But, it can annoy others. I played my first round of the
Pathfinder RPG last night. It was a lot of fun alongside +Jennifer Corniuk , +Jonathan Henry , and +Jeffrey Meyer with +Mark Knights at the helm. Mark was
doing his best to get us through an adventure after finishing up character
creation, which took a little longer than we expected. For example, I had
apparently forgotten to save mine, so had to hurry up and make an Intelligence
roll for memory and fill out a new sheet. But, he got us through some combat.
There was one small piece in the beginning where my character, an honorable
samurai, just cut through a peasant like a hot knife through butter for
blocking his path, which didn’t really count. Mark had reminded me here,
however, that I shouldn’t be adding my Strength for an offhand weapon.
Oh, whoops, sorry. I know that, why did I do that? It didn’t
hit me until later that I was being stupid and did it a few times. One time, I
know Mark was about to correct me, but just figured it better to move on. Why
didn’t you correct me, Mark?!? Then, there were simple questions about
movement. For some reason, I went with what I had learned through play and
totally forgot that the book allowed for diagonal movement while prior GMs/DMs
had taught me that was a big no-no. Old habits are hard to break, sheesh.
Still, we had fun, and I turned back to the book between
last night and tonight.
So, I was around the part of movement and I’m here, looking
at the diagonal movement rules. I have to remember to count the first diagonal
square as one and the second as two, and then alternate back and forth like
that. That’s going to be picked up through practice. I don’t think I’d ever
remember something like that just from reading it. And, why can’t we use our
allies as cover. In a bar fight, I’m just as likely to use my own friends as
human shields—I can come back and avenge them later. Where’s that rule? Oh, it’s
not thee, because it is tactical and not realistic combat. Gotchya.
You can’t move through a square occupied by an opponent,
unless you use overrun or they are either three sizes larger or smaller. This
is coming back to me now. Combat and 3E and now Pathfinder is a long list of
rules with a longer list of exceptions.
I’m going to take a step back real quick.
I might sound like I’m complaining, but I’m not. I may be
poking a little bit of fun, but the Pathfinder RPG still seems like it’d be a
really good game. However, it comes to me that part of the fun is in memorizing
these rules and learning the different ways to use them to your advantage. It’s
like how some people play MMORPGs and have a great time by working out new
sequences of attack to achieve maximum effect. Now, that wasn’t me. When I
played them I was more of a collector and banker, but we all had fun. Here, we
have a lot of options and no one should learn them all right away unless they
have some sort of eidetic memory, but they will over time. This is probably
also colored somewhat by my reading a much thinner rules set right now as I go
through the Numenera RPG core book. There, I my character can accomplish the
same things as they could in Pathfinder without the math and the
considerations. However, by figuring out how best to do it in Pathfinder, it
isn’t just my character achieving something, it is me—the player—achieving something.
Moving right along, we come up to the discussions on cover
and creature size and how it can affect combat. Then, combat modifiers
including dazed, helpless, stunned, and many others are discussed. I will say
that, in my experience with d20/OGL role playing games, dazed and prone have
been two of the most common things I have run across. Flanking came up last
night. Many of the GMs I played with considered flanking being on two sides, as
long as the character’s we’re right next to one another—so, one directly to the
left and one directly above or below could flank. Ha. That was way wrong and I
remember having that discussion previously, but I was always overruled. So,
last night, when I was reminded I had to be on a directly opposite side, it
took me back for a second. It’s right, of course, but it makes me begin to
wonder how long it’ll take to break all these bad habits I built up over the
years.
This one, I had totally overlooked before, or maybe it didn’t
even exist. Aiding another in combat is pretty cool and it makes perfect sense.
I’m helping to distract or overpower the opponent, so my ally can get a bonus
to attack or AC. I don’t know that I have ever seen it used. I see things like
this as a bit of a drawback for new players. GMs and other players will help
new players, but to go over every possible action and option with them would
take too long. I mentioned cheat sheets before and I am beginning to realize
how long those cheat sheets would need to be. Playing the game enough, you’ll
pick up these tricks over time and kick yourself for not remembering the
options sooner when it might have saved the death of an ally. And, I think you
have to play it fairly regularly to begin picking these things up. I simply don’t
think the system lends itself well to casual game play for that reason.
Last night was the first time I had heard about a combat maneuvers
bonus and here I am reading about it today. This is basically the same as the
total attack bonus from earlier versions. However, they have figured a new
defensive mechanic, combat maneuvers defense, or CMD. For a game that is
supposed to be streamlined, why are things being added? Then, beyond this,
there are modifiers for certain maneuvers, indicating they are harder to pull
off. The Disarm, for example, subtracts four from the CMB. I look over at
overrun, which was an option I didn’t know I had last night when another player
suggested a charge maneuver. It’s interesting, because I can make a combat maneuver
roll or the opponent can avoid me. If they avoid me, no roll is needed and I
pass through their square. Does that mean I don’t get to make the attack? It
would seem so. But, if I do succeed, it only indicates I knocked them prone.
Still no attack? And, if they avoid me, does that mean they still get an attack
of opportunity? See, something that might seem simple to the veterans of the
game has these sorts of questions. I personally think these sorts of things are
exactly what we should ask ourselves and what the designers and writers should
be sure to answer, especially in a game for rife with distinctions and
exceptions.
I read over two weapon fight and realize I should’ve been
taking some horrible consequences, even with my feat. No one pointed this out,
though, even when I was still using the crappy Roll20 die roller (it hated me
last night) and go over math with them. And, this brings up an interesting
point. We may not have followed all the rules exactly as written, but we still
had fun. This, sadly, leads down a whole new road of discussion of homebrew
rules and how much you can change the system and if you don’t like the system
because you’re using your own rules, why not play a different system, etc.,
etc.
Bottom line: I enjoyed my game. There are a lot of fiddly
bits to the Pathfinder RPG—streamlined or not. There are a lot of things to
remember and there are certainly things that will be forgotten. It almost seems
designed for rules lawyers—a type of player I typically do not enjoy in my
games. Still, if you can get the basics and have fun, who cares? Nobody has to
be perfect. The whole point is to have fun with it and play YOUR game, not
somebody elses.
No comments:
Post a Comment