Anybody starting to have trouble recognizing their game?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 659 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

TriOmegaZero wrote:
People seem to think that when someone says 'player' they are automatically excluding the DM from that group. Which is sometimes true, and sometimes not. DMs are players too.

Except when they're saying the DM should not be able to remove things from the game they kind of by default are making a difference between the two categories.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Although it may seem that way, that's not necessarily true. It may well be simply a dissolution of the separation of categories. In other words, indicating that GM can't simply <X> by virtue of being a GM, it may well be because he is also a player and it is the players as a whole (or at least as a majority) who have the authority to <X>.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:


I love how somehow the wants and opinions of the players seem to be absolutely sacrosanct, where the ones of the DM should just immediately give way to whatever the player wants in any particular circumstance. Sorry. Part of the buy-in for me being GM is that I have some editorial control over the basic content the game again sorry if you don't like it but oh well someone else can always do the job. Only they never seem to want to.

Which I never said. While you simply ignored the the part about everyone being equals at the table. Being 41 years old I have been on boths sides of the screen. Becoming a Dm means taking on the extra work that comes with the position. It does not mean that suddenly the players have to treat you as a divine being. When it comes to allowing material and not. The Dm does have a final say. As long as good reason is given and being respectful of players. Looking me straight in the face and going "NO! because I'm the DM that's why!". Is in no way shape or form being respectful. A player turned Dm suddenly demanding to be treated better simply for running the game. Good luck. Itr may work on younger players. That kind of attitude won't work with older members of the hobby like myself.

A reason to why disallowing stuff would be nice. It's not mandatory. Yet don't expect players to be happy if no valid reason is given. It's human nature for better or worse. That being said if a DM refuses to allow something then as a player he should be ready for the same thing. If one thing bothers me about members of this hobby is that as DMs they restrict much at the table. Then as a player they want the entire candy store. If DM xyz refuses to allow me to play Gunslinger because he dislikes guns in fantasy. Then if I as a DM say the same thing respect it. It's a interesting case study as how people act when either being a player or DM.


Sometimes the reason is as much is anything I do not enjoy the concept I don't not enjoy GM and for the concept I don't like dealing with the concept and if I'm not enjoying myself as a GM you won't be enjoying yourself as a player. That's also human nature. My burning lands campaign will never sprout gunslingers. They just do not fit.

And if I'm playing in somebody else's game in their table rules. If I don't like their table rules then I can ask politely and if I still don't like them then I can find another game. If I'm playing in somebody else's game and something I'd want to play for a long time isn't available I say "oh well", and move on to one of the numerous other ideas I could have choosing one that in fact will fit with in the rules of the game currently being played.

If someone in one of my games wants to ask politely if something can be worked out to help them realize a concept, then I'm happy to make a concerted effort. But at the end of the day sometimes no really does mean no.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Exactly. Which is very possible. I know, we did it often when I was younger. BECMI stuff, 1E stuff, and 2E stuff, all used in a big D&D smorgasbord. We didn't have any B/X D&D or Original D&D stuff, but if we had, it would have been just as easy to use.

Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure a few members of that group either had only the BECMI box sets, or only 1e books. I myself had the BECMI sets, some 1e supplements, and later on the 2e books and some supplements (and even later the Rules Cyclopedia). We never let it give us even the slightest pause.

Hell, I still do that to an extent. My favored game is Swords & Wizardry, but I pull inspiration (and outright steal) from lots of stuff that TSR published, as well as from a wide range of retroclones, and even later edition stuff as well. Hell, I steal stuff from systems with no link to D&D whatsoever. You can take inspiration from a scenario for the LEVERAGE RPG for a fantasy RPG session. I kinda consider this the norm....do people really pay so much attention to arbitrary boundaries in regards to what amounts to a more structured version of make-believe?


Kthulhu wrote:
We never let it give us even the slighCyclopedia.

I need to know what this sentence was supposed to say, now.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You are having trouble recognizing your game yes? I will help you.

It's the one happening at your table (PbP thread/VOIP(VENT/etc) session/ online table top session/ chatroom/ so on and so on) with the rule sets you agreed to use.

All those other games -- even the ones using similar or the same rule sets? Not your game.

Basically if you are playing it then it's your game. If you aren't playing it then its someone else's game. Lets not get upset just because monopoly put new pieces in the version you decided not to spend money on.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yes, the same way some folks prefer World in Flames to Risk WW2 Edition.


Abraham spalding wrote:

You are having trouble recognizing your game yes? I will help you.

It's the one happening at your table (PbP thread/VOIP(VENT/etc) session/ online table top session/ chatroom/ so on and so on) with the rule sets you agreed to use.

All those other games -- even the ones using similar or the same rule sets? Not your game.

Basically if you are playing it then it's your game. If you aren't playing it then its someone else's game. Lets not get upset just because monopoly put new pieces in the version you decided not to spend money on.

So the problem basically comes down to more published rules leads to more arguing over which pieces to use. Whether that's someone wanting to use the latest shiny piece while the rest of the group is happy with a smaller set or someone wanting to limit what's in use while the rest of the group clamors for the kitchen sink.


thejeff wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

You are having trouble recognizing your game yes? I will help you.

It's the one happening at your table (PbP thread/VOIP(VENT/etc) session/ online table top session/ chatroom/ so on and so on) with the rule sets you agreed to use.

All those other games -- even the ones using similar or the same rule sets? Not your game.

Basically if you are playing it then it's your game. If you aren't playing it then its someone else's game. Lets not get upset just because monopoly put new pieces in the version you decided not to spend money on.

So the problem basically comes down to more published rules leads to more arguing over which pieces to use. Whether that's someone wanting to use the latest shiny piece while the rest of the group is happy with a smaller set or someone wanting to limit what's in use while the rest of the group clamors for the kitchen sink.

Yeah actually -- or on occasion when someone wants to use those swanky plaid pieces they made themselves in your risk game.

I will grant there is a bit of difference in that the newer books can include different subsets of rules but basically the different classes are simply a different colored piece to do the same thing you were going to do already.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
We never let it give us even the slighCyclopedia.
I need to know what this sentence was supposed to say, now.

slightest pause. Oh, the perils of posting from a cell phone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jewelfox wrote:
chbgraphicarts wrote:
Jewelfox wrote:
I'm not comparing Pathfinder to any other game here, "crunch-centred" or otherwise. I'm saying that buying, or at least reading, roughly 100x more pages than you actually need, is a feature of Pathfinder, for better or worse.
And here is when I fear for the future of our species.

Speak for your own species, Frost Giant. :P

I personally love having tons of choice. That's why I keep getting frustrated trying to design characters for Pathfinder. I have to read forum guides to figure out which of the 1000+ options are relevant. Only to find out that the character I want to play is the equivalent of an Animate Rope spell, and I should be playing something else if I don't want to die. Especially in Pathfinder Society, where not only does it cost money, but they also don't pull their punches as often, and there's more of a burden on players to optimize characters.

Then I find out there's awesome third-party content that does exactly what I need. But it's not anywhere online that I can link my GM to it, and she's skeptical of third-party stuff by default (when she didn't buy it herself) because she's still not done reading through the ACG yet, and she thinks half of the PRD looks munchkin-y anyway.

The problem isn't volume of choice. It's the difficulty in finding the right choices for your character, and then having to either pay for or negotiate the right to use them, and that everyone takes it for granted that this is just How An RPG Works.

Fate Core System players design their own stuff as a group, every day, and their game's made it into a fun collaborative process. Meanwhile, Paizo sells flash cards to help people not forget the rules, and they're about to start selling a strategy guide to teach newbs how not to make characters that suck. Is it just me, or is this a product that shouldn't have to exist?

There are rules-light RPGs and rules-heavy RPGs. D&D has been the latter every since it was created (OD&D was rules-heavy for the time it was released). Complaining because you want it to be a rules-light RPG is not going to have a lot of effect.

Fate is not D&D and vice versa. If you want to play Fate, play Fate. If you want to use Paizo's Golarion setting to play Fate, that sounds great. If you want to play D&D, you're not going to get the experience of designing stuff as a group like Fate lets you do, because that's not what D&D gives you.

Things like the Strategy guide do have to exist in rules-heavy RPGs by their nature. If you want to argue they shouldn't, then what you're asking for is a completely different type of RPG, which is fine but you should go play that type of RPG instead of asking that D&D become that type of RPG which it never was.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
People seem to think that when someone says 'player' they are automatically excluding the DM from that group. Which is sometimes true, and sometimes not. DMs are players too.

WHAT MADNESS ARE YOU SPEWING! GM's are not people! GM's are released from there prisons to run for the "players." GM's to bow to every whim and demand of the table and never complain or challenge the players right to the game they have magnanimously agreed to play. GM, slave, GM.

You and your crazy GM's are players too talk. Madness.

Mr. Fishy was in a GM interment camp...Mr. Fishy would run the session then go back to his cramped little bucket.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
I have no problems with new material. Nor think that having more options is a bad thing. So no need to tell me that PF is not as bad as 3.5 in that regard. I think some who either like buying books or can't say no to their gaming groups or quite frankly to themselves. Rather than blame themselves blame Paizo instead.......

This reminds of another thing, since some have said there is strain in the group because every new book causes more stress at their table.<--Not the exact wording, but basically the same thing.

If the player knows the GM is not allowing entire books, and that it will cause a problem at the table, why are they continually buying new books, and getting upset when they already know how the GM is about new (or more)things. It seems to me like they are trying to strong-arm the GM into allowing it. If I were that GM I would not blame Paizo. I would just tell the players to buy at their own risk.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
The ONLY real complaint I have, is that they have everything tossed into the APs. So unless you want to do some heavy adapting on some of them, that's one reason you have to buy all the books....

I don't buy all of the books for AP's. What you need is free online at http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ or d20pfsrd.com.

You can print off the web pages, which is a lot cheaper than buying books.

PS: While I have physical AP's and bestiaries, I still don't have a physical copy of the CRB yet.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
There are rules-light RPGs and rules-heavy RPGs. D&D has been the latter every since it was created (OD&D was rules-heavy for the time it was released). Complaining because you want it to be a rules-light RPG is not going to have a lot of effect.

I think this is where a lot of people misunderstand the evolution of D&D.

They think that OD&D or even BD&D were rules-light games with tons of fiats and houserulings.

The problem with thinking that is that taking even a quick glance at OD&D, BD&D, or even 1st Ed rules will show you that's not the case at all.

Classes have always been very rules-centric, even in cases where it wasn't NUMBERS-based rules. Classes had stat and racial requirements. Multiclassing was a garbled nightmare until you really got used to it, and even then wasn't as elegant as the system these days (have fun being a 1st level Wizard with as much XP as a 3rd level Rogue...). Each class also had a max level (20 wasn't standard until 2nd Ed).

Other things were a bit messy, like the spellcasting system. In practice, it's not awful, and presents a neat alternative to modern casting (that being, you begin casting your spell on your init. and you finish casting it on your init-X, where X is the delay of the spell).

EVERYONE could have Psionics. That's kinda neat, but at the same time kinda weird that everyone could be a psychic. Say what you want about the current game, but old-school D&D was a little more anime-esque in the "weirdness" category.

Every single stat had a very large table to go along with it, indicating what you got with each score, and how it effected things (things like strength followed a weird curve function, instead of simply 18= +4 to hit and damage), meaning you CONSTANTLY had to reference the tables when your stats changed. Stats could also affect your Experience gains, so you'd better have remembered that.

Instead of a nice, easy Base Attack Bonus progression, Warriors had this weird progression where you started with 1 attack per weapon per round, then 3 per 2 rounds, then 2 per round. So you had to do this weird dance of "I attack once this round, twice the second round, twice the third round, once the fourth round, once the fifth round..."

THAC0 is a PTSD Trigger for older players. Attack Matrices might also be, depending on the player.

---

There are other things that people don't realize have ALWAYS existed, in one way or another.

Anyone remember "Non-Weapon Proficiencies"?

Looking at 'em nowadays, in some ways they were like Skills (duh), though the Player's Options were more a direct precursor to the current Skills system.

In other ways, they kinda look surprisingly like Feats, don't they? Like... almost EXACTLY like Feats, really.

---

The only real way that D&D was ever "rules light" was in that fact that Combat was absurdly simplistic.

And by "absurdly simplistic" I mean that the game didn't plan for the players to do much besides either casting spells or swinging a weapon.

You could charge. That... was really the end of it for codified special-attack rules.

You wanted to try and Trip the monster, or you wanted to Bull Rush it, Overrun it, Disarm it, try a Dirty Trick against it?

Either your DM would say "you can't do that" or might stand there, wall-eyed, because there were no rules for it.

There was nothing to say you COULDN'T, either, and some things like Tripping are actually referenced as something that can happen... but the mechanics for HOW one character can trip another without the use of magic is never discussed, at least in the PHB. TRAPS can trip, but players creating traps aren't discussed.

Grappling, also, is something that shows up again and again in the PHB... and is NEVER explained. HOW a Grapple happens, what it means, how mechanically it affects things. Grappling did stop Magic-Users from casting spells potentially, but, yeah - what happens to the player initiating the Grappling, what happens to non-casters who're grappled, etc.?

DMs had to fiat things like crazy - called shots, critical hits, combat maneuvers, etc.

Your character is extremely quick and reactive, and facing someone doing a slow Tai-Chi maneuver, so you obviously must be able to attack them, even though you've already passed your init, right? Yeah, no - no Attacks of Opportunity before Combat & Tactics, buddy; you had to stand there, staring blankly at the zen-like concentration.

You want to craft a Magic Item? Well, that's entirely up to the DM to decide that. He might have you venture 1000 miles and need to slay a Wurm-class Dragon to obtain the necessary components for a Wand of Cure Light Wounds... woo.

Gygax didn't really want to talk about it in 1st Edition (he figured that, yes, they exist, so they must be created SOMEHOW, but didn't elaborate), or at least make it extremely mysterious for both the players and DM alike. Cryptic clues to making Magic Items exist through the DMG, but no direct guidelines save for some examples, like a Scroll of Protection of Evil; for all you know, making a Holy Avenger could be infinitely simpler than a pair of Boots of Elvenkind, especially if the DM feels like messing with your head.

It wasn't until 3rd Ed that Magic Item Creation became simple for both the DM and players.

---

Like Paladin of Baha-who? said, D&D has ALWAYS been "Rules Rules Rules". The number of rules ADDED to 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder are actually pretty few.

What DID happen is that a lot of earlier rules were just retooled (NWPs became Feats and some Skills), were drastically simplified (Multiclassing and Class progression became standardized), or were dropped like a bad habit.

In the end, 3.5 and Pathfinder really aren't any more rules-heavy than D&D has ever been - PF is just more consistent in its application of rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
memorax wrote:

A person who takes on the role of DM does so knowing that a certain amount of work is going to be required. More so then a player. That being said I'm not going to treat a DM any different. One takes the job as a DM then one is accepting and willing to do more work then a player. At a table both player and dms are equals imo. If one thing that screams run away from a table is when a DM tries to make the players feel like crap. By making themselves out to be the next martyr saint. I have been on both sides of the screen. Each time I knew the amount of work needed. So no sympathy from me as a both a DM and player. Don't want to do the extra work needed. Or spend the extra money needed to buy more material. Then don't DM. N

I see the point about the APs and new material being included in them. Yet again with the online SRD it's not a really a issue. Between that and PF apps one really does not need to buy a physical book. It's only just recently that some at my table bought a core book. Relying exclusively on the SRD and Herolab. I think what bothers me being one of those who favor more material being released. Is that somehow one is forced to buy the new material. Unless your being threatened with bodily harm one is not forced to buy anything. I bought most of the Earthdawn 3E core. Not because I have too. I wanted to. I can respect and even understand and symapthize not wanting new material all the time. The whole "new material = being forced to buy it" simply is not true imo.

I love how somehow the wants and opinions of the players seem to be absolutely sacrosanct, where the ones of the DM should just immediately give way to whatever the player wants in any particular circumstance. Sorry. Part of the buy-in for me being GM is that I have some editorial control over the basic content the game again sorry if you don't like it but oh well someone else can always do the job. Only they never seem to want to.

I don't think he was talking about allowing content.

I think he was referring to the "I do all the work, so your(the players) opinions don't matter" attitude. <---That has happened on several topics. Some have said it in a nicer manner, but some have not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
There are rules-light RPGs and rules-heavy RPGs. D&D has been the latter every since it was created (OD&D was rules-heavy for the time it was released). Complaining because you want it to be a rules-light RPG is not going to have a lot of effect.

I think this is where a lot of people misunderstand the evolution of D&D.

They think that OD&D or even BD&D were rules-light games with tons of fiats and houserulings.

The problem with thinking that is that taking even a quick glance at OD&D, BD&D, or even 1st Ed rules will show you that's not the case at all.

Yeah, I agree. Though there were lots of fiats and houserules.

From the beginning D&D was a rules-heavy game with lots of holes that weren't covered by the rules. The rules-heavy nature is what led to all the house rules. Rather than have mechanisms for handling things that aren't explicitly covered, as rules light games tend to do, GMs generally tried to make explicit house rules for the holes they came across.

5E might actually be closer to rules light.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, for anyone who thinks that 3.0/3.5/PF brought about "The EVIL Social Skills that forever ruined roleplaying!!!" I feel the need to point this out:

The Complete Ranger's Handbook wrote:

This proficiency enables the character to make a compelling argument to convince a subject NPC character to see things his way, respond more favorably, or comply with a request. The character engages the NPC in conversation for at least 10 rounds (meaning that the subject must be willing to talk with the character in the first place); subjects whose attitudes are threatening or hostile aren't affected by this proficiency.

A successful proficiency check means that the subject's reaction is modified by +2 in favor of the character (see Table 59 in Chapter 11 of the DUNGEON MASTER Guide). This bonus is not cumulative with any other reaction modifiers, such as those derived from Charisma; other reaction modifiers don't apply. For every additional slot a character spends on this proficiency, he boosts the reaction modifier by +1 (for example, spending two slots on this proficiency gives a +3 reaction bonus).

That's right, guys - even as far back as 1993, there were rules that allowed you to make a roll instead of roleplaying.

TSR "ruined" roleplaying, not WOTC.


thejeff wrote:
Yeah, I agree. Though there were lots of fiats and houserules.

Yeah; I misspoke a bit. I meant more that people think that D&D was a "fast and loose" game where the DM just came up with rules nice and easily as they arrived, making fiats constantly by design of the game.

Quite the opposite - the DM's job was SUPPOSED to be a referee (the game even calls them referees at several points in official modules), without having to make tons of on-the-fly calls.

In practice, however, the game was so full of gigantic holes that it looked like swiss cheese, yet had no system set up describing how DMs could quickly and easily deal with these holes in any consistent manner.

This led to DM's constantly having to make up rules off the top of their head - "make an attack roll at -3", "make a Strength check", etc.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you what to run every rule on the SRD fine. Mr. Fishy will get his dice and make a character by your rules.

When Mr. Fishy runs the game he expects the same. The GM have double the work minimum in most games. That is why Mr. Fishy doesn't fight with the DM, disagree, trick, or cajole, but not fight. GM said no Mr. Fishy drops the issue. However Mr. Fishy has GM'ed for players that literally throw a tantrum to get there way...They refuse to play if they can't be what ever unreasonable character they want to play.

Ex.1 Low magic no outsiders or dragons in the world
Player: I want to play a half-fiend.

EX.2 Feudal Japan; heroic fairy tale about a group of samurai, all human group.
Player: I want to be a fox spirit...with magic.

Both player refused to play unless they could play characters outside of the requested boundaries.
Everyone else managed.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
The ONLY real complaint I have, is that they have everything tossed into the APs. So unless you want to do some heavy adapting on some of them, that's one reason you have to buy all the books. The more current the AP you get, the more likely they'll have references to EVERYTHING more often then not. (Everything means, all the rulebooks to a degree).

In my eyes, the fact that they are using new material in the adventure paths is a definite plus, and certainly not something to complain about. Everything that is used in the APs is either in the PRD, or it is fully reprinted right ther in case it comes from a Player Companion, Campaign Settings book, or 3rd party source. Nothing that is used in an AP adventure forces you to buy any other book. You can look it all up for free.

Liberty's Edge

Again I will not give a DM special consideration simply for doing the same I do as s DM. I'm not saying it's easy and that a DM does not put in some work. The worst thing to do is to throw that into players faces. As well as bring it up over and over. I'm a DM myself. Doing the extra work comes with the position. I choose to do it. While players do less depending on what the DM requests it can involve a decent amount of work as well. A DM may ask for a one page background. Or a 10+ page background. I agree that some players can be distruptive at a table. The same can be said of DMs. Many years ago I threw one out of my place. He was so used to getting his way. With the players for some odd reason not saying anything. I had asked for a certian kit from one of the 2E books. He basically told me no and if I was not happy with that. I could hit the road. That's right tell a player in his own home to get lost. Needless to say I was not the one leaving my place.

As for new material being in a AP at first did bother me in the beginning. Now no so much and as some have said it shows up in the SRD.

Contributor

Mr.Fishy wrote:

EX.2 Feudal Japan; heroic fairy tale about a group of samurai, all human group.

Player: I want to be a fox spirit...with magic.

That's sort of not a fair call on your part, though, because you said, "Feudal japan fairy tale." Playing a kitsune is fitting into your guidelines perfectly, in my opinion. Especially considering that they can just turn into humans whenever they want to anyway.


Alexander Augunas wrote:
Mr.Fishy wrote:

EX.2 Feudal Japan; heroic fairy tale about a group of samurai, all human group.

Player: I want to be a fox spirit...with magic.
That's sort of not a fair call on your part, though, because you said, "Feudal japan fairy tale." Playing a kitsune is fitting into your guidelines perfectly, in my opinion. Especially considering that they can just turn into humans whenever they want to anyway.

1. There were no rules for a fox spirit PC.

2. Magic was very loose and I didn't need a ten minute turn every round while the fox worked out his next spell.

3. It was a power issue, he want special powers without restriction in a low powered game.

I would have allowed a spell caster.

Final And this is what sticks Mr. Fishy asked that the party be made of samurai serving the same lord. Simple request. The player didn't ask to play a kitsune, he refused to play unless he could play a kitsune. The whole table is hostage to that one player. If he doesn't like a call or a game he ends the game, table be damned. Mr. Fishy has seen it and heard other players complain that he crashed their games or some one else's.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bloat can be a problem from the perspective of a consumer, who only has so much funds to buy so many books full of new, neat options.

Bloat can be a problem when you allow way too many things at once in the game, especially new subsystems.

Bloat can be a problem when you have to haul around physical books to access the material.

A few new races is manageable. So are some new classes, provided everyone has the material easily available. D20 Pathfinder SRD is a godsend for this, as I do Roll20 games online, and things are quite manageable.

But on a personal level, I prefer making characters with as few sourcebooks as possible to keep things easy. When it comes to adventures I mercilessly steal from a variety of sources for new stuff for my PCs to encounter, especially monsters.

chbgraphicarts wrote:

Also, for anyone who thinks that 3.0/3.5/PF brought about "The EVIL Social Skills that forever ruined roleplaying!!!" I feel the need to point this out:

The Complete Ranger's Handbook wrote:

This proficiency enables the character to make a compelling argument to convince a subject NPC character to see things his way, respond more favorably, or comply with a request. The character engages the NPC in conversation for at least 10 rounds (meaning that the subject must be willing to talk with the character in the first place); subjects whose attitudes are threatening or hostile aren't affected by this proficiency.

A successful proficiency check means that the subject's reaction is modified by +2 in favor of the character (see Table 59 in Chapter 11 of the DUNGEON MASTER Guide). This bonus is not cumulative with any other reaction modifiers, such as those derived from Charisma; other reaction modifiers don't apply. For every additional slot a character spends on this proficiency, he boosts the reaction modifier by +1 (for example, spending two slots on this proficiency gives a +3 reaction bonus).

That's right, guys - even as far back as 1993, there were rules that allowed you to make a roll instead of roleplaying.

TSR "ruined" roleplaying, not WOTC.

Actually, as far back as Basic D&D, one's Charisma score determined how likely your followers were to stay loyal to you while fighting and exploring the dungeon instead of packing up and fleeing. And Charisma modified Reaction rolls when negotiating/intimidating monsters and NPCs.

So game rules for social interaction came as early as 1982 or thereabouts.


memorax wrote:
Again I will not give a DM special consideration simply for doing the same I do as s DM. I'm not saying it's easy and that a DM does not put in some work. The worst thing to do is to throw that into players faces. As well as bring it up over and over. I'm a DM myself. Doing the extra work comes with the position. I choose to do it.

That part of what Mr. Fishy is talking about, the you GM like I told you to or else mentality.

You're right the GM did choose to put 20 hours into a 6 hour game this week. He did keep track of your 3-6 character party plus you 1-5 NPC regulars and your side quest and the main story line and the subplot and each players personal goals and GM notes on the villain and his people, write all of the encounters and add treasure to them that is level and wealth appropriate...Yeah totally the same. You have any children cause they make writing a game every week soooo much easier.

Not every Player is a selfish brat, Mr. Fishy admits that.

But any GM worth his salt is way more invested in his game than any one player, so show some basic, it is not common anymore, courtesy to the Player that choose to sent their week preparing for your game.

Not every GM uses AP or Modules, some of us write our own games and we feel that we have earned the right to a certain level of control over that game. If you don't like it then when you run, run the game your way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mr.Fishy wrote:


If you don't like it then when you run, run the game your way.

But please by all means run. There's a serious lack of GM's vs. players in terms of numbers.


TarkXT wrote:


But please by all means run. There's a serious lack of GM's vs. players in terms of numbers.

Agreed. Mr. Fishy loves to GM but some times it is nice to play in some one else's game and just coast. Mr. Fishy doesn't need to win to have fun in a game. That said Mr. Fishy given a good team will wreak your encounters.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Libertad wrote:


Bloat can be a problem from the perspective of a consumer, who only has so much funds to buy so many books full of new, neat options.

Simple solution don't buy a product if their is a lack of funds. I was laid off from my job in November. My gaming puchases have been and far between.

Libertad wrote:


Bloat can be a problem when you allow way too many things at once in the game, especially new subsystems.

Fixed easily enough. Before running a game figure out with the players what will be allowed and disallowed. Even before meeting the group take the time to figure out what as a Dm you want at the table. It's mroe work. It can be a little annoying to be sure.

Libertad wrote:


Bloat can be a problem when you have to haul around physical books to access the material.

That's a problem with any rpg. I'm seriously thinking of going to PDF as I'm running out of space. While getting older so it's harder to carry more books

You have made some good points. I still don't think that they make a case for Paizo or any rpg company to publish less imo.

Liberty's Edge

Good points all around Mr. Fishy. Even if talking in second person creeps me out a little. Anyone else think if this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSeSTI272LM . Except change little fishy to mr Fishy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mr.Fishy wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Mr.Fishy wrote:

EX.2 Feudal Japan; heroic fairy tale about a group of samurai, all human group.

Player: I want to be a fox spirit...with magic.
That's sort of not a fair call on your part, though, because you said, "Feudal japan fairy tale." Playing a kitsune is fitting into your guidelines perfectly, in my opinion. Especially considering that they can just turn into humans whenever they want to anyway.

1. There were no rules for a fox spirit PC.

2. Magic was very loose and I didn't need a ten minute turn every round while the fox worked out his next spell.

3. It was a power issue, he want special powers without restriction in a low powered game.

I would have allowed a spell caster.

Final And this is what sticks Mr. Fishy asked that the party be made of samurai serving the same lord. Simple request. The player didn't ask to play a kitsune, he refused to play unless he could play a kitsune. The whole table is hostage to that one player. If he doesn't like a call or a game he ends the game, table be damned. Mr. Fishy has seen it and heard other players complain that he crashed their games or some one else's.

That is the type of player I would not invite back. I had one like that a few years ago. It won't happen again. That is also one of the reasons why I try to start a game off with 5 to 6 players, so that if someone drops mid-game, I can keep on going.


memorax wrote:


Libertad wrote:


Bloat can be a problem when you have to haul around physical books to access the material.

That's a problem with any rpg. I'm seriously thinking of going to PDF as I'm running out of space. While getting older so it's harder to carry more books

You have made some good points. I still don't think that they make a case for Paizo or any rpg company to publish less imo.

I agree with your other points, and this one, but I also have a solution to this last point. As a player just print out the pages you need. I used to carry all of those books, but then I decided to carry the pages that I needed, and leave the book at home.

As a GM you can also only bring certain pages. That is what I did, and if the host had a computer I spoke with them ahead of time about me having access to their computer if I needed it, so I would just bring my laptop, or my USB stick in case I forgot to print something before I left the house. Most of the time I had both. I just tried to make sure today's needed materials were on the USB stick.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:


That's a problem with any rpg. I'm seriously thinking of going to PDF as I'm running out of space. While getting older so it's harder to carry more books

I switched to PDFs recently and am quite happy with it. I actually just picked up a bunch of 2e and 3.5 PDFs, since DTRPG is having a sale on all WotC PDFs right now. The part I don't like is that there are still a significant number of books which I still use regularly but only own in print. That collection is decreasing, but slowly due to my limited budget and new books that catch my eye.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
memorax wrote:


That's a problem with any rpg. I'm seriously thinking of going to PDF as I'm running out of space. While getting older so it's harder to carry more books
I switched to PDFs recently and am quite happy with it. I actually just picked up a bunch of 2e and 3.5 PDFs, since DTRPG is having a sale on all WotC PDFs right now. The part I don't like is that there are still a significant number of books which I still use regularly but only own in print. That collection is decreasing, but slowly due to my limited budget and new books that catch my eye.

Thanks for the reminder. My copy of Magic Item Compendium disappeared a while back. I want another one, but I don't want a hard copy since it is a book I almost never use anyway.


wraithstrike wrote:
Thanks for the reminder. My copy of Magic Item Compendium disappeared a while back. I want another one, but I don't want a hard copy since it is a book I almost never use anyway.

Really? I mean, I don't use 3.5 books for Pathfinder games anymore, but I make an exception for the MIC.

It's by far my favorite book from 3.5.

The Treasure system in the MIC is just... SO much better than either the 3.5 or Pathfinder treasure distribution methods. I wish Pathfinder had adopted something like it, but I understand that, since it's not officially SRD material, they couldn't.

I did giggle a quite a bit when I saw that the Spell Compendium and Magic Item Compendium got reprints for the 3.5 rerelease, making them the unofficial Core Books 4 and 5.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Thanks for the reminder. My copy of Magic Item Compendium disappeared a while back. I want another one, but I don't want a hard copy since it is a book I almost never use anyway.

Really? I mean, I don't use 3.5 books for Pathfinder games anymore, but I make an exception for the MIC.

It's by far my favorite book from 3.5.

The Treasure system in the MIC is just... SO much better than either the 3.5 or Pathfinder treasure distribution methods. I wish Pathfinder had adopted something like it, but I understand that, since it's not officially SRD material, they couldn't.

I did giggle a quite a bit when I saw that the Spell Compendium and Magic Item Compendium got reprints for the 3.5 rerelease, making them the unofficial Core Books 4 and 5.

I don't use the book that much, but for less than $10 it is a cheap pickup. I tend to handout the belt of healing* at low levels, and I allow some spells from the spell compendium if the players are willing to research them.

*Maybe it is the healing belt. I always forget which is the correct name.


Yea I love the MiC. The thing I really dislike though is that they won't sell the 3.5 core rules digitally. Or the core rules for most other editions, for that matter (the BECMI Rules Cyclopedia seems to be the exception). And yea I still use them, the players in my main group utterly refuse to play Pathfinder no matter how I try to convince them.


The site does not have MiC availible. I guess I will have to do without.


137ben wrote:
Yea I love the MiC. The thing I really dislike though is that they won't sell the 3.5 core rules digitally. Or the core rules for most other editions, for that matter (the BECMI Rules Cyclopedia seems to be the exception). And yea I still use them, the players in my main group utterly refuse to play Pathfinder no matter how I try to convince them.

They won't even try a one-shot? That is how I got one group to switch over. I told them if they did not like the one session I would run something else. At worse the topic would be over after that one session. On the other hand they can have another option to go to with games.


137ben wrote:
And yea I still use them, the players in my main group utterly refuse to play Pathfinder no matter how I try to convince them.

Really? That's a shame.

I mean, switching from any edition to 4E, I can understand, because 4E really is such a radically different game than anything else.

3rd to Pathfinder, though, really isn't THAT dissimilar from 2nd Ed.

Like I said before, everything boils down to either reassignments of some things, streamlined rules, or just straight-out removal for added versatility and intuitiveness.

The most obvious reskin/reassignment is NWPs. NWPs became either Skills that follow a method first began in the Player's Options of 2nd Ed, or they became Feats, with the majority of High Level NWPs becoming Feats, and able to be accessed much earlier than before (looking at the Fighter's ones, there's an NWP that's blatantly what Whirlwind Attack became). You drop the whole "slots" thing, and instead everyone gets a Feat every odd level. Some classes grant extra Feats, too.

---

For the streamlining, there're the classes, which all progress at the same rate, and the adoption of a universal Character Level, instead of the oddball multiclassing nonsense of previous versions.

Another major change was the adoption of a BAB-to-Casting-Progression model. Excepting for Divine classes (because Divine is weird like that), you either have: 1/2 BAB and 9 level spell progression, or 3/4 BAB and 6/9 spell progression (roughly corresponding to somewhere between the 2nd Ed Cleric and Bard, with spellcasting from lv1, but only going to lv6), or Full BAB and 4/9 Spell Progressions (following the Paladin's design).

There's also Combat and Spellcasting, which was, again, recodified. Init was kept, but you have a number of Actions you can do per round, Spellcasting being one of them (which no longer uses Initiative modifiers to delay when the spell happens, and instead uses the Attacks of Opportunity rules first introduced in Combat & Tactics).

There's also the adoption of Base Attack Bonus, which is standardized among all classes, and roughly corresponds with the 1st and 2nd ed attack progressions sensibilities. This is one of the bigger changes, but not too glaringly different than 2nd ed - you just get more attacks per round than in 2nd ed. That basically just means that, at high levels, your melee character will look like Hiko Seijirou in the Rurouni Kensin OVA (ludicrous numbers of attacks vs a mook, resulting in a fine red mist).

---

The things that were dropped were the things that were always stupid or unintuitive:

Racial restrictions on classes and required stats for classes (instead of built-in incentives to have certain stats higher in some stats than others).

THAC0 and Attack Matricies - just a straight meet-or-beat AC.

A limit on how much you can multiclass, and what races can multiclass as. By the very NATURE of multiclassing, you're more than likely going to be penalizing yourself, or at the very best staying on the same level of power as though you hadn't multiclassed; very few multiclass builds result in something more powerful than a straight Base Class, and those that do often have downsides in the long run anyway, in some form or another.

Dual-Classing. Yeah, multiclassing is just simpler. If you REALLY want Dual-Classing in your game, there's always the Gestalt rules, which are available in the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana book, which is an SRD book, so it's available for free.

Spheres for Clerics were a pretty neat idea, but was one of the ways that Clerics were hosed; removing Spheres and adding in Domains made the Clerics much more versatile and useful.

---

Stuff that was added:

More combat tricks, in the form of Combat Maneuvers, which codify some things always present but never described in previous editions - you could always Grapple and Trip, but now you know HOW to do that without having the DM figure it out; you can also Disarm, Overrun, Bull-Rush, make a Dirty Trick, Feint, and even do some pretty spiffy stuff while you're Grappling.

Magic Item Creation has be standardized and spelled out explicitly, rather than hinted at and left up to DM discretion (there's still a little, but at least if a non-Artifact is printed, you'll be able to make a copy of it).

CRs and DCs - DCs are really just the old Proficiency Checks given a codified value, and a variable one at that (some tasks are far simpler than others)

CRs, on the other hand, are a tool for the DM to gauge the relative toughness of a fight for the players - no more guesswork whether that Beholder is going to kill your party, because now you KNOW it's a CR15 monster, and a party made of lv5s will absolutely NOT survive that bugger. They're not perfect, though, and it's still more an art than a science, but at least it's a better guideline than anything before it.

---

The stuff that was left basically unchanged from 2nd Ed:

Class Roles, Class design themes - No classes, barring the Cleric, took a radical thematic or role change, really. While the Cleric DID ascend from "worst class" to "why aren't you playing a Cleric", the basic assumption is that you're still the healer of the party, or at the very least have plenty of religion-based powers; the major change was from the 7/9 spell progression to full-caster, making the Cleric the Divine counterpart to the Wizard. The Sorcerer was added as a Sponteneous counterpart to the Wizard, for players who don't like to prepare spells ahead of time, and who want a character who is naturally-magical, rather than granted power through training (Bard), study (Wizard), or faith (Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Paladin).

Classes and class abilities were expanded upon to give greater versatility, but familiar abilities from 2nd ed were left basically intact (except the Ranger's bear family - that was just silly). The Barbarian is still a berserker, the Fighter a man-at-arms, the Paladin a holy knight, the Ranger a woodland warrior; the Rogue is the Thief, the bard is a magical minstral, trickster, and supporter, and the Monk is a mystical warrior; the Cleric is still a priestly caster, the Druid a nature-worshipping sage; the Wizard is still the ur-mage, and the Sorcerer is a conduit of natural magical power.

Alignment - you still have the good ol' dual-axis Chaotic-Lawful-Good-Evil matrix that everyone knows and loves.

Abilities like Spell Resistance, Spell Immunity, Energy Resistance, Energy Immunity, and Damage Reduction. To a large degree, these abilities were left unchanged, though a few were expanded upon a bit to flesh them out a little, and in some ways give the party a bit more of a fighting chance than before.

---

Your players may still not be convinced to try Pathfinder, but if you explain to them the way I did, that PF really isn't that radically different than 2nd Ed (especially 2nd Ed from towards the end of it's lifetime, when the Player's Options booklets existed and the game was basically "2.5 Ed") it might.

One of the things to keep in mind when taking to them is that Pathfinder, in several ways, actually REVERTED some things back to 2nd ed sensibilities - you have many more Monsters-as-PCs options than you did in 3.5, and all without the nonsense of Effective Character Level. There is no massive chart for determining XP - it's all listed in the Monsters' descriptions. Prestige Classes are effectively nonexistent, and while multiclassing is an option, basically every class is more than robust enough to make you want to take until lv20.

Skills are fairly radically simplified, with most skills covering at least 2 possible uses, while skill points from 3.5 are left intact (or even expanded), thus allowing a character to have as many skill-based talents as 2nd Ed characters with NWPs.

Silver Crusade Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I still have the 3.0 Conversion Manual around here (not that it'll be that much help to any of you in my hands).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
... You have made some good points. I still don't think that they make a case for Paizo or any rpg company to publish less imo.

Again, I take exception to the part about people who don't want new material. I have seen that mentioned repeatedly in this thread.

Reading through here I've seen very few people saying they don't want the company to publish any new material. They want something different than what is being published.
* Updated/corrected versions of original material.
* Different material. Ex: More setting stuff rather than PC build stuff.
* Better quality of material. Ex: Rather than 5 books with editing errors, confusing wording, and/or poorly considered options - Put out only 2 books that have been more extensively edited, clearly worded, and/or more play testing.
* PF 2.0 (or maybe 1.5)


ElterAgo wrote:
memorax wrote:
... You have made some good points. I still don't think that they make a case for Paizo or any rpg company to publish less imo.

Again, I take exception to the part about people who don't want new material. I have seen that mentioned repeatedly in this thread.

Reading through here I've seen very few people saying they don't want the company to publish any new material. They want something different than what is being published.
1 * Updated/corrected versions of original material.
2 * Different material. Ex: More setting stuff rather than PC build stuff.
3 * Better quality of material. Ex: Rather than 5 books with editing errors, confusing wording, and/or poorly considered options - Put out only 2 books that have been more extensively edited, clearly worded, and/or more play testing.
4 * PF 2.0 (or maybe 1.5)

These have been mentioned and some commented on by the Paizo staff, but they would very likely lead to a loss of profits. If any of the posters can find a way to do this without affecting the money intake I am sure Paizo would implement it.

I also want to ask what is the difference between point 1 and point 3? Both seem to refer to issuing errata for certain products by my reading of it.

As for point 4 that would likely be a very bad idea since it would split the player base. Something like unchained which is coming out is a good way to provide alternatives to the core rules. At the same time if those rules are received well it could let Paizo know what to do when they make the next edition.


Ugh... QUIT WORRYING ABOUT THE BLOAT ALREADY!

Dude, you JUST need the 3 core book the play the game, the rest is just supplementary/not mandatory.

You don't need more classes, more races, more feats, more spells, more monsters, etc... All 3 books cover everything you need.

You take it or you leave it, as simple as that.

Furthermore, what is there to worry about? Too much material? Why again? Too much options? When is it a BAD thing to have "too much options" again?

Occult Adventures is around the corner, feel free to take it, no one forces you to use these rules, let alone buy the book.

Dude, if you're solely use the APs, all you need is the 3 core books and the 6 APs. That's it, because most of the stuff use in the APs are reprinted for your convenience. Same goes with the modules.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:
137ben wrote:
And yea I still use them, the players in my main group utterly refuse to play Pathfinder no matter how I try to convince them.

Really? That's a shame.

I mean, switching from any edition to 4E, I can understand, because 4E really is such a radically different game than anything else.

3rd to Pathfinder, though, really isn't THAT dissimilar from 2nd Ed.

Like I said before, everything boils down to either reassignments of some things, streamlined rules, or just straight-out removal for added versatility and intuitiveness.

The most obvious reskin/reassignment is NWPs. NWPs became either Skills that follow a method first began in the Player's Options of 2nd Ed, or they became Feats, with the majority of High Level NWPs becoming Feats, and able to be accessed much earlier than before (looking at the Fighter's ones, there's an NWP that's blatantly what Whirlwind Attack became). You drop the whole "slots" thing, and instead everyone gets a Feat every odd level. Some classes grant extra Feats, too.

---

For the streamlining, there're the classes, which all progress at the same rate, and the adoption of a universal Character Level, instead of the oddball multiclassing nonsense of previous versions.

Another major change was the adoption of a BAB-to-Casting-Progression model. Excepting for Divine classes (because Divine is weird like that), you either have: 1/2 BAB and 9 level spell progression, or 3/4 BAB and 6/9 spell progression (roughly corresponding to somewhere between the 2nd Ed Cleric and Bard, with spellcasting from lv1, but only going to lv6), or Full BAB and 4/9 Spell Progressions (following the Paladin's design).

There's also Combat and Spellcasting, which was, again, recodified. Init was kept, but you have a number of Actions you can do per round, Spellcasting being one of them (which no longer uses Initiative modifiers to delay when the spell happens, and instead uses the Attacks of Opportunity rules first introduced in Combat & Tactics).

There's also...

Though ben137 was talking about switching from 3.5 which really isn't a big difference, though there are lots of little gotcha's. Part of it may be that players feel like they've invested heavily into 3.5 books and would need to do the same to get a similar experience in PF.

But mostly I wanted to say that 3.x really is a very different game from 2E. It's just a subtler difference than with 4E. The introduction of feats and the change in multiclassing changed the build game drastically. You can build characters the same way you did 2E, but they'll be much less effective. There are far more options, far more planning required and far more ability to either optimize or screw up.

The game plays different too. Using the same tactics developed in earlier versions won't be effective - blasting is much less effective for casters and there are far more buffing and battlefield control options available, for example.

But it's subtle, because unlike 4e, you can just look at the characters and they look very much the same - You can make a wizard with basically the same stats and spells as a 2E wizard, he's just going to play very differently.


wraithstrike wrote:
ElterAgo wrote:
memorax wrote:
... You have made some good points. I still don't think that they make a case for Paizo or any rpg company to publish less imo.

Again, I take exception to the part about people who don't want new material. I have seen that mentioned repeatedly in this thread.

Reading through here I've seen very few people saying they don't want the company to publish any new material. They want something different than what is being published.
1 * Updated/corrected versions of original material.
2 * Different material. Ex: More setting stuff rather than PC build stuff.
3 * Better quality of material. Ex: Rather than 5 books with editing errors, confusing wording, and/or poorly considered options - Put out only 2 books that have been more extensively edited, clearly worded, and/or more play testing.
4 * PF 2.0 (or maybe 1.5)

These have been mentioned and some commented on by the Paizo staff, but they would very likely lead to a loss of profits. If any of the posters can find a way to do this without affecting the money intake I am sure Paizo would implement it.

I also want to ask what is the difference between point 1 and point 3? Both seem to refer to issuing errata for certain products by my reading of it.

As for point 4 that would likely be a very bad idea since it would split the player base. Something like unchained which is coming out is a good way to provide alternatives to the core rules. At the same time if those rules are received well it could let Paizo know what to do when they make the next edition.

1 is "Errata the existing material". 3 is "Put out material that doesn't need errata, even if that means less material".


I somehow read "editing errors" as "edit existing errors"

No more posting for me until I get some sleep.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
1 is "Errata the existing material". 3 is "Put out material that doesn't need errata, even if that means less material".

I just wanted to chime in and say they already put errata into books when they reprint - the CRB is usually pretty good about that as it gets reprinted most often.

My thought of 'revised' wasn't about errata as much as cleaning up the actual game language - this doesn't mean it has to change the game, or the rules like errata can - but rather just taking the time to remove bad/confusing language which has been shown to trip up people who don't read the rules forums.

There is plenty of that in there - people still get tripped up on hold vs. ready actions - people still get tripped up on swift vs immediate - people still get tripped up on attack action vs full round attack.

That's just a few hot button ones - Jason did an incredible blog post (it's referenced in the CRB FAQ) about poisons which actually made them *clear* and *understandable* and much more deadly than how I was using them.

Why isn't that part of the CRB? Honestly. There is opportunity for them (from the rules forum posts and feedback) to really clean up the crufty corners of the rules and make at least the 'basic' understandable and easier to use.

There are plenty of areas they can actually clear up that *no one* has a good idea about - for instance 'flying 3/d' combat - there is an entire area that can be fleshed out and hopefully some simple rules for how to handle it that helps players and gm's around the world find a workable solution. Mounted combat needs cleaned up. I can go on.

They (Paizo) have shown a great ability to make the rules make sense when they want to - I feel like a 'revised' CRB would be awesome - again not a new edition - not a "pathfinder 1.5" but just revised.

That is what I mean - not just errata.


JiCi wrote:

Ugh... QUIT WORRYING ABOUT THE BLOAT ALREADY!

Dude, you JUST need the 3 core book the play the game, the rest is just supplementary/not mandatory.

You don't need more classes, more races, more feats, more spells, more monsters, etc... All 3 books cover everything you need.

You take it or you leave it, as simple as that.

Furthermore, what is there to worry about? Too much material? Why again? Too much options? When is it a BAD thing to have "too much options" again?

Occult Adventures is around the corner, feel free to take it, no one forces you to use these rules, let alone buy the book.

Dude, if you're solely use the APs, all you need is the 3 core books and the 6 APs. That's it, because most of the stuff use in the APs are reprinted for your convenience. Same goes with the modules.

Yeah, that's how the player vs GM argument happened. Basically If one or more players want to play other options past what the GM is comfortable with the players will demand to use more options there is argument over who has power of issues of what books and house rules are allowed and what to do if you enter a group with pre-established house rules.

401 to 450 of 659 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Anybody starting to have trouble recognizing their game? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.