Constant Alter self in Medium humanoid form? You get a unnamed +2 to strength.
That's pretty expensive these days, since it dropped from 10 minutes/level to 1 minute/level.
Well,
James Jacobs confirmed it was an intentional decision that XP be given for all encounters, no matter how minor or inconsequential. If you kill a cat in the forest, you get 50xp. Even if you're level 18.Can't say I agree with it, but it's the RAW and RAI, so I will just take a giant weed whacker to it.
What really makes my teeth ache is the revelation that the idea is only the PCs use this rule, every other creature in the world ignores the concept and has no XP. So no matter what they do, they don't gain XP for it, and don't level up unless they are attached to the PCs somehow. BLECH! That makes my teeth hurt. I don't know how NPCs are supposed to progress on a world simulation level, seems like every one of them should be 1st level commoners.
Like I said, it makes my teeth hurt, and I'm weed whacking it in my own game with extreme prejudice. But I'll stop arguing the issue with regards to core rules.
EDIT : I would have much less of a teeth ache if it were just that only PCs gained XP for any encounter, but NPCs stop gaining for anything 4 CR's below them for example.
The NPC's progress according to the needs of the story. If the DM wants to make it more realistic he say the NPC's did X, Y, and Z. In AoW a certain group up NPC's leveled up, and they had an in story reason to do so. When I ran KM I had NPC's level up. I don't see why NPC's wouldn't have XP.
|
Constant Alter self in Medium humanoid form? You get a size +2 to strength.That's pretty expensive these days, since it dropped from 10 minutes/level to 1 minute/level.
Alter Self, level 2 wizard/bard
When you cast this spell, you can assume the form of any Small or Medium creature of the humanoid type. [b]If the form you assume has any of the following abilities, you gain the listed ability: darkvision 60 feet, low-light vision, scent, and swim 30 feet.[b]Small creature: If the form you take is that of a Small humanoid, you gain a +2 size bonus to your Dexterity.
Medium creature: If the form you take is that of a Medium humanoid, you gain a +2 size bonus to your Strength.
Doing it with repeatedly casting of the spell? sure
For a ring or hat with a constant effect that can give a mix of the above bonus when need the price will not be that high.
A constant item at minimum caster level would cost 12.000.
As an alternative it is possible to lock the item to only 1 form and reduce the cost and still get a powerful item.
That's a base of 24,000 gp for a constant item at minimum CL, due to the doubling of price that 1 minute/level causes.
That's a base of 24,000 gp for a constant item at minimum CL, due to the doubling of price that 1 minute/level causes.
The greater hat of disguise which is in a paizo product doesn't cost that much.
|
Yeah, the reason NPCs tend to taper off after awhile is they quit running into anything that's a challenge. People seem to be forgetting that if the encounter isn't a challenge, then you don't get EXP for it. So yeah, the NPC guard patrolling town who's a rookie goes up in level pretty quickly.
By the time he's 3rd or 4th level, there's pretty much nothing new for him, so it stops being a challenge. So no XP, no advancement, unless he goes into a new line of work.
I'd say this approach is essential, if the GM wants a world where the town guards, soldiers are low-level.
What's more puzzling, is where the NPC soldiers are on duty in a warzone, fending off frequent attacks from humanoid tribes, yet they still have no more levels under their belt than the part-time constables who roll drunks into the tank.
If you want to explain this, then there needs to be a further caveat, that facing the same old, same old, over and over, ceases to grant xp, even if the creature could potentially harm you.
A level 2/3/4 fighter dealing with failed orc attacks every few days, stops learning anything new, unless the orcs' tactics change.
"Ladders at the South Wall!"
"Here we go again...right lads, we've done this a hundred times. Everybody got their ladder-prodding stick? Keep the kettle on the boil; this'll only take a few minutes."
And if that is applied equally to the PCs (and why shouldn't it?) that takes care of the 'boil an anthill, gain a level', or 'farm the woods for rats', or 'beat the chained dog, Channel it back up', or 'poke the troll in the cage' problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The greater hat of disguise which is in a paizo product doesn't cost that much.
That's a specific item, which may be made without having to go through the item guidelines. It also seems to be able to alter clothing, alter self can't do normally (besides alter to fit the new shape).
Edit: It also lists it as illusion instead of transmutation. It looks like the creator of this item didn't put too much thought into it.
The greater hat of disguise which is in a paizo product doesn't cost that much.That's a specific item, which may be made without having to go through the item guidelines. It also seems to be able to alter clothing, alter self can't do normally (besides alter to fit the new shape).
Edit: It also lists it as illusion instead of transmutation. It looks like the creator of this item didn't put too much thought into it.
|
|
*edit* Oh, and one thing. Imo beginning adventurers should be lower level than experienced local NPCs. They start becomming important in the mid to high levels when their ability and gear are superior to the locals. Until then they're just low level working stiffs a bit above the common herd but not too tough. Ymmv.
+1
Why shouldn't the starting PCs be street toughs, who know not to tangle with the cop on their beat?
Top Cat and his gang always made sure to hide their scams from Officer Dibble. Why would they need to, if they could just kill him and go through his pockets?
(given that it has been repeatedly proven that a cat can easily kill a level 1 character...)
Blame Monte Cook for that one then.
Oh well. The man's not a god.
|
|
Trolling the board like I have, seeking ways to improve my gameplay and my DM'ery; I see builds of characters all the time. And most of the time I see people who drop a stat or two all for the sake of a +1. I understand certain feats require certain Stat mins. But is dropping your WIS to a 8 to 5 really worth it? Ive never seen it that much in 3.5 or older (less of course you just rolled sucky). But now with the move toward more point buy games it seems to me more common place. Has ROLL-Playing overtaken ROLE-Playing? And for that matter, does anyone have the stones to dump stat CON? I'm not pointing out anyone in particular. I'm trying to understand. Thanks.
I never stat dump unless it is thematically in line with the character concept. I am also partial to rolling stats instead of point buy for this reason.
I am also partial to the light fighter concept and will always boost INT to make the concept work.
Bottom Line - Optimization is good, min-max is bad. Monks and Bards suck.
Blame Monte Cook for that one then.Oh well. The man's not a god.
Oh so true.
I'll also fully disagree with the person that stated bards and monks suck.
|
Trolling the board like I have, seeking ways to improve my gameplay and my DM'ery; I see builds of characters all the time. And most of the time I see people who drop a stat or two all for the sake of a +1. I understand certain feats require certain Stat mins. But is dropping your WIS to a 8 to 5 really worth it? Ive never seen it that much in 3.5 or older (less of course you just rolled sucky). But now with the move toward more point buy games it seems to me more common place. Has ROLL-Playing overtaken ROLE-Playing? And for that matter, does anyone have the stones to dump stat CON? I'm not pointing out anyone in particular. I'm trying to understand. Thanks.I never stat dump unless it is thematically in line with the character concept. I am also partial to rolling stats instead of point buy for this reason.
I am also partial to the light fighter concept and will always boost INT to make the concept work.
Bottom Line - Optimization is good, min-max is bad. Monks and Bards suck.
Never seen the "Stealth Mage Killer Monk" or "I'm Gonna Grab You and Make You My Toy Monk," have you?
Alternatively, not seen the "Everyone Gets +5/+4 on All Attacks" Bard? Combine that one with a couple of archers (even lower level ones) and you get dead targets filled with arrows. Fast.
|
|
Bottom Line - Optimization is good, min-max is bad.
With you 100% on this one.
Monks and Bards suck.
And against you about 75% on this. Monks are very tricky to create properly, and will never be primary damage dealers (well, barring Zen Archers)...which is the same as being bad for a whole lot of people.
Bards on the other hand are phenomenal in Pathfinder, and I have no idea how anyone could legitimately think otherise.
Real quick, gonna have to get this out there right now; 3d6, in order, SUCKED!
I think if you want to dump X stat, then the game will take care of the negatives. There is no need for the DM to go out of his way to make a PC "pay" for anything. It's the same thing with an 18 INT. I don't have that kind of mental acuity, but my Wizard does. Lucky for me, the game takes care of it.
As a player, I hate negative stats so I rarely dump anything. If I were of a mind to take a dump stat, then CHA would be the most logical choice. I'm not alone in this conclusion. For me, for my play-style, it's just the odd stat out. Now if I were to play a Sorcerer, well okay then I'd pump the hell of it.
Someone said rocking a 20 from level 1 was the [key] to great Awesome Sauce©. I get that. I want that. Having said that, if I can't get that 20 at 1st level, the character isn't ruined. Know how you ruin a character? Roll 3d6 and play 'em in order.
Rambling done.
3d6 rolled in order sucked? I differ. I still use that today, especially with how easy it is for attributes to be raised above beginning numbers - increases at x levels, spells and magic items galore. As a GM, I cringe when I see beginning characters have a stat above 18. I still see that as the absolute best stat for any character to have at 1st level. Anything above that is something that should come after some gameplay.
I differ as I like the simulationist feel of it. We have no control over our own "stats", beyond making sure we are using what we have to it's full potential. Like I said, the 3d6 in order is nice for the simulationist qualities. However, if you hate negatives and want characters to be a cut above everyone else, then it can be a problem.
I differ as I like the simulationist feel of it. We have no control over our own "stats", beyond making sure we are using what we have to it's full potential. Like I said, the 3d6 in order is nice for the simulationist qualities. However, if you hate negatives and want characters to be a cut above everyone else, then it can be a problem.
I disagree -- you can work out, you can do endurance training, eat healthier and learn to be more persuasive and attractive. Attend classes and continue to learn, or do nothing but play video games and watch tv all day while eating and see your strength, dexterity, constitution and intelligence drop.
One of my biggest beefs with earlier editions was precisely the lack of control over stats when you can do some much to improve them in real life.
I disagree with both extremes on the whole control over stats argument. We have certain genetic tendencies that no amount of work will ever change, but we can usually mitigate weaknesses or emphasize strengths if we are willing to put forth the effort. However, the more we focus on one stat, the harder it is to pay attention to the others, so full control is never really possible.
That character would be mildly mentally retarded with the personality of a cardboard box.But that's the great thing. Those issues don't come up in sessions, so I get to be the combat monster and not get penalized.
So, in other words, you want the benefits of dumping the stat, but god forbid the GM should put any RP penalties on you for being a mentally retarded cardboard box?
THIS is the attitude that drives me insane as a GM. People who want all the benefits but none of the penalties. You wouldn't have to quit my game, I'd kick your butt out.
THIS is the attitude that drives me insane as a GM. People who want to make up penalties that don't exist, purely to punish people for going against their preferences. You wouldn't have to get kicked out of that game, you could join mine.
See what I did there? ☺
But seriously though. I've been GMing for a long time, and I've never had, nor desired, to invent problems for my players beyond the ones they already have. Fighter with a 7 Int? Well 1-3 skill points per level kinda sucks sometimes. Barbarian with the 7 Cha? Eh, beware that 2d4 Cha-damage, will save for half Ego Whip. Wizard with phenominal cosmic power and a 7 strength? Shadows are bad. Rogue with the 7 Wis? Spends a lot of time unconcious, dominated, screaming and wetting their pants, or pretending to be statues.
Ability scores are abstract, people. No where in the entire game does it say that X means Y beyond the mechanical benefits thereof. The end. Does your 7 Int represent actual stupidity, a learning disability, or perhaps ignorance? I've seen a barbarian with a 7 Int who played it off as being under-educated, only knowing what she had seen firsthand; for example. I've seen low charismas played as beautiful people with grating personalities, or high charismas as people who act like asses but are good at getting their point across and being "that guy everyone likes and doesn't know why".
You could have a wiry Bruce Lee built guy with a 15 strength, or a brawny Conan with 15 strength. They both come to doors and roll strength to break them open. Bruce Lee kicks the door in using well applied strength on a single location, and Conan shoulder slams the door from the hinges. Both have +2 to hit and damage.
If I have a player who has a 7 (hell, let's say 5 charisma for those dwarf lovers out there), I don't make people throw tomatoes at him on sight, or intentionally ignore him, or anything goofy like that. That would just kill verisimilitude so hard. I do call for social skill checks pretty regularly though, and that kind of sucks when you're dude is trying to get him some +5 nookie after an adventure, or you're trying to convince the bounty hunters that you're not the bandits who knocked over the caravan escorting the Duke's son, when it turns out the shiny new sword you got from those orcs was his.
"Oh, but Ashiel" you cry! "What if the dwarf tries to avoid being drawn into a social situation?" you ask. Well then he's just like that wizard avoiding pointy objects with his low Armor Class. Are you putting the pointy objects in the game specifically to spite the wizard? I'd hope not. The same goes for the dwarf with the 5 Charisma trying to avoid getting into trouble. Instead of jumping into a social encounter, words blazing, he tries to avoid getting in over his head.
Choosing not to roleplay your 7 Intelligence character as "mentally retarded" does not mean you're dodging the penalties of a low score. Such a penalty doesn't exist. Officially, you're a thinking sentient creature at 3 Int. Hell, a human with 7 Int has the same skill points each level as an 11 Int human, which means a 7 Int human can function in society just as easily (he won't be the best at Appraise/Craft/Knowledge, but could excel in Handle Animal, Profession, Slight of Hand, Survival, or Perform, for example) and function fine in society. So he probably doesn't know the name of the Lord outside of his home, and he only knows steel is something you get from smiths, but who cares? He knows eating rabbit too much in the wild will starve you to death (he has ranks in Survival), and he knows the seasons for planting (he has ranks in Profession: Farmer), and he knows how to train a good horse (he put his third rank into Handle Animal).
Not the most educated, but hardly mentally retarded.
Likewise, you might actually have a 20 Intelligence, and be "mentally retarded". Maybe you dumped your Charisma and Wisdom to get that shiny 20 Intelligence. You're a machine when it comes to facts. At 1st level, you have 9 knowledge skills at 1 rank each, a class skill, and a +5 Intelligence. You've got +9 to Knowledge: Arcana/Religion/Geography/Local/Nobility/History/Architecture, +9 Spellcraft, and +9 Craft: Jewelrymaking. You're a wizard (and you're banking on your naturally higher will saves to soften the -2 Wisdom). However, you've got a -2 to all social interactions, and -2 to all perception based checks.
Everyone thinks you're kinda weird. You're that crazy smart guy that doesn't talk to people, and you just sit alone in your room making jewelry. The last time you tried to give someone your jewelry, you came off as a little creepy, and you didn't know what to say. You're pretty bad at telling lies, and worse for believing them, but at least you're easy to talk to. Maybe some people think you're an introvert, maybe you have undiagnosed autism, or maybe you spent too much time studying and never developed social skills. Either way, most think you're kinda weird, and the mean Barbarian in the group calls you "Retard Wizard".
Bankin' that 20 Int! ☺
The point is, ability scores only mean what they do. What they do is modify. How that modification is explained is entirely up to the owner of that character. If you bring a low-charisma character to play in my group, and you made his charisma low because you want him to be introverted, it's not my job as a GM to say "people throw tomatoes at you because your character looks like Quasimodo".
Instead, I ask for a check, and I tell a story that you will become part of, and then become the star of, as you shape the world through your actions. Who knows, after a few levels and a few skill points, you might find yourself to be the lonely introvert that became a hero and caught the affections of the girl (who happens to be the physical reincarnation of a fallen angel, but you don't know that yet ☺).
|
|
Dang. Those are my two fav base classes? Why? Because they are stat thirsty?Bottom Line - Optimization is good, min-max is bad. Monks and Bards suck.
No, I actually like Monks, at least in theory. In play they don't meet my expectations. I dislike having to make the Monk STR based in order for it to be effective.
Bards, I just don't like.
You could have a wiry Bruce Lee built guy with a 15 strength, or a brawny Conan with 15 strength. They both come to doors and roll strength to break them open. Bruce Lee kicks the door in using well applied strength on a single location, and Conan shoulder slams the door from the hinges. Both have +2 to hit and damage.
This is not what I'm saying, and I expected better of you Ashiel. Have you stopped beating your children? See what I did there? :) I took something you never said you did and made it look like you said it.
Here's the difference Ashiel between your example and what I was talking about (which I went to painful details to explain in multiple posts which nobody bothered to read apparently).
Problem with your paragraph #1 :
It's not a wiry Bruce Lee with 15 str and a brawny Conan with 15 str.
It's Abe Vigoda with a 7 str, trying to pretend he's Bruce Lee with 15 str. He wants to be treated as if he looks like Bruce Lee, and moves like Bruce Lee, but he looks like Abe Vigoda and moves like Abe Vigoda.
Problem with your paragraph #2 :
Everything about your character should be affecting the people around you before you do anything.
If you look at Conan and Abe Vigoda, strictly from a physical stance, you see an old weak guy and a young heavily muscled guy.
If you have a father complex, you probably prefer Abe, based on his age. If you have a body building fetish, you probably prefer Conan. All this has nothing to do with the character making skill checks.
If Abe walks into a tea house that caters to the elderly, he get's a positive reaction just because he's 7 str and 70 years old. He fits. All without him having to say a word or make a single check.
If Conan walks into a tea house that caters to the elderly, everyone in there is staring at him, he doesn't fit in, he's not their kind. All of this is without him having made any social interaction at all, nor made a single skill check.
People want to have a 7 INT dump stat, but want to spout out advanced tactics, pop out information about creatures they encounter, and generally play their own RL intelligence without ever putting a point into anything other than perception because they only get one skill point per level. But they want to use player knowledge and just like you in your post get upset when the GM says 'You don't have that tactical ability because you don't have the int or skills'. By the same token, they want to take a 7 CHA and not have any negative repercussions on their character's first impressions, they want to be able to talk and schmooze the npcs, and become outraged, just like you have, if the GM doesn't give their thespian performance any bonuses on a diplomacy check made without any skill points put into diplomacy.
Everything I've said in all my posts is that your stats are your initial impression when you are walking around and not actively trying to impress people. Nobody walks around 24 hours a day acting like something they aren't, except con-men. You know, rogues, who have skills, and charisma, and bluff and disguise and performance (oratory). Or bards, same thing.
Your stats are what you are when you're not using skills to overcome them.
Now, I have no issues with someone putting skill points into Diplomacy and taking a skill focus (Diplomacy) and getting a +10 in it and saying "I take 10 while in town on diplomacy whenever I interact with people". They've put the effort in to overcome their natural foibles that make people not like them. But without putting in that effort, no, they don't get that for free.
You can run your game however you want, and if you want to let people dump stats and have no affect, then that's fine. But that is your game.
Are you putting the pointy objects in the game specifically to spite the wizard? I'd hope not.
Oh, and yes, I do put pointy things in to attack the spellcaster with the low AC. They're called swords, or daggers, or scorpion stingers. Do you not attack anyone with a low AC? If that's so, I'd play a 7 DEX, 7 CHA, 7 WIS, 24 INT wizard then in your game, since I would never have to deal with pointy things if I never cast mage armor or wore bracers. My low AC would make me the best tank in the party, since I was immune to pointy things.
Dang. Those are my two fav base classes? Why? Because they are stat thirsty?
No, I actually like Monks, at least in theory. In play they don't meet my expectations. I dislike having to make the Monk STR based in order for it to be effective.Bards, I just don't like.
So it's simply preference, not necessarily mechanical? Can't really argue with preference so I won't even try.
People want to have a 7 INT dump stat, but want to spout out advanced tactics, pop out information about creatures they encounter, and generally play their own RL intelligence without ever putting a point into anything other than perception because they only get one skill point per level. But they want to use player knowledge and just like you in your post get upset when the GM says 'You don't have that tactical ability because you don't have the int or skills'. By the same token, they want to take a 7 CHA and not have any negative repercussions on their character's first impressions, they want to be able to talk and schmooze the npcs, and become outraged, just like you have, if the GM doesn't give their thespian performance any bonuses on a diplomacy check made without any skill points put into diplomacy.
Even people that are not that smart can specialize. I had a guy as a coworker when I was in the army who could tell you anything about MP's, even though that was not his job. He could not repair anything though even though that is what he was trained.
What do you mean by use player knowledge?Ashiel never said anything about using skills she did not have. The ability to figure your various things was handled in the previous post. Maybe Mr. Int 7 has a focus on combat.
To take this further combat prowess and intelligence are not related. It requires a type of cunning which is often attributed to intelligence but should not be.
Nobody is outraged and nobody is demanding to schmooze. That is a lie. She is saying there should be an automatic negative connotation. That is a far cry from schmoozing. The game can handle all of these stats without you having to control a PC's actions or make up arbitrary NPC responses.
Smart or wise people that know they are not good with words can easily hide it by keeping their mouths shut. At best the only way anyone justify this is if more than one mental stat is dumped. Normally charisma only gets you ignored, unless you try to make a conversation. That is where the diplomacy checks come into play.
PS:It seems one of us read her paragraph incorrectly. I guess she will come to say which one of us it was.
Even people that are not that smart can specialize. I had a guy as a coworker when I was in the army who could tell you anything about MP's, even though that was not his job. He could not repair anything though even though that is what he was trained.
What do you mean by use player knowledge?
Yep, and those people train for that right? So they put points into a skill. Thus, they have that information.
Player Knowledge :
Oh, that's a <insert creature here>, it's weak to fire and ice, and it's got a poison attack (character has no knowledge (nature skill) or other appropriate knowledge skill.
Oooh, those are Souther Kobolds, they got pikes and they're in formation and wearing armor! We ran into those in the last game, they're nasty, don't let them get close, blast them from afar. (Character had all their skill points in Perception, only got one per level, 3.5)
Ashiel never said anything about using skills she did not have. The ability to figure your various things was handled in the previous post. Maybe Mr. Int 7 has a focus on combat.
She used my post to make points about people not giving checks, despite I've repeatedly said if people put points into something to overcome the stat (like diplomacy) that that's kosher, so I don't see a reason why I can't add to her post talking about something she didn't say, but I actually did say in the post she quoted.
To take this further combat prowess and intelligence are not related. It requires a type of cunning which is often attributed to intelligence but should not be.
Actually, it should require a skill. Knowledge (Dungeoneering), or Knowledge (Engineering), or Knowledge (Tactics), or Knowledge (Nature). Any of those could be used (Dunegoneering for general tactics underground or inside an enclosed area, engineering for seiging something, tactics for general tactics, nature for getting the best position for ambushing or noticing where good ambush points are, or getting high ground). Military teaches tactics through training, not osmosis.
Nobody is outraged and nobody is demanding to schmooze. That is a lie. She is saying there should be an automatic negative connotation. That is a far cry from schmoozing. The game can handle all of these stats without you having to control a PC's actions or make up arbitrary NPC responses.
Several people on here have claimed they should be treated as having awesome sauce when dealing with NPCs, even if they are CHA 7 and no skills in diplomacy because they are the PCs and the heroes.
Smart or wise people that know they are not good with words can easily hide it by keeping their mouths shut. At best the only way anyone justify this is if more than one mental stat is dumped. Normally charisma only gets you ignored, unless you try to make a conversation. That is where the diplomacy checks come into play.
No argument there. I've said repeatedly that it depends on how you define your dump stat. Do you have a 7 CHA because you are a wallflower and you don't asert yourself at all in social situations? Then that's easy to hide on first contact. Do you stroke your sword all the time and talk to it about what's going on around you? Do you curse every other word or fail to take baths or both? That's not hidable just by keeping your mouth shut (since you don't, by deffinition, do it) and you don't get ignored.
Do you have a 7 INT because you have a brain injury? Or is it because you have a learning defect and it keeps you from learning skills? Or is your character intentionally ignorant of everything. Those are 3 different explanations for INT 7. All three have different roleplay methods. The first, you just are not bright. You get lost easily when people talk and most people quit asking your opinion the 4th time you ask them to explain something again. The second you are a fairly normal person and can carry on a conversation, but your learning disability keeps your skill points from being what they should be. You can function normally, as long as nobody is trying to get you to memorize something or pick up a new skill, and as long as you avoid complex games. The third one you are intentionally ignorant, you have it in your head that knowledge is evil, and you refuse to listen to anyone, you maybe even put your fingers in your ears if someone starts explaining things (this would be linked to a lower cha I think). The first two you can hide by just not talking, but the third one is going to come up much more often.
PS:It seems one of us read her paragraph incorrectly. I guess she will come to say which one of us it was.
Possibly, it's very hard to get inflection over the internet, so it's entirely possible I mistook her stance, and it happens, but I've had a lot of problems with players in the past not wanting the penalties of their low stats but wanting the benefits of the high ones. God forbid I forget to have the barmaid be attracted to the 20 CHA bard or the 20 INT wizard not being allowed to make an INT roll to solve a puzzle in game rather than the group trying to work it out. But if I want to give a roleplay penalty to that 5 cha dwarf fighter who just said he wants some beer and not horse **** when I tell them they are in a tavern, on no, then I'm a dick who's penalizing people for things that aren't in the rules.
You know what, there are no rules covering the roleplaying of the game, because that is up to the GM, and if people don't like that, they need to go play Warhammer 40K and just fight armies against each other.
Because its unrealistic that a superior specimen wouldnt do better, and even a 5 stat isnt far enough deviation from the normal of 10 to justify more than the already figured penalties the game gives. Remember, most the town is running around with 8 in their stats anyway. They dont have much room to talk.
No, a 5 below and 10 above are about the same. The reason being that stats are not linear. Everyone wants to treat them like they are, but they are not.
A human has a stat range of 3 to 25 without using magic. That means that if 10 is average (which it is by rule), then the range of 3 to 9 is exactly equal to the range of 11 to 25. Therefore, -5 is approximately equal to +10.
Also, you forget that the "penalties" suggested on these boards include such charming ideas as assault, riots, and lynching. Without much frame of reference, and assuming the natural tendency of GMs to screw a player over while claiming it fair (any GM who denies it is a liar and needs therapy) we can only assume by how dedicated you are to the idea of adding more penalties than the RAW/RAI give that you're of a similar mind.
Your argument is refuted by the fact I have posted, repeatedly, how I handle things. People keep saying stuff like this, but since I am not advocating that stuff, you using it as an argument against my statement is a strawman. If you want to argue I am wrong in how I run my game, you have to use arguments that are relevant to my game. Since assault riots and lynchings are wild hyperbole, they are beneath my contempt and I put them into the same pigeon hole I reserve for birther arguments.
Also, you forget that the "penalties" suggested on these boards include such charming ideas as assault, riots, and lynching.
Most people tend to agree that those specific examples are a bit extreme, but expecting a 7 CHA person to be treated the same way even a 10 CHA person is is equally silly. The difference probably won't be much more than the 7 CHA character is more likely to be ignored, overlooked, treated with slightly rougher language, or be one of the first people suspect when something bad happens that can't be immediately explained, but it is still there. Ultimately, nothing that punishes the character in a mechanical sense, but it still makes it clear that the difference is there and it is real.
As no knowledge (tactics) in the game? Just because the book doesn't list it as a specific option doesn't mean that it isn't there. The book doesn't list every available option for craft, profession, perform, or knowledge because it can't. If you want knowledge (battle tactics) or something similar, I don't know very many DMs who would deny it, even in most organized settings. I know many that would even be willing to give circumstance bonuses to such a roll if a fighter were to take it simply because of their training. Certain skills allow for, and even ask for, player creativity in coming up with specific examples of how they are used in the game.
go play Warhammer 40K and just fight armies against each other.
Stuff like this might as well be a Godwin-equivalent for RPGs.
go play Warhammer 40K and just fight armies against each other.Stuff like this might as well be a Godwin-equivalent for RPGs.
What's really funny is the number of people that take their battle reports from their war games and proceed to write fiction off of it.
It's a wonderful counter argument against this very (stupid) assumption that somehow having tactical play negates the ability to role play as well.
As no knowledge (tactics) in the game? Just because the book doesn't list it as a specific option doesn't mean that it isn't there. The book doesn't list every available option for craft, profession, perform, or knowledge because it can't. If you want knowledge (battle tactics) or something similar, I don't know very many DMs who would deny it, even in most organized settings. I know many that would even be willing to give circumstance bonuses to such a roll if a fighter were to take it simply because of their training. Certain skills allow for, and even ask for, player creativity in coming up with specific examples of how they are used in the game.
I usually allow, in my games, the PC with such a skill to add a +1 for each 5pts of DC check above 10 he makes with the skill, if he uses a full action on his first round (directing the rest of the team into better positions, etc). So, he picks a DC (15, 20, 25, etc) and if he hits the DC everyone adds +1, +2, +3, etc.
And yeah, all the Skill (subskill) skills in the book can only list examples, since no book could hold all the possible options.
do we really need to split up more redundant skills?
battle tactics was a secondary function of knowledge (history)
last time i checked.
do we really need to split up more redundant skills?
battle tactics was a secondary function of knowledge (history)
Thank you, I had trouble remember which one had some attachment to tactics as well, we used both history and tactics in several games, depending on the group.
either way, the character would have put skill points into training for what he's doing, not just mystically channeling an outsider known as Player A.
just because player A thought up the idea out of character doesn't mean his 7 Int half orc fighter was the one who thought it up.
maybe player A thought it up to help player B out of character, so we could say that player B's 20 int wizard could have come up the idea. despite the fact it was thought up out of character by player A.
just because player A thought up the idea out of character doesn't mean his 7 Int half orc fighter was the one who thought it up.
maybe player A thought it up to help player B out of character, so we could say that player B's 20 int wizard could have come up the idea. despite the fact it was thought up out of character by player A.
So why doesn't Player A play Player B's character? I've been in games before where stuff like that was the norm, and I hated it. Either someone else was playing my character for me, or I was having to play someone else's character because they couldn't. Either way it's a bad thing and the group tends to have problems.
just because player A thought up the idea out of character doesn't mean his 7 Int half orc fighter was the one who thought it up.
maybe player A thought it up to help player B out of character, so we could say that player B's 20 int wizard could have come up the idea. despite the fact it was thought up out of character by player A.
I ran into that issue once in 2E.
I was playing either a 6 or 8 Int, and we were having problems getting through a particular door at the bottom of a set of stairs. I came up with an elaborate plan of loading and stacking certain materials we found in earlier rooms to send down the stairs to break it open...... Then pointed at the 19 Int wizard and said, "he thought of it."
The GM allowed it a bit, me giving the player of the 19 int guy ideas all session, until he finally told me to stop. To this day I try not to play low Int characters because I have a hard time staying in character.
just because player A thought up the idea out of character doesn't mean his 7 Int half orc fighter was the one who thought it up.
maybe player A thought it up to help player B out of character, so we could say that player B's 20 int wizard could have come up the idea. despite the fact it was thought up out of character by player A.
I ran into that issue once in 2E.
I was playing either a 6 or 8 Int, and we were having problems getting through a particular door at the bottom of a set of stairs. I came up with an elaborate plan of loading and stacking certain materials we found in earlier rooms to send down the stairs to break it open...... Then pointed at the 19 Int wizard and said, "he thought of it."
The GM allowed it a bit, me giving the player of the 19 int guy ideas all session, until he finally told me to stop. To this day I try not to play low Int characters because I have a hard time staying in character.
I've done it before as well, and it can work for a short period of time, but after a while, it becomes hard for the players, and the DM, to distinguish just who is playing the smart character. This is not good for anyone as a long term thing. Every once in a while, it's probably not a problem, but it just doesn't work as a routine thing.
do we really need to split up more redundant skills?
battle tactics was a secondary function of knowledge (history)
Thank you, I had trouble remember which one had some attachment to tactics as well, we used both history and tactics in several games, depending on the group.
either way, the character would have put skill points into training for what he's doing, not just mystically channeling an outsider known as Player A.
My thoughts exactly. When I eventually run a campaign, I am going to be less worried about precisely what knowledge subskill they use, and more concerned that they try to find some way of translating player knowledge into character knowledge if they insist on using player knowledge. It doesn't even have to be a knowledge skill. Craft and Profession also work well for that, as do many others when thought is put into their use.
sometimes, we need to ask others for help.
sometimes we feel compelled to help one another.
it doesn't mean that player A and player B should swap characters.
Pathfinder is a Cooperative Game. meaning, that there is an intended level of Teamwork involved.
not one person alone can create every solution. even with thier own character.
it's amazing, how this poison called MMO's makes people tend to forget about a Key part of the system. maybe we should suppress our individualistic desires and think like a Team .
the 4 individuals may not over come the challenge by thier own abilities alone
but when those 4 individuals work together as a single unit, working to overcome each other's weaknesses, the challenge becomes much easier.
maybe instead of counting who inflicts higher damage per round, we should excersize different things. like how we can work together as a Team .
maybe every player should be forced to take a turn on the one 'Role' nobody wishes to play. whether it be healer, trapfinder, or whatever. so that they can understand that role more easily.
go play Warhammer 40K and just fight armies against each other.Stuff like this might as well be a Godwin-equivalent for RPGs.
Nah, it's when they bring up Amber that's the RPG Godwin.
(Although going to wargames is pretty equivalent for the other direction, I will admit.)
There are so many different threads going on here that it's difficult to wade in and add to the overall chaos and confusion, but I think I'm up to the task. :)
There are many ways to interpret the "role playing" part of RPG. But it is my personal opinion that one of the WORST ways to interpret it is to call it "role playing" when a player acts in direct contradiction to their character's concept and/or stats. It may well be "role playing" when a player whose character has a charisma of 5 acts out a dramatic seduction of the local barmaid, but the problem is that the role that is being played is not the role of their character. To make matters worse, many GMs actually reward this perversion of the concept of role playing by allowing the misplayed character to succeed at the attempt, which just reinforces the players' tendencies to ignore their character's actual stats or concept.
In the games I run, when a player "role plays" in ways that are directly contradictory to their stats, I roll the dice and announce the results. That charisma of 5 is going to cost you. When that barbarian orc with a str of 22 and int of 7 "role plays" the solution to a difficult puzzle, I roll the dice and announce the results. That int of 7 is going to cost you. This isn't even about punishing min/maxing, although it does tend to end up creating consequences for stat dumping, but it is truly more about teaching players to role play THEIR CHARACTER. If your dwarf has a charisma of 5, then role play that 5 charisma. That will be rewarded, even if the immediate task is beyond your abilities. So in my games, if you want your cha 5 dwarf to seduce a barmaid, you are much more likely to succeed if you act like a cha 5 dwarf trying to seduce a barmaid. And even if you do fail, I will remember that you tried to PLAY YOUR CHARACTER and will find a way to reward you later. But if you try to "role play" the situation and come up with a smooth, smarmy pickup line, the dice will roll.
Now, if a player approaches me with the idea of putting skill ranks into "knowledge: battle tactics" I am going to say "absolutely you can do that." To suggest that battle tactics is a subset of history is simply not believable. Historians do not lead troops into battle, and reading history does not teach you which hill to take to control a battlefield, unless you end up re-enacting a successful battle under nearly identical circumstances. So I would reward any player who decided to invest in such a skill by investing actual ranks into it. I would do the same if the skill was "knowledge: songbirds". If someone actually put ranks into that skill, I would give them additional bonuses to identifying songbirds compared to someone with just basic "knowledge: nature" ranks. In my campaigns such creative and focused character creation and evolution is always going to be rewarded, and the last thing I want to tell a player who has such an idea is "no, battle tactics is a subset of history, so just take history instead." That sends entirely the wrong message, imho, telling the character to avoid creating unique characters with specialized knowledge and instead says that you reward a bland generalist approach which tends to make characters look like one another.
The bottom line is that I reward playing the actual character, not just randomly acting out some scenario with no regard to a character's actual stats and skills. I reward originality and cleverness, not blandness and cookie-cutter builds. If someone wants to min/max in one of my campaigns, I won't stop them, but they will learn that having a 7 charisma has consequences. Period. Just in the pursuit of game balance alone, I'm not going to let someone gain an advantage without also gaining a weakness. If you dump int and "role play" the character as if they are highly intelligent, I won't reward that.
Now, there is a legitimate question of whether the game punishes stat dumping enough just on the resulting skill checks, saving throws or penalties to attribute checks. And the answer to that is only potentially going to be "yes" if you do make the player roll against those stats instead of taking the "role playing" dodge to avoid it.
sometimes, we need to ask others for help.
sometimes we feel compelled to help one another.
Bold added by me to emphasize what I said in my above post. Sometimes someone has a really cool idea that is worth doing just because it's cool, or the person playing the smart character has a bad day and is drawing nothing but blanks. Both are valid reasons to let a player temporarily speak through someone else's character. When it becomes a habit, though, it tends to hurt the group dynamic by making the player of the character serving as the mouthpiece a wallflower who doesn't learn to come up with ideas of his own or by setting up a contest of wills between two strong players.
go play Warhammer 40K and just fight armies against each other.Stuff like this might as well be a Godwin-equivalent for RPGs.Nah, it's when they bring up Amber that's the RPG Godwin.
(Although going to wargames is pretty equivalent for the other direction, I will admit.)
Not saying anything bad about Warhammer 40k, I used to play and enjoyed it, but;
Try going to a game tournment for Warhammer 40k and when you're playing, roleplay your army's actions. Have the commanders give ralling cries when morale checks succeed, have important characters give dying speeches, and do radio chanter or give narration about the effects the battle is having on the soldiers.
I nearly got banned from the shop for that.
Not saying anything bad about Warhammer 40k, I used to play and enjoyed it, but;
Try going to a game tournment for Warhammer 40k and when you're playing, roleplay your army's actions. Have the commanders give ralling cries when morale checks succeed, have important characters give dying speeches, and do radio chanter or give narration about the effects the battle is having on the soldiers.
I nearly got banned from the shop for that.
Really? The locals do it a lot around here -- it's considered part of the flavor and enjoyment of the game to interpret what the army is doing.
Really? The locals do it a lot around here -- it's considered part of the flavor and enjoyment of the game to interpret what the army is doing.Not saying anything bad about Warhammer 40k, I used to play and enjoyed it, but;
Try going to a game tournment for Warhammer 40k and when you're playing, roleplay your army's actions. Have the commanders give ralling cries when morale checks succeed, have important characters give dying speeches, and do radio chanter or give narration about the effects the battle is having on the soldiers.
I nearly got banned from the shop for that.
I used to play necrons. Still have them, loved painting them more than playing with them to be honest.
My experience was much more in line with Graves Scion than yours Abraham.
I used to play necrons. Still have them, loved painting them more than playing with them to be honest.My experience was much more in line with Graves Scion than yours Abraham.
Wow -- I'm honestly sorry to hear that -- our chaos marine player would be shooting "Blood for the Blood God!" before having his marines assault, while the tau player would be chanting "for the greater good!" before a missile volley. The normal space marine players were some of the funnest using chants and what not from their faction books, or the core book regularly. Most of the HQ choices had individual names, and people had histories for each of their squads, as well as their commanders.
For us putting the fluff in was as much fun as making, painting, planning or playing with our armies.
|
For us putting the fluff in was as much fun as making, painting, planning or playing with our armies.
I do this with video games. Dragonforce for the Sega Saturn was AWESOME for the pre-battle quips between generals that knew each other inworld. I refuse to let any of my characters die in FF Tactics and similar games because of how attached I get to them.
I used to play necrons. Still have them, loved painting them more than playing with them to be honest.My experience was much more in line with Graves Scion than yours Abraham.
Wow -- I'm honestly sorry to hear that -- our chaos marine player would be shooting "Blood for the Blood God!" before having his marines assault, while the tau player would be chanting "for the greater good!" before a missile volley. The normal space marine players were some of the funnest using chants and what not from their faction books, or the core book regularly. Most of the HQ choices had individual names, and people had histories for each of their squads, as well as their commanders.
For us putting the fluff in was as much fun as making, painting, planning or playing with our armies.
Well...one-liners and quips were fine and everyone did it. I use to have my Inquistor (I was a Witch Hunter player) give speechs before assulting, demends for surrender, or when they were killed I would give dying thoughts as their squad mates called out their names and swore revenge. Stuff like that.
I also wouldn't let any of my characters in Final Fantasy Tactics die, and I would always use my own characters rather than the story characters.
|
sometimes, we need to ask others for help.
sometimes we feel compelled to help one another.
it doesn't mean that player A and player B should swap characters.
Pathfinder is a Cooperative Game. meaning, that there is an intended level of Teamwork involved.
not one person alone can create every solution. even with thier own character.
it's amazing, how this poison called MMO's makes people tend to forget about a Key part of the system. maybe we should suppress our individualistic desires and think like a Team .
the 4 individuals may not over come the challenge by thier own abilities alone
but when those 4 individuals work together as a single unit, working to overcome each other's weaknesses, the challenge becomes much easier.
maybe instead of counting who inflicts higher damage per round, we should excersize different things. like how we can work together as a Team .
maybe every player should be forced to take a turn on the one 'Role' nobody wishes to play. whether it be healer, trapfinder, or whatever. so that they can understand that role more easily.
Teamwork between characters, not players. A player of int 7 character telling the player of int 18 character how to solve a puzzle would be metagaming. If i play a int 5 half orc barbarian, who can't tie his shoelaces without supervision, thinks only about drinking a whoring and fighting, and then the party comes up against a puzzle which the int 22 wizards player can't solve, well shucks, we're having a bad day, because there is no way that my character could actually contribute, unless you want him to piss on the mechanism or bash it beyond recognition. Even if i figure the puzzle out, my character has not done so thus i shouldn't tell others. In the end, if the GM asks has anyone figured it out and everybody else is saying nay, well, then i will solve it, albeit grudgingly, because my character cannot solve a complex puzzle because he is to stupid for something like that
Thus, i wholeheartedly disagree with what you said.