Eventhough there's a hundred ways of presenting a new rule that awards free feats to those who acccomplish a, well, "heroic feat" in an adventure (I have been doing that for years in my games regardless of system), you went and picked the one you knew is the most flammable this side of the roleplaying market... the "Blatant videogame aproach".
I just read the Legacy of Fire Players' Guide and actually... no, I'm not angry, as it was something so blatant it's obviously a deliberate move the caliber of George Lucas' "potato asteroid" in Empire Strikes Back.
Congratulations Paizo on what I can only call a friggin' ballsy move, but I'm still curious: Was it something you did out of cynicism? Humour? Or just an exercise in freedom to show us you'll do anything you feel like doing regardless of what others think?
The name fits, doesn't it? It's quite recognisable, too.
And unlike a lot of other stuff that don't belong into a roleplaying game, I think this actually fits D&D, and can make sense in the game world: Feats do represent training and special abilities, and sometimes those do come only after you have achieved something.
|
Ive said it before and I'll say it again. I don't like them for I think they are (or could be) somewhat metagamish. Remember in a video game the computer automaticly keeps track of whether you have killed x number of creatures or done x number of things or had x number of things happen to you and once you reach the quota you automaticly get the reward whether you were trying to or not.
In a P&p game it doesn't which means in order to qualify for some of these feats you have to set out wanting them in the first place (otherwise you would never be keeping track) Healers touch or All Gnolls must die being two examples.
Eventhough there's a hundred ways of presenting a new rule that awards free feats to those who accomplish a, well, "heroic feat" in an adventure ...
Um.. Hello? These are not *free* feats. They are feats that have in-game Prerequisites, and are just slightly stronger than regular.
For instance "All Gnolls Must Die" is basically Iron Will, with Favored Enemy (Gnolls) added on. Except the Will save is a morale bonus, that doesn't stack with Bless, Inspire Courage, Heroism spell, or Inspire Heroics performance.
Brilliant idea, carefully couched as "Check with your DM about this first".
I think they're nice. The "charm 25 people" is a bit of a pain, but if you're going to get it, it makes sense that you need to practice, and it's perfectly good fodder for adventures.
And as with college course prerequisites, there's also the unwritten "or whatever else your professor feels will qualify" which in game terms is "whatever the DM is okay with."
I'm certain there'll be many games where the DM will say, after roleplaying out eighteen charmings, "Okay, you charm three bar wenches, the bartender, some drunk guy and a couple of cross-dressing elves. Now you have your feat."
I really like these, at least from my first read. I'll be interested to see more in the future (assuming they go over). I actually think a prerequisite that requires actions in the campaign is kind of cool.
I really like these, at least from my first read. I'll be interested to see more in the future (assuming they go over). I actually think a prerequisite that requires actions in the campaign is kind of cool.
+1. The healing/damage taken ones are a bit complex to keep track of, and honestly I don't like the fact that ANY damage dealt decreases your healing count (even if you're using healing spells to damage undead or whatever), but the concept is executed fairly well and I didn't get an overly video-gamey feel from them. If they'd been truly "free feats" as the one poster above claimed, that would have done it, but these feats aren't really much more powerful than standard feats and they have pretty heavy pre-reqs.
In a P&p game it doesn't which means in order to qualify for some of these feats you have to set out wanting them in the first place (otherwise you would never be keeping track)
So? You never set out wanting some feat or PrC?
It makes sense. A guy wanting to become the best gnoll killer around will set out to kill many gnolls.
And whether or not you'd be keeping track: I've seen a lot of people maintaining a kill list (did it myself for a while).
And never forget that they're optional. You do not have to take them. If you think it's fun to have a gnoll kill list and want to get a little something out of it, too, you go and work towards that feat. If not, you just skip ahead to the next chapter.
Options, options, options.
So? You never set out wanting some feat or PrC?
These are different. Some folk want a presitige class because they help focus the character in a specific direction. You don't need to be playing D'n'D for years to know that not every out-of-the-ordinary conceapt can be covered by core classes.
Feats are a means of customizing a character, so that if two players want to do barberians they have more differences than simply their ability scores.
Acheivement feats, simply put, aren't needed, theres already plenty of levels of customisation. And lets be honest, it is a way to powergame. Knowing you can effectly gain a free feat by doing this or that in a situtation is enough to make some players metagame, especially if they think they can get away with it.
And never forget that they're optional. You do not have to take them. If you think it's fun to have a gnoll kill list and want to get a little something out of it, too, you go and work towards that feat. If not, you just skip ahead to the next chapter.
"It's optional" isn't always a viable solution for some, rememeber that prestige classes and non-core material is optional too, yet both still seem to play such a large part that many of Paizo's decisions in PFRPG seem to revolve around them.
|
So? You never set out wanting some feat or PrC?
These are different. Some folk want a presitige class because they help focus the character in a specific direction. You don't need to be playing D'n'D for years to know that not every out-of-the-ordinary conceapt can be covered by core classes.
Feats are a means of customizing a character, so that if two players want to do barberians they have more differences than simply their ability scores.
Acheivement feats, simply put, aren't needed, theres already plenty of levels of customisation. And lets be honest, it is a way to powergame. Knowing you can effectly gain a free feat by doing this or that in a situtation is enough to make some players metagame, especially if they think they can get away with it.
They're not free. You have to spend a feat for them just like any other feat, it's just that they have in game rather than metagame prerequisites.
Acheivement feats, simply put, aren't needed, theres already plenty of levels of customisation. And lets be honest, it is a way to powergame. Knowing you can effectly gain a free feat by doing this or that in a situtation is enough to make some players metagame, especially if they think they can get away with it.
It isn't free. By fulfilling the conditions of the feat, you have met the prerqs to take it with one of your feat slots. And no matter what, it is still up the GM to approve it, just the same as Prestige Classes, etc. Optional, and not free.
And for me, I like 'em :)
I do worry about something that happens with video game acheivements, and that's 'grinding'. I mean, you can't force the DM to throw more gnolls at you, and you can't stop your allies from killing them first, but you can keep droping alchemist's fire at your own feet to qualify for the fire resistance one. Sure, the DM can say 'don't be stupid', but it seems bad to tempt players to hurt themselves or not heal up with goals like that.
I do worry about something that happens with video game acheivements, and that's 'grinding'. I mean, you can't force the DM to throw more gnolls at you, and you can't stop your allies from killing them first, but you can keep droping alchemist's fire at your own feet to qualify for the fire resistance one. Sure, the DM can say 'don't be stupid', but it seems bad to tempt players to hurt themselves or not heal up with goals like that.
True ... but as a GM, I'd set ground rules for what counts and what doesn't :) No, you cannot volunteer to let the rogue practice backstabbing your fighter so the cleric can heal you and you two can get your achievement feats as early options ... it would need to be "organic" to the game.
And I'd let a player know if one they really want is not going to be feasible in the game (i.e., you're not going to meet that many gnolls in this one, sorry). But, there is another monster, as the covers indicate, that you'll be seeing a bit of, you might want to consider that one? <eg>
I thought of the oblation feats as well.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
No, you cannot volunteer to let the rogue practice backstabbing your fighter so the cleric can heal you and you two can get your achievement feats as early options ... it would need to be "organic" to the game.
Unless a critical could accidentally put the fighter at -11 hp ... In which case, stabby stabby away. ;-)
Creative Director
|
Congratulations Paizo on what I can only call a friggin' ballsy move, but I'm still curious: Was it something you did out of cynicism? Humour? Or just an exercise in freedom to show us you'll do anything you feel like doing regardless of what others think?
Thanks for the compliment.
I wrote and developed the Achievement Feats because I thought it was a good idea, and because getting achievements in Warcraft or on Xbox Live or other consoles is very fun and satisfying. In particular, the RPG "Mass Effect" uses achievements to give you bonuses and perks to apply to your character. I was curious to know if that feeling could be supported in pen and paper games, is all. No cynicism; no humor. It's as legitimate a bit of game design to me as other experimental designs I've introduced in Pathfinder, such as the haunt rules, the chase rules, and the character trait rules.
|
Creative Director
|
I do worry about something that happens with video game acheivements, and that's 'grinding'. I mean, you can't force the DM to throw more gnolls at you, and you can't stop your allies from killing them first, but you can keep droping alchemist's fire at your own feet to qualify for the fire resistance one. Sure, the DM can say 'don't be stupid', but it seems bad to tempt players to hurt themselves or not heal up with goals like that.
As Gamer Girrl said... these feats require a more open line of communication between PC and GM. If a PC's going for an achievement feat, the GM needs to know, and the GM needs to ensure that the campaign will let him achieve the achievement at a point where the achievement will still be useful.
In Legacy of Fire, there are a LOT of gnolls to kill. I suspect that it's possible to get that achievement in the first adventure... and certainly by the second. And there's still plenty of gnolls thereafter to slay. No grinding required. Beyond the normal grinding to get higher level anyway.
As Gamer Girrl said... these feats require a more open line of communication between PC and GM. If a PC's going for an achievement feat, the GM needs to know, and the GM needs to ensure that the campaign will let him achieve the achievement at a point where the achievement will still be useful.
I like the concept. I prefer that everything have an "in-game prerequisite." I also like that the concept sort of implies the open communication.
Cool idea.
Eventhough there's a hundred ways of presenting a new rule that awards free feats to those who acccomplish a, well, "heroic feat" in an adventure (I have been doing that for years in my games regardless of system), you went and picked the one you knew is the most flammable this side of the roleplaying market... the "Blatant videogame aproach".
I just read the Legacy of Fire Players' Guide and actually... no, I'm not angry, as it was something so blatant it's obviously a deliberate move the caliber of George Lucas' "potato asteroid" in Empire Strikes Back.
Congratulations Paizo on what I can only call a friggin' ballsy move, but I'm still curious: Was it something you did out of cynicism? Humour? Or just an exercise in freedom to show us you'll do anything you feel like doing regardless of what others think?
To be honest, I'm a bit confused. Is it the concept, or the name of the concept that had you concerned?
|
S
e
o
n
i
I do worry about something that happens with video game acheivements, and that's 'grinding'. I mean, you can't force the DM to throw more gnolls at you, and you can't stop your allies from killing them first, but you can keep droping alchemist's fire at your own feet to qualify for the fire resistance one. Sure, the DM can say 'don't be stupid', but it seems bad to tempt players to hurt themselves or not heal up with goals like that.True ... but as a GM, I'd set ground rules for what counts and what doesn't :) No, you cannot volunteer to let the rogue practice backstabbing your fighter so the cleric can heal you and you two can get your achievement feats as early options ... it would need to be "organic" to the game.
And I'd let a player know if one they really want is not going to be feasible in the game (i.e., you're not going to meet that many gnolls in this one, sorry). But, there is another monster, as the covers indicate, that you'll be seeing a bit of, you might want to consider that one? <eg>
Gamer girrl I love your example... rogue stabbing the warrior while the clerig heals fantastic! I should try that just for the fun of it.
It's as legitimate a bit of game design to me as other experimental designs I've introduced in Pathfinder, such as the haunt rules, the chase rules, and the character trait rules.
And for the record, I love the haunt and chase rules. They've become standard parts of my DM arsenal ever since I first saw them. The trait rules aren't as solid a hit, but that's probably because they're harder to steal (have to develop them yourself for homebrews).
I wrote and developed the Achievement Feats because I thought it was a good idea, and because getting achievements in Warcraft or on Xbox Live or other consoles is very fun and satisfying.
I know them from Battlefield 2142 - though they're called medals, badges and ribbons there. Though some of them are nasty to get and often lead to people behaving like idiots*, many are fun to chase down.
*The one that requires you to spend 10 minutes or so in a single game round in a flying vehicle often has people steal a transporter and hide in the corner of the map - and the thing's not just a needed personnel carrier, but also a spawn point.
they're harder to steal (have to develop them yourself for homebrews).
Well, the 40 basic traits (from the free traits web enhancement, or from the Second Darkness Companion) are pretty general and fit more or less every campaign. The racial and regional ones can also often be adjusted to fit your own world. It's just campaign traits that really need your attention, but if you're a half-decent GM, you're already doing a lot of that work by planning how to get the party together (you can always have a "You've met in a tavern, where you often hang out. Your constant exposure to bad air and strong drink give you a +1 bonus to fort saves" as a fallback trait ;-))
and you can't stop your allies from killing them first, but you can keep droping alchemist's fire at your own feet to qualify for the fire resistance one.
No, I can't. But I, as a living, breathing being as opposed to a machine carrying out pre-programmed tasks, can definetly say that points that are gathered by "grinding" do not count. You can cheat a video game system and its rules, but the GM isn't an automaton. He can react.
In this case, he can kick the tail of any player who tries something as dumb as that.
These are different. Some folk want a presitige class because they help focus the character in a specific direction.
As do these feats. The gnoll one hels you focus the character in the direction of a passionate gnoll hater.
Feats are a means of customizing a character, so that if two players want to do barberians they have more differences than simply their ability scores.
Those feats do that: One barbarian really hates gnolls, and has fought so many of them that he has become really good at them; the other has acquired a taste for gruesome, nasty wounds and has become so good at inflicting them that people are reeling afterwards.
Acheivement feats, simply put, aren't needed, theres already plenty of levels of customisation.
"Needed"? Of course not. Nothing beyond the core rules is needed. Adventure paths or modules aren't needed. New rules editions aren't needed.
Doesn't mean they're not great and useful.
If you don't like them, just ignore them. Others like them, and will find them a welcome addition.
And there can *never* be too many levels and ways of customisation. Never!
And lets be honest, it is a way to powergame. Knowing you can effectly gain a free feat by doing this or that in a situtation is enough to make some players metagame, especially if they think they can get away with it.
The feats aren't free.
But now that you mention it, I might grant every character who does manage to get one of these one bonus Achievement feat. Ground rules will state that no artificial, metagamey stat boosting will be tolerated, but beyond that, let them have fun!
"It's optional" isn't always a viable solution for some
Does that mean that all experimentation is bad, because some cannot get it into their head that possible doesn't mean mandatory? Do we have to shut down all the roads because some people drive like maniacs?
I'd be really pissed if Paizo lets themselves be shackled by people who just don't get it. Their experiments have brought forth some of the most exciting D&D rules innovations, and I don't want to miss that sort of brilliance because a bunch of munchkins has to create the perfect invincible character.
|
|
S
e
o
n
i
The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.
I wrote and developed the Achievement Feats because I thought it was a good idea, and because getting achievements in Warcraft or on Xbox Live or other consoles is very fun and satisfying.I know them from Battlefield 2142 - though they're called medals, badges and ribbons there. Though some of them are nasty to get and often lead to people behaving like idiots*, many are fun to chase down.
*The one that requires you to spend 10 minutes or so in a single game round in a flying vehicle often has people steal a transporter and hide in the corner of the map - and the thing's not just a needed personnel carrier, but also a spawn point.
they're harder to steal (have to develop them yourself for homebrews).Well, the 40 basic traits (from the free traits web enhancement, or from the Second Darkness Companion) are pretty general and fit more or less every campaign. The racial and regional ones can also often be adjusted to fit your own world. It's just campaign traits that really need your attention, but if you're a half-decent GM, you're already doing a lot of that work by planning how to get the party together (you can always have a "You've met in a tavern, where you often hang out. Your constant exposure to bad air and strong drink give you a +1 bonus to fort saves" as a fallback trait ;-))
and you can't stop your allies from killing them first, but you can keep droping alchemist's fire at your own feet to qualify for the fire resistance one.No, I can't. But I, as a living, breathing being as opposed to a machine carrying out pre-programmed tasks, can definetly say that points that are gathered by "grinding" do not count. You can cheat a video game system and its rules, but the GM isn't an automaton. He can react.
In this case, he can kick the tail of any player who tries something as dumb as that.
These are different. Some folk want a presitige class because they help focus...
|
|
So? You never set out wanting some feat or PrC?
These are different. Some folk want a presitige class because they help focus the character in a specific direction. You don't need to be playing D'n'D for years to know that not every out-of-the-ordinary conceapt can be covered by core classes.
Feats are a means of customizing a character, so that if two players want to do barberians they have more differences than simply their ability scores.
Acheivement feats, simply put, aren't needed, theres already plenty of levels of customisation. And lets be honest, it is a way to powergame. Knowing you can effectly gain a free feat by doing this or that in a situtation is enough to make some players metagame, especially if they think they can get away with it.
And never forget that they're optional. You do not have to take them. If you think it's fun to have a gnoll kill list and want to get a little something out of it, too, you go and work towards that feat. If not, you just skip ahead to the next chapter."It's optional" isn't always a viable solution for some, rememeber that prestige classes and non-core material is optional too, yet both still seem to play such a large part that many of Paizo's decisions in PFRPG seem to revolve around them.
*sigh*
Feats are NOT necessary to the game at all. For years we did just fine without them. All feats are just a free little bonus to make your character more interesting. If you don't want to use them then don't. You can play whatever you want. No one is stopping you. So why would you want to to stop others from having something cool.
Prestige classes, which you seem to so love are a pathetic attempt to make 2nd edition Kits work. Not one person I know has ever used a Prestige Class simply because the prereqs are often ridiculous and have to be planned from lvl 1, the powers are so focused you become a one trick pony, and essentially they are just dumb. Everything done with Prestige Classes can be done by taking their powers and making them feats instead. A MUCH better solution.
So what if Achievement Feats feel a little video gameish. As if suddenly leveling in the middle of a dungeon isn't a weird artificial mechanic. It is a good idea, regardless of its inspiration.
So here is a challenge for you. Rather than gripe and complain why don't you actually do something constructive and IMPROVE it. Try that out and keep the whining to yourself.
Yes everyone- going through a mood. Not much patience with dumb stuff right now. Sorry.
No, I can't. But I, as a living, breathing being as opposed to a machine carrying out pre-programmed tasks, can definetly say that points that are gathered by "grinding" do not count. You can cheat a video game system and its rules, but the GM isn't an automaton. He can react.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used quite such a silly hyperbole. My point was this:
Clerics should want to heal.
Enchanters should want to charm.
PCs should want to murder gnolls by the basketfull.
So achievements to reward these things are all fine and good.
The fire-resistance one is the big problem for me, because it rewards a player for playing badly: doing things like refusing to heal up and taking unnecessary risks around fire-using enemies because he wants to be killed or almost killed by them.
Are you going to deny a player his achievements because he didn't ask for a cure moderate wounds between fights?
If the acheivement triggered, instead, off of taking a certain amount of fire damage then it would both make more sense and help prevent that sort of metagaming. Being fearless in the face of fire is different than being stupid in the face of fire.
Yes everyone- going through a mood. Not much patience with dumb stuff right now. Sorry.
*HUGS*
|
|
S
e
o
n
i
Sorry achiv feats are great very good idea, BUT if you allow your player to burn themselves like a group of sadomasoquists then I feel sorry for the people watching this. These feats are meant to be dicussed with the GM and the player, If some munchikin is meta gaming or being an odiot iwould make sure that was his last burninghands and even last time playing in my group if he/she was the type. This is not a video game that forces rules onto you.
Thank you James make some more the feat idea I a good one
|
|
So? You never set out wanting some feat or PrC?
These are different. Some folk want a presitige class because they help focus the character in a specific direction. You don't need to be playing D'n'D for years to know that not every out-of-the-ordinary conceapt can be covered by core classes.
Feats are a means of customizing a character, so that if two players want to do barberians they have more differences than simply their ability scores.
Acheivement feats, simply put, aren't needed, theres already plenty of levels of customisation. And lets be honest, it is a way to powergame. Knowing you can effectly gain a free feat by doing this or that in a situtation is enough to make some players metagame, especially if they think they can get away with it.
And never forget that they're optional. You do not have to take them. If you think it's fun to have a gnoll kill list and want to get a little something out of it, too, you go and work towards that feat. If not, you just skip ahead to the next chapter."It's optional" isn't always a viable solution for some, rememeber that prestige classes and non-core material is optional too, yet both still seem to play such a large part that many of Paizo's decisions in PFRPG seem to revolve around them.
*sigh*
Feats are NOT necessary to the game at all. For years we did just fine without them. All feats are just a free little bonus to make your character more interesting. If you don't want to use them then don't. You can play whatever you want. No one is stopping you. So why would you want to to stop others from having something cool.
Prestige classes, which you seem to so love are a pathetic attempt to make 2nd edition Kits work. Not one person I know has ever used a Prestige Class simply because the prereqs are often ridiculous and have to be planned from lvl 1, the powers are so focused you become a one trick pony, and essentially they are just dumb....
First Krome back off just because your in a mood is no reason to be a jerk to someone I consider a good friend. I would argue that you clearly have not read what he said at all. He actually is not all that fond of Prestige classes he was simply using it as an example of why many people (rightly or wrongly) say why the base classes in the PFRPG are more powerful. So what he was trying to state is that in many peoples minds (again either rightly or wrongly) Prestige classes aren't just optional.
There is also a certain Irony in denouncing a prestige class because it has to be planned from lvl one but then defending a group of feats many of which again have to be planned from lvl 1.
|
|
The concept of achievement feats looks pretty cool and fun to me. I’m not sure what the big deal is; they’re not free feats, I don’t really get the video-game concern (probably because I don’t play video games), and it quite clearly says in the text that GMs should feel free to veto feats or pre-requisite attempts they don’t feel are appropriate. Or even not to use them at all.
The one issue I would have with them is the amount of book-keeping involved in some of them. I can barely get some of my players to keep their character sheets up to date, let alone take notes from the adventure, let alone remember to bring said notes to the next session! Keeping track of cumulative damage or crits confirmed over multiple sessions seems like a big ask. I guess these feats aren’t for everyone … On the other hand, it might actually encourage players to keep track of things and take notes.
|
|
Also to Krome or anyone else I would point out that Me Nero and everyone else who disagree with achievement feats have as much right to provide feedback on an Item as anyone who likes them (Especially since normally we would have to pay for these). Disagree with our opinions if you wish but if you cant do it without calling someone a whiner then don't bother.
|
|
Not one person I know has ever used a Prestige Class
You just don’t know me at all!
Krome, I find many of your posts interesting, intelligent and insightful. Not so much this one. Please take this in the spirit of a friendly suggestion, but sometimes, if you’re in a bad mood, its better to take a deep breath and really think about it before you hit that submit post button. Or else post to the Rant or Things That Suck thread instead.
Prestige classes, which you seem to so love are a pathetic attempt to make 2nd edition Kits work.
That's a crass overgeneralisation, and a wrong one.
There are certainly lots and lots of PrCs that are total crap, but not all are like that.
Not one person I know has ever used a Prestige Class
That means nothing. I have seen a lot of people using them, and have used them myself.
simply because the prereqs are often ridiculous and have to be planned from lvl 1, the powers are so focused you become a one trick pony, and essentially they are just dumb.
There is planning involved, yes - just like with the very feats you're defending right now - but not all of them turn you into one-trick-ponies. There's those that do, but sometimes, that's just what the doctor prescribed. Some concepts call for a very focussed specialisation.
PrCs aren't necessary, but neither are they, by definition, dumb. And not all of them should be replaced by feats.
Yes everyone- going through a mood.
I can tell. The best thing, of course, would be to take that mood elsewhere. To someone you can talk with, for example. Taking it out on the boards will only earn you flagged posts and warnings and bans, and the general bad blood of a lot of posters.
|
|
Also to Krome or anyone else I would point out that Me Nero and everyone else who disagree with achievement feats have as much right to provide feedback on an Item as anyone who likes them (Especially since normally we would have to pay for these). Disagree with our opinions if you wish but if you cant do it without calling someone a whiner then don't bother.
Kevin,
No offence to you or your friend, but the fact that his main complaint (that they are free) is incorrect and is not implied or stated does open him up to a certain degree of mockery, at least over his reading comprehension.As to your point, complain away, but if all you do is say "This is rubbish" then expect to get labeled a whiner. Constructive criticism is usually welcome. "This sucks" is not constructive criticism.
And to your other point about you paying for them, I'm pretty sure there was a lot of other stuff in the guide. That's the beauty of this sort of book. It's modular and optional so not everything has to hit it out of the park for the product to be good.
|
|
Also to Krome or anyone else I would point out that Me Nero and everyone else who disagree with achievement feats have as much right to provide feedback on an Item as anyone who likes them (Especially since normally we would have to pay for these). Disagree with our opinions if you wish but if you cant do it without calling someone a whiner then don't bother.Kevin,
No offence to you or your friend, but the fact that his main complaint (that they are free) is incorrect and is not implied or stated does open him up to a certain degree of mockery, at least over his reading comprehension.As to your point, complain away, but if all you do is say "This is rubbish" then expect to get labeled a whiner. Constructive criticism is usually welcome. "This sucks" is not constructive criticism.
And to your other point about you paying for them, I'm pretty sure there was a lot of other stuff in the guide. That's the beauty of this sort of book. It's modular and optional so not everything has to hit it out of the park for the product to be good.
Again he is not the first person to have misread it yet I don't see the others taking this certain degree of mockery and I did not just say this is rubbish I said certain ones came across as somewhat metagamy I will admit I should probably have explained it better.
The fire-resistance one is the big problem for me, because it rewards a player for playing badly: doing things like refusing to heal up and taking unnecessary risks around fire-using enemies because he wants to be killed or almost killed by them.
This one surely requires more communication between player and GM, but I can still see it working:
In a campaign where you are often beset by pyromaniacs, being burned to death (or almost to death) can be a commonplace event. And in a land where there are many elementals roaming about, your valiant but desperate struggle against one element can surely attract the attention of the opposite element.
Water bears witness to your dedicated opposition of the destructive powers of Fire, and sees that for you to better further its own goals, you might need a little protection.
I don't see this feat as an invitation to play dumb - and any player that does so will be corrected by me.
Are you going to deny a player his achievements because he didn't ask for a cure moderate wounds between fights?
Most definetly! Beyond the fact that I see the feat as something to reward you by (just barely) prevailing against neigh impossible odds, not to reward dumb behaviour, it's clear that the feat's benefit isn't granted by the game itself as a general new skill or something - it's a gift from the Water Elementals.
They want to give someone having a hard time something to better fight the hated Fire.
They don't want to help an incompetent fool who is masochistic enough to desire burning pain.
If the acheivement triggered, instead, off of taking a certain amount of fire damage then it would both make more sense and help prevent that sort of metagaming. Being fearless in the face of fire is different than being stupid in the face of fire.
I can see that alternate solution!
But I can also see the feat doing what we want: Reward the valiant and fearless rather than the reckless. It doesn't work in every campaign, but it can work in a campaign where you often face fireslingers - and in such a campaign, the feat's benefits are quite nice, as fire effects will show up quite often.
Still, I guess the fire damage part might be better, just to save the GM some headache (though he'd still have to deal with people who burn themselves to qualify)
|
|
still undecided... if they are good or bad
while i like the achievements, badges and similar things from a videogame... i am still unsure about how to feel about this...
i understand both points really... ok we have the mechanics of the game but we pass at the next point of metagaming...
and i know the drill...
in videogames i take to do something just to see how i open an achievement (yes i am like that) or open a new option...
does I want to do that in an RPG.... I still don't know...
I see myself in Dead Space kicking and smashing enemies to get the achievement about killing them with melee attacks... (i know i need a few more)... and I can say that i do it for the ammo.. but the real thing is that i do it just for the achievement even when its not the most intelligent thing
still in the videogame i have save, load and continue... not in the RPG where getting myself killed for doing something stupid to get an achievement is usually the end of it
still some of the idea appeals to me...
it goes to the idea of training... where you get better for doing things... not just getting a # of Experience
so do I like them? I am not sure...
would I try them? maybe... it depends the table...
would I alter other feats if i like this? yes why not...
for example we have power attack as a prerequisite for cleave
why not asking for 5 kills using power attack instead to be open to the achievement?
etc... any thoughts?
still in the videogame i have save, load and continue... not in the RPG where getting myself killed for doing something stupid to get an achievement is usually the end of it
Only in single-player games. In multiplayer games you have warn, kick and ban ;-)
|
|
Only in single-player games. In multiplayer games you have warn, kick and ban ;-)
still in the videogame i have save, load and continue... not in the RPG where getting myself killed for doing something stupid to get an achievement is usually the end of it
why for hiding and sniping people?
or getting on their back and planting spider greanadesor for overkilling them?
instead of sensible just filling them with all the ammo you have?
actually new multiplayers have dozens of achievements about winnign in different stages, killing different enemies, killing 3 enemies ina vehicle at the same time... killing 4 enemies in 4 2nds :P
I don't see banning there :P
do you?
|
In contrast I actually don't see a problem with the fire-resistance one.
English cricketers going away to play on the Indian sub-continent have been known to spend hours at a time, sitting in their full cricketing gear, sitting in a Turkish Bath to try and prepare their bodies to be able to deal with the heat and humidity which they will face.If a character wants to spend the gold on dropping alchemist's fire at their feet, or asking the party sorcerer to burning hands them every morning, and refuses magical assistance to cope with it, in the hope of training their body to handle intense heat, I don't see anything too eyebrow raising with the concept.
I don't mind the 'sitting in your armour, in a sauna' method of endurance training. I can see that being a valid method.
But deliberately dealing lethal damage to yourself, or getting another to attack you, is metagaming, using out of character knowledge.
The PCs do not know their own hit points, or what dice are used for damage, they just know 'Ow, that hurts! That could have killed me! I don't want to feel that again!'.
Just as they shouldn't know who is a 'trusted PC who'll pull his punches' or 'potential antagonist NPC who'll power/crit/sneak attack for full then steal my gear' from colour-coded status bars floating above people's heads.
The problem isn't in these feats, it's in weak GMing. If you have a GM who won't veto stupid crap, then the campaign is already doomed.
Now that I think of the fire feat, I'm reminded of my daughter's half-ogre monk (as well as several other characters of hers) that often found herself set on fire. It all started with the swarm that hit her, and her brother reasoned that the best way to end the threat to he was alchemist's fire.
From then on out, he decided that if the monk was in the thick of danger, she could take care of herself, and the flames just kind of flew . . .
(I take no responsibility for setting he barabel on fire in the Star Wars d20 game we were playing . . . none at all . . . )
My two cents:
-I think the idea is kind of cute, but I'm not crazy about the ones that boil down to "do something dumb 100 times in order to qualify for this feat". In my experience, players don't need encouragement to do dumb stuff. :-)
-The "Gifted Mesmerist" feat gives you the ability to gain a spell-like ability, but note that spell-like abilities don't have material or XP components. The ability to cast Symbol of Persuasion without the 5,000 gp cost is a big advantage, for instance.
Most definetly! Beyond the fact that I see the feat as something to reward you by (just barely) prevailing against neigh impossible odds, not to reward dumb behaviour, it's clear that the feat's benefit isn't granted by the game itself as a general new skill or something - it's a gift from the Water Elementals.
Are you going to deny a player his achievements because he didn't ask for a cure moderate wounds between fights?
But how do you decide if they avoided the healing because they wanted to die, vs. conserving resources or just forgetting?
I love them.
More please.
Kevin,
No offence to you or your friend, but the fact that his main complaint (that they are free) is incorrect and is not implied or stated does open him up to a certain degree of mockery, at least over his reading comprehension.As to your point, complain away, but if all you do is say "This is rubbish" then expect to get labeled a whiner. Constructive criticism is usually welcome. "This sucks" is not constructive criticism.
And to your other point about you paying for them, I'm pretty sure there was a lot of other stuff in the guide. That's the beauty of this sort of book. It's modular and optional so not everything has to hit it out of the park for the product to be good.
I don't recall ever saying "That sucks". I actualyl explain why I don't like them. Forgive me for thinking I was free to say I didn't like the feats In a topic dedicated to them.
So what if Achievement Feats feel a little video gameish. As if suddenly leveling in the middle of a dungeon isn't a weird artificial mechanic. It is a good idea, regardless of its inspiration.
If I want to play a video game I'll turn on my Xbox 360, theres a reason why I prefer my RP games to be RP games. For the record, I've never actually seen a party level in the middle of dungeon, it has always been while the party rests after an adventure. I don't see how characters training to improve their skills between adventures is "a weird artifical mechanic".
Prestige classes, which you seem to so love are a pathetic attempt to make 2nd edition Kits work. Not one person I know has ever used a Prestige Class simply because the prereqs are often ridiculous and have to be planned from lvl 1, the powers are so focused you become a one trick pony, and essentially they are just dumb. Everything done with Prestige Classes can be done by taking their powers and making them feats instead. A MUCH better solution.
Firstly I never said I like them either. I do, though that's not why I mentioned them. Though if you'd rather they were feats feel free, but I honestly don't see what this has to do with acheivement feats, I simply listed it as another option with regards to character customization.
So here is a challenge for you. Rather than gripe and complain why don't you actually do something constructive and IMPROVE it. Try that out and keep the whining to yourself.
Improve somthing when I don't like the concept of?
Allow me to give an example of how I see these as metagamish.
Lets say we have a healing character. A young elf who spent most of his or her lift healing those in need. Now if this character's an elf (theh typical starting age of which is over 100 years) we can saftly assume he or she already meets the prerequisites for the healing feat.
Now the DM has too options
1. Allow the character to have the feat, even though he or she hasn't acheived it IG, but because in terms of fluff they have. This essentially makes the concept pointless, it might as well just be a normal feat.
2. Don't allow the character to have it until the PC meets the requirements IG. This makes it more of a computer game since the character has to meet mechanical requirements rather than fluff ones.
Oh, and FYI, if you sound less insulting it might become possible for others to take your post seriously. Since you seem to enjoy being condensending I'm never likely to take you point seriously, which could be a shame if it was right (though it probably isn't).Why don't you "Gripe and complain" about that?