Pathfinder Is Still Bad
Moderator: Moderators
- Avoraciopoctules
- Overlord
- Posts: 8624
- Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:48 pm
- Location: Oakland, CA
I'm building an Arcane Savant as a new character for a high-level, anything-goes campaign. I'm not sure what to grab with all my 6 Esoteric Magic slots, though. Current levels are wizard (Void) 6 / Arcane Savant 7. I'm considering switching to Conjuration (teleportation), though.
Here's what I've got so far:
- Death Ward, Level 5 spell
- Freedom of Movement, level 5
- Summon Monster VIII, level 6
- Greater Planar Binding, level 6
- Silence, level 3
- [last slot]
I've got overpowered summoned and bound monsters, plus the ability to toggle on immunity to various hindrances. Not so sure about Silence, since my UMD and Scroll Mastery abilities would let me be just as effective casting from scrolls. Any tips?
Here's what I've got so far:
- Death Ward, Level 5 spell
- Freedom of Movement, level 5
- Summon Monster VIII, level 6
- Greater Planar Binding, level 6
- Silence, level 3
- [last slot]
I've got overpowered summoned and bound monsters, plus the ability to toggle on immunity to various hindrances. Not so sure about Silence, since my UMD and Scroll Mastery abilities would let me be just as effective casting from scrolls. Any tips?
-
- Master
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:12 pm
The adventure path has limited word count, so every word devoted to background details that the PCs will not interact with is a word not used to provide more GM advice, suggested alternate paths, tactical advice for running encounters, or ideas on how to tailor the adventure to a specific group.MGuy wrote:dogbert... are you complaining that there are background elements at all that players may not interact with? If so, why? Why the hell would you care if there are elements players 'may' or may not be curious enough to find. If not, what exactly is your problem with it?Dogbert wrote: Paizo APs, on the other hand, are written by self-indulgent hacks who scrabble a story that, regardless of quality, serves no purpose other than giving MC something to fap about because players never interact with it. I vastly prefer a canned adventure that only has a dungeon, critters, and no other motivation than "there's treasure inside" because at least that's more honest and players don't get shoved the idiot ball up their assess with cheap railroading and lazy scenario design while MC faps and thinks "oh I'm so clever."
So if there's a column and a half devoted to the background and life story of the NPC opponent that the PCs will murder in 3 rounds, I get angry and frustrated with Paizo for not condensing that to a paragraph and using the rest of the space to give me more advice on how to make sure that the PCs like the NPCs that they're supposed to like.
- deaddmwalking
- Prince
- Posts: 3636
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am
On the other hand, if the NPC survives, back story elements help the GM decide where to go from there. In my experience, the APs have about 75% of what they need to make sense - maybe a little better in the low level modules and a little worse in the high level ones. Usually a little added material to make transitions between adventures smoother helps a lot, as well as some side-treks (either an expansion related to the overall AP or a change of pace while other leads develop).
The big issue with most APs is how little game time actually passes from start to finish. Expanding some of the material (without increasing XP awards) can .are them more enjoyable and less of a railroad.
The big issue with most APs is how little game time actually passes from start to finish. Expanding some of the material (without increasing XP awards) can .are them more enjoyable and less of a railroad.
-This space intentionally left blank
Shouldn't you know how to make your party like or hate someone better than the author? I get what you are saying, but it seems unreasonable to ask for pages dedicated on how to keep murder hobo parties from killing key NPCs that will be applicable to only a small segment of the player base. Also most of the "your party will like this NPC because he saved a squirrel" or "give him a funny voice," is both niche and stupid.mlangsdorf wrote: So if there's a column and a half devoted to the background and life story of the NPC opponent that the PCs will murder in 3 rounds, I get angry and frustrated with Paizo for not condensing that to a paragraph and using the rest of the space to give me more advice on how to make sure that the PCs like the NPCs that they're supposed to like.
Knowing backstory and motivation can let DMs build on elements and villains the party likes. Sure out of six books you might only be able to use stuff from one, but I'm confused as to what you would rather have.
-
- NPC
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 11:03 pm
Pathfinder adventure paths have a terrible habit of making the plot details that tie the campaign together visible only to the DM. Kingmaker is a blatant example of this. From the DM's perspective, the end of the second book is an agent of the BBEG harassing the party while the BBEG stays out of sight, building her power. From the player's perspective, it's an owlbear out of nowhere that has no connection to anything prior or after.
It gets worse. The PCs can find a ring on the BBEG's agent. It's made of the BBEG's hair. But if the party tries to use it for scrying or anything like that, the book says to have it explode, dealing 5d6 electric damage or something like that. Even trying to investigate the plot is cockblocked by the adventure path.
It gets worse. The PCs can find a ring on the BBEG's agent. It's made of the BBEG's hair. But if the party tries to use it for scrying or anything like that, the book says to have it explode, dealing 5d6 electric damage or something like that. Even trying to investigate the plot is cockblocked by the adventure path.
That is an odd thing to get angry about. You simply can't know whether or not players will kill named NPC number 4 and you can't know whether or not they will go along whatever Railroad the adventure tries to set up. I can't get mad at them for spending time fleshing out a character the players might or might not kill. It is not as though they write the stuff in and then NOT write what you need to run the encounter into their APs. If they did that, I could understand that kind of view but since they give you all that + extra I find it confusing to get mad at them adding extra.mlangsdorf wrote:The adventure path has limited word count, so every word devoted to background details that the PCs will not interact with is a word not used to provide more GM advice, suggested alternate paths, tactical advice for running encounters, or ideas on how to tailor the adventure to a specific group.MGuy wrote:dogbert... are you complaining that there are background elements at all that players may not interact with? If so, why? Why the hell would you care if there are elements players 'may' or may not be curious enough to find. If not, what exactly is your problem with it?Dogbert wrote: Paizo APs, on the other hand, are written by self-indulgent hacks who scrabble a story that, regardless of quality, serves no purpose other than giving MC something to fap about because players never interact with it. I vastly prefer a canned adventure that only has a dungeon, critters, and no other motivation than "there's treasure inside" because at least that's more honest and players don't get shoved the idiot ball up their assess with cheap railroading and lazy scenario design while MC faps and thinks "oh I'm so clever."
So if there's a column and a half devoted to the background and life story of the NPC opponent that the PCs will murder in 3 rounds, I get angry and frustrated with Paizo for not condensing that to a paragraph and using the rest of the space to give me more advice on how to make sure that the PCs like the NPCs that they're supposed to like.
- rasmuswagner
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 9:37 am
- Location: Danmark
The entire 6th book of Kingmaker comes out of nowhere.Amalie Gaston wrote:Pathfinder adventure paths have a terrible habit of making the plot details that tie the campaign together visible only to the DM. Kingmaker is a blatant example of this. From the DM's perspective, the end of the second book is an agent of the BBEG harassing the party while the BBEG stays out of sight, building her power. From the player's perspective, it's an owlbear out of nowhere that has no connection to anything prior or after.
Every time you play in a "low magic world" with D&D rules (or derivates), a unicorn steps on a kitten and an orphan drops his ice cream cone.
-
- Master
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:12 pm
Ideally, the adventure should have been playtested by multiple groups after the first draft was completed, and feedback from those playtests encorporated in the final draft. I'd rather have suggestions based on experience that you shouldn't be too overbearing with NPC A or that you really have to play up NPC B's kindness and admiration of the PCs because otherwise some of the stuff she does for plot reasons becomes really annoying than the in depth history of NPC C's interactions with NPCs D and E in a city that the PCs won't visit for another 3 installments of the adventure path.MGuy wrote:That is an odd thing to get angry about. You simply can't know whether or not players will kill named NPC number 4 and you can't know whether or not they will go along whatever Railroad the adventure tries to set up. I can't get mad at them for spending time fleshing out a character the players might or might not kill. It is not as though they write the stuff in and then NOT write what you need to run the encounter into their APs. If they did that, I could understand that kind of view but since they give you all that + extra I find it confusing to get mad at them adding extra.mlangsdorf wrote: The adventure path has limited word count, so every word devoted to background details that the PCs will not interact with is a word not used to provide more GM advice, suggested alternate paths, tactical advice for running encounters, or ideas on how to tailor the adventure to a specific group.
So if there's a column and a half devoted to the background and life story of the NPC opponent that the PCs will murder in 3 rounds, I get angry and frustrated with Paizo for not condensing that to a paragraph and using the rest of the space to give me more advice on how to make sure that the PCs like the NPCs that they're supposed to like.
I don't think it's wrong to give some backstory to the villains, but the priorities are really horrible. Kingmaker spends more than half a column on the Stag Lord's backstory, and most of it stuff the PCs will never know or be able to interact with. It's just wordy filler that could be cut down to a paragraph or two and replaced with more information on how to handle the PCs' attempts to infiltrate his fort and cause dissension among the bandits there.
Last edited by mlangsdorf on Wed May 28, 2014 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The fact that Paizo print lots of stuff into their adventures that nobody will ever experience or find out about in a real game is not really surprising since there are lots of people who read materials as you would a novel, without even the intent of using it at a table or anything. Paizo has even officially acknowlegded this to be a fact, so in a way they're just catering their customers.
"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style." - Steven Brust
I'm of the opinion that these people should just read actual novels. As a GM I'm fine with getting lots of background information in an AP, but it should designed to be used. At the very least, there should a knowledge check to find out what's going on. When something happens the PCs need to know the reason, or they might as well be playing through a random encounter table.Antariuk wrote:The fact that Paizo print lots of stuff into their adventures that nobody will ever experience or find out about in a real game is not really surprising since there are lots of people who read materials as you would a novel, without even the intent of using it at a table or anything. Paizo has even officially acknowlegded this to be a fact, so in a way they're just catering their customers.
- deaddmwalking
- Prince
- Posts: 3636
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am
I have to admit that I'm not familiar with the most recent APs, so it is possible that things have changed. From the beginning, there was very little that was not useful - the closest I think that would match was when a 'red herring' was presented... Information about what the PCs might investigate but was ultimately unconnected to the larger plot. But then again, if it isn't a railroad, that information actually matters.LeadPal wrote:I'm of the opinion that these people should just read actual novels. As a GM I'm fine with getting lots of background information in an AP, but it should designed to be used. At the very least, there should a knowledge check to find out what's going on. When something happens the PCs need to know the reason, or they might as well be playing through a random encounter table.Antariuk wrote:The fact that Paizo print lots of stuff into their adventures that nobody will ever experience or find out about in a real game is not really surprising since there are lots of people who read materials as you would a novel, without even the intent of using it at a table or anything. Paizo has even officially acknowlegded this to be a fact, so in a way they're just catering their customers.
Further, if run 'exactly as written', some of this wouldn't be helpful - bad guys might appear and their motivations or connections are never known. Shackled City really struggled with this - every time they introduced a 'new villain', it felt a little forced. That said, if you have the whole AP and as the GM you know that a particular villain is going to feature prominently in the 5th installment, you can start hinting at them earlier.
Generally speaking, the APs are a pretty solid framework, but to get the most out of them, a DM is going to have to add some extra material. This wouldn't be quite as much the case if they weren't so focused on going from 1st to 20th level in 6 adventures...
It's common for APs to have monsters with long backgrounds that the PCs have no incentive to learn, much less any way to do so. And while it's nice when you can use these backgrounds to inform the actions of these monsters, if the PCs have no way of knowing about it, the result from their perspective isn't any different from if the monsters acted randomly. Kingmaker's owlbear from nowhere (above) is a great example.deaddmwalking wrote:I have to admit that I'm not familiar with the most recent APs, so it is possible that things have changed. From the beginning, there was very little that was not useful - the closest I think that would match was when a 'red herring' was presented... Information about what the PCs might investigate but was ultimately unconnected to the larger plot. But then again, if it isn't a railroad, that information actually matters.LeadPal wrote:I'm of the opinion that these people should just read actual novels. As a GM I'm fine with getting lots of background information in an AP, but it should designed to be used. At the very least, there should a knowledge check to find out what's going on. When something happens the PCs need to know the reason, or they might as well be playing through a random encounter table.Antariuk wrote:The fact that Paizo print lots of stuff into their adventures that nobody will ever experience or find out about in a real game is not really surprising since there are lots of people who read materials as you would a novel, without even the intent of using it at a table or anything. Paizo has even officially acknowlegded this to be a fact, so in a way they're just catering their customers.
Another example: Near the end of the first book of Jade Regent, there's a strange monster spawned from a demon lord in the laboratory of an ancient civilization ten thousand years ago as a terrible war machine. That's very impressive and all, but ultimately it's just a tough fight in a small room. The information isn't applicable to anything.
I'm indifferent about toilet reading, it's when they specifically write an idiot plot where I draw the line:
1) The BBEG is That Guy.
2) That Guy plans to do This Thing.
3) He'll enact This Thing by means of These Other Things.
4) These Other Things are to be carried out by These Other Guys.
5) These Other Guys DO HAVE contact with the PCs, and it's totally possible for the PCs to get in on the whole BBEG's plot and throw a monkey wrench in it, but the GM is tasked with stonewalling the PCs, because fuck you.
This is insulting on several levels, and the reason why I spit on Paizo's GM Wank pieces Adventure Paths.
1) The BBEG is That Guy.
2) That Guy plans to do This Thing.
3) He'll enact This Thing by means of These Other Things.
4) These Other Things are to be carried out by These Other Guys.
5) These Other Guys DO HAVE contact with the PCs, and it's totally possible for the PCs to get in on the whole BBEG's plot and throw a monkey wrench in it, but the GM is tasked with stonewalling the PCs, because fuck you.
This is insulting on several levels, and the reason why I spit on Paizo's GM Wank pieces Adventure Paths.
BBEG is Ahab1) The BBEG is That Guy.
Ahab plans to kill the white whale2) That Guy plans to do This Thing.
He will kill the white whale by securing a crew and changing his stated goal.3) He'll enact This Thing by means of These Other Things.
He needs to have Starbuck and the other mates run the ship and handle keep the crew in line while he ignores easy profit.4) These Other Things are to be carried out by These Other Guys.
Ishmael has almost no contact with Ahab throughout most of the book and yet his presence is felt through the actions of others and signs of his movement. Ishmael and Quequeg do not mutiny even though Ahab's plot is clear because fuck you.5) These Other Guys DO HAVE contact with the PCs, and it's totally possible for the PCs to get in on the whole BBEG's plot and throw a monkey wrench in it, but the GM is tasked with stonewalling the PCs, because fuck you.
Your definition of an idiot plot is bad. It's okay not to like the products, but why the hate? Could you give us an example of an RPG plot you don't find insulting?
(On a side note your idiot plot definition fits the plot of the 5th element perfectly, even to the point that Zorg never meets Bruce Willis, and that was a fun movie.)
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:24 am
Presumably though, Ishmael could have mutinied but chose not to, instead of some invisible asshole forcing them not to. And 5th element is fun, but it's also kind of dumb.
Kaelik wrote:Fuck you Haruhi is clearly the best moe anime, and we will argue about how Haruhi and Nagato are OP and um... that girl with blond hair? is for shitters.darkmaster wrote:Tgdmb.moe, like the gaming den, but we all yell at eachother about wich lucky star character is the cutest.
If you like Lucky Star then I will explain in great detail why Lucky Star is the a shitty shitty anime for shitty shitty people, and how the characters have no interesting abilities at all, and everything is poorly designed especially the skill challenges.
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
An idiot plot for a predetermined narrative and an idiot plot that's supposed to set up a cooperative storytelling session are not the same thing. I love Ace Attorney but if someone tried to pull some of the shit they tried in those games in a game of Discourse and Dragons: Courtroom Edition, I'd punch my GM in the junk.Scrievener wrote:Your definition of an idiot plot is bad. It's okay not to like the products, but why the hate?
Dogbert is too vague on the details for me to agree with him that the Adventure Path is an idiot plot, but I don't agree with your counter-example.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
And fifth element and Moby Dick aren't TTRPGs where player choices are supposed to matter.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
- Josh_Kablack
- King
- Posts: 5318
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Online. duh
Yeah, I'm with Maxus.
Moby Dick is a great novel but a really horrible RPG module.
Moby Dick is a great novel but a really horrible RPG module.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
AndLago PARANOIA wrote: Dogbert is too vague on the details for me to agree with him that the Adventure Path is an idiot plot, but I don't agree with your counter-example.
Absolutely. These are fair criticisms. I just want to know what dogbert wants from a plot. While neither fit exactly, being different forms of media, they both have the same basic structure. I was trying to point out that Dogbert's criteria of what constitutes an idiot plot and a GM wankfest fails spectacularly when used on not TTRPG products.Maxus wrote:Moby and 5th element aren't TTRPGs
I don't feel that the APs are the greatest thing to ever happen to RPGs, but as I have less and less time to devote to a game, I find they can be useful, even more useful than stand alone modules. I don't understand Dogberts hatred and find his example to goofy.
I think the big issue is people see it as a rail road while they complain about being given backstory and information that would allow the GM to create content if the party goes off the rails.
About the only part of it that's agreeable at all is probably half of the 5th one because that involves actual railroading for questionable benefit. Even then, that's only the latter half of the complaint and I can see situations where it would probably be necessary to do that if you wanted to get your money's worth out of the AP or you wanted to prevent TPK. However, the rest of your list doesn't make sense to me. If your complaint is that, at times, APs tell the GM to make sure the players don't ruin future events that, I can agree with. It hasn't been a problem for me thus far but I can understand not liking it. The rest... I can't understand your complaint at all. Can you explain how 1 through 5 is actually an insult?Dogbert wrote:I'm indifferent about toilet reading, it's when they specifically write an idiot plot where I draw the line:
1) The BBEG is That Guy.
2) That Guy plans to do This Thing.
3) He'll enact This Thing by means of These Other Things.
4) These Other Things are to be carried out by These Other Guys.
5) These Other Guys DO HAVE contact with the PCs, and it's totally possible for the PCs to get in on the whole BBEG's plot and throw a monkey wrench in it, but the GM is tasked with stonewalling the PCs, because fuck you.
This is insulting on several levels, and the reason why I spit on Paizo's GM Wank pieces Adventure Paths.