0 level spells exist because it allows magic casting characters to actually do something or contribute to the game in a meaningful way, without having 15 minute work days. It can get really really really boring to have a few spells that you go through in a couple of fights, and then have to sit back and either observe your friends contribute to the game, or ineffectually help in combat.
None of the 0 level spells are that powerful. It's not like infinite fireballs or lightning bolts. So what, they use detect magic or Guidance a lot (although with the latter...how is that spell staying active long enough before they enter anywhere?).
Again, as I have mentioned, my feeling is that your style of play just doesn't match up with Pathfinder/3.5. Which is perfectly fine. They are reprinting 1st edition DnD, and DnD Next is being pitched at your crowd. Plus there are plenty of retro clones. I just get the impression that you think your interests/preferences = the Pathfinder community as a whole, which I don't think is the case.
I also suspect a lot of your problems might simply result from you and your group being unfamiliar with Pathfinder. I can't imagine how much trouble I would have had Dming for Pathfinder my first time last fall, without several players in my group being experienced players, and able to help with rules. Prior to last year, my last experience with DnD was 3.5 over 5 years ago, so coming into the game new and having to DM new players = ouch.
I also suspect a lot of your problems might simply result from you and your group being unfamiliar with Pathfinder. I can't imagine how much trouble I would have had Dming for Pathfinder my first time last fall, without several players in my group being experienced players, and able to help with rules. Prior to last year, my last experience with DnD was 3.5 over 5 years ago, so coming into the game new and having to DM new players = ouch.
LOL! I would say our problems partly arise from us being TOO familiar with Pathfinder. Look, I have house ruled out most of the issues, my biggest issue now is really the complexity, and I think you are right. Its time to move on to another system that is faster paced. However, I can still hope Paizo updates PF and takes my feedback into consideration.
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?
I stand corrected sir. Your group likes it and that's fine. I house ruled it because it doesn't work for my group. My players are very smart, and even though they are reasonable and allow me to plug the holes, they will exploit them as long as I allow it. It doesn't make them bad players, it just means that if there is something they can use to give them and edge, they will. I would do the same thing.
The issue I have with detect magic, is sometimes I don't want the group to know an item is magical right away. We all enjoy some mystery, so if the magic users can only cast it 3x/day then they use it a bit more judiciously and I can inject some mystery and intrigue about certain items...which they can decide should I use it or save it? But you lose that if your magic users have magic detecting "vision".
|
Detect magic can be an issue. One house rule I've seen that I wish Paizo had thought of when updating was changing the range to touch. But I usually just give items I want hidden a magic aura spell to make them appear nonmagical.
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.
I'm not aware of any house rules in my statement. I get that you have a prejudice against these rules, but please respond to what I actually say.
Create water is another one. The group is making their way through a wilderness, supplies are running low and they need to find water quick. Its a race against time, a little mini-challenge if you will.
Wait, the druid can cast 0 level create water. No worries about that critical supply. Unlimited drinking fountain. Nice.
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.
I'm not aware of any house rules in my statement. I get that you have a prejudice against these rules, but please respond to what I actually say.
Why is not thematically appropriate to cast Guidance before every potential dangerous situation? Is the Druid and the rest of the group "thematically stupid"?
|
|
Because my character might get really tired of casting the same spell over and over. Or he might find that an insulting use of magic on trivial tasks. It might be that my cleric only offers a prayer when his ally is about to attempt something of note. A +1 bonus is not critical to success enough to demand using it for every action. I've never seen such a thing in the fiction I enjoy and see no reason to include it in my games.
Because my character might get really tired of casting the same spell over and over. Or he might find that an insulting use of magic on trivial tasks. It might be that my cleric only offers a prayer when his ally is about to attempt something of note. A +1 bonus is not critical to success enough to demand using it for every action. I've never seen such a thing in the fiction I enjoy and see no reason to include it in my games.
My group wants to use every power they have at their disposal. If its free, and you don't use it that is selfish and I would want to kick that players butt in-game. And in real life. Help your team mates out, DUDE ITS FREE!!! It could save our lives. Even in roleplaying, it makes no sense to hold back free powers from your team mates.
And to your second point, that is why we house ruled it...and you don't include it so in a sense you house ruled it also.
|
|
But you're not roleplaying it. You're just saying 'I cast guidance on everyone for their +1 to this roll'. At least that is what I'm seeing.
And to your second point, that is why we house ruled it...and you don't include it so in a sense you house ruled it also.
Never said I don't include the spell. If you're going to call playstyle a house rule, we have no common ground for this discussion.
More on Create Water. A towns well dry's up and desperately needs a new water supply. A druid shows up and makes a small fortune selling his water.
But you're not roleplaying it. You're just saying 'I cast guidance on everyone for their +1 to this roll'. At least that is what I'm seeing.
I'm saying if you as the character have the free power, then it would be anti-role playing NOT to use. Who in their right minds in a dangerous world would NOT use every free power they have? That would not make any sense at all in that game world.
|
|
But you're not roleplaying it. You're just saying 'I cast guidance on everyone for their +1 to this roll'. At least that is what I'm seeing.I'm saying if you as the character have the free power, then it would be anti-role playing NOT to use. Who in their right minds in a dangerous world would NOT use every free power they have? That would not make any sense at all in that game world.
Read Death's Heretic for a very similar example of someone who refuses magical healing.
The druid most likely wouldn't help the town out unless they gave back to the forest, replanting trees and such. If they were on friendly enough terms, he would show them where another water source nearby was so they could build a new well.
Never said I don't include the spell. If you're going to call playstyle a house rule, we have no common ground for this discussion.
Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk about this in any way, I'm just saying if you have a free power it makes perfect sense in role to use it as much as possible when you can to give your group an edge. A +1 is always a good thing, and again its FREE.
|
|
Create water is another one. The group is making their way through a wilderness, supplies are running low and they need to find water quick. Its a race against time, a little mini-challenge if you will.
What about food? How will they avoid starvation?
Oh wait, the ranger has a +10 Survival check and can forage for food. Nevermind.
It's very clear that Pathfinder does not model the game you want to play. Nothing wrong or right about that. It is what it is.
The druid most likely wouldn't help the town out unless they gave back to the forest, replanting trees and such. If they were on friendly enough terms, he would show them where another water source nearby was so they could build a new well.
LOL!!! Pretty much every Druid player I have run across loves gold as much as trees. They can use the gold to buy themselves a whole forest.
|
|
Never said I don't include the spell. If you're going to call playstyle a house rule, we have no common ground for this discussion.Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk about this in any way, I'm just saying if you have a free power it makes perfect sense in role to use it as much as possible when you can to give your group an edge. A +1 is always a good thing, and again its FREE.
It also makes perfect sense in role to NOT. Both are equally viable playstyles. Find the group that shares your playstyle.
To you, it is free, because you see no mechanical cost. To me, action economy and character personality are where the cost comes in.
It also makes perfect sense in role to NOT. Both are equally viable playstyles. Find the group that shares your playstyle.
I disagree, if the group is on a quest and you withhold a free power that makes no sense to me. Its selfish. But I guess we will not agree on this point.
The druid most likely wouldn't help the town out unless they gave back to the forest, replanting trees and such. If they were on friendly enough terms, he would show them where another water source nearby was so they could build a new well.LOL!!! Pretty much every Druid player I have run across loves gold as much as trees. They can use the gold to buy themselves a whole forest.
So now the druid is a PC? Well that changes things. You never said it was a player character. An NPC druid (at least in my games) would do just that. Players don't give a crap and only want the next level or new shiny thing. Totally different outcome.
What about food? How will they avoid starvation?
Oh wait, the ranger has a +10 Survival check and can forage for food. Nevermind.
It's very clear that Pathfinder does not model the game you want to play. Nothing wrong or right about that. It is what it is.
At least he has to make a check, so this can still create suspense.
PF, is very good in a lot of ways. I know I sound like I am being overly critical to some. But don't you think that it can improve? Would you be opposed to seeing a 2.0 version with some fixes? Anything you would like to see changed?
But I guess we will not agree on this point.Nothing in this thread ever deluded me otherwise.
Even in disagreement hopefully we can have a healthy and respectful debate. Many great things spring from questioning and debating the status quo.
ECL is better epic at +4 or +5 than at +3 i.e.
I'm not familiar with the ECL acronym? What is it?
Detect magic can be an issue. One house rule I've seen that I wish Paizo had thought of when updating was changing the range to touch.
That is a great idea, I may have to steal that one :-)
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 experience
B) Rarely use them and almost forget they have them?
C) Its a source of mild to moderate irritation
I'd say A. I never forget them, but I never find them annoying. They're really useful at times, and otherwise do nothing.
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.
First, in my ideal game, there would be no limits per day. I like that cantrips were unlimited and wish more things were. I'd love to have totally unlimited magic, but then curtail magic so it's not actually stronger than non-magical methods.
That said, I would allow what you've described in my game. Every magic user I've ever had in my game Detected Magic in every room. And I just let them, because 99% of the time, there's nothing there, so I can just say, "nope, nothing's magic" and move on. As for Guidance, I don't see anything wrong with "Guidance all around" and just let everyone have +1 to their first rolls. What's the big deal? He guidances everyone--that's what it's for--move on.
The issue I have with detect magic, is sometimes I don't want the group to know an item is magical right away.
There's a spell for that. Just have the items you want to be secret have a permanent version of that on it. They can still Identify it, but they can't Detect Magic it.
At least he has to make a check, so this can still create suspense.What about food? How will they avoid starvation?
Oh wait, the ranger has a +10 Survival check and can forage for food. Nevermind.
That specific one can't, because the skill roll literally cannot fail. I like games with themes about struggling to find resources and surviving in the wilderness. Pathfinder is not one of those games. There are plenty that work well for it, though. I have done survival games (or rather arcs within larger games) with Savage Worlds, New World of Darkness, and Godlike with great success.
PF, is very good in a lot of ways. I know I sound like I am being overly critical to some. But don't you think that it can improve? Would you be opposed to seeing a 2.0 version with some fixes? Anything you would like to see changed?
As long as the game is piggy backed on 3rd edition D&D, no, I don't think it can really become the game I want. 3rd edition is too deeply flawed.
If they stepped away and made their own new game totally separated from 3rd edition D&D? Well, they seem like good guys, I bet they could make a good game and I might really like it. But then, they'd lose all their business, since they are really only successful because they swooped in and capitalized on WotC alienating their former players with a radically different game than what they wanted, and well, a radically different game would alienate them again. They could maybe pull it off if they supported both products, but I don't know if they have the resources for something like that.
If they stepped away and made their own new game totally separated from 3rd edition D&D? Well, they seem like good guys, I bet they could make a good game and I might really like it.
I think they could also, but I don't think they would have to step as far away from 3.X as you think. 4e went too far, DnDN seems to be trying to pull it back a bit. We will see how it all turns out.
That specific one can't, because the skill roll literally cannot fail.
This is a great point. When characters get to a certain level their skills are just ridiculous, there is almost no point in rolling anymore. Unless you as a GM make the DC higher than it should be its pointless. Just tell them "You succeed." The power curve in PF is too much. Players are mortal gods by 10th level (or earlier).
Never said I don't include the spell. If you're going to call playstyle a house rule, we have no common ground for this discussion.Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk about this in any way, I'm just saying if you have a free power it makes perfect sense in role to use it as much as possible when you can to give your group an edge. A +1 is always a good thing, and again its FREE.
It has an unlimited number of uses per day, it's not free (from a roleplaying/in-character perspective). He has to go through life invoking the nature spirits dozens of times a day, over and over, for what is usually no gain and is occasionally a very minor benefit.
Do you put a bike helmet on when you cross the road, in case you get hit by a car? Or does taking endless, trivial precautions get boring and tedious and end up not being worth the reduction in risk?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That specific one can't, because the skill roll literally cannot fail.This is a great point. When characters get to a certain level their skills are just ridiculous, there is almost no point in rolling anymore. Unless you as a GM make the DC higher than it should be its pointless. Just tell them "You succeed." The power curve in PF is too much. Players are mortal gods by 10th level (or earlier).
When you say you "like pathfinder", what do you like about it?
That specific one can't, because the skill roll literally cannot fail.This is a great point. When characters get to a certain level their skills are just ridiculous, there is almost no point in rolling anymore. Unless you as a GM make the DC higher than it should be its pointless. Just tell them "You succeed." The power curve in PF is too much. Players are mortal gods by 10th level (or earlier).
But shouldn't a character once they reach a certain level succeed? Why should they struggle throughout the entire game? Whats the point of leveling if you will always suck?
The power curve in PF is too much. Players are mortal gods by 10th level (or earlier).
And I like it that way. Much better to start epic adventures at 10th than 20th.
I do wish they had left cantrips limited and made school powers/bloodlines/domain powers unlimited. That seemed to make more sense to me.
But shouldn't a character once they reach a certain level succeed? Why should they struggle throughout the entire game? Whats the point of leveling if you will always suck?Where's the point in playing if success is already pre-determined? It stops being a game and starts being story hour.
So give them bigger challenges. Even high level characters can be given skill challenges. Or hey, maybe fix the dc to whatever you want it to be? You are the DM after all.
in Savage Worlds with Weekly William
we fight a wild card or two, every Darned Fight
he always starts PCs at level 1, or Novice in Savage Worlds
and the theoretical race i mentioned, was a homebrewed race for a specific homebrewed setting. i can't remember every detail, but all his super races, are freaks, and most of them maximize stats with moderate importance while reducing the few things that allow you to keep up with a human ranged combatant.
but i found, the only way to buff melee damage is to buff your strength. but we tend to play with a lot of Overpowered Ranged weapons that
Ignore your Parry
Deal Better Damage than Melee Combatants whom don't hyperspecialize
and melee weapons tend to be rare, because ranged weapons are the most expedient ways to wound, because killing your foe before they engage, or wasting a few of their bennies, makes it easier to face them.
but that might be because the DM is slow with the cards.
he is also stingy with the XP, but has always been a stingy DM
i admit, i do like more hinderances for more advantages, but When Weekly William designs his races, they usually minmax something suboptimal in the campaign at the cost of something else.
D12 Vitality Race has -8 Charisma, never ever make a social check whatsoever, they are minmaxed like hell, but you have to roll a variety of social skills to buy anything, or even sell.
It has an unlimited number of uses per day, it's not free (from a roleplaying/in-character perspective). He has to go through life invoking the nature spirits dozens of times a day, over and over, for what is usually no gain and is occasionally a very minor benefit.
From the players perspect he just had to say "Guidance" and we all new what it meant. I don't force them to act out every spell, this isn't a LARP. So there is no real cost. Could I rule as a GM that the player gets tired of doing it? Possibly, but RAW there is nothing to assume any 0 level spell tires out the caster.
|
|
Nothing, if I'm in the mood for story hour. Which isn't the same as being in the mood to play an RPG.
I don't see why it can't be both. You can still get enjoyment from rolling dice, and there is a difference between knowing the good guys will win as opposed to knowing how they will win. You still have to roleplay and problem solve. But then I've always enjoyed David Eddings over George Martin.
When you say you "like pathfinder", what do you like about it?
I like the core system. The classes are all done pretty nice. The wizard and sorcerer options are cool. The clerics healing power and how he harms undead vs. turn is good. The combat system is good. Most of the spells are really good. The monsters are nice. All the artwork is top notch. Basically, I would do the following to improve the game.
1. Remove unlimited 0 level spell casting. In place I would give additional power that could be used 3 times + prime attribute. Keep 0 level spells, but only 1x/day like all spells.
2. Lower AC for everyone.
3. Change the skill system to either have much fewer ranks in skills or just make skills trained/untrained and give a standard bonus to trained.
If I hear the phrase "Perception check" one more time I think I will scream. Maybe get rid of Perception as a skill and have the players role play what they do. I don't know. Somehow skill power needs to be reduced.
4. Change Monsters so that they are simpler to use and have self contained stat blocks. Also come up with an easy system to create your own monsters.
5. Take the existing NPC templates and expand on them. Again, would love it if they can be self contained, however with spell casting it may be difficult to list the details of every spell in the stat block.
Spells may be something we will always have to cross reference. I think all other powers could and should be in the stat blocks.
Create a system to quickly generate NPCs of a vast variety and power levels.
6. Make magic items rare. Don't allow people to buy them from every city in Golarion. Maybe the rare merchant might have a few prized items for sell, but magic items should be rare and expensive.
That's what I would change in PF 2.0. Would some of these changes require some other tweaks? Likely. Dmg. from weapsons and powers might have to also be throttled back a bit.
But shouldn't a character once they reach a certain level succeed? Why should they struggle throughout the entire game? Whats the point of leveling if you will always suck?
Whats the point of playing when you always succeed? Where's the challenge or fun in that?
It has an unlimited number of uses per day, it's not free (from a roleplaying/in-character perspective). He has to go through life invoking the nature spirits dozens of times a day, over and over, for what is usually no gain and is occasionally a very minor benefit.From the players perspect he just had to say "Guidance" and we all new what it meant. I don't force them to act out every spell, this isn't a LARP. So there is no real cost. Could I rule as a GM that the player gets tired of doing it? Possibly, but RAW there is nothing to assume any 0 level spell tires out the caster.
I was just pointing out that there's a role playing aspect to the game not captured by resource management.
Although theres no cost to the player, theres a cost to the character. There's more to one's character than their abilities and, if you care about representing a realistic person in the game world, there may well be other ways to address your issue.
I wouldn't suggest enforcing it as a DM but maybe your player hasn't considered how tedious it is and if they did, maybe they'd decide not to.
When you say you "like pathfinder", what do you like about it?I like the core system. The classes are all done pretty nice. The wizard and sorcerer options are cool. The clerics healing power and how he harms undead vs. turn is good. The combat system is good. Most of the spells are really good. The monsters are nice. All the artwork is top notch. Basically, I would do the following to improve the game.
1. Remove unlimited 0 level spell casting. In place I would give additional power that could be used 3 times + prime attribute. Keep 0 level spells, but only 1x/day like all spells.
2. Lower AC for everyone.
3. Change the skill system to either have much fewer ranks in skills or just make skills trained/untrained and give a standard bonus to trained.
If I hear the word "Perception check" one more time I think I will scream. Maybe get rid of Perception as a skill and have the players role play what they do. I don't know. Somehow skill power needs to be reduced.
4. Change Monsters so that they are simpler to use and have self contained stat blocks. Also come up with an easy system to create your own monsters.
5. Take the existing NPC templates and expand on them. Again, would love it if they can be self contained, however with spell casting it may be difficult to list the details of every spell in the stat block.Spells may be something we will always have to cross reference. I think all other powers could and should be in the stat blocks.
Create a system to quickly generate NPCs of a vast variety and power levels.
6. Make magic items rare. Don't allow people to buy them from every city in Golarion. Maybe the rare merchant might have a few prized items for sell, but magic items should be rare and expensive.
That's what I would change in PF 2.0. Would some of these changes require some other tweaks? Likely. Dmg. from weapsons and powers might have to also be throttled back a bit.
It sounds to me like you want a lower power level than PF. I think the problem is you'd like to run a grittier, simpler game and you're using a high magic, simulationist system to do it.
|
|
Whats the point of playing when you always succeed? Where's the challenge or fun in that?
What's the point of playing if you never succeed? Where's the challenge or fun in that?
You guys keep missing the point Jawa was making, that eventually the characters should be good enough at something to rarely fail. Not never fail. Otherwise you're just on a treadmill, unable to see yourself improve because the difficulty increases meets or exceeds your rate of improvement.
You guys keep missing the point Jawa was making, that eventually the characters should be good enough at something to rarely fail. Not never fail. Otherwise you're just on a treadmill, unable to see yourself improve because the difficulty increases meets or exceeds your rate of improvement.
Well, if you're playing modules or opponents rated against APL, then by definition the difficulty will (or should, at least) meet your rate of improvement.
There's nothing to stop a group of adventurers deciding they really don't like the sound of that demon-infested ruined castle and that they'd rather just go poke around some caves looking for 1HD goblins to squish. That's completely in the hands of the players and the GM. Just don't expect much in the way of experience or treasure ;)
Likewise it's up to the GM when to decide things can "just happen". If they think the characters have reached the point where they can survive off the land easily, they can just ignore tracking food supplies and bothering to check if they can hunt or gather enough to live off. The rules don't say you have to do any of that, they just suggest possible methods the GM can use to determine success when they *want* it to be difficult.
I'd sincerely hope no GM ever says "well, if it were up to me I'd say you could easily find enough food out there, but the rulebook says you have to make this roll...."