Options x Numbers: aka: "Why wizards are so friggin' powerful"

[Auxmaulous]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

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...

And now who is making assumptions here? That my sole purpose for wanting resource management is because I am trying to "screw up" the players?

When you say you "didn't even carry a backpack" in the context of having a discussion about resources and equipment you are being both deceptive and disingenuous when all that stuff was needed by your PC and carried by someone/something else. So you said that as a deliberate lie to support your resource argument.

That's like saying that you didn't even eat lunch today -when in fact you had brunch and an afternoon meal. So why the hell did you bring up the fact that you didn't even wear a backpack - oh yes, it was to imply and carry on your argument that you didn't even need gear at 5th level - and then you state in your next post that in fact you did need gear. You just didn’t carry it.

So by your own admission (after you attempted to deride by omission) you needed gear to play the game. You needed to manage finite resources - even create food and water is a finite resource when you get X amount of spells a day in a dangerous environment. So I don't care if you had a damn mule to carry your gear/food on, that isn't the point and in fact increases immersion - it doesn't decrease it. The mule is not the resource "counter" to the DM, that is some sad thinking.

So get the notion out of your head that resource management exists solely f-up players, it isn't. For some groups resource management is part of immersion process and immersion is getting the player in to the PCs situation by placing him whereh is PC is at, which in my experience leads to greater play enjoyment. Some groups can't be bothered with it, PFRPG is accommodating in that way, but it is a break from previous editions and should not have been a default assumption in design.

[Adamantine Dragon]

LOL Aux, we were talking about food and water, and in my AD&D campaigns it just wasn't an issue then. No more than it is now.

The only thing the mule carried for my wizard was the bedroll as I recall.

In fact my wizard took it as a point of pride that he didn't need to carry anything. As many of my wizards tend to do. It projects an air of "magic is all I need".

The point of the mule is that managing food and water has always been a trivial exercise.

There are other resources that were more difficult to manage. As I recall the main thing the mule carried for us was ammunition, extra weapons and camping stuff. If we could live off the land, we did. If not we used "create food and water." Yeah, it used up a spell slot, but that became less and less of an issue as we leveled up.

Instead of continuing to argue about food and water, I think it would be more profitable to discuss what other resource management issues might allow a GM to challenge the party.

[mplindustries]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

mplindustries wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

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.

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.

And I'm pretty sure I never put that item in any loot, which, obviously, is not something I am required to do (and I've never used "magic item stores").

[Aelryinth]

1E also intro'd the Ring of Sustenance and Elixir of Vitality, which addressed the problem as well...and Murlynd's Spoon, of all things. Being able to eat was on people's mind if the DM made it so. When you could cast level 3 cleric spells, not so much.

==Aelryinth

[Adamantine Dragon]

In my experience, throughout the history of the game, managing food and water has been a trivial exercise for anyone above the very lowest levels. And I believe that has always been by design. To make food and water matter at, say, level 7, would require a party either deficient in appropriate spellcasters, or else a deliberate decision on the part of the party to allow food and water to become a problem by not preparing appropriate spells.

If the answer to that is "As the GM I'm going to make sure that they need those spell slots for combat!" That's just metagaming to produce a result, and I've never liked that for any reason.

[StabbittyDoom]

This thread is now so far off topic that even google would have trouble making a map that gets you back.

[Adamantine Dragon]

StabbittyDoom wrote:

This thread is now so far off topic that even google would have trouble making a map that gets you back.

We should let Apple do the mapping, that way we'd find entirely new areas on the map never seen before.

[Auxmaulous]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

LOL Aux, we were talking about food and water, and in my AD&D campaigns it just wasn't an issue then. No more than it is now.

The only thing the mule carried for my wizard was the bedroll as I recall.

In fact my wizard took it as a point of pride that he didn't need to carry anything. As many of my wizards tend to do. It projects an air of "magic is all I need".

The point of the mule is that managing food and water has always been a trivial exercise.

And if you lost that mule, say while you are crossing a stone bridge over a raging underground river - then you lose your backpack (sleep time affected) food (more spell resources now needed to create food) camping/exploration gear, lights (heat) and your spellbooks because you don't carry those on you either - I guess you forgot about those or just LOL'd the need to have them away.

.

You are right though, the mule discussion is pointless exercise. PFRPG is what it is and does not support immersive or resource managed play, so carrying on about it is without merit (unless we are discussing ways to return immersion and resource management back into the game).

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

There are other resources that were more difficult to manage. As I recall the main thing the mule carried for us was ammunition, extra weapons and camping stuff. If we could live off the land, we did. If not we used "create food and water." Yeah, it used up a spell slot, but that became less and less of an issue as we leveled up.

You must have had some pretty high level play in AD&D - Create Food and Water was a 3rd level spell, not something a 5th level cleric would normally prepare as his spell of ultimate power. Even at 7th or 9th level of play it would still be a huge resource hit. I'm not saying it would never be prepared or that I'm calling you a liar but the need to cast it would arise if you were stuck somewhere or travelling in hostile territory usually a day after the situation would arise when you needed it (having no food). But that would also imply that while you were stuck somewhere/travelling that the CF&W was picked over another spell 3rd level spell for a 5th level caster - while what, dealing with potential wandering encounters, module encounters (as you progressed without normal food), hazards, etc?

It just doesn't seem like a solid pick unless you were pretty high level (9th or higher). It's not really coming together for me unless there was some major hand waving on the part of the DM. And unless you could buy specific gear (which wasn't in the rules) rings of sustenence, Iouns stones, etc, were not a player option by choice or easy to come by.

-

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Instead of continuing to argue about food and water, I think it would be more profitable to discuss what other resource management issues might allow a GM to challenge the party.

In PFRPG, just make "magic X" hits your party in this environment (flaming bats, flamming daggers, flamming offal) randomly.

Otherwise, who cares? The game isn't about resource control and with every book release it moves it further away as a consideration, so why fake it as a concern? Also, now you are advocating creating an artificial (meta) resource control when you had perfectly realistic, plausible and immersive ones that you 0-level spell'd away when the game came out?

Now you want to create substitute ones? Pointless.

And no, this thread is still very much on topic - it's about magic options (not just for wizards) and how too many of them turns the game into crap for other classes.

[Rictras Shard]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

In my experience, throughout the history of the game, managing food and water has been a trivial exercise for anyone above the very lowest levels.

My viewpoint is that if the party has the resources to get food and water themselves, even if just by buying what they need, using spell slots for provisions is a waste of a spell.

[Ashiel]

You wanna **** up resource management? "I take 10 on Survival" with a Wisdom 10+.

[Adamantine Dragon]

Most of my AD&D characters were retired around 12 - 15th level.

Yeah, true I had forgotten create food and water was a third level spell, but as I said, we foraged a lot and that was usually all we needed. If we were in such barren lands that we needed create food and water, it was usually barren enough that we didn't need a lot of combat spells so we could afford to "waste" a slot.

We had one "gritty" campaign where we really had to account for every copper piece, but in that campaign my memory was that the resources we struggled with were mostly ammunition. You can go through a lot of ammunition very quickly.

My only point Aux is that food and water management was rarely an issue for any game I've ever played in 30+ years. Not nearly as much as ammunition was for example. Then again, we never had any reason to hike across a Sahara sized desert either. I'm fairly confident that most games of that period were more or less like ours. At least all the ones I knew of were and I played quite a bit.

And I'm not suggesting making up some artificial resource problem. I'm saying that if you want to play a resource constrained game, come up with something that matters in game terms instead of expecting magical characters who can snap their fingers and make ten gallons of water appear somehow get too thirsty to go on. That's all.

The games our group plays usually have a more "save the world" feel than a "survive the expedition" one.

Oh, the spellbook thing... Man this is really going back in time so I'm not sure I totally remember, but my recollection was that wizards back then mostly carried "travel spellbooks" when they adventured and kept their main spellbooks back home. Or that's what my aging memory tells me. At some point my wizard did get some robe that had pockets like a bag of holding and at that point he began carrying his full library of spellbooks, but until then he just had the one travel book and I know you'll laugh, but this is how that worked. He had contrived this contraption that carried the spellbook in a way that he could fold out a wooden extension and have the spellbook open in front of him to keep his hands free. Then it would fold back up and ride by his hip.

Our group had all sorts of weird contraptions like that. I sort of miss that frankly. Spring-loaded sheaths to feed daggers to the "thief", "lazy susan" sheaths that would rotate to present the fighter's chosen weapon, wand dispensers, folding, take-apart staffs, I can't remember all the crazy stuff we came up with. All of our characters were some sort of MacGuyver clones I guess... Was fun though.

[Roberta Yang]

Survival can be used untrained, and even a character with 5 Wis and no ranks in Survival still feeds an average of 1 person each time they use Survival to hunt and forage while moving. Yes, you have to move half your land speed, but nobody is ever in danger of starving.

[TriOmegaZero]

Except from the deadly 'DM Fiat'.

[Prophes0r]

There is a few very simple reasons this problem exists and I can think of 2 ways to combat it.

One reason this problem exists is because we as players, GMs and game designers think with the rules we know. The game universe is close enough to our own universe that we fall back into the mindset of our own experience, which is FAR more limiting than the actual in game physical laws.

Here is a small example of what I mean.

Imagine the classical medieval world. You wish to protect yourself and your community from a neighboring warlike culture. What structures would you build?

Now, without further instructions, you will PROBABLY assume that these neighbors are human. You know what it takes to keep humans out of a space. You might build a castle, but a wall is easier and can effect a larger area more cheaply.

What if those neighbors are 6 foot eagles? Your wall/castle is now nearly worthless. It may even be worse for you than the birds. If your primary enemy can fly, your technology and strategy will be based around combating flying creatures. You probably never build castles, or at least not the classical stone ones.

What if your enemy can control/create fire? Well, you probably don't use flammable equipment to build things, even if that can get very inconvenient.

The game worlds we play in are usually meant to feel familiar enough to us that we can relate, yet they have WILD inconsistencies because those familiar things would probably never have been invented, or ever used in a world where they are irrelevant/inefficient/worthless.

This mindset extends even further. The very ideas that these worlds are built on suffers from the same problems. This is going to seem like I am nit-picking, but it is very important to understand these things in order to see the real problems.

More than half of what you think of as "magic" are NOT magic. I'm talking about you arcane magic...you are not magic. You are also not arcane, at least from an outside point of view. If you follow the "rules" you are not magic, you are physics. If people understand how you work, you are not "arcane". In fact, "Arcane Magic" is by definition mundane (Of this earthly world rather than a heavenly or spiritual one). The ONLY magic in the fantasy worlds we play in is "Divine Magic" because it explicitly does not follow the in-universe rules. Though even this can be argued against, because the gods can change the rules to make things happen.

Something is arcane when people don't understand how it works. This does not mean that people don't know that it DOES work, simply that they don't know exactly why. Cell phones are not magic, but they are arcane. A cell phone in Pathfinder is STILL not magic (it is most certainly arcane though), unless the in game physics do not allow for the mechanisms required for a cellphone to work of course.

Calling these abilities magic is a fundamental part of the issue. It tells us that these abilities are not going to be fully explained, which creates a problem when we try to relate to it. If we can't relate to it, we can't think with it. This means we can only use things in the ways that are explicitly defines in the rules we know. Worse, there are glaring inconsistencies with these systems as RAW and RAI. In the best scenarios, you are given a result, and a set of circumstances that can bring it about. Worst case, you are only given a result.

Example time...Burning Hands & Shocking Grasp

Burning hands makes fire. Even though we don't know HOW it makes this fire, at least the fire acts like "regular" fire. It sets flammable things on fire. Since it follows many of the rules we know, it is not too hard to work with. However, it sometimes does things that do not make sense to us, even if it is perfectly natural in-game, such as still working in a vacuum or underwater.

Shocking grasp, well, shocks people(?). This one is kind of a problem. I know how electricity works in my universe, but there is little reason for me to believe that it works the same in-game. Being able to shock someone by touching them WITHOUT taking damage yourself does not "make sense" because it follows rules different from the ones we experience. If this rule is different, what else is? Can I hold a 10 foot metal pole and shock people through that? How can I shock people through leather gloves? There is no way to answer these questions unless you made the universe, or you know ALL the rules.

So how do we fix these problems? I did say I had 2 ways. Unfortunately they both suck.

Solution 1 is suspension of disbelief. You simply accept that these problems are just how they work, and let the GM make all decisions to tell a good story. Don't justify things too much because you will never get from point A to point B. This can be very unsatisfying since you can't learn from your actions. The only rule is that the story gets told. But if things only happen to advance the story, then how did we get things like carts? We had to follow SOME rules to get there. How do we invent things if they don't follow rules? Why do I bother doing ANYTHING if the story is going to ruin it, or make it happen without my effort anyway...Stop, just go with it. That is the point. Calm down and enjoy yourself.

Solution 2 is to explain every rule that affects the game universe. Every rule. This would be perfect if it was feasible, since everything would make perfect sense. It's not however. Not even close to possible. We can't even explain our own universe, and people can't pull power from another dimension with their willpower and use it to shoot fire from their hands in this one.

TL;DR

This problem is the same as discussing how player 2 has an advantage in a game of Tic-Tac-Toe. Once you know the advantage is there, you work with it. Either ignore it because you enjoy having to struggle to succeed(or you enjoy losing), or exploit it to become more powerful because that is how ecosystems work. If your character had access to your knowledge they would be stupid not to exploit it.

[Rocketman1969]

Prophes0r wrote:

There is a few very simple reasons this problem exists and I can think of 2 ways to combat it.

One reason this problem exists is because we as players, GMs and game designers think with the rules we know. The game universe is close enough to our own universe that we fall back into the mindset of our own experience, which is FAR more limiting than the actual in game physical laws.

Here is a small example of what I mean.

Imagine the classical medieval world. You wish to protect yourself and your community from a neighboring warlike culture. What structures would you build?

Now, without further instructions, you will PROBABLY assume that these neighbors are human. You know what it takes to keep humans out of a space. You might build a castle, but a wall is easier and can effect a larger area more cheaply.

What if those neighbors are 6 foot eagles? Your wall/castle is now nearly worthless. It may even be worse for you than the birds. If your primary enemy can fly, your technology and strategy will be based around combating flying creatures. You probably never build castles, or at least not the classical stone ones.

What if your enemy can control/create fire? Well, you probably don't use flammable equipment to build things, even if that can get very inconvenient.

The game worlds we play in are usually meant to feel familiar enough to us that we can relate, yet they have WILD inconsistencies because those familiar things would probably never have been invented, or ever used in a world where they are irrelevant/inefficient/worthless.

This mindset extends even further. The very ideas that these worlds are built on suffers from the same problems. This is going to seem like I am nit-picking, but it is very important to understand these things in order to see the real problems.

More than half of what you think of as "magic" are NOT magic. I'm talking about you arcane magic...you are not magic. You are also not arcane, at least from an outside point of view. If you follow the...

or you stop playing tic tac toe after you are seven years old. Here's another solution--you ask yourself generally--what concepts am I okay with and what concepts am I not okay with? I can get behind the idea of mental control of magical energy for an effect. In my view the "simple" spells are sometimes the most difficult to justify. I get that you reject the physicals idea but insted of knowing all the rules--perhaps understanding the basics might be helpful if only to determine how far from the range you are actually going. But it should be up to the GM.

[Rocketman1969]

Ashiel wrote:

You wanna **** up resource management? "I take 10 on Survival" with a Wisdom 10+.

Once again the RAW makes no attempt to attach the use of this skill to reality. The roll to find food in a desert when you have never lived in a desert or encountered a desert should make your taking 10 a pointless attempt because to gain sustenence should be a higher number than the standard.

[Adamantine Dragon]

Rocketman1969 wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

You wanna **** up resource management? "I take 10 on Survival" with a Wisdom 10+.

Once again the RAW makes no attempt to attach the use of this skill to reality. The roll to find food in a desert when you have never lived in a desert or encountered a desert should make your taking 10 a pointless attempt because to gain sustenence should be a higher number than the standard.

Two things:

1. All of the skill check rules reference "circumstance bonuses" that GMs are expected to apply based on the immediate situation. So any moderately experienced GM would apply circumstance bonuses to the survival skills for being in a desert.

2. Deserts, even the most brutal deserts on earth, are not devoid of water or potential foraging possibilities. Even in the midst of the Sahara it is possible to find water and food. In some cases that water and food is below the surface. In others it is found in an oasis. So unless you are in a world with a desert that is truly utterly barren, survival checks should still have a chance to succeed, and the reality is that any decent druid or ranger is going to probably have a very high survival score.

I watch a lot of survival shows. I've seen desert survival stories that are extremely interesting. It turns out that there are quite a few tricks and tips that will improve your odds of survival in a desert.

In a fantasy desert the likelihood of finding creatures is probably higher than in a real world desert because of the number of large desert-dwelling burrowing monsters.

To set the difficulty of surviving so high that it automatically makes it nearly impossible for the party to survive is, again, metagaming. If a ranger or druid or any other party member has dedicated themselves to maximizing their survivability by investing heavily in survival skills, that player should be rewarded for having done so.

[Ashiel]

Rocketman1969 wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

You wanna **** up resource management? "I take 10 on Survival" with a Wisdom 10+.

Once again the RAW makes no attempt to attach the use of this skill to reality. The roll to find food in a desert when you have never lived in a desert or encountered a desert should make your taking 10 a pointless attempt because to gain sustenence should be a higher number than the standard.

There were expansions in 3.x that gave modifiers for harsher climates (I believe in Frostburn for 3.5). Of course, those modifiers are within the realm of believability, which means that you won't see anything beyond DC 20 or so to survive in the wilds. Which recants AD's commentary about "post-lowest levels" survival survival due to food and water as being trivial. A Ranger with a 12 Wisdom and a survival kit (mwk tool) can take 10 and hit DC 20 at 4th level. As can any other character with Survival as a class skill. And every 2 points over they can feed another person.

Point is, in climates that aren't excessively barren and hostile, the survival DC isn't that big of a deal.

[Rocketman1969]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Rocketman1969 wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

You wanna **** up resource management? "I take 10 on Survival" with a Wisdom 10+.

Once again the RAW makes no attempt to attach the use of this skill to reality. The roll to find food in a desert when you have never lived in a desert or encountered a desert should make your taking 10 a pointless attempt because to gain sustenence should be a higher number than the standard.

Two things:

1. All of the skill check rules reference "circumstance bonuses" that GMs are expected to apply based on the immediate situation. So any moderately experienced GM would apply circumstance bonuses to the survival skills for being in a desert.

2. Deserts, even the most brutal deserts on earth, are not devoid of water or potential foraging possibilities. Even in the midst of the Sahara it is possible to find water and food. In some cases that water and food is below the surface. In others it is found in an oasis. So unless you are in a world with a desert that is truly utterly barren, survival checks should still have a chance to succeed, and the reality is that any decent druid or ranger is going to probably have a very high survival score.

I watch a lot of survival shows. I've seen desert survival stories that are extremely interesting. It turns out that there are quite a few tricks and tips that will improve your odds of survival in a desert.

In a fantasy desert the likelihood of finding creatures is probably higher than in a real world desert because of the number of large desert-dwelling burrowing monsters.

To set the difficulty of surviving so high that it automatically makes it nearly impossible for the party to survive is, again, metagaming. If a ranger or druid or any other party member has dedicated themselves to maximizing their survivability by investing heavily in survival skills, that player should be rewarded for having done so.

Look up the Atacama desert or the Empty quarter in Arabia a place where arabs who lived their entire lives in the environment would have to cross with full preperation and even then died. Any harsh environment is subject to requiring actual experience to live in. My "ranger" character who has lived his entire life in temperate forests finds himself in a dune sea. His survival skills should be minimally transferable. The reward should meet the strictures of the environment as well. I am not killing my folks left right and centre--but you know what---eking by with "just making" thresholds doesn't provide the "sustenence for a day" situation. So I have no problem with nauseating my characters with sunstroke. I have no problem with staggering them with dehydration. When they succeed they get a greater sense of success because they have done so with greater challenges. Also justification of their actions adds to the result. Taking a 10 on my survival roll gets you enough water not to die of thirst. If you look around for vegetation and then dig out the tap root that's going to get a better reward. You tie a cloth over my head or you travel at night--anything is going to grant more than a simple roll.

[Rocketman1969]

Ashiel wrote:

Rocketman1969 wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

You wanna **** up resource management? "I take 10 on Survival" with a Wisdom 10+.

Once again the RAW makes no attempt to attach the use of this skill to reality. The roll to find food in a desert when you have never lived in a desert or encountered a desert should make your taking 10 a pointless attempt because to gain sustenence should be a higher number than the standard.

There were expansions in 3.x that gave modifiers for harsher climates (I believe in Frostburn for 3.5). Of course, those modifiers are within the realm of believability, which means that you won't see anything beyond DC 20 or so to survive in the wilds. Which recants AD's commentary about "post-lowest levels" survival survival due to food and water as being trivial. A Ranger with a 12 Wisdom and a survival kit (mwk tool) can take 10 and hit DC 20 at 4th level. As can any other character with Survival as a class skill. And every 2 points over they can feed another person.

Point is, in climates that aren't excessively barren and hostile, the survival DC isn't that big of a deal.

Hey! Why not just teleport the ring into the cracks of mount doom? What's up with all this silly walking to places. Hey! Better yet just calculate out the dpr and the relative probabilities of hitting and damage and just forgo rolling dice all together. It should shorten the game and get rid of those apsects that detract from the full efficiency of the optimal gaming experience. i'm sure we could write an app for that.

[Adamantine Dragon]

LOL, Rocketman, I'm sorry Pathfinder isn't the game you actually want to play.

[Ashiel]

Rocketman1969 wrote:

Hey! Why not just teleport the ring into the cracks of mount doom? What's up with all this silly walking to places. Hey! Better yet just calculate out the dpr and the relative probabilities of hitting and damage and just forgo rolling dice all together. It should shorten the game and get rid of those apsects that detract from the full efficiency of the optimal gaming experience. i'm sure we could write an app for that.

Wow. What an amazingly ignorant response. How amusing. :3

Just so that we're good and clear, my group tends to do a lot of that strange walking stuff you mentioned. See, teleportation's not really feasible except as an expensive city to city movement prior to actually having it as a spell around 9th level. We use things like mules, pack lanterns (often with continual flame wicks inside), carry extra goodies, blankets, whatever. I actually do things like cook when I'm playing (I've even got a section on it in my Adventuring Guidebook which discusses things from both a fluff and crunch standpoint and reveals what a sucker I really am for fluff). And I tend to follow the environmental rules too. Things like heat dangers, drowning, cold, weather, terrain, the works. Starvation and thirst aren't a big deal in most climates. Especially since you can eat most of your enemies in this game ("Mmmm, wyvern, the other white meat").

Also, what's really funny is that DPR and hit probabilities are rarely a concern of mine in an actual game. It's a nice way of understanding the system, but when I'm GMing or playing there's way more to this game than just hitting things (which is generally why I prefer classes with options and ways to interact with the world around them).

But please, go on making more assumptions. My grandfather had a saying about assuming and I'm finding it to be delightfully true. :P

[Auxmaulous]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

LOL, Rocketman, I'm sorry Pathfinder isn't the game you actually want to play.

A sad commentary on the system.

[Rocketman1969]

Ashiel wrote:

Rocketman1969 wrote:

Hey! Why not just teleport the ring into the cracks of mount doom? What's up with all this silly walking to places. Hey! Better yet just calculate out the dpr and the relative probabilities of hitting and damage and just forgo rolling dice all together. It should shorten the game and get rid of those apsects that detract from the full efficiency of the optimal gaming experience. i'm sure we could write an app for that.

Wow. What an amazingly ignorant response. How amusing. :3

Just so that we're good and clear, my group tends to do a lot of that strange walking stuff you mentioned. See, teleportation's not really feasible except as an expensive city to city movement prior to actually having it as a spell around 9th level. We use things like mules, pack lanterns (often with continual flame wicks inside), carry extra goodies, blankets, whatever. I actually do things like cook when I'm playing (I've even got a section on it in my Adventuring Guidebook which discusses things from both a fluff and crunch standpoint and reveals what a sucker I really am for fluff). And I tend to follow the environmental rules too. Things like heat dangers, drowning, cold, weather, terrain, the works. Starvation and thirst aren't a big deal in most climates. Especially since you can eat most of your enemies in this game ("Mmmm, wyvern, the other white meat").

Also, what's really funny is that DPR and hit probabilities are rarely a concern of mine in an actual game. It's a nice way of understanding the system, but when I'm GMing or playing there's way more to this game than just hitting things (which is generally why I prefer classes with options and ways to interact with the world around them).

But please, go on making more assumptions. My grandfather had a saying about assuming and I'm finding it to be delightfully true. :P

That it makes and ass out of u and ming? What? Wyvern? You have some funny points in the midst of your nauseating pomposity Ashiel. Tell me again about taking a 10? That never gets old.

[Rocketman1969]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

LOL, Rocketman, I'm sorry Pathfinder isn't the game you actually want to play.

I'll try this again. Yes you are right. I don't want to play pathfinder the way it is. But there are some very cool things about it.

So I'll just house rules the heck out of it and go forth happy that i have.

[Adamantine Dragon]

Auxmaulous wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

LOL, Rocketman, I'm sorry Pathfinder isn't the game you actually want to play.

A sad commentary on the system.

Not at all Aux. That's like saying it's a "sad commentary on Monopoly" that it isn't Trivial Pursuit.

The game is what it is. There are game systems that provide the sort of gritty feel Rocketman seems to want.

Or he is welcome to house rule the holy bejeebers out of Pathfinder to twist it into something like what he wants, but I sincerely doubt he can do so and still maintain any real semblance of the game's feel or balance.

Pathfinder is what it is. Wishing it was something else doesn't make it so.

[Chengar Qordath]

Auxmaulous wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

LOL, Rocketman, I'm sorry Pathfinder isn't the game you actually want to play.

A sad commentary on the system.

No game system can be all things to all people.

Pathfinder has a certain style of gameplay in mind. The rules can be tweaked a bit to accommodate other styles, but you can only change so much before you're not playing Pathfinder anymore.

To break out an analogy, one can certainly tweak the rules of basketball. However, if you're constantly upset that basketball doesn't include rules for using a baseball bat ... maybe you're playing the wrong sport.

[Adamantine Dragon]

Rocketman1969 wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

LOL, Rocketman, I'm sorry Pathfinder isn't the game you actually want to play.

I'll try this again. Yes you are right. I don't want to play pathfinder the way it is. But there are some very cool things about it.

So I'll just house rules the heck out of it and go forth happy that i have.

Rocket, just an historical anecdote for you...

Back around 1982 or so I got tired of some of the utter silliness of AD&D. I loved the game, but felt that the class and race systems, in particular, and the magic system, in general, just couldn't give me the feel I wanted.

So I wrote my own RPG ruleset for our group. We played it for quite a while, a couple of years I think.

But then some of them moved away, got married or just had other life things take precedence and I had to find new players.

It turned out that most of the people who I could find wanted to play D&D because that's what they knew.

So eventually I abandoned my custom RPG and accepted the fact that I would likely need to play a popular, well-known system if I wanted to be able to maintain an active gaming group over time.

I frankly share most of your frustrations with the game. I just have grown to accept that I'm more likely to be able to play the game smoothly and without arguments if I play a game that lots of people are familiar with and don't try to redefine it for them just because of my own preferences.

Overall I've been happier that way. And had less work to do too. :)

[Rocketman1969]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Auxmaulous wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

LOL, Rocketman, I'm sorry Pathfinder isn't the game you actually want to play.

A sad commentary on the system.

Not at all Aux. That's like saying it's a "sad commentary on Monopoly" that it isn't Trivial Pursuit.

The game is what it is. There are game systems that provide the sort of gritty feel Rocketman seems to want.

Or he is welcome to house rule the holy bejeebers out of Pathfinder to twist it into something like what he wants, but I sincerely doubt he can do so and still maintain any real semblance of the game's feel or balance.

Pathfinder is what it is. Wishing it was something else doesn't make it so.

With respect--I can take down, dismantle, run probabilities, house rule on the fly on any system ever built. I can build a game from scratch with a couple of coins a pencil and a sheet of paper in half an hour and make it compelling. I can and have pulled entire adventure arcs out of my pocket and run them for years. I have run stone age, viking, space and crime campaigns; pulp, low , high and no magic fantasy. Had players as roman legionaries and reincarnated greek heroes fighting black magic in city streets, superheroes and supernatural agents fighting things that bump in the night. James bond and star wars, Firefly and buffy. Cthulu and Dark Heresy. Traveler and Aftermath.

At present I have ten people who have played for 25 years each on average ,who wouldn't touch a d20 game with a ten foot pole --engaged because of the balanced rule changes I have implemented in this imbalanced system. This group includes two engineers, a VP of marketing research, a labour-relations lawyer, two stunt-men, an actual jousting knight/ actor, a senior civil servant, an animator and the head of a hospital ER.

Yes--gritty is my choice--because of the books I have read that have and continue to inspire me--but also because control over the wilder aspects of this game allow the actual rewards to matter on a smaller scale. Adamantine Dragon does not concern me admiral.

Aaaand now i feel like a jerk because of your gracious response previous to this.

[Adamantine Dragon]

Rocketman1969 wrote:

Aaaand now i feel like a jerk because of your gracious response previous to this.

LOL, no jerkiness observed here Rocketman. I feel your pain. I really do. I'm just trying to explain why it's so hard to run a PF game the way you prefer.

[Atarlost]

@Rocketman

Um, if you GM for a large, established group that doesn't like d20 exactly why are you posting on the Pathfinder boards?

We think you want a different game. You think you want a different game. Your players want a different game. You actually play a different game. Why are you complaining that Pathfinder doesn't do what you want when you have already done all the work of homebrewing a working game system that does everything you want and bringing together a group that wants to play it?

It's like someone from the go club showing up at the chess club and complaining that chess is not go. It's not going to accomplish anything but creating hard feelings.

[Ashiel]

Rocketman1969 wrote:

That it makes and ass out of u and ming? What? Wyvern? You have some funny points in the midst of your nauseating pomposity Ashiel. Tell me again about taking a 10? That never gets old.

It's what happens when a d20 goes surfing! Also, the Rage Power internal fortitude does wonders for nausea! And leave Ming out of this. Ming is a good friend of mine, and yes, Ming is an ass sometimes, but that's entirely normal for an Imp! :P

My point is that you're not really playing this game after a certain point. The stuff you're describing is basically alien to the system and instead of learning you're rejecting and closing your hands around your ears. I've heard this sort of stuff so many times and remember when I used to make these mistakes. It's like the people who expect the world to function like 9th century Europe or something. The ones who think that forming into armies of giant X by Y clusters of troops is somehow a good idea in a world with fireball and giant magical creatures breathing hotter-than-magma flames in 60 ft. cones from the sky. Refusing to step back and refocus just means you end up achieving nothing.

This is basically what the 3.x DMG specifically said not to do if you wanted a believable fantasy world. You'll have to house rule a ton of stuff and simply strait out remove it from the game to get the game that you have been describing. That includes stripping most spellcasters from the game, stripping adamantine weapons, stripping magic items like rings of sustenance, bags of holding, handy haversacks, decanters of endless water, ring gates, portable holes, winged boots, horseshoes of the zypher, flying creatures/races, most anything resembling an outsider post CR 7, etc. All of these things are things that would simply shatter the perception of the world you paint.

Things like starvation, thirst, heat dangers, and so forth are very real things. But they are things that matter more on the macro than the micro scale. For example, in my campaign there is a massive city in the heart of a very unforgiving desert. The city functions because of magic. Agriculture is possible because of things like conjured water and a labor force that is both cheap and tireless. This city has many enemies beyond its borders who hate it for religious reasons. However the city thrives because while it's not that hard for a small group of individuals with plenty of money and/or magic to traverse the giant scorpion infested desert, marching an army across the desert to reach the city is a fool's errand (because it's pretty hard to have enough endure elements and stuff for the whole army) and you don't want to arrive at the gates of the city ready for their fresh troops to rip you apart.

It's not the fault of a system because a character can fly. It is however the fault of the GM if that breaks his or her game because he or she refuses to acknowledge what exists and would be reasonably expected to be possessed by NPCs. I mentioned it before. A single oil of magic weapon lasts 1 full minute (10 rounds) and costs 50 gp. The average 1st level NPC has 260 gp worth of equipment on them. 1st level potions and oils are not even an oddity. So it's not a surprise when you find archers who carry an oil in the off chance they encounter some uppity wizard with protection from arrows. If you insist on using only the mundane in a game where by its very name is full of the magical (it's dungeons and DRAGONS) then it is not the game's fault.

[Lemmy]

Ashiel wrote:

(it's dungeons and DRAGONS)

Well, technically, it isn't. Although there is a spell named "Find The Path", and at least one Pathfinder something class who has magical abilities, so I guess it still counts as "its very name is full of the magical"

^^

[Ashiel]

Lemmy wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

(it's dungeons and DRAGONS)

Well, technically, it isn't. Although there is a spell named "Find The Path", and at least one Pathfinder something class who has magical abilities, so I guess it still counts as "its very name is full of the magical"

^^

That's fair. Though I'd like to point out that the cover of the core rulebook features a giant dragon fighting Seoni and Valeros. :P

And THIS. :P

A dungeon by any other name still has its dragons. ;)

[Rocketman1969]

I agree. Look let's just say that I've bought the books for parts and I use them because no other game is supported as well as this game is.

The maps and movement are fine. The bestiary has some nice inclusions. the basic fundamentals are fine. Love the pawns and some of the adventure paths are adaptable.

But I agree I'm not playing pathfinder.

And part of the reason I'm posting here is to try and deal with a good friend who is a problem player. he is D&D born and raised and everything--is traceable to some of these rules sets. Trying to keep one player satisfied to the exclusion of all others has been a huge problem. He is a smart power gamer playing a wizard. Or he was... not so much a problem anymore. But i thought I'd come and look into some discussions to see if anyone else had a similar concern. And they do. And it was nice to talk to some gamers outside of my group again to discuss the point and philosophy of the game.

[Ashiel]

Rocketman1969 wrote:

I agree. Look let's just say that I've bought the books for parts and I use them because no other game is supported as well as this game is.

The maps and movement are fine. The bestiary has some nice inclusions. the basic fundamentals are fine. Love the pawns and some of the adventure paths are adaptable.

But I agree I'm not playing pathfinder.

And part of the reason I'm posting here is to try and deal with a good friend who is a problem player. he is D&D born and raised and everything--is traceable to some of these rules sets. Trying to keep one player satisfied to the exclusion of all others has been a huge problem. He is a smart power gamer playing a wizard. Or he was... not so much a problem anymore. But i thought I'd come and look into some discussions to see if anyone else had a similar concern. And they do. And it was nice to talk to some gamers outside of my group again to discuss the point and philosophy of the game.

You'd probably have a lot more success if instead of arguing about the game we're playing you let us know that you're playing a game that is drastically different than Pathfinder/D&D and shares almost no real similarities with it in terms of verisimilitude, capabilities, and/or expectations. Then we'd probably communicate better and converse in a way that was more acceptable to us all. It's kind of like going to a dog trainer and complaining that you're dog is not acting like you want it to, then the dog trainer comes to find that you're a cat owner.

It also confounds me that you got so upset when I said that if fly was breaking a GM's game they probably needed to back to GM school since the game already has so many different ways to deal with fly without even trying to counter it specifically (no meta-gaming necessary I mean). I mean, why would you get bent out of shape when I said fly shouldn't cause a problem or need banning in a D&D/Pathfinder game if you're not playing those games?

Why come an argue about magic items and talk like NPCs shouldn't have magic items like potions and oils in a world with giant flying lightning breathing sand lizards, wizards summoning dinosaurs, and druids turning into gargantuan octopuses, like having a potion is somehow something weird.

I dunno. I'm just dumbfounded. It's like walking into a mosque and asking how much do they'd charge to rent the place for your son's bar mitzvah. It seems nonsensical and like asking for trouble.

[Rocketman1969]

Ashiel wrote:

Rocketman1969 wrote:

I agree. Look let's just say that I've bought the books for parts and I use them because no other game is supported as well as this game is.

The maps and movement are fine. The bestiary has some nice inclusions. the basic fundamentals are fine. Love the pawns and some of the adventure paths are adaptable.

But I agree I'm not playing pathfinder.

And part of the reason I'm posting here is to try and deal with a good friend who is a problem player. he is D&D born and raised and everything--is traceable to some of these rules sets. Trying to keep one player satisfied to the exclusion of all others has been a huge problem. He is a smart power gamer playing a wizard. Or he was... not so much a problem anymore. But i thought I'd come and look into some discussions to see if anyone else had a similar concern. And they do. And it was nice to talk to some gamers outside of my group again to discuss the point and philosophy of the game.

You'd probably have a lot more success if instead of arguing about the game we're playing you let us know that you're playing a game that is drastically different than Pathfinder/D&D and shares almost no real similarities with it in terms of verisimilitude, capabilities, and/or expectations. Then we'd probably communicate better and converse in a way that was more acceptable to us all. It's kind of like going to a dog trainer and complaining that you're dog is not acting like you want it to, then the dog trainer comes to find that you're a cat owner.

It also confounds me that you got so upset when I said that if fly was breaking a GM's game they probably needed to back to GM school since the game already has so many different ways to deal with fly without even trying to counter it specifically (no meta-gaming necessary I mean). I mean, why would you get bent out of shape when I said fly shouldn't cause a problem or need banning in a D&D/Pathfinder game if you're not playing those games?

Why come an argue about magic items...

I didn't know I needed to have a reason to take part in a discussion.And when i did get into it I was too long winded and dismissed pretty much immediately. Its the internet.

I'm not incredibly upset--I guess I was gauging the full rule set and how it doesn't work for so many people i play with--so perhaps there were some solutions__I've actually got some really good resources out of the discussion so no harm no foul. The level limiting mods are quite good. some of the house rules I've read have given me ample room to think. As for the power gamer--by vote and his choice he is no longer part of the game.

But still--it is so nice not to have to do everything from scratch--especially--and I stress this--the 2d movement which cannot be beat for running a campaign. The pawns and Paizo maps are a dream. So many disruptions based on where someone was and where everything else is is fantastic. And the other thing is the level aspect--it makes it easier to scale threats and to control the min-maxers in more open ended systems.

I guess I just like the slow build.

In any case--it has been nice and more of a pleasure than not to meet you all.

[TriOmegaZero]

We are a rambunctious bunch, but not ALL bad. :)

[Ashiel]

Quote:

In any case--it has been nice and more of a pleasure than not to meet you all.

Ditto sir. I'm just sorry it took us this long to realize what the other was even talking about. :P

I like talking about settings, verisimilitude, etc. It's actually one of the things I talk about the most on my blog. If you're going for a certain feel and looking to house rule your campaign, I'd be more than happy to note some places or things in the system that would need addressing based on those changes.

For example, if real-life castles are something you want to make sense in your world then you need to get rid of most flying creatures (including giant eagles, owls, and other things like that). Same with burrowing creatures (creatures like ankhegs, giant badgers, and so forth can just be trained to sap a castle in short order unless the lower levels are re-enforced with underground chambers or at least a layer of stone slabs beneath everything else). If you don't want magic to be available then you'll need to remove or drastically reduce the amount of magic found in character classes. Maybe give casters Adept casting instead (in a world with no real magic, Adepts are freaking amazing). You'll likely want to remove many of the magical creatures in the game as well. Dragons invalidate most real life things, and even minor fiends would be world threatening powers. A succubus or erinyes could lay waste to an entire country if we're basing the world off reality or "gritty".

[Lamontius]

introducing anyone to this forum with this thread is like that scene in Fifth Element where Leelu discovers the definition of war while trying to find out what it is to be human

[Ashiel]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

We are a rambunctious bunch, but not ALL bad. :)

I'm probably Lawful Neutral. I'm like Lawful Good when it comes to my players and stuff, but when it comes to making encounters and obstacles it's like I'm suddenly possessed by an Erinyes! :P

[Adamantine Dragon]

Lamontius, man, you must not frequent some of the other threads on these boards. This last part of this thread has been downright cordial.

In fact did Ross even once post a "Don't make me come back there!" warning?

[TriOmegaZero]

What's he gonna do, turn the thread around? :P

[Lamontius]

no see I am not falling for this thread being in a temporary moment where you all are like why did we ever fight, we are all bros and broettes and we can just hug it out

because then someone just like blinks or coughs and the cough sounds like "PALADINGROMPHHURMPH" and then it is just on again in a second

[Ashiel]

Lamontius wrote:

no see I am not falling for this thread being in a temporary moment where you all are like why did we ever fight, we are all bros and broettes and we can just hug it out

because then someone just like blinks or coughs and the cough sounds like "PALADINGROMPHHURMPH" and then it is just on again in a second

Hahaha. Well Lemmy has convinced me to not post in Paladin threads for a while, so you won't have to worry about seeing me posting in them I don't think.

[Piccolo]

Auxmaulous wrote:

So get the notion out of your head that resource management exists solely f-up players, it isn't. For some groups resource management is part of immersion process and immersion is getting the player in to the PCs situation by placing him whereh is PC is at, which in my experience leads to greater play enjoyment. Some groups can't be bothered with it, PFRPG is accommodating in that way, but it is a break from previous...

Disagree. Resource management does not do a damn thing to immerse anyone in any environment.

You want your players to be emotionally involved in their characters? Try having NPC's that matter to them.

[Lemmy]

Lamontius wrote:

introducing anyone to this forum with this thread is like that scene in Fifth Element where Leelu discovers the definition of war while trying to find out what it is to be human

Hey, except for a few moments here and there, this thread has behaved quite nicely.

Besides, this threads starts with Pathfinder and Street Figher! That alone makes it awesome!

And I find the OP rather handome too...

[Adamantine Dragon]

Man, you guys are so lucky that I don't play paladins...

[TriOmegaZero]

But I do!

[Auxmaulous]

Piccolo wrote:

Disagree. Resource management does not do a damn thing to immerse anyone in any environment.

You want your players to be emotionally involved in their characters? Try having NPC's that matter to them.

You need to take your head out of the internet and realize that I didn't say that is the "only thing that helps with immersion is resource management".

Also, you lie - all my players appreciate resource management as an aspect of immersion, so right there you are making a flat false (and worthless) assumption.

Let me clarify and expand a little more on how you lie - in the many Post Apocalypse games I have ran over the years, resource management has always been an issue, at all levels of play. Their lack of bullets or cells to use a weapon determines their course of action - if they are not careful about how they manage the ammo for critical weapon systems their whole plans are thrown a curve. Same goes with equipment, medical supplies and mundane non-artifact gear. Same thing goes for food and water, or traveling through dangerous ruins, deathlands, radiation, etc.

So resource management does do a damn thing for immersion - it puts the players into the situation since it ups the awareness aspects of the game. Thanks for trying to set me straight though.