About high level threats, keep in mind that I'm still not in the how to play part of the rules, but, are players' AC hugely boosted as they gain levels ? I see an Iron Golem with a +28 to hit, jeez.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Tabletop RPG |OT| I cast a spell
- Thread starter Nairume
- Start date
Class levels will very rarely give a free boost to AC, and many that do have some limits. You may get ways to spec into more ac which means listing out on something else you might have wanted, but a good portion of your action comes from buying items that boost it. And sometimes buffs from allies (Though many times they won't give you AC, instead giving Dr or concealment). Beating 28 attack is not suppose to be easy, it's pretty much up to the players to figure out a way to get around those problems ( usually by just doing more damage faster then it can unfortunately).
IME the CR system for 3e/PF is very wonky. You really need to pay attention to the details of the monsters you are throwing at your party, or have players that really pay attention to the game. 3e combat tends toward the swingy, either the PC dog pile the monster or the monsters gets their one big hit and destroys a PC or two. There are some really nasty monsters even at low levels and Its quite easy to create TPK encounters working within the guidelines.
My group approached the game like drunk fratboys and I had two options; tweak the encounters so that they their are no gotyas or play softball with the monsters. If I killed a PC every session it would quickly lead to demoralisation.
My group approached the game like drunk fratboys and I had two options; tweak the encounters so that they their are no gotyas or play softball with the monsters. If I killed a PC every session it would quickly lead to demoralisation.
Yeah, got wasted in two turns as a LVL7 PC from full HP. Enemy did 4d6 + 9 damage. And this was a story related encounter. Like wtf :D
Generally PC AC doesn't necessarily rise all that much throughout the campaign unless someone really focuses his/her money spendage and/or ability choices towards it. A +1 ring of protection that gives +1 to AC is pretty standard, but anything beyond that starts getting expensive fast.
What changes is the amount of shit that players can do to get around enemies hitting more easily and hitting harder. Players themselves can hit more easily, all kinds of mass heal/buff and other utility spells are introduced, there are equipment and items that help against specific kinds of threats etc. So while you aren't necessarily getting progressively harder to hit at a constant pace, the whole group gets a lot more tools to deal with all kinds of situations.
Bear in mind by CR1 they mean a single ghoul vs. a party of 4-5 individuals going all-out. A ghoul has AC 14, 13hp, 30' movement, and no ranged attacks. As a level 1 scrub you don't want to fight one in a phone booth, but if everyone in the party has a ranged attack (as they should), a single ghoul's nasty melee attacks are kind of a non-factor if it's spotted even 35' from the party. But as Vagabundo says, this is why CR is wonky. If a ghoul gets the drop on you it's a much worse situation.
Yes and no. PF was built around stacking bonuses, AC or otherwise. The key, I think, is to find a stat that'll keep you alive (hp, AC, DR, miss chance, etc.) and then optimize the hell out of it. AC's certainly one method, I dunno about harder, but it's not necessarily the best. I mean, a dedicated tank with buffs can achieve an AC of 30 at 4th level, but to your point, that takes dedication. But I'm saying any Pathfinder optimization calls for dedication, pulling in bonuses from a half a dozen sources to create one mega-stat. (Ditto for offense, BTW.) The way to die is to scatter the meager bonuses around so you're not particularly good at anything, because monster base stats outpace class levels by a wide margin (by design, since most monsters can't equip magic items).
Now I'm gonna segue this into my personal beef with PF, which is that I find this all way too bureaucratic, overly complex, and above all, just not very romantic. I grew up reading stories about magical items being few and far between difference-makers; the idea of piling on as much incrementally enchanted merch as the rules will allow just to achieve parity isn't my idea of grand adventure. While I think PF was structured to deal with parties stacking powerful items onto one character to create a monster, they inadvertently created a system where stacking bonuses was necessary. Not that I'm thrilled with how D&D5 approached it but I like the idea of a few significant bonuses more than stacking a half a dozen different bonus types. If there's any significant change to PF2, it doesn't need to be the 5E solution but I'd rather not have sessions grind to a halt because someone has to recalculate an attack bonus.
They have already said they are not gonna have the big six in pf2, instead it's gonna be more like a big 3(I assume 2 of those will be weapon and armor) and the rest of your magic items will give you interesting options. They also appear to have a system for limiting the number of active magic items you can use per day(you can wear as many as you want though) which seems to be based on charisma and level but we don't know much about that yet(it also ties into wand use somehow, making Wands of clw not the best healing option for the entire game). Odds are magic items will still be relatively common, but to me that makes sense when magic isn't that hard to find in the first place.
Big what?
I think that's just how Pathfinder goes, so I don't expect a big change here from PF2. OK, fine. I disagree that one has to lead to the other, though. Hydrogen is everywhere, but not many things are made with pure hydrogen. It also makes sense to me that something powerful can be relatively difficult to make safe & permanent.
We're talking about magic so anyone can make any sort of argument, of course. I just see things differently.
Magic items in PF are basically magical reserves; even magic weapons are just permanent instances of the magic weapon spell. PF1 was certainly balanced for that, deliberately, but the downside is that balancing a PF1 campaign where magic items are rare is trickier. You can move down the CR charts but then the choice is fighting the same things over and over, or hand out +5 items to mid-level characters and then watch them get outpaced at higher levels anyway.
The big 6 is the 6 magic items you needed to have(at the highest level you can reasonably afford) in order to have the stats to survive. Stuff that directly boosts your stats, accuracy and damage(some classes need some items more then others or some not at all... most full arcane casters aren't gonna pay much money to improve their weapon they never use). So far what i have read for PF2 it looks like half of those items are gone and now players can focus on getting items that do cool shit for fun instead of what is needed for survival. This, plus the addition of item quality(basically, you can now make items with a higher to hit bonus with out magic at all, so you don't have to worry about completely falling behind if you don't have a magic weapon or armor) might make low magic settings a bit easier to manage(obviously, this is impossible to know at this point).Big what?
I think that's just how Pathfinder goes, so I don't expect a big change here from PF2. OK, fine. I disagree that one has to lead to the other, though. Hydrogen is everywhere, but not many things are made with pure hydrogen. It also makes sense to me that something powerful can be relatively difficult to make safe & permanent.
We're talking about magic so anyone can make any sort of argument, of course. I just see things differently.
Magic items in PF are basically magical reserves; even magic weapons are just permanent instances of the magic weapon spell. PF1 was certainly balanced for that, deliberately, but the downside is that balancing a PF1 campaign where magic items are rare is trickier. You can move down the CR charts but then the choice is fighting the same things over and over, or hand out +5 items to mid-level characters and then watch them get outpaced at higher levels anyway.
And when i said magic is everywhere, i more meant people that can and know how to use. super high level wizards may not exist in every hamlet, but you can probably find a bunch of them in big cities like Absalom. It just takes a couple of them to start making magic items, and having that happen repeatably over thousands of years for magic items to be kinda common since they never die(and most are much less volatile then a hydrogen blimp). Even the creation is super simple so people being careful don't have to worry about failing and losing what they are working on(though i personally use a set of rules that makes magic crafting more risky and IMO, interesting).
4e had an optional rule - created for Dark Sun I think - so you can bake the bonuses into level advancement. It helps that 4e's maths is relatively straightforward and transparent.
I run with this mostly so I dont have to keep up on the magic item treadmill, I still give out interesting magic items but not so much, and its not biggy if I forget.
The 4e RAW rule has a limit on magic item daily powers, but its not something I do at my table as I haven't found it overpowering, probably because I don't give out all that many.
It helps that the XP budget system is easy to tweak for the group, so if they do get more powerful you can just up the budget. This will make them level slightly faster but its not significant imo, it might mean one less combat encounter per level, which is fine I think.
I run with this mostly so I dont have to keep up on the magic item treadmill, I still give out interesting magic items but not so much, and its not biggy if I forget.
The 4e RAW rule has a limit on magic item daily powers, but its not something I do at my table as I haven't found it overpowering, probably because I don't give out all that many.
It helps that the XP budget system is easy to tweak for the group, so if they do get more powerful you can just up the budget. This will make them level slightly faster but its not significant imo, it might mean one less combat encounter per level, which is fine I think.
First I'd heard of that phrase but I'd venture to say stat-booster, magic weapon, ring of protection, cloak of resistance, magic armor/bracers and. . . wand of CLW? LOL
Speculation about PF2 aside, to clarify I'm OK with the idea of needing magic items to survive. Having to stack them as a core mechanic, I find distasteful and problematic. As a DM I quickly realized that everyone in the group would eventually need cloaks of resistance. . . eugh. Doling out magic items felt less like reward or drama and more like logistics. OK, soldier, here's your standard-issue cloak of resistance +1, plate mail +1, sword +1, belt of giant strength +2, four days' rations, one medkit containing antitoxin, bandages, poultices, wolfsbane, one hundred gold, nine packs of chewing gum, one issue of prophylactics, three lipsticks, three pairs of nylon stockings. . .
pf actually came out with similar rules a while back. automatic progression so you just get the bonuses with levels and another system where the standard big 6 items are gone, but you get bonuses from other items depending on how much they cost. never tried them out though, and odds are by the time i am even willing to gm another game i'll be playing pf2 anyways.
If they came up with an XP budget system similar to 4e rather than the current CR system and smoothed the rough edges off the monsters/enemies - ie 1st level/hd ghoul doesn't do as much damage and has a weaker paralysis, the 4th level/hd ghoul has all the bells and whistles. I think PF would be much better to run.
I burnt myself out badly on 3e from 2000-2008 and I cant see me going back to it in any form - breaking point for me was when it took us two hours to run 10 in-game seconds and I'd spend nearly four hours on prep time. Even 5e reminds me of it too much for me to run.
Saying that I'd play in any game of anything really, even gurps or rifts.
AC 30 @ lvl4 (consistently) sounds quite unrealistic outside of some really specific situation where you're, like, at 4/5th cover and don't do anything else but stand around in a defensive stance. Lvl 4 spellcasters AC buff spells just aren't THAT strong (and they don't even necessarily stack on top of one's already existing magical AC bonuses) and money really limits getting all that many magical enchantments, strongest armor and trinkets that boost AC so much beyond starting levels that AC30 @ lvl4 would be a reality. Tanks in heavy armor and with a shield can maybe reach AC20 or 21 and that's likely with a Ring of protection +1 and/or some magic enhancement to some piece of armor already. Maybe possible to get to 22 or 23 at the absolute best with the support of a spellcaster, but beyond that it'll have to be those 4/5th covers and such if one wants to get AC30.
Heck, even @ late campaign stages, AC30 sounds something that is fairly rarely achieved.
Anyhoo, my point was really that base AC just isn't generally something that sees consistent, regular and super noticeable (in battles) growth as one levels up in the same way HP, attack bonuses and such do. You might get a Ring of Protection +1 at lvl 3, get enough money to magically enchant +1 to your armor at lvl 5, get another +1 to something at lvl8 etc. When some enemy has an attack bonus of +13, whether your AC is 20 or 21 isn't a huge difference. Once you reach AC21, it might take a few levels and spending a lot of money to get it to 22.
You're kind of right, but this is an exaggeration. OK, just for giggles let's do it. Here's a core build; it requires high strength (for encumbrance), two feats and a 13 Dex but that's all reasonable for a 4th-level fighter:
Base 10
Full plate +1 (+10, 2650gp)
Dex bonus (+1, as permitted by armor)
Heavy shield +1 (+3, 1157gp)
Dodge (+1)
Shield focus (+1)
. . . that's 26. SRD says the expected wealth for a L4 character is 6000gp, 3k limit for a single item, and this complies with both. The only rule that gets "broken" is the 25% rule and I put that in quotes because it's explicitly a suggestion (IMO, not even a very good one). And. . . this is a guy. As in, this isn't some weird Songbird of Doom experiment; I've actually RPed PCs like this. In fact, I could take it further. A halfling tank is a bit of an oxymoron but that's an easy +1, I could replace the shield with a tower shield +1, and then there are sustainable combat options like fighting defensively or Combat Expertise, all of which get us to. . . 31. So yeah, a 4th level character getting to AC 30 involves a tanky tank tanking out like tanking is going out of style, but it doesn't require a pile of splatbooks, cover, total defense or even help, though a low-level spell should be good for at least +1 deflection bonus. Situationally, I could probably get a 4th level up to the mid-30s if AC was all I cared about.
You're right in principle, of course; the only class I'm aware of that gets AC bonuses with class levels is monk. Speaking of which, at high levels, they are THE class for which AC keeps climbing. But anyway, my point is that while I concede raising AC isn't always straightforward, what goes for AC, goes for anything else in Pathfinder (and the reverse). If you want to survive, this is basically how to go about it -- it doesn't have to be AC, but you gotta decide on an edge and leverage the crap out of it. My last PF character was a CMB monster.
Last edited:
This is a major issue becuase you get a min/maxer or two at a table with casuals who take sub-optimal stuff you get a massive variation in defences across the group which is a complete pain to run a game with because either the casuals are complete useless in combat or they die a lot, both lead to player dissatisfaction and disengagement.
PF2 needs to increase the baseline surviveability of characters. Maybe more hp by default - so if you don't pick a feat you get x hp instead. That way casuals who just want to play in the story/world and don't care all that much about the mechanics can still contribute to a point.
PF2 needs to increase the baseline surviveability of characters. Maybe more hp by default - so if you don't pick a feat you get x hp instead. That way casuals who just want to play in the story/world and don't care all that much about the mechanics can still contribute to a point.
Yup. As a player I love customization (seriously, I could just mess around with PF builds all day), but with Pathfinder they made it too essential. The min/maxers carry the group and the n00bs are reduced to being spectators. . . or, the DM has to try extra hard to make the "real role-player" types relevant without the min/maxer stomping over everything. Which leads to the other problem -- optimized characters generally have huge holes (the above tank has the touch AC of a barn and the Will save of a Mos Eisley stormtrooper) such that if you're a DM, it's tempting to exploit them but now you've got a catch-22. The game encourages -- hell, forces -- players to specialize, but then if you hit 'em in the jimmies that's no fun. And with a game as complex as Pathfinder, this can really strain suspension of disbelief.
I agree that baseline stats need to be smoothed out, not only to prevent min/max disparity, but so DMs don't have to go out of their way to pretend "just cast hold person on the tank" isn't a screamingly obvious option. D&D5, on the other hand, has been great at making the game approachable and keeping everyone relevant, but at the expense of gameplay depth. We have two spellcasters in our current D&D5 campaign and we've all certainly had plenty to do, but their go-to spells at first level were chromatic orb and eldritch blast. We're now at 9th level and their go-to spells are. . . chromatic orb and eldritch blast. I asked them about it and they walked me through their options and yep, except in extreme circumstances they were the logical choices. The system does have a nice throwback feel to it and luckily I built my current PC around situational flexibility (it's a weird build though), but if I was them I'd be bored.
In PF2 you start with your your class hp + race(ancestry now i guess?) hp so a human paladin is rocking 19 hp at level 1 with 1 con bonus. And on every level you get a flat hp bonus which sounds like it will be equal to max hitdice roll(+con bonus of course).
You're not wrong, but god damn it... I got a Kinetisict PC in the Iron Gods AP I am running who's got ac in the mid 30's and really good saves and his touch AC isn't to bad either. Admittedly this is likely because, at least in part, he doesn't have to spend any money on a weapon, or armor(since he started as a water type). He also has reach making him a godlike tank in general... for some reason he always pulls out the most ridiculous builds when I am gming(the whole two times i gmed a full campaign). At least he doesn't like playing casters anymore I guess...
Of course this is just a corner case. I don't think even he expected it to be as effective as it is(he pretty much considers the last tank he made a failure). A lot of people even say the class is bad... those people are wrong, but there is probably a decent level mastery to get it to be anywhere near as effective as this one most of the time.
As someone whose first experience in TTRPG was 5e, I've been curious about Pathfinder so initially the news of PF2 was intriguing. Lurking through the ongoing discussion though has cooled that intrigue however. I've dabbled in some crunchy stuff (40k, SWN, and glanced at a random edition of Shadowrun) but I'm much more intrigued with RP over Min/Maxing and excessive dungeon crawling, so I guess PF2 won't likely be in my wheelhouse.
I think any hype for PF2 should be measured but I don't want anything I said to discourage anyone from trying Pathfinder. We're discussing its key flaws, mainly in anticipation of how PF2 might deal with them. In all honesty I've had a lot of fun with Pathfinder, albeit by putting severe restrictions on the use of splatbooks. (As a DM I gave each player an allowance of 10 "splat points" that they could spend during creation on race, class, feats, spells or items from non-core sources, in order of decreasing cost. No Songbird of Doom.) I will say it's not a game I'd recommend for baby's first TTRPG, but that doesn't necessarily make it bad.
The bonus stacking element of PF1 is something you need to at least be aware of, as a group, because it skews character progression. I think the game really starts to get cumbersome starting in the 9th-11th level range where it seems like every damn stat needs boosts from a half a dozen sources to avoid having more holes than swiss cheese in an iron maiden, but low- to mid-level core-only campaigns can still be plenty fun. DM can also slow the CR progression but that can probably feel like a grind.
One other solution to the stat stacking is to make magic items extremely rare but powerful. Black box the item creation but give them broad-spectrum bonuses and give out high bonuses earlier than you think makes sense. For example, at a given level a spellcasting character might expect to carry a ring of protection +1, an amulet of natural armor +1, and bracers of armor +2. Or you can just give bracers of armor +4 and just that. Late in the game, PCs might be carrying items with enhancement bonuses around +10 or so, but this really isn't broken if they each have exactly one magic item with that bonus. If they try to combine bonuses, especially with spells, the countermeasure is to make magic bonuses a single type so they don't stack, if you don't want to keep handing out items of a single type.
Last edited:
Oh I'll still give it a look. No reason not to. But I just won't be as eager to jump full in blind. It's hard enough in general to find a GM and Player balance that fits just right (I believe this to be true of all types of GMs and Players) without the GM having to hack the hell out of the material for balance sake. I'm all for homebrew when it's done for creative purposes or to facilitate a specific campaign feel (Survival Sim, Hero Story, etc...) but when things get too crunchy and the balance is off it can create a real slog.
The devs of pf2 seem to be aiming to decrease the min-maxing while keeping the customization(adding to it in some cases even). It'll probably(well, hopefully, as far as i am concerned) still be crunchy, but less about getting the biggest numbers. As far as role playing is concerned though... I haven't heard anything that has change there, but i never really had an issue with that, though there is a lot left to learn about the game.
Right, but I'm saying with PF, where crunchy is kind of the problem, a DM can work backwards to simplify it, not houserule complexity with more complexity. At least I think so. And honestly, I'm not really fixing a balance issue so much as making the game more subjectively pleasant, which is what houseruling is.
A quick sanity check is to look at the stats of a generic-ish monster (as opposed to a greatly distorted one-trick pony) for a given CR. Mismatches aside, a monster of a given CR is roughly equivalent to a single PC of the same level with buffs (the party is expected to win with numbers & teamwork). For example, a minotaur (CR4) has AC 14, 45hp, 6/5/5 saves, +9 attack bonus, 3d6+6 damage and a couple tricks (reach, cunning). Definitely slanted heavily toward offense, but trade some of that insane damage for AC and. . . these aren't crazy numbers for a level 4 PC. In fact, a decent barbarian build might be more dangerous. So we understand that 4th-level characters aren't going to be swimming in magic, fine. On the other hand, while a balor (CR20) isn't supposed to be a cakewalk by any means, the offense has to have a decent chance of hitting that 36 AC or it's not even a fight. Also, multiple AoE attacks with mid-20 DCs -- a "weak" save bonus at level 20 is only +6 and you can't count on ability bonuses since these could be dump stats, so the worst saves in the group need magic to make up about +10 worth of difference somehow. Cloak of resistance only goes up to +5 so, well, something else has to give. And then there's that power word stun. . .
This isn't precise, but again, this is just a quick way to gauge progression for a DM. I certainly don't do this as part of adventure prep. It's basically just a thought experiment to make sense of how much magic Pathfinder expects a high-level party to have. Apparently, a lot, but it helps to know how much.
I get what you're saying here.. but I mean look at what you're taking into account to roughly balance a single mob. Extrapolate that to group enemy composition x multiple possible encounters in a single session and that looks like a lot of extra prep work on top of standard session prep. All to try to account for players that are building for flavor rather than min/max. Toss in the typical party comp of flavor players with min/max and I can't imagine this is going to make for a good time to be had by all. A good DM will do what they can to balance on the fly but...
As I said, I'll be taking a look at PF2 as they release more information about it and hopefully get to playtest in August. I'm not writing it off completely by any means. It's just not looking as exciting as I was initially hoping it would be.
Sorry if I'm going overboard in this thread, but I did want to add one more thing for Jest -- for all the stacking and min/maxing that goes on in Pathfinder, it's also very much an RP-friendly game. I say this because the system has just so many skills, spells, and abilities that are useful outside of combat. The skill rules in particular are very highly developed, and some classes arguably have more to do in RP situations than combat! A lot of TTRPG gamers say that stats are for combat and RP is just RP, but Pathfinder really fleshes out the mechanics of adventuring beyond just combat, adding real gameplay depth to the dungeon crawl. Without hyperbole, the exploration & movement section of the core rules might be the flat-out best I've ever seen in a fantasy RPG.
The "D&D3.75" combat system gets the most scrutiny, especially since they added a ton of splatbook bloat, but as both a player and DM I think the adventuring mechanics of Pathfinder are criminally underrated. Not only did they think of a very wide range of adventuring scenarios, they made it fun.
The "D&D3.75" combat system gets the most scrutiny, especially since they added a ton of splatbook bloat, but as both a player and DM I think the adventuring mechanics of Pathfinder are criminally underrated. Not only did they think of a very wide range of adventuring scenarios, they made it fun.
OK, so I guess I made it sound like a bunch of work but it's really not. To reiterate, this is NOT some regular pre-session prep. I'm more walking you through how my brain is wired when I thumbed through the Monster Manual. It took more time to type out my thought process than the thought experiment itself. Moral of the story is, at some point the actual bonuses PF expects PCs to have is larger than the individual item bonuses they recommend. I don't have any word of the creators to back me up on that, but I mentally reverse-engineered from the Monster Manual to confirm my suspicions and there's a pretty clear gap from around level 10 or so, when item bonuses really start to take off.
Last edited:
After taking a look at the exploration and movement section it may just be a case of the game being a bit too number based for my taste (again, 5e was my first introduction to TTRPG for context). I'm not into stuff as numbers lite as say... Fate but something so intrinsically number dependent (40k or say SWN) feels a bit too restrictive. Stuff around the level of DnD 5e and AGE seems to be about the mix that I prefer.
Still reading through PF1 and reaching the crunchy parts of visibility, combats, ratio matter / wind in a fart, meaning of life etc. I don't know how in hell I will be able to remember 1/100th of the rules. I have to come to term with the fact that I will DM Pathfinder like a version of D&D5 with a lot more character options and that's that. And that's maybe for the best, I can totally see delirious fringe cases like Vagabundo mentioned happening if you go full ruleset.
I really really like the possibilities of Pathfinder, but the life simulation is so developed that it makes my brain bleed.
In other news, I think I just finished printing and cutting my custom Phandelver tokens. And as fucking expected, they are shit. I'm no image expert and underestimated the impact of resolution on the final product. And above all else, How the fuck can't paint.net draw me a nicely anti-aliased circle... They please my player, which is that I guess. Not really in the mood to buy bland meeples to glue them on anymore :-/
I really really like the possibilities of Pathfinder, but the life simulation is so developed that it makes my brain bleed.
In other news, I think I just finished printing and cutting my custom Phandelver tokens. And as fucking expected, they are shit. I'm no image expert and underestimated the impact of resolution on the final product. And above all else, How the fuck can't paint.net draw me a nicely anti-aliased circle... They please my player, which is that I guess. Not really in the mood to buy bland meeples to glue them on anymore :-/
Some rejected ones. Don't click if you value your vision.
The secret is that most gms dont remember. When they are actually relevant, they may choose to look up the rules and incorporate them into the session. Or they wont if they dont feel they are worth dealing with.
Back when I was running the Kingmaker AP I was tracking the players travel time, rolling encounters, and doing all sorts of stuff, as that all felt core to the experience. Now I'm doing Iron Gods and while they do have to travel from place to place it doesn''t really feel the relevant to the experience so i ignore that stuff or just kind only follow the basic stuff. Admittedly, actually having a job(during the IG campaign) probably doesn't help as far as having time to set up extra stuff is concerned, but if i did have more time i'd probably be focusing on character stories more then rolling encounter tables and tracking what the weather is today.
Very similar to 4e; Class bonus + Con stat to start with and then flat hp + con mod every level. If they added an additional boost in place of extra options - maybe not even hp - for those interested in the character mechanics mini-game I think they'd have a good newbie/casual friendly RPG.
I wouldn't write it off if you can find a game in it. A lot of this stuff is ignored at the table. And it's more an issue for the DM than the players, running a 3e/pf character isn't difficult once your passed the newbie phase. And there is so much advice out there on the net that it's easy to avoid the pitfalls with a tiny bit of research.
A lot of the major issues dont start appearing until 6th level anyway.
Yup. PF's combat system is intimidating (in execution if not concept), I'll concede that. But in the case of PF's off-combat rules, well, I may not change anyone's mind but I'mma defend them. Gamers who express disdain for deterministic systems are common enough that I know I can't speak for everybody, but FWIW a thinner rulebook doesn't necessarily mean concise. From a DM's PoV it can also mean the creators just didn't spend time on vast chunks of gameplay and in doing so threw pressure on the DM to essentially fill gaps in the rulebook on the fly. For example, sooner or later, someone's going to break shit. It's gonna happen, and when it does, D&D5's object rules, while shorter, are crap. The AC and damage reduction are flipped so now AC is determined by material and DR is based on size. So, what, trying to bullseye a vial rolling across the floor is just as easy as throwing a brick through a 20'x20' window, because they're both glass? A gazebo is all but immune to axes because it's big*, but I can eventually smash an iron lock if I keep hitting it with my bare fist**? Sure, you can override these with common sense, but these are hardly corner cases. Of course players will think of trying to destroy locks they can't open, and having to debug rules on the fly means they didn't save any time at all. Ditching bad rules is easy, and some DMs in fact enjoy winging it (bully for them), but I can't wish into existence a playtested rule that was never written. Outside combat, when player ideas start to get unconventional (and they ALWAYS do), the blessing of those off-combat rules changes this:
DM: "Rogue's attempt to pick the lock fails."
P1: "Well hell, why don't we just bash the treasure chest open?"
P2: "Or pry it open in one go?"
P3: "Could be trapped. Maybe drag it around until we figure something out?"
DM: "Uhhhh. . ." (Do I pull something out of my ass, or try to talk them out of this?)
to this:
DM: "Rogue's attempt to pick the lock fails."
P1: "Well hell, why don't we just bash the treasure chest open?"
P2: "Or pry it open in one go?"
P3: "Could be trapped. Maybe drag it around until we figure something out?"
DM: (Quickly checks ONE section of the rulebook, knows exactly what to do in each scenario, waits smugly while the players argue)
The players aren't crunching; they're just gaming freeform. The DM needs a resolution scenario for whatever the players decide anyway, so having rules in place is in fact easier than MacGyver-ing some mechanics (lest they wind up looking like D&D5's). It's not comprehensive (nothing is), but D&D3/3.5/Pathfinder invested a great deal of time thinking about what players do when they're not fighting. OK, that does give the rulebook more of a crunchy look (the combat does that no favors), but you don't need to memorize the text to benefit from this effort, nor have the players think about it much. It is, however, a very nice place for a DM's bookmark.
*Big objects have resilience; i.e. damage reduction, and, "Normal weapons are of little use against many Huge and Gargantuan objects"
**Lock has no damage threshold for being small. AC is 19 but nat 20 always hits. Iron fist!!!
Work life work. :/
Well you're are really talking about Rules vs Ruling. That really comes down to a personal preferences. The rulings crowd want a toolbox of flexible and easy to apply tools to resolve conflicts - this is me - so in your example of a lock I can apply a per level DC to that lock on the fly using a handy table. This lists three DCs per level: low, medium, hard - example lock I want it easy to pick, harder to break so from the table thats DC 13 Thievery check or a DC17 strength check. Or if it was a more important lock or there was something interesting happening, like enemies on their way in 2 minutes I run a little skill challenge.
I much prefer this method to having a massive bunch of subsystems that IME don't add anything to the game, slow down the game or increase my prep time.
Also this is my reason why my second favourite DND game is B/X. And I dislike the AD&D variants. To me 4e evolved more from OD&D-B/X and 3e from the AD&D line - obviously there is a lot of overlap.
I much preferred Gygax's modules to his rulebooks.
Well you're are really talking about Rules vs Ruling. That really comes down to a personal preferences. The rulings crowd want a toolbox of flexible and easy to apply tools to resolve conflicts - this is me - so in your example of a lock I can apply a per level DC to that lock on the fly using a handy table. This lists three DCs per level: low, medium, hard - example lock I want it easy to pick, harder to break so from the table thats DC 13 Thievery check or a DC17 strength check. Or if it was a more important lock or there was something interesting happening, like enemies on their way in 2 minutes I run a little skill challenge.
I much prefer this method to having a massive bunch of subsystems that IME don't add anything to the game, slow down the game or increase my prep time.
Also this is my reason why my second favourite DND game is B/X. And I dislike the AD&D variants. To me 4e evolved more from OD&D-B/X and 3e from the AD&D line - obviously there is a lot of overlap.
I much preferred Gygax's modules to his rulebooks.
Not familiar with that weird-looking word in the middle there.
So I've toying with the idea of being a DM for a while now.
About a month ago I made this dope world map and built a pretty interesting world (imo) but when it got down to expanding on it and implementing it into Roll20, I got a bit overwhelmed. I had trouble finding tilesets that fit my vision because I wanted to things to be as comprehensive as possible.
Maybe I'm just over-complicating things but it seems like Roll20 is too rigid and not flexible enough for whatever improvisation might need to be done.
Though it also doesn't help that most of my recent Pathfinder/DnD experience/knowledge is mostly from the Harmontown podcast, which is a bit looser and freeform than regular DnD.
If I am DMing online, is Roll20 the best way to go? For anyone here who uses it, do you usually make your own maps or just find some online?
Also are the visual elements important when roleplaying online with friends, or can I away with not using Roll20 at all and just doing this through Discord or something?
About a month ago I made this dope world map and built a pretty interesting world (imo) but when it got down to expanding on it and implementing it into Roll20, I got a bit overwhelmed. I had trouble finding tilesets that fit my vision because I wanted to things to be as comprehensive as possible.
Maybe I'm just over-complicating things but it seems like Roll20 is too rigid and not flexible enough for whatever improvisation might need to be done.
Though it also doesn't help that most of my recent Pathfinder/DnD experience/knowledge is mostly from the Harmontown podcast, which is a bit looser and freeform than regular DnD.
If I am DMing online, is Roll20 the best way to go? For anyone here who uses it, do you usually make your own maps or just find some online?
Also are the visual elements important when roleplaying online with friends, or can I away with not using Roll20 at all and just doing this through Discord or something?
You can use visuals as much or as little as you want. Most campaigns I've been in on Roll20 have been very minimal visually. Essentially just using player Avatars and Enemy Avatars for specific positioning information during fights and a World Map image to have an understanding of where locations relate to each other. Everything else essentially theater of the mind.
The benefit of using something like Roll20 is the hard mechanics like dice rolling and stat additions. It makes it so that the players literally only have to press a corresponding button for things like skill checks, eliminating "ok Acrobatics is what stat plus what bonus again?" The flip side being that it's a lot longer of a setup time with a bit of hand holding of the players if they're unfamiliar with Roll20. Having an automated roller also means that no one can fudge their rolls (but as a DM, you can hide your rolls iirc allowing you some flexibility in adjusting encounter difficulty on the fly). You get a built in clearly visible Initiative tracker as well and can have players track their HP, spell slots, etc.. in such a way that it's always visible for you.
But, you can definitely use something like Discord and go with more of a Theater of the Mind type of campaign. It's going to result in a lot of questions though, essentially being like a table play but you're going to have to trust your players far more not to fudge rolls, spell slots, HP, etc..
Its a game of imagination, sometimes less if more. Saying that I've limited experience DMing online. My games are face to face.
Prep your game with some of discrete elements, mostly for atmosphere, NPCs, etc. Dont worry too much about the mechanics, fudge if necessary until you get more experience. Give yourself the freedom to improvise, its part of the game.
Anyway, start small.
Prep your game with some of discrete elements, mostly for atmosphere, NPCs, etc. Dont worry too much about the mechanics, fudge if necessary until you get more experience. Give yourself the freedom to improvise, its part of the game.
Anyway, start small.
I think it's kind of like special effects and filmmaking. I think effective use of maps expands the capabilities of tabletop RPGs, and a good DM who knows how to use them can probably change this tune. I am. . . not that DM. I wish I was, but I have a lot to learn.
I've seen a couple DMs (yes, I'm including myself in that) fall victim to the "whoa yeah technology" trap and try to make encounters far grander in scale than would be possible with over-reliance on theatre of the mind. Try tracking the positioning and maneuvering madness of 20-30 combatants among 3-4 sides using just collective imagination without the players getting hopelessly lost. But I say "trap" because this invariably results in the players sitting back and watching a bunch of NPCs fight each other. I've had to make adjustments to my game, and first among them is, just because I can doesn't mean I should. But to turn a bad session into a learning moment, this sounds an awful lot like directors discovering special effects and forgetting what they're really trying to do. Once they get the tech bug out of their systems, I think most can strike a balance -- at least until you get old and crazy (what happened to you James Cameron you used to be cool). The best special effects are the ones that make you forget you're looking at a special effect.
I run most of my 4e game in TotM and it works fine. Ive always run my games like this since the 80s. But I do go all out on some interesting story or tactical ones, like BBEGs etc...
Props though, player love 'em. when I ran Call/Trail of Cthulhu I used them and they got a great reaction.
Props though, player love 'em. when I ran Call/Trail of Cthulhu I used them and they got a great reaction.
Joined an in-person 5E game over the last month or so and it's giving me 4E flashbacks... and not in a good way. Combat involves just kind of waiting for my turn so I can cast ray of frost for the 10th time. Perhaps I should look at my Sorcerer spell list instead of going with the "quick build" but I thought it'd be a nice all rounder. I'm not a fan of skill checks that don't result in anything either - not sure if it's a DM thing or that's how the rules are set up.
I really like the people I'm playing with (long time friends) so it's no biggie for now, but man... I need to get back to a PbtA game as soon as I can. Once you go 2d6 partial successes, it's hard to go back.
I really like the people I'm playing with (long time friends) so it's no biggie for now, but man... I need to get back to a PbtA game as soon as I can. Once you go 2d6 partial successes, it's hard to go back.
Nope, that's how it goes. We have two spellcasters in my current group and all they really do in combat is cast the same two spells over and over, maybe mixing in a haste spell every now and then. The encounters don't feel monotonous; we've gone from a massive pitched battle on the decks of a ship to fighting a single golem in a cramped room. I even had the players walk me through why their characters are such one-trick ponies; there are certainly different things they can do but they convinced me they were fighting sensibly.
The trade-off for "approachability" was gameplay depth. I'm in my second 5E campaign (first one was cut short around level 6-7 due to real life stuff) and I'm already kind of 5E-ed out. I like it as a beginner's RPG but it doesn't ramp up at all.
Mechanically Skill Checks in 5e are indeed Pass/Fail but that really depends on how the DM wants to do it.
As for spell/attack usage.. It just depends on how you want to play. For efficiency, it will get stale for sure but there's a lot of options if you want to be more creative.
As for spell/attack usage.. It just depends on how you want to play. For efficiency, it will get stale for sure but there's a lot of options if you want to be more creative.
Yesterday, while working on the first session for my next D&D campaign, I decided to write a of quick little thematic guide to my previous campaign and the upcoming campaign in an effort to better organize my thoughts...
So now I'm two pages into an APA-styled essay about how to craft and implement thematic statements into a D&D campaign in an effort to heighten both player and overall narrative. Sometimes I hate my verbosity.
I'll probably post it here once I'm done. Stay tuned.
So now I'm two pages into an APA-styled essay about how to craft and implement thematic statements into a D&D campaign in an effort to heighten both player and overall narrative. Sometimes I hate my verbosity.
I'll probably post it here once I'm done. Stay tuned.
In other news, our group's GM withdrew from the semester, somewhat out of the blue. I've stood up to become the GM in his wake, making a Discord for organization and reading through LMoP when I have time. Hopefully this Monday's session goes well for me and the players; we're basically doing a Session 0 this time before we get too invested in the game.
So far they want me to keep my PC in the party? I'm fine playing a party NPC based on a character I made via PHB, but I'll need to let them know exactly how to tell that character apart from every other role I play as GM. Avoiding metagaming and always giving the story to players matters so much, too. It's a good thing this character's background makes him perfect for stepping away from the group when necessary. I really want to avoid "DMPC" traps which I've read about in great detail. Now that I'm GMing, the player group's down to three, but we might get another player or two based on who we know would like to play and can make the sessions.
Figuring out how to keep the game going once the semester finishes will also take some care. I think we're able to do online sessions, but meeting up at some point would be ideal.
So far they want me to keep my PC in the party? I'm fine playing a party NPC based on a character I made via PHB, but I'll need to let them know exactly how to tell that character apart from every other role I play as GM. Avoiding metagaming and always giving the story to players matters so much, too. It's a good thing this character's background makes him perfect for stepping away from the group when necessary. I really want to avoid "DMPC" traps which I've read about in great detail. Now that I'm GMing, the player group's down to three, but we might get another player or two based on who we know would like to play and can make the sessions.
Figuring out how to keep the game going once the semester finishes will also take some care. I think we're able to do online sessions, but meeting up at some point would be ideal.
Question for anyone - is there a archived video stream that would be VERY introductory for young-ish, brand new players? Perhaps the 1st episode would explain the game, a little about the history of D&D, show the basic mechanics, the subsequent episodes would gently lead them into the game? Looking to show some pre-teens and get them hooked.
I'm not a big youtuber, but some of the old 4e Chris Perkins penny arcade stuff is fairly straight forward and might be worth a shot. But I'd ask the same question on /r/DnD/ or Google+ has some good dnd groups too. I'd say you'd get some great suggestions.
It's better for you to do this in person during an actual game. You can't wait for them to become 'good players' you just have to lightly step them through the game, making it increasingly complex as they progress (or as complex as they are able to manage). It's something that you have to play by ear as a good dungeon master.
You want to teach them the basics. And the basics of D&D are the 6 stats that are emblematic of a romantic idea of the 'hero' archtype. Everything else is just useless fluff mechanics. But enough peering into the core of the mechanics
5e has plenty of good introduction videos, this is my favourite.
I'd take it a step further back and tell them not to worry about stats at all. If you really want a "baby's first RPG" experience, I'd put together PC analogues of characters they know about -- a Jon Snow, for example, or a Samwise Gamgee, or a Princess Elsa -- and go, "OK, now I'm going to walk you guys through a scenario and your job is to ask, 'What would my character do,' and decide their actions accordingly." First couple games, they're insulated from the numbers entirely -- not like they can't do math, but just to keep that part out of the game. The first things to grasp about role-playing are being someone you're not, and cause-and-effect. So as a DM, I convert their organic decisions into the appropriate skill checks and such, explain their character limitations when they can't do something (like make a magical ice castle while singing a pop song), and walk them through what happens. If they decide they like it, I start introducing the mechanics and encourage them to study the rulebook and create their own characters.
Kinda been quiet so here's a teaser for my RPG project as the combat rules go through yet another rewrite (sigh). . .
One sort of personal frustration I've had with systems I've played 'til now is how they're built around a default attack and add complexity from there (AoO, movement, combat maneuvers, etc.). For example, Pathfinder is built around the "full attack" action. A defensive action ("total defense") is a fixed boost to AC that doesn't scale at higher levels. So in most cases, at the end of the day, a lot of melee is just whacking at each other unless you've engineered a different sort of one-trick pony, like a grappler. Shadowrun melee is even more shallow. This isn't to say they're bad systems; this is just an experience I decided to do something about.
So, the system I'm working on supports combat all the way up to futuristic (cyberpunk) weaponry so of course there will be rules for gunfighting, but melee combat (sans grappling for now, still working on that part) is not built around a single mechanic. There is a conventional attack action, but to make things more interesting, there are five default actions: attack, parry, feint, jab and counter. The first two are analogues of existing systems, but parry is based on skill rating, so the better you are, the harder you are to hit. Very skilled martial artists can parry with a high degree of success, but of course that's not a winning tactic; you'll eventually get hit unless you can convince the other guy to give up first. Counter, however, is the straw that stirs the drink. It's basically a delayed action that gets opponents thinking twice before attacking, because it potentially deals damage AND disrupts the original attack. The feint action tries to get a target to unleash a counter harmlessly. The jab is an attack that trades damage for speed -- it's particularly effective against parry, but it can also flip the pressure imposed by a counter. Any character can use any of these moves from the start, although of course some will be better than others.
So instead of two guys just trading blows, there's a bit of a rock-paper-scissors game among the five maneuvers. This is an oversimplification, but more or less:
Attack defeats jab
Counter defeats attack
Feint defeats counter
Parry defeats feint
Jab defeats parry
The key isn't to overthink things but to get an idea of how your character's strengths limit your opponents' options, which in turn opens things up. For example, armor is particularly effective against jabs, which forces opponents taking on a tank type to use the riskier attack action, or try to set up a counter. A monk/rogue type can quickly alternate between jab and parry, so counters are of very limited effectiveness against them. A barbarian type with high Strength and a big-ass weapon, on the other hand, can potentially end a fight with a single solid blow, so barbarians will almost certainly face a lot of counters (or, you know, gunfire).
One sort of personal frustration I've had with systems I've played 'til now is how they're built around a default attack and add complexity from there (AoO, movement, combat maneuvers, etc.). For example, Pathfinder is built around the "full attack" action. A defensive action ("total defense") is a fixed boost to AC that doesn't scale at higher levels. So in most cases, at the end of the day, a lot of melee is just whacking at each other unless you've engineered a different sort of one-trick pony, like a grappler. Shadowrun melee is even more shallow. This isn't to say they're bad systems; this is just an experience I decided to do something about.
So, the system I'm working on supports combat all the way up to futuristic (cyberpunk) weaponry so of course there will be rules for gunfighting, but melee combat (sans grappling for now, still working on that part) is not built around a single mechanic. There is a conventional attack action, but to make things more interesting, there are five default actions: attack, parry, feint, jab and counter. The first two are analogues of existing systems, but parry is based on skill rating, so the better you are, the harder you are to hit. Very skilled martial artists can parry with a high degree of success, but of course that's not a winning tactic; you'll eventually get hit unless you can convince the other guy to give up first. Counter, however, is the straw that stirs the drink. It's basically a delayed action that gets opponents thinking twice before attacking, because it potentially deals damage AND disrupts the original attack. The feint action tries to get a target to unleash a counter harmlessly. The jab is an attack that trades damage for speed -- it's particularly effective against parry, but it can also flip the pressure imposed by a counter. Any character can use any of these moves from the start, although of course some will be better than others.
So instead of two guys just trading blows, there's a bit of a rock-paper-scissors game among the five maneuvers. This is an oversimplification, but more or less:
Attack defeats jab
Counter defeats attack
Feint defeats counter
Parry defeats feint
Jab defeats parry
The key isn't to overthink things but to get an idea of how your character's strengths limit your opponents' options, which in turn opens things up. For example, armor is particularly effective against jabs, which forces opponents taking on a tank type to use the riskier attack action, or try to set up a counter. A monk/rogue type can quickly alternate between jab and parry, so counters are of very limited effectiveness against them. A barbarian type with high Strength and a big-ass weapon, on the other hand, can potentially end a fight with a single solid blow, so barbarians will almost certainly face a lot of counters (or, you know, gunfire).
Last edited: