Whats the worst thing about pathfinder?
FINDING A "GOOD" GROUP TO GAME WITH!!!
I have been playing for 10 months or so after a 20 year break, and I still have not found a group that really suits me. (Online VTT/Vent).
Heh.. Anybody need 2 new players? :)
Honestly, what do ya'll think? CoD, be nice.By itself? An absolutely terrible idea. Especially in PF.
If combined with other things that would actually make it workable, it might be workable.
What kinds of things do you think might make it workable?
|
I don't know if this is the right answer, and I'd kinda like ya'lls opinion on it, but I'm about ready to just flat out deny access to crafting feats, period.
Fluff would be, those that can learn to harness mana and infuse it into their creations, but this takes time and effort and they do not adventure, instead increasing in skill as they craft. Whether this be jewel crafting or magic weapons and armor. Wondrous items I think I may just have randomly drop and not buyable in a store because, if you can make em all willy nilly, what about that is wondrous?
That having ben said, magic arms and armor will be easier to come by, as more people learn that craft than the others (staff/wand/rod makers, ring makers, etc). Wizards can keep scribe scroll, other than that no.Honestly, what do ya'll think? CoD, be nice.
By itself? An absolutely terrible idea. Especially in PF.
If combined with other things that would actually make it workable, it might be workable.
Crafting is fine, it's a feat penalty that halves specific item costs and requires time. And now with Master Craftsman everyone can benefit from this.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman---final
A lot of people forget that things aren't only available to casters.
What kinds of things do you think might make it workable?Honestly, what do ya'll think? CoD, be nice.By itself? An absolutely terrible idea. Especially in PF.
If combined with other things that would actually make it workable, it might be workable.
In the games I run when players wish to use crafting feats I have them quest for an "ingrediant", the difficulty of which rests on how good the item will be.
Fighter: "Friend mage, could you perhaps craft for me a cloak which grants me the capabilities of flight?"
Mage: "It will require a tail feather freshly plucked from a live roc."
They seem to really enjoy the side-quests as much as actually getting and using the item so all is well. If they find a particularly good "ingredient" or have procured it in a particularly ingenius or heroic manner I might add other minor boons to the items that they create free of charge, as a way of personalizing the item.
I'm against removing crafting feats outright, but most of my games take place either constantly on the move through the wilderness or the planes, or in small isolated communities. Rarely do I run urban adventures in major cities anymore (my players prefer to fight monsters than to deal with social encounters), so there isn't always a one-stop shop available for whatever gear they would like in whatever amounts they would want, at least until late in the game when they can Greater Teleport to a large city or metropolis and purchase or commission what they would like and return.
And since I've removed statistic boosting items and armor/shield enhancements, as well as rings of protection, amulets of natural armor, and cloaks of resistance from my game in favor of bonuses that increase by level, a lot of the crafting feats are seeing less use anyway and the players are more apt to hanging onto their interesting treasure without wanting to immediately sell it for AC or statistic buffers.
If you remove the crafting feats there has to be a way for players to get the staple bonuses they need to succeed and be on par with where the CR system assumes they are; whether that be ample access to stores and wealth to purchase the aforementionted items or some other method. Or even just adjusting encounters accordingly with the knowledge that your players may not have the resources available to them that they otherwise would.
|
|
What kinds of things do you think might make it workable?Honestly, what do ya'll think? CoD, be nice.By itself? An absolutely terrible idea. Especially in PF.
If combined with other things that would actually make it workable, it might be workable.
Increase all WBL numbers by 50-100% (pick a number in this range). Keep in mind this includes enemies. That's how they get the cash in the first place.
Scrap the PF rules for the acquisition of magic items entirely. The gold caps are way too low.
Introduce explicit or implied Mage Marts. If you have the gold, and you're in town, you can get the item. Period. Anything else means that Fighters are not allowed to have Nice Things.
This is D&D. Magic items are a tool of the trade and nothing more. Further, all those people who are getting bent out of shape even as they read this and preparing some tirade about what special snowflakes magic items are are completely missing the point that it is D&D, and they should be playing some other game in which that is actually true.
Because in D&D, there's a whole lot of crap that no one wants, and then there's more stuff that some people wants, that might or might not be you. The second group is much smaller than the first. Between this, and the level of gear dependency in every non caster ever, if you can't take all those useless +1 darts and whatever and turn them into things that actually help you you cannot even begin to play the game that is D&D. And that is why WBL assumes not only that you will have ______ amount of wealth, but that you will use it all on things that benefit you. The number however is too low even then, which is why I said +50% to +100%.
As for the casters? Well they were getting these discounts anyways, and they were getting the items they actually wanted anyways, so nothing changes.
Just for accuracy's sake, I'd like to amend this to read "3.x/Pf D&D" wherever it says "D&D". For all of it's flaws, 1e really wasn't terribly magic item dependent beyond a magic weapon to overcome the "+[n] to hit" monsters and maybe cure potions.
(I understand it is implied, but I'm still kind of sore at 3x for changing some of the better things about earlier editions that kept martial/melee types relevant for far longer).
;-)
|
|
Just for accuracy's sake, I'd like to amend this to read "3.x/Pf D&D" wherever it says "D&D". For all of it's flaws, 1e really wasn't terribly magic item dependent beyond a magic weapon to overcome the "+[n] to hit" monsters and maybe cure potions.
(I understand it is implied, but I'm still kind of sore at 3x for changing some of the better things about earlier editions that kept martial/melee types relevant for far longer).
Editions other than 3.x don't really have WBL, at least not in the same form.
And yes it was. It doesn't explicitly tell you this, with anything but the +x stuff but it is very much assumed with things such as armor and saves as well. Perhaps they don't go quite as far with it, but it is still there.
It was, but the items didn't have as much weight. A cloak of protection was a nice thing to have, but saves were so easy past a certain point it wasn't strictly neccessary for survival the way a cloak of resistance +n is in 3.x. And, with AC capped at -10, a fighter (for instance) could get within 8 of that number without magic (-2, plate, shield and an 18 Dex if he rolled lights out).
It was relatively easy to play low fantasy, low magic gritty style and not affect character survivablilty too terribly much. Check out the unique characters in the back of the old 1e "Rogue's Gallery". Those were actual characters from Gygax's and Kuntz's Greyhawk campaigns, and they hardly were the "Christmas Tree" characters you see in later editions.
It's next to impossible in 3.x given the design principles.
AD&D wasn't perfect (far from it), but it did support, RAW, more playstyles than 3.x allows for.
That's why I like "big six" effects to be more readily available through feats and class features. Then reduce WBL and you can give out "fun" items as treasure. There's no incentive to go buy a belt of giant strength +4 if you already have a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength from a feat instead.
|
I'd really rather is be a part of the system itself. If you're expected to have +X to this and +Y to that in order to play at Z level, I'd rather you just GET those bonuses at that level. You shouldn't have to put money into your magic item to make it level appropriate, it should just BE level appropriate. Then you can spend your massive gold hoards on orphanages and establishing your own church and paying off politicians and other fluffy stuff.
What kinds of things do you think might make it workable?Honestly, what do ya'll think? CoD, be nice.By itself? An absolutely terrible idea. Especially in PF.
If combined with other things that would actually make it workable, it might be workable.
If you don't like christmas trees characters, and players investing every found gold piece into killing implements for thematic reasons, give each of them one signature item, that evolves as they gain level. Allow them to cherry-pick effects of whatever items they could afford under WBL (or, better yet, somewhat above WBL, as the guidelines are too restrictive) and their signature item will grant them these effects.
In the games I run when players wish to use crafting feats I have them quest for an "ingrediant", the difficulty of which rests on how good the item will be.
I'm absolutely and adamantly against it in 3.X/PF. Stuff like this works in systems where crafting essentially gives you power for free/for non-permanent investments. Like, looking at the games I've ran, AD&D 2E (Yes, Con loss is not a permanent investment, because it will be suffered by the body of a random peasant, possessed through Magic Jar. If you are good/neutral, shower said peasant with enough gold to set his entire extended family for life afterwards.) or WtA. In the game, where having magical bling both requires investing your limited wealth and is absolutely mandatory for competence? No, and, again, no. Considering that by 10th level my PCs tend own/cycle through at least a half-dozen permanent items each (and this few only because they both upgrade their stuff with crafting and often have access to de-facto magic marts), questing for them will derail the entire campaign.
And then... you don't have feats to afford any of the interesting stuff. Not. Helpful.
That's true if sticking with 3.5's one feat/3 levels and long chains. But if all chains were collapsed into single feats that scale with BAB, and if feats are a bit more common... WBL could be part of the basic class progression, as TOZ alludes.
Imagine, just for a second, if fighters could gain scaling ancestral weapons, fortification, true seeing, scaling natural armor, etc. at every odd level as class features (instead of the crap +1 to AC that Pathfinder gives them). Then your feats at even levels could be spent on... whatever, and you'd still have the tools you need, without having those tools necessarily be items.
Take this idea far enough, and we could scrap the whole concept of WBL. Fighters could spend their gold on castles and huge parties without gimping themselves.
Granted, at that point you've rewritten the entire game. I'm not afraid to do that, though.
It was, but the items didn't have as much weight. A cloak of protection was a nice thing to have, but saves were so easy past a certain point it wasn't strictly neccessary for survival the way a cloak of resistance +n is in 3.x.
Saves were only easy through +save items. This cannot be stressed enough. Without them, you needed to be, IIRC level 10-13, to save against spells even half the time. Assuming the spell in question did not impose save penalties, like many of SoLs did. So +save items were absolutely mandarory to avoid regular rerolls.
It was relatively easy to play low fantasy, low magic gritty style and not affect character survivablilty too terribly much.
Only if you don't actually pit your PCs against a representative list of stuff from MM or spell chapters. Which is, by the way, exactly how it is in 3.X.
Isn't part of the point of a low fantasy, low magic game to have the setting be primarily humanoid based, and make such MM creatures extremely rare?
Remember, 1e had "Frequency" as a monster stat, stacking the deck heavily in favor of humanoid and giant animal encounters. Demons like hezrou might be "common" in the Abyss and "very rare" outside of it.
|
|
It was, but the items didn't have as much weight. A cloak of protection was a nice thing to have, but saves were so easy past a certain point it wasn't strictly neccessary for survival the way a cloak of resistance +n is in 3.x.
Saves were only easy through +save items. This cannot be stressed enough. Without them, you needed to be, IIRC level 10-13, to save against spells even half the time. Assuming the spell in question did not impose save penalties, like many of SoLs did. So +save items were absolutely mandarory to avoid regular rerolls.
It was relatively easy to play low fantasy, low magic gritty style and not affect character survivablilty too terribly much.Only if you don't actually pit your PCs against a representative list of stuff from MM or spell chapters. Which is, by the way, exactly how it is in 3.X.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you never played 1e. And 2e was a different game, especially after all of the splats came out. A cloak of protection was nice, but you didn't really need it. The only thing anyone actually needed were weapons capable of overcoming the "+x needed to hit" stuff.
And, remember, the nastiest spells in 1e didn't allow a save. Of course, it was much easier (until projected image came into play) to disrupt spell casting, so saves came up even less frequently in 1e than later editions. Remember, 1e was "players edition". The player was far more important than the numbers on the character sheet. 3x/Pf is "character edition", meaning no matter how lame the player is, if his or her character sheet says they can do "x", a simple d20 roll will let them do it.
Furthermore, 1e was built on the rule of "yes", as in, if a player came up with a good idea, it could work. 3x/Pathfinder is built on the rule of "no", as in, if you don't have the class feature, feat or skill, you're screwed, no matter how cool the idea is.
Completely different game, completely different paradigm.
|
|
I think the d20 system is rather ill-suited to it however. I would use the Warhammer FRPG to represent such a setting.
Plus such a setting should probably scrap the wizard and sorcerer classes entirely (and possibly cleric and druid as well) and replace them with Bard archtypes.
I don't know. Life is cheap in Warhammer (or, at least it was in the first two editions). I don't know if the modern player could handle a system that doesn't coddle them. Plus, a lot of modern players seem to want to be "uber" out of the box, I don't know if they could handle starting life as a rat catcher...
|
|
I don't know. Life is cheap in Warhammer (or, at least it was in the first two editions). I don't know if the modern player could handle a system that doesn't coddle them. Plus, a lot of modern players seem to want to be "uber" out of the box, I don't know if they could handle starting life as a rat catcher...
That was my main complaint with the system. I'd start characters with at least one career completed, two if I wanted strong characters.
|
|
Don't you mean life is precious in a system like Warhammer? Systems that coddle seam more likely to cheapen life :PI don't know. Life is cheap in Warhammer (or, at least it was in the first two editions). I don't know if the modern player could handle a system that doesn't coddle them.I think the d20 system is rather ill-suited to it however. I would use the Warhammer FRPG to represent such a setting.
Plus such a setting should probably scrap the wizard and sorcerer classes entirely (and possibly cleric and druid as well) and replace them with Bard archtypes.
Yeah, I guess. ;-)
|
|
That was my main complaint with the system. I'd start characters with at least one career completed, two if I wanted strong characters.
I don't know. Life is cheap in Warhammer (or, at least it was in the first two editions). I don't know if the modern player could handle a system that doesn't coddle them. Plus, a lot of modern players seem to want to be "uber" out of the box, I don't know if they could handle starting life as a rat catcher...
It's an old school system. It rewards player intelligence over the character sheet. *shrug*
Honestly the weapons and armor magic isnt a big problem for me.
Its the natural armor bonus +6
The inherent bonuses +5
The +6 boosters to stats
Cloaks of resistance
Ring of Protection
Anything that just gives a static bonus to a mechanic is lame sauce.
Atleast a weapon can get a flaming quality, and the +1 serves a mechanic purpose but also a suitable one (after all its a weapon, bonuses to attack and damage kinda fit the calling)
Armor same deal for me.
I want my ring slot for ring of the ram, feather falling, imporved climbing, counterspell.
you know the random crazy crap that helps add to the uniqueness of a character.
So I am on board with anything that wants to get rid of the above.
|
|
I would posit that 'luck' plays more of a role than 'intelligence' in those old school systems. ;)
Dude, I wish I could put you in the old Wayback machine and have you sit in on my old games. My players made their own luck. Well, first and second level were crapshoots, but once you got past that...
Remember, no crits, damage was relatively low, you could avoid/find stuff by just reasoning it out (no die roll required), stat had less impact (17s and 18s were rare with the 4d6 drop, considering racial mods were all +1/-1) and meat shields could actually, well, protect their squishy friends.
|
|
Honestly... that's a hard choice for me. Granted 3.X requires player intelligence as well (in a more research and combination kind of way, as opposed to the player experience and creativity method), but in my 'ideal' game system, there would be a balance. A character's sheet and statistics would provide a solid foundation that a new player could count on while learning the ropes, but there would be enough flexibility to the system that 'strong players' would still be able to make things happen independently of the statistics.It's an old school system. It rewards player intelligence over the character sheet. *shrug*That was my main complaint with the system. I'd start characters with at least one career completed, two if I wanted strong characters.
I don't know. Life is cheap in Warhammer (or, at least it was in the first two editions). I don't know if the modern player could handle a system that doesn't coddle them. Plus, a lot of modern players seem to want to be "uber" out of the box, I don't know if they could handle starting life as a rat catcher...
That's true, in that player intelligence is system mastery in 3x (i.e. making the sheet better - optimization was a foreign concept in 1e, really), whereas player intelligence was just in game play.
It's funny, I just reread Cook's blog post about "trap" options that they intentionally built in to 3e (they wanted players to gain game mastery in the way the CharOp guys get ragged on for, it was built in as a design feature), and how he feels that was a huge mistake, looking at it in hindsight. I guess that's another beef I have with Pathfinder: they didn't really eliminate those trap options, so you still need that system mastery to truly be effective (outside of a heavy roleplay/story game, but rules are secondary to that type of game anyway).
|
|
Dude, I wish I could put you in the old Wayback machine and have you sit in on my old games. My players made their own luck. Well, first and second level were crapshoots, but once you got past that...
Maybe some day. :P Hopefully we can get the rules to the point where they support that style of play.
It's funny, I just reread Cook's blog post about "trap" options
Link?
|
|
Everyone is capable of being paranoid of this sort of thing. Just look at all the people that claim, falsely that VoP is overpowered, even though it shares the auspicious title of "makes you worse, for a fee" with such wonderful gems as Improved Sunder and Monkey Grip. And I think every good player, or DM has their own massive sweeping houserules. I think the shortest set of houserules I've seen is five pages long. Just for the houserules, no rewriting stuff and slipping in houserules at random.That only works when you have some absurdly high amount of feats, even then. And we've seen what happens when people try and make your WBL stuff auto scale. You get VoP, a feat that makes you worse at what you do for every non Druid, and it's debatable as to whether or not Druids are hurt by it.
Take this idea far enough, and we could scrap the whole concept of WBL. Fighters could spend their gold on castles and huge parties without gimping themselves.
Granted, at that point you've rewritten the entire game. I'm not afraid to do that, though.
Not quite accurate CoDzilla. That's what happens when PUBLISHED BOOKS try to do so, because, for whatever reason, most people who are publishing stuff are paranoid of this sort of thing.
Kirth and I both have different massive sweeping houserules. (Well, mine has pretty much evolved into an entirely different game, while Kirth's is pretty much a better Pathfinder, but his second edition will be farther from the source.)
Ok, when I say houserules... lets put it this way... Take a look at these. Their Kirth's. I haven't properly put mine on the web yet.
Speaking of Kirth (and ToZ if you see this...) have you guys figured out what to do with the stuff when Google Groups shuts down the pages function?
I guess they'll find another hosting site?
I can't wait to get my hands on the disc for v.2.0 of the houserules. I think some of my ideas may made the cut on in that one :-)
|
|
Speaking of Kirth (and ToZ if you see this...) have you guys figured out what to do with the stuff when Google Groups shuts down the pages function?I guess they'll find another hosting site?
I'm trying out GoogleDocs, but the easiest way may just be to put them up on my wife's webspace. We'll iron it out somehow.
Just to jump in on the whole "earlier editions didn't mandate magical items," they sure as hell did.
Hey look, your fighter doesn't have a magical weapon and is fighting something that cannot be harmed without one. It is literally invincible unless you have a magic weapon.
There were quite a few monsters like that.
What earlier editions did do was assume that magic items wouldn't be spread out - that fighters would have most of them. That's why so many magic items are built for fighters.