes when I get there since the PF rules are written with assumptions in mind that need to be adapted for each GM and player group. Another thing I'd like to see...a rules system that just expands the fun levels and creates a balanced system on them. A sort of microscopic view of say levels 4-8 with just a few more gradations to make it cover more ground but remain in those boundaries.
I don't think it's derogatory or dismissive. 3rd Edition came out at the beginning of the MMO/PC gaming explosion (see EQ came out before 3rd) and to ignore the influence the video-gaming industry has had on traditional RPG's is just denial. Which isn't a bad thing either. Companies like WoTC need to stay in business and if expanding their market to include the ever increasing numbers of younger players is the chosen strategy, than so be it. But like most people have said here, PF lets you play any style you want. It works well for traditional role-players and theorycrafting min-maxers and with a little house ruling on either side can smooth out the rough edges. That being said, comments like :facepalm: are just passive aggressive =)
Yes, like Lathiira said. they are on page 89 in the Bestiary 2. There is monster stats and playing Dhampirs as characters. Thanks! I haven't picked up Bestiary 2 yet and have only seen Dhampir's in miscellaneous articles on the interwebs. Ordering it now!
Does the Dhampir make an official appearance in Pathfinder?
It really doesn't require that much redesign. It would require a judicious use of discrimination of what options already in the game to include or omit. Spell lists for higher level casters can be cut down in scope and flash assuming you allow the casters at all. Flashy wahoo items can be omitted in favor of stuff that just gives out basic bonuses (ironically, promoting the use of the big 6). Challenges can be limited to creatures without so many resistances or built mostly around NPC races with levels. None of that requires much redesign of the D&D game, just omission of stuff that doesn't fit. And most DMs do a substantial amount of that with their campaigns as it is. Agreed. As long as one can understand that bonuses don't have to be tied to magic-items exclusively, it opens up many creative options for the GM and players alike. For instance, if a stat block lists a bunch if items for an NPC, turn those into blessings from his deity or bloodline or even applicable only if he is near a certain artifact. If the issue is PCs looting the corpse for said items, make them tied to his spirit or station so that they become useless pieces of gear after he is defeated. This way, you don't have to attempt any sort of redesign, but just limit the bonuses to a per encounter setting. Just one of many options.
Wow. <insert rhetorical question here>
I think it's absolutely ridiculous that by nature of encounter design, players are at a severe disadvantage without a plethora of specific magic items. Completely takes away the fascination of receiving something special when you're waiting to fill that missing "big six" slot every session. You could of at least included the entire quote. The point I was making has been re-iterated here enough: Magic-items are the easiest way to achieve the bonuses and enhancements "required" by the design of the game at certain higher levels (and yes, mostly for mêlée characters). I play these games because I don't have my own company or staff to design one for me. It doesn't mean we have to swallow the medicine without asking "what is this" first? Which makes me really pleased to see all of the great discussion about transferring these bonuses to built-in character/level advancement and opening up The Big Six slots for more flavorful items instead of just The Something of +5 Saves (does it not strike you as "odd" that one has to wear an Amulet of NATURAL armor to be competitive?) I'm an older player (cut my teeth on 2E when it first came out) and I loved playing and running games that were bereft of needing magic items to enjoy oneself. Now, after having these conversations, I see that's it entirely possible to do the same in PFRPG. And that's what makes this community awesome. Progress! "Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible." - Frank Zappa.
Mr. Fishy likes attention =)
Thank you. I missed this thread while collecting information. Lots of good stuff here!
I think the bottom-line is there are no actual rules saying you need to have "x" number of enhancements by a certain level to achieve success for a given CR. If for a majority of groups that is the reality, then having access to common magic-items seems to be the easiest way to achieve this. That about sums up this thread (minus the subjective offensiveness of some posts). But for this GM, I plan on distributing those "necessary" enhancements elsewhere and leaving the magic-item slots open for more fun stuff (C'mon..."anything of protection +5" is boring!).
The vast majority of the players will choose the ring of protection +5. I guess that's my fundamental problem. I don't plan to allow my characters to "choose" what magic items they get or can purchase. The ubiquitous video game magic item vendor/Diagon Alley premise just doesn't fit in with what I envision. Now—with that being said—some might say I deserve a "you should be playing 2E" comment, but I really like Pathfinder and the tons of support material available from Paizo, 3rd party publishers and the entire 3.5 back catalog. With some suggestions in other threads and my own ideas, I'm confident I can do away with the Big 6 in a more meaningful way to the characters.
The game I'm planning to run is going to be low-magic item. If I'm lucky enough to have it last into the levels where items like these will make a difference and it's true that the actual design of the system requires them (which I find highly dubious), then I'll just have to come up with a way to give the players the same effective bonuses via other means. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that by nature of encounter design, players are at a severe disadvantage without a plethora of specific magic items. Completely takes away the fascination of receiving something special when you're waiting to fill that missing "big six" slot every session.
For reals? Is this just "accepted" or is it written somewhere? I've never doled out these items as a matter of course.
Agree, but I wouldn't necessarily consider this a negative in Pathfinder's column. From my experience games that are worth playing fall into two categories: 1) Story driven/less rules and 2)Story driven/more rules. Others that try to fall somewhere in the middle usually feel like they're missing something. This was my problem with the early FASA games (Shadowrun, Earthdawn). Great story development and world environment, but the game system seemed to be half done. I tinkered with using WoD rules for a Shadowrun campaign and it was pretty fun, thus moving more into category 1. Anyway, Pathfinder lays it on pretty thick, but I guess that's the result of inheriting years of game design. I don't think it's necessary to implement every single rule if you don't want to...the system works perfectly fine if you need to keep your game running smoothly by omitting what doesn't work for your game. If there is one actual flaw in the game design that is worth saying it's the "worst" is the unbalance at hight levels. But again, this doesn't appear in all campaigns and with all players, but it's definitely there.
I agree with about 75% of these. Granted, the balance in 1E was swung a little too far to the mêlée side, but a lot of your suggestions are easily put into play in PRG/3.5. I'm working on some houseruling to make the mêlée classes (mainly Fighter, Barb, Rogue) a little more fantastic and superhero-y. Just have to do some more forum digging...
Of course none of them are D&D wizards. They were written by authors, not rolled up at the gaming table (even Raistlin in the books is different from the young Raistlin played at the table). But they are representations of the types of characters people play RPG's to be like. Technically, yes Trujan used four spells in a story that was 38 pages. Shame on Vance for not listing the entire contents of his spellbook! But that didn't stop Gygax from designing an entire game with a magic system based on characters just like said Trujan. By your logic, any character put to paper is supposed to be as epic as Beowulf? Hardly. I have never run a game with that intent or had players with that state of mind. There are inherent flaws in a terrestrial gaming system meant to emulate the stuff of fantasy fiction. Period. And the easiest area to become exceedingly flawed is magic - because there are no real world examples. I honestly think that most of the people boohooing about overpowered magic in any game aren't being creative enough to take what's outlined in the rules and make it their own.
I would call your examples more along the lines of "mythology" than anything else, so going that route I'll name one: Merlin. Also, I didn't say every caster in fiction flies around invisible throwing fireballs while summoning monsters, I just said they are usually pretty powerful if they've survived that long. Gandalf (although not an actual "wizard" per se, he's the archetype a lot of this stuff is based on")
When dealing with magic in this sense, it's completely based in fiction. Fighters and rogues are at least somewhat a template of real world people with added abilities and powers. Wizards encompass everything that is "fiction" about fiction. Once you cross that line and have guys running around doing everything that's impossible in the real world, it gets pretty tricky trying to represent that in a game with strict rules. So yes, a wizard with unfettered access to every ability at his disposal is going to be tough to match by other characters with abilities mired in real world examples. Which is why the DM is the stopgap. Enforcing the limits of vancian magic, creative encounters, etc.
While I don't really agree with the OP, there are some nice toys in the AGP which I haven't dug into myself. I'm just getting back into the RPG world (haven't had much activity since the hey day of 2.0), and this OMG OP caster nonsense seems a little bit over-dramtic. I mean, sure, casters at higher levels SHOULD be awesome - it's like that in almost every single piece of fantasy fiction, but creative DMing can overcome any unbalance.
|