yes possibly :P but the reason I don't like that everyone has spells is because I feel it cheapens magic it makes magic mundane rather than magical and the idea of limiting resources to a daily amount is just silly in my head nor am I fund of the encounter resource as a limiter, I feel all such are rather artificial.
Obviously I dislike the way spellcasting is done in pathfinder as well, but that hardly is a unique thing or something the majority can't understand (even if they might disagree).
I dont like the spellcasting system either but I think in world where magic can be learned, only the stupidist people would not know some form of magic, even commoners would eventually learn a couple of cantrips, farmers would have a couple spelks that get passed down the family, I mean seriously, just look at technology today, even third world countries have significant knowledge of tech, why wouldnt a fantasy world have widespread magic use?
The only answers to the above question are when the ability to use magic comes from birth (the ability, not the right) or if magic just recently came into the world.
All this talk of soldiers who go straight fighter to fight armies backed by magic and spells is insane, no general is field going to field an army that hasnt even tried to gain every possible advantage and if magic is learnable, you can bet your plot that general is having her soldiers learn combat magic right along with swordplay and likely even has them learning to resist enchantments and spot illusions. There is just no good reason not to do so.
And well that is my pet peeve.
The assumption you make here that everyone can potentially learn magic and would learn some making magic comparable to technology makes me cringe i is the absolutely worst part of the pathfinder system. I believe that magic at the end of the day should be magical, should be something strange and different not easily quantified controlled or comprehended magic should be that which breaks all the rules that normal people play by and not 1d4+1 damage.
Limited Daily resources < this
And the one daily resource limitation that I hate, and is so over used? Hours
Yeah. Hours, OMG why does every single campaign limit the characters to only 24. This is so unimaginative. I just hate it.
That's why my next campaign setting will have 267 hours in every day for the first three days, and then the fourth day will have 9000 hours.
So... a planet with multple suns?
My world is 31 hours- 16 hours of fairly safe daylight and 15 hours of poison fest monsters- it also means they go at least 11 hours without buff spells a day... ;)
OTOH; Human beings (and fantasy contemporaries) need 8 hours of rest every 16 hours in order to not suffer fatigue- casters and even other players are very likely to argue this.
So...*scratches head*...what would be your ideal PF? Only wizards get spells, and those spells are all at-will?never said I knew what would be ideal for PF but the systems Mr Sin mentioned are certainly a step in the right direction.
Fair enough, though only the 3.5 warlock (and presumably the PF invoker) have at-will-only magic. Power points (used by psionic classes) are a daily resource, and vestiges (used by binders) always have encounter abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since this was apparently rather controversial in another thread...
Modulo cheap and easy access to resurrection, I think that PCs dying to random encounters, traps, and other narratively inconsequential things makes the game less fun and pushes players towards being less invested in their characters and in the campaign. Additionally, if the player spent a long time making the character, developing the backstory, and connecting the character to the world, the campaign, and the other PCs, then by randomly killing off their PC you're making them throw away all that work for nothing.
Yeah, I'm always surprised when a DM expects me to put a lot of thought into my PC and to care about him/her, and at the same time insists on things like "Let the dice fall where they may!" and "All real PCs start at level 1!"
'Cause unless we're playing 4e, those things are mighty hard to do all at the same time. And even in 4e, sometimes the dice just don't go my way...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough, though only the 3.5 warlock (and presumably the PF invoker) have at-will-only magic. Power points (used by psionic classes) are a daily resource, and vestiges (used by binders) always have encounter abilities.So...*scratches head*...what would be your ideal PF? Only wizards get spells, and those spells are all at-will?never said I knew what would be ideal for PF but the systems Mr Sin mentioned are certainly a step in the right direction.
I said a step in the right direction not that it was the solution.
Since this was apparently rather controversial in another thread...
Modulo cheap and easy access to resurrection, I think that PCs dying to random encounters, traps, and other narratively inconsequential things makes the game less fun and pushes players towards being less invested in their characters and in the campaign. Additionally, if the player spent a long time making the character, developing the backstory, and connecting the character to the world, the campaign, and the other PCs, then by randomly killing off their PC you're making them throw away all that work for nothing.
Yeah, I'm always surprised when a DM expects me to put a lot of thought into my PC and to care about him/her, and at the same time insists on things like "Let the dice fall where they may!" and "All real PCs start at level 1!"
'Cause unless we're playing 4e, those things are mighty hard to do all at the same time. And even in 4e, sometimes the dice just don't go my way...
I wonder what a GM would say if their setting might die just as easily and then the players go "Let the dice fall where they may! Remember REAL settings start at level 1". Personally I think as a GM I would start screaming and throw a tantrum if my "setting" was destroyed hehe.
Seriously though players should be treated as the main characters in a story, they can die randomly but it should never be without rhyme or reason.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like starting at level 1, and I think vancian magic is awful, but better than everything else that had been tried.
I'm not a real big fan of Lovecraft and the associated horrors.
...I think vancian magic is awful, but better than everything else that had been tried.
I am confused all over again. Don't get me wrong; I see why many gamers don't like vancian casting. And I can see why someone might say that vancian is the best kind of magic that D&D has tried.
But if someone who had never played D&D before told me both of those things, I'd tell him "Do not play D&D, because you'll hate it!"
So...why are you playing D&D again? ;)
I'm not a real big fan of Lovecraft and the associated horrors.
All the hype really let me down once I finally read some of his stuff.
"Hello, Emergency 911 operator"
"Yes, I'd like to report a fire."
"What is the nature of the fire?"
"A guy on these message boards just got Burned."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love Vancian Magic more than Jack Vance did!
So...why are you playing D&D again? ;)He's not, he's playing Pathfinder. :)
*Face plant*
This is why I want this forum to have sig space; so that we all know that when TS types 'D&D' he means 'all editions, clones, and spin-offs.'
Because the difference between PF and D&D is often semantic in the context of these discussions, and the extra wordiness required to be politically correct is a nuisance. :P
Is PF a clone, a spin-off or an edition? You know, semantics matter!
They keep a poster up at one of the local stores here(that they've never bothered to take down) that advertises pathfinder as 3.75.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to run a campaign set in an endless forest world, populated only by anthropomorphic animal races. No humans or human derivative races. Animal head or GTFO.
I want to run a campaign that is only humans and near humans, all the other races either don't exist or are extinct.
Pathfinder is pathfinder. Calling it anything else is an insult. It's like calling a guy an orangutan, and when he complains you say "meh, close enough".
Well, if you were visiting from off-world, it could be close enough... :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is pathfinder. Calling it anything else is an insult.
Is it an insult to call it a large collection of house rules and modifications to D&D 3.5?
It seems really silly to pretend that Pathfinder isn't in the D&D family of roleplaying games, even if it doesn't go by that name.
Pathfinder is pathfinder. Calling it anything else is an insult.Is it an insult to call it a large collection of house rules and modifications to D&D 3.5?
It seems really silly to pretend that Pathfinder isn't in the D&D family of roleplaying games, even if it doesn't go by that name.
I think it's more a matter of people wanting to show support to Paizo and Pathfinder by helping to enforce their own brand recognition. Pathfinder has certainly grown enough by now to warrant being seen as it's own product line and not just a derivative when only one out of a huge line of books is directly derived from another product.
It's also a respect issue. We're guests on Paizo's boards, so displaying respect to them and the products they produce is a good thing.
There may be people who feel especially strongly about it, but to talk about the reasons for that would likely trigger edition warring. If everyone just says "Pathfinder" it's likely to trigger less of a reaction ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think saying Pathfinder is to D&D what an orangutan is to a Human is ridiculous. It's more like Pathfinder is to D&D what modern Humans are to Neanderthals.
Both are related, one just came later and improves upon the former. They can also interbreed (backwards compatible).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both are related, one just came later and improves upon the former.Changes, not improves.
Some things changed, some things improved. Over-all, I'd say Pathfinder is an improvement over 3.5 or 3E.
Some things changed, some things improved. Over-all, I'd say Pathfinder is an improvement over 3.5 or 3E.Both are related, one just came later and improves upon the former.Changes, not improves.
I'd express my opinion but I'll surely be shunned by someone here.
Btw, totally shunning you for saying that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some things changed, some things improved. Over-all, I'd say Pathfinder is an improvement over 3.5 or 3E.
I mostly agree, especially if we look at the raw mechanics rather than their implementation in the form of classes, spells, feat, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to run a campaign set in an endless forest world, populated only by anthropomorphic animal races. No humans or human derivative races. Animal head or GTFO.
I want to run a campaign that is only humans and near humans, all the other races either don't exist or are extinct.
With you there, bro.
THIRD EARTH FTW!!!!
...snipped..
On topic: I think the majority of people are too in a rush to be offended, too eager to find insults, and to play the victim card. Even when they're not the ones being addressed.
I agree and feel that it applies to far too many people even beyond internet. +infinity cubed.
Note I agree with the rest of the above post as well but dont feel as strongly as I do for that last sentence.
The assumption you make here that everyone can potentially learn magic and would learn some making magic comparable to technology makes me cringe i is the absolutely worst part of the pathfinder system. I believe that magic at the end of the day should be magical, should be something strange and different not easily quantified controlled or comprehended magic...yes possibly :P but the reason I don't like that everyone has spells is because I feel it cheapens magic it makes magic mundane rather than magical and the idea of limiting resources to a daily amount is just silly in my head nor am I fund of the encounter resource as a limiter, I feel all such are rather artificial.
Obviously I dislike the way spellcasting is done in pathfinder as well, but that hardly is a unique thing or something the majority can't understand (even if they might disagree).
I dont like the spellcasting system either but I think in world where magic can be learned, only the stupidist people would not know some form of magic, even commoners would eventually learn a couple of cantrips, farmers would have a couple spelks that get passed down the family, I mean seriously, just look at technology today, even third world countries have significant knowledge of tech, why wouldnt a fantasy world have widespread magic use?
The only answers to the above question are when the ability to use magic comes from birth (the ability, not the right) or if magic just recently came into the world.
All this talk of soldiers who go straight fighter to fight armies backed by magic and spells is insane, no general is field going to field an army that hasnt even tried to gain every possible advantage and if magic is learnable, you can bet your plot that general is having her soldiers learn combat magic right along with swordplay and likely even has them learning to resist enchantments and spot illusions. There is just no good reason not to do so.
And well that is my pet peeve.
I can respect that when the world setting has an actual reason for magic to be rare instead of describing a world then making claims about that world that make no sense within the world itself.
Part of the issue with dnd/pf is that each element of the system was designed with very different basic assumtions about the world.
Want me to play rare magic? Give a world with a reason for magic to be rare.
If you give me a world with no reason for magic to be rare, then expect me to treat it like it's common.
I rather dislike people saying it should be rare without there being any reason to be rare. I dont actually have any problem with how much magic a setting might have as long as there is some in world reason to back it up.
*Note, none of that is directed at anybody in particular. It just my view on the topic.
actually personally I feel a need to be given a really really good reason for magic to be common and I never felt I got that from pathfinder. Each to their own I guess.
Including alternate classes and NPC classes, there are 27 classes in Pathfinder. Of those 27 classes, 15 of them have spell casting. That would imply spell-casting is a lot more common than people think. There is also a ridiculously large amount of creatures with spell-like abilities, far too many for me to care about counting.
Spell casting is EXTREMELY common in Pathfinder.
Granted, NPCs are assumed to be mostly commoners and experts, but, when you stop and look at things like the PFS modules, or Adventure Paths or even the NPC Codex, PC classes, and spell-casting classes by extension, are more common than suggested.
Golarion is even stated to be a High-Magic setting. With things like magical flying cities, empires of magical runelords, Psuedo-Egypt ruled by Magical immortals, Magical Cyclopian Empires, magical dragon empires, a continent spanning ancient magical empire wiped out by underwater dwelling magical mythos horrors using magic to summon a magical comet to destroy the magical humans that was prevented by the then god of magic....
Magic is as common in Golarion as Electricity is in the modern world.
Magic is as common in Golarion as Electricity is in the modern world.
The % chance of finding a given magic item for sale in a city would also back that statement up, I feel.
|
|
I love worlds where magic is as common and ubiquitous there as technology is here.
Let's face it: magic in our game is not unpredictable or mysterious. It is common, predictable and reproducible. Just like technology.
In that circumstance it's hard to believe that magic would not become analogous to our technology. There would be magical equivalents of televisions, telephones, teleporters, aircraft, etc.
I once DMed a second ed campaign on this basis. The hero was trained to be a wizard, basically a magical repairman. But he hated such a boring and mundane profession and secured a place in the King's Own Wanderers, an analogue of the Musketeers; swashbucklers who fought with rapier and a hollow parrying baton that contained a wand of, well, whatever they could use. The hero became a dual classed wizard/fighter.
The world had a magical equivalent of our telegraph stations: low level wizards using crystal balls in a country-wide network.
I love worlds where magic is as common and ubiquitous there as technology is here.
Let's face it: magic in our game is not unpredictable or mysterious. It is common, predictable and reproducible. Just like technology.
In that circumstance it's hard to believe that magic would not become analogous to our technology. There would be magical equivalents of televisions, telephones, teleporters, aircraft, etc.
Glantri in BECMI D&D's Mystara setting was a great example of that, with fire elementals used to heat boilers, black puddings as garbage disposal units, etc. :)
actually personally I feel a need to be given a really really good reason for magic to be common and I never felt I got that from pathfinder. Each to their own I guess.
There is always the fact that spells can he learned by anyone who is smart enough and the average person is smart enough for at least simple and basic spells. Such spells are beneficial and everyone will try to learn and obtain what will make their lives easier (except a very few small religious groups like the amish)
I dont see how that isnt a good reason for magic to be common, then those other posts preceding this one have good points from the metagame side.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I pronounce the W in drow. I won't say "droe." I don't care if it's wrong. I'm too old to change. (I'm not really that old, but still not changing.)
I thought the "w" was suppossed to be pronounced.
Both Dr-oh (as in low, sow, hoe, row) and Dr-ow (as in how now brown cow) are correct pronunciations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is pathfinder. Calling it anything else is an insult. It's like calling a guy an orangutan, and when he complains you say "meh, close enough".
It's a collection of third-party house rules for 3.5e. That's all.
It's not some glorious second coming of the mighty dice gods, it's a revamped version of an already existing game. Deal.
This will be the first time ever that I've heard even the possibility of it being pronounced to rhyme with Bro.
actually personally I feel a need to be given a really really good reason for magic to be common and I never felt I got that from pathfinder. Each to their own I guess.There is always the fact that spells can he learned by anyone who is smart enough and the average person is smart enough for at least simple and basic spells. Such spells are beneficial and everyone will try to learn and obtain what will make their lives easier (except a very few small religious groups like the amish)
I dont see how that isnt a good reason for magic to be common, then those other posts preceding this one have good points from the metagame side.
How should I put it, the mechanics says that magic is available in large quantities to the player characters etc, in fact the whole thing is balanced around the point, but that is just it those are the mechanics not the flavor. I can even accept that some low level magical items like potions of CLW and the like is relatively easy to get a hold of, that being said the PC classes do belong to the 1% of the population, not everyone, adapt sorta allows commoners access (with training and at the very least average and really higher than average is needed making it the least accessible "average person" class. Admittedly that is still mechanically.
Personally I would expect from a man in the street for magic to be uncommon, not something super strange but still something to raise an eyebrow and that the more powerful magic (4+) would be a pretty darn rare sight.
Anyway there is more things that make me think my way, but I believe we will have to disagree or you could shun me :p
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Confession: If a thread is over 150 posts, I don't even try to keep up. I just assume people are bickering mindlessly, browse the last five posts, and speak up if there's anything even remotely interesting mentioned in them.
I pronounce it the way they speak it in Skylanders, Stealth Elf FTW!
|
It's a collection of third-party house rules for 3.5e. That's all.It's not some glorious second coming of the mighty dice gods, it's a revamped version of an already existing game. Deal.
Agreed and seconded. While later products imo make it a little different it's 3.5 with a few houserules. The only thing that really stood out to me as different was the CMB/CMD mechanic. Everything else is just the Paizo devs taking a existing product and adding a few minor houserules.
This will be the first time ever that I've heard even the possibility of it being pronounced to rhyme with Bro.
While I have heard of drow being pronounced to rhyme with cow I have always heard it pronounced to rhyme with though.
We must now shun each other Vincent.
I wonder how the archaic/ancient/mythological word trow, that drow was taken from by Gary Gygax, was pronounced.
...The assumption you make here that everyone can potentially learn magic and would learn some making magic comparable to technology makes me cringe i is the absolutely worst part of the pathfinder system. I believe that magic at the end of the day should be magical, should be something strange and different not easily quantified controlledyes possibly :P but the reason I don't like that everyone has spells is because I feel it cheapens magic it makes magic mundane rather than magical and the idea of limiting resources to a daily amount is just silly in my head nor am I fund of the encounter resource as a limiter, I feel all such are rather artificial.
Obviously I dislike the way spellcasting is done in pathfinder as well, but that hardly is a unique thing or something the majority can't understand (even if they might disagree).
I dont like the spellcasting system either but I think in world where magic can be learned, only the stupidist people would not know some form of magic, even commoners would eventually learn a couple of cantrips, farmers would have a couple spelks that get passed down the family, I mean seriously, just look at technology today, even third world countries have significant knowledge of tech, why wouldnt a fantasy world have widespread magic use?
The only answers to the above question are when the ability to use magic comes from birth (the ability, not the right) or if magic just recently came into the world.
All this talk of soldiers who go straight fighter to fight armies backed by magic and spells is insane, no general is field going to field an army that hasnt even tried to gain every possible advantage and if magic is learnable, you can bet your plot that general is having her soldiers learn combat magic right along with swordplay and likely even has them learning to resist enchantments and spot illusions. There is just no good reason not to do so.
And well that is my pet peeve.
why such extremes? Why not rare or just unusual? Remember, people have to be able to survive without magic too- darksword rpg ftw!!!!!!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed and seconded. While later products imo make it a little different it's 3.5 with a few houserules. The only thing that really stood out to me as different was the CMB/CMD mechanic. Everything else is just the Paizo devs taking a existing product and adding a few minor houserules.
It's a collection of third-party house rules for 3.5e. That's all.It's not some glorious second coming of the mighty dice gods, it's a revamped version of an already existing game. Deal.
Exactly. Whether it's good or bad is all entirely subjective, so I'm not ragging on the system here, just calling a spade a spade.
It just bugs me when people on the boards go completely gaga over Pathfinder likes it's some unique thing. It's not. It's a rules update to system that's been around since 2000, with some new splatbooks.
...snipped..
On topic: I think the majority of people are too in a rush to be offended, too eager to find insults, and to play the victim card. Even when they're not the ones being addressed.I agree and feel that it applies to far too many people even beyond internet. +infinity cubed.
Note I agree with the rest of the above post as well but dont feel as strongly as I do for that last sentence.
the death of civility leads to the death of compassion, and vice versa. It's an ugly dichotomy.