| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Low magic is about presentation and storytelling far more than the proliferation of things that grant bonuses. Simple house rules like silver or holy water applied to blades bypasses DR handle the incorporeal problems.
I'm okay with most raised undead being evil. Though I thought the golem making was using elemental energies, not an a actual element?I think the issue is when alignments plays a solid mechanical aspect of the game for no apparent reason. For instance, all undead are defaulted to evil (before you someone says something about Golarian and whatever, I am going to simply point out that EVERY undead template except for ghost has the line Alignment:Any Evil). Despite the fact that Mindless Undead (being mindless) should have no alignment at all (mindless things are not capable of thought, therefore are neutral in all things). Or how Infernal Healing is evil, no matter what it is used for, but the mind compulsion spells are perfectly fine.I find it ridiculous that raising skeletons (negative energy) is evil, while enslaving elementals and binding them to golems is AOK! I'm not a fan of the alignment rules in D&D having any mechanical effect. IMO they the effects of alignment shouldn't go any further than character creation and personality design.
*PERHAPS* old style detect alignment spells. You can see if a character is currently planning to make someone suffer or die, or if they are in the middle of channeling power from an evil deity.
I once made use of some non-evil, non-necromancy undead, that were created specifically to throw people off. Confused the crap out of the players and the cleric. Good times with Animate Object.
Golems actually use Elementals as their driving force. They are essentially stripped of will and used to activate the golem.
As for the undead, the White Necromancer from Kobold Press actually show cases how to do necromancy and raises undead without being evil... You are simply utilizing a resource.
Even without the whole "respect for the dead thing", bodies are objects. Negative Energy is a neutral energy, so combining the two should yield a neutral result. If you raise teh undead to act as tireless workers around a town to say, do restoration work and act as sentries for the town, how is that evil? Especially with how PF does undead (in 3.5, when you raise an undead, a portion of the soul is returned to the body but warped by the negative energy. In PF, undead are simply fleshy constructs). If you can keep the living safe by utilizing the already dead for the dangerous jobs, would that not be good?
My problem with the animate dead stuff is inconsistency.
Animating a skeleton is evil, full stop. Animating a group of skeletons to run a ship however, is not and taking a bunch of skeletons and animating them into a bone golem is fine too.
I'm okay with most raised undead being evil. Though I thought the golem making was using elemental energies, not an a actual element?I think the issue is when alignments plays a solid mechanical aspect of the game for no apparent reason. For instance, all undead are defaulted to evil (before you someone says something about Golarian and whatever, I am going to simply point out that EVERY undead template except for ghost has the line Alignment:Any Evil). Despite the fact that Mindless Undead (being mindless) should have no alignment at all (mindless things are not capable of thought, therefore are neutral in all things). Or how Infernal Healing is evil, no matter what it is used for, but the mind compulsion spells are perfectly fine.I find it ridiculous that raising skeletons (negative energy) is evil, while enslaving elementals and binding them to golems is AOK! I'm not a fan of the alignment rules in D&D having any mechanical effect. IMO they the effects of alignment shouldn't go any further than character creation and personality design.
*PERHAPS* old style detect alignment spells. You can see if a character is currently planning to make someone suffer or die, or if they are in the middle of channeling power from an evil deity.
I once made use of some non-evil, non-necromancy undead, that were created specifically to throw people off. Confused the crap out of the players and the cleric. Good times with Animate Object.
Golems actually use Elementals as their driving force. They are essentially stripped of will and used to activate the golem.
As for the undead, the White Necromancer from Kobold Press actually show cases how to do necromancy and raises undead without being evil... You are simply utilizing a resource.
Even without the whole "respect for the dead thing", bodies are objects. Negative Energy...
I still run my games with undead retaining the soul of the dead person, and negative energy being evil. But I have specific in game reasons for negative energy being "evil ". And options for people willingly becoming undead to be guardians or sages.
...I'm okay with most raised undead being evil. Though I thought the golem making was using elemental energies, not an a actual element?I think the issue is when alignments plays a solid mechanical aspect of the game for no apparent reason. For instance, all undead are defaulted to evil (before you someone says something about Golarian and whatever, I am going to simply point out that EVERY undead template except for ghost has the line Alignment:Any Evil). Despite the fact that Mindless Undead (being mindless) should have no alignment at all (mindless things are not capable of thought, therefore are neutral in all things). Or how Infernal Healing is evil, no matter what it is used for, but the mind compulsion spells are perfectly fine.I find it ridiculous that raising skeletons (negative energy) is evil, while enslaving elementals and binding them to golems is AOK! I'm not a fan of the alignment rules in D&D having any mechanical effect. IMO they the effects of alignment shouldn't go any further than character creation and personality design.
*PERHAPS* old style detect alignment spells. You can see if a character is currently planning to make someone suffer or die, or if they are in the middle of channeling power from an evil deity.
I once made use of some non-evil, non-necromancy undead, that were created specifically to throw people off. Confused the crap out of the players and the cleric. Good times with Animate Object.
kk lol
Funny thing is, if you look, the Positive Energy plane is actually more hostile that the negative energy plane...
Undead+Positive Energy plane=Dead
Undead+Negative energy plane= EmpoweredLiving+Negative Energy Plane=Dead
Living+Positive Energy plane=healing until over healed... then dead.Golems actually use Elementals as their driving force. They are essentially stripped of will and used to activate the golem.
As for the undead, the White Necromancer from Kobold Press actually show cases how to do necromancy and raises undead without being evil... You are simply utilizing a resource.
Even without the whole "respect for the dead thing", bodies
funny thing is that the Positive energy plane is hostile to EVERYONE xD.
I really don't like that either.
funny thing is that the Positive energy plane is hostile to EVERYONE.Too much of anything ain't healthy. If anything, Paizo has made the Positive plane MORE hostile than it was in D20. In D20 you exploded once your hit points were double their max. In Pathfinder you have to make a save vs explosion EVERY ROUND you're gaining hit points from the plane. They do seem to have removed the vacuum effects from the energy planes though.
I don't consider this a bad thing however overall.
I just find it funny that the Negative Energy Plane is "evil" and the Pos is "good" when the Positive kills everything and the Negative has no such equivalent effect to undead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do like the Rogue and i don't feel he is really that overshadowed by other classes, the min/maxing is what starts overshadowing stuff, but sometimes the min/maxing is justified by the GMs that also Min/Max their encounters, which makes un-min/maxed characters obsolete.
I do feel happy about pathfinder, i don't like some stuff but i don't complain about them, i just don't use them. For example i hate the druid, i hate the shaman, i hate the alchemist, i hate the witch, i hate the oracle and i hate the investigator. If i GM i will not allow those classes, but i really don't have a problem with them mechanically, i just don't like them because the concept annoys me xD specially the druid.
When I GM if its not an AP or module I'll go plot first with encounter design and then beef or nerf based on what the party is doing. Min/Maxing only becomes an issue if half the players aren't equipped to deal with the escalation and once I had a party that was WAY too weak regardless of coaching. (I mean a party of lvl 8s having trouble with 8 CR2 creatures.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Low magic is about presentation and storytelling far more than the proliferation of things that grant bonuses. Simple house rules like silver or holy water applied to blades bypasses DR handle the incorporeal problems.
Yes. That handles the Incorporeal problem that results from trying to run a low magic game. However:
What about the fact that you rely on magical bonuses in order to keep up with CR appropriate encounters? Or how about the flashy, game-changing magics that become available to many classes as you level up: Scry, Teleport, Planeshift, and dozens of other magical spells and abilities that make things drastically different than early game? Even easy or continuous access to flight is a game changer.
The fact of the matter is, if you cut out magic items, you throw off all the number balance between characters and encounters, and you don't do so in a way that's consistent for each class - some classes don't rely as heavily on equipment or WBL as others do. And sure, you can remove the high level casters, but that has other side-effets, such as hindering access to healing and restorative magic, making those conditions much more powerful vs players, and the fact that the monsters are designed around the assumption that high level magic is available. Those monsters may well be much more powerful now. You could I suppose, combine innate enhancements with e8, with a banned list of spells (or a banned list of spells, lasses, and feats); sure. And then it could probably do low magic. At which point you've done some extensive houseruling, and contorted the system into something far different from Pathfinder Core.
Benefit: Compatibility
The benefit of Houseruling Pathfinder into a low magic or sword and sorcery game is compatibility with stuff you already own. You can use the Bestiaries you already have (so long as you're careful not to use effects your party cannot deal with), you can use race and class options the players are familiar with, and the players will already know how their class features work if they are Pathfinder Veterans.
Drawback: Houserules
The drawbacks are numerous, however. You'll have a large houserules document, that you can expect to be at least 30 pages, likely much longer. You'll have lots of alternate subsystems you'e using instead of the core pathfinder subsystems. As someone who often has a bunch of houserules myself, I can tell you it can be pretty frustrating when you get players that don't keep up with the houserules, or forget about them, and then show up either to the first game or after levelling, with their math wrong on their sheet, or a bunch of options they could not have taken. It happens frequently enough that I've taken a break from GMing d20 for a year because of it. I didn't want to run it RAW, and 1/3 of the players couldn't be bothered to read & remember (or check) the document that I spent a great deal of time organizing and making easy to reference, and constantly accessible in and out of game. The more houserules you have, the more frequent and frustrating this becomes.
Drawback: Time & Work
It takes lots of time to do rules design and adjustments (you'll have to do a lot of it yourself, there isn't an easy all in one package available that makes low-magic Pathfinder that is compatible with almost all of your pathfinder stuff), and you still have to actually plan your game after that. Additionally, you're going to have to comb through all of the player options and make a ban list, which you will have to keep updated as new stuff comes out, or your player will have to send you iteration after iteration of their character while you veto all the options you see that aren't compatible with the low-magic thing you're trying to do.
Conclusion
I'm just not sure it's worth the effort, unless you see yourself running low magic Pathfinder campaign after campaign after campaign, for years to come. If someone else had already done the work as an alternate corebook for Pathfinder and was maintaining an online banlist (or a constantly updating white list) on a website, would I consider it as a viable option? Sure - so long as their core book was solid & compatible with Pathfinder, and so long as they maintained an extensive blacklist/whitelist/compatibility list, from no less than every published Paizo hardcover book at any given point.
It would be much easier (and just as effective) to use a system that does a better job handling low magic from the beginning; such as 5e (or maybe Song of Ice and Fire RPG, or Barbarians of Lemuria, or ZeFRS, or Legends of Steel: ZeFRS-which is a complete game, rather than just a setting-, or Lamentations of the Flame Princess, or Broadsword, or On Mighty Thiews, or Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea, or one of the various BRP rulesets - Magic World, RuneQuest 6, Legend, Pendragon; with some of them being more or less magic-focused), or maybe even Trollbabe -which works well if you ignore the trollbabe premise, and just look at the underlying system-, or if your heart is set on d20, you could hunt down a copy of Conan 2e or Conan Atlantean Edition, both are quite good, if a bit hard to find. There are lots of Fantasy RPGs out there, and most of them are innately lower magic than Pathfinder is.
Of the alternatives I listed above, for Low Magic/Sword and Sorcery, I would likely narrow it down to AS&SH, LotFP, BoL, ZeFRS, OMT, and *Maybe* 5e. I like the BRP rules, but I don't think RQ/Legend is low magic enough for me for low magic, and I'm not familiar enough with the others. If I really wanted to Use some of my Pathfinder stuff with it, I'd run d20 Conan 2e, and selectively import/convert a handful of Pathfinder things I wanted to use - most likely Races, Monsters, and nonmagial Equipment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder can do low magic very well.
Just stop leveling at 6.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A low magic Pathfinder game can work pretty easily, it just forces an entirely different play style.
Instead of the fighters and characters having tons of magical items, they must get those buffs and bonuses from casters who have to change their playstyle from throwing around reality shaping spells, to also preparing a host of buffs and to augment the fighting characters.
It turns the game into a much more guerrilla style game. You *need* to have a scout who identifies enemies ahead of time so the party can prepare for the enemies in following rooms. You also don't prepare short term buffs because that forces the party to move from room to room or waste them.
So something like Bull's Strength becomes a staple of the spell list, while something like Haste is only tossed on for really important fights.
In such a low-magic campaign, I would encourage casters to take a few feats like Craft Wand, to help supplement their more heavily used buffs, but most item crafting would be heavily restricted. Like Craft Wondrous would just not exist; or maybe it takes 1 week, or 1 month per 1,000 gp to craft an item instead of 1 day. This would mean it would take a really, really long time to craft something. It would also explain why crafting is almost entirely an NPC job as it would simply take too long for an adventurer to make items and adventure at the same time.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this tread is very interesting. Anyone interested in human behavior and RPG should read it.
This thread isn’t only about liking or not liking Pathfinder as it is. It is also about US and THEM. Calling out that you belong to team GOOD and pointing at TEAM EVIL. TEAM EVIL is just another word or label for those that complain. It doesn’t really matter if the complains are legit or not.
THE OP sets the tone when he basically says that anyone not enjoying the rogue is an optimizers [optimizer = EVIL] and anyone not liking Pathfinder can p*ss off.
He then leaves the torch and other posters pick it up and it goes on.
TEAM EVIL are negativity monsters, TEAM EVIL are venomous in their opinions; TEAM EVIL are just an echo chamber; TEAM EVIL are Jerks; TEAM EVIL are powergamers; TEAM EVIL are completely negative; I dislike most of the forum posting by a lot of you. [you = TEAM EVIL]; I have plenty contempt for them. [Them = fellow gamers = TEAM EVIL]; etc.
It is important for TEAM GOOD to point out that TEAM EVIL is a vocal minority and TEAM EVIL’s opinions are not representative for the silent majority. This is also implies that the opinions of TEAM GOOD is indeed representative for the silent majority [silent majority = those that don’t even post]
Is this kind of behavior good just because it is presented by TEAM GOOD? And are all opinions and questions raised by TEAM EVIL bad or evil just because they are raised by TEAM EVIL?
There are jerks in all camps, but it is perfectly possible of being sober and helpful and correct without pointing fingers at people. That is why I like people like wraithstrike and Deadmanwalking. Both are good examples of how we all could behave (and I wouldn’t label them as being in team good or evil). Does TEAM GOOD have cool people? Sure they do. Blahpers and Jiggy have been around for a long time and I can’t recall seeing them posting anything mean or condescending.
Are there Jerks in team EVIL? Sure there are, but that doesn’t mean that everyone that disagrees with you is evil. Also, even if someone is hostile and negative in tone, that doesn’t automatically mean that everything he/she says is useless. Just because the tone being used is unappropriated the message doesn’t have to be.
So can’t we drop the GOOD vs EVIL thing and instead just try to respect each other’s opinions without labeling and judging others?
I think this tread is very interesting. Anyone interested in human behavior and RPG should read it.
This thread isn’t only about liking or not liking Pathfinder as it is. It is also about US and THEM. Calling out that you belong to team GOOD and pointing at TEAM EVIL. TEAM EVIL is just another word or label for those that complain. It doesn’t really matter if the complains are legit or not.THE OP sets the tone when he basically says that anyone not enjoying the rogue is an optimizers [optimizer = EVIL] and anyone not liking Pathfinder can p*ss off.
He then leaves the torch and other posters pick it up and it goes on.
TEAM EVIL are negativity monsters, TEAM EVIL are venomous in their opinions; TEAM EVIL are just an echo chamber; TEAM EVIL are Jerks; TEAM EVIL are powergamers; TEAM EVIL are completely negative; I dislike most of the forum posting by a lot of you. [you = TEAM EVIL]; I have plenty contempt for them. [Them = fellow gamers = TEAM EVIL]; etc.
It is important for TEAM GOOD to point out that TEAM EVIL is a vocal minority and TEAM EVIL’s opinions are not representative for the silent majority. This is also implies that the opinions of TEAM GOOD is indeed representative for the silent majority [silent majority = those that don’t even post]Is this kind of behavior good just because it is presented by TEAM GOOD? And are all opinions and questions raised by TEAM EVIL bad or evil just because they are raised by TEAM EVIL?
There are jerks in all camps, but it is perfectly possible of being sober and helpful and correct without pointing fingers at people. That is why I like people like wraithstrike and Deadmanwalking. Both are good examples of how we all could behave (and I wouldn’t label them as being in team good or evil). Does TEAM GOOD have cool people? Sure they do. Blahpers and Jiggy have been around for a long time and I can’t recall seeing them posting anything mean or condescending.
Are there Jerks in team EVIL? Sure there are, but that doesn’t mean that everyone that...
Blaphers, Jiggy, Deadmanwalking and Lord Wraithstrike are also all on Team Awesome!
Can I be on Team Evil? I've always been told Team Evil has cookies! :)
|
|
I think this tread is very interesting. Anyone interested in human behavior and RPG should read it.
This thread isn’t only about liking or not liking Pathfinder as it is. It is also about US and THEM. Calling out that you belong to team GOOD and pointing at TEAM EVIL. TEAM EVIL is just another word or label for those that complain. It doesn’t really matter if the complains are legit or not.THE OP sets the tone when he basically says that anyone not enjoying the rogue is an optimizers [optimizer = EVIL] and anyone not liking Pathfinder can p*ss off.
He then leaves the torch and other posters pick it up and it goes on.
...
Is this kind of behavior good just because it is presented by TEAM GOOD? And are all opinions and questions raised by TEAM EVIL bad or evil just because they are raised by TEAM EVIL?
...
So can’t we drop the GOOD vs EVIL thing and instead just try to respect each other’s opinions without labeling and judging others?
Well said, Zark. In this scenario, I am definitely not in the camp the OP is implicitly defining as TEAM-GOOD. I actually to refuse to run Pathfinder without houserules (I'll play it as a player if houserules are not an option), and I am in the camp that would be very happy to see a "Pathfinder Core Rules 2015" wherein they make adjustments to fix the various problems with the stuff that exists now. Maybe even just do rules fixes in future printings of the same book, and offer the rules balance fixes up as errata to people who have the old printings - but I would pay more money for rules fixes that are built into the core system at this point.
A low magic Pathfinder game can work pretty easily, it just forces an entirely different play style.
Instead of the fighters and characters having tons of magical items, they must get those buffs and bonuses from casters who have to change their playstyle from throwing around reality shaping spells, to also preparing a host of buffs and to augment the fighting characters.
It turns the game into a much more guerrilla style game. You *need* to have a scout who identifies enemies ahead of time so the party can prepare for the enemies in following rooms. You also don't prepare short term buffs because that forces the party to move from room to room or waste them.
So something like Bull's Strength becomes a staple of the spell list, while something like Haste is only tossed on for really important fights.
In such a low-magic campaign, I would encourage casters to take a few feats like Craft Wand, to help supplement their more heavily used buffs, but most item crafting would be heavily restricted. Like Craft Wondrous would just not exist; or maybe it takes 1 week, or 1 month per 1,000 gp to craft an item instead of 1 day. This would mean it would take a really, really long time to craft something. It would also explain why crafting is almost entirely an NPC job as it would simply take too long for an adventurer to make items and adventure at the same time.
That's interesting, but it requires a party focused around that style of play, which is also dealt with if the party just doesn't build magic-item reliant characters. Why wouldn't the casters just continue to throw around reality altering spells and use pets, and expect the other players to build other characters that can pull their own weight? If there are no magic items, then spellcasters with pets are the obvious choice, followed by spellcasters without pets, followed by partial casters, and non-casters are just a no-go. I would expect such a game to consist primarily of different builds of Summoner, Druid, Cleric, Oracle, and Ranger, followed by Sorcerer and Witch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's interesting, but it requires a party focused around that style of play, which is also dealt with if the party just doesn't build magic-item reliant characters. Why wouldn't the casters just continue to throw around reality altering spells and use pets, and expect the other players to build other characters that can pull their own weight? If there are no magic items, then spellcasters with pets are the obvious choice, followed by spellcasters without pets, followed by partial casters, and non-casters are just a no-go. I would expect such a game to consist primarily of different builds of Summoner, Druid, Cleric, Oracle, and Ranger, followed by Sorcerer and Witch.A low magic Pathfinder game can work pretty easily, it just forces an entirely different play style.
Instead of the fighters and characters having tons of magical items, they must get those buffs and bonuses from casters who have to change their playstyle from throwing around reality shaping spells, to also preparing a host of buffs and to augment the fighting characters.
It turns the game into a much more guerrilla style game. You *need* to have a scout who identifies enemies ahead of time so the party can prepare for the enemies in following rooms. You also don't prepare short term buffs because that forces the party to move from room to room or waste them.
So something like Bull's Strength becomes a staple of the spell list, while something like Haste is only tossed on for really important fights.
In such a low-magic campaign, I would encourage casters to take a few feats like Craft Wand, to help supplement their more heavily used buffs, but most item crafting would be heavily restricted. Like Craft Wondrous would just not exist; or maybe it takes 1 week, or 1 month per 1,000 gp to craft an item instead of 1 day. This would mean it would take a really, really long time to craft something. It would also explain why crafting is almost entirely an NPC job as it would simply take too long for an adventurer to make items and adventure at the same time.
You forget the Paladin and Barbarian. Both of those two classes can function fairly well in a lower-level magic campaign since both are capable of generating great bonuses even without magic. Especially since the Paladin can self-enchant his own weapon for a short time.
Even still, one does not need to be running full casters or casters with pets to survive in such games. As long as the team is smart and works together, they can overcome just about anything they come across.
A low-magic campaign should not be one played by less experienced players. They are inherently more dangerous and gritty and they require a higher mastery of the game to succeed in. I mean, strip a party of magic gear and even Dragons can become very dangerous opponents.
As for casters, they're spell selection would have to change somewhat. Remember, they don't have as much magical items either, so that also means less spell slots/spells per day for the full casters, so they have to choose their spells more carefully. Casting Create Pit can be done so to great effect, but it's a single use spell. Casting a Bull's Strength is going to last on the martial for multiple engagements.
It comes down to the casters having to swap over to a more 'enabler' style of play. Sure, they can drop a Wall of Stone, or Black Tentacles spell when the opportunity arises, but I'd expect more of the caster dropping a Herosim, Bull's Strength and Bear's Endurance on the martial. That's a +4 to his and 2 extra HP per level right there that will last a good long while.
Although, I would expect to see party line-ups more in the fashion of Arcane, Divine, Bard/Inquisitor/Investigator, Barbarian/Paladin (possibly Bloodrager too). The reason being is such a team set-up would have enough magical spells to make up for the lack of magical items. However, all of that takes time, so in an ambush the party is going to have a lot grittier fights.
Besides, the point is that low-magic campaigns can easily be done in Pathfinder, it just takes the right group to do one.
|
|
Hmm. I suppose that makes sense.
I could see your Party composition as one approach to a game without magic items, though I do think that a party of fullcasters with Animal Companions or Eidolons (or a Synthesist), or other buffcasters like bards, using Animal Ally & Boon Companion would do very well. The casters all provide support and fill the utility roles, while the pets all fill a tanking or damage combat role.
Blaphers, Jiggy, Deadmanwalking and Lord Wraithstrike are also all on Team Awesome!
Can I be on Team Evil? I've always been told Team Evil has cookies! :)
Sure you can! Now we both in it. Muahahaha
Here is a cookie
;-)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Blaphers, Jiggy, Deadmanwalking and Lord Wraithstrike are also all on Team Awesome!
Can I be on Team Evil? I've always been told Team Evil has cookies! :)
Sure you can! Now we both in it. Muahahaha
Here is a cookie
;-)
MWAHAHAhahaha HA! Yes, I do so enjoy my cookies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like where this topic is going.
Well, back on topic; I know in PFS this isn't relevant but Pathfinder has a whole gaggle of third party material that change basic assumptions about the game. Can it be argued that liking Pathfinder as it is includes the existence of patches to the game? Because really for me after one or two products most problems are pretty much gone.
Hmm. I suppose that makes sense.
I could see your Party composition as one approach to a game without magic items, though I do think that a party of fullcasters with Animal Companions or Eidolons (or a Synthesist), or other buffcasters like bards, using Animal Ally & Boon Companion would do very well. The casters all provide support and fill the utility roles, while the pets all fill a tanking or damage combat role.
The problem with this is, again, time. A full pet casting party can do an adventure too, but it makes the 5-minute work day even worse.
Even without all of his magical gear and spells, a 10th level Fighter is simply going to be more powerful than the pet of a 10th level caster. Let alone a Barbarian or Paladin.
I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but at the same time, the more pets you have, the more buff spells you need to toss out in order to get them up to par. Take the combo of a Druid, Animal Domain Inquisitor, Summoner and Animal Ally/Boon Companion Bard. Each of those classes is going to have to buff this pets to the 9s in order for them to fill the roll of melee damage dealer equal to that of a full martial class.
All of them use d8 HP, I believe, so the pets are going to be inherently behind the martials on HP, in addition to the fact the pets will have less HD overall, which also translates to less HP again. So each pet is going to require HP boosters (Bear's Endurance) just to help close the gap, so that's 4 spells gone right there. Each will also need Bull's Strength as the pets don't have any melee boosters like all other martial classes do to make their attacks better. Each one would also want to have Strong Jaw, if available. Then, you have to worry about mind control on the pets, as pets don't typically have great saves.
The thing is, a martial could have received the same buffs, but to better effect. The martial classes also tend to come with better over-all defenses, thought he AC of a pet is a lot easier to boost than the AC of a martial.
What pets work best at, is melee sponges that supplement the efforts of a dedicated martial class. That pet is bringing only one thing to the table, and that's melee attacks and HP; even a Fighter has more versatility than that.
Barbarians are going to be bringing a host of rage powers that can do a lot of crazy things, from turning himself, practically, into a pet, to flying, to damned near invulnerable flesh.
Paladins can bring a smattering of spells, self-enhancement, self-healing, tons of party buffs from his auras, and the best damage dealing option in the game in the form of Smite.
Rangers bring a crap ton of skills and damned good spells, plus a pet, plus seriously good damage, and combat versatility.
Cavaliers can bring a pet, sky-high damage, some party buffs in the form of banners and teamwork feats.
Bloodragers bring their own spells, rage, and great damage plus versatility to the table.
When it comes down to it, you can't replace a martial with a pet at a table once you reach ~10th level and above. Up to that point, a pet and a martial can be interchanged quite a bit, but after that, the differences of what each brings to the table becomes readily apparent.
Note A party line-up of Arcane, Druid, Animal Ally/Boon Companion Skald and Ranger would be a scary fracking party though. That's three pets, a Skald and a Ranger who all get Rage, and the Druid can jump in on occasion too.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are jerks in all camps, but it is perfectly possible of being sober and helpful and correct without pointing fingers at people. That is why I like people like wraithstrike and Deadmanwalking. Both are good examples of how we all could behave (and I wouldn’t label them as being in team good or evil). Does TEAM GOOD have cool people? Sure they do. Blahpers and Jiggy have been around for a long time and I can’t recall seeing them posting anything mean or condescending.
Blaphers, Jiggy, Deadmanwalking and Lord Wraithstrike are also all on Team Awesome!
Aw, thanks guys. I always have trouble knowing how to respond to compliments, but I do always try to be friendly, helpful, and polite, and it's nice to hear I'm meeting with some success and people are actually noticing. :)
My group is just really burned out with Pathfinder, after a year and a half of playing. Combine that with about 10 years of 3/3.5, and it becomes a pretty heavy dose of fatigue.
I think a lot of people are in that boat, which is why 5E seems to be doing so well. It feels like the anti-3.5 version.
Are there other people out there that starting to feel burned out with Pathfinder? I though we was alone in this. I’m not being sarcastic. We even have one in our table top group who has bought 5ed players guide.
I mean, I like pathfinder and love I Paizo and I have been playing PF since the BETA-version, but as you put it: “Combine that with about 10 years of 3/3.5, and it becomes a pretty heavy dose of fatigue.”
Unless the Devs clear up some of the stuff I think we either swap to 5E or start to play call of Cthulhu.
My group is just really burned out with Pathfinder, after a year and a half of playing. Combine that with about 10 years of 3/3.5, and it becomes a pretty heavy dose of fatigue.
I think a lot of people are in that boat, which is why 5E seems to be doing so well. It feels like the anti-3.5 version.
Are there other people out there that starting to feel burned out with Pathfinder? I though we was alone in this. I’m not being sarcastic. We even have one in our table top group who has bought 5ed players guide.
Yeah the group I play with are getting burned out too. We mostly play Deathwatch, Final Fantasy d6, and Mage the Awakening nowadays.
More rule-light systems are useful since it makes sitting down to play a game a lot quicker with less snags.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm currently running a modern supernatural game using AFMBE, and a Pathfinder game. That's probably around the standard Pathfinder to non-Pathfinder ratio in terms of games I've run since Pathfinder has existed...so getting burned out because you've not played any other systems is an alien experience to me personally.
But then, I pretty much skipped 3.0 and 3.5. I mean, I played a couple of games of them...but it was just that, a couple, and brief at that. So, during that whole era my games were exclusively non-D&D. Pathfinder is what got me playing a D&D-like game at all after years of not doing so.
But basically, I think switching game systems is perfectly reasonable, but don't think it has a lot to do with the age of the system, more to do with fatigue from dealing with only one. Mixing it up is a pretty solid plan, IME.
I am. I would've switch to 4e when it came out, but only one other person in my usual group was interested for more than a session, so our voices were worthless.My group is just really burned out with Pathfinder, after a year and a half of playing. Combine that with about 10 years of 3/3.5, and it becomes a pretty heavy dose of fatigue.
I think a lot of people are in that boat, which is why 5E seems to be doing so well. It feels like the anti-3.5 version.
Are there other people out there that starting to feel burned out with Pathfinder? I though we was alone in this. I’m not being sarcastic. We even have one in our table top group who has bought 5ed players guide.
I mean, I like pathfinder and love I Paizo and I have been playing PF since the BETA-version, but as you put it: “Combine that with about 10 years of 3/3.5, and it becomes a pretty heavy dose of fatigue.”
Unless the Devs clear up some of the stuff I think we either swap to 5E or start to play call of Cthulhu.
I was luckier, and got to immediately dive into 4e in 2008! So I'm not burned out on PF, but that's because I never really got into it in the first place -- I've only played a couple of games.
I played 3.0 and 3.5 for eight years, but there are definitely quite a few bits of the system -- including PF -- that rub me the wrong way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not burned out on PF, but I play it along with a bunch of other games too (4e, shadowrun, 40k, fate, savage, 13th age, mutants and masterminds, second edition, cthulhu)... been having a lot of fun with rogue trader and shadowrun 5e lately though.
I think part of it might be that Paizo sticks to a pretty straight-forward model. Without even any new subsystems I suppose there could be some burnout after a while. Cuz whenever I get bored of anything in PF I go play an initiator or psion or incarnate thanks to DSP... and if you're not playing with third party.. eh. Vancian casters and full-attacks are pretty much everything.
I have a long ways before I get burned out because of 3pp. I want to start up 5e because doing classic feeling D&D fantasy and light rules is fun but even before that I was perfectly happy bouncing back and forth between Pathfinder and FATE, and when vancian casting, magic items and full attacks got old I started playing with psionics, martial actions, and artificers, and soon I'll have another third party magic system in my mailbox. After all that I'll just cycle back to vancian casting and start over again.
It also helps that I've been playing Pathfinder for almost three years and 3.5 for six sessions.
|
For me I like just as is. Though I tend to GM all the time so I hardly get to explore all the cool charater options. We usually kill the game around 12-14 LVL in the past, so APs have been a welcome addition. I guess at my table we like focusing on the adventure as much if not more than character building. So we tend to burn through material very slowly. Couple that with rotating in Traveller, SW, Call of Cthulhu, etc.. We just burn material at a snails pace. SRD has made it easier than ever to keep up with what my players bring to the table. The forums really help prepare me for whats ahead. Things are just dandy for me and mine when it comes to PF. YMMV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the person, Zark I believe, who seems to have summed up my presentation of the thread as "I hate optimizers" all I can say: HA! No. I optimize every single bloody character I make. I will probably never take skill focus unless its a prereq or given to me as a half elf. I will never make a halfling barbarian, unless it's mounted. I will usually take power attack as a martial. My characters typically outshine my group's other players to the point where I am giving them tips on how to keep up and the like. (To the opti-haters who think concept is golden and power gaming is evil, funny thing is, by the way, none of them seem to complain when I show them how to make their idea work. Even the GM usually appreciates the increase in challenge. Just my experience though...)
But I don't use optimization as the sole defining characteristic of my characters. I pick a concept and try my best to make it the best it can be using the rules that already exist, and if the rules don't support that concept, I don't whine about a lack of balance or fairness in support of my ideas. I either do the best I can with what's available or I shut up and change my concept.
I even play rogues. Frequently. So far the difference in power is negligible. My rogue may not do the same damage as the power attacking barbarian, but he contributes to almost every fight AND can do more than just fight. If all I wanted to do was damage, I would STFU and play a different class. But that's me.
No. Optimizers aren't evil IMO. Whiners are.
And as a GM, personally, I don't heavily house rule if at all. If I want a gritty game, I don't mod the crap out of PF to make it grittier. I play NWoD. If I want a classless system with lighter rules, I don't try to tear Pathfinder apart to its roots and rebuild it in my own image. I just play Savage Worlds. I think you get my point. This is just how I do things. There's nothing inherently wrong with house ruling, but I like my players to be able to read the book and expect the same game I am putting out. I play PF because it is high fantasy and it does high fantasy well, so I use it for my high fantasy games. I don't try to hammer the rules to fit my ideas when there's literally dozens of other games that can do what I want. I love PF, but I'm not ignorant of other options.
I also rarely ban a class, unless its 3p. (Mainly cause 1p can do anything you can think of. A psion, for example, can be handled easily with a reflavored sorcerer.) If one of my players likes the ninja or samurai class features but I swear my world is entirely western, I just let them reflavor the ninja or samurai into a western concept. Why not shoehorn them into rogue or cavalier? Cause maybe they like the features. If one of my players is kicking my tail with a particular class, such as a summoner, I don't ban the class, I shut up and step up my game as a GM. Why punish a player for being good at what he does? (I do, however, require summoners do their homework and have their favorite mobs statted out with any required templates or feat adjustments before the game to speed up gameplay. Don't wanna do the homework? Then, in that instance, your idea gets the boot.)
(Personally, I don't reward a lack of system mastery either. If my players are new I work with them to make the best PC their concept can support. But if you're a veteran and you chose to multiclass bard with wizard and take alertness and power attack because you thought it's a neat combo, don't be surprised if I don't pull my punches and you're either rolling a new character or draining your party's funds on rezzes.)
My question was, as I stated in the title, to see if anyone plays an unmodified, RAW Pathfinder, since I often see so much banning, so much customization, so much house ruling, so much complaining, and so much general disapproval of the system as it is on the boards.
The consensus answers seem to be that most people either do not play the game as is, or that those who do are not nearly as vocal about it.
I could play the game as it is, or I can play my unicorn pony Soulknife.
But in seriousness if someone wants to DM raw Pathfinder I'm not going to say no. The rules have not stopped my basic enjoyment of the game aside from not being able to realize very specific concepts, but I don't think the issue includes optimization/anti-rollplaying woes even if the thread is rife with it. How you, greenteagamer, optimize I don't really describe as typical optimization to the detriment of flavor. Everyone want s their concept to work even if it is extremely goofy. Its taking a concept and asking 'how?' As opposed to picking a build that's busted and slapping a story on top to justify it.
I do have to ask, how much house ruling is too much house ruling to you? Without talking about third party I delete combat expertise from prerequisites, ban 3 feats, and give Titan Mauler Monkey Grip. Is that too much? Should I play a different game? What's the line? Now add third party stuff. Should I play Shadowrun or should I be fine plugging in Ultimate Psionics, Machine smith and Electrotech? (For the record I hate third party products that change, rather than add, rules so that what they read in the SRD is still true. Wanted to note that because it seemed relevant to my questions.)
I think Paizo definitely has their work cut out for them, and I'm not sure how the Unchained book is going to really change things. My guess is that anyone who's interested in what Unchained has to offer (streamlined options for combat, redesigned classes, balancing, etc) is very likely looking at moving to 5e right now, rather than waiting 8 more months for a Unchained.
So basically, Paizo is in a rough spot right now, in that although they are doing very well, they appear to be reacting to the industry rather than leading it. I'm interested to see how things shape up over the next year.
Unchained and Occult Mysteries being among the upcoming releases does seem to at least indicate that Paizo agrees that some of their class design has fallen into a rut. While the ACG put out some nice classes, none of them really felt all that different from what we already had. Really, the whole hybrid class concept ends up smelling a bit like "We're running out of ideas, so let's rearrange our old ideas in new ways."
I do have to ask, how much house ruling is too much house ruling to you?
For me: It's when I can no longer keep track of the rules or when the house-rules start getting absurd.
I actually like the stuff in Ultimate Psionics more than I like "normal casting".
I really like the Shadowrun video game. If people could make more UGC campaigns, I would really appreciate it.
My question was, as I stated in the title, to see if anyone plays an unmodified, RAW Pathfinder, since I often see so much banning, so much customization, so much house ruling, so much complaining, and so much general disapproval of the system as it is on the boards.For what it's worth, my group is playing without house rules.
Without house rules that you know of. It's not actually possible to play PF by RAW.
|
Without house rules that you know of. It's not actually possible to play PF by RAW.My question was, as I stated in the title, to see if anyone plays an unmodified, RAW Pathfinder, since I often see so much banning, so much customization, so much house ruling, so much complaining, and so much general disapproval of the system as it is on the boards.For what it's worth, my group is playing without house rules.
That's not true at all. I've played plenty of Rules As Written games.
One of my friends (who doesn't play in my current group, but does play) also mentioned that he's tired of feeling like his characters only start to get access to fun feats/abilities/spells after about level 10 to 13. As someone who plays fighters 9 out of 10 times, I can relate. I look through the feats and it feels like level 1-10 is spent taking feats that server no purpose beyond allowing me to take the feats I want later on. It's like "oh cool, in 8 months I'll be able cause bleeding on a crit..." That feels like something I should be doing at 5th level.
Even at lower levels I can find this a bit of a problem. Paizo's "make sure no one dips anything" policy makes playing a lot of classes from 1-4 kind of painful because sometimes your core mechanics don't even come online until then.