Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[Dogbert]

Anyone who agrees to play a Paizo idiot plot adventure path deserves whatever crap they have to suffer.

[hogarth]

Anyone who agrees to play a Paizo idiot plot adventure path deserves whatever crap they have to suffer.

On the contrary, I think there are a number of decent adventure paths put out by Paizo (Age of Worms, Savage Tide, Crimson Throne, Carrion Crown). If a busy GM can save preparation time by using a pre-written adventure, I'm all for it.

[Koumei]

Yeah, they did decent adventures (and plenty of shit ones I'm sure) back for Dungeon magazine, when they were making stuff for 3.X - now granted, Pathfinder makes it all worse, but they at least have the capacity to make APs that are better than this pirate one.

[Dogbert]

Ok, in all fairness, the problem is not just Paizo, as any canned adventure that involves a "plot" is an idiot plot by definition. Paizo just makes it worse with their pretentiousness, "oh so clever" railroads, and GM toilet reading the PCs never get to interact with. It's the reason why I don't play canned material on principle.

[Blicero]

Ok, in all fairness, the problem is not just Paizo, as any canned adventure that involves a "plot" is an idiot plot by definition. Paizo just makes it worse with their pretentiousness, "oh so clever" railroads, and GM toilet reading the PCs never get to interact with. It's the reason why I don't play canned material on principle.

"

Again, you're doing the badwrongfun thing here. There exist players who really don't mind not having a tremendous amount of agency in the progress of a campaign. I just got done running part of Crimson Throne, and no one ever complained that most of the game amounted to "Get objective from NPC, do objective, return to NPC". They were all in it for the chance to interact with each other while fighting through a sequence of relatively engaging tactical setpieces.

Not everyone has to enjoy adventure paths, but for people who do, it's frustrating when Paizo makes a shitty one.

[MGuy]

Ok, in all fairness, the problem is not just Paizo, as any canned adventure that involves a "plot" is an idiot plot by definition. Paizo just makes it worse with their pretentiousness, "oh so clever" railroads, and GM toilet reading the PCs never get to interact with. It's the reason why I don't play canned material on principle.

I'm not so sure what you mean. I've found the two adventure paths I have run so far to be pretty much a hit with the players. I didn't really have to 'push' them to do much at all and they didn't really feel trapped or anything. 'some' parts of the adventure, typically the ones that introduce all new mechanics, are the only parts that seem to leave my players scratching their heads. I suppose YMMV

[radthemad4]

I've never played a canned adventure but I'm curious about them. How do they compare in terms of railroadiness compared to say, a Bioware RPG?

[K]

are those like one hour sessions?

Three hour sessions.

Generally, we didn't know that all of the extra chances to explore the ship and do actions at night were basically pointless. My group tried to squeeze every action of that system because they thought that interesting things would happen by successfully doing some of the offered choices.

We've literally hit a point where abandoning the game sounds like the option people are advocating.

[K]

I've never played a canned adventure but I'm curious about them. How do they compare in terms of railroadiness compared to say, a Bioware RPG?

A good canned adventure is basically a mini-setting that doubles as a railroad or sandbox as needed.

A bad canned adventure is like a bad sidescroller. The encounters have to be taken in order, and there are no sidequests, and there is no going back.

[Username17]

Aside: Does this mean that until you first sleep after leveling up, you don't have any higher-level spells?

Yes.

Is this specifically for spell slots? Why do spontaneous slots work differently from Channels? Are spontaneous casters technically also given x separate 1-use abilities like prepared casters, except they're interchangeable? I had always viewed it as "an 11th level sorcerer can cast x 5th-level spells per day", but what you're saying indicates that it's technically more like "an 11th level sorcerer has x spell slots that can each be used to cast 1 5th-level spell per day" and this situation (temporary Cha bonus) is one of the only times the distinction matters?

There are in fact other times it matters. There are ways to stagger things so that multiple people benefit from a Ring of Wizardry and spells from your last day's worth of spells can still be running when you get your next day's worth of spells if they last more than 9 hours.

As to non-spell slot things: no one knows. Only spell slots have rules text that explains exactly what the fuck the timing is on when you get them. Even spell like abilities that can be used X times per day don't actually have any explanatory text anywhere on when exactly they refresh. They are very much like spell slots, but they actually aren't spell slots and the rules don't define what the daily limits actually mean.

Of course, as we demonstrated eleven fucking years ago, a whole lot of people will lose their shit when you explore the edge cases even of what is entirely spelled out in black and white for when and how spell slots refresh. And that's for something where the rules are actually incredibly clear. For deciding when and how you get back your daily rage points or positive energy channels or whatever the fuck, no rules exist, so if you even try to explore the edge cases you're probably in for some harsh language and hair pulling.

-Username17

[GâtFromKI]

Given that a character can barely move while heavy load < stuff carried <= 2x heavy load, it is a fair assumption that they are immobile with more than that. But being immobile is not the same as being paralyzed, and they can likely still defend themselves.

Maybe you can, maybe not. I guess you can't wield a weapon or a spell component, and it's not even clear if you can stand up or raise your arm. But you can certainly use spell without any component. And maybe do unarmed attack.

[momothefiddler]

eleven fucking years ago

Well that was a fascinating read.

Mostly just makes me want to ever have played D&D past first level and with people who cared about the mechanics... but I'm pretty thoroughly off topic at this point so I'll stop here.

[talozin]

That thread is funny to me -- it's always seemed to me to be "working as intended" for spellcasters to be able to cast a full spell rack multiple times per 24 hour period if they took care to schedule properly.

People were using that trick to get a double-shot of spells back in the '80s, using 1st edition rules. It surprises me that it's viewed as in any way controversial.

[Cyberzombie]

That thread is funny to me -- it's always seemed to me to be "working as intended" for spellcasters to be able to cast a full spell rack multiple times per 24 hour period if they took care to schedule properly.

People were using that trick to get a double-shot of spells back in the '80s, using 1st edition rules. It surprises me that it's viewed as in any way controversial.

Well anytime you're getting a rules loophole that bypasses designer intent, people aren't going to like it. I mean sure it's 100% rules legal, but it's sleazy rules lawyering when you're trying to get "spells per day" an infinite number of times per day. As if you really need to break divine casters even more...

[name_here]

Letting people prepare spells more often makes them more powerful over a given timeframe, which would be why people don't like it. Personally, I'm up for scheduling fights around your recharge time as a valid tactic, but timezone shenangians seem out of theme and honestly kind of silly. It's an easy enough fix, though. Just say they can't get new spells more than twice (so you don't get screwed over by timezones) in 24 hours of time as experienced by them (to handle alternate timeflow planes).

[Dean]

I never knew that "The Frank Cheat" was named by accepting a derogatory title as a challenge. That was interesting.

When someone argues designer intent the odds that they are being dishonest are extremely high. Those guys have made bugfuck crazy rulings time and time again so anyone who tells you they have a secret mental store of the rule's real meaning is delusional. There's no RAW, there's no RAI, there's just arguments you can make stronger cases for than others and making the argument that you personally know the true deep secret truth no matter what the text says is a really weak argument.

[talozin]

Well anytime you're getting a rules loophole that bypasses designer intent, people aren't going to like it. I mean sure it's 100% rules legal, but it's sleazy rules lawyering when you're trying to get "spells per day" an infinite number of times per day. As if you really need to break divine casters even more...

If you were talking about plane shifting to the Far Realm to get literal infinite numbers of spells per day I would be more inclined to sympathize -- although I would still lay the fault at the door of the Far Realm and not at the interpretation the spell preparation mechanics.

But there really was no indication that "designer intent" was anything other than "if you sleep over with a full rack of spells, you can get more than one rack a day." That it wound up working that way in Baldur's Gate and its sequels probably contributed to the popularity of that notion, but we were doing this before BG ever came out. This isn't "rules lawyering", torturing the wording of rules to get a meaning clearly different from what's intended; this is reading rules that are at best ambiguously defined and at worst explicitly supportive of the idea and trying to play by the rules as much as possible.

Bear in mind that in previous versions of AD&D it was actually not possible for high level characters to memorize their complete spell racks in one day, so it was self-limiting as you reached higher levels. When you allow characters to prepare all their spells in an hour no matter how many and how high level, you power-up this tactic pretty severely.

[DSMatticus]

Letting people prepare spells more often makes them more powerful over a given timeframe, which would be why people don't like it. Personally, I'm up for scheduling fights around your recharge time as a valid tactic, but timezone shenangians seem out of theme and honestly kind of silly. It's an easy enough fix, though. Just say they can't get new spells more than twice (so you don't get screwed over by timezones) in 24 hours of time as experienced by them (to handle alternate timeflow planes).

That's not really a fix. I can still prepare a set of spells, wait 24 hours, blow all my spells, prepare, blow all my spells, and end up with two full sets of spells in a particular <12 hour window. You've stopped me from triple stacking, but you have not stopped me from double stacking.

Even if preparation is daily for some definition of daily, that doesn't guarantee that casting is. Because casting and preparation are separate and occur at separate times.

[Dogbert]

I've never played a canned adventure but I'm curious about them. How do they compare in terms of railroadiness compared to say, a Bioware RPG?

For starters, Bioware has actual game designers and know how to make a narrative for the player that includes all elements they'll need to feel both engaged and important in the story.

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."

[momothefiddler]

When someone argues designer intent the odds that they are being dishonest are extremely high.

Since this is the Pathfinder thread, I feel the need to point out that this is true even when that someone is one of the designers. I've been reading a lot of FAQs and designer forum rulings lately and... wow.

[MGuy]

I've never played a canned adventure but I'm curious about them. How do they compare in terms of railroadiness compared to say, a Bioware RPG?

For starters, Bioware has actual game designers and know how to make a narrative for the player that includes all elements they'll need to feel both engaged and important in the story.

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."

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?

[Rawbeard]

For starters, Bioware had actual game designers

Fixed.

[hogarth]

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?

I'm guessing a GM gave him bad touches in the swimsuit area with an adventure path once.

[Cyberzombie]

But there really was no indication that "designer intent" was anything other than "if you sleep over with a full rack of spells, you can get more than one rack a day." That it wound up working that way in Baldur's Gate and its sequels probably contributed to the popularity of that notion, but we were doing this before BG ever came out. This isn't "rules lawyering", torturing the wording of rules to get a meaning clearly different from what's intended; this is reading rules that are at best ambiguously defined and at worst explicitly supportive of the idea and trying to play by the rules as much as possible.

Well the idea of "daily" spells are just that, things they expect you to recover once per day. The idea that you're getting spells back at dawn is just a flavor text thing for clerics/druids. When you start teleporting around to shift the time of day, you're doing something the designers never really intended people would do to game the system.

The basic idea is that clerics and wizards are supposed to get their spells back once per day. That's why they're listed as "spells per day."

The move is 100% rules legal, but it's still in that sleazy domain of rules lawyering where you're clearly circumventing designer intent via something the designers obviously never planned on and going by the strict letter of the rules and not the spirit of the rules.

And there is a divide about how to handle the 5 minute workday too. Some people think it's okay to rest after each fight, others think that's a sleazy tactic too, since the designers have stated they expect people to fight 4-5 battles a day and the rules are designed that way. That's a whole other topic, but very similar. And that annoys people when people play that way.

Both the sunrise teleport thing and resting after each fight are totally rules legal of course, but it is directly going against designer intent.

[LurkMOAR]

I've decided to chime in about the Skull and Shackles thing. I'm running it for my group, and I'm on part 4 of 6, so I don't know everything yet.

The nickname that the fa/tg/uys have for the adventure path is Skill Checks: The Skill checkening. That's not undeserved, ship to ship combat and pursuit is clunky, requires too damn many rolls, and typically only lets one or two people play. Lord help you if your players start building their fleet before the game has thought you would, the already klunky combat grinds to a motherfucking halt.

K: I'm not saying the adventure path doesn't have severe flaws (especially the early part of the path), but I'm thinking you might be having GM issues, or you guys aren't really accomplishing much by exploring the ship. My group was level 2 in about two hours, and by the end of the 5 hour session had just hit level 3... A different adventure might not be a bad idea.

That being said, my players went off the rails immediately in the second half of the adventure and I just let them. I've used the set pieces and basic encounters but have redone everything.

Here are some unforgivable sins in the path:

1. A lyre of building costs 13k. This item breaks the path because you can now lyre up all the ships you need on the cheap. Pathfinder assumes you hate fighters and restrict access to magic items, but it only takes a 6th level caster to make one. The writers really should have thought about this, and incorporated it into the game.

2. At every part of the path, there are instructions to fuck the party over if they go off the rails. You can't stab the evil first mate and boatswain in the back as soon as the 16th level captain isn't there for reasons. You can't go to the fun parts of the Shackles because reasons. I've been giving the party free reign. And yes, there were some hairy fights when they went into populated areas without a letter of marque.

3. Poor encounter balance. Most of the encounters are entirely too easy. Nothing has a relevant AC for their level. They love swarms of irrelevant enemies that in 3.5 wouldn't give the party experience at all... I've had to re-write nearly every encounter in the path.

4. GRINDING! Everything costs too damn much, and you will have to grind by taking out ships to get enough loot to do anything. Hence the Lyre of Building crap (although if you ask me, I'd say the lyre of building makes it entirely more tolerable since you don't have to grind so much goddamn loot).