Pathfinder 1E This is why pathfinder has been successful.

[Reynard]

In a world of magic a low magic army that can't deal with a flying wizard is useless and thus wouldn't exist. In these worlds they have been fighting wars with magic for thousands of years. Both sides would have magic and anti magic capabilities.

QFT. Moreover, this line of reasoning covers a lot of the supposed holes in the world design: unless one assumes the PCs are unique (not a bad premise, but generally pretty far from the base D&D assumptions) they will hardly be the first to cone up with their brilliant plans. If high level PCs use S-B-T actions, chances are high value targets long ago learned to operate under the assumption of potential S-B-T attacks. Likewise, traps and magical defenses in tombs make perfect sense: the high priests and kings of old know adventuring tomb raiders use spells and such to plunder the treasures of the dead.

This is why I think it is really important for verisimilitudes' sake for the GM to decide what the general "magic level" of the setting is and stick to it, especially as it relates to the "average person" which, presumably, the PCs are at least when they begin their careers.

 

[Saint Mac]

This is interesting to me, since I'm planning to run Kingmaker in the near future. Any advice/strategy about how to avoid these problems? I'm interested in this being a role-play long term thinking campaign, not a "let me min-max my character to walk all over the challenges" kind of campaign.

Well, I guess Neon isn't a fan, but fair enough eveyone has their likes and dislikes. If I can, let me suggest going to itunes or d20 radio and checking out Chronicles Pathfinder. They have done a great review of what they have played so far. About midway through the podcast is their GM only zone so they don't worry about spoilers to the players. They discuss the some things that you might want to avoid or certainly be aware of it. Things like how the Kingdom building rules can be manipulated or even crushed. I found it to be really helpful.

 

[S'mon]

In a world of magic a low magic army that can't deal with a flying wizard is useless and thus wouldn't exist. In these worlds they have been fighting wars with magic for thousands of years. Both sides would have magic and anti magic capabilities.

Yes, but - the big problem is that a few levels' difference in magic level overwhelms everything else. 4th level is useless vs 8th. And 3e doesn't really have the tools for a large low-level force to defend vs high-level casters, even if they have plenty of access to magic.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Just so you know, not everyone agrees with Neonchameleon on that.

Oh, indeed.

It really has not been a problem in the Kingmaker campaign that I am running now - the PCs have been way too busy to have a 15 MAD, even without my adding, umm, problems to the mix. (And I do love adding problems to the mix.)

They try to do as much exploration as they can in a day, and a surprising number of days can pass with no combat at all.
...
Let us just say that they try to run through the major encounter areas with as little time spent dawdling as possible, even when it meant hauling of unconscious PCs. No deaths, yet, but a lot of folks driven to negatives, and my players are starting to really hate trolls. And bandits. And their neighbors. And anything with scales....

If you play the game actively against the system then yes, you can get this result. The Kingmaker fluff really isn't bad. But you are mechanically rewarded in a number of ways including XP and ability to extend your kingdom for not just entering and having a quick look round a hex but spending an entire IC day exploring it. (Two days for certain hexes).

Different play styles, different GMing styles, etc.. But I have not had to limit spellcasters, and the party seems willing to adventure with most of their spells depleted.

Change the setting assumptions and yes the problem with the setting assumptions being a horrible match for PF simply vanishes. But this does not change the fact that the default setting rules go out of their way to reward you for spending a whole day exploring each hex. And (with the exception of mini-dungeoncrawls and a couple of towns) there is not more than one encounter plus a couple of wandering monster rolls per hex.

Well, I guess Neon isn't a fan, but fair enough eveyone has their likes and dislikes. If I can, let me suggest going to itunes or d20 radio and checking out Chronicles Pathfinder. They have done a great review of what they have played so far. About midway through the podcast is their GM only zone so they don't worry about spoilers to the players. They discuss the some things that you might want to avoid or certainly be aware of it. Things like how the Kingdom building rules can be manipulated or even crushed. I found it to be really helpful.

On the subject of the Kingdom Building rules, I only know of one local group other than mine that have played Kingmaker - and they played it in PF. Apparently the Kingdom Building Rules killed the campaign stone cold dead. And I'm just fluffing ours to avoid this. (Well that and I've raised the tempo of everything; three weeks is a long time in adventuring).

 

[bouncyhead]

...you are mechanically rewarded in a number of ways including XP and ability to extend your kingdom for not just entering and having a quick look round a hex but spending an entire IC day exploring it. (Two days for certain hexes)...

Thanks for the spoiler alert with that one

 

[Neonchameleon]

Thanks for the spoiler alert with that one

... That is something I'd class as assumed information. It's not something you're supposed to need to discover, it's something you're supposed to know you are meant to do. Explore and map. This is part of the premise of the opening module - and part of the information I handed out to the players.

Next you'll be telling me to put spoiler warnings for mentioning that Savage Tide involves boats.

 

[Remus Lupin]

...
Next you'll be telling me to put spoiler warnings for mentioning that Savage Tide involves boats.

*slams down book*

THANKS! Thanks a lot!!

*stomps off in rage*

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Oh, indeed.



If you play the game actively against the system then yes, you can get this result. The Kingmaker fluff really isn't bad. But you are mechanically rewarded in a number of ways including XP and ability to extend your kingdom for not just entering and having a quick look round a hex but spending an entire IC day exploring it. (Two days for certain hexes).



Change the setting assumptions and yes the problem with the setting assumptions being a horrible match for PF simply vanishes. But this does not change the fact that the default setting rules go out of their way to reward you for spending a whole day exploring each hex. And (with the exception of mini-dungeoncrawls and a couple of towns) there is not more than one encounter plus a couple of wandering monster rolls per hex.



On the subject of the Kingdom Building rules, I only know of one local group other than mine that have played Kingmaker - and they played it in PF. Apparently the Kingdom Building Rules killed the campaign stone cold dead. And I'm just fluffing ours to avoid this. (Well that and I've raised the tempo of everything; three weeks is a long time in adventuring).

Except that I have not changed the system, nor am I playing against it - I use the rules as written, exploring a hex takes a day - but many hexes don't take long to play through.

The more... interesting hexes typically take longer, but most of the major encounter areas can still be finished in a single run, with two exceptions in the first two adventures.

Spoiler

They did have to rest when dealing with the Stag Lord's fort and the trolls - it took three days for the trolls, and the party got mauled twice. They did not blow through all their spells in a single encounter or even three.

They conserved spells even in the less major encounters, like a barrow, because they didn't know how major or minor the area would be.

There is a table for occurrences in the settlements - I substitute some, but the mechanic is there and intended to be used!

So again - not everybody agrees with you, and if they do not agree with you it does not mean that we are running the game against the way it is intended to be run.

The Auld Grump

 

[gamerprinter]

Oh, indeed.

So again - not everybody agrees with you, and if they do not agree with you it does not mean that we are running the game against the way it is intended to be run.

This. I almost don't think we're talking the same game system, PF doesn't give me these kinds of problems with Kingmaker - are you sure you are talking PF rules???

 

[Crothian]

This Kingmaker tangent would be better served in the Pathfinder forum where people can find the discussion.