Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Any D&D/D20

Shadowrun

World of Darkness

Palladium

Other (feel free to post about it)

[Flying Dice]

I was gonna say. It's pretty absurd to make the comparison of [n] damage types versus "lol only Diplomacy". As Gentlefish said, in PF you have Appraise, Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Intimidate, Knowledge, Linguistics, Perception, Perform, Sense Motive, and Sleight of Hand as the skills which are likely to come into play in nonviolent encounters, even if we specifically restrict that to conversations with other sapient beings (ignore things like Handle Animal to interact peacefully with sub-sapients, Escape Artist used to remove oneself from a situation after submitting to capture instead of fighting, &c.).

Even if you don't count all the different subsets of Know (X) and Perform (X) as individual skills that's still just under half of the skills in PF which are either dedicated to nonviolent encounters or useful to some degree in the same. As opposed to 7 used as elements of specific types of actions which might be used in combat.

It's also a false equivalency because it assumes that all nonviolent encounters consist of the player saying "I roll Diplomacy," and the DM saying "You pass/fail." That's like acting as if all combat consisted solely of "I roll to hit." "You miss/hit." "There's my damage roll." while lumping every possible way of dealing damage into a single category labeled "ATTACK". If that's how nonviolent encounters play out, either the DM is lazy or the group as a whole just wants to kill things. It's not like there aren't rules for nonviolent encounters, and it's not like they aren't supposed to give equivalent rewards; it's all down to the DM and players choosing not to play that way.

[Rolan7]

To be fair, the diplomacy skill specifically is pretty absurd (3.5e, I think PF improved it somewhat).  Requires a lot of DM meddling to make it reasonable.  But yeah there are lots of skills for handling non-violent encounters, it's supposed to be a significant part of the game.

I like that the Book of Exalted Deeds suggests that (fully) resolving a situation without violence should always give as much XP as killing.  Possibly more, depending on the result.  I think meaning situations where an enemy is captured or convinced to surrender/leave.  Probably not full XP for hiding from a patrol (that wouldn't be "fully resolved" since they're still a dangerous enemy force).

[flabort]

If pathfinder didn't have so many feats, we wouldn't have experienced the glory that is sacred geometry!

Holy shit it's the Final Fantasy Tactics mathematician class
as a FEAT
And maybe slightly less OP, though who knows

And their example is wrong.
"If the result of his dice pool were 1, 1, 2, and 5, he would have been unable to produce any of the relevant prime constants."
How about "(2^5)-(1*1)"? Pretty sure exponents could be argued to be a form of multiplication, and therefor a valid use.

[Yoink]

Just started running a D&D 5e game.  All new players...except for one experienced player who decided to play a Chaotic Neutral barbarian. 

That guy/gal sounds like a legend.

[Rolan7]

Chaotic Neutral barbarian is kinda obvious and can be problematic :/
I mean in good hands it could be good, but it's also a recipe for "Player bored, character punches people".
Though in my case the player was crazy good at doublethink, following a tight yet nebulous code of honor which *required* that he punch people when [he felt like it].

By the way, I like that barbarians don't have to be chaotic.  But bards do.  (3.5e)

[Criptfeind]

What's wrong with with a Chaotic Neutral Barbarian? I mean, I guess I can see how like a shitty player could play it as murderboner mc ragefucker, but pretty much any alignment has similar issues. Otherwise, well, I think it works fairly well as a alignment as a whole if done right, I mean, generic of course, but it's not like alignment really needs to say much about a characters personality.

[flabort]

Does anyone know any systems (other than RuneQuest) which would support Elder Scrolls-style mixing and matching of classes? So having like a spellsword is actually viable and doesn't require you to pick that class from the start? Also, preferably everyone knows at least a little bit of magic along the way.

If you use pathfinder, this site has classes-as-feats and a bunch of other really cool things.

Such as a simplified (and useful!) grapple flow, poison crafting, and optimised teamwork-and-pet shenanigans.

That's actually almost a good way of playing Pathfinder, thanks.

Hmm. I kinda want to play/run a campaign with that system in place, but it looks like it's incomplete. If someone wanted to take all the core classes and get all their abilities and archetypes statted out as feats this way, it would be awesome; organized so that basic [class] training feats were at the front, and then further feats are organized into blocks in the same order as the basic class feats.
I might get started on this on the weekend, if I find the time. My unfamiliarity with pathfinder not-withstanding; I can supplement the gaps with my 3.5 knowledge.

[Rolan7]

Actually I'm sorry, we're not supposed to do alignment discussions here.  My experience was mostly based on one (2-year) campaign anyway.

[Kadzar]

Does anyone know any systems (other than RuneQuest) which would support Elder Scrolls-style mixing and matching of classes? So having like a spellsword is actually viable and doesn't require you to pick that class from the start? Also, preferably everyone knows at least a little bit of magic along the way.

I don't know how well it fits your criteria, but Talislanta in all editions allows players to learn new skills by spending xp, and pretty much everyone --except races that are barred from it-- can learn learn magic in the same way. And the Paths in 5th edition Talislanta are pretty analogous to RuneQuest Professions, in that they mostly just provide skills at the start of the game (and a few other things). The only thing is, there's some limits on the paths you can take depending on your race.

I'm finding I really like the system in general, in that, rather than adding a bunch of modifiers to your roll, with some penalties for difficulty, then rolling and comparing to a DC that is also supposed to represent difficulty or an enemy's opposed roll, you just add up all positive and negative modifiers (which could be the enemy's defending skill) and compare that to a single table which tells you how well you did. And there are fumbles (called mishaps), but they only come into play on a modified roll of 0 or lower, so they only happen if you really suck at something or you're facing something beyond your ability, and the fact that even opposed checks are a single roll means you can easily say that the character was bested by their opponent rather than them suddenly sucking for some reason.

Then you have a setting that is either something you'll love about the system or might put you off, in that it's a place filled with hundreds of races and cultures, though it's such that you can pretty much use just the stuff you're interested in and ignore the rest.

Well, anyway, the whole system run was released for free by its creator, so you can decide how you like it yourself.

[My Name is Immaterial]

To be fair, the diplomacy skill specifically is pretty absurd (3.5e, I think PF improved it somewhat).

Not really. A while back, I made a fifth level character with a +24 to diplomacy.

[Bohandas]

Chaotic Neutral barbarian is kinda obvious and can be problematic :/
I mean in good hands it could be good, but it's also a recipe for "Player bored, character punches people".

At least it's not a chaotic neutral pyromaniac evoker

[Rolan7]

To be fair, the diplomacy skill specifically is pretty absurd (3.5e, I think PF improved it somewhat).

Not really. A while back, I made a fifth level character with a +24 to diplomacy.

Sorry, I meant to point out that it's absurdly powerful RAW (though I'd rather call it "broken" or "unfinished")

The most absurd part is that the DC doesn't take into account the targets except for their attitude.  The DC to talk a creature from hostile to unfriendly (in one round) is 30.  Whether it's a guard trying to arrest you, a kobold fighting for its life, or a dragon whose treasure you're carrying.  *Rules As Written*, you bump it to "unfriendly" at which point it just "watches you suspiciously" and is passive aggressive.

It's kinda hilarious and I'm sure few groups actually play that way, obviously the DM is supposed to add modifiers to the nines.  In both directions.  Maybe even an opposed check of some sort.  But it doesn't even suggest that, it just lays down absurdly simple rules.

[nullBolt]

I think a lot of DMs fail to realize that the rules aren't just there to penalize the players. The DM has the most control out of the entire group, picking what challenges the PCs face, how NPCs respond to their actions, and setting the entire tone for the game world. By contrast, the players have only one thing they control: their character. Using the rules to give their character an advantage is pretty clearly a good thing in my books.

Plus, I'll take winning a difficult encounter through clever use of the rules over losing the encounter and causing the death of the entire party any day. I'd much rather preserve the story progress and interpersonal history between the characters than throw it away because some might call my strategy exploitive.

I think if you're looking to play a game where eldritch abominations beyond mortal comprehension are fearsome and awe inspiring, you're using the wrong system with D&D or Pathfinder. You'd be much better off with something like Call of Cthulhu, where you're expected to solve the encounters through strategy and stealth, and combat is typically fatal. In D&D, the typical character and the typical CR appropriate monster are built with the expectation that you're going to kill it and take its stuff. That's why there's a hundred different ways to deal damage but just a single Diplomacy skill.

Plus frankly, I can't see my character getting a reputation as a dragonslayer to be anything but good for business. Let word get around that our adventuring company can deal with the biggest baddest nasties on the block, and hopefully we'll start getting some good adventure hooks out of the deal. Not to mention, it'll likely do wonders for my Leadership score.

Honestly, man, I just think you're unsuited for pen and paper games in general. If your group is happy with you and the way you play, that's great, but from what you've said in the past you seem to be the only one playing the way you're suggesting you should play. If it was me, I'd just ask you to tone it down or leave.

The rules are a framework for our adult's game of makebelieve. That's all they are. They're a way of ensuring that everyone has some idea of how the game is going to be played and NOT a prescriptive way of playing for both sides of the game.

There are two very important rules that go across all rulesets and they are...

Rule Zero
"Roleplaying games are entertainment; your goal as a group is to make your games as entertaining as possible."

The Golden Rule
"The GM makes the rules; don't argue with the GM"

These are the only rules you should be certain of in any game. If a rule is unfun, broken or awful, it gets excised. No ifs, no buts.

I suggest you look back at your posts, read through what you're saying and ask yourself: Would I be having fun if I was one of the other players in this situation?

Hmm. I kinda want to play/run a campaign with that system in place, but it looks like it's incomplete. If someone wanted to take all the core classes and get all their abilities and archetypes statted out as feats this way, it would be awesome; organized so that basic [class] training feats were at the front, and then further feats are organized into blocks in the same order as the basic class feats.
I might get started on this on the weekend, if I find the time. My unfamiliarity with pathfinder not-withstanding; I can supplement the gaps with my 3.5 knowledge.

You definitely should. If you manage, I'll probably run a campaign using it.

I don't know how well it fits your criteria, but Talislanta in all editions allows players to learn new skills by spending xp, and pretty much everyone --except races that are barred from it-- can learn learn magic in the same way. And the Paths in 5th edition Talislanta are pretty analogous to RuneQuest Professions, in that they mostly just provide skills at the start of the game (and a few other things). The only thing is, there's some limits on the paths you can take depending on your race.

I actually had a read through of Talislanta's setting in the past, but never it's ruleset. Thanks, I'll have a look.

[Dorsidwarf]

I can't comprehend how the BBEG having a reinforced anti-teleport zone around his Fortress of Doom and Razorblades is somehow "unfair" if you want to use teleport to jump back to his throne room, beat him up, 'port out, rinse, repeat.

[Neonivek]

I can't comprehend how the BBEG having a reinforced anti-teleport zone around his Fortress of Doom and Razorblades is somehow "unfair" if you want to use teleport to jump back to his throne room, beat him up, 'port out, rinse, repeat.

Because your limiting the Player's options.