Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:53 am

AcidBlades wrote:Why is it that DnD players (at least on the net) seem to enjoy playing low-level games? It's frankly kind of annoying in a way.

On the player side, I notice a lot of people like the idea of starting from scratch and becoming awesome. They like level 1 because of the number.

On the DM side, I notice that people like control over their game and have a lot more trouble with it when characters have more capabilities from loot, spells, high enough HP to drop from orbit, etc.

But those are just myaneccdotes. No guarantee they're representative.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:06 am

The game is less functional every level after 8 or so. That's probably a significant contributing factor.

pragma · Post by **pragma** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:27 am

I also think coming up with problems for a low level party to deal with is much more manageable than for a high level party. Everyone needs to have a pretty high degree of system mastery for villains to fall in the band between trivial and invincible if scry-and-die is on the table. Also, all of the fun tricks with pits, ropes, walls, spike traps, self sealing rooms, etc. only really matter when high level spells are off line. The same is true of a lot of canonical bad guys like orcs, kobolds, etc.

All of this taken together could point to a sense that low levels "look like D&D," which I understand and empathize with. When I think about playing a game I mostly think about low level. I haven't really seen serious discussions of high level play outside of this board.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:45 am

AcidBlades wrote:Why is it that DnD players (at least on the net) seem to enjoy playing low-level games? It's frankly kind of annoying in a way.

Well, high level games "don't work at all," so there's that. By the time you have greater planar binding on the table, the game is basically gibberish.

Meanwhile, at low levels the game is actually playtested pretty hard. All the basic character classes (except the Monk, but fuck that guy) can contribute meaningfully in a 1st through 3rd level game. The differences in skill bonuses are sufficiently tight that challenges are easy to design. The basic positioning system creates a lot of meaningful tactical choices, and if you want to use a combat maneuver that you haven't specialized in that, that could actually work. And further, if you keep things to 4th level or less, open multiclassing actually works. Being a Cleric/Ranger or a Wizard/Rogue is actually a thing at very low levels. You don't have 2nd level spells, but you have sneak attack and some broad skills and shit.

And then there's wealth by level, which gives tragicomic levels of insufficient gear once characters outgrow being impressed by a +1 shield. The growth in cost simply does not match the growth in wealth - they are different progressions and they are badly out of sync in the +2 to +4 gear range.

So basically, in the first four levels or so, the game is firing on all cylinders. Everything that's supposed to be implemented actually is, except Monks. Every level after that, things stop working. Multiclassed casters go out the window, off-specialization combat maneuvers stop being a thing, being able to afford level appropriate gear with your WBL goes off the table, all the martial characters and the bard stop being able to face level appropriate monsters, and then the full casters get options that pretty much invalidate the whole game.

There's a lot I like about the game between 7th and 10th level. There are things that come online that are genuinely fun to play with. But as a percentage, a lot less of what the game is offering at that point is actually functional. If you wanted to roll out of bed and play the game with people you didn't know, the obvious starting point would be somewhere in the 1st through 3rd level range.

-Username17

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 11:33 am

Part of it is how much time it takes to create a character. A level 1 D&D3e character can be finished fairly quickly depending on what class you chose, a A level 10 D&D3.0 character takes a lot of page flipping possibly across multiple books.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 12:33 pm

Also, at low levels you're usually playing in a world, not a multiverse. Which is a lot easier to grasp / explain and feel meaningful in.

And there is not that much source material out there for the high levels. Considering that most written, high level adventures are terrible as well, it is a lot harder to create high level games.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 2:45 pm

This is, of course, all assuming you have a group that is particularly aware of high level possibilities and optimization. I could run a high level game for my group, and aside from one of them having a lot of evocation or a high damage martialist, I could still run pretty standard games and none of them would think it was particularly weird.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:18 am

For Tome of Fiends-
Who the fuck thought At Will Glibness at 5th* level was a good idea!?

*sixth for spherelock, admittedly, but still

Hiram McDaniels · Post by **Hiram McDaniels** » Sat Jun 27, 2015 12:26 am

...You Lost Me wrote:
AcidBlades wrote:Why is it that DnD players (at least on the net) seem to enjoy playing low-level games? It's frankly kind of annoying in a way.
On the player side, I notice a lot of people like the idea of starting from scratch and becoming awesome. They like level 1 because of the number.

On the DM side, I notice that people like control over their game and have a lot more trouble with it when characters have more capabilities from loot, spells, high enough HP to drop from orbit, etc.

But those are just myaneccdotes. No guarantee they're representative.

I always assumed players preferred low-powered games because the most popular fantasy fiction influences depict relatively low-level adventures: Conan, Lord of the Rings, A Song of Ice and Fire, Dragonlance, Lord of the Rings, etc.

This is just an assumption though. Maybe there's some popular literature featuring Dragon Ball Z level shit that I'm unaware of.

Dogbert · Post by **Dogbert** » Sat Jun 27, 2015 6:22 am

A lot of players "prefer" low powered games because...

a) Their GMs prefer low powered games, so they teach them to do so.
b) Games/tables fall apart long before the mid-endgame more often than not, so low-powered is all players know.
c) Basket-weavers and the Stormwind Fallacy
d) Running anything past level one requires actual commitment to reading the rules, and that sounds too much like work.

Many get past this after graduating to different games and seeing there's more to the hobby than zero-to-hero, though.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 6:18 am

FrankTrollman wrote:And further, if you keep things to 4th level or less, open multiclassing actually works. Being a Cleric/Ranger or a Wizard/Rogue is actually a thing at very low levels. You don't have 2nd level spells, but you have sneak attack and some broad skills and shit.

There a way to make that stretch out and last to level 10-ish? Say being gestalt and being 1 level behind a monoclassed character.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Thu Jul 02, 2015 5:05 am

Anyone know what the Leverage RPG is like? Apparently it was put out by Margaret Weis Productions(1) and uses the Cortex Plus system which is also used for the Firefly(2) and Smallville games(3).

I've been watching Leverage, started thinking about running an RPG based on it, and was curious when I heard there already was one. I'm guessing that it's crap, and that Spycraft would be a good system for it, but I'm curious.

1- Not heartening...
2- Don't know about the newer edition, but the first Firefly was shit.
3- Apparently Weis just makes money crapping out licensed games for TV shows now

Wulfbanes · Post by **Wulfbanes** » Thu Jul 02, 2015 1:24 pm

I read through the Leverage RPG, and wasn't too impressed. The resolution mechanic seems broken, due to being infinitely able to keep raising the odds. If you ignore the "Aha, but actually!" part of the rules, it becomes usable, maybe?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Jul 03, 2015 6:44 am

Leverage has some interesting dynamics, and is worth looking at to help with out-of-the-box thinking as regards action declaration and resolution in an RPG. However, the mechanics are basically a train wreck. The probabilities on the different sized dice are fucked. The connection between the kind of action and the stat you get to roll is totally unclear and is decided by Mr. Cavern after the game has started, so the player has virtually no agency during character generation. Taking actions gives you extra dice on future tasks, and rolling more dice makes you more likely to succeed at a task, so short missions can very easily fall into the trap of "one player just does everything and ignores the other PCs." On the flip side, every die you roll has a chance of creating complications that take additional actions to resolve, so if the mission runs on long enough, the game stunlocks itself.

The game's definition of a task and action resolution system can allow one player to play a gun toting badass while another players a scrappy child detective and have both characters have spotlight time and things to do. That's praiseworthy. But the mechanics are so fucking you'd be better off replacing them with rock paper scissors or table votes.

-Username17

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Jul 03, 2015 7:10 am

What's the Flashback Mechanic like? The wiki page mentioned it, and I can see why they'd want to include given the first couple of seasons that made heavy use of "so here's what actually happened" scenes.

echoVanguard · Post by **echoVanguard** » Fri Jul 03, 2015 6:51 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Leverage has some interesting dynamics, and is worth looking at to help with out-of-the-box thinking as regards action declaration and resolution in an RPG. ... The game's definition of a task and action resolution system can allow one player to play a gun toting badass while another players a scrappy child detective and have both characters have spotlight time and things to do. That's praiseworthy.

Can you elaborate? I can't seem to find any other information on this.

echo

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:27 pm

I've noticed an issue in my game where the DM keeps setting us up in a line that then gets attacked. Me being the squishy caster, it's nice that I'm in the middle, but it does fuck me over when my main weapons are wands of Lightning Bolt, Fireball and a command word Burning Hands on my crossbow.

I'm of course going to talk to him about these ambushes that we should be seeing coming or getting spot checks to notice, but I'd also like a contingency that saves me if we don't spot an ambush. I'm going to make up some single use activated tokens of Dimensional Leap that will get me out of the middle of the scrimmage, but does anyone know any spells that are accessible at sixth level or lower that will do one of the following-
-Allow me to act in a surprise round
-Keep me from being flat-footed
-Give me first initiative in the first round of combat at least?

Whiysper · Post by **Whiysper** » Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:46 am

Prak wrote:spells that are accessible at sixth level or lower that will do one of the following-
-Allow me to act in a surprise round
-Keep me from being flat-footed
-Give me first initiative in the first round of combat at least?

Pretty sure nerveskitter will cover you:
http://dndtools.pw/spells/spell-compend ... ter--4591/

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:02 am

Didn't realize that was 1st level. I'll layer it into my goggles as a Use Activated and it should help a lot. Thanks.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:07 am

I have a friend who's interested in playing a Gem a la Steven Universe since I realized and mentioned that it's actually ridiculously easy to make one with Tome of Fiends.

The one thing that seems to be missing from Fiend stuff to play a Gem is the fact that they sort of function like liches- Gems are actually their stone, and their humanoid body is an energy construct they form around it. If the body is destroyed, they retreat to their gem and come back a short time later. Basically, they have a phylactery.

Taking a look through the tome stuff for an appropriate level for "I come back from death" effects I got-

Revenant- Come back even from death when the sun sets (Lv 0)
Stranger With the Burning Eyes- Permanent Magic Jar (Lv 7)
Pumpkin King- Contingent resurrection in a chosen prepared location, or True Res if you sacrifice a servant (Lv 13)
Heartless Mage- Auto-Magic Jar when killed, can perform resurrection ritual (Lv13/14)
Corpselight Whisperer- Reincarnated after 1d10 days in sanctum when killed (Lv 14)
Death King- True Res when interred in a tomb for one week (Lv 14)
Soul Merchant- Invest souls with outsiders for a later return to life (Lv 15)
Boneblade Reaper- Fight Death to return to life when killed (Lv 15)
Lord of the Damned- Become a lich (full template) (Lv 16)
Master of the Seven Necromantic Mysteries- Become a ghost when killed (Lv 16)
Skindancer- Automatically return to life at the cost of a magic item (Lv 16)
Widow Queen- True Res ritual carried out by followers (Lv 16)

And of course you can just become a lich[/b] at level 14.

But that leaves a pretty large range of levels over which "I come back from death" is considered an appropriate ability, and the nature is all over the place. "Back from the dead at sunset" with no mention of loss of level one way or the other is given as a LA 0 racial ability, while "your followers have to kill 100 guys, this may take awhile" is level 16. What I want to do is allow the following feat:

Gem Regeneration
You have a gemstone embedded somewhere on your body. When grievously injured, you may retreat to this gem and recover from your injuries.
Prerequisites: Character Level ?
Benefit: You have a diminutive gemstone embedded somewhere on your body which has 10 hardness and 20 hit points per character level you possess and radiates magic as a magical item with caster level equal to your character level. This gem may be enchanted with any magic that is suitable for rings, rods, wondrous devices and magical armour, but cannot be intelligent.
When you die, your soul is stored in your gemstone. So long as your gemstone is not destroyed, you return to life in 1d8 days as if a Resurrection spell had been cast on you. You may elect to wait an additional 1d8 days after this period, if you do, you return to life as if a True Resurrection spell had been cast on you. You may also elect to return to life in a shorter period of time, but if you do you return to life as if a Reincarnation spell had been cast on you (though you are effectively changed to another race, you are still recognizably you, just with fur or scales or less height or whatever), and your body is flawed- you are subject to a spell effect based on how many days less than your original roll you did not wait, which lasts until you spend the proper amount of time to regenerate your body, which also returns you to your original form negating the effect of the previous reincarnation. You may forego your entire regeneration length this way, in which case you return instantly, or as soon as you like.


# of days	Spell Effect
1	Doom
2	Blindness or Deafness
3	Bestow Curse
4	Touch of Idiocy
5	Symbol of Pain
6	Eyebite
7	Insanity
8	Irresistible Dance

[/center]
As an additional benefit, you may meditate on your gem to heal and repair your body if it is damaged but not fatally wounded. This is identical to elven trance, and lasts a number of hours equal to the spell level of the desired hit point or ability point recovering spell.
If your gem is destroyed, you are instantly slain and cannot be restored to life with any magic which requires a piece of your body. Your gem can be mended but only with a Wish or similar magic. If your gem is damaged but not destroyed, it can be repaired as you would repair a magical item.
If you possess any supernatural or spell like ability of the Polymorph sub-school, or which states that it functions as Polymorph, subtract half (rounded up) its effective spell level from all rolls for time to regenerate your form. For example- if you possess the spell Shapechange as a spell-like ability, a Resurrection effect requires 1d8-5 days and a True Resurrection effect requires 2d8-5 days.

So what character level would that be appropriate at?

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 4:46 am

Organizing a Pathfinder book, what makes more sense-
Ch1- Races
Ch2- Base Classes
Ch3- Feats
Ch4- Prestige Classes

or

Ch1- Races
Ch2- Base Classes
Ch3- Prestige Classes
Ch4- Feats

Or should classes just be a single chapter?

Also- how much should I care about adding favored class abilities and archetypes?

momothefiddler · Post by **momothefiddler** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 4:56 am

Prak wrote:Organizing a Pathfinder book, what makes more sense-
Ch1- Races
Ch2- Base Classes
Ch3- Feats
Ch4- Prestige Classes

This one. Put things in roughly the order a new reader will want them, except with Races before Classes because we're all obligated by sacred covenant to pretend we choose Race before we choose Class.

Prak wrote:Also- how much should I care about adding favored class abilities and archetypes?

If you give me a PF book with new races and new classes and no favored class combinations of the two, it's gonna feel incomplete. If you give it to me without combinations of those and the base races/classes, it's gonna feel stifling. If you include all of those, it's gonna be bloated as fuck. While I like the base concept, combinatorics says favored class abilities are terrible, terrible design. You can't win. Have fun.

Archetypes... are pretty obvious when they're bolted on because a classes needed more of them. If you have multiple ideas and they can exist on the same skeleton (and seriously, check your ideas for this, some probably can), make them archetypes. Otherwise, don't go out of your way to trade one shitty bonus for a different shitty bonus.

Racial Archetypes are mechanically the same and conceptually an entirely different thing? But also they're shitty. Leave 'em out.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:14 am

Well, I'm working on the comics-inspired thing. I've got two races- Atlantean and Constructoid, and three base classes- Paragon (Superman), Speedster (The Flash) and Weather Augur (Storm, Weather Wizard).

So Atlanteans could have a Paragon archetype, since that makes you the Submariner. I'm not entirely sure where I'd go with that, except to make the Sea sphere unique to Atlantean Paragons, rather than just an option any Paragon can take. I suppose instead of that, I could make an archetype that allows you to be Aquaman.

Constructoids choose a power source, one of which being kryptonite blightburn, so a Constructoid Paragon would be Metallo and that would be the next logical Archetype. I need to dig into whether there's anything unique to Metallo. A blaster power seems too little to make its own archetype, but there could be something there as a general Paragon archetype with a bit more.

I could dig through the core classes and write up some comics-inspired archetypes for those. If there isn't something that lets you play Batman with a rogue, there should be.

Eikre · Post by **Eikre** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:31 pm

Prak wrote: Ch1- Races
Ch2- Base Classes
Ch3- Prestige Classes
Ch4- Feats

Do it this way.

The first line of information in almost every stat block is "[Name]: [Race] [Class A] #/[Class B] #/[Class C] #" The minor difference that prestige classes have from base classes is almost irrelevant; they both do the same thing. They're both purchased with the same fungible budget, and they both define your character in the broadest fashion recognizable as a game mechanics.

Feats, meanwhile, are, in concept, just embellishments. On most character sheets, you don't write them down until you get half way down the page or even to the other side of it.

8d8 · Post by **8d8** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:49 pm

Eikre wrote:
Prak wrote: Ch1- Races
Ch2- Base Classes
Ch3- Prestige Classes
Ch4- Feats
Do it this way.

The first line of information in almost every stat block is "[Name]: [Race] [Class A] #/[Class B] #/[Class C] #" The minor difference that prestige classes have from base classes is almost irrelevant; they both do the same thing. They're both purchased with the same fungible budget, and they both define your character in the broadest fashion recognizable as a game mechanics.

Feats, meanwhile, are, in concept, just embellishments. On most character sheets, you don't write them down until you get half way down the page or even to the other side of it.

I agree with this.

I agree with momothefiddler about favored class information, but I would point out that the game doesn't suffer at all if you just pretend that concept doesn't exist. I mean, either you want to prevent some race-class combinations, in which case you should outright prevent them, or you don't, in which case you shouldn't incentivize a narrow focus for race-class combinations beyond what the racial modifiers already accomplish.