The only way for an inexperienced GM to make things go the way they want without being able to set it up mechanically from the get go is to fudge dice, change encounters mid session or even mid combat and explicitly railroad. Most would consider this breaking the social contract, rule 0 be damned.Incorrect.
Fudging Dice, changing encounters mid-session, and "railroading" doesn't break the social contract.
Read the GMG it recommends all of those things. For every gaming group I've ever been in, for example, its understood that these things will happen
Example:
"I teleport us to Evil McBaddie's lair!"
"You close your eyes and feel yourself pulled through the spaces between worlds but when you open them you are not at your destination. You find yourself at the base of a forest."
"Why?"
"You aren't sure."
-----
Later on after having defeated Evil McBaddie.
"Make a spell craft check as you look at the strange orb."
"Check passes."
"It's the Orb of Osarin, it is said that it strengthens the bonds of time and space and none can teleport within 5 miles of this orb."
-----
No social contract broken. Teleport cheese revoked and the game now establishes that teleport blocking is possible.
and... an inexperienced GM is supposed to think all this up? he's more than likely just going to let the teleport spell work as written.
edit: also teleport doesn't warp space time, it specifically "transports" you there, it moves you there as a transport would, like a really fast horse.
@ Tormsskull:
Actually, you and I often seem on the same page. I don't play any system completely "as is" because I make my own campaigns. But I am finding Pathfinder too burdened with - for lack of a better word - bloat. Too many Feats; too many mechanics and rules. We may not agree, but I feel you do understand, which was my first point back to you.
I've been burned disregarding the rules, however. I had one player get disgruntled when I allowed another player to do something that - unbeknownst to me - required a Feat in PF. A Feat he had "spent" to be able to do.
I came from AD&D many years ago. I've DM'd most of my life. But with PF, there's just too much for me to be on top of. And they keep adding more!
Hero Lab has also been partly to blame for my experience with my group. With the hundreds of Feats out there, and unknown synergies and interactions, I can't know every singe option so I can say "yea" or "nay" on including it. But my players will discover one sitting there and take it, and the next thing I know I have Feats from several different books/supplements/AP's, etc., that are either outright OP, or OP in my setting.
Then I have another player who has a gift for finding things to exploit. I keep having to tell him "no, no, no" when he pops up with something. I ask him: "Dude, do you really think that's the intent behind that?" And so ensues RAW vs RAI, and invoking Rule 0 yet again.
Aghck!
I'm tired of rules-lawyering, and parsing out meanings of the language, and want the "good old days" when we just played based on mutual assumptions and not someone pointing at a rule saying "I should be able to do this because...!" Sorry, but things were simpler back in the day. I abandoned AD&D for more complex, richer systems. I've come to PF because that's what the group I met up with play, and jumped in without really knowing the system. I mean, I played AD&D, right? And have played RPGs for years. But getting hit with all the stuff I don't know, or don't agree with in the PF system, it's gotten to be too much.
And I really feel for PFS where every errata or FAQ can have major ramifications!
Oh well - I'm still looking for my better system. I like a lot of the options available in PF, but want more freedom and balance than it currently has. Aside from Rule 0, which amounts to me creating my own, and that's a lot of work!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, this isn't about GMs, it's about a lack of trust in Paizo to put out a product that meets the standards that we've come to expect from them.
I dunno man, are sure you aren't just refusing to accept the golden light of Paizo's infinite truth into your heart because you are a filthy powergamer?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suggest reading Walsh posts, but not replying to them.
He has a right to be heard and state his viewpoints, as does anyone. However this is not a debate with end goals, so you cannot "win" unless your definition of winning is to entertain yourself with a meaningless debate for a few hours.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I run into Players who will site "the rules" because the rules support what they want to do, especially when that application is broken. Then I have to say: "Look, I feel that's broken and unbalanced. And in MY game, it needs to be nerfed or banned."
I don't have the support of the system, and it gets tiring really fast.
This is the fundamental problem with the "opposing" sides not seeing each others (or at least not agreeing with each others) arguments. Old school players have never played the game with this mindset and see it as a player problem (or at best a table problem) to have players whose expectations are set to this.
Old school players (specifically those who began pre-3rd ed) are accustomed to rulings over rules. 3rd edition was the first one that the idea of RAW really became as dominant as it is today. They find the idea of RAW as distasteful and don't see any problem with adjusting the core mechanics to their group's personal taste.
The other part of the problem is that any problems old school GMs have with any of the proposed changes is it would require very drastic houserules by those who are mostly happy as is with the current rules.
What I want to know is: when do I get paid for doing so much work home-brewing a system that isn't "that broken"?
If it's so burdonsome that you feel you deserve financial renumeration for playing the game (yes, I count reading the rules and homebrewing content for your game as playing the game) then perhaps it's time to find another game?
CRB had some flaws, but not overly burdensome to tweak for a home game. But with each expansion adding more: feats; traits; classes; archetypes; and mechanics, it has become ungainly (see all the "bloat" threads from a few months back) and cumbersome, full of junk that is either OP or worthless, and needs to be constantly monitored by the GM for a "thumbs up" or "Thumbs down" vote on whether it should be included in their campaign.
Sounds like the easiest solution is to simply play a CRB only game. I'd personally want to play CRB+Unchained myself at a minimum.
Just because we'll never get a perfect system doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve the current one. Saying that we'll never get a perfect system shouldn't hinder our attempts to improve upon what we have now.
And what happens when one person's improvements are another person's ruining of a good game?
As for the disparity, player skill is much more important than what class a player chooses. Martial or caster, a sufficiently skilled player can bend the system over and make it cry for mummy.
I of course, do make houserules to deal with caster supremacy and also to help bring down martials to something slightly more manageable. But I don't feel they're so burdensome that I deserve financial renumeration for daring to want to play Pathfinder. If I did, I'd probably play a different game.
If I have to keep house ruling a system, then why am I using it? I can just use "Otherwhere's RPG" and start making money from those who agree with me.
So here's a question: Why ARE you playing Pathfinder? If the game is as awful as the posts here seem to indicate, it truly boggles the mind that everyone seems to play it. I can only conclude the game isn't as bad as the forum posts would have you believe and people are either hyperfocusing on a minor part of a game they otherwise enjoy or they just don't play Pathfinder. Because I can't imagine playing something as unenjoyable as some people make Pathfinder sound.
NOTE: I don't think any specific poster really should stop playing the game. I'm confident anyone who spends as much time as we do posting on a forum about a game genuinely enjoy the game. I just think we can sometimes get a bit carried away and engage in a bit of hyperbole in an attempt to make our point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuffWhat would be the possibility for making the PDFs of every printing for books in the RPG line available?
IE, if you purchase the PDF for the Core Rulebook (either seperately or as part of a subscription), your downloads would include versions for each of the 1st-6th printings?
I think it would also alleviate some agro if the errata documents, instead of just providing the errata, provided a brief reasoning behind why the errata was made.
Great idea. The errata notes would be a fantastic "behind the scenes" look at the developer's mindset behind the changes, and help to understand why they were made.
Along with this, providing the errata for earlier editions - i.e. the CRB errata only shows errata between the print and 6th Edition.
I'd like to be able to look at 1st to 2nd or 4th to 5th, as not everybody at the table has the same version of the book, and it would be incredibly helpful to see the differences.
Certainly some of these existed at some point, if only as "1st to 2nd" and "1st to 3rd" and so forth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember when this thread was a productive conversation about how we would like to see changes to the errata? I miss that, let's go back to that.
So a green rope in a viny jungle or a rope hidden behind an illusion would be fine then?
I forgot that perpendicular meant they had to be touching.
Also I meant the whole DM vs Rules argument. You're not going to budge on your stance ever, so "debate" is meaningless unless you find it fun to argue on the net.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Does not say it is on the ground. Not anywhere.
2. If so then the spell would say "you cannot cast the spell with the intention of the rope being hidden or cammoflouged." Instead it reads like the author didn't want you to pull the rope into the box.
Whenever you say "intended" all I hear is "you can't think outside the box, clever usages of your tricks is out of the question."
Do you hate prestdigitization?
Actually it DOES say it is on the ground:
http://www.mathopenref.com/perpendicular.html
Perpendicular means "at right angles". A line meeting another at a right angle, or 90° is said to be perpendicular to it. In the figure above, the line AB is perpendicular to the line DF. If they met at some other angle we would say that AB meets DF 'obliquely'. Move the point A around and create both situations. Move the mouse carefully to get AB exactly perpendicular to DF.
A line meeting another at a right angle.
From the spell description:
"one end of the rope rises into the air until the whole rope hangs perpendicular to the ground"That means LITERALLY that one end of the rope rises into the air until the whole rope hangs perpendicular (meaning meets or crosses at a right angle) to the ground. Meaning that one end of the rope must be touching the ground or the spell does not work.
I am a mathematician and I feel utterly INSULTED by your statement.
I totally CAN evaluate the angle between two segments that do not touch, their position is totally irrelevant as long as orientation is given.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sneaky in the context of the game world. In the same way that using stealth to get the jump on someone is.
So yes, we should reward our players for being dishonest and outsmarting the npcs.
Not really no.
You are trying to outsmart the spell's limitations and outsmart the game designer and the rule set.
Which is why... In my game... Anyone who tries this will find themselves making a percentile roll, and on 50% or lower the spell fails, and is removed from their caster list, after I warn them:
"You are aware that the spell doesn't work like that, and this may cause problems, or even make the spell fail to work. Do you still want to try it?"
So, in short you have no problems with game balance because you know how to be a jerk GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GMG actually tells you ways to deal with Teleport, this isn't rocket science. If the GM hasn't read the GMG then he shouldn't be running the game yet.
and... an inexperienced GM is supposed to think all this up? he's more than likely just going to let the teleport spell work as written.
We all start somewhere, we can't always afford niceties and extras :-)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once a thread passes 10 pages it may as well be deleted because everything new and original has already been stated.
Unless the name of your thread was "ACG potential errors" because that thread could go on for 100 pages and still find new errors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So here's a question: Why ARE you playing Pathfinder? If the game is as awful as the posts here seem to indicate, it truly boggles the mind that everyone seems to play it. I can only conclude the game isn't as bad as the forum posts would have you believe and people are either hyperfocusing on a minor part of a game they otherwise enjoy or they just don't play Pathfinder. Because I can't imagine playing something as unenjoyable as some people make Pathfinder sound.
Because that's what the group I picked up with plays.
I bought D&D 5e, but they don't want to go that way.
And Pathfinder does have room for improvement. That's not the same as saying it sucks. I know I'm not alone on this.
Since I do home-brew a lot, I like seeing what other people are doing. What problems are they experiencing, and how do they fix it? That's why I try to contribute with what's not working for me, and what I feel might be a remedy.
I'm not one of the "Paizo should fix this or else!" folks. I am one of the: "I have an issue with this, and would like to see it changed, or errata'd, or FAQ'd" people. Because, yeah, I can always change it myself. Which is what I've been doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Insain Dragon really isn't being all that polite either, and the spell doesn't work that way, nor does it need to, I wiped out half my party with a pirate and Rope Trick:-)
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, this isn't about GMs, it's about a lack of trust in Paizo to put out a product that meets the standards that we've come to expect from them.I dunno man, are sure you aren't just refusing to accept the golden light of Paizo's infinite truth into your heart because you are a filthy powergamer?
You call me a powergamer? Seriously, I'm a patron freaking saint of powergamer. I take it as a point of pride when I see a thread about an alchemist/barbarian/investigator/synthesist/gunslinger breaking a game (even though I do take pains to state to those reading my guide which power level each option is at, and to play at the level of your game instead of shooting for the moon), as they are my children. And you'd better believe if there's a solid way to make the kineticist broke, I'm going to find it once it hits the SRD.
Remember when this thread was a productive conversation about how we would like to see changes to the errata? I miss that, let's go back to that.I wouldn't mind if the errata gave people an idea of what thoughts went into the changes. The problem is that I think that would cause more problems than it would solve.
Imagine if, literally, the dev noted:
"We changed this because we felt it was too powerful."
People would howl and scream even more, and even worse, they'd start a campaign to disprove the dev. It would get more ugly than actually just doing the change.
Seriously, can you go one post without trying to demean powergamers into slavering beast who only know how to cry out in anguish? Like just one post? Is that too much to ask here?
We knew Divine Protection was amazing, the issue isn't "why was it changed", the issue was "why was it completely destroyed as a viable option?" It'd be nice to see why everything other than Magus that had some Swashbuckler lost Parry/Riposte too, or really anything like that. Or why Vanara climb speed was so deeply needed to be nerfed, or why con casting which had been around for as long as it had suddenly needed to be altered.
And what if we do disagree with the reasons, we're not allowed to do that? Maybe the devs aren't always right, maybe they could see others discussing the problems with their reasoning and see new ways of doing things. Amazingly, the devs are human, and can make mistakes. Or maybe we'll just all scream and cry like you constantly claim we'll do because we only have one reaction to everything.
Tickets! Get your tickets here!
It's only gonna get worse before it gets better!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tickets! Get your tickets here!
It's only gonna get worse before it gets better!
debate" is meaningless unless you find it fun to argue on the net.
Nuthin to see here folks, just some guys who enjoy arguing on the internet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's see if we can't get this thing back on it's tracks, I'll be damned if you think I'm pulling into the station late!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I am finding Pathfinder too burdened with - for lack of a better word - bloat. Too many Feats; too many mechanics and rules. We may not agree, but I feel you do understand, which was my first point back to you.
Okay, that makes sense. I don't know if it will help, or if your players will mutiny on you, but a CRB only game, or a Paizo PRD only game are options available to you. I've also heard some people suggest only allowing content from the CRB and one or two other books per character, rather than picking and choosing from numerous resources.
I came from AD&D many years ago. I've DM'd most of my life. But with PF, there's just too much for me to be on top of. And they keep adding more!
Definitely true. My group has always played CRB only + exceptions. This allowed the GM to have a lot more control of what is available for the players. Just because Paizo released a new book didn't mean that the content of the book was now acceptable.
I'm tired of rules-lawyering, and parsing out meanings of the language, and want the "good old days" when we just played based on mutual assumptions and not someone pointing at a rule saying "I should be able to do this because...!" Sorry, but things were simpler back in the day.
That matches my experience as well. I might suggest you and your group take a look at 5e - it is a much simpler rule set with a lot less bloat. Might be a fresh perspective for you guys.
Of course, the players at your table are the real linchpin to getting back to this kind of play style.
It's called playing a Ranger with the Boon Companion feat. :)If you can't acknowledge that some classes are superior to others in every conceivable way from in combat power and role to out of combat power and role, then we can't have this conversation.100% on board with the idea that some classes are better than others.
My solution hasn't been to houserule the Fighter, I've just abandoned it altogether.
Lots of options, I just wish there was a GOOD full BAB with options capable of countering casters (I know, I know, Barbarian, I want something less chaotic/ragey).
I really like the Hunter, just wish it had an archetype where it was full BAB, maybe lose spellcasting... :D
That's pretty good too, but I like getting pets right away, and the level 6 spells might be nice... (I'm serving as party healer, so the Ranger wouldn't be as good).
If we started at level 4+, I likely would have taken the ranger, as I do enjoy full BAB.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because that's what the group I picked up with plays.
If someone at the table isn't enjoying the game then the table has picked the wrong game to play.
See. All of this is a perfectly measured and reasonable response and an appropriate one to have if you are enjoying a game and yet have a few niggly issues. This isn't what you said though. What you said wasAnd Pathfinder does have room for improvement. That's not the same as saying it sucks. I know I'm not alone on this.
Since I do home-brew a lot, I like seeing what other people are doing. What problems are they experiencing, and how do they fix it? That's why I try to contribute with what's not working for me, and what I feel might be a remedy.
I'm not one of the "Paizo should fix this or else!" folks. I am one of the: "I have an issue with this, and would like to see it changed, or errata'd, or FAQ'd" people. Because, yeah, I can always change it myself. Which is what I've been doing.
What I want to know is: when do I get paid for doing so much work home-brewing a system that isn't "that broken"?
That doesn't indicate "a couple of improvements could be made". That says this game is so unenjoyable that you deserve financial renumeration for playing the game.
As I said before, I'm sure it's easy to get carried away, especially when you have people saying "I have no meaningful issues at my table, no change is necessary." The problem is: The solutions to the problems that are desired are not universal. For example: I hate the "We return to full HP by taking a short rest after every single battle" (with a short rest having a period of time equal to the total amount of damage experienced by the group / 4.5 / number of CLW wand users in the party). Having played Pathfinder, D&D 4th edition, AD&D 2nd edition and D&D 5th edition this is a paradigm I've really come to dislike and I would rather have rapid martial healing that is limited to roughly once per day (with restore to full health after a long rest) but takes an hour to take place (to make it a strategic decision when to receive the healing rather than a mandatory after every single battle decision). Others would prefer the solution be to simply force the cleric to use their spell slots to heal the party. Others see no problem with wands of cure light wounds wands and simply want to continue playing the status quo. My solution would be great as an optional rule. Not so great as an errata. This is the problem faced with many such problems. There's at least three solutions to most "problems" (with one of those solutions being leave it as is as a certain number of people gain active enjoyment from the game as a result of the current "problem" existing). Paizo will anger some portion of their audience regardless of which solution they put in place. Paizo currently have an audience with the system as is. It's up to Paizo to decide how much of their audience they'll lose by changing things and whether or not that outweighs the potential benefit of making the game more enjoyable for the remaining portion of the playerbase (and whether there is a significant chance of gaining new players. RPGs have died in the pursuit to reach new players at the expense of existing players).
|
I have an honest question, and am not trying to stir up anything in the process.
My PFS group is currently in the middle of playing Wardens of the Reborn Forge, having completed the first two parts and hopefully playing the third and final part soon.
I currently have a level 14 Aasimar (Idyllkin) Life Oracle, who took the Aasimar alternate FCB to increase her effective caster level from 14 to 21 when channeling. She currently channels 11d6 with a DC of 29 when channeling to harm undead.
As a result of the errata, her effective caster level when channeling would drop from 21 to 16, reducing the channel amount to 8d6 and the DC to 27.
How do I apply this errata to my PFS character in the middle of a PFS sanctioned module? The alternate FCB seems quite useless now, so do I get to put my FCB points into HP and/or skill ranks? Any other alternatives? Thanks in advance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to see what happens if rope trick is cast while standing on a slope
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But in answer to your question: yes, Players do feel that the rules should prevail.1. Never start a sentence with But. It is a rule of the English Language. (Sorry I couldn't resist.)
Leaving aside the fact that correcting people's minor English mistakes is commonly considered rude in an informal international community is commonly considered rude, it would be nice if you at least got your own correction right. It's perfectly fine to start a sentence with a basic conjunction. That it's not is a grammar myth primarily kept alive by stuffy old professors and overly literal English teachers.
There's a great scene in Finding Forrester that deals with almost this exact situation, though the word being discussed is starting a sentence with "and" rather than "but".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suggest reading Walsh posts, but not replying to them.
He has a right to be heard and state his viewpoints, as does anyone. However this is not a debate with end goals, so you cannot "win" unless your definition of winning is to entertain yourself with a meaningless debate for a few hours.
Uh no... This isn't. Nice try.
You made the statement that putting Rope Trick 100 feet in the air was "Sneaky and Clever" I pointed out that the spell actually doesn't allow you to do that based on the spell's description of how the rope hangs.
Perpendicular means touching at a right angle.
So the rope must touch the ground at a right angle. That is how the spell works.
to be clear if you just google perpendicular you will find several sources that show that you don't need the line segments to bisect for them to be perpendicular. lines go on forever in math, so if they don't touch they aren't parallel. This is where the definition you grabbed came from.
regardless, i doubt they were relying on strict knowledge of mathematics when writing that rule.
*i'm staying impartial here and simply giving out evidence, so attack the evidence not me*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can anyone really say that the Vanara were breaking the game with their extra 10 feet of climb speed? In what module, adventurer path, or homebrew campaign did those 10 feet enable an unfair advantage, considering they still keep 20?
THANK YOU for bringing this thread back on topic!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More to the point, earlier you reference something that IS impossible - giving a spell an unexpected failure chance and removing it from a caster list. It is impossible for any DM to emove a spell from a caster's list without granting them a homebrew class, at which point they're free to renegotiate any part of their build or character as usual when you introduce homebrew gameplay.Buzzt!
Nope. The GM can do more or less whatever he wants. The GM can say, "No. The spell fails because I said it does." If the player doesn't like it, then they can negotiate with me after the game or they can get up and leave. The player cannot overrule the GM.
sure they can, in one very specific instance, in whether they continue playing or not. If something in the book doesn't work how it's written on a consistent basis it makes it feel like that choice was secretly a trap by the GM.
To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:
- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?
- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?
- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?
- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?
More accessible and visible introductions to staff would be nice. Having a location where you can find staff and from that search their posts would also be nice. Anything that allows people to see these mysterious identities as real people generally helps keep things friendlier.
New FAQs generally result in a posting in the discussion thread saying it is FAQed (which must be time intensive) and highlighting in the FAQs themselves. The thing is finding FAQs isn't so easy. I really don't like the sidebar of FAQs as a means of finding them. How about a page listing all FAQs and allowing searches of all FAQs?
I think the big thing was there were no indications that many of the things changed by the recent errata needed changing. Other things were reduced too much, so that they are so circumstantial as to be almost useless. I hadn't noticed any discussions of how Bard FCBs were too strong. The Consume Magic Item and Consume Spell changes for Arcanist also caught me totally by surprise.
What would be nice is when there is a big change coming that will affect a lot of people, the devs would start a conversation about what problems they see and what they are thinking of doing to address it. This gives people really involved with those sort of characters a chance to see what is coming, and hopefully give some constructive feedback on appropriate level of nerf. Opinions can vary, and the value of something is different on a single class character versus a multi-class character, but having some discussion before a lot of currently viable and legal characters are drastically changed would be nice.
Versioning on the PRD would be nice. It isn't the next thing I would want you to do. I would much prefer fixing all the spells so that they show everyone who can get them rather than just the list of who originally gets them. Make it so a search of Bloodrager spells shows Shield and other spells from before the ACG. Same for all the classes.
I'm not convinced that versioning of the PDFs is that valuable.
I remember the old days of D & D / Chainmail, 1st edition and 2nd edition. Everyone had their own set of house rules and they were massive. There would be more change going from one campaign to the next than there is going from 3.0 to Pathfinder with all the accessories.
The changes to create 3.0 helped reduce house rules. There were a lot of people who came back to AD&D because of the changes there. There were also a lot less house rules. This is good for the community since then people can move from one game to the next without as many sudden surprises.
Versioning the PDFs would likely encourage the community to split. They want to sit down and play a game, not go through everything and figure out if their document versions match with some new proposed campaign.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Balance in table top roleplaying is like communism. It's a great idea in principle, but whenever people try to implement it, it always ends up a horrible reality.
The only version of D&D that balanced the classes is 4e. We didn't like that game. The reasons we didn't like it were that it lost the D&D flavour, that every class just felt the same as every other, there was no distinctiveness and the game resembled too much a board game rather than an RPG.
In consequence, Pathfinder was born.
If you want a more "balanced" fantasy rpg there are plenty of options out there: 4e, Conan, WFRPG for example. D&D needs difference if it's still going to feel like D&D.
Can we end the disparity/game balance derail now please? There are plenty of other threads discussing that subject.
I am not a communist, and I support this post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to see what happens if rope trick is cast while standing on a slope
if you climb on a wall and cast it, does it allow me to tightrope walk?
First a preface:** spoiler omitted **
It seems that there is a group of people who dislike that a GM needs to be involved to make the game work. They would like the game to work right out of the box, even with a newbie GM and newbie players. While that is a laudable goal, is it a realistic one?
Speaking as someone who designs games.
Yes.
Why do you think the beginner's box exists?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Balance in table top roleplaying is like communism. It's a great idea in principle, but whenever people try to implement it, it always ends up a horrible reality.
I am not a communist, and I support this post.The only version of D&D that balanced the classes is 4e. We didn't like that game. The reasons we didn't like it were that it lost the D&D flavour, that every class just felt the same as every other, there was no distinctiveness and the game resembled too much a board game rather than an RPG.
In consequence, Pathfinder was born.
If you want a more "balanced" fantasy rpg there are plenty of options out there: 4e, Conan, WFRPG for example. D&D needs difference if it's still going to feel like D&D.
Can we end the disparity/game balance derail now please? There are plenty of other threads discussing that subject.
just going to point out it ends up worse when you don't try. in this case they're not doing capitalism either, as then the market would decide what's balanced :P. this some form of strange despotism where they're trying to help us without letting us help them.
I want to see what happens if rope trick is cast while standing on a slopeif you climb on a wall and cast it, does it allow me to tightrope walk?It depends on if the GM considers the wall the ground.
Most likely the rope would point downward and away from you.
Though you could use it as a pole to dance on I guess... If you were a bard...
honestly, there's animate rope for this, why does it matter. :P
but how bout an impossible bloodline sorcerer who can walk on walls as if gravity was that way, can HE cast it on a wall?
Can you bolt a flat board to an immovable rod and use that as the ground? While we are discussing rules abuses.
iuno, i mean can you cast it on a balcony on the 2nd floor?
if i made a 5x5 foot platform from the immovable rod could i then cast it up there?