Last year, somewhat by chance, I ended up with a whole bunch of Pathfinder books. After looking through them - especially the bestiaries - I decided that I liked them so much that I would like to GM this game at some time. Since then, I actually ended up buying a few more books... that said, I haven't got to playing this game yet.

Why? This game is scary - when it cames to the amount of rules. It crunchier than GURPS - the corerulebook has nearly 600 pages. And then, there are bestiaries, player and GM guides, advanced classes, books like Ultimate Magic / Campaign / whatever... I'm seriously overwhelmed.

And of course, before starting to GM, one needs to come up with a setting. That means decisions - on style and mood, on races available, on languages, on gods... And when you come up with gods, you need to create a whole cosmology for them... Again, more complicated than GURPS!

How to even start with this game??? Ugh...

Being a beginner GM, you could always just start simple.  Good players will understand that you would like to ease into the role and limit the character creation to just the basic core books to start and maybe allow the other non-core books at a later date when you feel more comfortable with running a campaign.  One piece of advice I gave to another fledgling GM was to use the introduction of another rulebook as an adventure hook...an expansion into a wider world for your party.

Most of the rule books are really just piecemeal articles that you don't really need to know very well. Skim over most of the specifics and then take a careful look at what your players actually pick. The SRD is your friend, I've spent a lot of time perfecting the ability to open manuals to the correct page, but for everyone else having a hyperlinked wiki available for all of the options is handy (the only way you can play a summoner in my opinion).

You are being too ambitious with your setting. What classes are available? What ever they picked! What races are around? Apparently the ones the PC's are have populations in the region, except the guy playing wolverine he's from some other region.

Powered by the Apocalypse (apocalypse world and it's contemporaries) actually have a really good guide on how to actually run games from the seat of your pants.

Crunchier than GURPS is maybe an overstatement. Isn't the collected page count of all the GURPS manuals something like 10,000 pages?

That being said if you know GURPS why are you trying to run PF? It's a steaming heap of un-fun filled garbage... IMHO

There are a lot of moving parts to Pathfinder, but it's much simpler than GURPS overall.  The thing you'll find quickly is that while there are a LOT of rules... most characters only touch on a fraction of them, especially at low level.  You need to read through the combat section a couple of times, check out the glossary, and skim skills and you're probably well enough equipped to run a module.

Getting started, I'd suggest running a module or two to get your feet wet.  Master of the Fallen Fortress is really popular for that http://paizo.com/products/btpy...-the-Fallen-Fortress and another option are the Goblins modules, which are just fun (and show the Golarion goblins in all of their sneaksy evilness) http://paizo.com/products/btpy...Module-We-Be-Goblins

For your first time out, you can force folks to use pre-generated characters (the goblins modules include them, and Pathfinder Society has a ton of them).  That'll greatly cut down on your issues with learning characters, etc.

Another alternative is if you have the Basic Set.  It has a scaled-down rule set you can use and it's very easy to make characters in and run.

By no means does anyone have to be aware of every single rule, choice and option in a D&D game. That's one of the nice things about level-based games: everyone only really needs to be familiar with the things relevant to the level at which they're playing. That's going to be a fair amount even at first level, since there can be a lot of basic rules, but it's still just a segment of what's necessary.

Then there's stuff that just isn't going to come up in your games. If you're not planning to involve seafaring, don't bother learning about the relevant rules, feats, items or monsters. Etc. That's one of the nice things about dungeon-based adventures.

The great thing is that you don't need to make all those choices yourself. Get some players interested in the general idea of a simple Pathfinder game, and then collaborate with them on the details.

And contain those details. Why do you need a cosmology at all? Not every game depends on that level of detail.

I can understand wanting those details, or feeling that they're necessary, but games really can get by on less. One thing they can't get by on is a frustrated, overwhelmed GM, so you'll need to find a balance. Remember that it's fiction, and don't hold yourself to too high a standard, as most of them are unrealistic anyway. You're not Tolkien, and you don't have his kind of time, or his goals. You're just playing a game. Let your guide be more modern stories where lots the details aren't written yet, because the writer (like most GMs) doesn't know how long the story will need to last. My bet would be that a lot of the stories you enjoy didn't initially have nearly the backstory they appeared to have down the road.

Hm. I can't imagine why I wouldn't need a cosmology? If I'm running the game in a setting that's supposed to be my own, I need to come up with my own gods (otherwise, there won't be any of clerics to choose from). And if I come up with gods, these gods need to make sense conceptually. Meaning, I need to create some sort of cosmology...

It's the same with creatures like demons, devils etc. I feel that if I include them in the setting, I need to know where they come from, so that I RP them faithfully. And that means creating the history of the universe... Uh.

One solution I have is to decide that the gods are basically unknowable and that there might hundreds of religions out there worshipping their own gods. So, a cleric player would get to create their own custom god during character creation...

As for having to choose races beforehand: let's say that I run the first adventure as a goblin encounter. Then, I decide that the setting is supposed to be serious, gritty and dark... But that doesn't fit with that first adventure, which included goblins! Which are funny and cute and cartoonish! So, I need to know beforehand whether I include goblins...

Anyway, thanks for the advice! Keep it coming...

BTW. Reading the rulebook right now. I'm on page 30 and so far, so good. Although I don't get why sorcerers use Charisma to cast magic... And why Strength determines the ability to hit someone in melee. Some of these rules are weird...

There's a good reason its nickname is Mathfinder.

Well, at least the character creation isn't as complex as in GURPS. GURPS is great (I think... I have yet to play it, even though I have a ton of books), but the character creation can take days there.

Like many people said, the best way to go about rules is to have the SRD handy and check the necessary rules whenever they come up - you don't really need to know them by memory and you'll soon learn the ones you need more often.

On the matter of the setting, improvising is likely less hard than you think - get yourself a few dozen fantasy maps, cobble them together and rename/repopulate as necessary to fit your player choices and concepts. Using real-life cultures as models is also pretty easy, particularly the less known time periods - everybody has an idea of what happened in France during the Revolution, but the time period after the Restauration is much less well known, despite being the choice setting for a number of famous fiction. As for gods, the SRD offers stats for a multitude of them - here's the link, just pick the ones you like the most, or which fit your setting choices the best.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classe...ains/gods-pantheons/

That said, if you're using Pathfinder as a system, why not use the in-house setting of Paizo, Golarion? It has a perfectly free accessible wiki, a setting that allows for pratically every plotline or ideas you could possibly want to explore, and offers a wealth of fluff for many classes, seeing as they were created with the setting in mind. I can understand not wanting to use the modules/adventure path if you have a story of your own you want to use (even if, as said, a lot of them are really good) but the setting itself can be used indipendently.

As for those rules who seem strange, that's because a good number were inherited from D&D 3.5, which itself was adapting an ever older system. Sorcerer use Charisma to cast because the amount of power they control is supposed to depend on the force of their personality, which is what Charisma controls; and hits depend on Strenght on the simple principle that stronger characters are better at close combat (unless special training is involved, which is what feats are supposed to represent).

If you were asking from a mechanical standpoint, though, STR determines to hit because otherwise it'd be fully useless (since it only determines melee to-hit and damage, and the two most useless skills; compare with DEX, which is the strongest stat in the game as it determines a whole ton of things). In fact people drop it enough already in character creation as it is, since most casters don't need it and archery is superior to melee anyway.

About the Sorcerer, the truth is that it was designed to be weaker than the Wizard. Thus, since casters become deadlier when they can maximize their casting stat, they were assigned CHA because it is the most useless stat in the game, as it only determines the effect of a few skills. Most of the other spontaneous casters simply followwed the Sorcerer because, ironically, it's more balanced: spellcasting is the most powerful ability in the game, so tying it to the weakers stat makes it slightly harder for casters to dominate everything, at least at the lower levels and/or with lower point-buy options.
This message was last edited by the user at 21:44, Thu 20 Apr 2017.

I sort of feel from this like you're not being serious here. Who says goblins are funny, cute and cartoonish? It seems like you're blocking your own process more than the game itself is.

If you could assure me that you really want explanations for these things, and that you're not just pulling our legs, I'd be happy to help you come up with ones that work for you.

In reply to GammaBear (msg # 7):

Mathmaster called, said their dad could beat up Pathfinder's dad. :P

Just a quick reply before I hit the bed (work in the morning...):

Engine, I assure you that I am serious! Really... And I do consider goblins cute. Just look at the official Paizo art.

They are like gremlins or critters... and both of these races were created for comedy horror movies. They were funny and goblins are funny, too!
This message was last edited by the user at 21:53, Thu 20 Apr 2017.

In reply to Varsovian (msg # 12):

They're funny, yes, but they can be horror too if you want to handle them that way; Paizo AP/modules offers plenty of examples of this. And besides, mood whiplash is a thing, too - nothing wrong with graduating from fighting fools to actual serious threats. If anything, that's pretty classic as far as fantasy tales go.

intimidating is more the word... lol

Scary is some of the stuff in WoD ... o.o
Not many table top companies had multiple source books that shops refused to carry due to the content in them.

From what I'm told some of the worse books read like snuff films in parts. x.x

A lot of the best PF I've ever played just uses the 3 basic books and maybe 1-4 more.

I'm having fun in one thats like 4 pages long. lol

In reply to Varsovian (msg # 12):

They are whatever you want them to be. Gnomes and halflings were invented to be funny, but Eberron took them and made them pretty terrifying.

The thing with most fictional stuff is that you have to buy-in for it to work. You have to agree with whatever premise is explicitly or implicitly being put forth. You may think that goblins are funny and goofy, but if you were playing in a game in which the GM was trying to make them a frightening horde, then you would need to buy in for that GM's game to work.

Questions asked of fictional worlds have no real answer. In the real world, most things work a certain way for some objective reason. That's not the case with anything fictional. In fiction things work a certain way because someone decided they should. Maybe that someone is very clever and hardworking and can make it seem like it's only natural that things should work that way, but since things don't really work that way, there's a falsehood somewhere. The audience can pick at the idea (maybe the author even hopes they will) but eventually they'll just unravel it and then they don't have the fun fiction anymore.

So, why do sorcerers depend on Charisma? The books, or I, or most people here could probably give you an answer, but that answer is only as "correct" and "real" as you want it to be. The only real reason for it is the same reason bishops can only move diagonally: because it's an attempt to make the game more interesting.

Basically, I advise not fighting the rules. If something is true, accept it as true, don't worry about the explanation. Buy in.

I like Eberron, but Dark Sun did it first and made both far more terrifying ;)

In reply to swordchucks (msg # 18):

Okay, thanks. The point stands.

I totally agree about the gods. There has to be some idea of who and what they are and how they relate to one another and to man. Even if they are "unknowable" their worshippers THINK they know them. So, the players have to know at least what the priests are saying about the gods.

Demons, devils, and imps from hell, unless that is going to be a focus of your campaign, of your world, you can bring in a one-off without a lot of background. Since they aren't part of the natural world, characters might only know that the priests say that there is a netherworld inhabited by foul creatures of the dark who might emerge (rarely) to prey on the unwary or unprepared. Especially, if you're going with a pantheistic, multi-god setting, you don't need much demonology. They really only come up in dualistic theologies (Christianity/Islam) where they are the counterpart of a singular (albeit perhaps tripartite?) deity and her/his helper angels.

Finally, races... I started with OD&D. We had humans, dwarves, and elves as playable races. That was plenty. If YOU really want to have halflings and orcs and such as playable races, cool. Or if you want to include other races to accomodate a player's wish, cool again. But those other races can be left for future discovery.

I always thought (if I went back to fantasy settings) that I would start with a single town and the region within a day's walk. That's all the PCs would KNOW beyond vague rumors. They're all from right around the town, have never travelled farther than that day's walk, and we'd all fill in the wider world as we go.

I guess what I'm saying is, keep it simple.

This is exactly how my brother-in-law does it. I tend to use the published settings, but my brother-in-law always starts off with a very small area, usually a single village. He is also fairly tight on allowed races for the characters starting off from there - usually anything in the core rules of the ruleset - and then he'll allow more wonderful and strange things later on.

Basically, I'd agree with what everyone else says. I like the Pathfinder system, but it can get overwhelming if you let it. Unless you're feeling very confident do not allow a 'anything goes'. Establish yourself first, figure out the way the rules work. Start off by either allowing core rules only or, at the most generous, 'anything from the following sources' - but no more than 2 or 3 other books. There's time enough for all the stranger stuff later.

And don't let someone's RTJ bully you into stretching what you have decided to do. You don't have to run a game for everyone. You'll find your players that are content with your boundaries and those who aren't can find another game.

Or just run a setting without actual gods. Divine magic comes from a person's inner strength, or the positive and negative forces of the universe or whatever.

I'm not completely familiar with Pathfinder, but I assume they stepped away from the requirement in most editions of D&D that some poor soul play a cleric (or gin up a complicated replacement), so if having gods is problematic, just say "no divine spellcasters."

Oh, back when I was thinking of what my GURPS fantasy game could be like, I went even further and decided  that such a game wouldn't have any spell-casters, divine or otherwise... But I guess that wouldn't fly in PF or other DnD-derived games, as too many creatures there have magic powers and vulnerabilities. Playing without casters could be tricky...

BTW. You know which spell-casting class I'd very tempted to ban from my PF game? Bards. I just don't buy the idea of magical bards at all...

As for the "start with one village" idea, it's an interesting approach, but it works only for beginner characters, I think? Meanwhile, I'm not sure I'd like to start with 1st-level PCs - there aren't many interesting creatures you could pit them against...

Don't use those monsters then.

Don't use them then. However, figuring out how, within the rules, one can make them interesting and exciting (or dark, or gritty, or whatever), is a helpful mental exercise. If one can do it with bards, one can do it with almost anything.

Why do you think that?

That depends entirely on your imagination and what you mean by "pit them against."

Why do I think that "one village" idea works only for beginner characters? Well, if you put high-level characters there, it'd just look strange - how come one small village has master warriors, experts mages etc.? Also, you'd need to explain how come these experienced people don't know anything about the world outside their village...

As for monsters, I don't think you could have a successful game with 1st level character fighting a powerful demon, or something? Unless it'd be a game of "how can we stop the threat of the demon without fighting the demon directly". I guess this could be interesting...

Is it your position that there's no possible answer to that question?

There's also a range between "beginner characters" and "master warriors, expert mages."

I think you're too focused on extremes, and you're too focused on the players knowing what the characters know. Characters know much more than players, like magic, and non-existent languages. So, just because your game isn't doing much beyond one small area doesn't mean the characters don't know more.

"There needs to be an explanation" isn't a reason for not doing something. Come up with that explanation, ideally in collaboration with your players, or just assume there is one and move on.

Exactly. The Fellowship of the Ring has no hope of fighting Sauron... but they don't have to. They just have to deal with threats that are closer to their level, so that they can deal with Sauron indirectly. Thorin's party can't hope to fight stone giants, but they can still survive an encounter with them.

I think you're seriously overthinking things from a campaign setting perspective.  You truly don't have to develop a full cosmology to start a fantasy game with clerics.  You can do that if you want to, but you don't have to.  The alternative is to make it up as you go, possibly with player assistance.

I strongly recommend you read Dungeon World.  It has fantastic advice for how to run a game with virtually nothing planned before the first play session.

With respect to determining a campaign's tone, I again think you are overthinking it somewhat.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with telling your players after a couple encounters that you think goblins would be more interesting in this particular campaign if you change them up from how they were initially presented.  Let your players know you're new to running Pathfinder and you may adjust things as you go to make for a better game.  Solicit player opinion on the changes if you like.  Good players will not freak out at this.  You don't even have to have an in-game explanation for the change.  Just do it.  If you can't let go that much, decree that the first goblins they encountered were a different type of goblin from the new ones and that both exist in the campaign world (the party just won't be seeing the first type again).  Maybe the first goblins were under the influence of some magical effect that altered them.  Coming up with explanations is just a question of applying a little imagination, but I would encourage you not to put yourself through that effort.  The game won't implode if you just announce some things are being changed and move on.

Varsovian, what's a game that you consider not to be "scary" and why not? Why are you feeling the need to engage with Pathfinder, if it doesn't suit you and you are leery about customizing it?

I want to chime in on a couple of things.

TL;DR  Pathfinder's cruch has advantages.  Attributes are a bit deeper than you may think, and Charisma totally makes sense for sorcerers when you go down that rabbit hole of thought.

First, while PF is very, very crunchy and has an overwhelming amount of content to track, there are definite advantages to having those conditions.  The biggest one is that any (and I mean ANY) player concept can be realized if you know how to pull the strings behind the system.  You want to run a martial artist that shoots magic out of his body?  You can do that (Qinggong Monk).  Want to run a half-undead cleric trying to get in touch with nature even while he's wasting away?  Playable (Oracle).  Or let's get weird, how about a sneaky assassin who specializes in a gigantic two-handed weapon and an acrobatic fighting style?  That's a thing you can do (Bladed Brush feat and the like combined with Unchained Rogue).  For me and a lot of others, one of the biggest selling points for Pathfinder is how well you are rewarded for increasing your system mastery.  Once you start getting a handle on things, you can start breaking away from standard stereotypes to do some seriously cool stuff.

Second, I want to address the Strength/Charisma questions and expand them a bit.

There's a good bit of misconception about what the six attributes have to say about a character.  Strength does reflect the brute strength of a character to a degree (in the total ability score, this is definitely true), and it also shows how good a character is at bringing about success through that ability's use (this is shown with the ability modifier).  So let's put that in perspective with the math.  In Pathfinder, most basic checks have a Difficult Class (DC) of around 15 and most commoners have a high ability score of perhaps 13 or 15 with modifiers of +1 and +2 respectively.  You may checks by rolling a d20 and adding your modifier to the roll.  If you meet or beat the DC, you succeed.  So, the average joe who is doing something that they're physically capable of doing (judging by ability score and modifier) needs to roll a 14 or 13 (or higher) on the d20 to succeed at something for which they have no training.  That's about 40% odds of success.  Not awful, but not amazing.  But Pathfinder also shows that training matters through the Skills system.  Each Skill Rank increases your odds by 5%, and if it's a skill your naturally disposed to learning, you get an additional +15% (one time bonus) as soon as you invest a Skill Rank.  So a first level commoner with a Skill Rank in something that they're naturally disposed to doing ends up with something more like 60% odds of success or better.  And then the commoner can even get additional modifiers by using certain bits of equipment (+1 to +5 boon), getting help from someone (+2 to +4), or by specializing in a particular skill with a feat (+2 to +6).  Then the odds go way up to being basically a guaranteed success.  Taken together, that all makes realistic, mathematical sense, and now to circle back to the point.  The attributes are meant to merely reflect a person's natural potential for accomplishing different types of tasks.  Training, investment, aid, and equipment are necessary to unlock that potential, and Pathfinder does a good job of reflecting that.

A good visual might be to envision different sorts of folks trying to climb a rock wall with varying physiques, training, help, and equipment.  From the bare-knuckle natural without a rope or helpful friend to the seasoned, muscular veteran with good gear and a buddy on the safety line; there's a big range in between those extremes.

I say all that first to help give the frame of mind for how I look at the six attributes.  At their core, ability scores a reflection of a character's inner potential to do a thing.  Strength shows not only how physically strong or athletic a person is, but how well he is able to bring that strength to bear.  That doesn't necessarily make him good with a weapon though.  Training does that (weapon proficiency) and experience fuels his development (BAB, feats, class features).  Dexterity is a reflection of a person's coordination, reflexes, and agility.  With training, it's possible to use that natural ability to hit folks with a weapon (Weapon Finesse), but untrained folks lack the understanding and experience to accomplish such a thing.  You could say that Strength is how good a person is busting down a door while Dexterity shows good you are at picking the lock.  Another common dichotomy exists between Intelligence and Wisdom.  My favorite way to show the difference is this: "Intelligence is knowing what side of the street a car drives; Wisdom is knowing to look both ways before crossing one."

But lets get to Charisma specifically.  The common perception is that Charisma is a reflection of attractiveness, personality, and leadership.  Those all ring true for me as well, but I also view it as the "brightness of a person's soul" so to speak or at least in that they appear that way to others.  A person with a higher Charisma is more noticeable, influential.  They are highly capable of expressing themselves in meaningful, powerful ways.  In other words, Charisma is a measure of how much ability a person has to change the world around themselves through their own innate power.  Looking at Paladins, they are mostly a martial based class that relies on their Strength and training to deal with most situations, but they can also dial it to eleven when the circumstances are right with their ability to Smite as well as bolstering those that stand with them just through their presence with their Aura.  Moving on to Sorcerers, Charisma makes a good bit of sense with their flavor.  Their power is literally in their blood; it's a part of them indivisible from their bodies.  If Charisma is a measure of effectual expression of inner potential, then this makes quite a bit of sense as a spellcasting attribute for them.  A Sorcerer is literally using the power within their bodies to effect the world around them.  At least within the Pathfinder context, I think that this makes total sense.

In 3.0 or 3.5 D&D, it is also true that Charisma was the spellcasting statistic at that time.  However, the flavor was much, much different.  In that system, the sorcerer's power came from spirits with whom the sorcerer communed to gain power.  Even in that context, the Charisma choice makes sense because the sorcerer would need to effectually influence other beings in order to gain and use their powers.

In my home Pathfinder game, we're eight sessions in to the current game and the paladin still hasn't bothered figuring out which god he worships (and it's standard Golarion, so figuring it out would take ten minutes on a wiki).  That kind of stuff can enhance the game, but it's not required by any means.

About the goblins.

I don't see why all goblins have to be the same. Not all Native Americans are/were the same, even among the same cultural/language group.

Maybe the first group was less warlike or more 'civilized'or more worn down. Then the next group is a wilder bunch, more vengeful toward humans or just have come under the sway of a more warlike leader.

And who knows what the next bunch will be like?

Or that one Goblin learns the secrets of Necromancy and everyone has to deal with the Goblin problem twice from now on.  Once while they're alive, and a second time when they are raised up.

^Actual storyline from a game I ran years ago.  The players also thought the Goblins were cute until they came back to raid the village a second time with far fewer shenanigans and cowardice to hold them back.

I've always had trouble with Charisma, but believe it or not I arrived at almost the same realization just a few days ago. I now think of Charisma as an actual objective quality or quantity about a person, sort of like a radiation they give off: it can warm or it can burn. At the extreme godlike end, it can be overpowering for everyone around, even one's allies. All will love them, and despair.

All that said, that interpretation obviously doesn't affect the rules, or give them a logical basis, it just helps us imagine it. There's no particular reason Varsiovian will accept it as reasonable, but I hope they'll see it as way players can justify the rules to themselves.

Thanks for all the comments and advice, folks!

I keep reading the core rulebook. I made it up to the combat chapter. So far, so good... I actually do understand everything, more or less. I'll see how combat works and whether it's complicated...

One note: rules for spells *are* intimidating. For instance, clerics have normal spells, orizons, domain spells, domain powers... I feel like a player might need a flipchart to organize all this.

@Engine: why do you think PF isn't suited for me? I don't feel that way. Although I do agree that GURPS is closer to my idea of my idea of RPing - but who says I can run only one system?

As for games that aren't "scary": NWoD is easy, for once. I also haven't had any problems with M&M 2E or Call of Cthulhu. Numenera and The Strange I did consider scary (system-wise), but I managed to wrap my head around them and now I quite appreciate their simple (if weird) rules...

I don't either, I just thought you thought that way. Apparently not.

You know that Chaosium also has their GURPS-like Basic Roleplaying system that can be used in any type of role play setting. And they have recently re-acquired and re-booted RuneQuest, which I understand was more or less the foundation for Call of Cthulhu's mechanics.

Neither are (obviously) as well-known as Pathfinder or Dungeons and Dragons, but they might be worth a look.

From the product view: "RuneQuest took the young world of roleplaying games by storm [in 1978]; it cast aside many of the approaches most other games took. It had no character classes, no experience points, no levels, and far fewer restrictions on how weapons, armor, and spells could be used. Instead of a D20 it uses a percentile 01-100 system. It also has the built-in fantasy world of Glorantha."

I have never played it, but it certainly sounds less crunchy.
This message was last edited by the user at 13:11, Sat 22 Apr 2017.

If Pathfinder is scary, wait til Starfinder comes out. :3

Start small.  For any system,  if it's your first time GMing, it's always best to start with a published module.  Explain this to your players, and they should understand.  From this you can start building your setting.

Only develop what you need - if you don't have any clerics or druids, you probably don't need a cosmology or pantheon (or just go with the ones in the Core Rulebook).  Actually, I'm a cleric in another game, and my GM had me come up with my own deity, and it was kind of fun, so don't hesitate getting your players involved.

Okay, guys, question!

Prestige classes: how do they work, exactly? Let's say we have a character who is Fighter / Wizard and decides to take Eldritch Knight as a prestige class. Does he become Fighter / Wizard / Eldritch Knight and can progress in any of these classes, or does he just become and Eldritch Knight and cannot take any more classes of Wizard or Fighter?

In reply to Varsovian (msg # 40):

They become a Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight, and can progress in any of the classes.

The only difference between a prestige class and normal classes, besides power and abilities, is that a prestige class has a high bar to get over in order to take it.  They're something to work towards.

I see, thanks!

Another question: is it mandatory to RP Pathfinder combat on a square grid? I don't like squares...

I know people have done hex versions of it before (see the Hex Grid rule variant on the d20srd site for 3.5 edition), but I'm far too lazy for that because all the facings/reach rules assume squares and I don't want to convert everything.  Also a lot of adventures assume structures which I feel are better with squares (though I should note PF itself uses hexes for overland adventuring territories).

By RAW, every other diagonal square of movement counts as two (i.e. 10 feet), which seems to solve the common problem with squares.

I've sworn off PF for all things 5e and couldn't be happier. PF is ludicrous. It was my first love and I could do nothing but watch as the thing swelled and swelled and swelled. Like, damn girl, stop eating. GO for a run or something. But nope.. She just got bigger and bigger.

I left her for 5e. She may be a bit dumb but damn her body is fine.

I was thinking more of discarding the grid altogether and just measuring distances. That's the way I ran combat in M&M and it worked out fine...

Gonna lift this from another thread, thought it could be useful here....

While getting everyone on the same page for optimization is a good general practice, a system that essentially requires you to calculate your DPR in order to meaningfully participate seems like a failure of design...

5e is simple and playable, and designed to keep the math from spiralling too far out of control with tottering towers of multipliers and bonuses.  Sure there are the edge case warlock stacking builds, but you don't have to k'nex together a Rube Goldberg machine of feats to stay relevant in a given party.

While I appreciate rewarding system mastery, I feel Pathfinder leans waaaay to far towards rewarding and punishing decisions made during character generation and advancement.  Actions, strategies, and intelligent decisions made during play will never compensate for your colorful and characterful but behind-the-curve build.</quote>

-sigh-

Both have advantages. Let's not go edition wars take 5.

In reply to willvr (msg # 47):

Oh yeah, I'll totally concede that Pathfinder has some points for it.  It has much more open character generation options, and a huge amount of material and legacy support.  You can go to the moon and back at chargen with just first party material, to say nothing of the vast number of modules that have been printed to strip for parts.  Plus, there's some satisfaction to be found in mechanically intricate characters, encounters, and interactions.

On top of that, I much prefer Golarion to the Forgotten Realms, as well, as a default setting.

I just felt that the case for 5e's advantages hadn't really been articulated.  It's too easy to correlate "simple" with "poorly conceived" or "limited."

In reply to GreyGriffin (msg # 48):

The only problem I have with 5E is I think their modules are poorly written. If you're going to the modules due to lack of time to write your own, they make you do far too much work to make the module flow.

However, I quite enjoy playing it. I play it offline; whilst the only PF I can do is online, as none of my regular playing group want to run it.

To be honest, for me, what is important if I'm running something is good module support; whilst if I'm playing it all comes down to the playing group. 5E doesn't do well with a group of rules lawyers for example; but can do quite well with people with whom the main aim is character development (as in history/personality not stats).

So thoughts on creating your own pantheon;

First, it is not completely necessary, I've considered running a setting without any active deities, with non of the divine casters except for druids, hunters, oracles and rangers, going on the idea that they draw their powers from nature itself, different aspects in the case of oracles and pure nature in the case of druids.  This doesn't mean mortals can't believe in deities, or that they don't exist, but that no deity actually answers prayers with magic, this creates a world where mortals have a lot more say over their world, since they have no deities interfering with them.

Second, chose a paradigm; decide if you want a singular all powerful deity(possibly with different aspects), or a group of deities, since we're talking pantheon will assume the latter, though if you like, I can discuss a few ideas of the former with you.

Pathfinder goes on an interesting path, you have to look a little close to notice it, but twos, threes and sevens are hit a lot in their primary setting deities.  They have seven good aligned deities, and a deity for each of the seven sins, though lust is a chaotic neutral rather then a evil one.  Each alignment has 2 deities, except for Lawful Good, which has 3, and each of them give a different take on what that alignment means, and producing a total of nineteen major deities.  There are a number of lesser deities as well, but the primary are those nineteen.

There are a few other settings which have different layouts for their major deities, Scarred Lands has one major deity for each alignment, though the purely neutral one is the titan of nature.  The paradigm is completely different from the main pathfinder world, all major gods are descended from the titans, whose cruelty drove them to rebel against their parents.  This created a completely different world setting wise, especially since the titans still struggle against their imprisonment, and it is only been a few centuries since the great war.

Meanwhile, Dragonlance had seven deities for each alignment, at least until recently, and it seriously colored their world due to how active those deities were.  Of course, the dragons who served the gods of evil and those who served the gods of good had a lot of effect on the world as well.  The history of dragonlance is the history of deities interfering with mortals, most so then most settings.

Generally, if your going for a pantheon, first decide how active you want them to be, do they only act though their servants, or do they act directly upon the world.  Next, decide how many of them you have; in my opinion, for a pantheon, the smallest you should consider is four(4 elemental deities), and while there is no limit to the largest, I've seen a setting were they had 100 deities after all.  However, I would not suggest 100 deities for someone starting on their own setting.  Technically 2 and 3 is possible, but generally I see these as more a variation on the singular deity idea.

The multiplicity of spells generally doesn't provide too much of a burden, and as the spellcaster is usually one of the classes that requires a bit more bookkeeping in nearly any system, I hope the player in question would be prepared to write things down.

I've played both arcane and divine spellcasters, and I will say that a domain spell, as it is generally used by divine casters who prepare their spells, effectively just becomes another part of your daily prepared spells.  It's actually easiest to remember, as that one spell slot rarely changes.

Orison and cantrips are also not too bad.  They are either low-level divinations (detect magic, detect poison) that are busted out in non-combat situations, minor combat spells broken out in extremis (ray of frost, acid splash, spark), or small utility spells (mage hand, open/close, prestidigitation).  No one has very many at any one time (the max is 6), and because they are so minor, they aren't going to tip game balance very hard one way or the other.

Special powers, like domain powers, bloodline powers, school powers, oracle powers, witch curses, etc., those are class features. I jolly well hope you remember your class features.  Like your spells and weapons, these are the things you look at when determining your options for actions in any given situation.

All of this does require more tracking and writing than, say, your average rogue, but anyone who wants to jump into a spellcasting character should be ready with their pencil.  I don't think it's excessive, and once you know roughly what spells you're going to have for a given situation, you just use that list for the adventuring day.

Okay, so here's a question:

1st-level characters. How do you make an interesting PF game for them? Judging by the bestiaries, these characters can only fight rats or goblins...

BTW. What kind of stories is it possible to do in PF? What are you experiences?

If you want to get into creative encounters there are a couple of ways to do so.

One, there are 6 Bestiaries, so there are more than just rats and goblins to choose from.  Even in just the first book there are low-level undead, animals, and magical beasts (and others).

Two, your fellow man (or demihuman) is always a legitimate threat.  Bands of warriors of any race can be brigands and thieves, tribes of demon-worshipping raiders, etc.

As for what kinds of stories... What kinds can you tell with D&D?  What can you tell with any roleplaying game?  Wade into the dungeon and raid the corrupted tomb, go to the forest and find out what's making the mysterious lights, infiltrate the crime guild in the city to see who's blackmailing the nobles, go fight a dragon and rescue a princess!  (Or fight some kobolds and rescue the merchant's daughter.)

In reply to Varsovian (msg # 52):

You ask your players what kind of game would interest them.

You're either being sarcastic about the monster selection or you're not really trying. Look again.

Also, the characters don't need to fight, or anyway don't need to fight to the death. It's not always necessary to kill or even hurt the other side to accomplish one's goal. If they're raiding a barrow but have no hope of actually clearing it, maybe they can make a quick raid for some of the less well-guarded treasure, to fund a strong raid later.

As usual, thanks for answers!



I'd need to check, but aren't even low-level undeaded tougher than CR 1 or 2?



Ah, I keep forgetting that you simply can have the players fight against normal humans :) I guess I'm too enamoured with the Bestiaries beasties...

Still, a band of warriors might be too tough for 1st-level characters to fight...



How about mood, style etc.? Pathfinder has such comic-booky art... Could it be used for something a bit more realistic, like Game of Thrones-style settings etc.?



I admit that my perception of PF / D&D might be a bit warped due to Baldur's Gate and similar cRPGs. Which featured a lot of combat encounters...

On the other hand, isn't PF somewhat geared toward combat? Its combat rules are quite robust.
This message was last edited by the user at 05:13, Sat 20 May 2017.

Robust combat rules don't mean that's what a game is "geared toward." By that logic, we could say that PF/D&D is geared toward magic, because spells take up so much space.

Combat rules need to be precise because that's where the most crucial questions arise because that's where player's playing pieces (if not the players themselves) can be eliminated from the game. Everyone needs to be on the same page in terms of what can and can't happen, so when something happens everyone agrees that it should have. That in no way eliminates the inevitable arguments when a character dies, but the effort I'd necessary.

Skills are extremely important to the game too, it's just that it's a) much more difficult to do for Perform or Spot what they can do for combat, and b) if Perform or Spot goes pear-shaped, it's not necessarily the end of the world. Though, look at the skills where a flub /might/ really mean a disaster, like Stealth or Jump or Climb. Those skills get a lot of ink, because, as with combat, there's a high chance of an argument coming up.

But, hey, focus on combat. I'm a fan, myself. The game has a class called "Fighter" for goodness sake and every dang thing has HP. I Just keep in mind that combat doesn't need to mean a fight to the death, and doesn't mean that the combat rules have to come into play at all.

Okay then, good to know. I was just sharing my impressions...

In reply to Varsovian (msg # 57):

My bad. It was framed as a question, so I took it that way.

When it comes to any game system it takes work to make a story, its still a good platform for story telling. It gives you races with options if you wish them. It gives you a world, you don't have to use if you do not wish too. You can always adjust it to what you want. Still, like any system you need to read basics, and be willing to take the time to read through things. It has an elaborate system for combat, or you can use quick and dirty rules, it is really all about the story you are telling, when it comes to low level creatures there are plenty to contend with. You can toss wild animals because at low levels, they are a challenge. Given most people are assumed to be 16 ish starting out, it really is a thing of building up as you grow, you see. There are numerous things, wolves, goblins, kobolds, other people, natural terrors its really about how you set the story, to what combats are what.

I am sure it can be daunting coming into a new system. However, much of Pathfinder stuff is in the wiki, so you can really run it from the web if you have need to.  When it comes to CRPG's, that's not all there is to DnD or Pathfinder, I have played all editions of DnD, and Pathfinder to date 4th edition dnd gets close to the CRPG's feel.

It can be as gritty as you want it to be, you can decide the world is low magic, you can make the calls as a gm. If you want something note in it. Implement a House Rule for your game. Its all about you and your way of story telling.
This message was last edited by the user at 02:47, Sun 21 May 2017.

Heavens, some skeletons you can throw at first level characters, no problem!  (Skeletons come in a wide variety of CRs.)  A small group of human or goblin skeletons sound/look quite intimidating, but you also have to remember that most low-level undead are dumb as a brick.  The group could lure them into a dangerous area and drop them into a pit or off a cliff, or even just get on the high ground or crowd around a doorway and play whack-a-skull as they trudge up to the line.

Conversely, skeletons controlled by an evil spellcaster become a lot more dangerous, as they have someone directing them.  As your players gain in levels, you can reinvigorate old threats like skeletons in this way.



Most low-level bandits are probably level 1 warriors, the NPC fighter class, and hence usually rate around 1/2 CR.  A group of them will be a little tougher, but well within the capabilities of a first-level party (particularly because most bandit bands won't have a party cleric healing them in the middle of a fight).

The other advantage is that bandits are intelligent people.  They might attack from ambush or during the night, but if the fight goes against them, they'll run away or surrender instead of fighting to the death.  People become bandits because they don't want to work or they're desperate to do anything to live, and neither are going to throw their lives away fighting some strangers when they prove to be tough. They'd rather run away and attack a less-wary traveler sometime later.



The mood and style of your game is dictated by you and you alone.  The art for Pathfinder was chosen because Paizo thought it looked eye-catching and dynamic.  But if you wish a more realistic Game of Thrones version?  Absolutely.  Pull up some production stills or put on an episode and say to your players, "My game is more like this."  You can decide to use or not use any of Pathfinder's material for your game, keeping what fits your style, and banning the use of things that don't work.  There are even rules variations if there are base mechanics you'd rather see work in a different way (like, say, having variations with less magical healing, or different ways of using wounds).  Those rules variations can be found in Pathfinder Unchained, if that floats your boat, or you can just experiment with the core rules on your own - no one shall stop you.  :)

If you don't like the idea of fighting monks, you don't have to have them in your game.  Only race allowed is human?  That's your prerogative.  No one from Pathfinder can tell you how to play your game.
This message was last edited by the user at 12:15, Sun 21 May 2017.

FYI, Paizo has all of their core content available for free online.  Here's a fast link to the Bestiary index: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG...ndices/bestiary.html

It's got a bunch of filters on it that you can use to help you find what you want.  Easy, low level monsters can definitely include zombies: I count 5 that are CR 1 or lower.  Personally, I like the idea of "corruption" spreading around and infecting various low level beasts.  In other words, I like to apply the Fiendish template (or some of the other templates) to some under CR 1 monsters to turn them into legitimate threats for low level parties.  There's also some low-end fey creatures called Gremlins that I would highly recommend looking into.

Don't forget about traps!  Even low-end traps are worth big bundles of experience in Pathfinder.  If the party can disable/survive a trap or two, then they'll be on the fast track to the next level.

Okay, here's one quite specific question I have:

I bought Advanced Race Guide yesterday and thought a lot about player races featured there. And I decided that I'd want to fiddle with them a little, using the character creation rules featured in the book. Because I really don't like the idea of orcs being stupid brutes and elves being frail nature lovers :)

And so, I looked at the write-up of elves' racial profile and I decided that I might want to strike off the -2 Constitution penalty the elves have. Doing that would put the elves at the 12 RP score. Meanwhile, humans have 10 RPs. So, that got me thinking about game balance...

And then, I checked the other race write-ups from the book. And I learned that the dwarves have 11 RPs, the drow have 14 RPs. On the other hand, there are races which are noticeably weaker than humans... And that puzzled me, as I've always thought that player races in Pathfinder should be of equal power.

So... how does it work? Is it okay to have the players choose between humans, elves (which would be somewhat more powerful than humans in my version), assimars (which are even more powerful) and, say, kobolds? Or would it be unbalancing to the game? What do you think?

The Advanced Race Guide is a bit of a mixed bag altogether.  It's a good thought to expose some of the behind the scene weights and give advice on how to build good, custom races.  However, many of the listed traits have been argued and well demonstrted to be under or over valued, so I recommend reading and using the whole book with a salt shaker nearby.

The general consensus for building a "balanced" race is that anything with at least 8 Race Points and no more than 12 Race Points is probably okay; things with fewer or more Race Points are generally quite a bit stronger than other racial choices.  Some exceptions exist.  Aasimar (15 RP) are generally viewed as fine as are Ifrits (6 RP), because their abilities as a whole either don't break the game or are powerful enough to merit playing.  And variance between the core/playable races is perfectly fine.  Variance is what makes the game interesting!  Dwarves may have 11 RP while Humans have 9 RP, but everyone generally agrees that Humans are the more powerful race choice hands down (a free feat is HUGE in Pathfinder AND they get to choose where their racial bonus goes).  You have to examine exactly what it is the RP are representing to really evaluate if the Race is OP or not.

Most players value the option to play things out of the ARG and use the optional traits listed for their individual races.  Even the core races each have a list of 8 or more alternate traits that usually replace one or more of their standard ones.  Some are straight up more powerful (the Halfling's Fleet of Foot alternate trait comes to mind), while others are clearly subpar.  However, the choice and option is nice to have for when you have a character concept that wants to use the subpar or superior choice.  I constantly see applications by folks that want to play something different or suboptimal or just plain off the wall.  There is definitely demand on both ends of the spectrum, and a better question is this: what are you comfortable allowing into your game?

Thanks :)

Although the question of what I am comfortable with is a tricky one. For once, I can't even decide if I want to have elves, dwarves or halflings in my game...

(gnomes are definitely *out*, though)

BTW. I was wondering about that -2 Constitution penalty for elves: is it a big penalty? Does it make elves noticeably frailer than humans, or just a little bit?

On related note: if orcs have -2 Intelligence penalty, then how much stupid are they, exactly?

Intelligence is your mental faculties; your capacity for learning, creativity and the ability to think on your feet. This stat is pretty much your book smart stat I believe, so with say an 8 (10 standard -2 ) the character might not be fast on the up take,  might not know proper terms for certain items, might refer to something as something else.

We had a half ogre who often refered to weapons as stabby or bashy, he didn't know the names for them, didn't care to know. His counting abilities, was bad few, bad lots, bad many, and FUN. since he liked to weigh into combat. So really, its about finding an aspect and going with it. I think.

Most commoners in Pathfinder have an array of something like 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.  A few have lower and some have a little higher, but non usually have higher than a 15 or lower than a 6 (even after racial modifiers).  A score of 10 or 11 is the absolute average of average.  I gives you no benefit but also doesn't hand you any penalties.  Someone with an IQ of 100 probably has about 10 or 11 Intelligence whereas someone with an Int score of 8 or 9 probably reads slowly and struggles to learn the concepts behind any procedures they perform (likely an IQ around 90).  I've heard somewhere that a point of Intelligence is equal to 10 IQ points.  I'm not saying that's 100% accurate, but it's a helpful starting point for gauging Intelligence.  Intelligence isn't just how much a character knows but also describes how capable they are at learning in general.  Orcs with their -2 penalty are generally less knowledgeable about topics outside of their interests and generally don't learn very quickly.

For the -2 Con penalty for Elves, it's not gigantic by any means, but it is a measurable handicap.  A -4 penalty would be pretty punishing though.  In the grand scheme of things, you can expect an Elf to make 5% fewer fortitude saves than others and to have 1 less Hit Point per level than other characters.  As compensation, they do get +2 Dex and +2 Int, so they do succeed on 5% more Reflex saves and dodge 5% more attacks than most other characters, and they get also get 1 additional Skill Point per level compared to other characters.  It depends on what your player values highly for their character concept as to whether or not the Elf's toolkit would make an attractive or interesting choice.

Why is that?

Depends how you relate the ability score called Intelligence to actual "intelligence" and what you think of actual intelligence.

For instance, in my games, I don't relate Intelligence to anything other than the numbers and other game effects related to it. For instance, neither low Intelligence nor high Intelligence affects how well a creature can talk (assuming it can talk) or plan or strategize. Nothing about the editions I play require that I do anything else, and I dislike roleplaying "dumb." I certainly have no interest in forcing someone to roleplay dumb, or policing roleplaying that is "too smart," but if someone wants to play that way (even if their character has a high Intelligence score), and they aren't disruptive about it, that's their choice.

Keep in mind that especially when using point buy builds, one can without even much effort eliminate a -2 to a stat, and even with a little effort boost it to a bonus.  What a race having a negative tends to do is make the extreme highs less common (or more achievable for a bonus stat).  Basically this soft-cap's your max up or down more than it specifically makes all elves frail, or all orc's stupid.  Half the orcs you meet might be smarter than the average human peasant, but it would 'cost' more of their 'resources' to achieve it.

With this in mind... with a soft cap like that... you aren't likely perhaps to see more than a token few elves on the platform placing in a long distance track event, nor would you likely find many Orc's in the finalists of the local spelling bee.  Easily, there could be one, especially if they have a 'feat' that somehow accents that particular ability, for instance.

So with that in mind, I would suspect that most marshal looking elves, wouldn't seem frail to most observers, but the dwarvish wrestling champion of a local enclave will likely be notably stockier than the local elvish wrestling champion in the neighboring elvish community.  [ok, I stand corrected, the prejudiced dwarves, will say that all the elves look notably frail and weak compared to their obviously superior forms inherited from their ancestors... but that is a perceptional thing, not a (getting con penalties via mechanics) thing.]

It's a pretty small amount honestly. Enough to give you a feeling that you're not as robust, but not really a game changer, unless Con (or Int in the case of orcs) is your dump stat.
In game mechanics, it gives you 1 less HP per level and gives you 1 less on your Fort saves.
Yes, those are "big deals" but this isn't shattering your character.

Honestly, I don't get why people prefer 5e. It just doesn't feel like character advancement means much. You don't seem to have much in the way of being able to better your character in my opinion. I muchecked prefer pathfinder.

5E is a -lot- simpler. That's not a positive in everyone's eyes; and whilst I -prefer- Pathinder, I can easily see how people could prefer 5E. My favourite edition is actually 2E; which is also a lot simpler. But you need a group you trust, who all like the game; or it devolves into arguments. It's not very easy to run online either, at least for me.

In reply to willvr (msg # 70):

THAC0...

In 2E, THAC0 was easy. You just looked up the chart when you gained a level, noted your THAC0 on your sheet. It wasn't any harder than BAB; it just seems that way, especially to people who never played with it.

In reply to willvr (msg # 72):

I did. +10 is easier ;-)

Personally, I consider Int to be learning, logic, and thinking speed.

In play, rather than forcing particular portrayal of mental scores, I allow a lot of mental ability checks, especially with puzzles, but also to fill in additional info and exposition to those who pass int/wis checks. I also prefer handing out notes or talking to the players who know things alone and letting them pass that info along in character. Sometimes they don't pass it along, or only partially, or like the game telephone, the additional step leads to humorous misunderstandings.

Also, I actually knew a guy who was smart and could talk about and understand advanced science like physics and chemistry, but he was really slow at it. Literally, it could take him around 4-6 minutes to ponder what someone said then make a response. It was funny. Conversations with him were mostly waiting, so it was best to talk to him while we were busy with something, so the waiting didn't get boring.

Yes, I've played with DMs who did this only I have never once seen it be funny, only annoying or worse. So, I don't risk bothering with that kind of thing.

I used to enjoy Pathfinder until you started getting splatbook bloat. Add that to the inevitable attempt by someone to include every 3.X splatbook, and I no longer have any interest in playing or running it. My tabletop group back home likes it, so I'll have to bite the bullet and relearn it if I want to play with them again.

I'm a 5e convert, and I'm happy with it. It sacrifices some of the customization that crunchier systems have, but it's also a lot easier for me to adapt on the fly when my players do something I didn't expect.

It's really easy to limit what books people use.   I haven't even looked at the 3rd party material, as there's more than enough in the paizo stuff to fill just about any character itch I have.

In reply to engine (msg # 67):

There are lots of interesting interpretations you can import from other systems into your game without messing up the mechanics.

For example, Strength can be how well a character uses their muscles rather than how muscular the character is. (Source: BRP.) In real life a musclebound person has less effective strength than an equivalent person with lean muscles, so it makes sense. This also decreases the correlation between height/weight and Strength. And none of it would mess up your system's game mechanics while adding character flexibility.

In terms of Intelligence correlating to what most people colloquially consider "intelligence," there can be variables that boost or decrease it, such as level of book learning, variety of life experience (related to Wis), general social skill that determines social "intelligence" (related to Cha), problem-solving ability, and even physical acuity at speaking (related to Dex). Those lend color to the character without screwing up mechanics, too.

In reply to mickey65 (msg # 78):

It's not necessary to import anything from other systems, unless one's system tightly correlates an ability score with appearance or behavior. In some editions of D&D, a roll of 3 for Intelligence means, by the rules, that the character can't speak very well. I don't recall whether things like one's ability to create plans or solve puzzles was, by the rules affected.

What I was getting at is that with a system that doesn't have restrictive rules regarding how to represent ability scores, one can almost entirely decouple appearance and behavior and non-adventuring capability from the ability score numbers. A group that is big on describing the outcomes of skill rolls might need to put in a little effort describe things such as the character who is normally friendly and charming utterly flubbing a conversation with the king, but that's really not too hard.

In reply to engine (msg # 79):

No, it's not necessary, but then RPGing itself is not necessary. It's something I do for fun, and my players do for fun. If RPGing ever becomes a matter of "necessary" for someone, I'd advise them to stop playing.

And while enriching Pathfinder with cross-pollination from other systems, for lack of a better way to put it, is not something that must be done, every system has something that can make every other system better. Whether a GM wants to do it or not is a matter of taste.

In reply to mickey65 (msg # 80):

What I mean is that even in the absence of any knowledge or even existence of any other system, ability scores can be interpreted various ways in 3.5. To my knowledge, nothing in the rules says that a low Intelligence has any effect on anything that doesn't involve actual numbers reduced by that low score. As there is no DC (of which I'm aware) for speaking in complete sentences (for example) a low Intelligence score needn't prevent a character from speaking in complete sentences.

In reply to engine (msg # 81):

That's true enough.