How are they researching the turn-based combat system kyrt?
Conjurer's Chess! From Comp. Arcane. It is practical training and entertainment as well. They hold it in a stadium where Clerics make a fortune using Create Food and Drink to make hot-dogs and beer to appease the sports-loving shirtless masses. I may have paraphrased some of that from the book. *Shifty-eyes*
|
there are numerous guidelines for playing all kinds of games, with the default being a fairly easy version that allows any reasonable character to shine.This statement is every bit as situational as CoDzillas from my perspective.
What it really boils down to, is how serious is your GM. How adept are his tactics, how well oiled do his enemies operate.
If you have a GM who's Balor spends a lot of time in meelee and who's dragons tend to ground themselves in combat, then yeah, it's fairly easy.
If you have a cutthroat GM who milks the most out of the monsters capabilities? It's rocket launcher tag.
It is and it isn't. It also comes down to your ability to have the battles take place on your terms in situations that benefit the skill set of your party.
If you allow yourself to get into a game of rocket tag, you've already failed as a party.
My point was that the world the PCs live in is presumably like your own, where it is difficult to get meaningful statics about something as diverse as combat. Add in magic, divine intervention, and all kinds of races and other types of life forms, and getting "scientific analysis" is almost impossible. There is always going to be that 5% auto success or failure that throws off the results.
I'm not saying folks won't discover that some spells and effects are better then others. Just like in real life, these things would evolve. Taking someone out of a fight is good tactics, as is burning them up with fire. Which is better? Depends who you ask. There is no % chance of success against the weak Saving throw of creatures of X CR. It would all seem fairly well... random.
PS - I am a guy, for whatever it matters.
After further review of where this thread has gone, I find that I'm actually in agreement with CoDzilla's recommendation of leaving the table of a GM who used fumbles. I'm pretty sure that's a win-win scenario actually...
It is and it isn't. It also comes down to your ability to have the battles take place on your terms in situations that benefit the skill set of your party.If you allow yourself to get into a game of rocket tag, you've already failed as a party.
Getting a jump on the enemy (which is the only meaningful way to "have the battles take place on your terms" past low levels, which does not involve plot fiat in PCs' favor) does absolutely nothing to mitigate the rocket tag, once the game (d)evolves to it. You just pump enemy full of rockets before he picks up his launcher.
The only way of avoiding rocket tag past about level 5 (without heavy modification of the system/writing custom opponents) is an unspoken agreement between players and GM, usually with the latter running monsters as written in MMs, probably with suboptimal tactics as well, and the former staying away from really good stuff. And I suspect even that will work less and less at two-digit levels.|
|
It is and it isn't. It also comes down to your ability to have the battles take place on your terms in situations that benefit the skill set of your party.If you allow yourself to get into a game of rocket tag, you've already failed as a party.
Getting a jump on the enemy (which is the only meaningful way to "have the battles take place on your terms" past low levels, which does not involve plot fiat in PCs' favor) does absolutely nothing to mitigate the rocket tag, once the game (d)evolves to it. You just pump enemy full of rockets before he picks up his launcher.
The only way of avoiding rocket tag past about level 5 (without heavy modification of the system/writing custom opponents) is an unspoken agreement between players and GM, usually with the latter running monsters as written in MMs, probably with suboptimal tactics as well, and the former staying away from really good stuff. And I suspect even that will work less and less at two-digit levels.
Getting a jump on the enemy is hardly the only meaningful way to "have battles take place on your terms". The fact that the two times you and I have read adventure paths we have viewed then completely differently shows that we view options in games completely differently.
If your group is completely uncreative and your DM is more of a train conductor than a DM, it can become a game of rocket tag.
If your group plays smart, gains contacts and allies, scouts effectively, asks the right questions, uses tactics and terrain, plans well and works well together as a group (because you are built to play as a group), the game isn't rocket tag.
If you DM railroads you and your group is uncreative, rocket tag can happen.
|
|
Nope, it still is rocket tag, just you have the rockets this time.
It is and it isn't. It also comes down to your ability to have the battles take place on your terms in situations that benefit the skill set of your party.If you allow yourself to get into a game of rocket tag, you've already failed as a party.
Getting a jump on the enemy (which is the only meaningful way to "have the battles take place on your terms" past low levels, which does not involve plot fiat in PCs' favor) does absolutely nothing to mitigate the rocket tag, once the game (d)evolves to it. You just pump enemy full of rockets before he picks up his launcher.
The only way of avoiding rocket tag past about level 5 (without heavy modification of the system/writing custom opponents) is an unspoken agreement between players and GM, usually with the latter running monsters as written in MMs, probably with suboptimal tactics as well, and the former staying away from really good stuff. And I suspect even that will work less and less at two-digit levels.Getting a jump on the enemy is hardly the only meaningful way to "have battles take place on your terms". The fact that the two times you and I have read adventure paths we have viewed then completely differently shows that we view options in games completely differently.
If your group is completely uncreative and your DM is more of a train conductor than a DM, it can become a game of rocket tag.
If your group plays smart, gains contacts and allies, scouts effectively, asks the right questions, uses tactics and terrain, plans well and works well together as a group (because you are built to play as a group), the game isn't rocket tag.
If you DM railroads you and your group is uncreative, rocket tag can happen.
Or you avoid the encounter, or make the encounter an ally.
If you just want to go from battle to battle along the railroad, why not just play a video game?
It is. In case, the only part of what you describe as "have
Getting a jump on the enemy is hardly the only meaningful way to "have battles take place on your terms".
battles take place on your terms":
If your group plays smart, gains contacts and allies, scouts effectively, asks the right questions, uses tactics and terrain, plans well and works well together as a group (because you are built to play as a group), the game isn't rocket tag.
that are actually relevant to DnD combat (past level 5, as I noted before, so the terrain goes increasingly meaningless) and aren't banalities without real meaning, i.e., "scouts effectively" is the way of getting a jump on the enemy.
The rest of your points wouldn't impact realities of combat resolution in any way (save giving PCs better odds, which just means their side can fire more rockets more accurately), even if trite words like "plays smart" or "plans well" actually have a meaning behind them. Well, particularly if they do. If you are good shot, you'll only frag enemies better.
Of course (should have added this from the beginning), it is possible - within 3.X - to form a metagame where rocket tag is uncommon, but it requires either a)awareness of the rocket tag problem b)serious optimization effort on both sides of the screen c)explicit or implicit limits on full casters, while allowing anything and everything physical characters; or 1)running unoptimized enemies from MMs and modules as they are, and as they are supposed to be run (i.e., as mobs) or only giving them extra protections against magic, 2)explicitly or stealthily buffing physical characters (allowing non-core, giving a high percentage of fighter-oriented loot, 3)severe explicit or implicit limit on full casters. If #1 is not fully observed, #2 must be made much more prominent, likely through houserules.
Personally, I prefer points 1-3 to points a-c, if only because I have little preparation time and mostly stuck with using official statblocks, except for my favorite villains (my players also all are busy people who mostly want to get to actual play quickly). However, I run enemies as if they wanted to live and win. And this means that casters still increasingly often carry the rest of the party on their backs by level 9, that fighting characters need a ton of houserules (including rewrites of all core martial classes) to remain viable, and that average lenght of combat (barring waves of enemy reinforcements) is 3 rounds.
In fact, I doubt that playing through any adventure that doesn't intentionally cripple the opposition at every turn will become less of RLT even if I ran enemies like mobs. Sure, there will be much more cakewalk encounters where PCs aren't in any danger, but remaining serious battles mostly will be just as fast and lethal, except in cases where enemies are mandated to fight particularly stupidly.
If you DM railroads you and your group is uncreative, rocket tag can happen.
Sure, and if you use enough personal insults, your lack of actual argument can be hidden.
By the way, you pester CoDzilla for play examples, but from what can tell about you, you don't even play DnD, at least past low levels, and you have yet to post anything that indicates otherwise. Certainly, I haven't seen any actual play examples of the vaunted "creativeness" from you.
High level game. High level characters don't even wake up in the morning without divining out their day, and buffing up nicely. But regardless of that, scouting doesn't work in D&D so even if we had a Druid (which would have been nice) or one of the other classes (which would have been a liability) it would have made no difference.
I find scouting to be pretty actually useful at lower levels, provided the character attempting knows what he is doing, is aware of the risks, and has taken proper precautions. I see it less at higher levels (as its usefulness tapers off due to spells available to a rounded party and defensive abilities of enemies scaling high); this is mostly due to casters Teleporting where ever they are headed after a couple of divination spells rather than travel overland. I don't blame them, its quicker and safer if you can, and not everywhere in my world is going to be locked in a Halaster's Teleportation Cage.
Well, a gimped party would have just dropped dead. Because they'd have failed some saves, or panicked, or whatever. Or they didn't have the HP to shake off 157.
Depends on the level I suppose. Rogues and Bards and other low Fortitude save classes might have been sent running if they survived (barring Wizard and Wu Jen - the damage is still bad if it reaches their HP, but with Craft Contingent Spell and spell buffers they are less vulernable), but at the highest levels in 3.5 I don't see 150ish being too frightening to anybody else. If the party runs low enough on HP that they fear a repeat performance a healer can throw out a big healing spell and follow it up with a Quickened mass buff or attack spell to contribute very effectively to combat, more so than the 10 minute and hour / level buffs he has already stacked on the party.
Half Fiend Magical Beasts. I believe they had one level of Lion Totem Barbarian for Pounce and the other stuff, but that's it.
If their SpL were far more potent than their martial abilities the level of Barbarian seems most useful as HP and save bonuses at that point. After all, if their opening volley is spellslinging, the party's melee warriors will likely close before they get a pounce off, if everyone was already flying (assuming they didn't need their standards to kick on the fly affect).
It's also worth mentioning at this point that while I've mentioned divinations a lot, they haven't provided as much information as you might think.
The main divination spell I see messing with plots is Commune. Even with an XP cost (which is laughable compared to item creation) it sees enough use to effectively derail mysteries halfway through. I've been thinking about trying to expand to PbP to find a group that appreciates more story driven games. As it is, the regulars who come to my table like combat and dungeon crawling, and could care less about the reason (they rarely act in character and are pretty open about liking the game as a combat engine), so I oblige them. Luckily I get to play in a game involving character developement and overarching plot lines, though everyone's refusal to play a cleric baffals me. Thus far I've been a Cleric of St. Cuthbert to cover melee combat (retired him, the Psiwarrior and Duskblade wanted to take care of hitting things, so I let them and moved on), a cleric of Yondalla with spells that made the party nigh-untouchable (until I got hosed by 3 buffed up CR 13 Demons by myself at level 8, probably would've been alright, but that Halfling lucked pumped out a 1 on a SoL with my immediate action for the round spent), and now I'm onto my Cleric of Wee Jas. The party is upset because they wanted a Cleric and I don't prepare Cure spells. In fact I mainly cast Wizard spells off of scrolls and wands from the Magic Domain, and SoL off (like that lovely Hold Monster that Law Domain gets) and Banishment, which pretends to have a saving throw
You also might have noticed I have not mentioned spell resistance at all. That's completely intentional, as despite the fact that every single enemy fought that day had spell resistance, and that that spell resistance exceeded 40 in one case, it managed to make a spell fail exactly one time - because the caster intentionally failed their SR check for tactical reasons. In every other instance it was a complete non factor.
Well, once Assay Resistance came out in 3.5 SR's main job was to make you waste a spell slot on it and move on, or a wand if you didn't mind spending the extra time to cast it. With the Spell Pen. feats that's a 14 over your level which should effectively deal with anything. And early on in 3.X I was surprised to find that many of the spells I pulled when starting out didn't allow SR anyway.
And my goal here was to make sure they pose a threat, while also fighting in a manner that is thematically appropriate if possible. If this is not possible, and it often isn't because most mundane combat styles are not viable then I'll at least try and get it as close as possible. Which means that there will be a lot of two handed weapon users, regardless of whether they have "Giant Fighting Style" or not.
+1, I don't know anybody who wants to mindlessly curb stomp weak monsters day in and day out. They want a challenge and excitement. As I mentioned before. With any party who likes to powergame, the CR system of stock monsters is so off base you might as well be throwing Goblins at level 12 PC's as they flick dice around. By pose a threat, I don't mean likely to kill players - just drain resources equivilent to what its intended to; killing players isn't my goal (its the monsters goal, so I set him up to the best of his abilties), but if death happens, it happens. They raise the body or have a funeral and move on.
There are so few enemies that actually have a relevant AC, especially at later levels that that isn't a factor. Alternately, they buff up with cheap consumables and suddenly have AC 60. But the competent martial characters make all attacks as touch attacks, so it doesn't matter.
Saves, on an enemy don't matter as much as you might think. While there is an obvious difference in survivability between enemies with a save around 10, as is the case in the fight I described, and enemies with saves in the 20s, 30s, or 40s as was more typically the case in actual play that difference is merely the difference between going down in one action and going down in one round. Sometimes two.
Well, if you houserule out tricks like the Persistant Wraithstike and such AC comes back to matter to a point. Not to avoid main attacks, or even full Pounces, but the lessen the amount of Power Attack that will get through. Although punishing a good trick like that for martial types seems unfair if you you don't bring casters down a peg as well, which is trickier than simply removing a couple of available spells. Honestly I blame supplements and expansions for most of the disparity in classes in 3.5.
I feel PF closed this gap somewhat (a great deal actually) but improvements could always be made.
Late in 3.5 my powergamers decided to tone it back a little bit, and draw a line as to how much they will optimize, once they realized the DM could always do it better. But we've pretty much thrown out 3.5 with the exception of core rules, some houserules, and some of our favorite UA stuff.
Of course the guy who DM's for me obviously fudges every roll and cheats with the intent to kill PC's if he thinks they are too powerful. He critical hits every other attack roll, I've never seen any monster past minions meant to die in one hit anyway fail a saving throw ever, and so on. So we caster players take spells with the assumption that the enemies will succeed their saves if one is allowed and pull spells accordingly, so buffs see more use than offense spells in the group. I'd leave the group (again, I've left before for reasons less related to game play), but then I'd never have a group to play a PC in.
Mid and late game. After all, 30 + level comes out to... 45 or 46.
I'm having a hard time thinking of a single enemy they fought in that level range that had a to hit of less than 40. 45-50 was more common. 55-60 was not unheard of. More to the point though it doesn't take scaling into account. AC of 31 at level 1 isn't possible. Meanwhile enemy to hits improve at about 3/level, so anything that only scales by 1/level will be outstripped.
As it was, the party's AC ranged from mid 30s (Wizard, no actual investment at all, just group buffs) to mid 50s (Artificer by virtue of cheap gear and Artificer class features, the psionic martial character by virtue of Inertial Armor and other effects, the normal martial character by virtue of Defending spikes and various other things, mostly coming from having a crafter make him anything he wants) with the two divine casters in the middle. That was actually enough to make a bit of difference in the easier fights. The harder ones still had no trouble hitting though.
I've had Wizard and Gish villians have greater AC than fighter types, especially with Abjurant Champion and Greater Luminous Armor at comparatively low levels. But Abrupt Jaunt makes attacks simply miss casters, and I have no idea how that ability saw play since it is far better than a familiar and doesn't get penalized for multiclassing.
That is more of a flaw in the design of 3.5 supplements than anything else, although even in core your AC could get very high, it was just a lot more unneccessary to do so, and often times pumping your limited resources into AC, especially as a martial type with core rules caused your damage to lag significantly. Small changes in PF I think were great, things like Armor Training, the improved Dodge feat, and so on made AC a bit easier to boost to a significant level without draining too many resources; coupled with giving armors a boost and granting extra feats, this was a good thing.
But also I tink it is important to take into account what you are battling. AC, aside from Touch, becomes far more irrelevent if you fighting casters on a regular basis; saving throws are you main defense there (if one is allowed) as is speed and ability to reach and disrupt a spellcaster. I'd like to see something along the line of Pierce Magical Concealment for PF. The mage disrupting line of fighter feats are really cool, and I'd like to see them furthered in later books.
+!+
While I've actually enjoyed discussing this with you, I think we are actually very off topic in someone elses thread and should probably move back to that or create another.
But on topic:
I've not had too much difficulty having encounters I build last longer than 1 or 2 rounds; as I've stated my average is about 7 to 10. This is largely thanks to using multiple creatures over a single one. Even subpar enemies on mass will have more HP in total than a single and are far less easy to target unless they are tightly clumped together. More creatures also often leads to more intersting encounter design, and a wider variety of available tactics such as staggered entrance in wave from multiple directions. Without an exceedingly large AoE it is unlikely that a mage will be able to take care of all the enemies with a spell or two, and at low to mid levels this tempers the SoL mage somewhat, and allows martial types and the rare blaster chance to play around and do their shtick.
With the relative boost to AC and HP in PF over 3.X, there is a lot less danger from a prolonged battle with hordes of enemies. Martials should be losing less HP and not drop as low to be in serious danger during a routine encounter, while still keeping the risk of death present on tougher encounters or those near the end of the day. With the inclusion of Channel Energy, over the need to expend wands and "cure spells" I think that several fights vs several opponents is actually encouraged far more by PF than by its predecessors.
As someone said in the other thread, it is amazing how two people can look at the same AP and see completely different things.
Well, considering, that you started inventing stuff that plainly wasn't there by text and didn't mean anything for PCs if approached logically, it's no wonder we saw different anything.
If you view the game as a series of combat encounters, to me you should just play a video game. If you view it as finding the best way to solve whatever would logically come up in the world the DM created, then I am interested.
Your condescension and personal insults aside, whether the game is a "series of combat encounters" or "finding the best way to solve whatever would logically come up in the world the DM created" (hopefully, you didn't mean pixel-b%#!$ing here), changes absolutely nothing about the combat resolution. Only the ways by which the strength of the sides, exchanging rocket barrages, is determined, can possibly change. And in fact, these two things are not even mutually exclusive in DnD. Violence being the most important way of problem-solving by far, and the only one with serious mechanical support, is just a fact of DnD ruleset.
In short, your argument is invalid. It is basically the same as excuses spouted by Exalted fans every time they get smacked with the fact, that combat trumps everything in their system, and that the only effective forms of combat in either edition are one-dimensional and boring as heck, despite being super-crunchy. They (and you) insist that the GM should compensate for the faiure of the mechanics (without saying exactly how). But even if the GM shoulders much extra work and does, this does not magically make failure of the mechanics into not-failure.
|
|
As someone said in the other thread, it is amazing how two people can look at the same AP and see completely different things.Well, considering, that you started inventing stuff that plainly wasn't there by text and didn't mean anything for PCs if approached logically, it's no wonder we saw different anything.
If you view the game as a series of combat encounters, to me you should just play a video game. If you view it as finding the best way to solve whatever would logically come up in the world the DM created, then I am interested.Your condescension and personal insults aside, whether the game is a "series of combat encounters" or "finding the best way to solve whatever would logically come up in the world the DM created" (hopefully, you didn't mean pixel-b%#*!ing here), changes absolutely nothing about the combat resolution. Only the ways by which the strength of the sides, exchanging rocket barrages, is determined, can possibly change. And in fact, these two things are not even mutually exclusive in DnD. Violence being the most important way of problem-solving by far, and the only one with serious mechanical support, is just a fact of DnD ruleset.
In short, your argument is invalid. It is basically the same as excuses spouted by Exalted fans every time they get smacked with the fact, that combat trumps everything in their system, and that the only effective forms of combat in either edition are one-dimensional and boring as heck, despite being super-crunchy. They (and you) insist that the GM should compensate for the faiure of the mechanics (without saying exactly how). But even if the GM shoulders much extra work and does, this does not magically make failure of the mechanics into not-failure.
It's the DM's job to do the work.
It sounds like you like the video game approach. Skills points I guess have no role in your game, and despite it being a described as a "role playing game" you tend more toward the "combat simulator". Have fun with that.
But that isn't how the rest of us play the game. I love that stuff in my video games, but at my gaming table I assume I'm surrounded by a group of people who can come up with creative solutions to problems within the framework of a game.
When we went through the AP, others pointed out the variables to you, not just me. Everyone who has posted their experience with an AP on here seems to have a few stories of the players doing something unexpected and them adjusting to it. That didn't happen in your game I guess, and based on your description of the module it sounds like anything that didn't fit your narrative was "not in the book."
Some of us don't like working on the railroad, all the live long day, and some DMs are able to adjust on the fly when they have smart people at the table who think of options other than "Hulk smash!"
FatR - Please leave the, "your argument is invalid." tone out of this. I seems the contention is whether the rules support any playstyle beyond 1-shotting the other guy. You seem to believe the game turns into that, others think the game is nothing but that, and still others believe that is only a small part of the game.
I found what you were saying about the 1-3, A-C to be interesting, but a little confusing. For example, I think awareness of "the problem" pretty much a given in optimization circles. As for "3)severe explicit or implicit limit on full casters", I don't think it is nearly as dramatic as that. Limit starting ability scores to 17, and already the uber caster is taken down to mortal levels. This isn't even a rule change, it is just campaign set-up. Make access to new spells, scrolls, wands, etc. difficult. Again, not a rules change, just a campaign choice.
If you wanted to make a few minor changes to the rules, such as removing color spray, glitterdust, and hold person from the game, that could have a huge effect. Make all spells higher then 6th level take at least 1 round to cast, and that could really add some balance.
My point is that a few sentences of house rules are not drastic changes, but it could have big effects on balance issues. I know that some will say that that is GM handwaving to fix broken rules, but I don't think it is. The game has an intended audience, and default assumption of role-playing. Making an "optimized build" character goes beyond that default assumption, and requires the GM to intervene. That intervention is mentioned in the "The most important rule" section in the beginning of the book.
Violence being the most important way of problem-solving by far, and the only one with serious mechanical support, is just a fact of DnD ruleset.
I have seen plenty of different ways to solve problems that don't require violence at all. I have even been in games where there was no combat for weeks or months on end yet we still managed to overcome obstacles, some of which could have been resolved through combat.
In short, your argument is invalid. It is basically the same as excuses spouted by Exalted fans every time they get smacked with the fact, that combat trumps everything in their system, and that the only effective forms of combat in either edition are one-dimensional and boring as heck, despite being super-crunchy. They (and you) insist that the GM should compensate for the faiure of the mechanics (without saying exactly how). But even if the GM shoulders much extra work and does, this does not magically make failure of the mechanics into not-failure.
Combat may trump everything in your games but that is not the way it works in all games. Besides, even if that were true, the point of this thread is that DMs have more than just one type of encounter they can use. Instead of always using a single opponent, you can use many opponents to make the encounter a bit more interesting and still maintain the same challenge. By restricting the encounters to only one or two opponents, the DM sets a different standard than the one who uses larger groups with more variety. Neither way is wrong. They just both provide different styles of play.
As for the DM compensating for the failures of the mechanics, that's his job. If the mechanics don't work for a particular style then the DM needs to change things. CoDZilla uses very high point buy and brings in non-Pathfinder material with a few other houserules. That's exactly what's supposed to happen. The group found something they didn't like about the system and they changed how the system works. I don't have that need because I see the mechanics working just fine for the style of game I want to run. Neither way is wrong. Implying or assuming that everyone else should run things my way (or CodZilla's, or yours, or ciretose's , etc) is what is wrong.
Truth
+1
I have seen plenty of different ways to solve problems that don't require violence at all.
Which means nothing and impacts my point not at all. The word count of stuff in DnD rulebooks devoted to combat vs. the word count of stuff devoted to everything else is not subjective. DnD is a system about combat, and everything else is an afterthought at best (at worst it breaks the game the instant you look at it, like Diplomacy). Trying to deny the blindingly obvious will get you nowhere.
Combat may trump everything in your games but that is not the way it works in all games.
Again, not "may", "does", as I was explicitly talking about the Exalted system ("that combat trumps everything in their system"), where, in fact, declaration of combat outprioritizes attempts of social influence, therefore the best way of dealing with mindscrew literally is roundhouse kicking whomever attempts it in the face, as soon as he opens his mouth. (Preempting possible counterarguments, why the heck you would you invest in the mindscrew powers in the first place, if you only want to make people agree to something reasonable?)
Besides, even if that were true, the point of this thread is that DMs have more than just one type of encounter they can use. Instead of always using a single opponent, you can use many opponents to make the encounter a bit more interesting and still maintain the same challenge. By restricting the encounters to only one or two opponents, the DM sets a different standard than the one who uses larger groups with more variety. Neither way is wrong.
And... I fail to grasp how this bunch of banalities has anything to do with anything I said. In fact, I should be insulted that you still try this lecture after I explained in reasonable details exactly what I run just two posts ago.
They just both provide different styles of play.
Maybe. Care to enlighten us what is the style difference of using only one or two opponents per encounter, as no one here seems to be actually doing that?
As for the DM compensating for the failures of the mechanics, that's his job.
It is, I'm not denying the fact. But it shouldn't be, because the failures shouldn't exist in the first place.
Are FatR and CoDzilla the same person? Their posting style, analytics, and tone are practically indistinguishable. :-\
I find it interesting that when I support someone's style of play they still want to argue with me about why I'm wrong that their style of play is perfectly acceptable. For the life of me, I can't understand why some people insult and attack and then get upset when others do it right back to them. I am not falling into that trap.
Are FatR and CoDzilla the same person? Their posting style, analytics, and tone are practically indistinguishable. :-\No, and you should feel bad for bringing up the sock-puppet issue yet again. :P We've been over how pointless and insulting it is.
While I wouldn't go as far as saying you should feel bad, accusations of being a sock puppet aren't really acceptable.
If you have an issue with another member of the messageboards, please flag it and move on. If you have a concern about a post that you feel isn't obvious from the post itself (such as sockpuppetry), please send an email to webmaster@paizo.com to explain what the issue is, and it will be looked into.
There is little point in accusing anyone of being a sock puppet publicly. You can't prove it, so even if you are correct, your target can simply deny it. Do you expect them to admit it? Or give up and go home, fearing recognition? And if you're wrong, you're just being a jerk.
I find it interesting that when I support someone's style of play they still want to argue with me about why I'm wrong that their style of play is perfectly acceptable. For the life of me, I can't understand why some people insult and attack and then get upset when others do it right back to them. I am not falling into that trap.
What is a trap is your pinko lefty "everybody can have fun" attitude, Bob. After reading the posts on this thread, I think it is fairly clear that no one can have fun.
My game has been doing it wrong this entire time. We've never had rocket launcher tag (levels 1-12 so far), we've never had the casters overshadowing the melee or vice versa, and we've rarely had two round combats. And we've had a lot of fun. I'm not sure whether we're playing Caster Edition or DnD Hard Mode, but I'm fairly certain it's all been wrong to this point.
And so are you, Bob. So wrong.
|
|
Which means nothing and impacts my point not at all. The word count of stuff in DnD rulebooks devoted to combat vs. the word count of stuff devoted to everything else is not subjective. DnD is a system about combat, and everything else is an afterthought at best (at worst it breaks the game the instant you look at it, like Diplomacy). Trying to deny the blindingly obvious will get you nowhere.
I would advise you to go pick up the game mastery guide, but I don't think it would matter to you. You like the game you play. I find it to be very narrow, achieving no more than you can achieve in a video game.
Why bring human beings to the table if you are just going to ride the railroad between encounters? And when you know all encounters have one resolution and purpose?
You like your style. Fine. Play it and have fun with it. I'll think of you while I'm playing Dragon Age.
While I'm at the table with my friends, drinking beer and trash talking, not so much.
I find it interesting that when I support someone's style of play they still want to argue with me about why I'm wrong that their style of play is perfectly acceptable. For the life of me, I can't understand why some people insult and attack and then get upset when others do it right back to them. I am not falling into that trap.What is a trap is your pinko lefty "everybody can have fun" attitude, Bob. After reading the posts on this thread, I think it is fairly clear that no one can have fun.
My game has been doing it wrong this entire time. We've never had rocket launcher tag (levels 1-12 so far), we've never had the casters overshadowing the melee or vice versa, and we've rarely had two round combats. And we've had a lot of fun. I'm not sure whether we're playing Caster Edition or DnD Hard Mode, but I'm fairly certain it's all been wrong to this point.
And so are you, Bob. So wrong.
This.
Just yeah all of this.
If I could give you a hive five via internt I so would man.
My apologies to Ross and FatR.
TBH I mostly stick to the PbP threads these days so this is the first time I can recall posting in the same thread as CoD or FatR. Guess I'm not familiar enough with the two.
My bad.
|
What is a trap is your pinko lefty "everybody can have fun" attitude, Bob. After reading the posts on this thread, I think it is fairly clear that no one can have fun.My game has been doing it wrong this entire time. We've never had rocket launcher tag (levels 1-12 so far), we've never had the casters overshadowing the melee or vice versa, and we've rarely had two round combats. And we've had a lot of fun. I'm not sure whether we're playing Caster Edition or DnD Hard Mode, but I'm fairly certain it's all been wrong to this point.
And so are you, Bob. So wrong.
Dizzamn.
Also, Laithoron, just want to clarify that I was jesting with you on the feeling bad part.
TOZ: Yeah, I figured that's what the tongue smiley was for. :)
Well, tell me the name of the new thread here.
A place to finish our discussion (among other things) without further derailing this thread.
I'll just leave this here.
I would advise you to go pick up the game mastery guide, but I don't think it would matter to you. You like the game you play. I find it to be very narrow, achieving no more than you can achieve in a video game.
Why bring human beings to the table if you are just going to ride the railroad between encounters? And when you know all encounters have one resolution and purpose?
However much you brandish your strawman about my assumed playstyle, this will not change the fact, that the combat is basically the only system in d20 that gets more detalization than simple pass/fail check (or value). DnD/PF has no social/diplomatic minigame and no strategy/administration minigame. Stuff like infiltration, chasing or exploration is either pass/fail on a single check or pass/fail by virtue of having/not having the necessary ability. What's left? Combat. By the way, this is just a practical observation, that is completely independent from my personal likes and dislikes.
Recomendations in the gamemastery guide or wherever do not change that. Filling pagecount with advice variations of which every experienced GM likely heard many times anyway is easy. And meaningless. Actually creating, say, a social resolution system that faciliates roleplaying (instead of replacing it, as many such systems, including DnD Diplomacy checks, if used as written, are prone to) is meaningful but hard.
And in any case, we've already been over how this does nothing but permit fighters to have nice things.
It seems to me that if that were your goal, you wouldn't also be bringing in things that are "nice things" for the casters.
|
|
It seems to me that if that were your goal, you wouldn't also be bringing in things that are "nice things" for the casters.And in any case, we've already been over how this does nothing but permit fighters to have nice things.
+1
The goal is to pretend his cherry picked game and build are actual following comparable rules so he can feel like hit beating high CR actually means anything relative to someone playing by the actual rules.
Which is why he plays 2O questions and won't post a build. If he just said what the encounters were and posted what he played, he'd knows he would be exposed.
What he doesn't seem to realize it that he already is.
As for the DM compensating for the failures of the mechanics, that's his job. If the mechanics don't work for a particular style then the DM needs to change things. CoDZilla uses very high point buy and brings in non-Pathfinder material with a few other houserules. That's exactly what's supposed to happen. The group found something they didn't like about the system and they changed how the system works. I don't have that need because I see the mechanics working just fine for the style of game I want to run. Neither way is wrong. Implying or assuming that everyone else should run things my way (or CodZilla's, or yours, or ciretose's , etc) is what is wrong.To be very high, we'd have to be going higher than what the book says. We're not. And in any case, we've already been over how this does nothing but permit fighters to have nice things.
Are you just looking for an argument? I was actually complimenting and supporting your style of game and you come across as if I was being critical. Semantics aside, you did make changes that you feel improve your game because you and your group don't feel the mechanics as written are enough. That is exactly what is supposed to happen. No need to get defensive. I wasn't criticizing your style of play. I am criticizing anyone who thinks that their style of play is the only way to play. That is something that both you and FatR do constantly. That is what is wrong. Enjoy your game. Don't expect me, or anyone else, to enjoy it. I don't expect you to enjoy mine.
What does this term mean? +1 to the rest.
Pixel-b~%@$ing is a term coined by fans adventure games and CRPGs of the bad old times. It was used to describe bad and counterintuitive puzzles, which required from the players to click through the screen pixel by pixel to find some concealed item or element that was necessary for the solution. It was like a railroad with hidden rails.
Unfortunately, many GMs in tabletop, particularly those who explicitly put story before the rules, run their games like this. In the mild case, PCs are allegedly not on rails, but any deviation from GM's plan is punished by steep difficulty increase or contrived consequences*. In the bad case, unless PCs figure out exactly what they are supposed to do, they fail. That about 80% of the plots in fantasy literature involve quests with one true solution does not help to diminish the popularity of this approach. I was guilty of the quests where PCs failed unless they were able to guess my solution too, in my early GMing days.
*Almost every time I suggest that PCs should use their power to deviate from a published adventure's plot, or influence the world in unprescribed ways, I get some reactions to this effect.