|
smashthedean posted:I would argue that keeping the game running smoothly and not being broken by a 3rd level spell to the point where a character will trivialize all future encounters is more important than being "nice." Sometimes it is a GM's job to just say no. All the same, a ridiculous skill total like that should have some effect. Otherwise you're just trivializing a character's traits to rescue your precious encounter. There's always room to come up with rulings to bring things in line later. I mean, would you ever look at a character's critical hit, realize your critter was going to get de-headed, and say "That didn't happen!" Why would a Bluff check be any different?
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
Succeeding on a bluff check means you convince the other guy that you believe what you're saying. bye.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:All the same, a ridiculous skill total like that should have some effect. Otherwise you're just trivializing a character's traits to rescue your precious encounter. There's always room to come up with rulings to bring things in line later. drat straight, you improvise! Good news: He believes you! Bad news: This particular demon is actually at the head of a Valkyrie-esque plot to overthrow Asmodeus, and he summons his co-conspirators now that he has you out in the open.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
smashthedean posted:I would argue that keeping the game running smoothly and not being broken by a 3rd level spell to the point where a character will trivialize all future encounters is more important than being "nice." Sometimes it is a GM's job to just say no. You said yourself the game doesn't need any fixes or houserules to work. What you are advocating would in fact be a houserule. Like I generally agree with you that sometimes "no" is a valuable part of the GM's vocabulary, but "no" in the face of a rule that explicitly says yes is a recipe for a bad game. Also lol that my "ridiculous and overpowered" option for classes without spells is a collection of things that 1st - 3rd level spells do. poo poo some of that stuff isn't even as ridiculous as stuff that AD&D gave fighters (small personal army and ability to outright kill X HD of creatures this is directed at you).
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
Ralp posted:Succeeding on a bluff check means you convince the other guy that you believe what you're saying. bye. By the rules as written? Nope. Can't bluff me there. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Also lol that my "ridiculous and overpowered" option for classes without spells is a collection of things that 1st - 3rd level spells do. poo poo some of that stuff isn't even as ridiculous as stuff that AD&D gave fighters (small personal army and ability to outright kill X HD of creatures this is directed at you). I thought that was Red Box OD&D? I don't remember AD&D having anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
LongDarkNight posted:Now I'm torn over whether to go for MPL or that cheesy Half-Elf racial spell. SSSHHHH. I'm trying to get both, arguing that the "spirit of the feat" fits in well with Samsaran, who could call upon the memories of past lives and gain feats that way. He's generally pretty laid back so I think he'll go for it. Fingers crossed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
Idran posted:I thought that was Red Box OD&D? I don't remember AD&D having anything like that. It was BCEMI I think, my bad lumping it with AD&D.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
Idran posted:I thought that was Red Box OD&D? I don't remember AD&D having anything like that. AD&D 1st edition at least had all of those "on a natural roll of 18 you kill your opponent" type bonuses for fighters/kensai/monks
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
People saying coming up with a creative response to the situation presented is a better idea than just saying no are right. My point is that a GM has the ability to rise above the RAW to make the game more enjoyable for everyone. Calling this a house rule is semantics, but my definition of the type of "house rule" that I would be opposed to is a constant rule put into effect that modifies the current rules of the game (such as your "resolve points" suggestion or full attacks as a standard action). I wouldn't consider a GM ruling to be a house rule, but again it's semantics.Red_Mage posted:Also lol that my "ridiculous and overpowered" option for classes without spells is a collection of things that 1st - 3rd level spells do. What 1st-3rd level spells are you able to cast as an immediate action that let you "automatically succeed on a save, remove one status effect, gain DR equal to that character's level for that turn only, extend their move range by 20 feet, add a +5 to an attack that has already resolved, regain a quarter of your hitpoints"? I would really like to see that list of spells.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
smashthedean posted:That's ridiculous and incredibly overpowering. You aren't very good at judging what is and isn't overpowered. I'm not sure if this is because you don't know Pathfinder very well or because you're simply bad at thinking tactically, but it is pretty clearly the case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
smashthedean posted:People saying coming up with a creative response to the situation presented is a better idea than just saying no are right. My point is that a GM has the ability to rise above the RAW to make the game more enjoyable for everyone. Calling this a house rule is semantics, but my definition of the type of "house rule" that I would be opposed to is a constant rule put into effect that modifies the current rules of the game (such as your "resolve points" suggestion or full attacks as a standard action). I wouldn't consider a GM ruling to be a house rule, but again it's semantics. Oh cool. Well as long as that is the definition in play here. In that case I urge you Axiem, to make a GM ruling that allows Fighters, Rogues, Monks, Rangers, Paladins to sometimes do that thing I said, so you too can continue to not change any of the rules of Pathfinder, but can be a good DM that gives his players the ability to play the game together!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
I understand my opinion on the Pathfinder rules as not broken isn't the popular one around here, but I feel like there's a case to be made for it. I've been playing and GMing Pathfinder since Alpha Playtest and playing D&D since 3rd edition so I feel like I'm pretty knowledgeable on the topic. If the thread prefers that I just shut up and  I can do that, but I do think I have a good idea what I'm talking about.It's up to every GM how to run their own games and really as long as their players are having fun, that's what really matters. I started posting here in response to a new GM that was looking for advice, but I feel like we're just kind of butting heads at this point so to each his own is fine by me if that's where people whould prefer to leave it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
smashthedean posted:That's ridiculous and incredibly overpowering. So you are saying when the rules interfere with what plans you have as a GM you just ignore them to force the issue and make sure what you want to happen does? I would imagine your player's sense of accomplishment on finishing something is doubly enhanced by realizing that you have permitted it to happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
smashthedean posted:People saying coming up with a creative response to the situation presented is a better idea than just saying no are right. My point is that a GM has the ability to rise above the RAW to make the game more enjoyable for everyone. Calling this a house rule is semantics, but my definition of the type of "house rule" that I would be opposed to is a constant rule put into effect that modifies the current rules of the game (such as your "resolve points" suggestion or full attacks as a standard action). I wouldn't consider a GM ruling to be a house rule, but again it's semantics. The immediate action isn't the problem here; it's a necessity because melee dudes need their standards and moves open so they can contribute to the game by doing their job. Ignoring that: being a caster/Heroism (2), Lesser Restoration (2/3), doesn't exist at that level (but then Stoneskin), Expeditious Retreat (1), True Strike/the AP regen spell (1/2), Cure Light and Medium Wounds (1/3). Sanctuary works as DR FU as long as you don't attack, and there are spells (Blur, Mirror Image, Silent Image, Invis, Flight) that are even better than DR 1 to 5/whatever. You're rear end out here; we're only trying to help. Don't just blow us off because we don't fit your understanding of the game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
smashthedean posted:I understand my opinion on the Pathfinder rules as not broken isn't the popular one around here, but I feel like there's a case to be made for it. I've been playing and GMing Pathfinder since Alpha Playtest and playing D&D since 3rd edition so I feel like I'm pretty knowledgeable on the topic. If the thread prefers that I just shut up and It's less about shutting up and getting out and more about acknowledging and accepting that people disagree with you about the game and you've already tried to convince them of your viewpoint and it didn't work. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
I think I posted this in this thread, but remember that Pathfinder devs decide what's balanced not by power level, but by if it makes sense with their own made up rules for their universe. When they made Pathfinder (or if you want to go back far enough 3.x) they decided that magic should eventually be able to shatter the very laws of nature, allowing wizards to negate the effects and even reverse important laws like gravity by mid level. However, they decided that this was the only method for breaking the bounds of the universe. This is why a 5th level wizard gets to fly for 5 minutes per casting, while a level 5 fighter gets to choose a group of pointy bits that do 1 extra damage. That's the thrust of it; Wizards get to do everything super well because magic can do anything while fighters can do almost nothing because they aren't able to break the rules. That entire tome sitting next to your dungeon master is half rules that martial classes must follow, and the other half ways for spellcasters to break them. The inherit flaw with this system is half the player characters only have an arbitrary set of actions they can take and the other half can go hog wild. If they put some cap on what spells can do and let martial classes have some rulesbreaking fun, this game would be somewhat balanced. But as is, spellcasters are almost always going to be more versatile and stronger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
Fudge Handsome posted:It's less about shutting up and getting out and more about acknowledging and accepting that people disagree with you about the game and you've already tried to convince them of your viewpoint and it didn't work. Fair enough. I don't think I have much more to contribute to this discussion though aside from quoting people left and right to defend myself so agreeing to disagree is probably the best solution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
smashthedean posted:I would argue that keeping the game running smoothly and not being broken by a 3rd level spell to the point where a character will trivialize all future encounters is more important than being "nice." Sometimes it is a GM's job to just say no. I once had a game where the players successfully charmed the vampire mid-boss and made her their best friend. I was really dismayed at what happened to my plan, but went with it. They then spent the rest of the night trying to recruit every monster they had to their growing band, with surprising success. They had way more fun doing this than they would have from fighting everything. Sometimes it's worth it to let your plan fall apart and have that encounter be trivialized if everyone is clearly enjoying that more. My game was a short one, so long-term balance wasn't really a problem. But I think most players would be fine with it if you pulled them aside afterwards and said, "Hey, while that was fun, that ability is also a little ridiculous, maybe we can tone it down in the future." Edit: sorry, didn't see your post afterwards with you bowing out of the discussion before I posted. Not trying to jump on you after that, just sharing a cool unexpected outcome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
I'm not worried about casters in my upcoming campaign because:
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:17
|
|
|
Porkness posted:Have consequences for stopping an adventure and waiting until the next day to resume it.[/list] That said, a team of wizards could probably have pulled it off in an hour.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
Porkness posted:I'm not worried about casters in my upcoming campaign because: Social Rules and Healing will still gently caress you rules as written. The casters running out of spells hurts the melee as much as it hurts them. If the campaign is going to stay between like levels 1-8 you'll probably be OK. Also you are still going to have to houserule because the response to "components are hard" from players is always always always "eschew components"
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:50
|
|
|
And sorcerers get Eschew Materials for free, anyways, and can screw up a campaign just as badly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
Colon V posted:And sorcerers get Eschew Materials for free, anyways, and can screw up a campaign just as badly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
Sionak posted:I once had a game where the players successfully charmed the vampire mid-boss and made her their best friend. I was really dismayed at what happened to my plan, but went with it. They then spent the rest of the night trying to recruit every monster they had to their growing band, with surprising success. They had way more fun doing this than they would have from fighting everything. No worries. I like your cool story  And y'know, I'm not bowing out of talking about stuff at all, just bowing out of trying to argue my point that most people disagree with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
Wasn't it somewhere in the rules that when a spell component costs money, you just subtract the component's cost from your current money? That sounds a bit too convenient and I may have just imagined it. There's also this: Spell Component Pouch: A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn't fit in a pouch. and Material (M): A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don't bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch. So even by RAW there's no reason for the wizard player to have to say to the GM "I go to the sundries and purchase this much bat guano, a few feathers, five rhubarb leaves, and five adder stomachs."
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
smashthedean posted:I understand my opinion on the Pathfinder rules as not broken isn't the popular one around here, but I feel like there's a case to be made for it. I've been playing and GMing Pathfinder since Alpha Playtest and playing D&D since 3rd edition so I feel like I'm pretty knowledgeable on the topic. If the thread prefers that I just shut up and The thing is, most of us have been playing 3e since it first came out, and a good number of us have been playing D&D since before 3e. I mean jesus dude I used to be one of the biggest annoying gently caress-off Pathfinder fans in the world. I was a world class fanboy. I get that you think you know what you're talking about, but so do we. The problem isn't that you think there are no problems, and if your games run totally smoothly then that's awesome for you. I mean that no sarcasm, everyone should have cool games they enjoy. But when a new DM comes up and asks for help and potential problems, and we try to help him, all you're doing is making GBS threads the whole thing up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 01:26
|
|
|
Take his spell pouch away, never give it back. Make him buy clothes covered in pockets that he has to fill with random bits of junk for spell components. Every time he casts a spell, make him roll for memory to work out which pocket the fairy wings are in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 01:29
|
|
|
goatface posted:Take his spell pouch away, never give it back. Make him buy clothes covered in pockets that he has to fill with random bits of junk for spell components. Every time he casts a spell, make him roll for memory to work out which pocket the fairy wings are in. Do you hate your players? It sounds like you hate them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
I admit, even in 3rd edition, I never really understood the whole spell-materials thing. Having somatic components already means you have to have a hand free, and unless the material costs money, you just ignore it anyway. (Not counting the materials that actually cost gold; that makes sense).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
When they can afford a Handy Haversack, force them into taking a gestalt level of Oracle, with the Haunted curse so that they have to spend time searching for materials.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
Trip Report: Playing an amazingly condescending evil merfolk prince in a party of mostly evil characters makes for amazing times. We're currently trying to find out what destroyed a dwarf-run whorehouse - all signs point towards a literal quantum ogre. My character spent a lot of time alternating between extreme flamboyance and cruel aloofness whilst his eidolon shouted "Yarr!" at people. A quick question - when using a magical item with a scaling spell on it, does it use the user's caster level for the scaling, or the level of whoever made the item? Example - if my merfolk used an item with Fins to Feet on it, would it last for three hours as per his caster level of three, or would it be something else?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
The Deleter posted:Trip Report: Playing an amazingly condescending evil merfolk prince in a party of mostly evil characters makes for amazing times. We're currently trying to find out what destroyed a dwarf-run whorehouse - all signs point towards a literal quantum ogre. My character spent a lot of time alternating between extreme flamboyance and cruel aloofness whilst his eidolon shouted "Yarr!" at people. With very few exceptions magic items work off of the creator's caster level or the listed caster level of the item itself, if there is one. The exceptions are a handful of feats and class abilities that let you use your own stats or caster level for setting spell variables, and Staves. Generally items are assumed to have the lowest possible stats allowed to create them. If you make them yourself or commission them or your GM otherwise lets you you can pay a premium to make 'better' versions if you or the maker has the appropriate stats and level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
The Deleter posted:Trip Report: Playing an amazingly condescending evil merfolk prince in a party of mostly evil characters makes for amazing times. We're currently trying to find out what destroyed a dwarf-run whorehouse - all signs point towards a literal quantum ogre. My character spent a lot of time alternating between extreme flamboyance and cruel aloofness whilst his eidolon shouted "Yarr!" at people. All official items should have a caster level listed in the item block. Otherwise, as grah says, assume the lowest caster level that would permit casting of the spell (e.g., a third-level wizard spell requires a wizard with caster level 5, so assume the item has caster level 5). Generally, if a spell is on the wizard, cleric, or druid lists, you should use those classes to determine CL rather than wacky poo poo like the summoner (the addition of which had some unexpected effects in the whole item-making business).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
Alright, that clears that up. Thanks a lot! Now to wait until I can actually take Fins to Feet and stop having to cast Ant Haul on the eidolon and have it carry him around bridal style.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 03:14
|
|
|
smashthedean posted:I would argue that keeping the game running smoothly and not being broken by a 3rd level spell to the point where a character will trivialize all future encounters is more important than being "nice." Sometimes it is a GM's job to just say no. Congrats, you've just made a houserule.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 04:07
|
|
|
Inquisitor I think is my new favorite class. Stacking divine favor and wrath on a bad guy and lighting them up with a longbow is killer fun. Any other cool spells I'm not noticing for ranged combat other than things like True Strike?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
Invisibility so that you are shooting against its flat-footed AC and also because Invisibility is great. e: Actually, now that I think of it, I can't find in the rules where it says that a defender is flat-footed against enemies that it is unaware of. Our groups have always played with that rule, but did we just make it up without realizing or am I just not looking in the right place for it? lesbian baphomet fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Dec 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 05:22
|
|
|
I know it's a rule, because that's basically the definition of flat-footed, but I don't know where.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 06:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
It's in the conditions summary in 3.5 and in Pathfinder. It doesn't look like it's flat-footed (which also removes Dex from CMD), but that it shares the no-Dex-to-AC thing with flat-footed. Which, for most purposes, is essentially the same thing. Oh, and another dumb question time. Is Use Magic Device actually useful? Looking at the DCs to actually use it, it just seems like a lost cause, because you'd need to pump so many skill points into it to make it worthwhile. Or is there some convenient way to abuse it? Axiem fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Dec 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 06:14
|
|