This is a discussion of the topic of weather you should simply follow the Pathfinder game as written, allowing everything presented or alter the game based on what the DM feels is underpowered/overpowered or "Broken".
I strongly follow the idea that the game should just be played as written and trust the designers to make a quality balance game for us.
I think it should be as simple as if its in the rules you should allow it.
One thing i have loved more than anything about Pathfinder is that the designers actually answer questions rather than simple say "ask you DM", the statement just makes me lose all respect for a game system.
This is a discussion of the topic of weather you should simply follow the Pathfinder game as written, allowing everything presented or alter the game based on what the DM feels is underpowered/overpowered or "Broken".
I strongly follow the idea that the game should just be played as written and trust the designers to make a quality balance game for us.
I think it should be as simple as if its in the rules you should allow it.
One thing i have loved more than anything about Pathfinder is that the designers actually answer questions rather than simple say "ask you DM", the statement just makes me lose all respect for a game system.
You know DM fiat is part of the RAW right?
-Idle
I do, and I understand why it is there.
And if i am playing in a non Golarion setting i completely respect it, and happily follow it, my feeling is simply that if i am playing a character in Golarion i want what is available to all people of that world.
This is a discussion of the topic of weather you should simply follow the Pathfinder game as written, allowing everything presented or alter the game based on what the DM feels is underpowered/overpowered or "Broken".
I strongly follow the idea that the game should just be played as written and trust the designers to make a quality balance game for us.
I think it should be as simple as if its in the rules you should allow it.
One thing i have loved more than anything about Pathfinder is that the designers actually answer questions rather than simple say "ask you DM", the statement just makes me lose all respect for a game system.
Not every GM has the entire world memorized. The same issue was in FR because some players knew the world better than the DM and would complain if he did something the world would not support as written. I would tell a player I run a houseruled version of the campaign setting so he knows that I don't conform to that world exactly as written if it were an issue.
PS:What do you mean all that is available?
all of the pathfinder books, Core role-playing book, Advanced Players guide, Inner Sea World Guide, Bestiary 1/2
This is a discussion of the topic of weather you should simply follow the Pathfinder game as written, allowing everything presented or alter the game based on what the DM feels is underpowered/overpowered or "Broken".
I strongly follow the idea that the game should just be played as written and trust the designers to make a quality balance game for us.
I think it should be as simple as if its in the rules you should allow it.
One thing i have loved more than anything about Pathfinder is that the designers actually answer questions rather than simple say "ask you DM", the statement just makes me lose all respect for a game system.
What is broken varies from group to group so what is ok for one DM may destroy another DM's game. I hate to see stuff banned, but it is better than a game falling apart due to not banning something. The game does not work as written. That is why there is RAI.
Example:As written the dead condition does not stop you from taking actions, but I am sure most of us know the intent. The monk was not proficient with unarmed strikes in 3.5, and I don't know if it was fixed in pathfinder, but I am sure nobody makes them take a -4 penalty for their main schtick.
James Jacobs has said to ask your DM on many occasions.
Actually, the designers often say, "ask your DM". Usually, because the DM knows what is going to be fun for your group moreso than the designers.
In some situations, * looks at stealth *, the DM must make decisions on how it works in his game.
Greg
I can respect RAW vs RAI, and I don't mind dealing with a DM making a decision on the intent of material, my problem is completely disallowing options
my problem is completely disallowing options
So you basically want Paizo to execute order 66-b: All Golarion GMs have to allow all Paizo material.
I do, and I understand why it is there.
And if i am playing in a non Golarion setting i completely respect it, and happily follow it, my feeling is simply that if i am playing a character in Golarion i want what is available to all people of that world.
Being a player and being a DM both come with certain requirements. The DM needs to understand what is a "fun" playstyle for the group. The players need to understand that sometimes a DM has reasons to disallow or change rules.
If a player doesn't like a ruling, and the group is okay with it... the player can always walk.
When the APG first came out, I did not allow any of the classes, spells or feats. I wanted to understand them first. After a few weeks, I allowed spells and feats on a case by case basis. I still do not use hero points.
Our group has houseruled somethings.(actually can only think of one atm, and it deals with sling reloading and a feat to improve ROF) This is what makes it fun for our group. Going by RAW, is less fun. Balance takes a back seat to fun in almost all games I have ever been involved with.
Greg
I can respect RAW vs RAI, and I don't mind dealing with a DM making a decision on the intent of material, my problem is completely disallowing options
Not all DM's are equal. Some can handle more things than others. As an example I just ran an AP that allowed almost everything because I had the free time to custom make NPC to counter anything the player's made. I plan on getting a 2nd job soon so in order to keep the game challenging I won't be allowing as much stuff for my next game most likely.
Some DM's just don't know the rules well enough to allow all the options in, and their players don't know the rules well enough to use those options without the DM correcting them. In that case options should be limited to keep the game fun for everyone.
There are many other reasons to limit options, but an "all in regardless of the situation" is not a good idea across the board.
Several things which will vary by group have to always be taken into consideration.
PS:To make sure I am not misunderstanding you could you give an example of completely disallowing an option.
Well for example, i would say disallowing a feat or a class or a race.
My issue comes down to if I am told I'm going to be playing a game and I go to write up my character, I don't want to have to double check every time I look at something to see if I can use it.
I have access to all the books so I should be able to just flip open the book and play the character I want, I trust the system i play in and have not yet actually seen anything that is overpowered or broken in pathfinder.
Basically what i am saying is if it exists in Golarion as a player option i want to be able to use it, The world is built on the material presented and assumes that that material exists.
This is a discussion of the topic of weather you should simply follow the Pathfinder game as written, allowing everything presented or alter the game based on what the DM feels is underpowered/overpowered or "Broken".
I strongly follow the idea that the game should just be played as written and trust the designers to make a quality balance game for us.
I think it should be as simple as if its in the rules you should allow it.
One thing i have loved more than anything about Pathfinder is that the designers actually answer questions rather than simple say "ask you DM", the statement just makes me lose all respect for a game system.
While the "RAW" is usually all well and good, it doesn't supply everything a campaign might need. When playing outside of Golarion, you have to define races and classes in new ways, make up prestige classes as you need them and generally be creative. And the rules support this beautifully.
The problem comes in when someone want to be a Red Mantis Assassin in my Royal Guard campaign, or someone demands to play an Oracle in a world without gods. The Basic Rules are very generic and quite easy to use as they are, but at times they just don't have what I need for my game. So what I'm trying to say here is that you limit yourself severely if you stick to the rules precisely as they are.
Besides; I'm a big fan of creativity and thinking for myself. Rules provide a nice framework for my creativity. But the results of said creativity should be my own, not some generic fantasy story we have all seen before.
Well for example, i would say disallowing a feat or a class or a race.
My issue comes down to if I am told I'm going to be playing a game and I go to write up my character, I don't want to have to double check every time I look at something to see if I can use it.
I have access to all the books so I should be able to just flip open the book and play the character I want, I trust the system i play in and have not yet actually seen anything that is overpowered or broken in pathfinder.
I just gave reasons I disallowed feats and classes. I am not certain what Golarion core book race would be disallowed. I could easily see why "optional" suggested races in AP's would be disallowed. So if I were going to play in Carrion Crown and had my heart set on a Changeling, I would first ask my DM if this was okay to play. But if it were an Elf from the core book, I would not even bother and would be shocked if DM said no to it.
Except for special circumstances (good writeups and good character builds) I do not allow any beastiary races in my Golarion games.
Greg
I have no issue with playing to a DM's world or personal setting, i also have no problem playing a specific character type for a game where lets say for instance there are no gods so divine classes done exist.
and i also ask before trying to play a race from the bestiary "i can understand why they can be difficult to deal with"
My issue is if i am playing in Golarion and it isn't a special game idea "such as removing gods" i want to know i have all the options presented.
Well for example, i would say disallowing a feat or a class or a race.
My issue comes down to if I am told I'm going to be playing a game and I go to write up my character, I don't want to have to double check every time I look at something to see if I can use it.
I have access to all the books so I should be able to just flip open the book and play the character I want, I trust the system i play in and have not yet actually seen anything that is overpowered or broken in pathfinder.
I actually have a campaign guide so that you don't have to wonder about such things, and I think every DM should. On top of that I am always open to ideas. If I don't say you can't have it in the guide then it is allowed. I don't ban anything currently that is pathfinder, only a few 3.5 things.
Broken is subjective. I like Psions and ToB, but there are people who would wish those books out of existence if they could. Monks have also been called broken by some people despite the lack of respect I see them get. There is no universal way to determine what is or is not broken.
Paizo's quality playtesting helps to ensure that most of their stuff is ok at almost anyone's table, but there have been enough DM's burned by players misreading rules and/or just bad splat from 3.5 that I understand even when I don't agree. If a DM is banning something you want then I would suggest trying to find out why it is banned.
PS:The DM has to trust the system to just write a blank check, and that is not likely to happen. He also has to assume you will read an ability the exact same way he will. My advice if this is a constant issue for you is to ask for a campaign outline.
Carrion Crown-Preliminary guidelines
Anything in Blue is very likely to change
Disclaimer: A lot of the info below was me being long-winded. A lot of things are not written in stone so we if there is something you don’t agree with, let me know, and I will see if I can work with you.
Contents
1. Character Generation Guidelines
2. Campaign House Rules
3. Sourcebooks Authorized for Use
4. Campaign Information
5. DM’s Notes( basically anything I forgot to mention before)
1. Character Generation Guidelines
1. Races:
a. All PHB and Eberron races. Anything else ask me
2. Classes:
a. All base classes are allowed
b. I have a martial artist class if someone wants to try it instead of the monk class.
c. PrC’s will need an ok from me.
d. Everyone gets 2 traits, but they can't be from the same category. There are a list of traits. The third party traits are off limits unless they are pre-approved.
3. Ability Scores and Hit Points
We will be rolling: 2d6+6 roll 7 times, and take the highest 6 or you can go with an 18 point buy. I know 18 is not a standard point buy, but it is good enough to make a decent character.
I always have an experimental aspect to every game I run. For this one you can give up the traits to get a +2 to your starting ability scores.
4. Starting Level: Currently level 1.
5. Starting Gold/Equipment: Max gold depending on class. If your character is not first level talk to me before you make the character.
6. Hit Points: You will start with you HP maxed + constitution bonus + 4; roll normally thereafter
7. Alignment: Any, but just like if in real life if you are going to do something evil be smart about it. If you massacre the town guard and find yourself at the gallows I don’t want to hear any complaints. If you are too obvious or kill off the wrong/too many person(s) don’t be surprised if you get visitors
8. Religion: As appropriate to character
9. History: This is your character's life before the campaign begins. All players will have a history. If you do not want to write it then I will do it. I am not expecting a novel. The goal is for you to RP a character, and not just a stat block.
10. Description: I want you to write down at the very least a semi-detailed description of your character. This will help the rest of the party visualize what your PC looks like. Instead of saying, “I’m Bob with brown hair and a long sword,” say, “My character has short brown hair, piercing brown eyes, wears pale blue platemail with the crest of Aundair in the center of its chest, and has a flowing navy blue cape that almost brushes the ground when he stands attached to the shoulder plates of his armor. He is of medium height and build, with a long scar running down the left side of his face. He puts his hand on the ornate bastard sword on his hip and plants his pale blue shield into the dirt as he turns to face you, smiling. ‘Hello, strangers, I’m Bob.’” It doesn’t have to be THAT good, but you get the point..
The point of the background is for you to have a connection to the campaign. It is easier to remember things if they affect your character. I will try to attach you to the game in some way if I don't get a background. It won't be anything silly or annoying, just a reason to want your character to do more than stab things.
11. If you find something to make your character better on the D&D website or in a book(pdf) bring a print out or I get to decide how it works.
2. Campaign House Rules
.
1) Critical Misses have to be confirmed.
2) No Hero points this time since the campaign is not as hard as the others I have run.
3) Armor and Weapon Enhancements
a) Certain weapon and armor enhancements are harder to get than in the previous campaign, and splitting (weapon enchantment) is banned in all of its forms.
4) Class changes
a) Spontaneous metamagic no longer takes a full round action for any spontaneous casters.
b) Battle Sorcerer- Get 2 martial weapons instead of 1.
c) The monk's Wholeness of Body now does {character level x Wisdom modifier} of healing.
d) The ranger now has acrobatics as a class skill. Giving someone light armor and telling them they have to stand there(up front) is just wrong.
e) All classes have perception as a class skill.
5) Race Changes
a) Half-orcs get +2 wis +2 str, -2 cha or you can use the book version.
b) Warforged get a +2 con, +2 to any score except constitution (this can also be used to negate the wis or cha penalty) -2 wis -2 cha if they are allowed.
c) There is a campaign specific race called changelings. The basic idea behind them is that hags trick a male into making her pregnant, and at some point in the child's adolescent years the child hears the calling of its mother. If it goes to her it becomes a hag. It may also resist the calling, and keep its current humanoid form. See me if you are thinking about using this one. It is slightly more powerful than a core face, but it comes with its own issues. Don't expect for the common people to treat you well, but you won't be attacked on sight.
d) In addition to the normal languages a race gets you may automatically get the langauge
of your region/nation. You may also choose languages of bordering areas as bonus
languages due to a high intelligence score.
6) The critical hit deck cards can't be saved to avoid fumble, and you must choose the weapon damage or the card before you see the card. If you use the critical hit feats they do stack with the cards.
3. Authorized Sourcebooks
The following sourcebooks have my stamp of approval:
1. All Core Rule Pathfinder rule books
2. The spell compendium is allowed on a case by case basis.
3. MiC items will be case by case.
4. The Inner Sea World Guide(Golarion Campaign Setting)
5. Any other books must have my approval.
6 ToB is allowed, but only if I know you have a grasp on its rules.
7 Psionics from DSP are also allowed. This is basically the 3.5 psionics updated to pathfinder with a few rules changes to avoid past abuses.
Information
In Golarion most NPC's never reach level 11 which means that once you get to that point you will have most likely done legendary deeds. I want to go old-school with this one. There is no magic mart. There will be a limited selection on what is available in the town, but you can always place an order. As for downtime unless the adventure places a specific time limit on things there will be 2-4 weeks of down time between adventures. You can even craft while traveling even though not as much as you can while not traveling.
4. Campaign Info
Specific campaign information will be in the Carrion Crown Player's Guide. What I want you to know is that there are problems that can not be solved by the sword alone, assuming the rest of the campaign follows the first book, and what you do in public will have a very real affect on how your characters are treated. I am not saying don't build characters capable of bringing death to those that oppose you, but just be aware that killing is not the only option.
This is going to be a horror based campaign, but not an undead based campaign like Age of Worms was. There will be lycanthropes, strange beings from the edges of reality, and other monstrosities to deal with, along with undead.
5. DM’s Notes
1 If you disagree with a ruling dispute it Most of the rules are pretty clear, and I will look it up. I don’t have all the answers, but I can normally find them in less than 30 seconds. If nobody can find evidence that I was wrong at the time, but it is proven later I will provide a way to compensate you. Nobody should lose a character due to a misunderstanding.
2 New characters introduced after the beginning of the campaign will have different guidelines for character generation. If you intend to participate but cannot join in until after the campaign is underway, or if your character dies and you must create a new one, see me for adjusted guidelines
3 The variant diplomacy check is still in effect. If you don’t know what this is, let me know.
4 I do not enforce the massive damage rule
5 I do allow variant characters like the ones in Unearthed Arcana, and you can buy off level adjustments.
6 Any House Rules that I intend to introduce into the campaign after it starts will be put out at least one week prior to the next session as a courtesy to the players.
7 Some rules are not clear. I would prefer to have you show me your
character sheet before we start playing. This is not a trust issue. I just
don’t want any misconceptions as to what your character can or can’t do from
my side or yours.
8 If it is broken don’t even ask.
10 If you can’t make the session please let me know before game night if
possible so I am not scrambling to reduce the encounters to avoid a
TPK.
11 I don’t track food and water, but I do expect you to track ammo. No, I am not
going to check, but that does not mean I won't notice. It is your responsibility to
track consumables. If it is not on your character sheet then you do not have it. If
the person tracking treasure happens to have the list then you may be in luck. In
short write down whatever is given to you.
12 The Stand Still feat now affects any square that you can reach.
13. I don't change core rules just because. If I do change a rule, just realize it will be world wide, meaning that in most cases the NPC's get access to it also.
14. This will not be the meat grinder AoW was, but don't expect a walk in the park either.
15. The bad guys will be tactical if they have a decent intelligence. That means if the cleric keeps healing people they will realize it is best to drop the cleric before continuing to harass the rest of the party.
16. I will adjust the game to meet the group. If you guys are constantly getting your
butts kicked I will power the bad guys down, but if you are kicking butt I will use
better tactics.
17. I would like for everyone to be at about the same level in power if possible.
18. I will check everyone's character at levels 1, 8, and 14 or when a player ask me to double check for them.
\
DM Advice
Have a backup weapon
Have a ranged weapon
Don't create a caster that only does one thing such as blasting. This is not a rule, just advice.
Don't dump constitution. Trust me on this.
Make sure your concept is mechanically affective.
If you have an issue bring it up.
I have actually been really lucky so far in Pathfinder, I have yet to have an issue with my DM with banning material.
I have just seen many threads deal with altering the rules because one person thinks X is over/underpowered and wanted to see what people think on the subject
I have actually been really lucky so far in Pathfinder, I have yet to have an issue with my DM with banning material.
I have just seen many threads deal with altering the rules because one person thinks X is over/underpowered and wanted to see what people think on the subject
I think it is good to get opinions. If enough people had convincing arguments that an ability was broken I would tell my player he can have it on a trial basis, but if it proved problematic then he should be prepared to get rid of it.
I would almost never ban something completely based on what I heard on a message board though unless it was something like Pun-Pun or some infinite attack/damage build.
what is PUN-PUN, i have seen it referred to before but i don't know what it is.
what is PUN-PUN, i have seen it referred to before but i don't know what it is.
There is more than one way to make him, and I remember the basic concept, but I will look for a link that has the exact idea down, and it works by RAW. I tried everything I could to find a hole in the build.
pun pun the super character, not meant for actual play
It is basically an infinite loop combo. You can do it with a psion, but it is easier with a caster.
You can get any ability score you want, and IIRC, even get divine ranks once the build matures without even leveling up anymore.
edit:link fixed
edit: easier to read
i don't think that link takes me where you want me to go, i don't see anything other than a super genius games book
The GM is obligated to inform you of changes to the core rules and which sources are allowed in his campaign, but he's under no such obligation to allow anything.
i don't think that link takes me where you want me to go, i don't see anything other than a super genius games book
The link is fixed.
This topic has particular interest to me, as, just tonight, my DM decided he is going to disallow critical hits and sneak attacks on undead.
Now, for a while, we did play it that way, since we're all 3.5 vets, but the system has changed ... a lot, and I brought this to his attention.
I am a rogue/ranger, currently with 3d6 sneak and 3 attacks per full round. By declaring I can't do sneak attack damage, I'm neutered against undead in a BIG way, yet they still have all the nastiness entitled to them based on their CR, which I can no longer compete with!
A DM doing THIS is broken, not sneak attack vs undead, since I can now only do 1d6+2 vs CR6+ undead, and our fighters receive no crits!? It's ruined the fun for me at this point.
Worst part is, he loves throwing overpowered monsters at us in every encounter, and this particular ruling only amplifies that problem.
There are MANY aspects of the balance that need to be respected!
This topic has particular interest to me, as, just tonight, my DM decided he is going to disallow critical hits and sneak attacks on undead.
Now, for a while, we did play it that way, since we're all 3.5 vets, but the system has changed ... a lot, and I brought this to his attention.
I am a rogue/ranger, currently with 3d6 sneak and 3 attacks per full round. By declaring I can't do sneak attack damage, I'm neutered against undead in a BIG way, yet they still have all the nastiness entitled to them based on their CR, which I can no longer compete with!
A DM doing THIS is broken, not sneak attack vs undead, since I can now only do 1d6+2 vs CR6+ undead, and our fighters receive no crits!? It's ruined the fun for me at this point.
Worst part is, he loves throwing overpowered monsters at us in every encounter, and this particular ruling only amplifies that problem.
There are MANY aspects of the balance that need to be respected!
That is not cool. Is he allowing you to rebuild your characters?
This is why i hate banning things, the game is balanced around all its parts, banning things skew the balance of the game.
That is not cool. Is he allowing you to rebuild your characters?
Nope, not a chance.
With 5 3rd level characters, we've already had to battle the two mummy guardians (CR6) at the entrance of a tomb, and now we're basically being pushed into clearing out.
We had moved on to other things after the mummies, since we knew it was a bad place to be, and are now 8th level. I'm currently 5th lvl Rogue/3rd lvl Ranger, but I can only imagine how peeved I'm going to get as we return to go further into it without my sneak attacks.
This is why i hate banning things, the game is balanced around all its parts, banning things skew the balance of the game.
Exactly!
This is why i hate banning things, the game is balanced around all its parts, banning things skew the balance of the game.
Only if done mid-game. If you do it at the beginning then it really depends on what is banned and why. There is no one set of rules fits all solution.
That is not cool. Is he allowing you to rebuild your characters?Nope, not a chance.
With 5 3rd level characters, we've already had to battle the two mummy guardians (CR6) at the entrance of a tomb, and now we're basically being pushed into clearing out.
We had moved on to other things after the mummies, since we knew it was a bad place to be, and are now 8th level. I'm currently 5th lvl Rogue/3rd lvl Ranger, but I can only imagine how peeved I'm going to get as we return to go further into it without my sneak attacks.
This is why i hate banning things, the game is balanced around all its parts, banning things skew the balance of the game.Exactly!
So he can change the physics of the world, but you can't change characters? That is not fair. He should have said something before the game began. I would probably get killed on purpose so I could bring a new character in.
This is why i hate banning things, the game is balanced around all its parts, banning things skew the balance of the game.Only if done mid-game. If you do it at the beginning then it really depends on what is banned and why. There is no one set of rules fits all solution.
Even then, someone unfamiliar with the system could easily be banning something that disrupts a delicate balance in an easily unforeseen way.
If you're unfamiliar with the game, play it by the RAW ... period.
Only after a few full campaigns should the core rules be tweaked. By then, hopefully, you know enough about them to do that.
So he can change the physics of the world, but you can't change characters? That is not fair. He should have said something before the game began. I would probably get killed on purpose so I could bring a new character in.
I put too much into character development to just let him die. Instead, it looks like I'll have to develop a nagging uneasiness around undead and not want to confront them. I'll just pick away at them from a distance with my bow and feel robbed.
Yay.
This is why i hate banning things, the game is balanced around all its parts, banning things skew the balance of the game.Only if done mid-game. If you do it at the beginning then it really depends on what is banned and why. There is no one set of rules fits all solution.Even then, someone unfamiliar with the system could easily be banning something that disrupts a delicate balance in an easily unforeseen way.
If you're unfamiliar with the game, play it by the RAW ... period.
Only after a few full campaigns should the core rules be tweaked. By then, hopefully, you know enough about them to do that.
I agree with the "if you know the rules you can change things", but the issue is that many people think they know the rules better than they do, and BRB never wants the rules changed, and wants everyone to trust the system, but there are so many different ways to play that I can't agree 100% with that. I do think that 95+% of the time the game should be left alone though.
Your game is an example of that, and if a DM is going to change the rules he should be fair about it.
Your game is an example of that, and if a DM is going to change the rules he should be fair about it.
Well, as I mentioned in an earlier post, we had played that we couldn't sneak attack or crit undead, since we're 3.5 vets getting used to the new system. Every encounter with undead, I've felt utterly useless. I've now figured out why.
Every other occasion that a little rules research has shown it's not the '3.5 way' anymore, we would play by the PFRPG RAW. That's what we, as a group, decided to do, until we get more familiar with the system.
This is the only exception thus far, and it's due to him already making comments that sneak attack is 'broken'.
Meanwhile, we have a fighter with +16 to hit and +12 damage using a lucern hammer, and we're the same level!
Yeah, I'm irked.
Moral of the story ... play by the RAW when new to a system. If you're doing it wrong, and discover it's wrong by the RAW later not withstanding.
|
Basically what i am saying is if it exists in Golarion as a player option i want to be able to use it, The world is built on the material presented and assumes that that material exists.
I beg to differ. On many PF books there's the note "this is your game, use this material as you want" from the very author's foreword, and while it's often referred to fluff rather than crunch, the designers themselves have stated more than once on these boards that house and table rules are to be expected.
As a GM, I know I have and use them in my games. For example I do not allow a bunch of options from the APG; others I have changed in various ways (favored class benefits, I'm looking at you). The summoner class, having 8 players at my table, is not allowed either.
The gunslinger class from the upcoming Ultimate Combat (and the samurai and ninja ones, barring one shots or specific campaigns) will not exist at all in the Inner Sea games that are played at my table.
I do not like the sneak attack on the undead change too, but instead that removing it completely I capped the damage that such an attack can deal. The list goes on.
Major changes to the setting (as for removing deities, feat chains, iconic spells, core classes, etc.) are not something that I consider. After all, if I want something radically different, it would be better to develop my own homebrew setting and ruleset.
Again, as the GM it's my duty to be as clear as possible towards players in presenting them the changes I applied to the printed rules, to avoid issues and misunderstandings during the game. And it's their duty to ask if an option that's in the rules is OK in the game, to properly plan a character development.
Ordering a GM to rigorously follow canon both in fluff and in crunch it's something to be expected only in PFS games, IMO.
Your game is an example of that, and if a DM is going to change the rules he should be fair about it.Well, as I mentioned in an earlier post, we had played that we couldn't sneak attack or crit undead, since we're 3.5 vets getting used to the new system. Every encounter with undead, I've felt utterly useless. I've now figured out why.
Every other occasion that a little rules research has shown it's not the '3.5 way' anymore, we would play by the PFRPG RAW. That's what we, as a group, decided to do, until we get more familiar with the system.
This is the only exception thus far, and it's due to him already making comments that sneak attack is 'broken'.
Meanwhile, we have a fighter with +16 to hit and +12 damage using a lucern hammer, and we're the same level!
Yeah, I'm irked.
Moral of the story ... play by the RAW when new to a system. If you're doing it wrong, and discover it's wrong by the RAW later not withstanding.
If he thinks SA is broken he has a lot to understand about the system. I don't know if he is the type to visit the boards, but there are several threads that show the rogue is not overpowered, and a few people that think it is weak with compelling arguments.
PS:I missed the sneak attack clause about him just not switching over to the PF version.
edit:I fixed my spelling error. I never see them until someone replies to my post then I get +10 to my perception check. :(
If he thing SA is broken he has a lot to understand about the system. I don't know if he is the type to visit the boards, but there are several threads that show the rogue is not overpowered, and a few people that think it is weak with compelling arguments.
Couldn't agree more, but then, I'm the guy who reads the core every day and the 'go to' guy for rules interpretations/clarifications in my group. I know it's not broken. That goes for you, too, golem101! Let your rogues have their class features!
PS:I missed the sneak attack clause about him just not switching over to the PF version.
No worries, man. Just sharing my pain. These boards have become my 'support group', since at least here, SOMEONE I'm talking to comprehends why a game system is designed the way it is!
:)
Noah Fentz, I don't know what the dynamic of your game is, so this may not be an option, but, here goes. In your situation, I would have a calm chat with the DM during the week, let him know that this sudden change has made the game less fun. If he is willing to change the rule back, everyone wins. Or maybe he'll take the campaign to a place where you won't be dealing with undead anymore. If not, you could consider finding a new game.
As a new DM with a bunch of players who have never played before, I have a standing rule that my players accept. If a situation comes up where I can't find the rule in a timely manner (usually about 2 minutes), I'll make a call with the caveat that when I (or a player) find the rule, we'll point it out to everyone and agree to follow the rules from then on.
Also as a new DM, I have limited my players to Core Rulebook only. I can't adjudicate rules that I don't know or don't have access to. I am allowing APG stuff only on a case by case basis. And, yes, we are playing a Golarion campaign.
Noah Fentz, I don't know what the dynamic of your game is, so this may not be an option, but, here goes. In your situation, I would have a calm chat with the DM during the week, let him know that this sudden change has made the game less fun. If he is willing to change the rule back, everyone wins. Or maybe he'll take the campaign to a place where you won't be dealing with undead anymore. If not, you could consider finding a new game.
As a new DM with a bunch of players who have never played before, I have a standing rule that my players accept. If a situation comes up where I can't find the rule in a timely manner (usually about 2 minutes), I'll make a call with the caveat that when I (or a player) find the rule, we'll point it out to everyone and agree to follow the rules from then on.
Also as a new DM, I have limited my players to Core Rulebook only. I can't adjudicate rules that I don't know or don't have access to. I am allowing APG stuff only on a case by case basis. And, yes, we are playing a Golarion campaign.
You seem reasonable and open to discussion. If you beleived an ability was open I could probably convince you otherwise if I had sufficient proof. Some DM's don't want to hear anything anyone has to say. I don't know if Noah's DM is like that or, but I would come at him with mathematical and other proof.
PS: First I would ask why he thought it was broken then I would come here to gather evidence to the contrary.
Some DM's don't want to hear anything anyone has to say.
That's the biggest problem I face. We make characters using RAW, we change our gaming style to use the RAW, and this has been the only exception to 'retro' rules changes.
Oh wait, there was the time our fighter triggered a 6-spear trap and they all hit 'automagically' and no amount of explaining the RAW could convince him they require a hit. Now they all work like that, making my rogue's improved AC vs traps useless, as well.
Ugh.
To focus this all back on topic ...
The root of my pain is a lack of using RAW as new players or players new to the system. Changing the RAW should only be done by those with enough experience with the system to avoid possibly unforeseen complications with other game mechanics.
|
|
That goes for you, too, golem101! Let your rogues have their class features!
They have their class feature. They also know that some creatures are not so vulnerable to the the same class feature, but that class feature is not completely going away.
Same goes for clerics and their channel energy: I went for a more granular and custom based approach rather than the "blast of divine power", and used the options from The Book of Experimental Might, so a cleric must choose to develop undead turning or blasting insted of positive/negative energy channelling that influences outsiders, or healing powers, and so on.
Do these changes drastically nerf the classes? Not at all. Do they change the setting? Neither.
Do they make the game look and play better, or at least closer to my own and my players expectations? Indeed they do.
Do they make the designers disappointed or angry? I think/hope not, given the whole retro-compatible assumption of the PFRPG.
I would be very unhappy with a game that openly does not allow me to custom-fit the rules to my preferences.
They have their class feature. They also know that some creatures are not so vulnerable to the the same class feature...
...
True, it's called Immune to Critical Hits, and that doesn't encompass all undead.
Every class has a 'job' to do, as indicated by the abilities of those classes by the RAW. To alter that in any way runs the risk of making those classes less attractive to be played. That alone can be problematic.
Our group pretty much refuses to play a cleric by the RAW now. Limiting them in any way would only solidify their place among the 'never played' classes in our group.
So, I can agree with the sentiment, but not the changes you've implemented, sorry.
Some DM's don't want to hear anything anyone has to say.That's the biggest problem I face. We make characters using RAW, we change our gaming style to use the RAW, and this has been the only exception to 'retro' rules changes.
Oh wait, there was the time our fighter triggered a 6-spear trap and they all hit 'automagically' and no amount of explaining the RAW could convince him they require a hit. Now they all work like that, making my rogue's improved AC vs traps useless, as well.
Ugh.
To focus this all back on topic ...
The root of my pain is a lack of using RAW as new players or players new to the system. Changing the RAW should only be done by those with enough experience with the system to avoid possibly unforeseen complications with other game mechanics.
Those traps have attack rolls unless he made his own homebrewed thing, but I guess the DM is the only one that does not know that.
I don't know if your group has several DM's, but letting someone else run with the actual rules may show him they are not broken. Even if you only run for 3 levels having someone run a rogue, and then allowing him to see how a SA does not break the game might be the only way to show him evidence to the contrary. If the thinks damage is an issue then he may be one of those people that things rogue's should only do a very small amount of damage, and that their skills are enough to make them useful, but a bard is almost as good as a rogue with skills, and a wizard will be also so if skills are so good then why are two other classes approaching on its territory. The ranger is not far behind either.|
|
The root of my pain is a lack of using RAW as new players or players new to the system. Changing the RAW should only be done by those with enough experience with the system to avoid possibly unforeseen complications with other game mechanics.
I understand that. Having played various RPGs since I was 13yo - now I'm 36 - and using the d20 system since 2001, I feel pretty comfortable in applying changes and barring options.
Lots of game balance mistakes along the road, too. Some of them coming from the very official rulebooks published for a now spellplagued setting. :-)But I don't like the idea of needing a "Customization License" either. Messing around with the rules is a building block of gaining experience and confidence with a system, making a GM/player know where and when problems might arise by allowing, changing or barring a game element.
They have their class feature. They also know that some creatures are not so vulnerable to the the same class feature...
...True, it's called Immune to Critical Hits, and that doesn't encompass all undead.
Every class has a 'job' to do, as indicated by the abilities of those classes by the RAW. To alter that in any way runs the risk of making those classes less attractive to be played. That alone can be problematic.
Our group pretty much refuses to play a cleric by the RAW now. Limiting them in any way would only solidify their place among the 'never played' classes in our group.
So, I can agree with the sentiment, but not the changes you've implemented, sorry.
What is wrong with clerics?
|
|
They have their class feature. They also know that some creatures are not so vulnerable to the the same class feature...
...True, it's called Immune to Critical Hits, and that doesn't encompass all undead.
Every class has a 'job' to do, as indicated by the abilities of those classes by the RAW. To alter that in any way runs the risk of making those classes less attractive to be played. That alone can be problematic.
Our group pretty much refuses to play a cleric by the RAW now. Limiting them in any way would only solidify their place among the 'never played' classes in our group.
So, I can agree with the sentiment, but not the changes you've implemented, sorry.
Oh, better to clear it now: I don't want you to agree with the changes I applied to the rules. That would be quite (a lot) arrogant by me.
I'm content to have my players agree with them and even propose them first.I've seen enough characters breaking the mold of the "class job" to merrily disagree with that point, but it's a way different thing to discuss.
I hate it when a GM bans something BEFORE playtesting it as it is worded, RAW.
Usually, when we actually try it out, it is NOT breaking the game. There is just this instinctual reaction in a lot of GM's, and players, and these forums, to look at something and immediately cry "Broken!".
As a player it is also about being able to "trust" the world. If you plan a build or a combo, and the GM then drags away the carpet under your feet but also locks you into the feats, attributes and classes that you have been stacking... Ugh. It kills the campaign.
Make sure you run your entire plan past your GM up front. Make sure to point out the things that make you go WOW.
Talk your GM through why you should be allowed to try running it and offer that IF it proves unbalancing to a degree that harms everyones fun, THEN you'll talk houseruling it down.
The important thing is that both of you, GM and player, are open and honest about it. Don't try to bully each other with the rules or the power of GM fiat respectively.
****MULTI-QUOTE WARNING****
Those traps have attack rolls unless he made his own homebrewed thing, but I guess the DM is the only one that does not know that.
Nope. That's how all his mechanical traps are going to work, just cuz he said so. Another class feature flushed.
I don't know if your group has several DM's, but letting someone else run with the actual rules may show him they are not broken. Even if you only run for 3 levels having someone run a rogue, and then allowing him to see how a SA does not break the game might be the only way to show him evidence to the contrary. If the thinks damage is an issue then he may be one of those people that things rogue's should only do a very small amount of damage, and that their skills are enough to make them useful, but a bard is almost as good as a rogue with skills, and a wizard will be also so if skills are so good then why are two other classes approaching on its territory. The ranger is not far behind either.
We're all supposed to be taking turns, but now we have another game going that I'm DM'ing. The players enjoy my campaign, but since they're used to a more Monty Haul version of the game, I sense they are a bit disappointed with mine.
EDIT: He refused to play in mine for some undisclosed reason.
I understand that. Having played various RPGs since I was 13yo - now I'm 36 - and using the d20 system since 2001, I feel pretty comfortable in applying changes and barring options.
Lots of game balance mistakes along the road, too. Some of them coming from the very official rulebooks published for a now spellplagued setting. :-)But I don't like the idea of needing a "Customization License" either. Messing around with the rules is a building block of gaining experience and confidence with a system, making a GM/player know where and when problems might arise by allowing, changing or barring a game element.
Have at it, man. Every DM is entitled to make any changes they deem fit. That IS a rule in itself, after all. I just strongly urge that a vast majority of the RAW be left intact. Like Wraith said, 95%+ ... I believe more than that, even. :)
A better solution, IMO, would be to create new classes altogether, rather than 'rewrite' existing ones. Perhaps even banning the use of the core classes they replace in doing so. At least this way, there is no reference to the 'old' version, and the new classes become RAW.
Bottom line, DM's MUST make it clear from the start what the rules are. Without a complete reference, how are players supposed to know what they are?
What is wrong with clerics?
The 'heal-bot' stigma from previous versions, I would guess. I'm rather enjoying playing a PFRPG cleric of Magic/Healing. Gotta love making spell choices as wizard ... hold person, silence, dispel magic, etc, and be able to spontaneously cast healing! Awesome!
Oh, better to clear it now: I don't want you to agree with the changes I applied to the rules. That would be quite (a lot) arrogant by me.
I'm content to have my players agree with them and even propose them first.
I don't ... no worries! :) <<<<--- Being playful.
If you feel comfortable changing things, then by all means, do so!I've seen enough characters breaking the mold of the "class job" to merrily disagree with that point, but it's a way different thing to discuss.
I like players that creatively break the mold within the RAW. Reminds me of a thought I had while making these posts ...
It's not that the system is 'broken', it's many DM's lacking the creativity to make difficult encounters within the realm of the RAW that encourages most RAW edits ... IMO.
|
RAW can be quite broken. I banned 3.5 druids in a lot of my games. Yeah it was a core class...don't care, that was some broken wonky cheese. Ever play rifts?!? FATAL?!? RAW is even more of a joke in those systems. In fact you can't play by RAW in those games. Now you may say PF isn't those games...and your right it isn't. But do I expect perfection out of the devs? HELL NO. They are human, mistakes will be made (look at EK capstone...that one is houseruled in my game to actually WORK. Familiars are also houseruled in my games to have a downside if they are dead). The only place RAW has is in a rules discussion...no game is actually played by RAW. Even my RAW focused group's game isn't exactly to RAW. It's close...and you would be shocked at how different the game is when you do this. People run a TON of houserules in their games without knowing it.
In anycase, I as a DM will disallow ANY book I don't own right off the bat. I did not own a lot of 3.x books so they were of limits when I ran games. I don't give a rat's tail if you as a player bought it. If I don't have it at home to go over it, I don't know it well enough to run it. Even if I DO own it, I may ban stuff in it (like say nightsticks, DMM, druids, consumptive field) as there are things that may break my game. I am currently running a PF AP. I don't own besty 2 or inner sea. If a player has those books, that is all fine and dandy, but they wont be in my game...and no I am not spending 80 bucks so a player can use something in those books.