i like how modular savage worlds is, but a few bones i have to pick with the system
the 3 wounds rule, take 3 wounds, you die. there is no way to increase your maximum number of wounds, maybe it could work with Max=Wounds equal to Max of your Vitality die instead. but it would just make Vitality an even more important combat stat.
the initiative system, i understand jokers help compensate for the lack of bennies, but please, combat slows to a crawl when you deal initiative from a deck of cards
lack of static bonuses, short of ranged weapons, armor penetration, and consumables, static bonuses were difficult to get
the fact that, you can not retry something in a matter of in game hours, fail to pick a lock, you cannot try that lock a second time 6 hours later, you have to spend a Benny now.
the fact that melee is not a viable combat style, and that any smart character, wildcard or not, would be a ranged combat specialist whom uses a non-power point based form of ranged combat, even the shortbow, weakest ranged weapon in the game, is better than most melee weapons.
the fact you have an arbitrary limited on how many hindrances you can take, and that there is no point in additional hindrances because there is no benefit.
the fact you do not start with enough advances to really feel like you are fulfilling your desired role until late veteran early legendary, because edges are so few, and you just do not start out with enough gold to buy decent equipment.
the fact that humans are the power gamer race, because humans are the only race with no racial hindrances. and you get no benefit for racial hindrances, and you cannot truly buy them off. most of them are based off stereotypes. wanna play that ghoul with a base 1d12 vitality? your race probably has -8 worth of mixed hindrances that cannot be bought off to balance those 4 attribute points.
I agree on the complexity of the game is a bit more than needed... but???
My group will walk into just about any encounter with almost not a care in the world. They fully expect to win and if they do end up seriously injured they furl their eyebrows in confusion. Gone are the old school days of the players arguing about who has to go first, now its a race to the front of the pack to be the one to slay the monsters.
Yeah... I really don't RECOGNIZE the game your playing or the way your group does it...
I've played a sorcerer, a paladin and a rogue... and at no point did I feel 'safe' by running it RAW...
All three games are published adventure paths, so it's not a 'bloody DM' or anything... but I had the rogue die like three times... Twice in a single round of combat. The Paladin was swallowed whole and nearly killed NUMEROUS times before that... and the sorcerer died the last time we played.....
I've seen the monsters in this game do INSANE damage with multiple attacks a round... Tentacles that grapple and squeeze, mold monsters that swallow whole... Monsters can usually hit about at least 10 OVER my AC... even with full plate and shield... Golarion is SCARY...
PCs may have fun powers... but the bad guys get plenty to balance it out...
It's not the "bloody DM", it's the "bloody adventures".
Pathfinder adventures stay firmly in that very narrow category of adventures in which the PCs have to fight one encounter after another, in the order the writers decited, with the outcomes the writers decited, and get precisely the amount of XP the writers calculated.
In adventures like these, the outcome of the whole campaign, adventure, and even encounters is already predetermined to a very high degree. Sometimes you get the choices of "destroy the artifact or take it for yourself" after the last encounter of the AP, but at that point it doesn't matter anymore since the campaign is over anyway. Pretty much all enemies are expected to fight to the death by default, and only occasionally you get the note that they try to flee when under 20%, after which they usually never make an appearance again. You can either win every single encounter, or you die and the campaign is over.
Players subconsciously expect this.
GMs subconsciously expect this.
And probably most writers implicitly assume this.
Because it's easy to write.
But the result lies in the nature of the subject, which is that any time PCs are confronted with a monster or enemy, they will start a fight to the death and since the GM also doesn't want to have the campaign end with a TPK just like that, everyone knows the PCs will win. Maybe one of them might die, but then he's replaced and the adventure will continue as written.
This is what you sign up for with post 2000 adventures, and this is what you pay for. If you want to play a campaign in which the PCs have to be careful, because not every encounter will be a guaranteed victory and might have long term consequences for the way the campaign turns out, then don't use published adventures of this type. And don't try to copy that style with custom adventures either.
To get players to make plans that are bigger than "how do we get to the other side of this room?" and to consider which fights to pick and when to retreat, the adventure has to be open ended. Instead of plotting out where the PCs go in what order and what monsters they will kill in each place, prepare a villian who has troops and strongholds and then play the villains as an opposing team of NPCs to the party of the PCs. When the PCs kill one valuable minion, destroy a base, or expose a secret, assume the position of the villain after the session, and come up with new plans how you can still achive your goal with the troops and bases you have still left.
In the linear published adventures, all the actions of the villains are already predetermined to happen at certain points of the adventure. Which is possible because the writer already knows what the PCs will be doing at every point of the adventure.
And to repeat this once more: When the outcome is already clear, there is no reason to make plans, be careful, investigate, or try to figure out what's going on on your own.
|
I personally hate the old school concept of having to ramp up difficulty just to sate some sort of old dm vs players mentality, thus I prefer players having a modicum of power and durability. That doesn't mean you can't challenge your players in some way though, but I don't see why losing always has to mean the death of a player character. There are often many more interesting injuries to inflict imo.
There are some DMs who are like that. That occurs regardless of game system and is not inherent in older or newer editions of the game. However, scope of player power is also about the type of stories you can tell. Really buff PCs do things like frontal assaults on fixed positions. Really buff and really fun, but more Conan and less Game of Thrones in terms of narrative.
If you want a game where players must think in more real world terms about tactics and threats, it is harder to do that with Pathfinder than with other systems like C&C and even Dungeon Crawl Classics.
I am nor adversarial with my players, but I enjoy telling a story with a different scope and power base. Rise of the Runelords was epic and reflected this much more than the current AP.
As for DnD Next being an option, not for me. I do not trust Hasbro in a caretaker role for the brand or the hobby. I got the compiled rules to date in my VIG package at GenCon. I played the delve. Meh. It's trying to be too many things to too many people in terms of what they are doing with the design. In an attempt to attract many consumers, it sure looks like they will poorly serve all of them.
Well, you cut off the part where I mentioned "post 2000". ;)
While videogames are not at blame, they are certainly a great part of the cause. I started my first contacts with RPGs with Baldur's Gate, which in comparison gives the players a lot of freedom to how you approach fights and chose where to go in what order. Especially when you look at corridor shoters. Then later there were the Elder Scrolls games, which had even much more freedom to go through the world as you want to.
But in the end, there's still only one main story in which you have to fight the predetermined villains in the predetermined locations in the predetermined order. And then pick that letter from their corpse or the chest behind them that tells you where to go next.
Can you give a couple of examples of good pre-2000 published adventures of the sort you prefer?
I noticed very early on that the greatest charm of pen and paper games is, that you can go off the rails and make up things as you go, as the options you can take don't have to be pre-programmed for months, but can be improvised on the fly.
But when you look at the old BECMI and AD&D adventures, which mostly were very open ended and generally had the PCs make descisions about what way to take to progress and what fights to pick, they don't seem to have any story at all. And once you've done such things like investigating conspiracies and hunting villains through the whole country, a simple "there is a dungeon with monsters who have treasure to loot" just doesn't cut it anymore.I really tried, but I really don't see how anyone could ever call Keep on the Borderland or Tomb of Horror "great modules". Against the Giants gets some love from me, because the places are at least inspiring to come up with a story. But generally, you have to come up with any kind of story or just reason yourself, and the modules never really offer any help on how to do that.
I think actually, dungeon maps and encounters are the least important part of a adventure. I usually rework dungeons quite significantly and replace pretty much all creatures and treasures with stuff that is appropriate to the setting and the character level.
What I really want out of an adventure is an antagonist with a background and a plan, and some guidance on what he wants, how he plans to do that, and what resources he has available to do it.
I GM'd Champions for five years, back when it was one of the most complex systems in the world. I tried running a 3.0 game once. Never again. Life is too freaking short to spend an hour making a character that will last for three rounds. And at least Champions was built on a basic chassis that made sense- it was easy to cost out effects. Pathfinder effects are basically pulled out of someone's rear, because there is no parity between cost and effect, you can't judge power levels between classes, EL is a joke, there's weird synchronicies between different abilities... it's a huge mess. I have yet to be in a Pathfinder game where a GM didn't get something massively wrong, and that was just in the areas I knew about.
As for " making the world not encounters", yeah right. How many GMs have 1st level characters encounter adult black dragons? "Well dragons do get their wealth by raiding towns. Now make new characters." I've known only one GM who didn't carefully sculpt the opposition to match the characters, PCs in that game tended to live less than half an hour. Even with the mess that EL is, it's a better guideline than "This monster seems neat, let's see how many seconds the PCs last against it."
LOL!!!
Life is too freaking short to spend an hour making a character that will last for three rounds.
Exactly!
As for " making the world not encounters", yeah right. How many GMs have 1st level characters encounter adult black dragons? "Well dragons do get their wealth by raiding towns. Now make new characters." I've known only one GM who didn't carefully sculpt the opposition to match the characters, PCs in that game tended to live less than half an hour. Even with the mess that EL is, it's a better guideline than "This monster seems neat, let's see how many seconds the PCs last against it."
There's a difference between building the world and building a death trap. A black dragon would not be attacking the level 1 PCs. Of course, if the PCs went after a black dragon at level 1, well, they'd be in trouble, but that's their fault. PCs drive the game, not me.
The GM you're referencing doesn't sound like he's running a sandbox, it sounds like he's running an ego trip.
the 3 wounds rule, take 3 wounds, you die. there is no way to increase your maximum number of wounds, maybe it could work with Max=Wounds equal to Max of your Vitality die instead. but it would just make Vitality an even more important combat stat.
How tough you are matters, though--it determines how hard it is to wound you in the first place. I don't see any reason to increase your wounds--Toughness and soaking works just fine.
the initiative system, i understand jokers help compensate for the lack of bennies, but please, combat slows to a crawl when you deal initiative from a deck of cards
Er, what?! Ok, I'm totally shocked by this. I've literally never encountered an initiative system faster than the cards. I spend less time on initiative in a 10 round Savage Worlds fight (I just have to flip a couple cards every round) than I do waiting for all the PCs to roll a d20, add their bonuses, then write it down and follow the list. Further, the cards are on the table, so everyone can clearly see whose turn is next and plan accordingly--with the die roll, most players don't know who is next unless they also write it down or it's displayed on a white board or something, which takes even more time.
I also find the ever shifting initiative to be so much more exciting and interesting than just cyclical turns.
lack of static bonuses, short of ranged weapons, armor penetration, and consumables, static bonuses were difficult to get
That's, uh, part of the system's math. I don't understand why this is an issue.
the fact that, you can not retry something in a matter of in game hours, fail to pick a lock, you cannot try that lock a second time 6 hours later, you have to spend a Benny now.
Pretty sure your GM made that up. Never saw any rules like that. But then, I do kind of hate pathfinder's rule where you can just pick a lock until you get it with no consequences.
the fact that melee is not a viable combat style, and that any smart character, wildcard or not, would be a ranged combat specialist whom uses a non-power point based form of ranged combat, even the shortbow, weakest ranged weapon in the game, is better than most melee weapons.
I don't know what game you played, but that is far from the truth. Ranged weapons hit easily, but deal a set amount of damage (that is generally very low). You can't buff the damage of a shortbow at all. Meanwhile, your Strength determines the damage of a melee attack, and you can boost that.
the fact you have an arbitrary limited on how many hindrances you can take, and that there is no point in additional hindrances because there is no benefit.
As opposed to, say, Pathfinder, where there's...no hindrances at all?
Hindrances are supposed to be a roleplaying aid, not a way to powergame.
the fact you do not start with enough advances to really feel like you are fulfilling your desired role until late veteran early legendary, because edges are so few, and you just do not start out with enough gold to buy decent equipment.
That's your GM's fault. I never start PCs at Novice level. That's like starting a D&D game at level 1. There's absolutely no reason you have to do that.
the fact that humans are the power gamer race, because humans are the only race with no racial hindrances. and you get no benefit for racial hindrances, and you cannot truly buy them off. most of them are based off stereotypes. wanna play that ghoul with a base 1d12 vitality? your race probably has -8 worth of mixed hindrances that cannot be bought off to balance those 4 attribute points.
Doesn't that contradict with your previous complaint? You wanted to take more hindrances earlier, and now your theoretical race (That I've never heard of) gets 4 more hindrances for 4 more attribute advancements. That's a pretty sweet trade, especially since hindrances are basically just roleplaying aids--a very tiny percentage of them have any real game effect.
I don't know, it's your right to dislike the game, I just find your complaints baffling.
However, scope of player power is also about the type of stories you can tell. Really buff PCs do things like frontal assaults on fixed positions. Really buff and really fun, but more Conan and less Game of Thrones in terms of narrative.
If you want a game where players must think in more real world terms about tactics and threats, it is harder to do that with Pathfinder than with other systems like C&C and even Dungeon Crawl Classics.
Well said, I completely agree.
Without going into a bunch of details that have been outlined in countless other threads the basic theme of Pathfinder is make the characters very powerful and hard to defeat. For some this is great, for others it makes the game lose a lot of the element of danger and fear and even respect of the players. My group will walk into just about any encounter with almost not a care in the world. They fully expect to win and if they do end up seriously injured they furl their eyebrows in confusion. Gone are the old school days of the players arguing about who has to go first, now its a race to the front of the pack to be the one to slay the monsters. Like I said, some like this others miss the fear players used to have in older games.
You're doing it wrong. If you're only using core rules, the PCs shouldn't be too powerful at all.
The problem isn't challenging players, the problem is making the game challenging enough so that it's not boring while not being so challenging that it turns your players off. I learned a long time ago that if you kick your player's asses long enough, they won't like it. They can find other things to do with their time you know?
As a GM running a home campaign, you have the right to ban any rule you don't like, any build, or change anything you feel is broken. There is basically no excuse.
Btw, this is just from the Core Rules, we haven't tried adding Mythic powers. I can't imagine why you would need them.
You didn't even bother to do any research before drawing that conclusion, did you? Sure, the heroes become tougher, but so do the monsters. It's just a different style of game.
And yes, I know you can find ways to challenge them (Please spare me the posts explaining how you do it as I already have my own ways that work)
I thought you said your players were gods and had no fear? Wouldn't being challenged and being seriously injured make them have some fear?
Btw, did you ever consider that maybe your players like the style of game where each and every encounter they aren't in perilous danger? Maybe they created broken PCs so that they could counter your GMing style? It's possible you want a different style of game compared to what your players want.
but the game system is arguably designed with player power baked in and at the forefront. And it only continues to grow and grow and grow with each new release.
Publishers need to publish to make money. Every game system has some power creep, even if it's by accident. I find that Pathfinder is doing a decent job of keeping the power creep in check at least in their core rulebooks (the smaller companion books have power creep).
But you play with the core rules only so why do you care (or know)?
D&D Next seems to be trying to find more of a balance by lowering the power level of the players from the start.
That's exactly what players were saying when 4E first came out. Wait until all of the splatbooks and accessories come out, it will be the same. 4E had brutal power creep in the final days.
Creating an encounter for a higher level group takes time. It takes time to build out detailed NPCs. It takes time to build out unique monsters.
Takes time in any system, that's why GMs try to leverage tools like APs, modules, and magazines (bye Dungeon, sniff sniff).
I don't know that D&D next is going to be able to fix this, however I have read that they are taking a more modular approach to the rules, maybe this will allow simplification I don't know.
D&D Next is trying to simplify everything and I think it's an interesting idea. It definitely works at low levels, but we have no idea how they're going to handle high levels.
The problem is that producing new books is directly opposed to simplification, so I believe that simplification won't last for long. (Just like it didn't with 4E).
Honestly for this one, I don't know if there is an answer other than moving to a simpler system which in fact I am currently exploring.
You could give it a shot. Your players might not like being under your thumb all of the time though. And maybe they like PCs and combat strategy that is more complex.
brings back the danger element and if it can give me the ability to throw together encounters quickly with cool monsters and NPC's then awesome.
I don't see D&D Next being any better. You still have monsters, you still have NPCs who have stats.
At least in Pathfinder has good support material: bestiaries for monsters, flip-maps for maps, and for NPCs there are lots of resources: NPC Codex, APs, "Gamemastery Guide". Lots of pawns, paper minis, plastic and metal minis.
If you had enough system mastery, you could use the NPC codex and then just make the rest of it up on-the-fly, your players would never know.
I think my players will be stunned at the lack of mega weapons and powers but when the fear kicks in after seeing their friend go down from a simple goblin, it just might create a more vivid and memorable gaming experience.
If you seriously want fear, try Rolemaster version 1.0. Instant death, lost limbs, horrible bleeding wounds, serious injuries. I played that system for years and yes the combat is challenging and deadly. However, I much prefer spending less time on combat right now (prefer roleplaying), so the extra realism isn't what I'm looking for. But maybe it's what you're looking for.
I guess I could summarize Pathfinder as the Wal-Mart of RPG's for players.
You mean it's good? Yes, yes it is.
Have fun trying your new systems and see you back here soon.
Have fun trying your new systems and see you back here soon.
Your whole post was very condescending and it sounds like you didn't read a lot of what I posted in this thread. Your assumptions are incorrect and there is no need to respond in detail as most of this is a rehash of things discussed. Also your tone is much too negative to warrant taking seriously as a positive contributor to this thread. Have a nice day.
That's funny, because I found your tone negative too, but I still responded to you anyway with an honest answer. And no I didn't read every post, just the first page. Didn't know you had to read an entire thread to respond.
If I (personally) wanted to switch systems (and I've played at least 36 systems in my lifetime), I would just do it. And if I wanted to know the benefits of another system, I wouldn't post on the PF forums bashing PF, I would post somewhere RPG generic, or on the other game system's forum. Because posting here and bashing PF is trolling if you're not going to listen.
And if I really wanted people's opinions here, I would say "I like XYZ about Pathfinder but I'm looking for ABC." I wouldn't bash, because bashing gets you nowhere. Yes, different game systems are good for different things, but I don't think the problem here stems from the game system.
That's funny, because I found your tone negative too, but I still responded to you anyway with an honest answer. And no I didn't read every post, just the first page. Didn't know you had to read an entire thread to respond.
You're doing it wrong. If you're only using core rules, the PCs shouldn't be too powerful at all.
You make the assumption that "I'm doing it wrong." Really? Thanks for clarifying that, now can you tell me how to do it right? Because little ole stupid me has no clue. Also "I didn't do the research on Mythic powers". Wow, thanks for that insight. I guess I was wrong and Mythic powers in its concept is the opposite of what it intended, which is to create high powered dare I say "MYTHIC" level characters and monsters. Yes, different style game indeed, heading in the wrong direction IMHO.
Your players might not like being under your thumb all of the time though. And maybe they like PCs and combat strategy that is more complex.
This is by far my favorite as this implies I am a power hungry GM just itching to torment or otherwise destroy my players. Since you know me so well, what is my favorite color? Animal? Food?
I wouldn't bash, because bashing gets you nowhere.
So exactly how do I give constructive feedback to improve a game system I like and a publishing company I like? Keep quiet in the corner? Really? What you call bashing, is an attempt to improve a system I enjoy playing.
Let me just go ahead an apologize to all you power gamers who are horrified at my suggestion to remove AC25+ for first level characters, or unlimited 0 level spells, or making my job as a GM easier by simplifying monster and npc creation. I know you will rail against these ideas, and that's fine. Lets see how DnDN turns out as a product and if it addresses my concerns as well as how it does in the market.
Let me just go ahead an apologize to all you power gamers who are horrified at my suggestion to remove AC25+ for first level characters, or unlimited 0 level spells, or making my job as a GM easier by simplifying monster and npc creation. I know you will rail against these ideas, and that's fine. Lets see how DnDN turns out as a product and if it addresses my concerns as well as how it does in the market.
Um...gee Condscend much? Everybody who does not play your way is a power gamer nice?
If unlimited 0 levels is your problem than maybe PF is beyond your ability to run.
Listen I get that PF might not be the system for you...that is cool. Really but other who play the game do like it...so please drop the insultive condscending powergamer line you use for people who disagree with you which you have been using since the first page.
I do not have any of the problems you decribe...I challenge my player regularly in Pathfinder...I don't find the prep time to be overly long...and detailed enough I find it rewarding.
Since I am not at your table I have no idea if you are doing anything wrong....though the fact that unlimited 0 level spells are posing a problem for you makes me think you are doing stuff wrong, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
But you asking Pazio to make changes to their system because your group is having problems is really just foolish. Any sucessful RPG has to be open for many possible styles of play. Which is why you have to make changes and such. If there are too many for you to want to do...than there are other great RPG systems out there that might suit you and your group better.
Also how did somebody get 25+ AC at first level?
Um...gee Condscend much?
Yea, you got me. Sorry.
Um...gee Condscend much?Yea, you got me. Sorry.
Um...are you seriously here...or are you being sarcastic. You do know tone does not translate to text right?
If unlimited 0 levels is your problem than maybe PF is beyond your ability to run.
0 level Druid spell :Guidance: +1 on one attack roll, saving throw, or skill check
It got pretty old to have the druid say "Wait, I cast Guidance on everyone in the group". I don't know how many times I have heard that, why not just give them all a permanent +1 and be done with it.
Um...are you seriously here...or are you being sarcastic. You do know tone does not translate to text right?Um...gee Condscend much?Yea, you got me. Sorry.
I was serious, I was irritated and condescending in my post and you called me on it. My bad.
But you asking Pazio to make changes to their system because your group is having problems is really just foolish.
I think it is foolish to assume the PF system will not change. Eventually.
|
If unlimited 0 levels is your problem than maybe PF is beyond your ability to run.
0 level Druid spell :Guidance: +1 on one attack roll, saving throw, or skill check
It got pretty old to have the druid say "Wait, I cast Guidance on everyone in the group". I don't know how many times I have heard that, why not just give them all a permanent +1 and be done with it.
Mostly because it takes a standard action per person and only applies to one roll. Bless is much easier.
0 level Druid spell :Guidance: +1 on one attack roll, saving throw, or skill check
It got pretty old to have the druid say "Wait, I cast Guidance on everyone in the group". I don't know how many times I have heard that, why not just give them all a permanent +1 and be done with it.
It's a +1 on a single roll. It isn't worth being a one shot spell.
I like that casters don't have to curl up in a ball and cry in the corner if they run out of spells. It's a problem for low level players and that's the only people 0 level is going to help.
If unlimited 0 levels is your problem than maybe PF is beyond your ability to run.
0 level Druid spell :Guidance: +1 on one attack roll, saving throw, or skill check
It got pretty old to have the druid say "Wait, I cast Guidance on everyone in the group". I don't know how many times I have heard that, why not just give them all a permanent +1 and be done with it.
Casting Guidance is a touch spell that takes a standard action to cast and as far as I can tell only works on one person at a time. For the Druid to cast it on a party of 4, he would have to take 4 standard actions (which would probably be a waste, as the druid should have far more effective things to do in combat). It also only lasts a minute and is discharged the first time the player uses it.
If unlimited 0 levels is your problem than maybe PF is beyond your ability to run.
0 level Druid spell :Guidance: +1 on one attack roll, saving throw, or skill check
It got pretty old to have the druid say "Wait, I cast Guidance on everyone in the group". I don't know how many times I have heard that, why not just give them all a permanent +1 and be done with it.
Um you do realize that it is only one target per casting right? So it will take as many actions to cast on the group as there are members. Also the fact it is only one roll is such a minor thing it is almost laughable...IE it is a cantrip. It is Ok prep spell to do if you know you are going into a fight at low levels...but than again if the party knows it getting into the fight everytime...than you are running the game wrong. Sorry but this not a problem with the system...but the way you are running the game(not just PF by the way...but any game system out there). Just try attacking the group when they are camping or not expecting combat.
Also how did somebody get 25+ AC at first level?
My mistake it was a Barbarian with a 20 AC, but still he would go to the front and destroy the monsters and was rarely hit. I had to start giving some of the low level monsters extra bonuses just to hit him and challenge him.
I was serious, I was irritated and condescending in my post and you called me on it. My bad.Um...are you seriously here...or are you being sarcastic. You do know tone does not translate to text right?Um...gee Condscend much?Yea, you got me. Sorry.
Cool...my last post may come off as condescending...for that I apologize.
But you asking Pazio to make changes to their system because your group is having problems is really just foolish.I think it is foolish to assume the PF system will not change. Eventually.
Oh it will change...and does change...it is a living thing. And one day 2nd ed PF will comne out...and I hope it keeps the spirit of being a flexable system it is now.
Casting Guidance is a touch spell that takes a standard action to cast and as far as I can tell only works on one person at a time. For the Druid to cast it on a party of 4, he would have to take 4 standard actions (which would probably be a waste, as the druid should have far more effective things to do in combat). It also only lasts a minute and is discharged the first time the player uses it.
He would do it all the time...you see a cave up ahead "I cast guidance on everyone", you see a farm house "I take Guidance for $100 Alex"..."You smell smoke", "No, I smell Guidance!". It was annoying.
Also, no where does it say it can only be cast and active on one PC at a time. 0 levels are unlimited usage.
than make sure the combats happen after that minute expiration :P
Although yeah...that does sound annoying.
Casting Guidance is a touch spell that takes a standard action to cast and as far as I can tell only works on one person at a time. For the Druid to cast it on a party of 4, he would have to take 4 standard actions (which would probably be a waste, as the druid should have far more effective things to do in combat). It also only lasts a minute and is discharged the first time the player uses it.He would do it all the time...you see a cave up ahead "I cast guidance on everyone", you see a farm house "I take Guidance for $100 Alex"..."You smell smoke", "No, I smell Guidance!". It was annoying.
Also, no where does it say it can only be cast and active on one PC at a time. 0 levels are unlimited usage.
Yes that is annoying...but that is a player problem not a system problem. I would handle as I do when player does one thing in prep all the time...and that just say it is unspoken at this point. You could try talking to the player about it.
As for your second statement...what they are saying is it would take a separte casting for each person. It does say under the spell Target:One living creature.
Also how did somebody get 25+ AC at first level?My mistake it was a Barbarian with a 20 AC, but still he would go to the front and destroy the monsters and was rarely hit. I had to start giving some of the low level monsters extra bonuses just to hit him and challenge him.
To me this normal in any system I have ever played. I adjust the game to fit my player's playstyle, power level, and tactics.
I would also suggest in dealing with this in other ways than just bonus to hit barbarian...
1) Increase the HP of the creatures...all mansters and NPCs stat block assumes a average roll for HP...so increasing the HPs is well within the rules.
2) Increase the number of enemies...more enemies means more chances to hit that high AC and they can get things like flanking(well if the barbarian is low enough level). It does mean more exp...but you can fix that by awarding the exp as you see fit.
I know this might not be helping as you seem to have decided. It is just my nature when I hear about a problem to just fix it than to sit around and complain about it...not that complaining is all bad...and I do hope your critism is seen my Pazio staff members...and even make a couple of changes would be ok...I really just hope they don't solely listen to you and others with similair complaints and critisms.
It's more of a playstyle issue than a rules issue. My players have never been the cantrip-masturbation types.
Its in the rules and he chose to use it. I can't blame him for taking advantage of the system, its the system that allows it. So, I finally capped all 0 level spells to 3x/day. He was fine with it.
As for your second statement...what they are saying is it would take a separte casting for each person. It does say under the spell Target:One living creature.
Right, he would cast it once for each member of the party. And then they would enter the creepy cave. Or move to the next room etc.
To me this normal in any system I have ever played. I adjust the game to fit my player's playstyle, power level, and tactics.
I would also suggest in dealing with this in other ways than just bonus to hit barbarian...
1) Increase the HP of the creatures...all mansters and NPCs stat block assumes a average roll for HP...so increasing the HPs is well within the rules.
2) Increase the number of enemies...more enemies means more chances to hit that high AC and they can get things like flanking(well if the barbarian is low enough level). It does mean more exp...but you can fix that by awarding the exp as you see fit.
I know this might not be helping as you seem to have decided. It is just my nature when I hear about a problem to just fix it than to sit around and complain about it...not that complaining is all bad...and I do hope your critism is seen my Pazio staff members...and even make a couple of changes would be ok...I really just hope they don't solely listen to you and others with similair complaints and critisms.
I appreciate your suggestions and where you are coming from. I have made all the adjustments you mentioned and others, however the system absolutely allows for min/maxing and darn near encourages it. I think the game could be improved for everyone and I am not talking about ripping the guts out of PF, just dialing the power down a bit in the core rules. Also, I hope I am not the only one Paizo listens to as well. I hope we can all have a conversation and reach some compromises so that we can all enjoy the game.
|
|
Its in the rules and he chose to use it. I can't blame him for taking advantage of the system, its the system that allows it. So, I finally capped all 0 level spells to 3x/day. He was fine with it.
Being able to do something isn't always justification for doing it. I would have just asked him to consider it from the characters pov and decide when it was thematically appropriate to do such a thing.
It is just my nature when I hear about a problem to just fix it than to sit around and complain about it.
Yeah, this is really more my speed right here. Pathfinder isnt a perfect system and I do think different games better suit different play styles.
Ive been running a COTC AP game for the past 3 years. We dont get to meet often and tend to take summers off but we're a solid group and my players are great. We run into issues but nothing even remotely close to game derailing as some of the stuff we hear about on these boards. When I have to make a call I tend to stick as close to the rules as written and fair as possible. That's it. Are there house rules? Sure.
But half the time when I see people going on about how "this" thing is broken and "that" thing is broken I seriously start to wonder "Am I playing the same game as these people?" "Am I doing it right?" Should I be more nit-picky? Does it get me a smoother running game? No? So then I need to stick with what I'm doing.
My game runs smooth mostly because I dont have antagonistic players who are trying to break / abuse the system. I have one or two players who create very efficient builds that are a challenge to deal with. But theyre not doing it to be UBER. Theyre doing it because that's how they visualized their PC and they tend ot self police when they see a build is really abusive or bad. I dont think I've EVER told one of my players to tone down a build.
Anyway, maybe I lucked out because I have really good fun and fair players.
I also know how to challenge the hell out of them. I know when I need to change an encounter or a monster to make things tough. I also know when to leave things be so that they can steamroll through an encounter. To let them show off their badassedness.
I dont know, I think that there's a large human element to being a DM rather than the rules just being programming code that a DM complies and spits out.
It's a playstyle issue in the sense that it's not mechanically breaking. A +1 for everyone at the start of an encounter isn't going to make a huge difference. It's more the bother of doing it every time, and the jokes about it, that would irritate me.
If you wanted to leave it in, I'd remember that it does take time, make noise and others can notice it or you and react. And throw in some encounter where you don't have extra rounds to cast it.
But mechanically, at best, it's +1 on one roll/character/encounter.
The 0 level spells in pathfinder are silly or annoying. I think they should be done away with and replaced by something more useful or interesting. How many people really either
A) Use these to improve the game experienceB) Rarely use them and almost forget they have them?
C) Its a source of mild to moderate irritation
Did I mention Detect Magic??? My Druid never met a room he didn't cast detect magic in. He used it like a flash light. Its ridiculous and silly.
I dont know, I think that there's a large human element to being a DM rather than the rules just being programming code that a DM complies and spits out.
I agree with everything you said, however if the rules can be improved to help GM's deal with some of the more min/max players then why not? Not all people are the same and over the years I have dealt with quite a few different player types. Some are difficult, and some a breeze. I have made changes to PF as needed to address issues and its worked out, its just Im ready for PF to go ahead and fix some things that I think are good and ready to be fixed.
Being able to do something isn't always justification for doing it. I would have just asked him to consider it from the characters pov and decide when it was thematically appropriate to do such a thing.
So they wrote rules for us to change or ignore? Why write them like that in the first place if that's not how we are going to use them in the game? If I am a player and I have something I deem as useful, Im going to use it. That is me trying to bring all my powers into play as much as possible. Why wouldn't I want to do that, even if it is annoying? If we all house rule this, then just dump it out of the system and lets put in something we all will use.
Did I mention Detect Magic??? My Druid never met a room he didn't cast detect magic in. He used it like a flash light. Its ridiculous and silly.
To you.
One of my players is a sorceress who uses this spell frequently. And honestly? I DONT CARE THAT SHE DOES. That's why it's there. She took it so that she could do EXACTLY what she's using it for.
But there have been a few times where she's been in a room using Detect Magic and I've had something crash into the room before the beginning of the 3rd round. Granted they usually are able to drive off and or defeat whatever shows up but then she has to start over again from scratch to find out what something is.
Also?
"The spell can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it."
Again I dont get why this is a problem. Do you get upset at the fighters for using their weapons to smash, slice, stab their foes? No?
Everyone who has commented above on 0 level spells has proven my point. None of you use them RAW. You either tell your players 'its not appropriate' or you try to 'distract' them from doing it. Regardless, you are circumventing the rules to make your games better. I say, lets just FIX THE RULES. We all know unlimited 0 level spells is silly, you have all just said so in your own ways as you don't allow it in your games in one way or another...and why? Because it is annoying as all H**L.
Being able to do something isn't always justification for doing it. I would have just asked him to consider it from the characters pov and decide when it was thematically appropriate to do such a thing.So they wrote rules for us to change or ignore? Why write them like that in the first place if that's not how we are going to use them in the game? If I am a player and I have something I deem as useful, Im going to use it. That is me trying to bring all my powers into play as much as possible. Why wouldn't I want to do that, even if it is annoying? If we all house rule this, then just dump it out of the system and lets put in something we all will use.
Because there is no ONE SIZE FITS ALL.
What works fine at my table might not and probably wont work at yours.
You are effectively saying that because you think something works well at yours you want it to work at EVERYONES. And that's not the case. I'll just end up house ruling it out anyway.
I like RPG's BECAUSE of the flexibility and that no two games(even using the same system) are ever going to be exactly alike. This is why I wont play in living campaigns and Pathfinder Society. The uniformity is not my bag. People have fun with it and that's awesome. I'm all for more fun. But it's not for me.
Because doing this makes the game worse for everyone that either doesn't have or is tolerant of "min/max players."
That makes no sense, if you don't have min/max, then my fixes will not affect your game. However, to your second group it will most definitely affect them and I agree, they will not like it.
Everyone who has commented above on 0 level spells has proven my point. None of you use them RAW. You either tell your players 'its not appropriate' or you try to 'distract' them from doing it. Regardless, you are circumventing the rules to make your games better. I say, lets just FIX THE RULES. We all know unlimited 0 level spells is silly, you have all just said so in your own ways as you don't allow it in your games in one way or another...and why? Because it is annoying as all H**L.
I have said NOTHING of the sort. Again, why do you get to be the arbiter of the right way to play for me and my group or anybody else's group but your own?