I´m pretty curious to see what´s happening with the monk. I have to make a point though that there still is the rogue waiting for some love as well as stealth and easing life for medium BAB classes that don´t have access to spells and rely on DEX, stealth or mobility, not speaking of sneak attakcs or even ranged sneak attacks. And i´m not talking of turning them into little Terminators.
Stealth is the FAQ / errata that will never come. It was either at PaizoCon or Gencon that the Devs basically stated that fixing stealth was way to big for any errata. It was going to involve an entire rewrite of a lot of mechanics that were inherited from 3.5. So you probably won't see any change to fix stealth until Pathfinder 2.0 -which isn't going to happen until sales of Pathfinder saturate the market. So don't hold your breath. My suggestion is just to work out some fixes with your GM.
I really think there ARE some straight-forward ways to clarify the CURRENT stealth, basically the different sections of the rules that either contradict or ignore each other, and make it so that references to concealment, etc, are consistent. That won't result in a COMPLETELY straight-forward version of stealth as seen in the playtest blog (whose innovation was really the fixed duration of the effect), but it would remove much of the confusion. That isn't changing functionality, which is the stated reason for the playtest blog version not being implemented.
Quandary, I'm working on Stealth rules for another game.
Can you summarize the stealth innovations proposed here?
Quandary, I'm working on Stealth rules for another game.Are you using those presented in the Paizo Blog as a basis?
Nope, but seeing how other people have attempted to solve this problem is always handy.
I think a major part of fixing stealth is fixing perception. Personally, If I where to make house rules for stealth, you only made "free" perception checks at the beginning of your turn, unless the stealthy character is interacting with you.
Then add some special clause that if a creature is actively looking for someone it can spend a move action to percieve stuff all the time one one side of the character (like a wide burst with no range limit). So that a guard could actually stand watch over something, but unless very alert (spending both moves) it would have it's back turned some way.
Right now the 3D printer market is right on the verge of that breakout...
^^^ This ^^^^
is going to change our hobby quite a bit....
we will no longer buy minis or dwarven forge, we can buy models and "print" out our own.
I hope that Paizo has already looked into this, providing digital templates for figs at a price is part of the future of table top gaming.
I think a major part of fixing stealth is fixing perception. Personally, If I where to make house rules for stealth, you only made "free" perception checks at the beginning of your turn, unless the stealthy character is interacting with you.
Then add some special clause that if a creature is actively looking for someone it can spend a move action to percieve stuff all the time one one side of the character (like a wide burst with no range limit). So that a guard could actually stand watch over something, but unless very alert (spending both moves) it would have it's back turned some way.
Stealth is full of issues...
last game my GM read the stealth rules and stated that a rogue under the effects of a blur spell can hide in his own concealment (which a strict reading of the rules supports)
I warned him that it was a can of worms he did not want to open...he did it anyways.
So after the last round, I picked up a wand of blur... my stealthy magus with his trifling tail feat is going to become an issue for him (at 3rd level my guy is running around with +10 to Stealth)
We (the table) expect he will reverse his ruling after the 3rd to 4th time I use it against him.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the end of the day, as brilliant a job as Jason did, it was still a rush job. The rules were converted quickly from 3.5, carrying many of the problems of 3.5.
I think we have reached a point similar to the one that lead to the transition from 3.0 to 3.5, and even from 3.5 to Pathfinder.
Will there ever be a perfect rule-set. No, of course not.
But I think if the design team took a lessons learned approach to redoing core, a better product could be produced that is as backward compatible to the current Pathfinder as the current Pathfinder is to 3.5.
Which is compatible enough to play.
As it stands now, it seems many if not most of the issues are carry over wording or lack of clarity. The FAQ list could be as large as the rulebook one day at the rate we are going.
So I say it is time for a re-boot. Much like the core book I bought when it first came out, the current ruleset is showing a bit of wear and tear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that most of the issues are over people who can't apply common sense to the rules and overread everything they see.
In fact, I am starting to doubt so-called common sense is truly common in the first place.
|
|
I believe that most of the issues are over people who can't apply common sense to the rules and overread everything they see.
Overread is a polite way to put it, considering it almost always seems to be to the players benefit for some people...
If the boards teach us anything, common sense isn't so common.
I think if we look at PFS as one giant playtest and incorporate lessons learned, we can have a great deal of improvement.
Not perfect, but I also wonder if 5 to 7 years isn't the shelf-life of a ruleset before significant revison (NOT VERSION CHANGE) is needed.
Right now the 3D printer market is right on the verge of that breakout...^^^ This ^^^^
is going to change our hobby quite a bit....
we will no longer buy minis or dwarven forge, we can buy models and "print" out our own.
I hope that Paizo has already looked into this, providing digital templates for figs at a price is part of the future of table top gaming.
I watch the 3D printer market pretty closely. The printers that are capable of printing a miniature that would be within a light year of the quality of Reaper or other professional miniatures are still several thousand dollars and are a long way away from being suitable for most home hobbyists.
However, many of the lower cost printers are very much capable of creating usable terrain elements already.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that most of the issues are over people who can't apply common sense to the rules and overread everything they see.In fact, I am starting to doubt so-called common sense is truly common in the first place.
I really think it depends on your view of the game.
Some people think the game is finding ways to manipulate the ruleset to maximize power.
Some people put the verisimilitude of the setting as the highest priority.
Neither is "wrong", but often they are incompatible at the same table.
Whenever I see James and Jason post about the same issue I notice that James is very excited about giving more options to players, while Jason is more conservative about what can be allowed.
This is why I think they are both well suited to the different divisions they head.
If you look at the characters that the Paizo staff have posted that they were playing in games James was running, they seem to subscribe to the later philosophy. None of them are optimized, all of them are heavy on fitting into the setting. If you play that way, you don't have to worry to much. Players self regulate.
But Jason (and SKR) have to deal with the theorycrafters who will come to a table with righteous indignation if you dare question what they built. How dare a GM challenge them! How dare someone say it upsets balance if I can find a way to read the rule that confirms what I want to do!
I doubt James has to deal with that much at his table.
James wants more options, because that allows more stories to exist that can be explored. More world.
Jason knows without limits, the power gamer drives the GM crazy and/or the versimilitude player gets aquamaned.
I think it can be cleaned up. It was cleaned up from 3.5 when the splatbook power race went crazy and creep became the norm.
Pathfinder isn't there yet, but some things could use fixing. At some point, enough of those things will require it to require a version change.
That isn't a bad thing.
However, many of the lower cost printers are very much capable of creating usable terrain elements already.
Question is, what about the running costs for the materials?
I believe that most of the issues are over people who can't apply common sense to the rules and overread everything they see.Overread is a polite way to put it, considering it almost always seems to be to the players benefit for some people...
If the boards teach us anything, common sense isn't so common.
I think if we look at PFS as one giant playtest and incorporate lessons learned, we can have a great deal of improvement.
Not perfect, but I also wonder if 5 to 7 years isn't the shelf-life of a ruleset before significant revison (NOT VERSION CHANGE) is needed.
That is certainly an interesting thought. I wasn't around for 2E, but I wonder if there weren't any revisions released for the game then too? I know additional books opened up previously closed rules, which is kind of like revision, albeit over a longer period of time.
A revised edition of a ruleset every 5 years would mean an ever growing, ever adapting game that changes as issues, holes and things are discovered.
Things that could be dealt with in an revised edition could be: Monk, Summoner, Alcehmist, Rogue, Paladin, Magic Item Creation, Skills, language clarifications, etc.
Some of the above I agree with, while others I don't see a problem with but come up often on the boards. If something pops up on the boards often enough that within the first 5 posts is a "Here we go again" type message, maybe it's time to put that on a list of 'Revised Content' that needs dealing with.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is certainly an interesting thought. I wasn't around for 2E, but I wonder if there weren't any revisions released for the game then too? I know additional books opened up previously closed rules, which is kind of like revision, albeit over a longer period of time.A revised edition of a ruleset every 5 years would mean an ever growing, ever adapting game that changes as issues, holes and things are discovered.
Things that could be dealt with in an revised edition could be: Monk, Summoner, Alcehmist, Rogue, Paladin, Magic Item Creation, Skills, language clarifications, etc.
Some of the above I agree with, while others I don't see a problem with but come up often on the boards. If something pops up on the boards often enough that within the first 5 posts is a "Here we go again" type message, maybe it's time to put that on a list of 'Revised Content' that needs dealing with.
This is my basic point, with the caveat that I don't want it to make the old rules obsolete.
You can still run old 12 year old 3.0 modules with Pathfinder with only a little bit of tweaking. You can convert 90% to 95% of old characters to have the same concept and most of the same mechanics.
I don't want them to make the 4e mistake of requiring us to throw away the old books and APs and start over.
But I do think we are at a point where bandaids aren't cutting it. And since I'm going to need a new Core anyway soon just based on wear and tear...seems like a good time to mane it an actual new Core.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters given in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Volumes, you are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a whole first, your campaign next, and you participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons as it was meant to be. May you find as much pleasure in so doing as the rest of us do!
Granted within this afterword—which was written entirely in capital letters in the original; since that is considered shouting on the internet I changed it—you can see Gygax's belief that the players were secondary to the campaign. Not all of his original intent seems as great with many modern players of the game. But his core assumption that you as GM should be consistent with your rulings above the written law is still valid. RAI should ALWAYS trump RAW. I'm am often astonished that so many GMs seem to need "official" rulings before making as decision. Don't be scared: make a call!
While I agree with the fact that inconsistencies have crept in and that a second edition of Pathfinder will someday appear to address these problems, I don't see them as being so complex that simple common sense rulings by GMs everywhere can't overcome them. If you really are torn, then asking on these messageboards produces alot of advise both from the developers themselves and GMs with a great deal of experience. That should suffice until the time when second edition comes round.
From what I can see, Paizo has its house in order. Some long term repairs are small enough to wait a few years.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really think it depends on your view of the game.
Some people think the game is finding ways to manipulate the ruleset to maximize power.
Some people put the verisimilitude of the setting as the highest priority.
Neither is "wrong", but often they are incompatible at the same table.
I am aware of this effect.
Being a GM for a group of friends I play with, I have the luxury of my use of Rule Zero not being an issue. I have the trust of my players that I won't attempt to trick them with something they'd perceive as a cheesy rule hole exploit, and I can rely on them not trying to do a letter-of-the-RAW-approach, either.
In fact, if one of my players tried to do something the rest of the group perceived as a munchkin idea, the group as a whole would probably try to shoot that thing down before I have to interfere.
In my opinion (and I know that I risk being yelled at for this), problems start when things start to get competitive rather than cooperative. If you cultivate a GM-vs-player approach, if you start to consider the game as a competition you have to win, it is only logical to use the allowed possibilities to the maximum legal extent (and maybe some more, if you don't get caught).
Unfortunately, the people who propose that rule zero should be burned and its ashes scattered, that players have a RAW-given right to do whatever is not explicitly forbidden by the rules, period... these people appear to be a pretty vocal fraction on these boards.
Organized play complicates things as well: When I wrote about the 'holy cow of zero table variance', I meant exactly that. Zero variance means that you cannot have 'gentlemen agreements' between players and GM, since these will differ from table to table.
Unless my memory fails me, James not only states that he loves additional options, more stories, more world... he also states that he would love to give some more control back to the GM.
Which pretty much flies in the face of both 'zero table variance' and 'RAW is LAW'.
</rant>
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Organized play complicates things as well: When I wrote about the 'holy cow of zero table variance', I meant exactly that. Zero variance means that you cannot have 'gentlemen agreements' between players and GM, since these will differ from table to table.
Organized play doesn't complicate a thing. There is no goal of zero table variance in organized play. There's a goal of no houserules, but the things that were always supposed to be up to the GM (such as how charm person will affect a given situation, when non-combat ends and combat begins, etc) are all still up to the GM in PFS.
All PFS asks is fairness across groups and a willingness to put the good of the tens of thousands over the good of oneself/one's own table.
Relatedly (and not aimed at you in particular, Midnight Angel), some folks seem to think that PFS is a "safe haven" for entitled, power-mongering players to come and force GMs to put up with questionably-legal exploitations that any sane home GM would squelch in a heartbeat. To that, I answer with one simple fact:
The one time that the head honcho of PFS felt the need to post a thread titled "Do not encourage cheating" and talk about behavior that needed to stop, it was addressed to GMs, not to players.
There is no goal of zero table variance in organized play.
If this is the case, I stand corrected, and apologize.
Reading the very vocal opinion of some people with several stars to their name that kept repeating 'No Table Variance' like it was a mantra had left a different impression on me.
|
|
Go to PFS forums. Do you see any "The Organized Play System is DYING BECAUSE OF RULES INCONSISTENCIES" threads?
Do you see Ravingdork there?
Shallowsoul?
Ashiel?
Ciretose?
Me?
;-)
Nope. 90% of PFS I witnessed (not that much, mind you) was smooth play with no rules arguments. 99% of my home games (3 campaigns ran by me and 1 campaign I play in) is smooth play with no rules arguments.
I remain convinced that all this "Pathfinder needs fixing" is just 10-20 vocal people who don't get enough gaming in their spare time, so they spend this spare time coming up with problems that don't exist so they can argue them with other people who have way too much spare time on their hands.
No, I have no solid proof and/or numbers to back my statements up. Bite me.
I hate to tell you this, but there is actually a lot of that going on over on those boards.
They get squashed faster because the coordinator is a beast, but they have there share.
The rest I agree with :)
However, many of the lower cost printers are very much capable of creating usable terrain elements already.Question is, what about the running costs for the materials?
Some of the materials are ridiculously cheap, meaning you could generate terrain elements for pennies. Some are not, so that becomes a factor in the purchase. Some 3D printers take the inkjet printer profit model, meaning they sell you a 3D printer which requires special material cartridges and make all their money selling you material.
The machines with the highest detail are usually the ones with the highest material cost.
You can create 3D models using free software like Sketchup and send the file to a 3D printing vendor and just pay by the piece too.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There is no goal of zero table variance in organized play.If this is the case, I stand corrected, and apologize.
Reading the very vocal opinion of some people with several stars to their name that kept repeating 'No Table Variance' like it was a mantra had left a different impression on me.
Sometimes, someone will get corrected on such a point, and instead of admitting being wrong, will say "Well, it's not clear in the rules, so expect table variation."
That is to say this: Table Variation, which is an expected part of the OP campaign, has been abused by some GMs as a way of re-labeling inappropriate houserules or an inability to admit being wrong. If you saw people chanting 'No Table Variance', they were probably either defending against that abuse or repeating what they'd heard (much like you were doing).
But a total elimination of table variation is NOT a goal of the campaign. Putting table variation in the right places is a goal of the campaign. Some people on both sides of the screen have issues with the difference (in both directions, in fact).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
There is no goal of zero table variance in organized play.If this is the case, I stand corrected, and apologize.
Reading the very vocal opinion of some people with several stars to their name that kept repeating 'No Table Variance' like it was a mantra had left a different impression on me.
Table Variation
While the goal of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign is to provide an even, balanced experience to all players, doing so would require all PCs to be exactly the same and all GMs to be restricted to a stiflingly oppressive script. We understand that sometimes a Game Master has to make rules adjudications on the fly, deal with unexpected player choices, or even cope with extremely unlucky (or lucky) dice on both sides of the screen. As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever calls you feel are necessary at your table to ensure that everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com, but only you can judge what is right at your table for cases not covered in these sources. Scenarios are to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to number of monsters, or changes to stats, feats, spells, skills or any other mechanics of the scenario. GMs may use other Pathfinder RPG sources to add flavor to the scenario, but may not change the mechanics of encounters.
If a particular issue comes up repeatedly or causes a significant problem in one of your games, please raise any questions or concerns on the Pathfinder Society Messageboards at paizo.com/pathfindersociety, and
the campaign management staff or the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game development team will work to provide you with an answer to avoid confusion in the future. Even with unlimited time to address such concerns, however, there will always be slight table variation and Game Master fiat. The following sections provide advice on addressing some common table variations you should consider before running a Pathfinder Society game.
|
|
I am aware of this effect.Being a GM for a group of friends I play with, I have the luxury of my use of Rule Zero not being an issue. I have the trust of my players that I won't attempt to trick them with something they'd perceive as a cheesy rule hole exploit, and I can rely on them not trying to do a letter-of-the-RAW-approach, either.
In fact, if one of my players tried to do something the rest of the group perceive as a munchkin idea, the group as a whole would probably try to shoot that thing down before I have to interfere.
In my opinion (and I know that I risk being yelled at for this), problems start when things start to get competitive rather than cooperative. If you cultivate a GM-vs-player approach, if you start to consider the game as a competition you have to win, it is only logical to use the allowed possibilities to the maximum legal extent (and maybe some more, if you don't get caught).
Unfortunately, the people who propose that rule zero should be burned and its ashes scattered, that players have a RAW-given right to do whatever is not explicitly forbidden by the rules, period... these people appear to be a pretty vocal fraction on these boards.
Organized play complicates things as well: When I wrote about the 'holy cow of zero table variance', I meant exactly that. Zero variance means that you cannot have 'gentlemen agreements' between players and GM, since these will differ from table to table.
Unless my memory fails me, James not only states that he loves additional options, more stories, more world... he also states that he would love to give some more control back to the GM.
Which pretty much flies in the face of both 'zero table variance' and 'RAW is LAW'.
</rant>
Well said, and I have the same kind of table. Mostly because half of us also GM and so we know how it is from both side of the table.
I agree that in a home game, you just make a ruling an move on. Simple.
However, in organized, table variation is not desirable. Clarity in the rules is not an unreasonable request. I believe some of the issues that crop up over and over legitimately need to be addressed.
Whichever side of the issue you're on, suggesting those with whom you disagree just need to get a life isn't terribly productive -- thought it is apparently personally rewarding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing that's rewarding is that I get to play great games with cool people. If that's a problem, well,.I symapthize and hope your life goes less dour in near future.
And playing great games with cool people required you to attack "people who don't get enough gaming in their spare time" how, exactly?
It isn't my life that's dour, Gobacz -- just my interactions with you. You have very apparent (and apparently very fierce) need to divide people into categories, then mock and condemn those who are "wrong" -- only to feign innocent indignation when told to cut it out.
You may find it helpful to adopt a more nuanced view of the world.
|
|
I agree that in a home game, you just make a ruling an move on. Simple.
However, in organized, table variation is not desirable. Clarity in the rules is not an unreasonable request. I believe some of the issues that crop up over and over legitimately need to be addressed.
Whichever side of the issue you're on, suggesting those with whom you disagree just need to get a life isn't terribly productive -- thought it is apparently personally rewarding.
It is. I believe it is the only true path to Enlightenment that will allow me to trancend my mortal form into my final form.
Like a pokemon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just know there's a way to turn this into a "your mom" joke, somehow...Easy, folks.Where?
I'll ask her the next time I SIT DOWN FOR ORGANIZED PLAY WITH HER.
No no it's cool, her Bard is pretty awesome and she deals with rules variations in a calm and collected fashion.