|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I like that many player seem to dislike imo. Is having monster races use tactics and traps. One player in a Pathfinder game could not get past that "Kobolds were nothing but cannon fodder and useless" in a campaign I played in. Granted the way they were portrayed in earlier editions did not help. In 3.5. then Pathfinder if they can place traps they can and are a threat. It just seemed to bug him almost to the point of ruining his enjoyment at the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then levels in a party should be varied to match.
In Advanced D&D different classes had different xp tracks, so a rogue needed less xp to level up than a wizard.
In Pathfinder you could have different classes use different xp tracks to: Non-casters on the fast track, partial casters medium and full casters on the slow xp track.
Treasure would have to be monitored by the GM so that the classes stay close to expected gear.
I doubt I'd do it, but it could be an quick band aid fix if it bothers people.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I like that many player seem to dislike imo. Is having monster races use tactics and traps. One player in a Pathfinder game could not get past that "Kobolds were nothing but cannon fodder and useless" in a campaign I played in. Granted the way they were portrayed in earlier editions did not help. In 3.5. then Pathfinder if they can place traps they can and are a threat. It just seemed to bug him almost to the point of ruining his enjoyment at the table.
Kobold's are my favorite race... and my player's least favorite race to meet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I like that many player seem to dislike imo. Is having monster races use tactics and traps. One player in a Pathfinder game could not get past that "Kobolds were nothing but cannon fodder and useless" in a campaign I played in. Granted the way they were portrayed in earlier editions did not help. In 3.5. then Pathfinder if they can place traps they can and are a threat. It just seemed to bug him almost to the point of ruining his enjoyment at the table.Kobold's are my favorite race... and my player's least favorite race to meet.
Ditto
|
DittoOne thing I like that many player seem to dislike imo. Is having monster races use tactics and traps. One player in a Pathfinder game could not get past that "Kobolds were nothing but cannon fodder and useless" in a campaign I played in. Granted the way they were portrayed in earlier editions did not help. In 3.5. then Pathfinder if they can place traps they can and are a threat. It just seemed to bug him almost to the point of ruining his enjoyment at the table.Kobold's are my favorite race... and my player's least favorite race to meet.
Don't forget Ettercaps :3
Don't forget Ettercaps :3DittoOne thing I like that many player seem to dislike imo. Is having monster races use tactics and traps. One player in a Pathfinder game could not get past that "Kobolds were nothing but cannon fodder and useless" in a campaign I played in. Granted the way they were portrayed in earlier editions did not help. In 3.5. then Pathfinder if they can place traps they can and are a threat. It just seemed to bug him almost to the point of ruining his enjoyment at the table.Kobold's are my favorite race... and my player's least favorite race to meet.
I like ettercaps, but I just can't get into kobolds. I remember them from Basic Edition, where they had 1/2 HD (1d8/2) and were more like wimpy mini-gnolls. I remember there were kobold-like minions to a witch in a later season of Gummi Bears. They were really yippy and bouncy, but not as bouncy as Gummi Bears.
I once played in a game with a guy who played a Feral-template kobold Battle Sorcerer in a 3.5/PF combo/conversion. Did a fun combination of wraithstrike (a swift action spell that made all melee attacks touch attacks for 1 round) and claw/claw/bite/tail/wing/wing.
Metamagic feats...
Some 3pp had an interesting take on these for the same reason, magnes serta or something like that. The whole idea was to make them more versatile and used. You use them much like selecting spells each day. I was reading it recently and it has an appeal to my wacky side.
Found part of it: Ars Metamagica (www.SpesMagnaGames.com) by Mark Chance
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer a more codified alignment system. Where you told from the start what a character can or cannot do. Such as from Palladium Books. Are you allowed to steal from someone yes. Instead of the more vague less defined D&D system. Which instead of helping solve problems at the table make it worse sometimes. I almost never had any problems with alignment when I played or ran Rifts or Palladium Fantasy.
I dislike the older screw over player style mechanics from 2E. What I mean is if one is say a Paladin or Ranger. If one commits a evil act one falls or becomes a Ex-Ranger. Which I have no problems with. If the player willingly commits a evil act he deserves all the negative consequences. What bothers me if one unwillingly commits a evil act. One is still screwed. That makes no sense. If as a Paladin I'm mind controlled why the hell would I fall from grace. When clearly it's not my fault. It's the one mind controlling the character. Same thing with the Ranger. I cam across it yesterday I maybe joining a 2E game soon. what horrible poorly written mechanics. Damned if you do and sure ahs hell damned if you don't.
Best way to handle alignment [and something I love that some people are bound to hate] is as a descriptor rather than a proscriptor.
In other words, in my games alignment describes your character, but your behavior will change your alignment without any serious long term consequences.
Paladin of Justice fall? Become a Paladin of Liberty, a Paladin of Order, a Paladin of Independence, a Paladin of Tyranny a Paladin of Corruption or a Paladin of Destruction.
Lost the favor of your God? You'll get a handful of resumes in the mail [usually either by way of members of the other temples reaching out to you, sometimes by way of direct divine interaction ala Moses and the burning bush.]
Turn evil? Rock that s#$&, just treat your fellow players with respect [that does not mean you must respect your fellow partymates, but tread with caution if you betray them.]
That's an interesting take. I do like the idea of a Paladin that is changing alignment possible taking up a different cause. Hell, the Unearthed Arcana from 3.5 had a variant Paladin class for CG,LE, and CE, so why not.
As for getting calls from other temples for others, I can see that, but I would run it under the agents and Gods that where orchestrating such a thing. That's not a bad system though...Cool idea.
Lost the favor of your God? You'll get a handful of resumes in the mail [usually either by way of members of the other temples reaching out to you, sometimes by way of direct divine interaction ala Moses and the burning bush.]
My backup plan for my separatist cleric of Gozreh way back in the day was to have her join Sarenrae's flock in the event that she fell into CG territory, though she would seek them out herself.
Diviner mages. Not everything is about crowd control, blasting, or being the party's teleport donkey.
Diviner mages. Not everything is about crowd control, blasting, or being the party's teleport donkey.
I think people hate those because of all the wizards that "specialize" in divination for the initiative boost.
imitative is only good to win if you're a wizard too, it's kind of weird.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
imitative is only good to win if you're a wizard too, it's kind of weird.
Not really. Everyone but a non-charge melee guy wants a high initiative, wizards are just the ones that exploit going first the best.
imitative is only good to win if you're a wizard too, it's kind of weird.Not really. Everyone but a non-charge melee guy wants a high initiative, wizards are just the ones that exploit going first the best.
charge in general though isn't great unless you pounce...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Life Oracle prefers to wait and see what happens before she acts. Admittedly, delaying makes that a choice rather than an enforced act.
Mine prefer to throw out a quick buff like prayer or burst of glory.
charge in general though isn't great unless you pounce...imitative is only good to win if you're a wizard too, it's kind of weird.Not really. Everyone but a non-charge melee guy wants a high initiative, wizards are just the ones that exploit going first the best.
Even then it's not necessarily better than letting the enemy come to you, unless you kill them, that is.
imitative is only good to win if you're a wizard too, it's kind of weird.Not really. Everyone but a non-charge melee guy wants a high initiative, wizards are just the ones that exploit going first the best.Yeah, archers and gunslingers love it. A big part of why archers and gunslingers are so powerful is they win initiative and get to full round attack from round 1. The archer fighter has gotten 2 full round attacks in before the strength fighters gets in his first.
Wizards are even worse because round 1 can be spent creating a pit or throwing up a wind wall which can completely negate the enemies ability to move or fight.
I always do forget about ranged builds. :P
|
|
@ JohnLocke90
I'm still more a fan of it in any edition. Iit just feels like it's unnecessary and to be blunt unfunded Imo. Already it's hard enough to pay a class that can fall like a Paladin. When it's a evil act committed under the effect of a spell or cursed item. I don't see why the pkayer needs to be punished for playing a certain class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of letting enemies come to the party, potentially suffering AoOs and generally getting in just single melee attacks before PCs get full attacks on them. There's almost always another PC who wants to charge in and attack though. Not infrequently that PC has a low AC and ends up needing some healing to stay alive. I'm told that's what "fun" is.
I searched and didn't find MLP.
If it has to be game related, Ponyfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love psionics. Lot of people hate them because "psychic powers don't fit in a world of magic and spells."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love psionics. Lot of people hate them because "psychic powers don't fit in a world of magic and spells."
I love psionics too. Lack of imagination is behind all that "psionics doesn't belong" horsecrap. Mind Flayers and other psionic creatures have been around since 2nd edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love psionics. Lot of people hate them because "psychic powers don't fit in a world of magic and spells."I love psionics too. Lack of imagination is behind all that "psionics doesn't belong" horsecrap. Mind Flayers and other psionic creatures have been around since 2nd edition.
Check out Taltos and the other 17 novels by Steven Brust. It's swashbuckling swords and sorcery, and it has psionics. And witchcraft, wizardry, and necromancy.
psionics. I love it. some people don't.
Same here, I'd love to play in a psionic campaign, or even to play a psion in a standard campaign, but all DM's I've known in the last 10 years have either hated or been spooked by psionics, none have accepted to include them.
I've seen a psion in a regular campaign, and it seemed to work out OK. It seemed to be a slightly more versatile sorcerer.
