Do you like this game (Pathfinder)?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

651 to 700 of 850 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Creative Director

11 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not explicitly spelled out in the rules (alas), but my solution to the whole "scry and fry" tactic is that it doesn't work. Scry allows you to observe a creature (not a location), and teleport allows you to travel to a location (not a creature). To me, that's good enough reason/explanation to prevent this frustrating "we don't have to play the adventure" tactic.

Of course, another favorite way to handle this tactic is to write adventures where if the PCs do simply storm in to the last encounter, they end up having to fight the entire adventure's worth of foes all at once in an encounter that's CR +10 or higher above their average party level...


There are people out there that don't see the cater/martial disparity as being a thing. There are all sorts of reasons for them being wrong, but they also exist. Not everyone is in denial about there problem. Some just have not encountered it.

In my group the giants did attack sand point. I Wouldn't call that an army.


Zhangar wrote:

@ Rynjin - Wait, you scryed them and the giant ranger and the dragon didn't notice?

It's only a DC 24 perception check to spot the sensor. And I think scrying sensors pick up on blindsense. Need to think on that.

Your GM might've goofed.

(When my PCs scryed that giant, the giant and dragon sure as hell noticed, the dragon passed its check to recognize the scrying sensor for what it was, and they proceeded accordingly.)

I'm very confused here. Scrying has zero reference to the target let alone anyone around them being able to make a perception check to realize you are watching.


Zhangar wrote:

Wait, you scryed them and the giant ranger and the dragon didn't notice?

It's only a DC 24 perception check to spot the sensor. And I think scrying sensors pick up on blindsense. Need to think on that.

Your GM might've goofed.

(When my PCs scryed that giant, the giant and dragon sure as hell noticed, the dragon passed its check to recognize the scrying sensor for what it was, and they proceeded accordingly.)

Well, they were asleep, so the -10 to Perception checks kinda hurts.

chaoseffect wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

@ Rynjin - Wait, you scryed them and the giant ranger and the dragon didn't notice?

It's only a DC 24 perception check to spot the sensor. And I think scrying sensors pick up on blindsense. Need to think on that.

Your GM might've goofed.

(When my PCs scryed that giant, the giant and dragon sure as hell noticed, the dragon passed its check to recognize the scrying sensor for what it was, and they proceeded accordingly.)

I'm very confused here. Scrying has zero reference to the target let alone anyone around them being able to make a perception check to realize you are watching.

It's under the general rules for Divination (Scrying) spells.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
The part where a scene intended to be tense, exciting, with the lives of the townspeople under your protection at stake as you scramble to fortify and protect a city became a 10 minute gangbang of an army of half-asleep giants.

Sounds like you saved a lot of lives and spared an entire town the horrors of seeing war, by using some smart tactics. You should celebrate!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

@ Rynjin - Wait, you scryed them and the giant ranger and the dragon didn't notice?

It's only a DC 24 perception check to spot the sensor. And I think scrying sensors pick up on blindsense. Need to think on that.

Your GM might've goofed.

(When my PCs scryed that giant, the giant and dragon sure as hell noticed, the dragon passed its check to recognize the scrying sensor for what it was, and they proceeded accordingly.)

I'm very confused here. Scrying has zero reference to the target let alone anyone around them being able to make a perception check to realize you are watching.

Magic!

The PRD wrote:

Divination

Divination spells enable you to learn secrets long forgotten, predict the future, find hidden things, and foil deceptive spells.

Many divination spells have cone-shaped areas. These move with you and extend in the direction you choose. The cone defines the area that you can sweep each round. If you study the same area for multiple rounds, you can often gain additional information, as noted in the descriptive text for the spell.

Scrying: A scrying spell creates an invisible magical sensor that sends you information. Unless noted otherwise, the sensor has the same powers of sensory acuity that you possess. This level of acuity includes any spells or effects that target you, but not spells or effects that emanate from you. The sensor, however, is treated as a separate, independent sensory organ of yours, and thus functions normally even if you have been blinded or deafened, or otherwise suffered sensory impairment.

A creature can notice the sensor by making a Perception check with a DC 20 + the spell level. The sensor can be dispelled as if it were an active spell.

Lead sheeting or magical protection blocks a scrying spell, and you sense that the spell is blocked.

Emphasis added.

All scrying spells do that, unless they specify otherwise.

@ Rynjin - Sleeping helps, but I'm amused the giant war party didn't bother to sleep in shifts. (And the dragon's got no excuse at all, because blindsense =P)

(My PCs got the spectacle of the magic-unsavvy giants trying to beat a scrying sensor to death. They could hear the dragon laughing from outside the 10 ft vision bubble, before taunting the sensor and then waiting for it to expire so he could figure out the source's caster level.

Man, I had fun building up Longtooth. Shame he got critted to death within a round at the battle =P)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:

@ Rynjin - Wait, you scryed them and the giant ranger and the dragon didn't notice?

It's only a DC 24 perception check to spot the sensor. And I think scrying sensors pick up on blindsense. Need to think on that.

I've never been clear on that. The sensor is invisible, so I've always thought you'd need See Invisible to notice it.


James Jacobs wrote:

It's not explicitly spelled out in the rules (alas), but my solution to the whole "scry and fry" tactic is that it doesn't work. Scry allows you to observe a creature (not a location), and teleport allows you to travel to a location (not a creature). To me, that's good enough reason/explanation to prevent this frustrating "we don't have to play the adventure" tactic.

Of course, another favorite way to handle this tactic is to write adventures where if the PCs do simply storm in to the last encounter, they end up having to fight the entire adventure's worth of foes all at once in an encounter that's CR +10 or higher above their average party level...

I'm not sure I follow your logic in the first paragraph. If I'm viewing the target am I not also viewing the area it is in? You really can't have one without the other unless Scrying specifically only shows the target and his surroundings are blacked out or something along those lines.

I am quite the fan of the second paragraph though and my PCs have encountered problems like that in the past.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Wrath wrote:

Sslarn, the most powerful spell the casters in our group can prepare is haste.

Quite often, it's the only spell they need to cast as the others just clean up. Note that all the Martials in our groups have acquired items that let them fly when needed, so,reaching targets is rarely an issue.

Aiding the team in this way is more efficient than summoning or trying and failing an SoD spell.

So what we see is 1+1 = 5 in effect.

Haste is a good one, no denying. It also comes online at the perfect moment, 5th level, just before the martials start tapering off and while the enemy still has limited access to things like flight, burrow, etc. What happens as the levels go on though? What happens in a group where the fighter uses mounted combat and isn't getting an extra attack from haste? What about when the enemy is a flying dragon strafing his enemies with blasts of flame, and the fighter's primary weapon isn't ranged? What happens if the group isn't primarily made up of martial characters to begin with? Haste is only as powerful as the total number of party members who are able to capitalize on the full breadth of its effects. If my group is 3 arcane casters and 2 divine casters who pool their spells to win the fight in round one and then mop it up for 3 rounds, they might not care as much about the benefits of haste.

Again, for me it's a matter of scale. Levels 1-5 aren't problematic. They work. But each level after that gets less and less equitable, and carrying that fighter around makes less and less sense. Sure, I could avoid those levels, but there are a lot of stories that I want to tell that can only be told at those higher levels.

Do you know why there are so many more modules and adventures written for the first half of the game then for the second? Because there's no way to know what tools a party of 13th level characters has at their disposable. Do I know if they can teleport around obstacle A, or to destination B? What if the group is a Cavalier, a Fighter, a Paladin, and a Rogue? What if it's an Arcanist, a Cleric, a Druid, and a Sorcerer? The capabilities of each group are so wildly different that the only way to know that the adventure is appropriate is to be their GM, something a company obviously isn't capable of. That's why PFS normally caps at 12th.


James Jacobs wrote:

It's not explicitly spelled out in the rules (alas), but my solution to the whole "scry and fry" tactic is that it doesn't work. Scry allows you to observe a creature (not a location), and teleport allows you to travel to a location (not a creature). To me, that's good enough reason/explanation to prevent this frustrating "we don't have to play the adventure" tactic.

Of course, another favorite way to handle this tactic is to write adventures where if the PCs do simply storm in to the last encounter, they end up having to fight the entire adventure's worth of foes all at once in an encounter that's CR +10 or higher above their average party level...

Or

Put in magical protections instead of depending on the gm to shout down creativity at their table.

My gm had been constantly frustrated at the lack of prediction of high level magic in rise of the runs Lords. Basically we just miss things for being "dirty munchkins with non-iconic characters". Which has been a pretty big turn off for future APs.


James Jacobs wrote:

It's not explicitly spelled out in the rules (alas), but my solution to the whole "scry and fry" tactic is that it doesn't work. Scry allows you to observe a creature (not a location), and teleport allows you to travel to a location (not a creature). To me, that's good enough reason/explanation to prevent this frustrating "we don't have to play the adventure" tactic.

Of course, another favorite way to handle this tactic is to write adventures where if the PCs do simply storm in to the last encounter, they end up having to fight the entire adventure's worth of foes all at once in an encounter that's CR +10 or higher above their average party level...

In this case it wasn't technically Teleport, I believe it was Transport Via Plants (We had a Menhir Savant, but we also had a Sorcerer and a Wizard. Pretty sure we opted for Transport since he got like 7 free ones a day).

Regardless, while that's a reasonable houserule, the spell specifically says you see them AND their surroundings.


Zhangar wrote:

Scrying: A scrying spell creates an invisible magical sensor that sends you information. Unless noted otherwise, the sensor has the same powers of sensory acuity that you possess. This level of acuity includes any spells or effects that target you, but not spells or effects that emanate from you. The sensor, however, is treated as a separate, independent sensory organ of yours, and thus functions normally even if you have been blinded or deafened, or otherwise suffered sensory impairment.

A creature can notice the sensor by making a Perception check with a DC 20 + the spell level. The sensor can be dispelled as if it were an active spell.

Lead sheeting or magical protection blocks a scrying spell, and you sense that the spell is blocked.

Very interesting and thanks for pointing that out. I'm still confused but in a different way, namely as why that's under Divination but not under the description of the spell it names :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

It's not explicitly spelled out in the rules (alas), but my solution to the whole "scry and fry" tactic is that it doesn't work. Scry allows you to observe a creature (not a location), and teleport allows you to travel to a location (not a creature). To me, that's good enough reason/explanation to prevent this frustrating "we don't have to play the adventure" tactic.

Of course, another favorite way to handle this tactic is to write adventures where if the PCs do simply storm in to the last encounter, they end up having to fight the entire adventure's worth of foes all at once in an encounter that's CR +10 or higher above their average party level...

I'm not sure I follow your logic in the first paragraph. If I'm viewing the target am I not also viewing the area it is in? You really can't have one without the other unless Scrying specifically only shows the target and his surroundings are blacked out or something along those lines.

I am quite the fan of the second paragraph though and my PCs have encountered problems like that in the past.

Not to mention:

Teleport wrote:
Viewed once” is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying.

Teleport itself calls out using scrying as an example of how to qualify for viewed once. And I mean, Scry and Fry has been around for over two decades at this point. It isn't exactly an unknown or innovative thing.

Shadow Lodge

It was even in the first Dungeon AP. :)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

7 people marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

It's not explicitly spelled out in the rules (alas), but my solution to the whole "scry and fry" tactic is that it doesn't work. Scry allows you to observe a creature (not a location), and teleport allows you to travel to a location (not a creature). To me, that's good enough reason/explanation to prevent this frustrating "we don't have to play the adventure" tactic.

Of course, another favorite way to handle this tactic is to write adventures where if the PCs do simply storm in to the last encounter, they end up having to fight the entire adventure's worth of foes all at once in an encounter that's CR +10 or higher above their average party level...

I'm not sure I follow your logic in the first paragraph. If I'm viewing the target am I not also viewing the area it is in? You really can't have one without the other unless Scrying specifically only shows the target and his surroundings are blacked out or something along those lines.

I am quite the fan of the second paragraph though and my PCs have encountered problems like that in the past.

Scrying specifically says in the very first line of the spell's description, "You can observe a creature at any distance" (emphasis mine).

It then goes on to say that you can see the subject's surroundings to about 10 feet in all directions, but to me, that's hardly enough to get a "magical lock" or whatever you want to call it on a location to be able to teleport to it.

If you DO go with this interpretation of the way the spell works, of course, make sure to let the players know that you use that interpretation as early in the campaign as possible so it doesn't catch them by surprise if they assume the opposite is true.

EDIT: and yes, I'm aware of all the arguments and interpretations that suggest/support the scry and fry tactic. That's why I shared this interpretation by stating it as my solution.

I'm not looking to get in a rules argument AT ALL. Merely sharing a solution that works for me so that other GMs out there who like this interpretation/solution can do so in their games.

If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you and you shouldn't assume I'm talking to you to try to make you change your mind—you are not the one I'm talking to in this case, and should feel free to ignore my suggestion.

It works for me. I suspect it works for other GMs. Doesn't mean I particularly care if it works for everyone. Every game is different.


I'll also just note

PRD on Conjuration wrote:
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.

You can stop teleportation with clever furniture arrangement.

Just something to keep in mind in the future, if you're sufficiently annoyed with it =P

Paizo Employee Design Manager

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:

I'll also just note

PRD on Conjuration wrote:
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.

You can stop teleportation with clever furniture arrangement.

Just something to keep in mind in the future, if you're sufficiently annoyed with it =P

Feng shui, the ultimate solution to shutting down scry and fry tactics. It's why every evil warlord has an interior decorator :D

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do. I like this game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:

I'm not looking to get in a rules argument AT ALL. Merely sharing a solution that works for me so that other GMs out there who like this interpretation/solution can do so in their games.

If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you and you shouldn't assume I'm talking to you to try to make you change your mind—you are not the one I'm talking to in this case, and should feel free to ignore my suggestion.

It works for me. I suspect it works for other GMs. Doesn't mean I particularly care if it works for everyone. Every game is different.

I want this quote as my signature.


Ssalarn wrote:
Perhaps you're not aware of this, but there was an index put together recently by a forum regular, Kobold Cleaver. One of the things this index revealed was that, more often than not, the combative and negative threads were actually started by individuals who took it upon themselves to come in and explain why everyone who believes in martial/caster disparity just isn't as good at the game as they are, or some similar stance. This is the truth, and it's provable. The majority of the instances you're saying are problematic, aren't being started by the people who want to see the game grow and improve, they're started by people who choose to express their disdain for those people.

Oh I'm aware of KC's index. I applaud him for his work and look at it as a symptom of a number of problems.

I agree with the majority of the rest of your post, but I'd perhaps add "Make your point and leave it at that. Reiterating it dozens of times doesn't make it any more true."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Perhaps you're not aware of this, but there was an index put together recently by a forum regular, Kobold Cleaver. One of the things this index revealed was that, more often than not, the combative and negative threads were actually started by individuals who took it upon themselves to come in and explain why everyone who believes in martial/caster disparity just isn't as good at the game as they are, or some similar stance. This is the truth, and it's provable. The majority of the instances you're saying are problematic, aren't being started by the people who want to see the game grow and improve, they're started by people who choose to express their disdain for those people.

Oh I'm aware of KC's index. I applaud him for his work and look at it as a symptom of a number of problems.

I agree with the majority of the rest of your post, but I'd perhaps add "Make your point and leave it at that. Reiterating it dozens of times doesn't make it any more true."

Caster vs martial has become a plague on the levels of the edition wars lately. There is literally nothing useful left to say about it on either side.


Nathanael Love wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Perhaps you're not aware of this, but there was an index put together recently by a forum regular, Kobold Cleaver. One of the things this index revealed was that, more often than not, the combative and negative threads were actually started by individuals who took it upon themselves to come in and explain why everyone who believes in martial/caster disparity just isn't as good at the game as they are, or some similar stance. This is the truth, and it's provable. The majority of the instances you're saying are problematic, aren't being started by the people who want to see the game grow and improve, they're started by people who choose to express their disdain for those people.

Oh I'm aware of KC's index. I applaud him for his work and look at it as a symptom of a number of problems.

I agree with the majority of the rest of your post, but I'd perhaps add "Make your point and leave it at that. Reiterating it dozens of times doesn't make it any more true."

Caster vs martial has become a plague on the levels of the edition wars lately. There is literally nothing useful left to say about it on either side.

That it's become so politicized is what bothers me. It's no longer just casters vs martial discrepency it's become a source for polemics on being a game master, edition wars, being a munchkin vs optimizing, optimizing a character vs optimizing a party, RAI vs RAW, etc.

It's the worst and everyone apparently thinks they're a highlander or something.

The Exchange

Rynjin, sounds like the GM catered to your group in the scry and fry tactic. Playing stone giants and dragons as stupid enough to have an entire army asleep is fairly lenient.

As I stated, maybe the issue you're seeing is more the house rules you're using than the game itself.

I will agree on something stated earlier though. The complexity of high level play makes designing for them very difficult if you don't know the group.

I think Legacy of Fire had two of the best mid to high level sections in an AP we've run. Check out books 4 and 5 of those to get an idea of how to do it really well.

As for APs, if you run purely as written you couldn't have done the scry fry thing, as that isn't detailed in the AP. (A fault in AP design perhaps. ) however, since you try a tactic not in the AP, the DM now looks at what is available and judges how to run encounters. Yours made it very easy. My group probably not so much. They tackle the entire army, rather than waves. And waking up to a loud noise like combat is DC 0 plus distance when asleep (-10 cancelled by loud noise +10). So you get a round of asleep, then everything's awake.

I believe Paizo designs APs with the understanding DMs can and will need to adjust based on tactics of players. It's why they put in so much about key NPC personalities and background plot. To inform DM's.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow, commute + dinner = 55 new posts. Let's see...

knightnday wrote:
Does your wife repeat herself incessantly about the mess and talk about you, your parents, and in general run you down about it? If not, then it isn't a good comparison.

If I kept leaving the mess there in spite of her requests, for years on end? Yeah, she just might get to that point. (Isn't that where certain stereotypes come from?) Were you under the impression that the consistent re-dredging of old topics was the initial response the first time the issue popped up, equivalent to the first time I made a mess at home?

Wrath wrote:
we play as the game was intended

*takes a shot*

Wrath wrote:

Perhaps the disparity you see is from this house rule of non co operation.

A group of individuals does not a team make.

*takes a shot*

Gonna need more booze at this rate.

Wrath wrote:
But when I'm told playing by design intent makes a problem non existent is called a "house rule or gentle mans agreement"', that is not condescending or rude.

No, it's not. Houserules and gentleman's agreements are good things. Why the hell would correctly identifying them be offensive?

...And then a bunch of stuff about scry and fry. Meh.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because in these forums they are used to dismiss any argument that does not agree with disparity issues.

Jiggy, I know you have issues with the game. Lots of advice has been given on how you might mitigate the issues you see. None of them seem to have satisfied you. Fair enough.

The problem comes when people have an issue they don't like, and won't accept anything short of the designers changing the game to match their solutions. Which may in fact upset a whole new group of people previously satisfied.

If the designers don't accept your advice, you really have only two choices. Accept and move on, or not accept it and change the rules to suit your game. Continuing to cry out for change doesn't work once the debs have made the decision.

I have recently Quit playing Pathfinder, purely on System burnout. We're moving on to 5th ed, but I absolutely love how Pathfinder s design allowed me to creatively think about how worlds might work with powerful magic, powerful critters, extra planes etc. the lessons I've learned DMing Pathfinder will make me a much better 5th ed DM. I'm not sure the same would be true going the other way.


Jiggy wrote:

Wow, commute + dinner = 55 new posts. Let's see...

knightnday wrote:
Does your wife repeat herself incessantly about the mess and talk about you, your parents, and in general run you down about it? If not, then it isn't a good comparison.
If I kept leaving the mess there in spite of her requests, for years on end? Yeah, she just might get to that point. (Isn't that where certain stereotypes come from?) Were you under the impression that the consistent re-dredging of old topics was the initial response the first time the issue popped up, equivalent to the first time I made a mess at home?

No, not at all. Let's say that she's upset about a mess in your area -- garage, office, (gods help me) man cave (I hate that term) or wherever -- and you've explained that it isn't a mess, it's how you want it. It's a discussion/argument that you've had for years. Some people get divorces over that, some people it is an inside joke and something to complain about when there is nothing else to do.

Much like disagreeing about the mess, in this case Paizo has stated several times that they don't agree with some views about the problems in many of these threads. That seems to indicate to me that continuing on about it is akin to the wife nagging about something that you don't plan to change.


To be completely honest... they have been addressing it to a degree. With martials like the Slayer class, alternatives to powerful classes like hunter and occultist, and variant rules like Simplified Spellcasting, Esoteric Components, and Combat Stamina. They all help reduce the game, while at the same time retaining the backwards compatibility of having things like powerful wizards when a group wants to play powerful wizards.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

It's not explicitly spelled out in the rules (alas), but my solution to the whole "scry and fry" tactic is that it doesn't work. Scry allows you to observe a creature (not a location), and teleport allows you to travel to a location (not a creature). To me, that's good enough reason/explanation to prevent this frustrating "we don't have to play the adventure" tactic.

Of course, another favorite way to handle this tactic is to write adventures where if the PCs do simply storm in to the last encounter, they end up having to fight the entire adventure's worth of foes all at once in an encounter that's CR +10 or higher above their average party level...

I'm not sure I follow your logic in the first paragraph. If I'm viewing the target am I not also viewing the area it is in? You really can't have one without the other unless Scrying specifically only shows the target and his surroundings are blacked out or something along those lines.

I am quite the fan of the second paragraph though and my PCs have encountered problems like that in the past.

Scrying specifically says in the very first line of the spell's description, "You can observe a creature at any distance" (emphasis mine).

It then goes on to say that you can see the subject's surroundings to about 10 feet in all directions, but to me, that's hardly enough to get a "magical lock" or whatever you want to call it on a location to be able to teleport to it.

If you DO go with this interpretation of the way the spell works, of course, make sure to let the players know that you use that interpretation as early in the campaign as possible so it doesn't catch them by surprise if they assume the opposite is true.

EDIT: and yes, I'm aware of all the arguments and interpretations that suggest/support the scry and fry tactic. That's why I shared this interpretation by stating it as my solution.

I'm not looking to get in a rules argument AT ALL. Merely sharing a...

We have duly noted your house rule and I personally hope that next time you reprint the CRB Scy and Teleport are modified so that your houserule becomes RAW.

Would it be possible to convince you to release your house rules as a word document? It would really help a lot of people understand the intent behind a lot of rules.


Wrath wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Meaning you have a social contract that the stronger characters will help the weak one, falling under 2 again.

Meaning we play as the game was intended, and designed for.

In fact I would go so far as to say that those who don't work co operatively are house ruling. Perhaps the disparity you see is from this house rule of non co operation.

I have a hard time seeing how the game could be intended to be played like that when all the options point in the contrary direction.

EDIT: Now, I mean, reading the dev's post I understand your point, but that is not what is wrote in the books, look for example the disconnection between the actual rule and how JJ play in the Scry and fry case.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Would it be possible to convince you to release your house rules as a word document? It would really help a lot of people understand the intent behind a lot of rules.

Given the way folks dissect and take apart rules that have gone through the official design/development/editing process... and given how rules-lawyers and the type have reacted to my involvement in answering rules questions...

I've zero interest in exposing my undevloped and unedited house rules to a toxic environment like that.

Plus... they're not written down anyway. If I'm gonna be spending my time writing, it's gonna be anything else OTHER than house rules.

So... no. It's not possible.

Best I can do is to post some of them here and there in the threads when the topic comes up and I feel like my input isn't going to cause more problems than it solved... and as for this latest one... jury's still out on whether me posting in this thread was a good idea or a terrible one.

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:
Wrath wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Meaning you have a social contract that the stronger characters will help the weak one, falling under 2 again.
Meaning we play as the game was intended, and designed for.

I have a hard time seeing how the game could be intended to be played like that when all the options point in the contrary direction.

NOw, I mean, reading the dev post I understand your point, but hat is not what is wrote in the books, look for example the disconnection between the actual rule and how JJ play in the Scry and fry case.

What options point in the direction that the game should be played competitively rather than co-operatively? I'm not sure which parts of the actual rules support that interpretation?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Wrath wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Meaning you have a social contract that the stronger characters will help the weak one, falling under 2 again.
Meaning we play as the game was intended, and designed for.

I have a hard time seeing how the game could be intended to be played like that when all the options point in the contrary direction.

Now, I mean, reading the dev post I understand your point, but hat is not what is wrote in the books, look for example the disconnection between the actual rule and how JJ play in the Scry and fry case.

What options point in the direction that the game should be played competitively rather than co-operatively? I'm not sure which parts of the actual rules support that interpretation?

The part where a daze-Fireball could shut down an encounter faster than any cooperative playing. If the intention is to characters to depend on each others then the rules should reflect that instead of allowing some characters to dominate over others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:
Rynjin, sounds like the GM catered to your group in the scry and fry tactic. Playing stone giants and dragons as stupid enough to have an entire army asleep is fairly lenient.

Who said the entire army was asleep?

But Invisibility is a solid +20 to Stealth checks. Even my Barbarian, Crokus, made it a good ways into the middle of the camp before being detected.

At that point it was too late for the leader to flee.

Wrath wrote:
As for APs, if you run purely as written you couldn't have done the scry fry thing, as that isn't detailed in the AP. (A fault in AP design perhaps. ) however, since you try a tactic not in the AP, the DM now looks at what is available and judges how to run encounters. Yours made it very easy. My group probably not so much. They tackle the entire army, rather than waves. And waking up to a loud noise like combat is DC 0 plus distance when asleep (-10 cancelled by loud noise +10). So you get a round of asleep, then everything's awake.

You can't run APs "purely as written" the way you're suggesting, which is apparently "unless the AP specifically says you can, you cannot use options available in every other Paizo book ever released".

Do you force everyone to play the Iconics that are "canonically" the ones that run through the AP, and only use those builds, and never allow any tactic not "written" in the AP?

(Which, by the way, is ZERO THINGS. The AP presents scenarios, it's always up to the players how to tackle them.)


James Jacobs wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Would it be possible to convince you to release your house rules as a word document? It would really help a lot of people understand the intent behind a lot of rules.

Given the way folks dissect and take apart rules that have gone through the official design/development/editing process... and given how rules-lawyers and the type have reacted to my involvement in answering rules questions...

I've zero interest in exposing my undevloped and unedited house rules to a toxic environment like that.

Plus... they're not written down anyway. If I'm gonna be spending my time writing, it's gonna be anything else OTHER than house rules.

So... no. It's not possible.

Best I can do is to post some of them here and there in the threads when the topic comes up and I feel like my input isn't going to cause more problems than it solved... and as for this latest one... jury's still out on whether me posting in this thread was a good idea or a terrible one.

Any chance you can suggest the change to teleport for errata then?

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:

Given the way folks dissect and take apart rules that have gone through the official design/development/editing process... and given how rules-lawyers and the type have reacted to my involvement in answering rules questions...

I've zero interest in exposing my undevloped and unedited house rules to a toxic environment like that.

That is just a sad commentary! To think that the Creative Director of the very game everyone here is discussing does not want to post his personal game notes because the message boards are just too hostile a forum...

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:
Samy wrote:
What options point in the direction that the game should be played competitively rather than co-operatively?
The part where a daze-Fireball could shut down an encounter faster than any cooperative playing. If the intention is to characters to depend on each others then the rules should reflect that instead of allowing some characters to dominate over others.

That doesn't make sense. So just because one character *can* defeat an encounter solo with a lucky roll (whether with a fireball, Diplomacy roll or a greataxe crit), that doesn't automatically lead to it being a competition. You're ignoring the 90% of the time that the lucky one-shot doesn't happen. The party needs to work together the vast majority of the time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Best I can do is to post some of them here and there in the threads when the topic comes up and I feel like my input isn't going to cause more problems than it solved... and as for this latest one... jury's still out on whether me posting in this thread was a good idea or a terrible one.

It was a good idea. I'm sure I saw you post this quite some time ago and it resolved the issue for me - the jury is unfortunately more likely to see the negative outcomes than the positive.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Insain Dragoon wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Would it be possible to convince you to release your house rules as a word document? It would really help a lot of people understand the intent behind a lot of rules.

Given the way folks dissect and take apart rules that have gone through the official design/development/editing process... and given how rules-lawyers and the type have reacted to my involvement in answering rules questions...

I've zero interest in exposing my undevloped and unedited house rules to a toxic environment like that.

Plus... they're not written down anyway. If I'm gonna be spending my time writing, it's gonna be anything else OTHER than house rules.

So... no. It's not possible.

Best I can do is to post some of them here and there in the threads when the topic comes up and I feel like my input isn't going to cause more problems than it solved... and as for this latest one... jury's still out on whether me posting in this thread was a good idea or a terrible one.

Any chance you can suggest the change to teleport for errata then?

Already did. Many times. Long ago.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Digitalelf wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

Given the way folks dissect and take apart rules that have gone through the official design/development/editing process... and given how rules-lawyers and the type have reacted to my involvement in answering rules questions...

I've zero interest in exposing my undevloped and unedited house rules to a toxic environment like that.

That is just a sad commentary! To think that the Creative Director of the very game everyone here is disusing does not want to post his personal game notes because the message boards are just too hostile a forum...

And if my comment helps turn these boards around and makes them a safer place as a result... then good. If not... that is indeed too bad.


James Jacobs wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Would it be possible to convince you to release your house rules as a word document? It would really help a lot of people understand the intent behind a lot of rules.

Given the way folks dissect and take apart rules that have gone through the official design/development/editing process... and given how rules-lawyers and the type have reacted to my involvement in answering rules questions...

I've zero interest in exposing my undevloped and unedited house rules to a toxic environment like that.

Plus... they're not written down anyway. If I'm gonna be spending my time writing, it's gonna be anything else OTHER than house rules.

So... no. It's not possible.

Best I can do is to post some of them here and there in the threads when the topic comes up and I feel like my input isn't going to cause more problems than it solved... and as for this latest one... jury's still out on whether me posting in this thread was a good idea or a terrible one.

Any chance you can suggest the change to teleport for errata then?
Already did. Many times. Long ago.

I'm really sorry to hear that :(

Also sorry the forum is so hostile to you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't mind teleport and similar spells being radically altered or removed...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

I would amend #3 to "People who acknowledge it exists, but either don't care or actually like it".

Rare, but real.

Yeah, I conceptually prefer games where the magic option is strictly greater than the mundane.

I'm willing to accept the word of those who understand Pathfinder well that the martial/caster disparity exists, although I don't really notice it during play. My pet hate has nothing to do with labels - you can call me whatever you like. It irritates me more when I'm told that a game catering to my preferences is 'objectively poor design'.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Would it be possible to convince you to release your house rules as a word document? It would really help a lot of people understand the intent behind a lot of rules.

Given the way folks dissect and take apart rules that have gone through the official design/development/editing process... and given how rules-lawyers and the type have reacted to my involvement in answering rules questions...

I've zero interest in exposing my undevloped and unedited house rules to a toxic environment like that.

Plus... they're not written down anyway. If I'm gonna be spending my time writing, it's gonna be anything else OTHER than house rules.

So... no. It's not possible.

Best I can do is to post some of them here and there in the threads when the topic comes up and I feel like my input isn't going to cause more problems than it solved... and as for this latest one... jury's still out on whether me posting in this thread was a good idea or a terrible one.

Any chance you can suggest the change to teleport for errata then?
Already did. Many times. Long ago.

I'm really sorry to hear that :(

Also sorry the forum is so hostile to you.

It's not so much that it's hostile to me, personally. It's that it's hostile to so many people. Folks need to remember that their way of playing the game is NOT the right way to play, because there IS no "right way to play." This thread's filled with examples of the hostility and hyperbole and entitlement and snark and vitriol, alas, that I feel is ruining the boards. If even one or two folks take these posts of mine here as a wake-up call and modify their posting habits, I'll count that a victory and a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, the folks causing the problems so often don't realize that they are causing the problems... or worse, DO realize it because they're being toxic on purpose.

In the meantime... everyone, just be good to each other and let others play the game they want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

I would amend #3 to "People who acknowledge it exists, but either don't care or actually like it".

Rare, but real.

Yeah, I conceptually prefer games where the magic option is strictly greater than the mundane.

I'm willing to accept the word of those who understand Pathfinder well that the martial/caster disparity exists, although I don't really notice it during play. My pet hate has nothing to do with labels - you can call me whatever you like. It irritates me more when I'm told that a game catering to my preferences is 'objectively poor design'.

I think the only part that's poorly designed are the advertisements. Pathfinder advertizes a world where Joe Mcfightington is on par with Mike McMagicton, but instead delivers a world where "magic options are strictly greater than mundane options."

At least when you follow the rules as written while disallowing abuse. Even if a caster doesn't use corner case rule abuse it's obvious just how much above and beyond they are in terms of narrative power.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
”Steve Geddes” wrote:

Yeah, I conceptually prefer games where the magic option is strictly greater than the mundane.

I'm willing to accept the word of those who understand Pathfinder well that the martial/caster disparity exists, although I don't really notice it during play. My pet hate has nothing to do with labels - you can call me whatever you like. It irritates me more when I'm told that a game catering to my preferences is 'objectively poor design'.

I think the only part that's poorly designed are the advertisements. Pathfinder advertizes a world where Joe Mcfightington is on par with Mike McMagicton, but instead delivers a world where "magic options are strictly greater than mundane options."

I havent noticed that, but I came to Pathfinder with my preferences and expectations pretty baked in, so I doubt I'd really notice anything that could be termed an advertisement (beyond the literal).

Quote:
At least when you follow the rules as written while disallowing abuse. Even if a caster doesn't use corner case rule abuse it's obvious just how much above and beyond they are in terms of narrative power.

The way I approach an RPG, rule zero is an essential component of the rules - so there's no real distinction between what others' term a "houserule" and RAW. I don't actually think "rules as written" is a sensibly defined concept anyhow. Given the ambiguities of language and the complexity of modern RPGs, I don't think there is any objective meaning of a body of sufficiently complicated rules - I think there's what you think the rules mean, what I think the rules mean, what someone else thinks the rules mean, etcetera. Granted that's unlikely to be a popular viewpoint in the rules forum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A level/class-based systems exacerbates the problem as well: The entire point of levels is balancing: Something of a given level is supposed to be similar in capability - both numerical and narrative-control - as another of the same level.

In 2e this was (partially) remedied by having different XP growth curves.
Since d20 system's inception, however, this is gone as well. By its very concept and theoretical intent, saying "Level X" is supposed to allow a quick, straightforward (if only approximate) understanding of the scope of capabilities of any given character.

When one class automatically ensures that a level 8 character of said class vastly outstrips a level 11 character of this other class, there's a grave flaw in the design of at least one of those two classes, and possibly both. The "level" indicator loses much of its value as a measuring standard.

Liberty's Edge

Jamie Charlan wrote:
a level 8 character of said class vastly outstrips a level 11 character of this other class

Completely and utterly situational.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jamie Charlan wrote:

A level/class-based systems exacerbates the problem as well: The entire point of levels is balancing: Something of a given level is supposed to be similar in capability - both numerical and narrative-control - as another of the same level.

In 2e this was (partially) remedied by having different XP growth curves.
Since d20 system's inception, however, this is gone as well. By its very concept and theoretical intent, saying "Level X" is supposed to allow a quick, straightforward (if only approximate) understanding of the scope of capabilities of any given character.

When one class automatically ensures that a level 8 character of said class vastly outstrips a level 11 character of this other class, there's a grave flaw in the design of at least one of those two classes, and possibly both. The "level" indicator loses much of its value as a measuring standard.

I can appreciate that is the majority view, but it isnt how I think about it and I don't think it's a necessary component of a level based system that levels of different classes are equal in any specific respect. The measuring standard isn't something worth preserving, from my perspective.

In my mind a level 8 fighter should be more powerful than a level 4 fighter, but it doesnt matter where a level 5 wizard sits on that 'scale'. Admittedly, when I learnt to play RPGs, when you died you rolled up a new level one character, irrespective of the rest of the table's level - so there was no expectation that different PCs would be equally powerful. As such, measuring the different classes against one another just didn't come up.


This is a great example of what James Jacobs said about everyone playing the game differently.

We don't agree on much, so I'll just say this.

We both seem to agree that in terms of narrative power a certain subset of classes is dominant assuming equally skilled players.

I think this is a bad thing since I believe the game was advertized as an equal opportunity hero/villain simulator.

You don't think this is a bad thing since it meshes with your views that casters should have more power than non-casters.

Is this mostly correct?

651 to 700 of 850 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Do you like this game (Pathfinder)? All Messageboards