| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For myself, how inexperienced a GM I am, and how trying that makes this whole ordeal (you'd think friends wouldn't be so scary...).
For the game:
1) Despite how rare they are (10ish over the course of a standard adventure?), feats don't do a whole lot. They're this extremely limited character building resource....and don't build much character. So I'm working on fixing that for myself
2) Haunts & Traps, at least as presented. They both come down to the same uninteractive behavior of "roll a die, and if you roll too low you take damage / status effect / penalty" Like reading through the Haunted House in Rise of the Rune Lords, I was presented with "here's some flavor text, someone you pick makes a reflex save for half damage on 4d6 fire damage." Flavor text doesn't make it interesting. Making it a puzzle makes it interesting (let's see you navigate this mansion with a weeping angel following you).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But, is that not the case with any situation? And if not, don't those situations simply become "throw numbers at each other and see which ones the dice like more"? If your solution to any kind of social encounter is the party bard walks up and says "I convince the guy to tell us where the plot device is", rolls diplomacy with an absurd modifier, and you tell them....what are you playing?
I don't mean this as an attack on anyone. I could certainly have fun playing a dungeon crawl where you throw combatants at each other (I mean I play Dynasty Warriors, I like that stuff), but even that has some kind of puzzle behavior. Where do you move? Who do you prioritize? What about that wall in the way? etc. It all gives decisions that the player has to figure out, and one tactically gifted party will do better in an identical situation than a party not so gifted.
A "puzzle" as I mean is to a trap / haunt as combat is to "you can only standard attack each other until someone drops dead; no moving". There needs to be something the players get to interact with.
Actually, bigger problem I have with haunts / traps is they discourage exploration in an exploration game. Imagine there's a house with 20 rooms, and you have to get the plot device that's in one room. You can walk from the entrance to the one room more or less directly, but there might be treasure elsewhere. However every time you enter a room, someone rolls a die and takes 2d6 str damage (or some other hit). Pretty quickly the party learns not to explore, especially if there's some other pressing issue preventing them from just tackling the place room by room once a day, because it has a cost for no discernible benefit.
Now, take the same thing, except when entering any given room you're thrown in a situation: The room starts filling with water from some device, or gas; A mold starts creeping along the floors that hurts if it touches you; Lights flash in an (eventually) identifiable pattern that burn on contact, etc. Now the party gets to make a choice. They know that they can (potentially) be hurt by whatever happens in a room, and you build them challenge appropriate, but if they trust in their abilities they can get through unscathed. Punishment for failure is similar to what it was originally, but now the player is punished for not solving the puzzle correctly, not because they wanted to look for treasure (or lore / environment information, etc).
*snip*
Now, take the same thing, except when entering any given room you're thrown in a situation: The room starts filling with water from some device, or gas; A mold starts creeping along the floors that hurts if it touches you; Lights flash in an (eventually) identifiable pattern that burn on contact, etc. Now the party gets to make a...
It cut off part of it, but the problem with such puzzles is the disconnect between player and character with puzzles like these in a role-playing game. Which I believe is what swoosh was getting at (correct me if I'm wrong)
For example, I suck at these sorts of puzzles, but I'm playing a 20+ int Wizard, who should be able to figure out such things easily.
Meanwhile my buddy who is, irl, great at such puzzles is playing a 5 int Barb, and as such should have trouble solving it.
Now I'm not saying your view is invalid, or wrong, I'm just pointing out why some people, myself included, dislike such things.
GM making up house rules on the fly.
If a rules mistake is pointed out in combat I won't slow the game down to discuss it. However, afterwords it's good to look up that rule and validate or correct ones perception of it.
For example, My GM refuses to understand that the definition of full round casting in relation to spontaneous casters and metamagic. He's effectively buffed spontaneous casters. Maybe I'll play one next character.
Also, I want a spontaneous caster version of the teleportation sub-school.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always get annoyed when I click on a "How do I make X" topic and 75% of the responses to the OP are, "Why do you want to do that? It's subpar." "Why go with X when you should only make Y." and all those variations.
At the table, it tends to bug me when a person doesn't learn just a few basics to keep going. By that I mean, how to level up, how to make a character, how to make a skill check. I'm fine with a person not knowing the intricacies and finer points, but those three things are kind of important to the game.
Last one is as a GM telling a person that their concept probably won't work with the system. Prime example, I had a player that wanted to make a character that dual wielded a spear and a shortspear similar to Lancer from Fate/Zero. Alas, the system does not support such abilities or the Dynasty Warriors style Lu Bu. I do like working with my players to get their concept as close as possible.
It cut off part of it, but the problem with such puzzles is the disconnect between player and character with puzzles like these in a role-playing game. Which I believe is what swoosh was getting at (correct me if I'm wrong)
For example, I suck at these sorts of puzzles, but I'm playing a 20+ int Wizard, who should be able to figure out such things easily.
Meanwhile my buddy who is, irl, great at such puzzles is playing a 5 int Barb, and as such should have trouble solving it.
My problem with that idea is two fold:
1) what describes a situation where your wizard gets to make a decision / notice a pattern etc does the character get to override the wizard? Can the int20 wizard refuse to take some action in combat because they think it foolish? Refuse to cast a spell? Refuse to even prepare a specific spell because of something they see that the player does not? Which sounds like a slippery slope but the actual point is when do you let a player ride on the character's back, and when do you not, and why? Even making this a die roll result doesn't help because that just moves power from the character to the die, still not in the hands of the player.
2) what differentiates the game from a book or movie then? The player made the character, sure, but now the character is overcoming obstacles, challenges on its own. The entire thing stops being a game because now there's no onstruction for the player to overcome. They press a to solve the problem, or merely watch as their character does a series of cool things....
And it still doesn't solve your initial issue, that the int 5 barbarian can solve a puzzle same as the int 20 wizard. The wizard player simply gets to shout "first!" Because he doesn't need to spend time figuring the problem out.
Hmm, I really like the system for the most part, (and love the Paizo people, and community), so these are really minor complaints for an otherwise great game.
- Single monster encounters. I know these are the most classic staple of fantasy everything, but often they are anticlimactic unless you fudge the dice, or otherwise bend the rules a little.
- Power of magical flight. The fly spell is the solution to far too many adventuring problems. How many skills are completely out-shined by one spell? - Acrobatics (balancing and jumping), Climb, Swim, etc. Not to mention, flying over traps, nuking-from-orbit anything without a ranged attack, and just generally avoiding difficult areas and situations.
- Crafting and WBL. OK, this one is a niche problem, but it bothers me that a handful of specific feats (that are really only available to casters) allow a PC to be more powerful then their fellow adventures. You are already one of the most powerful classes, with a feat that lets you make almost any magic item you can imagine, AT HALF PRICE! But that is not good enough? You need it to be retroactive to before character creation, even though no other feats in the game work that way?
- Crafting and WBL. OK, this one is a niche problem, but it bothers me that a handful of specific feats (that are really only available to casters) allow a PC to be more powerful then their fellow adventures. You are already one of the most powerful classes, with a feat that lets you make almost any magic item you can imagine, AT HALF PRICE! But that is not good enough? You need it to be retroactive to before character creation, even though no other feats in the game work that way?
Honestly I am okay with the crafting feats since a caster having that means half-price magical equipment for the mundanes and martial casters who for the most part need that s##+ to be constantly updated to be relevant. Plus eventually crafting becomes so time consuming that the caster can't do anything in their downtime but craft, and if they're hte only one crafting hoo boy does it take a long time to get equipment updated.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, My GM refuses to understand that the definition of full round casting in relation to spontaneous casters and metamagic. He's effectively buffed spontaneous casters. Maybe I'll play one next character.
Back in 3.5, I asked a DM "Hey, can my sorcerer take that alternate feature from PHB2 that allows him to use metamagic without increasing casting time?"
Him: Metamagic increases sorcerer casting time?
Me: Normally, yep.
Him: ...Sure, go ahead and take it.
Me: *Kicking myself*
Honestly, I totally get why DMs miss/ignore the full-round metamagic rule. It's a niggly little exception that one wouldn't naturally expect to even exist, given any fluff or other rule. To all appearances, it was a 3.0 concession to the [very arguably unfounded] fear that spontaneous casting would be OP which then got grandfathered into 3.5 and PF. So unless you're dealing with organized play and its necessity for conformity, there's a good argument for doing just as your DM does.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) Haunts & Traps, at least as presented. They both come down to the same uninteractive behavior of "roll a die, and if you roll too low you take damage / status effect / penalty" Like reading through the Haunted House in Rise of the Rune Lords, I was presented with "here's some flavor text, someone you pick makes a reflex save for half damage on 4d6 fire damage." Flavor text doesn't make it interesting. Making it a puzzle makes it interesting (let's see you navigate this mansion with a weeping angel following you).
This just reminded me of one of my pet peeves: I hate puzzles. I wouldn't consider being forced to navigate a mansion while fleeing a Weeping Angel a puzzle, though.
I hate riddles, and figuring out which levers to pull or colored tiles to step on or what order to open the doors. I'd rather be poked in the eye with a sharp stick.
Other peeves:
Political intrigue. I hate having to spend sessions making Diplomacy and Sense Motive checks and trying to figure who to trust out of a crowd of sleezebags. I quickly get frustrated if my character feels she can only progress the plot by making a bargain that makes her feel like she needs to take a long shower to wash away the self-loathing.
I am not a fan of grim-and-gritty, or of endless shades of gray. I like some sunshine and clearly defined good vs evil every now and then.
I don't like it when other players don't place as much importance on our shared gaming sessions as I do. I have a friend who's decided that he wants to participate in amateur sports before he gets too old, so every week he has to leave in the middle of our game session to go to a kickball or dodgeball game. Gaming is more important, man!
Players who complain about GM rulings constantly. You may not agree, but for the sake of moving on, drop it.
Players who don't appreciate the amount of time GM's put into making the session & campaign.
This can take the form of not paying attention until it is their turn in combat, otherwise they're silent. Then when they try to do something that doesn't really make sense, they have to be caught up to what has happened since they last acted.
Or when a GM explains how something works in their world, the player puts in "Well, in a normal game, it works like ..."
Or when a player wants to spend an inordinate amount of time talking about something non-game related.
GMs that want things to go a certain way, and so they subtly or not-so-subtly railroad players into certain actions.
GMs that try to force the PCs to have a friendship with a certain NPC.
GMs that ask for a backstory, and then don't expect it to impact the character at all.
GMs that think their understanding of a PCs backstory trumps the player's understanding.
In a way, it does. The GM builds the world and everything other than player actions in it is decided by or OKd by him. If a player's backstory doesn't fit in with the world or the game set forth by the GM, the backstory must yield. In essence, backstories are hooks for the Gm to play with or ignore as he pleases, not something writ in stone that they must abide by.
Sure, but imagine this situation:
- Player creates backstory, submits to GM.
- GM reviews backstory, approves backstory.
- Situation comes up in game, player says his character will/won't take some action.
- GM seems confused - asks "Why wouldn't your PC do/refuse to do some action?
- Player says "Because in my backstory I mentioned that my character really likes/dislikes x, which is related to some action."
- GM says "Oh, when I read your backstory, I didn't get that impression. I thought your character would be willing to do some action.
The player has one impression, the GM has a different. Who's takes precedence? Well as the player is the one that created the backstory, the player should get final say what his PC would/wouldn't do based on his PC's backstory.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, My GM refuses to understand that the definition of full round casting in relation to spontaneous casters and metamagic. He's effectively buffed spontaneous casters. Maybe I'll play one next character.
Fixing that is one of my established house rules. It never made sense to me that people who use magic instinctively were somehow worse at shaping it.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fixing that is one of my established house rules. It never made sense to me that people who use magic instinctively were somehow worse at shaping it.
For example, My GM refuses to understand that the definition of full round casting in relation to spontaneous casters and metamagic. He's effectively buffed spontaneous casters. Maybe I'll play one next character.
Same.
Had a DM in 3rd who, due to the wording had it only apply to Sorcerers as well, not Bards.
Fixing that is one of my established house rules. It never made sense to me that people who use magic instinctively were somehow worse at shaping it.For example, My GM refuses to understand that the definition of full round casting in relation to spontaneous casters and metamagic. He's effectively buffed spontaneous casters. Maybe I'll play one next character.
You could think of it as the difference between someone who has a high Dex but has never juggled anything compared to someone who has an average Dex but has practiced juggling for years before going on stage. With "going on stage" being analogous to "starting an adventuring career".
One can have a natural talent for something and yet not have a clue as to the most efficient means of performance.
The problem with that is taking the Metamagic feat represents learning a new performance technique (to continue your analogy), yet despite having learned the technique and having more natural talent, they are still worse at it.
What you wrote is an okay explanation for why they are a level behind on getting new spells, but doesn't have much to do with Metamagic application.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with that is taking the Metamagic feat represents learning a new performance technique (to continue your analogy), yet despite having learned the technique and having more natural talent, they are still worse at it.What you wrote is an okay explanation for why they are a level behind on getting new spells, but doesn't have much to do with Metamagic application.
It's really an issue of how you approach the topic of metamagic. If you see it as a complicated or labor intensive process to apply a metamagic feat, then it's easy to see why applying one on the fly rather than via a prepped spell would take longer at the moment the spell is activated. For the prepped spell caster, that time was spent earlier in the day when he prepped spells so it doesn't need to be spent again. The spontaneous caster doesn't have the option of spending that time beforehand and therefore has to spend it when he casts the spell.
1: Game starts at a certain time, you show up at or before that time.
2: Game starts at a certain time, you start playing at that time. Social hour is over.
3: Do not bring your personal issues to the table and expect free therapy. It's called 'Gaming', not 'Group'.
4: Once gaming starts, stay in game, or at least on topic. Do not try to be better than AmTrak at derailing.
5: Figure out your turn BEFORE it's your turn.
6: Take your turn ON YOUR TURN. If it's not your turn, shut your pie hole.
....and this is how my weekly sessions run. The soul saving grace is our GM is really good (when allowed to run the game by the other players), and has more patience than anyone I have ever met.
I'd like to change my pet peeve to the above gaming style.
*Faves both posts just to keep symmetry*
Fixing that is one of my established house rules. It never made sense to me that people who use magic instinctively were somehow worse at shaping it.For example, My GM refuses to understand that the definition of full round casting in relation to spontaneous casters and metamagic. He's effectively buffed spontaneous casters. Maybe I'll play one next character.
You could think of it as the difference between someone who has a high Dex but has never juggled anything compared to someone who has an average Dex but has practiced juggling for years before going on stage. With "going on stage" being analogous to "starting an adventuring career".
One can have a natural talent for something and yet not have a clue as to the most efficient means of performance.
The problem with that is taking the Metamagic feat represents learning a new performance technique (to continue your analogy), yet despite having learned the technique and having more natural talent, they are still worse at it.
What you wrote is an okay explanation for why they are a level behind on getting new spells, but doesn't have much to do with Metamagic application.
Which is why I play 5E now. And I consider myself a Rules Lawyer :D but combat in 3.PF just got me down. Toooooooo slooooowwww
Perhaps one could explain metamagic as being an INT-thing while spont casters are using a CHR-thing, and the INT-thing casting cannot be intuitive or spontanious but must be studied and exacting. Does that make a more consistent explanation?
It would, if the Sage bloodline didn't exist. :P
|
|
It would, if the Sage bloodline didn't exist. :PFixing that is one of my established house rules. It never made sense to me that people who use magic instinctively were somehow worse at shaping it.For example, My GM refuses to understand that the definition of full round casting in relation to spontaneous casters and metamagic. He's effectively buffed spontaneous casters. Maybe I'll play one next character.
You could think of it as the difference between someone who has a high Dex but has never juggled anything compared to someone who has an average Dex but has practiced juggling for years before going on stage. With "going on stage" being analogous to "starting an adventuring career".
One can have a natural talent for something and yet not have a clue as to the most efficient means of performance.
The problem with that is taking the Metamagic feat represents learning a new performance technique (to continue your analogy), yet despite having learned the technique and having more natural talent, they are still worse at it.
What you wrote is an okay explanation for why they are a level behind on getting new spells, but doesn't have much to do with Metamagic application.
Which is why I play 5E now. And I consider myself a Rules Lawyer :D but combat in 3.PF just got me down. Toooooooo slooooowwww
Perhaps one could explain metamagic as being an INT-thing while spont casters are using a CHR-thing, and the INT-thing casting cannot be intuitive or spontanious but must be studied and exacting. Does that make a more consistent explanation?
Or Clerics.
Confirm Crits, confirm fumbles, 'problem' gone.Critical Fumble rules almost always bug me whether it's Pathfinder or any other game system. Mostly because it tends to turn the PCs into the Three Stooges.Yesh, is just dumb. My 20th level fighter critically fails 5% of the time, just like he did at 1st level?
Even against the same power-level opponent in an otherwise identical situation?
Who thought that would be a good idea?
K, new problem:
I played 3.5 for nearly 2 years before I had my first "confirmed crit" as a player.
Can you say boooooring!!?
Uh, what the heck were you playing? I've gotten those without trying on characters who weren't built for combat. Twice.
Okay, I know this sounds silly, but is there any chance you were using one of those b~@*~+$! d10s?
Oh, speaking of things that bother me: F!@~ those d10s.
EDIT: Nevermind, I made another thread about it. I'll get my demons out there.