|
You are side stepping the issue. You have claimed that in earlier versions of the game PCs were not as powerful as they are now. This is simply not true of the default versions of the game, although it may have been in some settings.
I'm not side stepping anything. You provided the superhero list and I pointed out that the title above superhero was Lord - as in Landed Lord. So their listing of superhero a defined value of that title is not the same as DC's or Marvel's.
And no, PCs in older editions were not as powerful - FACT. Less hit points (while monsters were not capped) and less spells. Also those spells had actual risks and dangers when you used them - Haste, Gate (very risky and no control over the creature)... hell even Lighting Bolts needed to be cast with certain range considerations or you'd get blasted by your own bolt. Harder to restore ability loss, level loss or bring characters back to life.
So no, in a comparison of power 1st/2nd ed lose out over 3rd. By virtue of mechanics, lower hit points, spell power, spell risk and numbers of spells available to use to deal with problems the earlier editions of the game had characters which were considerably less powerful than 3rd/PFRPG.
And I disagree on the "default setting" premise. All classes had stat requirements - some more stringent than others - that’s a fact. So you could roll up a Paladin and your best stat is 17 - well that’s going to go on your Charisma -if you want your character to be a Paladin. Your stats were fixed in most games (not fake high level games) and you usually were stuck with what you had.
So where does that leave us - with less Magic Users, Clerics, Paladins, et al. Due to stat restrictions and no stat growth though levels you had some natural caps on the population of casters or even exotic character classes.
And just to be clear - I am not saying that there was zero magic in earlier editions or settings. There was plenty of magic -just nothing remotely close to what came about in 3rd edition with the assumptions that players would max out their main stats via items, and that you need x, y, and z item to accomplish your goals (x-mass tree effect).
The power, reliance and mechanical NEEDS for items were less in earlier editions, that’s just a fact - and really big on the mechanical assumption (should have X stat by Y level) which is just poor design. There were some weapon requirements (bonuses) needed to hit certain creatures and in some respects 3rd ed made a few improvements in that area (though now you can just max out weapon damage enhancers vs. the plus of the weapon).
Earlier versions of the game assumed that high level PCs would become literal Gods. High power levels are nothing new to the game. Even in the earliest versions of the game you played characters who could fight dragons, kill giants, level a city, or challenge Gods.
Actually, no it didn't. The rules supported solid play for mid levels and up to around 14th level (with a few modules in that range).
Also as far as fantasy is concerned - fighting giants and dragons =/= challenging the gods. The first few are standard fantasy fare while the latter was very uncommon (unless you are talking about Basic + expansions D&D) in the realm of product focus or support. In the case of 1st ed the closest you came to "challenging a God" would have been Queen of the Demonweb Pits - again, an exception and not the rule when it came to published modules or support material.
|
|
Might I suggest that while playing a game made in the 21st century you look at modern fantasy writers rather than classic fantasy to draw inspiration for ways to create challenges that account for that and allow for more grit by taking those utilitarian high fantasy into account. Modern writers have the advantage of literally more generations of refining of their genre and as Kolokotrani suggested may have a gamers background therefore write to account for those magics. There are ways to create "grit" even if you give each player a dragon to ride at first level.
This is horrible advice. A DM likes a different style of play, dislikes some of the rules or aspects of the game system so you suggest instead of changing the rules or the game he plays he should change the way he thinks, lol! So in effect, what he likes or wants is wrong.
That is just terrible.
No, people just make very poorly thought out encounters and get mad when PCs overcome them with ease.
Like having the McGuffin on a platform surrounded by a pit of slavering monsters, thinking the party will climb down and brave the beasts to climb the spire in the middle. And then the wizards casts fly and has the McGuffin in two rounds, and they nerdraeg.
Fly? You can bypass that one with a rope, a hook and a decent acrobatics score. Truly, Acrobatics is the most overpowered thing in the game.
This is horrible advice. A DM likes a different style of play, dislikes some of the rules or aspects of the game system so you suggest instead of changing the rules or the game he plays he should change the way he thinks, lol! So in effect, what he likes or wants is wrong.
That is just terrible.
No I suggest preparing in such a way as to be capable of addressing those situations either before the game begins ( this will be an E6 Game is a simple enough thing to present to the potential players OR use a different system that has fewer of these elements to contend with)or rolling better with the punches when they do come up.
"No plan survives the first contact with the enemy."
Failure to plan for contingencies IS A FAILURE OF THE GM.
I think Steven Brust and Jim Butcher both put out novel lines that are rather good actually. You probably ought to have a look.Might I suggest that while playing a game made in the 21st century you look at modern fantasy writers rather than classic fantasy to draw inspiration for ways to create challenges that account for that and allow for more grit by taking those utilitarian high fantasy into account. Modern writers have the advantage of literally more generations of refining of their genre and as Kolokotrani suggested may have a gamers background therefore write to account for those magics. There are ways to create "grit" even if you give each player a dragon to ride at first level.I can imagine few things more unpleasant than reading stories which use traditional RPGs as inspiration.Dresden isn't particularly great fiction. It is only moderately acceptable. Still, it doesn't have RPG game mechanics poking through it like, say, Dragonlance does.
At the end of the day, though, I'd rather read Howard, Lovecraft, Poe, L'Engele, or King over Butcher.
My point is not that they write as if they are playing out an rpg. My point is that these are authors who grew up or at least spend a good portion of their lives with exposure to fantasy rpgs, and that such exposure has caused them examine the consequences of magic and other fantasy elements within their story in greater detail then other authors might have.
|
|
No I suggest preparing in such a way as to be capable of addressing those situations either before the game begins ( this will be an E6 Game is a simple enough thing to present to the potential players OR use a different system that has fewer of these elements to contend with)or rolling better with the punches when they do come up.
"No plan survives the first contact with the enemy."
Failure to plan for contingencies IS A FAILURE OF THE GM.
I agree, but just to clarify -
This is what Remco wrote:
I just think magic in PF and especially the utilitarian magic is extremely jarring to the point that PF is nothing like classic fantasy or myth at all, trying to mix those elements into a basic PF game quickly lead to disappointment.
So your advice (while sound for someone running a straight game) didn't respond well to his request. You basically said "read this and draw your influences for gaming from this instead."
Anyway, you get a pass - you comments in the low-powered magic request thread were solid and very supportive.
This is what Remco wrote:
I just think magic in PF and especially the utilitarian magic is extremely jarring to the point that PF is nothing like classic fantasy or myth at all, trying to mix those elements into a basic PF game quickly lead to disappointment.So your advice (while sound for someone running a straight game) didn't respond well to his request. You basically said "read this and draw your influences for gaming from this instead."
Anyway, you get a pass - you comments in the low-powered magic request thread were solid and very supportive.
OK I see where you are coming from, yes i do think that "classic fantasy" are no longer as useful for PF (in general); but I was wrong to badwrongfun him like that. That was not my intention but certainly how it was taken , mea culpa for the bad communication.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fly? You can bypass that one with a rope, a hook and a decent acrobatics score. Truly, Acrobatics is the most overpowered thing in the game.No, people just make very poorly thought out encounters and get mad when PCs overcome them with ease.
Like having the McGuffin on a platform surrounded by a pit of slavering monsters, thinking the party will climb down and brave the beasts to climb the spire in the middle. And then the wizards casts fly and has the McGuffin in two rounds, and they nerdraeg.
That's already three elements right there, very likely a minimum of three rounds and three potential ways of not working. Not what I would call an exact equivalent.
Yet the goal is never to deny the player the possibility of success, its always about finding a way to challenge the player(s) on their way to success.
There's obviously many ways to achieve that challenging factor even considering the fly spell, but it often forces the DM to move away from a certain desired genre. Planning for every contingency is already hard enough, but finding contingencies that doesn't ruin immersion in this desired genre in even harder.
The desired genre does not even have to be a gritty low-magic settings. In the case that concern this thread, the ability of flight is one of the major aspects of the game that makes its 'magic dial' so freakin' high. 5th level is relatively early in a game. 5th level may be the 25% mark on the level scale, but it represents much less than 25% of the typical PC career, even if most characters never reach levels past 15th. And by the number of threads addressing similar subjects, it doesn't seem to be a marginal sentiment.
Sarcastic posts denigrating a genre - even if the genre isn't perfectly attuned to the RaW - quickly become personal attacks and frustrating badwrongfun statements.
We don't have to agree to respect each others
'fidnel
The desired genre does not even have to be a gritty low-magic settings. In the case that concern this thread, the ability of flight is one of the major aspects of the game that makes its 'magic dial' so freakin' high. 5th level is relatively early in a game. 5th level may be the 25% mark on the level scale, but it represents much less than 25% of the typical PC career, even if most characters never reach levels past 15th. And by the number of threads addressing similar subjects, it doesn't seem to be a marginal sentiment.
But at 5th level one person gets to Fly once that day, assuming the spell is readied, and that one person will be able to make a grant distance of 3000', or basically 2/3 of a mile, which will take him her 5 minutes and that doesn't factor any height they are trying to gain. They can drop a fair chunk of that vertical distance gaining height. They also have to factor descent at the end. Similarly that 2/3 of a mile needs to factor in a return trip.
They are moving at the pace of a jogger in the interim, assuming light to no armour... if they armour up they will go a shorter distance than mentioned.
So this really isn't game breaking if you apply the RAW and don't just say "Oh he's flying" because he's actually more like drifting along...
Fly? You can bypass that one with a rope, a hook and a decent acrobatics score. Truly, Acrobatics is the most overpowered thing in the game.No, people just make very poorly thought out encounters and get mad when PCs overcome them with ease.
Like having the McGuffin on a platform surrounded by a pit of slavering monsters, thinking the party will climb down and brave the beasts to climb the spire in the middle. And then the wizards casts fly and has the McGuffin in two rounds, and they nerdraeg.
That's already three elements right there, very likely a minimum of three rounds and three potential ways of not working. Not what I would call an exact equivalent.
Yet the goal is never to deny the player the possibility of success, its always about finding a way to challenge the player(s) on their way to success.
There's obviously many ways to achieve that challenging factor even considering the fly spell, but it often forces the DM to move away from a certain desired genre. Planning for every contingency is already hard enough, but finding contingencies that doesn't ruin immersion in this desired genre in even harder.
The desired genre does not even have to be a gritty low-magic settings. In the case that concern this thread, the ability of flight is one of the major aspects of the game that makes its 'magic dial' so freakin' high. 5th level is relatively early in a game. 5th level may be the 25% mark on the level scale, but it represents much less than 25% of the typical PC career, even if most characters never reach levels past 15th. And by the number of threads addressing similar subjects, it doesn't seem to be a marginal sentiment.
Sarcastic posts denigrating a genre - even if the genre isn't perfectly attuned to the RaW - quickly become personal attacks and frustrating badwrongfun statements.
We don't have to agree to respect each others
'fidnel
Ah, I see. You realize you don't have any good arguments, so you decided that any of our arguments will "quickly become personal attacks and frustrating badwrongfun statements." Geez, fine, if that is what you want.
And really two rounds, throw rope (move action), tightrope walk (move action), throw macguffin back (move action), tightrope walk back (move action), rope with a hook is basic adventuring gear and any melee character should have decent acrobatics, rogues, rangers and bards should have great acrobatics. Fly might make things easier, but any encounter bypassed by one character flying could be bypassed in dozen other ways if you have some imagination.And I will admit the system is ill suited for low fantasy. In low fantasy you shouldn't be able to play a caster. AT ALL. Mages and truly blessed clerics would be superpowers, the movers and shakers of the world. Not PCs. So your problem is right there. You want to play low fantasy? It doesn't have to be gritty. Just cut out the casters, including the paladin, and make non casting versions of bards and rangers. There done.
Ah, I see. You realize you don't have any good arguments, so you decided that any of our arguments will "quickly become personal attacks and frustrating badwrongfun statements." Geez, fine, if that is what you want(...) So your problem is right there. You want to play low fantasy? It doesn't have to be gritty. Just cut out the casters, including the paladin, and make non casting versions of bards and rangers. There done.
You can counter my arguments without ridiculing me. Others have, and I respect them for that. I don't have anything against you, but this post is rather vitriolic.
If you are interested in what arguments I have to defend my stand, I'll gladly lay them out. But they are all relying on genre (which isn't low magic), meaning that the foundation of my reasons are subjective at best...
That doesn't make me an idiot for wanting something slightly different from what the product offers me, or from what the majority of customers want (not saying that that's what you're saying either). But if you are willing to accept that the RaW do not satisfy me, than the resulting argumentation is solid enough.
No, people just make very poorly thought out encounters and get mad when PCs overcome them with ease.
Like having the McGuffin on a platform surrounded by a pit of slavering monsters, thinking the party will climb down and brave the beasts to climb the spire in the middle. And then the wizards casts fly and has the McGuffin in two rounds, and they nerdraeg.
Wait so whoever left the Mcguffin there to be protected didn't plan for flying intruders in a world with flying intruders.
if you know your pc's have access to flying and you don't plan for it its not flyings fault. You add a couple of flying monsters that are deadly to the one guy flying around, make them smart enough to understand the order only attack and go near intruders who are flying, and suddenly that one wizard isnt getting across and back.
Wait so whoever left the Mcguffin there to be protected didn't plan for flying intruders in a world with flying intruders.
if you know your pc's have access to flying and you don't plan for it its not flyings fault. You add a couple of flying monsters that are deadly to the one guy flying around, make them smart enough to understand the order only attack and go near intruders who are flying, and suddenly that one wizard isnt getting across and back.
I do believe that is the point a lot of us are trying to make in a nutshell.
Ohh and that by doing so and making the party either dig up ranged weapons they haven't used in 4 levels or bite their nails seeing if said wizard makes it back adds excitement and drama to the game. allowing the players to do thier thing but adding a complication is where the drama is and why we see the movie hero doing his schtick well at he beginning of the movie to see how the complications impact his awesome during the movie.
Fly? You can bypass that one with a rope, a hook and a decent acrobatics score. Truly, Acrobatics is the most overpowered thing in the game.Way to miss the point of my post.
Thanks dragonsong.No, people just make very poorly thought out encounters and get mad when PCs overcome them with ease.
You didn't need me but I was in the neighborhood.
|
Why can they fly all day long?
Since you ask, the fighter has a winged cloak (I forget it's name off-hand), our witch flys on a carpet (despite my efforts to get him on a broom), the summoner rides his edilion, the ranger has a roc companion, and the inquisitor rides a griffin. The carpet is actually the slowest at around 4 mph. Though if they want to get somewhere fast they just teleport.
Why can they fly all day long?Since you ask, the fighter has a winged cloak (I forget it's name off-hand), our witch flys on a carpet (despite my efforts to get him on a broom), the summoner rides his edilion, the ranger has a roc companion, and the inquisitor rides a griffin. The carpet is actually the slowest at around 4 mph. Though if they want to get somewhere fast they just teleport.
Seems that Manuvering would be there issue only the witch and maybe the summoner have the ability to handle something that requires a lot of turns or hovering. Also all you need is a tunnel that has to be squeezed through and that negates 3/5 of them from even taking there mount. Assuming that your ranger and summoner have large mounts.
Eh.
Creating a world and encounters and dungeons is hard enough in 2d. Once you add the element of the third dimension then things start getting more difficult to manage from a GM's point of view. In some cases something might have been overlooked. Or plans might go astray (lets say there's this big forest between you and BBEG's lair, and GM has the forest so you can get some experience before encountering her as well as find hooks for side adventures, now he has to come up with a series of flying random encounters).
When encountering this sort of thing some GMs are going to freeze up and not allow it, and some will improvise on the spot. Some will take either possibility out of the equation by banning the spell.
Frankly it just seems like something you should talk about to your GM. I've never known anyone to ban it from use and in more than a few years of GMing haven't ever banned it myself (though I have occasionally let out an exacerbated sigh).
|
|
Seems that Manuvering would be there issue only the witch and maybe the summoner have the ability to handle something that requires a lot of turns or hovering. Also all you need is a tunnel that has to be squeezed through and that negates 3/5 of them from even taking there mount. Assuming that your ranger and summoner have large mounts.
Oh yeah we just assaulted a castle where they had to abandon the mounts and edilion. It's the encounters set outside vs monsters w/o ranged options that are silly. I'm gong to just give some worm things 'air burrowing' and stuff. Still I'd expect more from a mod for 15th level characters.
Yep but they are so much easier for minions on the ground to see without being seen and casually report back to their Master that foolhardy adventures are coming at him from the sky.
OK I see where you are coming from, yes i do think that "classic fantasy" are no longer as useful for PF (in general); but I was wrong to badwrongfun him like that. That was not my intention but certainly how it was taken , mea culpa for the bad communication.This is what Remco wrote:
I just think magic in PF and especially the utilitarian magic is extremely jarring to the point that PF is nothing like classic fantasy or myth at all, trying to mix those elements into a basic PF game quickly lead to disappointment.So your advice (while sound for someone running a straight game) didn't respond well to his request. You basically said "read this and draw your influences for gaming from this instead."
Anyway, you get a pass - you comments in the low-powered magic request thread were solid and very supportive.
No offense taken, the advice is appreciated even though not exactly helpful ;)
The trend in PF seems to make magic more versatile and utilitarian, while I rather have it more restricted and exotic. Not making it a fundamental part of the game, the overabundance of magic might work for some particulary flavored games (eberon perhaps) but in my opinion not so much with more classic fantasy settings if that is the story you want to tell as a GM it requires some selective attention focus or heavy houseruling to make it work. When I prepare for a game I want to be able to replay the events like read in a book or seen in a movie, the focus on 'required' magic make this level of immersion a bit harder. That is not to say I can not have fun with the game but feel, especially as a GM, much potential to make the game more enjoyable is lost.
A lot of plots are moot because of all the magic at even low levels. A treacherous journey through the desert... Endure Elements and Create Water
A caster can replace the thief, especially if the caster focuses on it: Vanish or Invisible, Silence, Knock... And the caster can fly. The only thing the caster really has to worry about at that point is running out of spells.
And those spells don't even need to be in the hands of a creative player. While I really don't think fly is that powerful in the overall scheme of the game, the spells in general can be overbearing when trying to set the tone of the game to something that's not overly saturated in magic.
A lot of plots are moot because of all the magic at even low levels. A treacherous journey through the desert... Endure Elements and Create Water
A caster can replace the thief, especially if the caster focuses on it: Vanish or Invisible, Silence, Knock... And the caster can fly. The only thing the caster really has to worry about at that point is running out of spells.
And those spells don't even need to be in the hands of a creative player. While I really don't think fly is that powerful in the overall scheme of the game, the spells in general can be overbearing when trying to set the tone of the game to something that's not overly saturated in magic.
Be prepared to find another system or do some significant rewriting than. Whether you like or not, magic is heavily embedded in the traditional DnD structure, and it does take significant effort to rewrite that structure. Just be forewarned that for every person who likes the idea, there will be several more that don't understand why you don't just find another system that meets your expectations better. 4E got praised and reviled for mostly the same points, almost all of which amounted to the almost complete nerfing of magic not just in the classes, but in the system as a whole.
The trend in PF seems to make magic more versatile and utilitarian, while I rather have it more restricted and exotic. Not making it a fundamental part of the game, the overabundance of magic might work for some particulary flavored games (eberon perhaps) but in my opinion not so much with more classic fantasy settings if that is the story you want to tell as a GM it requires some selective attention focus or heavy houseruling to make it work. When I prepare for a game I want to be able to replay the events like read in a book or seen in a movie, the focus on 'required' magic make this level of immersion a bit harder. That is not to say I can not have fun with the game but feel, especially as a GM, much potential to make the game more enjoyable is lost.
This isnt just a trend in Pathfinder though. It has been a trend in every book I've read since I first cracked open the ADnD players guide many years ago. New Spells have always been one of the easiest things to write/design and one of the easiest new options to incorporate into a game. It certianly was there in 3rd and 3.5. Pathfinder has merely inherited that mindset. I think it was always inevitable, if new material was going to be created, magic was always going to be a big part of what is expanded. It happened with every edition, not jus recent ones. And I dont believe it is going to shift back in terms of the core rules. Its too entrenched in the general population of the pathfinder players.
But like I said, I really do want to see a set of optional rules to help gms accomplish what you are talking about. Until that happens, pathfinder is and was intentionally not a good tool for creating 'classic' fantasy stories like the lord of the rings.
A lot of plots are moot because of all the magic at even low levels. A treacherous journey through the desert... Endure Elements and Create Water
A caster can replace the thief, especially if the caster focuses on it: Vanish or Invisible, Silence, Knock... And the caster can fly. The only thing the caster really has to worry about at that point is running out of spells.
And those spells don't even need to be in the hands of a creative player. While I really don't think fly is that powerful in the overall scheme of the game, the spells in general can be overbearing when trying to set the tone of the game to something that's not overly saturated in magic.
I think a lot of this comes from whether or not people actually want to play through those plots. The journey through the desert, struggling from water hole to water hole makes for a good novel, or movie in many cases, but does it make for a good game? Do people want to play through that sort of thing? I think spells like create food and water came about because many people dont care for such scenarios.
I know that I am rarely having fun when I have to sit there and roll 20 survival checks in a row. It might make for compelling story telling, but we should never forget the game part of roleplaying game. I think the inclusion of those spells are there so people can handwave that if they so choose, so they can move on to other plotlines. I too think that is why things like teleport came about, eventually people get bored with such plotlines, and many of us have been playing for a LONG time.
I think that may be why I never really thought about utility spells as a negative thing until this thread popped up. I have long since tired of the 'lost in the woods' plotline. I would much rather as both a dm and a player have that solved by a few spells, so we can move on to the 'bigger' plotlines then spend 2 hours of actual game time (of which I seem to have precious little of nowadays) rolling skill checks to get through the forest to the big bad's hideout.
I've come to the opinion that passive threats like environment and traps can be very good if used in conjunction with more active threats/challenges, but used by themselves, anything that can be bypassed with a single spell probably isn't something that you want to use on it's own. Not only is that a good indication that it isn't appropriate to the system, but chances are pretty good that the spells exist in core mostly because enough players got tired of what they saw as nothing more than a nuisance to the game that the designers responded accordingly. 4E had the right idea that such things could be used, and used well, but it's noteworthy to point out that it does so by making such things active in nature and/or being used in conjunction with other challenges. The usual example of making your way across the desert is not by itself either of those things, and thus will probably only appeal to a very small niche of players to begin with, a fact that DMs should take into account when designing their adventures.
Be prepared to find another system or do some significant rewriting than. Whether you like or not, magic is heavily embedded in the traditional DnD structure, and it does take significant effort to rewrite that structure. Just be forewarned that for every person who likes the idea, there will be several more that don't understand why you don't just find another system that meets your expectations better. 4E got praised and reviled for mostly the same points, almost all of which amounted to the almost complete nerfing of magic not just in the classes, but in the system as a whole.
I'm not saying that pathfinder should rewrite it's magic system to appeal to those who'd like magic spread a notch lower, but it would be nice to see some alternate rules write-ups to make magic just a bit more mystical and impressive similar to the attempt at wounds / vigor rules in UC. To be honest it would be nice to see a book full of variant rules from Paizo or 3PP that had actual work put into it. Some people actually like the system and just want to change magic and that's it, without trying to change the whole system.
A lot of plots are moot because of all the magic at even low levels. A treacherous journey through the desert... Endure Elements and Create Water
I think a lot of this comes from whether or not people actually want to play through those plots. The journey through the desert, struggling from water hole to water hole makes for a good novel, or movie in many cases, but does it make for a good game? Do people want to play through that sort of thing? I think spells like create food and water came about because many people dont care for such scenarios.
I know that I am rarely having fun when I have to sit there and roll 20 survival checks in a row. It might make for compelling story telling, but we should never forget the game part of roleplaying game. I think the inclusion of those spells are there so people can handwave that if they so choose, so they can move on to other plotlines. I too think that is why things like teleport came about, eventually people get bored with such plotlines, and many of us have been playing for a LONG time.
I think that may be why I never really thought about utility spells as a negative thing until this thread popped up. I have long since tired of the 'lost in the woods' plotline. I would much rather as both a dm and a player have that solved by a few spells, so we can move on to the 'bigger' plotlines then spend 2 hours of actual game time (of which I seem to have precious little of nowadays) rolling skill checks to get through the forest to the big bad's hideout.
I don't like to make multiple survival check to go from area to another either. I also don't think Survival checks should be used there at all unless you're trying to hunt for food. However I don't see a problem with a Dwarf not used to the desert making a fortitude check to continue in that heavy armor. An interesting can diverge from the Dwarf passing out.
From an in game perspective it makes no sense that there is even a desert where people live when someone could get a group of clerics to constantly cast create water constantly as 0 level spell. Why are there would people ever go hungry? Clearly clerics aren't doing their jobs if there are.
The GM doesn't have to go into detail of how well a party is surviving through a desert, the DM can just say they make it there; it's something called abstraction. If the only reason the spells are there is so that it isn't brought up, there's a problem with the GM. On the other hand the spells with their easy access break the verisimilitude of many settings on principle of their existence.
I'm not saying that pathfinder should rewrite it's magic system to appeal to those who'd like magic spread a notch lower, but it would be nice to see some alternate rules write-ups to make magic just a bit more mystical and impressive similar to the attempt at wounds / vigor rules in UC. To be honest it would be nice to see a book full of variant rules from Paizo or 3PP that had actual work put into it. Some people actually like the system and just want to change magic and that's it, without trying to change the whole system.
------------
From an in game perspective it makes no sense that there is even a desert where people live when someone could get a group of clerics to constantly cast create water constantly as 0 level spell. Why are there would people ever go hungry? Clearly clerics aren't doing their jobs if there are.
I agree that a book of optional rules along the lines of unearthed arcana would be great.
As for why there are deserts or people going hungry, the same reasons that despite our technology today, there are deserts and people going hungry. Just because the resources exist in theory or as part of the overall picture doesn't mean that such resources are evenly distributed or deployed with equal ease everywhere they are needed.
I agree that a book of optional rules along the lines of unearthed arcana would be great.
I know several people on the forums who would agree.
I agree that a book of optional rules along the lines of unearthed arcana would be great.I know several people on the forums who would agree.
If it was rules for limiting magic and fantasy elements, could we call it re-earthed arcana?
If it was rules for limiting magic and fantasy elements, could we call it re-earthed arcana?I agree that a book of optional rules along the lines of unearthed arcana would be great.I know several people on the forums who would agree.
Or Entombed Arcana
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of this comes from whether or not people actually want to play through those plots. The journey through the desert, struggling from water hole to water hole makes for a good novel, or movie in many cases, but does it make for a good game? Do people want to play through that sort of thing? I think spells like create food and water came about because many people dont care for such scenarios.I know that I am rarely having fun when I have to sit there and roll 20 survival checks in a row. It might make for compelling story telling, but we should never forget the game part of roleplaying game. I think the inclusion of those spells are there so people can handwave that if they so choose, so they can move on to other plotlines. I too think that is why things like teleport came about, eventually people get bored with such plotlines, and many of us have been playing for a LONG time.
I think that may be why I never really thought about utility spells as a negative thing until this thread popped up. I have long since tired of the 'lost in the woods' plotline. I would much rather as both a dm and a player have that solved by a few spells, so we can move on to the 'bigger' plotlines then spend 2 hours of actual game time (of which I seem to have precious little of nowadays) rolling skill checks to get...
The problem with this line of reasoning, is that it's easy enough to "fast-forward" through the parts that a particular group of gamers may want to gloss over. By having so many classic tropes invalidated at low levels by magic, it's obvious that little or no consideration was given to the impact on the campaign world. While many players care only about the gamist aspect of kicking butt, many players also love RPGs for the immersion in the campaign it can bring.
As almost any GM or publisher will tell you, it's far easier to increase the level of magic in a game or setting than it is to decrease it. Many of the spells that were designed in the original D&D game were assigned their level based on their utility in overcoming dungeon-based challenges rather than the potential impact on setting or playstyles other than dungeon crawls. The vast majority of play transpired before "Name Level" (or whatever it was called back then).
There's something to be said for tradition, but just because Fly was a 3rd-level spell or Raise Dead was a 5th-level spell in AD&D doesn't mean it has to stay that way. I understand why Pathfinder didn't change that, with the goal of backwards compatability, but for a game so heavily invested in it's setting and adventures, increasing the level at which those spells became available certainly wouldn't have broken anything, either.
Also, my experience with players is that the more "grounded" the heroics, the more heroic & exciting it feels. It's more relateable. No more realistic, but more relateable.
In the comic-world, for example, it's a widely-held opinion that Batman is more popular than Superman because he's a highly-trained mortal rather than an alien paragon/demigod. And Batman ain't low-level in RPG terms.
I think Pathfinder is the best incarnation of FRPG I've ever seen or played. I do, however, worry that by only catering to the high-fantasy side of things, it limits itself.
And if nobody wants to play the epic journey, survival, and wilderness aspects of the fantasy genre then I'm really confused as to why we have Kingmaker, Jade Regent, and the upcoming Skull & Shackles APs.
The problem with this line of reasoning, is that it's easy enough to "fast-forward" through the parts that a particular group of gamers may want to gloss over. By having so many classic tropes invalidated at low levels by magic, it's obvious that little or no consideration was given to the impact on the campaign world. While many players care only about the gamist aspect of kicking butt, many players also love RPGs for the immersion in the campaign it can bring.
As almost any GM or publisher will tell you, it's far easier to increase the level of magic in a game or setting than it is to decrease it. Many of the spells that were designed in the original D&D game were assigned their level based on their utility in overcoming dungeon-based challenges rather than the potential impact on setting or playstyles other than dungeon crawls. The vast majority of play transpired before "Name Level" (or whatever it was called back then).
There's something to be said for tradition, but just because Fly was a 3rd-level spell or Raise Dead was a 5th-level spell in AD&D doesn't mean it has to stay that way. I understand why Pathfinder didn't change that, with the goal of backwards compatability, but for a game so heavily invested in it's setting and adventures, increasing the level at which those spells became available certainly wouldn't have broken anything, either.
No it wouldnt break anything, but it would turn away fans who like that aspect of the game. Paizo was seeking to keep the 'feel' of 3.5. Altering the way utilitarian magic fit into the game would be a problem with regards to that goal. Also you have to consider some of the base assumptions of past and current adventures, where the design of encounters and monsters includes the expectation of these spells at certain levels.
Also, my experience with players is that the more "grounded" the heroics, the more heroic & exciting it feels. It's more relateable. No more realistic, but more relateable.
That is a matter of style. Some people like realistic games, some people like escapist fantasy. I dont think either is more or less exciting, it all depends on the way the game is laid out. Certainly if your preference is for more realistic games, then you might find some things anticlimactic, but other get excited when they get to be 'batman' [as in the batman wizard with a set of utility spells]. That can be alot of fun for many people playing the game. Again its a matter of play style. I dont think one can be considered definatively more or less exciting then the other.
In the comic-world, for example, it's a widely-held opinion that Batman is more popular than Superman because he's a highly-trained mortal rather than an alien paragon/demigod. And Batman ain't low-level in RPG terms.
Batman is no less powerful in dnd terms then most of the dc heroes, yes supes has the cheat codes on but when compared to the most of them bat ranks pretty highly. He may not be as strong as the rest, but he is probably the same power level as the rest of the justice league. He just is focused in other areas, not just the physical. In fact he's probably the closest to a pathfinder wizard then any of the classic comic heroes.
I think Pathfinder is the best incarnation of FRPG I've ever seen or played. I do, however, worry that by only catering to the high-fantasy side of things, it limits itself.
Well the core rules really could only cater to one or the other, and there is no question that high fantasy sells. Splitting their focus completely is a moot point. Golarion is a high fantasy world, primarily PFRPG will support that. I think our best bet is for one of the 3rd party publishers (the bigger ones) to pick up the idea of a low fantasy low magic guide for pfrpg. But even that isnt likely in the near future.
And if nobody wants to play the epic journey, survival, and wilderness aspects of the fantasy genre then I'm really confused as to why we have Kingmaker, Jade Regent, and the upcoming Skull & Shackles APs.
But how much of that is actually a struggle against of the elements and how much is the journy/wilderness more of a back drop for what happens? I dont know how close to the written material my dm played it, but there was very little surviving done in the first 2 books of our kingmaker game, it was more a matter of surveying.
I do think there is a far less of the tolkien stlye 'you are walking through the woods' and alot more of 'you are walking through the woods and X happens' where x is the actual challenge, and the woods are the backdrop.
|
|
The problem with this line of reasoning, is that it's easy enough to "fast-forward" through the parts that a particular group of gamers may want to gloss over. By having so many classic tropes invalidated at low levels by magic, it's obvious that little or no consideration was given to the impact on the campaign world. While many players care only about the gamist aspect of kicking butt,many players also love RPGs for the immersion in the campaign it can bring.
As almost any GM or publisher will tell you, it's far easier to increase the level of magic in a game or setting than it is to decrease it. Many of the spells that were designed in the original D&D game were assigned their level based on their utility in overcoming dungeon-based challenges rather than the potential impact on setting or playstyles other than dungeon crawls. The vast majority of play transpired before "Name Level" (or whatever it was called back then).
There's something to be said for tradition, but just because Fly was a 3rd-level spell or Raise Dead was a 5th-level spell in AD&D doesn't mean it has to stay that way. I understand why Pathfinder didn't change that, with the goal of backwards compatability, but for a game so heavily invested in it's setting and adventures, increasing the level at which those spells became available certainly wouldn't have broken anything, either.
Also, my experience with players is that the more "grounded" the heroics, the more heroic & exciting it feels.It's more relateable. No more realistic, but more relateable.
In the comic-world, for example, it's a widely-held opinion that Batman is more popular than Superman because he's a highly-trained mortal rather than an alien paragon/demigod. And Batman ain't low-level in RPG terms.
I think Pathfinder is the best incarnation of FRPG I've ever seen or played. I do, however, worry that by only catering to the high-fantasy side of things, it limits itself.
And if nobody wants to play the epic journey, survival, and wilderness aspects of the fantasy genre then I'm really confused as to why we have Kingmaker, Jade Regent, and the upcoming Skull & Shackles APs.
Wow, +1 on all points.
Unfortunately you (our) playstyles will be dismissed, hand waved or we'll be presented with platitudes on how "the game has always been this way" (last 11 years), you're a lazy DM, adapt, you're hurting the players fun, etc.
In hindsight maybe I should have just bolded the whole post.
Dark Sun has the struggle against the environment as a central feature and there are a lot of people who love it for that.
I've been at this game for many many years and have to say I found Dark Sun to have been one the best settings ever penned.
I miss that I never got to play it, and was only ever the GM.
It's the great regret/remorse of my gaming life to have missed that boat.
|
|
I'm suprised that with all the talk about hating on easy magics that no one has brought up Iron Heros. It looked like a good stab at low fantasy baised on 3.x rules and penned by none other than Sean K. Reynolds. Also it docent look anything like D&D so good luck getting players.
Though I have to suggest that getting lost in the woods and crossing a desert are some of the most boring encounters I've heard of.
Though I have to suggest that getting lost in the woods and crossing a desert are some of the most boring encounters I've heard of.
Only if you have boring GM's.
If the thing is simply reduced to rolling dice it would be shocking, a bit the same as combats can get direly boring if it simply involves two groups hitting head to head with no real tactics and throwing dice until one can't throw dice anymore.
Ho hum.
In the hands of a decent GM, these things can have a life of their own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has a huge impact on the martial vs. caster issue as well. A campaign in which you have to rely on a Ranger, Druid, or Barbarian to get you through hostile territory is radically different from one where magic takes care of all these issues (going so far as to include teleportation).
I house ruled Teleportation magic. You have to be standing on a specially crafted (and expensive!) teleport node, and you can only teleport to a node you've been to before (or have memorized from a very expensive portable node stone that mimics the feel of the node). Any other use has a high probability of Bad Things Happening. It's a little safer to teleport to a node from a non node location. This negates Scry and Fry, but still keeps teleportation magic useful.
This has a huge impact on the martial vs. caster issue as well. A campaign in which you have to rely on a Ranger, Druid, or Barbarian to get you through hostile territory is radically different from one where magic takes care of all these issues (going so far as to include teleportation).
A similar problem occurs with Tongues vs. taking skill levels in Linguistics.
Next to clarifying what the different attributes mean, getting rid of magic that duplicates skills (or making that magic high level - such as making create food a 5th level spell or weaker power (such as was actually done with invisibility)) is the most important feature I want to see in Pathfinder 2.0. The Christmas Tree problem, while huge, isn't as huge as these two.
Even while I hope PF 2.0 is years and years away, I agree 100% with this. The Christmas Tree effect is a close 2nd, though. :)
I house ruled Teleportation magic. You have to be standing on a specially crafted (and expensive!) teleport node, and you can only teleport to a node you've been to before (or have memorized from a very expensive portable node stone that mimics the feel of the node).
Everquest Teleportation!
I house ruled Teleportation magic. You have to be standing on a specially crafted (and expensive!) teleport node, and you can only teleport to a node you've been to before (or have memorized from a very expensive portable node stone that mimics the feel of the node).Everquest Teleportation!
Katherine Kurtz's Deryni Chronicals Teleportation, actually. I think that presages EQ by about 20 years.
Well either way, I think that adaptation is quite sound.
Alternately I would allow the teleport to go from anywhere TO a Portal so the spell could be used as a rapid evacuation/party saver.
Sometimes you want to give the party the option to run away :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm suprised that with all the talk about hating on easy magics that no one has brought up Iron Heros. It looked like a good stab at low fantasy baised on 3.x rules and penned by none other than Sean K. Reynolds. Also it docent look anything like D&D so good luck getting players.
Though I have to suggest that getting lost in the woods and crossing a desert are some of the most boring encounters I've heard of.
I actually like Iron Heroes quite a bit. The Combat Maneuver mechanics are very good. While I like many of the classes, it can't hold a candle to Pathfinder & it's archetypes in terms of character choice and flexibility. Unfortunately, the implementation of the magic system was unfinished -- even the author said so.
There's a middle-ground to be found between low magic, every sorceror is an evil bastard, and magic-as-technology that makes Harry Potter look like wizard camp for apprentices.
In my mind no spell (exceptions exist) should be banned by a DM. The answer to this is simple, I have never known a spellcaster to have access to every spell for every problem. Spellcasters cant focus on one thing without giving up something else, more so for those with limited spell selection. At high levels you should expect your PCs to have access to things that get around terrain and such. This does not fall solely to magic or spellcasters. Their are a number of settings that have little or no magic, but they do have machines or some other thing that fills the role in almost the same manner. At early levels if you choose fly over a fireball then do so at your own risk. Their are a number of monsters and enemies that have ranged attacks. Magic or no magic their will always be monsters that can fly, swim, barrow, or outpace others and this should never be an issue for the PCs or the enemies.
You want to deal with fly then dont ban it. Just take it into account. Fly during battle then get shot down, fly over a forest then roll saves and dmg for the tree branches that you had to break thru to get over the tree line, good luck landing without drawing attention too. Fly is not over powered or hard to deal with if you take the time to make your monsters and bad guys with a brain in mind. No stronghold should have a huge weakness to flying creatures when you have greedy dragons who love to sack fortresses for lunch money.
Also if you think PF does not have a place for low to no magic types take a look at the mana waste and the gun factories of Alkenstar.
Thats my 2c, who knows I could be wrong on all counts. ;)