|
P33J, were you a member of the "Nerf Magic Foundation" back on the old 3.0 forums? ;) Let me address each of these as I personally would:
My Homebrew GMing rules to prevent Casters from obliterating Marial character's usefulness at higher levels.
1. Paladin and Fighters get 4-skills
I don't see this being unreasonable.
2. Fighters and Barbs get full Reflex and Rogues get full FORT (these guys are physical specimens, this should be the case anyways.)This seems quite unreasonable. As physical as a Rogue may be (and keep in mind they aren't all swashbucklers; there's a reason they emphasize Dexterity instead of Strength), they don't come close to a Fighter wielding gigantic weapons and wearing heavy plate armor. More than that, they can't come close to the sheer, raw physical power of a Barbarian, whether from the fluff or crunch ends of the spectrum.
3. Arcane casters are even more restricted to their specialization school (Sorc & Magus have to take a school and no universalists, Bards & Summoners were excluded from this)Why would a Sorceror, whose abilities are inherent and are reflected in the rules as being similar to a Wizard's largely to facilitate rules consistency, pick a school, where the term implies and the fluff supports the concept of formalized study, which is aside from spells per day the primary thing separating a Sorceror from a Wizard to begin with?
4. An arcane caster gets NO SPELLS from their opposition school.This seems excessive, but not out of line with the previous 3.5 iteration.
5. An arcane caster only gets full spell progression in their school.This is unnecessarily gimping spellcasters.
6. Every 3 spell levels, a caster may select 1 spell from outside of their school to learn that is 2 spell levels lower than their highest spell level.This, likewise, is unnecessarily gimping spellcasters....
Lol no, I've only been playing RPGs for about 8 months. I appreciate your comments, and I'm sure my ideas aren't the best solution, but my party, even the casters enjoyed it. I'll keep refining :)
EDIT: I do want to mention that I built my houserules off the fact that Fighters seem to be treated as suped up real world versions of fighters. By that I mean, they spend most of their career focusing on perfecting a form of combat, maybe dipping in a second form (As a melee build at level 9, I still do decent damage with a Mighty Longbow +1 and weapon training).
So why not bring that to the Casters. Why would a wizard who has to spend years mastering spell casting, be able to do multiple forms? An astrophysicist typically isn't also a world class surgeon. A great romance novelist is usually not a phenomenal mathematician. So why would an evocation wizard also be equally skilled in transmutation?
This is just a thought, not a challenge. I understand this is a fictional game, and we get to do phenomenal things, but if we force a fighter to focus on one style of combat to achieve it's apex, why do we not do this for casters.
worried about the wizard being overpowered?
don't limit the wizard's options
reward sorcerers instead.
this can be done by the following
- enforcing spell preparation and forcing the wizard to write down his spell list in duplicate, giving you the second copy
- forcing the wizard player to give you a copy of each of his spellbooks every session
- enforcing scroll count
- enforcing wand charges
- enforcing gold limitations. even if the gold isn't spent on specific components, enforcing the gold enforces the limit on spells with material costs
- writing down every key buff you utilize. and the amount of that buff you prepared that day.
- limiting spell/scroll purchase based on community spellcasting services.
- enforcing the spell level and caster level requirements on scrolls.
- enforcing the number of pearls of power and metamagic rod charges used that day
- enforcing the spellcraft check for item creation. whether or not they can take 10.
- enforcing the feats spent on item creation
- enforcing the amount of time spent crafting
Lol no, I've only been playing RPGs for about 8 months. I appreciate your comments, and I'm sure my ideas aren't the best solution, but my party, even the casters enjoyed it. I'll keep refining :)
I actually really like some of your ideas.
The extra skill points for Fighters and Paladin is a given. IMHO, everyone who is not an Int-based full casters (that is, wizards and witches) should get at least 4 skill points per level, even Sorcerers and Clerics.
2 skill points is simply not enough.
Giving a 2nd good saves to Fighters and Rogues is also a pretty good idea, IMO, I actually made a homebrew sometime ago that gave good Reflex progression to Fighters.
For Rogues, I'd let the player choose which 2nd good save he wants. Fort or Will. This way they can choose between the brute thugish rogue and the cunning strong-willed Rogue.
I'd not restrict the Sorcerer and Magus spell lists, they already lag far behind wizards.
Wizards not getting spells from their opposition schools might be a bit too much, but truth be told, it's not that bad, either, specially with feats like Opposition Research.
I'd let them keep their full spell progression, though.
Wizards not getting spells from their opposition schools would be significant if the spells were divided among schools differently. As it stands, it's pretty easy to choose, say, Necromancy and Evocation as opposed schools and lose nothing of value because Conjuration/Transmutation alone can do almost anything.
|
God, I hate how spells are divided up. I mean, there's something to be said for thematic groupings, but I swear that designers just look for excuses to toss the most useful spells they can into their favorite school.
I mean, the healing subschool, in CONJURATION!? How the holy hell does that make sense?! *Maybe* for resurrection spells (summon the soul), but certainly not for things like Heal. That crap should go in Necromancy (you know, like the Inflict counterparts do).
PS: In my home games the healing subschool is in necromancy.
Healing used to be necromancy. That was one of the 3.x changes. I've never liked it.
I mean, the healing subschool, in CONJURATION!? How the holy hell does that make sense?! *Maybe* for resurrection spells (summon the soul), but certainly not for things like Heal. That crap should go in Necromancy (you know, like the Inflict counterparts do).
PS: In my home games the healing subschool is in necromancy.
Same. It's one of the things from pre-3E that I strongly agree with.
God, I hate how spells are divided up. I mean, there's something to be said for thematic groupings, but I swear that designers just look for excuses to toss the most useful spells they can into their favorite school.
I mean, the healing subschool, in CONJURATION!? How the holy hell does that make sense?! *Maybe* for resurrection spells (summon the soul), but certainly not for things like Heal. That crap should go in Necromancy (you know, like the Inflict counterparts do).
PS: In my home games the healing subschool is in necromancy.
Heh... Necromancy might as well be named "Enervation-school". There is very little else to it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the bottom can never be "too good".
That's where I disagree, because it depends on which kind of fantasy you wanna play. And my problem with modern D&D/PF is that basically you already start out as hero at level 1 while in former editions you could start from zero (or at least it was easier to pretend so).
When the Pathinder thing started the advice on converting 3.5 adventures was to simply assume that PFRPG characters were a level higher than their PF counterparts. That was kind of the moment I became aware that in Pathfinder the bottom already is too good for my tastes.
That's muddying the waters a bit. Game balance doesn't have much to do with your play preferences.
Your preference is a low power game, which is fine, but it is not something that this game was created to have in mind. If I recall, the entire point of Pathfinder was to have a sort of "Medieval Superheroes with a modified 3.5 ruleset" vibe to it.
"Too good" has to be relative to the rest of the game, not just your preferences for a somewhat more "mundane" game in this particular discussion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your preference is a low power game, which is fine, but it is not something that this game was created to have in mind.
I'm well aware of this and actually admitted that in my first post to which you answered: "You don't balance for suck". The Rest was me explaining why what you consider to suck I actually consider worth playing.
I guess I'm just a bit sad that I really would have liked to like Pathfinder (RPG) especially when D&D 4E already went in another direction.
Aren't there a bunch of other low-power games? I know there are some that are fairly well liked but I can't think of any in particular.
My tastes have always run towards high power-high challenge type of games, the sort of thing where characters are demigods by the end, facing other demigods.
|
|
Playstyle has made a difference with regards to mechanics, well in 4th edition it has and Pathfinder is going in that direction as well. 4th edition has turned more towards being a hero in a cinematic scenario. There are less and less evil options a character can take and the books suggest that you don't run evil campaigns. The mechanics themselves favor this type of playstyle by giving more hit points, healing surges, no save or die, and it being harder to die once you drop.
I don't want Pathfinder assuming we are playing heroes because we want to be evil PCs who kill and conquer. Assuming your character will he decked out in items and making them easily accessible is an indication that the game tries to cater more to hero style games.
|
|
Game balance ends up having a lot to do with your play preference in any game that is open to interpretation and ruling.
If your goal is to have players who are "demigods" at the end, you are going to interpret the rules liberally so things have near demigod like power, and you are going to handwave limiting factors away that interfere with attaining that power.
However if that isn't your goal, you will interpret the rules narrowly, and most of the "problems" don't occur.
YMMV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well even with a strict interpretation of this game's rules, you're going to be demigod-like regardless. That's just how it's designed from the ground up.
When even the classes that are considered sucky like Fighter and Monk can chop a demon in half with one swing and poke people and make their hearts explode, you can tell what kind of game they were going for.
Lol no, I've only been playing RPGs for about 8 months. I appreciate your comments, and I'm sure my ideas aren't the best solution, but my party, even the casters enjoyed it. I'll keep refining :)I actually really like some of your ideas.
The extra skill points for Fighters and Paladin is a given. IMHO, everyone who is not an Int-based full casters (that is, wizards and witches) should get at least 4 skill points per level, even Sorcerers and Clerics.
2 skill points is simply not enough.Giving a 2nd good saves to Fighters and Rogues is also a pretty good idea, IMO, I actually made a homebrew sometime ago that gave good Reflex progression to Fighters.
For Rogues, I'd let the player choose which 2nd good save he wants. Fort or Will. This way they can choose between the brute thugish rogue and the cunning strong-willed Rogue.I'd not restrict the Sorcerer and Magus spell lists, they already lag far behind wizards.
Wizards not getting spells from their opposition schools might be a bit too much, but truth be told, it's not that bad, either, specially with feats like Opposition Research.
I'd let them keep their full spell progression, though.
Most warrior types end up taking the +1 skill point per favored class level anyway, so they already get at least 3 points. Chill.
Second, I am done arguing with you, Lemmy. You obviously don't want to accept ANY solutions to your hissy fit, and shoot down EVERYTHING we propose. Hell, we aren't even arguing your basic premise, even though that is easily possible.
Create some feats that grant extra skill points per level, like with Toughness and hp. That should make you happy. Or don't, fine. Whatever. You are impossible to please, you know that?
Most warrior types end up taking the +1 skill point per favored class level anyway, so they already get at least 3 points. Chill.
Second, I am done arguing with you, Lemmy. You obviously don't want to accept ANY solutions to your hissy fit, and shoot down EVERYTHING we propose. Hell, we aren't even arguing your basic premise, even though that is easily possible.
Create some feats that grant extra skill points per level, like with Toughness and hp. That should make you happy. Or don't, fine. Whatever. You are impossible to please, you know that?
What are you talking about, man? I'm not even discussing with you anymore. Hell, I even apologized to you, and I didn't even mean to offend you that time.
The post you quoted has nothing to do with you. At all. I just shared my thoughts about P33J's changes. How exactly is that throwing a hissy fit??? I don't see anything there that comes off as being rude.
You don't think Fighters need more skill points. No problem. But don't accuse me of throwing hissy fits just because we have different opinions.
Man, I *wish* there was a "Skilled" feat that granted +1 rank per level. I would take that on a decent number of characters (fighter, cleric, etc). I might even take it more than once. It would be pretty low on the list for a bard, rogue or ranger, though.
Dreamscarred Presses Psionics Unleashed has a feat called open minded that grants +1 additional skill point per level. thing is, third party has a bad stigma associated with them, and so do psionics. i blame bastards and bloodlines, the book of erotic fantasy, and similar broken material.
however, open minded isn't stackable.
Honestly, I don't really understand why there isn't a "Skilled" feat. There's a trait in Legacy of Fire that basically grants an extra Favored Class bonus every level. It they're willing to grant that with a Trait, why not make a "toughness for skills" feat?
There are feats that grant bonuses to basically every numerical representation in the game. Why are skills the sacred cow here?
Honestly, I don't really understand why there isn't a "Skilled" feat. There's a trait in Legacy of Fire that basically grants an extra Favored Class bonus every level. It they're willing to grant that with a Trait, why not make a "toughness for skills" feat?
There are feats that grant bonuses to basically every numerical representation in the game. Why are skills the sacred cow here?
You know, a feat for an extra skill point per level would be really cool! If wizards get Toughness, why not Skilled for Fighters?
I know I'd grab that feat with lots of characters.I think the reason there is no such feat is so the other races don't step on humans' toes. That may be a vallid point.
|
|
Honestly, I don't really understand why there isn't a "Skilled" feat. There's a trait in Legacy of Fire that basically grants an extra Favored Class bonus every level. It they're willing to grant that with a Trait, why not make a "toughness for skills" feat?
There are feats that grant bonuses to basically every numerical representation in the game. Why are skills the sacred cow here?
You know, a feat for an extra skill point per level would be really cool! If wizards get Toughness, why not Skilled for Fighters?
I know I'd grab that feat with lots of characters.I think the reason there is no such feat is so the other races don't step on humans' toes. That may be a vallid point.
It doesn't step on the Human's toes any more than a Fighter bonus feat or a Ranger bonus feat or any other bonus feat a class might get. If it didn't stack then you might have a point.
It doesn't step on the Human's toes any more than a Fighter bonus feat or a Ranger bonus feat or any other bonus feat a class might get. If it didn't stack then you might have a point.Honestly, I don't really understand why there isn't a "Skilled" feat. There's a trait in Legacy of Fire that basically grants an extra Favored Class bonus every level. It they're willing to grant that with a Trait, why not make a "toughness for skills" feat?
There are feats that grant bonuses to basically every numerical representation in the game. Why are skills the sacred cow here?
You know, a feat for an extra skill point per level would be really cool! If wizards get Toughness, why not Skilled for Fighters?
I know I'd grab that feat with lots of characters.I think the reason there is no such feat is so the other races don't step on humans' toes. That may be a vallid point.
You're right. If anything, humans step on other races' toes with their "Racial Heritage" feat...
Considering that feats are easily the most precious item in the game, with only a possible exception to having high base attributes, blowing a feat just to get 1 more skill point each level is NOT overpowered, even if you made it retroactive. There is a precedent, as there's a feat for humans that allows for both +1 skill AND hit point per favored class level. The real question is, could you take this feat several times, and have it stack? Does Toughness stack with itself?
Lemmy, does this concept answer any of your difficulties with martials?
Actually, in my games I always make Int bonuses retroactive, and Headbands just increase Intelligence overall, not grant skill points in certain skills. Yes, that means you could technically reset where you put those skill points, but since nobody ever does in my games, simply because they like where they have their points already (I ensure they are happy with what they picked, by working with them if they are unhappy).
Combine that with the standard +1 skill point per favored class level, and they don't seem unhappy with their PC's. I didn't like pointing out that the Barbarian in my game would be better off as a Fighter given his average Dexterity score, but he DOES seem to appreciate the increased durability of the Fighter and his full plate armor, plus having better saves because of the additional feats. I took him off the Ogrekin template, because Pathfinder doesn't really have level penalties and I didn't know how to balance it. I didn't want to be seen as favoring him while DMing, seeing as he IS my best friend. While DMing, I am very LN. When the game is not on, I tend to be more NG, helping them get what they want, tricking out their PC's.
On a more personal note: Rynjin, leave it be. After a lot of reading of your posts, I find myself disliking and discounting most of your stances, as our styles differ. We are simply too different. Thus I am not likely to pay heed to you in the future. Tell you what, I will be happy to leave you alone; please do the same with me. If I could ignore your posts automatically, I would. I am sorry if this comes across as rude; I really am trying to be civil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would you mind if I PM'ed you? I'm still learning the rules here, and sometimes bits of rules are unwritten. I want to know what my part of it was, and how I could have done differently. This is an honest desire; I've learned that online communication is delicate.
Considering that feats are easily the most precious item in the game, with only a possible exception to having high base attributes, blowing a feat just to get 1 more skill point each level is NOT overpowered, even if you made it retroactive. There is a precedent, as there's a feat for humans that allows for both +1 skill AND hit point per favored class level. The real question is, could you take this feat several times, and have it stack? Does Toughness stack with itself?
Well, the default assumption is that you can't take the same feat twice, so I guess the answer is no, they can't take "Skilled" (or whatever it'd be named if such feat existed) twice. But that's no problem, even just 1 extra skill ranks would be cool (I personally love skills... I think I have a serious addiction to skill ranks -.-')
Actually, in my games I always make Int bonuses retroactive, and Headbands just increase Intelligence overall, not grant skill points in certain skills. Yes, that means you could technically reset where you put those skill points, but since nobody ever does in my games, simply because they like where they have their points already (I ensure they are happy with what they picked, by working with them if they are unhappy).
I think Int bonuses already are retroactive, for simplicity's sake. It'd be too much paper work to keep track of when the wizard got that extra +1 to their Int modifier.
Your change to Headbands of Int is pretty interesting, but I think it works mostly because you seem to have trustworthy players (that goes a long way to make the game better!), if that was the standard rule, it'd be a bit bizarre... See a river? Put hose skill ranks in swim! Mountain? Climb! Horses? Ride. Etc... Too many munchkins would use the headbands as a instant bonus to whatever skill the happen to need at the moment. Of course, if none of your players do that, there is no problem.Combine that with the standard +1 skill point per favored class level, and they don't seem unhappy with their PC's. I didn't like pointing out that the Barbarian in my game would be better off as a Fighter given his average Dexterity score, but he DOES seem to appreciate the increased durability of the Fighter and his full plate armor, plus having better saves because of the additional feats. I took him off the Ogrekin template, because Pathfinder doesn't really have level penalties and I didn't know how to balance it. I didn't want to be seen as favoring him while DMing, seeing as he IS my best friend. While DMing, I am very LN. When the game is not on, I tend to be more NG, helping them get what they want, tricking out their PC's.
I know Fighters and other martials can be versatile. I never disagreed on that.
My original point in this thread was not that "wizards are awesome and fighter suck! lol". I just wanted to point out that a character's power shouldn't be judged just bu how high his numbers are, and by numbers, I don't mean just DPR, I mean at any task they face.Having different ways to solve a problem is much more valuable than having one really good way, IMO.
e.g.: People often say archery is broken because it can full attack all the time and has high DPR, but that's what warriors should be doing! That's their whole job: be awesome at combat!
Besides, archery has its weaknesses: What if its raining? What if the enemy has cover/concealment? What if it's invisible? What if you are in a corridor instead of a big open field? What if the enemy has DR/immunity to piercing damage? What if shooting arrows won't help you at all? How is an archer Fighter/Ranger/Whatever any better than a melee Fighter/Ranger/Whatever out of combat?
As a GM, it's easy to think of a challenge to such character, even if her DPR is really high. An acher characyter who focus all his resources to archery without thinking about utility is a pretty limited character, and in my bok, that makes her pretty weak.
I don't think Pouncing Barbarians, Gunslingers or Archers are too good! I think other martials should be upped to their level of effectiveness.
Of course, what is "too good" and what is "balanced" depends on the views of each person, but that was not the point anyway, although it's relevant.
Those Headband changes are specifically Pathfinder. Never showed up before, it was always like the way I did it. I stress the players learning how to work together as DM, since I routinely use monsters to pound the bejeezus out of them whenever possible, and kill as well, with as dirty of tactics as I can come up with.
Well, D&D has always required LOTS more feats for archery than melee, just to function. Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot are a good example compared to zilch with melee.
As an aside, I always wanted to have an arrow with a Fireball that would trigger upon hitting the target! Fear my LAW, villains!
Those Headband changes are specifically Pathfinder. Never showed up before, it was always like the way I did it.
Huh... I always used it retroactively to keep things simple... Oh well, doesn't matter now.
Well, D&D has always required LOTS more feats for archery than melee, just to function. Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot are a good example compared to zilch with melee.
Well, I used archery as an example because so many people think its OP. But my arguments easily apply to Barbarians, Paladins and Gunslinger as well (I remember a poster complaining that Gunslingers were OP because they hit too often for too much damage, and there was nothing he could do about it. My 1st thought was "How about... You know... Standing 30ft away from him?"
As an aside, I always wanted to have an arrow with a Fireball that would trigger upon hitting the target! Fear my LAW, villains!
I always wanted more alchemical arrows and/or a "Splinter Arrow" or "Rain of Arrows" feat where you learn how to make your arrows deal AoE damage targeting Reflex. (As an standard action, though... 4~6 Fireballs per round is a bit much, after all).
Also, Ranged Maneuvers could simply be a feat instead of specifically part of an archetype. To be honest, I think most Ranger/Fighter/Paladin/Rogue (specially Rogue) archetypes could be made a into a single feat or feat chain.Now, that would really give options to martial character. Not only build options, but actual in-game options!
Hey, there's always Nymph's Kiss for extra skill points...if you're good alignment and have a good aligned fey as a Sig Other.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a world of magical beings flying around under the influence of spells, and the likelihood of other beings also being able to cast spells, the acquisition of "oils of magic weapon" requires no more access to an "adventurers' shop" than a battlefield "cure light wounds" does. PCs are not the only creatures in the game able to create "oils of magic weapon" and it is highly likely that in such a world the local goblin shaman has the ability to create potions, oils and elixirs, and that they do so as a matter of course.
Unless, of course, magic is so rare that the PCs are the only characters likely to be able to cast spells.
In which case you might as well just paint a big red "S" on your wizard's chest and press the "win" button anyway.
Hey, there's always Nymph's Kiss for extra skill points...if you're good alignment and have a good aligned fey as a Sig Other.
==Aelryinth
Yeah, but that's from 3.5's Exalted book. Unless the DM allows imports, it doesn't exist. That's why I didn't mention it; I've got the book.
I always wanted more alchemical arrows and/or a "Splinter Arrow" or "Rain of Arrows" feat where you learn how to make your arrows deal AoE damage targeting Reflex. (As an standard action, though... 4~6 Fireballs per round is a bit much, after all).
Check Ultimate Equipment. I saw a bunch of goofy arrows there.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are not quite that rare AD but not common enough that I would be considering magical arrows the equivalent of having jumper cables in my the trunk of my car. Might I suggest that your solution presupposes one of these flying creatures around every corner. Which is fine if that's your cup of tea but like I said in another post--I couldn't play it like that and feel like i'm engaging in any sort of fantasy heroic storytelling that in any way would be connected with the literature that it purported to derive from.
Rocket, this isn't "my" solution. This is a consequence of the simple basic fact that if you want to have a challenging encounter in Pathfinder, you eventually will have to deal with enemy spellcasters. And if enemy spellcasters exist, they can make potions and elixirs. And if they CAN, you have to assume they will. One of the things that bugs me is when GMs play their NPCs as if they are not as intelligent as their actual stats would indicate. For the most part the majority of NPC races that PCs will encounter are comparable to humanoid PC races in intelligence, and as such, they should be presumed to be clever and forward thinking enough to consider that they might encounter a need for oils, potions and elixirs. It is my opinion that if you play a "low magic" campaign where the NPCs don't have access to things the PCs can purchase or make themselves, you are basically playing Pathfinder in "easy mode." I don't care much for "easy mode" myself.
Example: Walking through a desert the size of the Sahara should be a trifle taxing.
A lot of this is just following the rules strictly. But the raw, unvarnished truth of the matter is that magic matters.
Not with a ring of sustenance or even the freaking 0 level spells available to the general spell casting classes. A whole concept of heroic fantasy--gone--not even remotely playable. So forget the concept of potentially dehydrating or running out of food or water--a couple of well purchased magical items and its never a problem again unless I play the GM as bastard card.
If you have a spellcaster in the party who can cast "create water" as a zero level spell, then that's what you have. You can't pretend that they don't have that ability just so you can artificially create a situation that deprives them of water. A druid can carry enough goodberries to keep a party going through the Sahara for days. Again, magic matters. The whole point of magic is to provide these abilities and to take it away from the players just so you can replicate some vision of your own about "walking through a desert the size of the Sahara" is more a reflection on your GM approach than it is on the game. There are ways to make a walk through the desert "taxing" that doesn't rely on expectations that don't match character abilities.
I need as a GM to be able to take items away from my party and not doom them to death and I need to be able to make NPC threats that aren't walking around like a hardware store--for the story of it if nothing else. Like I said--this game is so much about in-game elements dominating everything else, it gets frustrating. And it really is making me be quite selective of the types I'm letting in my sessions.
Well, I don't agree with this at all. You are the GM. You own the world. If you have to rely on taking items away from the party to create dramatic tension, you aren't utilizing the full abilities of the GM. On top of that, you are punishing the players for playing their actual characters.
Again, magic matters. That's the bottom line. Magical characters have the ability to do things that make mundane conditions much less impactful than if they didn't have magic. That's what magic is. That's why people play magical characters in the first place.
The bottom line reality is that in the Pathfinder world, with the basic abilities of a first level druid, cleric or wizard, especially if the party contains more than one of them, a walk through the Sahara would, in fact, not be a challenge. That's why they bothered to learn magic in the first place. That's just how it is. Since a walk through the Sahara isn't going to challenge them, dig into your GM toolbox and find something else that will.
this can be done by the following
- enforcing spell preparation and forcing the wizard to write down his spell list in duplicate, giving you the second copy. This should already be done.
- forcing the wizard player to give you a copy of each of his spellbooks every session This is needless and is just an underhanded way of dissuading wizard players with extra paper work.
- enforcing scroll count This should already be done.
- enforcing wand charges This should already be done.
- enforcing gold limitations. even if the gold isn't spent on specific components, enforcing the gold enforces the limit on spells with material costs This should already be done. Also, don't let your players have free reign of the market. You should have them declare what components they want to buy. 25,000 gp diamonds shouldn't flow like cure light wounds wands.
- writing down every key buff you utilize. and the amount of that buff you prepared that day. Just sounds like more paperwork.
- limiting spell/scroll purchase based on community spellcasting services. This should already be done.
- enforcing the spell level and caster level requirements on scrolls. This should already be done.
- enforcing the number of pearls of power and metamagic rod charges used that day This should already be done.
- enforcing the spellcraft check for item creation. whether or not they can take 10. This should already be done.
- enforcing the feats spent on item creation This should already be done.
- enforcing the amount of time spent crafting This should already be done.
I actually just spin up my spells, backgrounds, etc in a onenote document and share it with my GM. Technology for the win.
I actually just spin up my spells, backgrounds, etc in a onenote document and share it with my GM. Technology for the win.this can be done by the following
- enforcing spell preparation and forcing the wizard to write down his spell list in duplicate, giving you the second copy. This should already be done.
- forcing the wizard player to give you a copy of each of his spellbooks every session This is needless and is just an underhanded way of dissuading wizard players with extra paper work.
- enforcing scroll count This should already be done.
- enforcing wand charges This should already be done.
- enforcing gold limitations. even if the gold isn't spent on specific components, enforcing the gold enforces the limit on spells with material costs This should already be done. Also, don't let your players have free reign of the market. You should have them declare what components they want to buy. 25,000 gp diamonds shouldn't flow like cure light wounds wands.
- writing down every key buff you utilize. and the amount of that buff you prepared that day. Just sounds like more paperwork.
- limiting spell/scroll purchase based on community spellcasting services. This should already be done.
- enforcing the spell level and caster level requirements on scrolls. This should already be done.
- enforcing the number of pearls of power and metamagic rod charges used that day This should already be done.
- enforcing the spellcraft check for item creation. whether or not they can take 10. This should already be done.
- enforcing the feats spent on item creation This should already be done.
- enforcing the amount of time spent crafting This should already be done.
i have; thanks to these boards, heard stories about Lazy DMs that made wizards seem overpowered. so i am giving the most obvious and redundant tips. which includes paperwork.
don't want paperwork? play a sorcerer.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I need as a GM to be able to take items away from my party and not doom them to death and I need to be able to make NPC threats that aren't walking around like a hardware store--for the story of it if nothing else. Like I said--this game is so much about in-game elements dominating everything else, it gets frustrating. And it really is making me be quite selective of the types I'm letting in my sessions.Well, I don't agree with this at all. You are the GM. You own the world. If you have to rely on taking items away from the party to create dramatic tension, you aren't utilizing the full abilities of the GM. On top of that, you are punishing the players for playing their actual characters.
You are missing the point. The problem that I think rocketman is addressing is the default level of power and complications it makes in trying to run the game he wants to run, i.e. having unlimited water in a resource based game. I personally think that this was a bad default assumption and I have house ruled the orisons/cantrips to reflect that. I think that a game where both item repair and water creation are unlimited and yet the ramifications of those are abilities are not reflected in world is a badly designed game.
So for the type of game he wants to run, he either needs to:
-Filter who he lets in
-Remove or change the way powers work
-
I think they made the 0 level abilities spammable just to quiet the wizard players who always "want something magical to do" at low levels after they blow their spells. They didn't think ANY of these changes through on how it would impact a persistent campaign world. The standard cover around here is: you are a poor DM because you want water to be a concern in your game. Or "why can't you figure out a way to challenge your party within the confines of the game" - neither point being the issue of concern. It's a desired playstyle/challenge/feel issue, not that the DM in question is not smart or creative enough to run his world through the PFRPG game assumption.
It isn't the question of creating suitable challenges - if you want a game with spammable water to take with you on your stroll through the magic Sahara I can have that same magical Sahara rain fiery knives every half hour coupled with magical radiation as part of that environments "effect". So I see your stupid and raise you a moronic - both of which fail if that is NOT WHAT YOU WANT THEMATICALLY - IN YOUR GAME.
So the challenge part isn't the issue, it's the default in-game "0-level spammable spells breaks any kind of relatable consistancy and kills the world" issue. This was a VERY BAD default design consideration unless you are assuming default high magic game is what everyone wants to play - this is a PFRPG invention. It wasn't the case with the 1st two editions of the game, and even 3rd ed didn't have spammable consistency breakers - unlimited item repair, water creation, etc, available to level 1 noob characters. Later on there was plenty of stupid in 3rd ed, but not at level 1.
You didn't even address (or maybe notice) the hardware comment. He doesn't feel that there should be a need to deck out foes with magic junk just to make the numbers work. Maybe give them one item, but be able to make threats that are not laden with so much garbage (which the party gets) just to make the numbers game.
Again, magic matters. That's the bottom line. Magical characters have the ability to do things that make mundane conditions much less impactful than if they didn't have magic. That's what magic is. That's why people play magical characters in the first place.
The bottom line reality is that in the Pathfinder world, with the basic abilities of a first level druid, cleric or wizard, especially if the party contains more than one of them, a walk through the Sahara would, in fact, not be a challenge. That's why they bothered to learn magic in the first place. That's just how it is. Since a walk through the Sahara isn't going to challenge them, dig into your GM toolbox and find something else that will.
And this is a problem unless you are catering to one type of player or DM - one that likes high powered magic and play.
Your answer is also a cop-out along the lines of - "that isn't the level of challenge in this game, come up with a new one". Or, "PFRPG doesn't not support single foe encounters like older editions - don't make those kinds of encounters". Or my absolute favorite - maybe you shouldn't be playing PFRPG, there are plenty of other games out there, you should look into E6".Fail
Auxmaulous, OK, you've made some good points. I don't completely agree with you and I think that no matter what you do, it's going to be hard to have magical characters in the game and still make crossing a desert a major struggle.
I do agree that the unlimited cantrips/orisons thing wasn't thought through. But I think a lot of stuff wasn't thought through. But even if it HAD been thought through and the limits to cantrips/orisons had not been changed, a trip through the desert would be more or less the same since you don't need many "create water" castings to provide enough water for four or five adventurers per day. So it's not the "unlimited cantrips/orisons" that makes a desert crossing too easy, it's the fundamental ability of magic users to be able to create water out of nothing in the first place. After all a fifth level cleric or druid is going to be making ten gallons of water each time they cast the spell.
If you are going to call being able to cast "create water" four times per day a "high magic campaign" I think you're not going to find too many people willing to agree with you.
So in the end, the problem that you and rocketman are complaining about here is not "high magic" vs "low magic". It's "magic makes it hard for me to enforce resource limitations on my players."
Well, unless you want to pretty much remove the LEAST powerful spells in the game, you're going to have problems challenging players by making them thirsty, hungry, hot and tired.
And that's because of magic. Period. To make the game a resource management challenge, you're either going to have to make it so low-magic that it doesn't even resemble the current game, or you're going to have to target other resources than food and water. Which is what I recommended above.
|
|
Auxmaulous, OK, you've made some good points. I don't completely agree with you and I think that no matter what you do, it's going to be hard to have magical characters in the game and still make crossing a desert a major struggle.
I do agree that the unlimited cantrips/orisons thing wasn't thought through. But I think a lot of stuff wasn't thought through. But even if it HAD been thought through and the limits to cantrips/orisons had not been changed, a trip through the desert would be more or less the same since you don't need many "create water" castings to provide enough water for four or five adventurers per day. So it's not the "unlimited cantrips/orisons" that makes a desert crossing too easy, it's the fundamental ability of magic users to be able to create water out of nothing in the first place. After all a fifth level cleric or druid is going to be making ten gallons of water each time they cast the spell.
I don't really have a problem with 5th level characters being able to create water if it took up a 1st level slot. They would still need to:
-Use up a spell slot(s) - enough to cover their whole group, mounts and animal companions
-By using a slot as a survival resource (maybe even a few others besides create water, ex -endure elements, etc) they are then denied access to their full allotment of spell power = makes things harder when they go through that tough environment.
So it still forces a resource consideration on the part of the players even if they are mid to mid high level. Once you replace that need via item or higher level ability those considerations go away, but they still require a committed source on the part of the PCs. I don't really have an issue with that.
If I don't want rings of sustenance or items that produce unlimited water in the game I can just exclude them easily. If I want to change orisons/cantrips than it's a much heavier re-write (not much) and DM involvement in rules modification, plus DMs may feel like they are not playing it right (stigma of houserules). I don't think that spammable 0 level should have been the rule default but should have been put is as a variant rule - akin to the slow/med/fast progression on the xp chart.
A problem I have is that this is a 1st level assumption and out the gate you will never go thirsty - and that you would be able to create anything in an unlimited capacity without any consideration for that fact in the whole core book besides the spell entry that allows that ability. That is poor game design IMO.
If you are going to call being able to cast "create water" four times per day a "high magic campaign" I think you're not going to find too many people willing to agree with you.
I really don't care if people agree with me here or not, I just want to give my crew the type of game they want and to give them the best gaming experience possible. That being said - I don't have issues with "create something" if it's balanced against common sense and if it's limited in some way. So I am ok with creating water 4 times a day if that means 4 spells slots are used. That is 4 less slots for Bless, Command, CLW, etc (assuming create water is a 1st level spell or limited in use).
So in the end, the problem that you and rocketman are complaining about here is not "high magic" vs "low magic". It's "magic makes it hard for me to enforce resource limitations on my players."
No, a more accurate statement would read "the changes to magic in PFRPG over the last few editions makes it harder to enforce resource limitations on players when was an aspect of the game and also part of a playstyle".
Magic in the earlier editions went from the Punisher, to Spider Man to the Silver Surfer (to draw a super hero corollary). It would be nice if as DMs we could set the level of magic a little better than the default Silver Surfer. Also People who played older editions and who like most or part of PFRPG may not like the power level assumption - it isn't a question of limiting the PCs - its familiarity.
Imagine if in 2nd ed PFRPG, all cast spells were now living spell companions. You could trigger them as spells as needed (few times per day), talk to them and call them over like pets. This would be a change that some players may love and may be the only thing those just getting into the game know of spells (they started with PFRPG 2nd ed). For someone who plays PFRPG 1st ed or older editions they may feel that the change was too much, or takes away from immersion since it is so dissociated with even the most mundane reality - walking, breathing, etc.
back more on point: I may have run older games where environmental survival was critical even up to 8th level - but now the default rules say that isn't the case anymore - so it is wrong for the older edition DM (and players) to want those kinds of similar considerations? Or is it a failure to adapt to the new normal (unlimited item repair, water creation, X new rule)? So is the older style DM doing it wrong because it is a playstyle preference?
Well, unless you want to pretty much remove the LEAST powerful spells in the game, you're going to have problems challenging players by making them thirsty, hungry, hot and tired.
And that's because of magic. Period. To make the game a resource management challenge, you're either going to have to make it so low-magic that it doesn't even resemble the current game, or you're going to have to target other resources than food and water. Which is what I recommended above.
Again, not an issue if it actually requires a resource expenditure. Also, the game should be able to handle:
- Need to find water because it isn't easy to create,
- easy to create (spammable) - current ed, and
- "we don't drink water because we are made of fire and live in the city of brass" levels of play.
Aux, I've been playing this game for 30+ years. I don't remember any version of the game where I had to worry about anything but the absolute lowest level character ever going thirsty.
My AD&D party by fifth level was so far beyond caring about water or food that my wizard didn't even carry a backpack.
So no, I don't agree that this is "new". It's been that way from day one in my experience.
|
|
Aux, I've been playing this game for 30+ years. I don't remember any version of the game where I had to worry about anything but the absolute lowest level character ever going thirsty.
My AD&D party by fifth level was so far beyond caring about water or food that my wizard didn't even carry a backpack.
So no, I don't agree that this is "new". It's been that way from day one in my experience.
And I've been playing it for 33+ years - we must be playing a different game then.
No backpack at 5th level huh? So no need for a bedroll, food, supplies, material components? What about storing treasure - or did eveyone have a bag of holding/portable hole by 5th level in your game?
I guess if you came from a game background where this stuff was mostly handwaved (not the assumption of the game mind you, but a playstyle) then I guess you wouldn't be bothered with spammable water creation.
Your experience was not the norm - not from playing at cons from back in the day or going from group to group. So my experience was that environement was always at least a consideration, if not a concern (low to mid level), but if you are not even tracking food then we shouldn't even continue with this discussion.
Let's see Aux... At level 5 the "treasure" we found rarely was so much that my wizard needed a "bag" to carry it.
Material components fit in a pouch then, just as they do now.
No need for food, back then the spell was called "create food and water". Yeah our party cleric memorized it when we needed it. We did a lot of foraging too. My wizard did carry a waterskin which he filled up from time to time.
By level five we had a mule anyway. Something I still recommend to low level parties today. The mule carried my wizard's bedroll, as well as some other stuff for other party members.
Nice how you just assume the worst possible explanation for everything so you can rail against it whether it's true or not.
By the way, that mule can also screw up your resource management plans since it can carry weeks worth of food at a time...
Aux, I've been playing this game for 30+ years. I don't remember any version of the game where I had to worry about anything but the absolute lowest level character ever going thirsty.
My AD&D party by fifth level was so far beyond caring about water or food that my wizard didn't even carry a backpack.
So no, I don't agree that this is "new". It's been that way from day one in my experience.
Pretty much all of my AD&D games involved worrying about food and water for just about the entire game. Experience and playstyle differ.
Pretty much all of my AD&D games involved worrying about food and water for just about the entire game. Experience and playstyle differ.Aux, I've been playing this game for 30+ years. I don't remember any version of the game where I had to worry about anything but the absolute lowest level character ever going thirsty.
My AD&D party by fifth level was so far beyond caring about water or food that my wizard didn't even carry a backpack.
So no, I don't agree that this is "new". It's been that way from day one in my experience.
I'm pretty sure that AD&D had an Ioun stone that negated the need for food and water.
And another that negated the need for air.