|
I feel it is asking too much to expect players to spend $25 per shirt for each day of a con. Obviously I do have some expandable money if I can visit the con but it is wrong to presume everyone can justify $100(and maybe shipping) for four shirts, one for each day of the con. I did not buy it to reroll one day per con. I bought it to reroll once per game. Yes, I know the guide says it is to be worn. That still does not change my opinion on the matter. I think sharing our opinions is partially what these boards are for.
By the way, I do wash it, just not every week.
Someone suggested wearing it over another shirt. I think that may cause overheating and it would likely still smell after a day or two.
My ps3 does not read facebook correctly but I will check that link of the Monte shirt when I have the chance to sit at a real computer.
Here's a question for the Paizo Staff:
For How do ya'll deal with Summon Monster/Nature's Ally?
Do you only allow the list in the core book, or do ya'll have guidelines for more "exotic" choices from beastiary 2 (and the soon to be released beastiary 3)
Are the Anarchic and Axiomatic Templates implemented at all for Characters who want to play up that alignment instead?
Yes, he would, which means he'd have 4d6 fireballs. Nothing wrong with that. :)
That's cool. Can't wait to try it out for my next game. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if characters level the old way, they are still getting constant small rewards in the form of treasure.
Except for the encounters that don't give any treasure.
I like the sound of the step system. As my players get to higher and higher levels it's becoming more common for people to have made mistakes with their xp. Doing away with xp altogether and replacing it with the step system might be a way forward. I'm going to suggest it to my group this weekend.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like social encounters? Those can give other rewards (points of contact, clues, etc.)
Moving The Goalposts, party of one, your table is ready.... :)
??Like social encounters? Those can give other rewards (points of contact, clues, etc.)Moving The Goalposts, party of one, your table is ready.... :)
Look at the section titled As logical fallacy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know what "moving the goalposts" means. What confuses me is why SKR thinks that I did that.
If I read it correctly, the Step system assumes that your party is playing through 4-5 encounters in an approximately 4-hr gaming session. He suggests awarding them small pieces of crunch at the end of every session (and has crafted a system to do that fairly.)
Another poster indicated that most people, whether they know it or not, respond better to more frequent, smaller, rewards than they do to larger, less often, ones.
You then countered that social encounters yield rewards as well, and you seemed to indicate that those awards were equal to crunch awards. I don't think they are, if only because they're completely arbitrary by nature. If it came down to having to choose, I'd much rather gain a quarter-level every session than making non-crunch contacts with NPC's.
Without social connections, your chances to accomplish the goal of the adventure in most cases drops to about zero. So, you are telling me that you'd rather level than accomplish the goal of the adventure.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you indicating that fighting or negotiating through encounters (for XP) and schmoozing with NPCs are mutually exclusive? In a typical session, running about 6-8hrs, our group manages to accomplish both combat and non-combat interactions (usually to the tune of 50/50 real-time.)
Edited, 'cause I really don't want to derail this discussion.
I'm trying to figure out what you and SKR are saying wrt getting clues, points of contact, etc. in social encounters.
Pathfinder, to the best of my knowledge, does not have a system for awarding XP for social encounters. SKR's system is a way of removing strict XP tracking in favor of awarding 1/4 levels per every 4-5 encounters. You are, in effect, moving the goalposts when you introduce social interactions as being equal to 1/4 level awards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know what "moving the goalposts" means. What confuses me is why SKR thinks that I did that.
You: Even if characters level the old way, they are still getting constant small rewards in the form of treasure.
Me: Except for the encounters that don't give any treasure.
You: Like social encounters? Those can give other rewards (points of contact, clues, etc.)
You mentioned each-game rewards in the form of treasure. I said "except for encounters that don't give treasure." Your response was "then they get other kinds of rewards."
If we're talking about weekly rewards, and you say PCs already get treasure every week, and I say "some encounters don't give treasure," then saying "oh and stuff other than treasure" is moving the goalposts. :p
Because I could say, "some encounters don't give contacts or goals," and you could come back with, "well, there's still the reward of sharing a fun experience with your friends," which would be moving the goalposts. We could go on and on like this. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you'd agree that there are many monsters in the bestiaries that have a Treasure entry that says "none," and that it's possible, and in some cases likely, that you'll encounter those creatures outside of the context of a random encounter or wandering monster? If you're breaking into a necromancer's lair, by default the pack of zombies milling about the courtyard aren't going to give you any treasure, and they're not a random encounter....
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Here's a question for the Paizo Staff:
For How do ya'll deal with Summon Monster/Nature's Ally?
Do you only allow the list in the core book, or do ya'll have guidelines for more "exotic" choices from beastiary 2 (and the soon to be released beastiary 3)
Are the Anarchic and Axiomatic Templates implemented at all for Characters who want to play up that alignment instead?
I have done the anarchic/axiomatic summons lists in previous campaigns in 3.5, but I haven't done it in my current PF campaign.
I think I have also incorporated other creatures than the base lists in the past. For simplicity's sake, to avoid summoning becoming an infinitely variable effect, I'm sure I saw an optional rule at some point that suggested you could research alternate summons, and that each new creature would take the place of one of the standard creatures you could summon. Might make something worth adding to ancient magical tomes or found spellbooks.
|
|
I gotta say, I don't like the step progression. I think gaining levels should be a dramatic point in the overall plot of the campaign, not just something that creeps up on people.And I think players shouldn't have to wait for 16-20 hours of gameplay to occur in order to see any improvement in their characters. ;)
Heck, that's why I been using it for the last year or two. Otherwise, it feels like players get nothing for alot of work...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heck, that's why I been using it for the last year or two. Otherwise, it feels like players get nothing for alot of work...I gotta say, I don't like the step progression. I think gaining levels should be a dramatic point in the overall plot of the campaign, not just something that creeps up on people.And I think players shouldn't have to wait for 16-20 hours of gameplay to occur in order to see any improvement in their characters. ;)
And that's why I do really high point-buy with mostly experienced gamers and throw them at really difficult encounters. 3-4 per level is how it usually works out. Like a level 6 party vs. a CR 10 Fire Giant. Still shocked nobody died there, but they *were* specifically hunting Fire Giants...
I am going to experiment replacing the every 4 level ability increase with continued pointbuy, 1 point every level advanced and an additional point every 4th level. Also considering to allow a feat which gives 2 additional pointbuy, a fighter could get a 13 intelligence with little investment and monks and other MAD/multi-class characters would benefit slightly more than characters focused on (mainly) one attribute.
I also allow characters to start with a d6 'racial' hd and a few extra skill points 2+int mod (+1 if human), but no class skills. This mimics (the removed) commoner class, which can use traits to gain class skills.
I stack caster levels so every player has only one caster level they use for all their spells, levels that do not usually add to caster level add half their level, this to facilitate multi-classing. Example fighter 4, cleric 4, wizard 4 would have a CL of 10 (2+4+4), only to determine spell effect/variables.
EDIT: I forgot I am not a game designer, but I'll leave my houserules here anyway, I am sure I got a few more, but these were the ones springing to mind
I guess there aren't any necromancers who want a horde of zombies outside to deter invaders. Or undead necromancers that don't care if the zombies "drop gore" everywhere.
I give up.
The debate about other sorts of rewards is all besides the point. Allowing incremental character advances is independent of how much treasure or social rewards are given to the characters. When it comes to the player's perspective:
character advancement + treasure + social rewards > treasure + social rewards
But if you really don't like the incremental advancement rules, guess what? They are purely optional so you can play the way you always have.
I myself would much rather play in SKR's game.
I have done the anarchic/axiomatic summons lists in previous campaigns in 3.5, but I haven't done it in my current PF campaign.I think I have also incorporated other creatures than the base lists in the past. For simplicity's sake, to avoid summoning becoming an infinitely variable effect, I'm sure I saw an optional rule at some point that suggested you could research alternate summons, and that each new creature would take the place of one of the standard creatures you could summon. Might make something worth adding to ancient magical tomes or found spellbooks.
I like this a lot, I think I'll try to incorporate this in any game I run with a heavy summoner type character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess there aren't any necromancers who want a horde of zombies outside to deter invaders. Or undead necromancers that don't care if the zombies "drop gore" everywhere.
I give up.
Not everyone has your keen sense of necromantic Feng shui
I guess there aren't any necromancers who want a horde of zombies outside to deter invaders. Or undead necromancers that don't care if the zombies "drop gore" everywhere.
I'm sure there would be. Just none that would have a courtyard. Necromancers who don't care if zombies drop gore everywhere would, I think, live in ruins or abandoned graveyards.
When I think of undead with courtyards, I think of Dracula, whose residence is very classy, not covered in rotten corpse pieces.
Whether you fight the zombies in ruins, a graveyard, or a courtyard, it still is a non-random encounter with no treasure and no social rewards. So what exactly your point again?
|
I've been using the step system in my Carrion Crown game and my players absolutely love it! We play bout 6 to 8 hours so 2 steps a night has worked well... Sometimes I'll give a step in the middle during a lull or break to focus the players when they start to drift.
It really depends on your players. About half of mine are very combat, treasure, ability driven in that they like getting shiny new toys to play with. The rest are a mixture of story/setting involved RP'ers that enjoy shiny toys as well. Mix in a little a.d.d in one player and this system fits like a glove for my group.
--Vrock, stock, and barrel
I have to admit, I find it odd that the Designers and Developers use house rules, it seems to me that any house rules they would have come up with would be the basic rules of the game they develpoed.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit, I find it odd that the Designers and Developers use house rules, it seems to me that any house rules they would have come up with would be the basic rules of the game they develpoed.
I'd find it odd if the entire design team would be a hive mind with exactly the same ideas about every area of rules. That or Jason B. calling every Paizo employee at each gaming night to remind them that they should play By The Book.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess there aren't any necromancers who want a horde of zombies outside to deter invaders. Or undead necromancers that don't care if the zombies "drop gore" everywhere.
I give up.
Dear Mr. Reynolds.
Welcome to our forum. I see that you engaged in discussion with LilithsThrall, and there are a couple of things about discussing with him that we believe you should be aware of. First of all, let me run you through our patented Infographics on the topic...
|
|
I, earlier, pointed out that treasure does not have to be tangible. SKR replied that I was moving the goal posts. He clarified that when he said that there was nothing the PCs could gain from this, he meant --nothing- (no new information, no new social contacts, absolutely -nothing-) and, in that case, yes, treasureless = pointless.
Ambiance, sense of danger, adventure, XP : I see at least four reasons right now, without even trying to think too much for a "treasureless, without information nor social contact" encounter.
Seeing an army of undead mooks including women and children would grow hate in any character trying to deal with the necromancer. More drama ensues if villagers present to help the adventurers, blabla.| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nice way of thanking the devs who cared enough to reply by pulling this sort of thread-jack and busting out the Wrong Bad Fun™ arguments. I'm sure they'll not make that mistake again.
Quite the service to your fellow posters too. If your debate is so damned important, why not have the courtesy to spin it off into its own thread rather than trashing a helpful one?