|
That's actually one reason why I prefer a fixed group. I can trust they will get their rules right after being with me for a while. You have to "train" your players, you know. If I get some noobs...I don't have much in the name of patience.
Then after that, I get into trouble for battery when I start using the stick or throwing CRBs at them.
|
|
I am a cantankerous old coot, what can I say?
Anyway the CRB is hard cover and quite sturdy. Definitely good enough to bonk stubborn heads with ;)
Ask Robert and Luke. They've both had CRBs thrown at them at some point of time ;)
Now if you wanted to roll your character a certain way, I expect you to know about the rules involved. Failure to do so would be considered as blatant negligence on your part and the equivalent of saying, "I want the benefits, but not the work involved."
Not equitable. Needs big stick.
|
|
Culturally we're quite cool with that here. Guess no one wants to start looking for and counting all the dice when someone throws a 15d6 empowered fireball, or deal with the 8 armed octopus looking eidolon pouncing with and going through its entire routine of bite, claw(x8), grabs, holy, vicious, frost, flaming and what-not.
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
We have a child player who can either use the digital dice roller to roll quickly, or will spend five minutes shaking the dice in his hand before rolling them, imploring them to be nice to him this time.
I let him use the digital roller. There are times when it is the best accomodation one can make for a player.
Hmm
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
We have a child player who can either use the digital dice roller to roll quickly, or will spend five minutes shaking the dice in his hand before rolling them, imploring them to be nice to him this time.
I let him use the digital roller. There are times when it is the best accomodation one can make for a player.
Hmm
I learned to do that the hard way. Initially I asked the kid to roll. Next time I GM for them, I will be allowing the electronic roller.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
did you complement him on his build (and the use of the skill) or (as I have seen some judges do) castigate him for "playing wrong" - and "trying to win at Pathfinder"?
I GMed for a sorcerer like that yesterday. Level 1 PC with +18 bluff. I asked him for the math, and it was all legal - his PC was just totally built for it. And he made a point of declaring when he used his rakshasa bloodline power for the +5 (he only has +13 otherwise). All totally legal, but when the numbers get that high at such a low level, you kinda have to ask.
No, it was totally friendly. When he said his bonus, I was like "Wow, how'd you get that high at level 1?", and he was enthusiastic to show off his build. Once he went through it all (+5 charisma, 1 skill rank, +3 for being class, +1 trait, +2 halfling racial, bloodline power, and I think I'm forgetting something else), I was just like "So you totally built the PC for that. Cool."
As long as the PC is legally built, I don't care if someone min-maxes. I do it myself. I'm actually more concerned with the underpowered ones that could get the party killed. In this case, he's built to specialize in a non-combat role, but he's still a sorcerer with 20 charisma, so he's still got some spells for combat. Just not very many at level 1, but all pure casters have that issue.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now i have to question, were the new lighter softback CRBs introduced to limit some of the injuries of the hardback or just improve range distances...Worse.
It'd be the only reason I carry a CRB with me.
I thought it was so that you could use Weapon Finesse with them...
|
|
Now i have to question, were the new lighter softback CRBs introduced to limit some of the injuries of the hardback or just improve range distances...Worse.
It'd be the only reason I carry a CRB with me.
Most of the fights are in dungeons anyway, against humanoids without an inherent flight capacity so i don;t see the greater advantage of range
|
Do I trust players? Yes and no. I think I mentioned this before, but I'll say it again. I've been burned by cheaters too many times in play-by-post format games. Enough that I prefer players to make characters either using a point buy system or the dice roller a given site has. I'm much more trusting in a face to face session. But once that trust is lost, it's really difficult to earn back.
|
Players tend to remember to cast on the defensive after that!Yep I definitely think about this one a lot: how to walk the line between not being a 'gotchya!' GM and not reminding them that they probably want to cast defensively every single time.
Pretty much. I really don't like playing the "I gotchya" card as a GM. I find it is less fun for everyone involved (even me as the GM--because then the player is mad and that isn't fun for me.) So I don't do it.
However, if I find out in a high tier game (and usually I find out pretty quickly) that a player can cast defensively and automatically make the check for every single level of spell they have, then I don't hold them to announcing it. This saves time and irritation. Assuming that someone at 11th level is just casting defensively when they need to and they automatically can make it at that level makes good sense.
That being the case though, I always start by expecting them to announce the cast defensively. Usually, even at really high levels for players I'm unfamiliar with, I will say the first time, "Are you casting that defensively?" And that is when they have the time to explain to me that they automatically make every spell level they can cast.
For those I'm familiar with, I know their experience level as a player, their comprehension and retention level of the rules, and I might even remember just how good their concentration check is, I don't have to ask the question right away (or I might depending on whether they have trouble remembering the rules).
|
|
I kinda hate the whole "gotcha" on casting defensively. I'll frequently remind players about casting defensively if they look to be in a tight spot. In other words, if I think the hit could knock them out I'll point out the danger. I figure their character would know even if the player doesn't.There's a distinction between "gotcha" and "I've literally reminded you to cast defensively every round for the last three hours, so this time you're getting the great axe to the face because you are dragging this entire table down with your refusal to learn."I have played with fellow gamers that had a *very hard time* remembering more than five or ten minutes of play.
...I may have been that gamer a few times myself on bad days, either dealing with illness or stress or the like.
A different frustrating point is when you're pretty sure you've hit *all* the pertinent points of a given encounter, social usually, and then it feels like you're doing a slow circle around the drain waiting for yourself or one of the fellow players to say 'the magic words' in 'exactly the right order' and it's something that's actually a bit more vague... like "Why is *insert nation here* like that?' and the players instead keep asking "Well, could you tell us a little bit more about the place we're going to, so we have a better feel for it?"
And because it's not "Why is *insert nation here*..." the GM continues to stonewall and dance around the information or even outright withholds it, because it wasn't asked *exactly how the question was written*.
Almost been burnt by a couple of GMs and only by intuition managed to avoid that fate by grasping the 'subtext' and preventing calamity.
I think the key, is for the GM to read the table and adjust their "teacher hat" appropriately. Push the folks that like the challenge and are happily willing to accept an AoO if they forget to declare casting defensively (I've had players refuse to roll that roll if they forgot to say it but I was going to let them anyways.) Help the folks that aren't as experienced or have trouble with comprehension or retention. Regardless, it should never feel like, to the player, that the GM says, "Aha! You didn't say it, neener neener."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For some players, I would ask if they intend to always cast defensively when they know they are threatened. Then you just need to remind them to make the concentration check before you figure out what their spell did.
Sometimes it is hard to tell if a player's question is in the spirit of a particular question, but I've had evasive GMs as well. I try my best to take any opportunity to provide the relevant information.
I have done this before as well. This also really helps save time when you are in a time crunch. You can do this with many different types of "often used" checks in the game (trapspotting being another major one.)
I'm really not a fan of a GM doing things like, "Would you like to use your reroll on that?" When they know that the player has succeeded at the roll.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are also times where folks will *risk* the AoO if the attacker has been dramatically missing them a lot.A certain recent scenario comes to mind where a certain group of NPCs could not hit even the lowest AC in the party with a good roll (but not a 'nat 20').
I have done this before. I felt with mirror images I had a better shot at not getting hit than I did of actually making the cast defensively check.
|
|
I think I over emphasized the hassle of reminding players to cast defensively every time and lost sight my real focus. The core of my concern is establishing the desired gaming culture for new players/PFS groups; that we are going to play everything as close to the rules as we can, and that this is done with the honour system. That nothing gets hand waved (encumbrance, casting defensively, soft cover bonuses) just because the GM isn't calling for it specifically. That is is up to the player to remember and use these rules to the best of their ability.
And maybe that is just having the conversation of: Just because the GM forgets to ask for it sometimes doesn't mean we are hand-waving the casting defensively rules; don't try to sneak it past the GM, it is up to everyone here to self-govern themselves.
|
|
How on earth do you cheat in PbP? The dice rolls are out in the open for all to see... Am I missing something?
Hmm
Possibly. I've had soo many people submit their character with the following stat block:
Str: 18Dex: 18
Con: 18
Int: 16
Wis: 17
Cha: 12
Rearrange to taste with minor variations. Some would have more 18's, some would have all 16's. And this is with stated character creation method being "roll 3d6 down the line". While such a stat block is possible, it's not bloody likely to happen. And when you have 4 or 5 people claiming they rolled such stats using their own dice...
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
I have found that I am able to fudge the dice in a limited way. While difficult, it is still possible.How on earth do you cheat in PbP? The dice rolls are out in the open for all to see... Am I missing something?
Hmm
Creative editing is possible. I'm always a bit suspicious of players that roll checks out of the order in which they are presented.
|
|
Creative editing is possible. I'm always a bit suspicious of players that roll checks out of the order in which they are presented.I have found that I am able to fudge the dice in a limited way. While difficult, it is still possible.How on earth do you cheat in PbP? The dice rolls are out in the open for all to see... Am I missing something?
Hmm
I personally like to roll my check, then write the post according to the check. If I horribly flub a perception check for instance, the post will feature my character being lost in thought, or overly focused on something trivial.
But one thing I also do is I always list what the roll is for. I never use a dice roller without listing what the roll is for.
|
|
I started this game with rolled stats (wow... 40+ years ago...).
I have had PCs (with rolled stats) that I was embarrassed to show people (yeah, that high. average of 15 or so - downright embarrassing... but not many of those in the hundreds of PCs I've created). But on the other hand, I can recall playing when the HIGH stat in the group of 6 players was the 16 STR - the only stat above 14 in the group... and the average was closer to 10....
My first character was a thief with a high stat of 9 in Dex!
|
|
Oooh, are we playing this game now?
Oh, wait, that's a completely different game system.
On the matter of trust (since that's the topic of this thread), we decided to do use the rather unusual method of "roll 3d6 three times and take the highest total. Do that for each attribute. Then arrange them however you like." Ridiculously cheesy stats but very little incentive to cheat since your lowest is going to be around 12 anyway. Of course this only works when the GM is amping the opponents up even more.
So... not a good idea for PFS.
|
Usually when I see a request for rolled stats, they have to roll them on the boards directly as their first post.
But I personally hate rolled stats. Far better to do point buy so everyone is starting with the same base advantages.
Hmm
I'm totally with ya on this. Some folks like rolled stats because they like to play something unexpected. Other folks like rolled stats because they suffer the gambler's fallacy and think that their stats are going to be better than they would be in a point buy.
I so much prefer point buy because I know what I'm getting.
(When I bet people stuff in real life, my maximum bet is a nickel. This tells you something about how much of a gambler I am....)
|
|
Usually when I see a request for rolled stats, they have to roll them on the boards directly as their first post.
But I personally hate rolled stats. Far better to do point buy so everyone is starting with the same base advantages.
Hmm
I'm totally with ya on this. Some folks like rolled stats because they like to play something unexpected. Other folks like rolled stats because they suffer the gambler's fallacy and think that their stats are going to be better than they would be in a point buy.
I so much prefer point buy because I know what I'm getting.
(When I bet people stuff in real life, my maximum bet is a nickel. This tells you something about how much of a gambler I am....)
I like randomly generated stats because it gives your character, well, character. Sure you probably wont be outstandingly powerful. Well, at least no more then any other player character of that class/race combo. But it's a unique individual. Just looking at the attribute array can give an idea of what the character is like. High Int, low Wis, and low Cha might mean a know it all who annoys everyone with their constant stream of facts. High strength, average dex, high Int, but low Con could mean your wizard spent a lot of time carrying stacks of books up and down stairs.
Maybe it's just personal experience, but I've never seen a "useless" character with low stats. Well, no, that's not entirely true. I once watched someone roll up a 2nd edition AD&D character with 7 Wis as their highest stat. I asked if he wanted to reroll or just raise an attribute to the minimum needed for a basic class. He chose the second option and had lots of fun.
Point buy to an extent lets you have such interesting characters too. But how often do you actually see people who take really low attributes in one stat or another? Both systems have their pros and cons. Point buy is more balanced in Organized play, for sure. And it's easier to audit for a play-by-post game too. But rolling for attributes can give you a character you might not have considered. And you may find that character to be rather fun to play.
|
|
Yep, I like take 10 rules. They are crucial, especially in a system like Pathfinder that uses a flat 1-20 random curve instead of a bell curve to represent your basic competence.
Nominally, I should curse myself 50% of the time I opt not to use them. But one or another fallacy means that it seems to me like I curse myself 90% of the time I opt not to use them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see people take really low stats in point-buy systems all the time.... There's one guy locally who frequently has INT, WIS, and CHA all at 7, unless his race allows one of them to be 5.
I don't view this is as a benefit....
Too low stats in anything can make for interesting characters, but at some point they're not really viable as an adventurer. I mean, how many sets of Boartusk twins are going to be recruited into the Pathfinder society? Must happen all the time given the number of utterly-uninterested-in-knowledge combat types that we seem to have.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding AoOs (backtracking a bit):
I don't want any "gotcha" games in there. Doesn't matter what level we're playing at. On the one hand I expect diligence from players - if you're casting defensively, say so. If your movement provokes, say so; don't wait for me to notice.
On the other hand, if I see someone do something that would provoke, I ask "you know that would provoke, right? Are you sure you want to do that?" - always ask. Whether it's due to fatigue, poor sight on mini clustering or ignorance of an obscure rule.
And I expect the same courtesy from the other players. We're not playing against the other players or GM; our PCs are fighting the monsters. At the OOC level we're all friends.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Next time I'm going to run a home game I might try the "playing cards" method.
Take a deck of playing cards, take a set of 12 cards. For example{4,4,4,6,6,6,6,7,8,8,8,10}. Now shuffle and deal into 6 piles. Sum the cards in the piles, that's your stat array.
Next players uses the same set of cards but shuffles again. If you want, you can have people use the results in-order.
The whole point of this is that you do get random results, but the overall result is much more in the same bandwidth for all players.
There are still happier and less happy outcomes; a character with very average stats in everything will probably be a little less powerful than one that is heavily skewed. But a semi-skewed outcome is most likely.
The reason I included only a single odd-numbered card is that this way you guarantee that the sum of people's modifiers will be exactly equal.
|
|
Point buy is generally better, but I like rolling stats for APs and the like. I can never choose what to play, and its fun to pick something based on what stats you rolled up.
Also, lopsided stats are a lot of fun.
Yeah, I love point buy. Especially as a GM since it means if the player is unhappy with the results, it's their own dang fault. But at the same time, I don't see the reason for people hating stat rolling.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
One of my first campaigns we rolled stats, and half the party rolled pretty crap, while the other half rolled amazing. After that campaign flopped, someone did the maths, and it turned out we rolled point-buy equivalent of 17, while the other two rolled point-buy equivalent 32. Yeah, no wonder I was useless (admittedly, part of it was my fault, it was my second character and I made some terrible decisions, stat-wise).
That card tricks seems cool. Need to try myself if it leads to favourable stats, but I can dig it.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Well the card trick isn't guaranteed to generate equal build points, but it does ensure that the sum of ability modifiers for all players will be roughly similar. To give all players more power, select more high cards. To get PCs with more skewed ability scores, use more low and high cards and fewer middle cards. Just keep track of the lowest possible sum of cards and the highest possible sum of cards.
|
|
Yeah, I love point buy. Especially as a GM since it means if the player is unhappy with the results, it's their own dang fault. But at the same time, I don't see the reason for people hating stat rolling.Point buy is generally better, but I like rolling stats for APs and the like. I can never choose what to play, and its fun to pick something based on what stats you rolled up.
Also, lopsided stats are a lot of fun.
I was in a 3.0 campaign once upon a time where the GM had a rule that if our stats (4d6, drop lowest, arrange as desired) didn't have a total modifier of +5, we got to reroll our stats. Some characters would have better stats than others, but it set a nice floor for how bad you could be.
I had to reroll my stat array over 20 times to find something that met the minimum requirements...
Still have fond memories of that game.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
I prefer the randomness of rolling (or card-drawing or whatever) because I've noticed all my builds use more or less the same stat array, but I roll absolutely crap. I've rolled several times in the past just to see what my characters would look like, I'm struggling to get above point-buy 15 equivalent, never seen point-buy 20.
That reminds me of my old roommate. Great tactical mind for boardgames, absolute terrible at d6es. Whatever the game is, he can't manage to roll average. He's lost many rounds of Risk due to improbably low rolls, and even a game like Dungeon World, where he had 2d6+3 to roll 7+ he missed a suspicious amount of time. He's just unable to land his d6es.
EDIT: Rolled some stats to demonstrate:
5, 12, 17, 12, 10, 14. Point-buy: No equivalent of 5, but I'm guessing around 15.
10, 11, 13, 16, 7, 12. Point-buy: 12
7, 14, 16, 14, 12, 12. Point- buy: 20. This is the exact kinda stats I usually make.
11, 15, 12, 5, 8, 17. Point-buy: 15-ish? The 17 really cancels that 5 out.
11, 10, 11, 12, 11, 17. Point-buy: 18. Point-buy-wise it looks decent, but I have no idea what to do with these stats.
7, 5, 12, 15, 13, 10. Point-buy: below 5.
12, 11, 15, 6, 4, 16. Point-buy: 10-ish?
11, 9, 9, 15, 9, 15. Point-buy: 12.
17, 18, 17, 14, 15, 12. Point-buy: 57. What the hell?
Fun fact: all those fives I rolled were three ones and a three, while the seventeens were all two sixes, a five, and a one. I'll amend my statement: either I roll really average across the board, or I manage to cancel my extremes out. Fives really hurt, though.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Yeah, I love point buy. Especially as a GM since it means if the player is unhappy with the results, it's their own dang fault. But at the same time, I don't see the reason for people hating stat rolling.Point buy is generally better, but I like rolling stats for APs and the like. I can never choose what to play, and its fun to pick something based on what stats you rolled up.
Also, lopsided stats are a lot of fun.
Its because its a bit of game designers imitating older editions without having any clue as to why it was done in the first place. Stats weren't as important as they were so yeah rolling low wasn't atrocious. Character creation wasn't really the minigame it evolved into so you could make 20,000 characters in an earlier edition for every 1 of Pathfinder. And even then earlier games still had a version of point buy. And even then it had a section of dedicated to the unluckiest of people where if you really just flub everything horribly just consider the character DOA.
EDIT:Note. Basing this off of the first edition I could find which is BECMI
|
|
I prefer the randomness of rolling (or card-drawing or whatever) because I've noticed all my builds use more or less the same stat array, but I roll absolutely crap. I've rolled several times in the past just to see what my characters would look like, I'm struggling to get above point-buy 15 equivalent, never seen point-buy 20.
That reminds me of my old roommate. Great tactical mind for boardgames, absolute terrible at d6es. Whatever the game is, he can't manage to roll average. He's lost many rounds of Risk due to improbably low rolls, and even a game like Dungeon World, where he had 2d6+3 to roll 7+ he missed a suspicious amount of time. He's just unable to land his d6es.
EDIT: Rolled some stats to demonstrate:
Man, I wish I could keep these. Rolled way better than I usually do. Mostly, anyway. No 50-point buy, but I did get a 30.
Really wouldn't want to be stuck with that 2-point point buy array, though. I've seen a few too many of those...
|
|
Dwarven druid with a pet can be functional as long as you've got a 12.
Or a gnome summoner with an eidolon, or an elven wizard/arcanist summoner... but what you're doing in those cases is consigning your crappy ability score array to what is essentially a supporting cast-member to the real character, the pet. Whose stats don't depend on the luck of your dice.