Be as it might, you see NOTHING of what they did in the past in what they do now.
And saying that I don't liek CRPGs because I don't like Obsidian's stuff... seriously?
I loved all those games (Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, Torment, Icewind Dale 1 and 2) to death (never really got into Fallout 2, sadly) and all the games I've played from Obsidian (not counting Stick of Truth, haven't played that) they were a HUGE letdown with bad storytelling, worse characters and absolutely weird and incomplete questlines.
By the way: Bioware used to be someone as well, look at them now. What you did in the past is by now way an indicator of your present.
Not sure why [games you liked] aren't a good indicator of quality, but [games you hated] IS a good indicator of crap? Point being, you just can't reasonably say that the people who made Baldur's Gate 2 aren't capable of making quality games.
Out of curiosity, if you got to pick a developer to make your ideal CRPG, who would it be? Who's stuff don't you hate?
Yay, another thing I used to like that Obsidian got their grubby little hands on.
After all the games I enjoyed (bar Alpha Protocol, that didn't have a "prequel") that Obsidian completely ruined, I can't wait to see what they'll do with Pathfinder.
And here I was hoping they would quietly implode and nobody would ever talk about them again...
Seriously, this is one of those kind of news I broke out in hysterical laughter from. Behold, Obsidian strikes again. Question is: how will they mess up this time?
(By the way, I'm all with Hardwool from earlier in this thread on this one)
What is with the hate on for Obsidian? Here's who we're talking about:
Feargus Urquhart: Lead Designer of Fallout 2, director of Baldur's Gate, Producer of Baldur's Gate 2.
Seriously. Check out their bios. If you don't like their stuff, you don't like CRPGs. As for bugs, I'll give you that, but Obsidian has been screwed over so hard by the big game companies it nearly killed the entire genre. They had, what, a year to get KOTOR 2 out the door? Now that Kickstarter lets them get out games without getting rushed, the sky is the freaking LIMIT!
There is a Golden Rule which I use as GM. This is just my two cents, but here it is:
WHAT WOULD BE THE MOST FUN?
Yes, I can see where you were coming from. Your point of view was: The Ulfen was drunk, he was angry, the PC was dismissive, the PC effectively admitted to the crime, and while the Intimidate roll was good, fear in this case led to anger, which led to combat.
Your player, on the other hand, thought that: he was trying to be "diplomatic" (at least by Ulfen standards), he was so intimidating that the Ulfen should have been reluctant to attack outright, and that rather than allowing the combat, you should have forced a Sense Motive check to give the player the information needed to understand the problem.
So, here's the question: Forget which version was "right" or "more realistic". Which one would have led to a more fun game? A pointless fight, with the accompanying gain of NP, or, a quick Sense Motive check to make sure the PC (and the player) understand what they're about to get into.
The point of the game isn't to run as perfect a simulation of a fantasy world as possible, or to tell the best narrative possible, or even to have the most exciting fights possible. The whole point of playing is to HAVE FUN. If the player wants to play a "perfect" sweet-talking face, who never has a misstep, never misspeaks, and always fits into every environment, and that is how everyone has fun, then DO THAT.
As I wrote above, there is a world of difference between holding views, and advocating views.
Card isn't being persecuted because he holds an unpopular opinion. People are boycotting his work because they do not want to been seen as supporting the opinion that he is advocating. For him to rail against homosexuals, and then complain that people have stopped buying his (intellectual) product as a result...
Me not watching Ender's Game hurts no one but the makers of the film. Card's words and actions can limit the rights and freedoms of millions, and can lead to persecutions far greater in scope than anything he might suffer personally.
"Why are you charming me? We are already best friends. You know that."
Or even: "Charm Person? That can't be right! I must have missed my Spellcraft check. Why would my good friend Mysterio, MASTER OF MENTALISM! cast a charm spell on me?"
First, if at all possible, have some other players. Solo (one-on-one) games don't generally show off the system to best effect, and kind of preclude the use of published adventures. If you do bring in players, make sure they aren't the rushed, madly tactical, munchkin kind. There's nothing wrong with that (I kind of am one), but you want as relaxed an environment as possible.
Second, use the Beginner Box. It does a great job of simplifying things for new players. I can't stress that enough. Don't try to optimize her character for her, and don't try to "front-load" (e.g. planning out all her feat selections to 20th). If she wants to play a Fighter with Charisma her highest stat, let her. After all, what was your very first character like?
Third, make sure she understands that 3.X D&D is one of the hardest RPGs out there to master. If she takes to it, and loves the complexity, great! But, if she doesn't (and some won't), don't let it spoil her on all other RPGs.
Forth, D&D wasn't built primarily for mysteries (see GUMSHOE for that), so make sure that you accommodate that if you're running one. The simplest way? Don't let a "failed" skill check derail the detectives. Instead, make it so the PCs get needed clues automatically, and let difficult skill checks (like Perception or Sense Motive) just lead to bonus, background info. In other words, they should be able to solve the mystery even if they fail every check.
Yes, but deliberately starting a thread about how much you dislike something, comparing it to MMOs, and then saying how you "hate modern game design in general"? That's a troll.
Won't be that hard to guess. Those with world-shaking/planet-destroying consequences will be won, the rest will be lost.
Don't be so certain.
I, for one, would look forward to the full return of Ydersius. The snake-god and serpentfolk are due for an uprising. And imagine what that might do to foster humanity banding together again...including, perhaps, a risen Runelord or two? ;-)
It would be like a Golarion version of Watchmen...
Frank the Farmer
Human (Taldan) Commoner 20
LG Medium Humanoid (human)
Hero Points 1
Init +1; Senses Perception +9
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 15, touch 14, flat-footed 14 (+1 armor, +1 Dex, +3 deflection)
hp 200 (20d6+120)
Fort +13 (+4 vs. hot or cold environments and to resist damage from suffocation), Ref +8, Will +10; +2 trait bonus vs. illusion
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +2 Vorpal Adamantine Sickle +15/+10 (1d6+4/19-20/x2)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 14, Dex 12, Con 22, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 8
Base Atk +10; CMB +12; CMD 26
Feats Athletic, Defiant Luck (1/day), Drunken Brawler, Endurance, Improved Critical (Sickle), Inexplicable Luck (1/day), Iron Will, Simple Weapon Proficiency - One (Sickle), Skill Focus (Profession [farmer]), Surge of Success, Vital Strike, Weapon Focus (Sickle)
Traits Skeptic, Suspicious
Skills Climb +4, Handle Animal +12, Heal +6, Knowledge (nature) +3, Perception +9, Profession (farmer) +40, Ride +5, Sense Motive +10, Survival +11 (+13 to get along in the wild), Swim +8 (+12 to resist nonlethal damage from exhaustion)
Languages Common
SQ heart of the fields +10 (profession [farmer]) (1/d, hero points, vorpal
Other Gear +2 Vorpal Adamantine Sickle, Bracers of armor +1, Cloak of resistance +1, Ring of protection +3, Fishing kit, Mess kit, Survival kit, masterwork, 1943 GP, 3 SP
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Defiant Luck (1/day) Reroll a natural 1 on a save, or force a reroll of a critical hit confirmation roll.
Drunken Brawler You have learned how to fight effectively while drunk.
Prerequisite: Endurance.
Benefit: When you drink a tankard of ale or strong alcohol, you take a -2 penalty on Reflex saving throws, but gain a number of temporary hit
Endurance +4 to a variety of skill checks. Sleep in L/M armor with no fatigue.
Heart of the Fields +10 (Profession [farmer]) (1/day) 1/day, ignore an effect that would make you fatigued or exhausted. +1/2 character level to the selected Craft or Profession skill.
Hero Points (1) Hero Points can be spent at any time to grant a variety of bonuses.
Inexplicable Luck (1/day) Gain +8 bonus to a single roll, or +4 after the roll is made.
Skeptic +2 save vs. illusion.
Surge of Success Confirmed critical or natural 20 on save grants you a +2 bonus on one roll your next turn.
Vital Strike Standard action: x2 weapon damage dice.
Vorpal Severs head on confirmed natural 20, which is fatal to many creatures.
The problem is that the alignment becomes a magnet for players who want their characters unfettered by morality, but who are unable or unwilling to be "evil".
Too often, if a NPC does a bad thing he's "evil", but if a PC does it he's "doing whatever" and thus "neutral".
This came up once in a game I ran, and I decided to model it using the Dirty Trick combat maneuver:
APG wrote:
Dirty Trick
You can attempt to hinder a foe in melee as a standard action. This maneuver covers any sort of situational attack that imposes a penalty on a foe for a short period of time. Examples include kicking sand into an opponent's face to blind him for 1 round, pulling down an enemy's pants to halve his speed, or hitting a foe in a sensitive spot to make him sickened for a round. The GM is the arbiter of what can be accomplished with this maneuver, but it cannot be used to impose a permanent penalty, and the results can be undone if the target spends a move action. If you do not have the Improved Dirty Trick feat or a similar ability, attempting a dirty trick provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack is successful, the target takes a penalty. The penalty is limited to one of the following conditions: blinded, dazzled, deafened, entangled, shaken, or sickened. This condition lasts for 1 round. For every 5 by which your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD, the penalty lasts 1 additional round. This penalty can usually be removed if the target spends a move action. If you possess the Greater Dirty Trick feat, the penalty lasts for 1d4 rounds, plus 1 round for every 5 by which your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD. In addition, removing the condition requires the target to spend a standard action.
Just add "silenced" to the condition list, and go with it as written. If the maneuver is successful, assume the PC smashed the victim's windpipe, or covered their mouth, or knocked the wind out of them or something appropriate. Since "blinded" is already on the list, "silenced" isn't too much of a stretch, and the example even suggests effects beyond the core conditions, like "pulling down an enemy's pants to halve his speed". The hard part for the PC will be to finish the combat before the effect wears off, or to keep re-silencing the victim during the combat, with the resulting AoOs and potential to miss.
It makes for a very gritty combat.
Oh! And I wouldn't give a surprised victim an AoO during the surprise round, since, by definition, they didn't see the first one coming.
But more importantly, you're alpha testing a rules system, and someone is criticizing you for gaming the system? The entire point of a playtest is to push the rules until they snap. If you can build a buffer/debuffer so powerful that it unbalances the game, that's pretty valuable feedback to the developers.
I see someone out in the wilds that has murdered a dozen innocents yesterday for LoLs. I know they are a thoroughly Evil sob that does this on a fairly frequent basis.I attack them...This happens on a frequent enough basis, because I spend a fair amount of time in the Wilds trying to protect innocent. I become Chaotic Evil... for the act of protecting the innocents and fighting Chaotic Evil villians.
Emphasis added. You are not "protecting the innocent". You are taking revenge, or enforcing your idea of justice on others.
Protecting the innocent would involve you accepting a contract to guard a caravan or resource harvesting team, and being present when they were attacked, and responding.Going into the wilderness looking for a fight isn't "protecting" anyone. It's just you deciding that you want others to fear you when they choose to attack others.
I can see how it's chaotic, and perhaps incompatible from good, but is it evil? That is, in terms of alignment, is an anti-hero wandering the wilderness hunting scum truly identical to a the scum themselves? Is there no room for a Punisher? Or Judge Dredd?
As they've said above, never structure your game so it relies on a "forced failure" model. Really, there are two choices:
1) Make the CR crazy high, so the PC's are beat down. The problem is, this will just feel unfair, and will break the social contract between players and GM.
Or...
2) Tell the players (out of game) that you need them to be captured for the plot to advance, and ask THEM to help you script a scene where they captured.
First, any time I hear "eidolon", I want to double-check the math. Eidolon's are really tricky to build, and it's easy for power-gamers to (accidentally) make impossibly tough ones. If you post it here, we can double-check it to make sure it's legal.
Second, while it would be trivial to just bump up the to-hit bonuses of the baddies, it's not a good idea. If you and your players get into an "arms race", and only they have to play by the rules, pretty soon they're just going to stop playing. They obviously want to build "untouchable" characters, so just let them.
The trick is to show them that AC isn't everything. Rather than using bad guys who use touch attacks, or bypass armour, or whatever, use bad guys whose own AC is ridiculously high. Legal, of course, but high. Have them use the same buffs as the players.
Here's the thing: As a rule, it is the PCs who want to stop the NPCs, not the other way around. In other words, an inconclusive fight between adversaries where no one can conclusively hit is a net win for the bad guys. If nothing else, PCs need XP, and they don't get it for not defeating the enemy...
Once this sinks in to your players, they will start trying to boost their attack bonuses. That will cause them to be more rounded, which, if everything is legally built, should bring them back in line with the expected stats for their CR.
I just wanted to say, I was going to cancel my AP subscription at the end of Shattered Star. I thought, I've got Runelords, Jade Regent and Shattered Star. That's a great set of adventures there. How many adventures do I really need? A the Winter AP? Kind of dull.
And then they went to Triaxus, and I was interested, but...
Paladins are tied to the alignment system, and some people DESPISE the alignment system. In fact, the mere existence of Paladins is one of the main reasons you can't simply excise alignment from the game entirely.
If your cleric can cast it (or even your ranger), repel vermin basically stops swarms cold.
Otherwise, buy a swarmbane clasp from Ultimate Combat. 3000gp, and all your weapons do full damage to swarms, regardless of their immunity to weapon damage.
And if swarms are still giving you grief then, it might be time to switch to an easier game...
One big thing that took me a while to learn as a GM?
If it isn't fun, skip it.
PCs fighting a hoard of orcs, slaying left and right and having a blast? Great! But now the combat rounds are starting to drag, no one can roll above a 2 and those last couple of orcs just. won't. die?
Have them break and run. Or surrender (but that can have problems). Or just skip the "mop up" and fast-forward by DM fiat: "Finally, your swords bite home and the last few stragglers fall. Exausted, you wearily begin cleaning off the blood and picking up unbroken arrows."
One of the core DM jobs is balancing narrative against simulation, but if you don't make the PCs play out hours of sleeping (or eating, or going to the washroom), then you already skip the boring parts. Once combat gets dull, skip it. It gives you more time for the fun parts!
Also, before you do anything TOO drastic, if you can hold off for about a month, Paizo should be releasing their own Virtual Table Top, and who knows what kind of Runelords goodies might be available then?
@Mr. Schneider, it seems there is a market for more youth-aged appropriate adventures so why not run it by the team and see if anyone wants to start a line of pre-teen safe adventuring modules?
Why not do a 32 page book just on Monks? Introduce some new Monk rules, call it an Alternate class, throw in some archetypes, example Monk orders, Monk weapons and maybe even some new Combat Maneuvers, call it "Monks Revisited" and call it a day.
That way, people can either keep using the old Monk from the Core Rules (no new printing needed), or those who really want the "improvements" can use the new book.
Alchemical items are NOT the same as items for alchemists.
One of the main elements of alchemical items is that they're "small magic." They're not MEANT to be things for high level players to look forward to. Or even things for mid level characters to do the same for. They're meant to be relatively inexpensive but still useful tools for low level characters.
Doesn't mean we can't and won't do magic items specifically geared toward alchemsts... but they'll be MAGIC items, not alchemical items.
But WHY? I mean, I get that the Alchemist has bombs, and elixirs and such, but one of the things I like about them is their mastery of the Craft: Alchemy skill. With the right preparation, they can effectively be Batman. Why does alchemy have to top out at about fifth level when magic items push them rudely out of the way?
Where's the love for the Greater Tanglefoot bag that effects whole rooms?
I actually have a very good friend in North Carolina (who's loyalties are being sorely tested by the competition composition). If I send it to him in a sealed envelope, can he represent me in the carpool?
Why bother running the thread every year to cover the same points? Just point to the thread from a prior year, or a blog post, or your podcast, and let those willing to learn learn it there. I really don't see what there is to be gained by retreading old ground just for the sake of people who would rather win an argument than the contest.
