Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Volnagur the End-Singer

Anguish's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber. 2,588 posts. 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 437 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Let's cherry-pick some sentences and see what we can do.

CRB pg467.
"Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5."

Table 15-8, pg468
Weapon bonus (+1) = Base Price 2,000 gp

Okay, so there's a thing called a +1 enhancement bonus, and it costs 2,000gp to have.

CRB pg468
"A weapon with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus."

Let's think about this. There's a table that documents the price of the range of +1 to +5, with a specific line for +1. It literally tells you what having that costs. Then it tells you if you don't have that thing, you can't have special abilities.

That's called cut & dried.

But let's carry on.

CRB pg149
"Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls."
"The enhancement bonus
granted by the masterwork quality doesn’t stack with the enhancement bonus provided by the weapon’s magic."

Well, it seems in the Masterwork weapons section of the book there are two interesting things. First, it turns out that masterwork provides an enhancement bonus to attack rolls. Second, it's clear that masterwork is merely a subset, sub-function, sub-everything of an actual +1 enhancement that comes from being magic.

Huh. They're not the same, they don't cost the same, they don't do the same thing. So yeah, no, there's no sentence saying "you can't put flaming on a merely masterwork glaive" for the same reason there isn't a sentence saying "you can't use the planet as an improvised weapon". You don't need such a sentence.

Now, that all said, it might be valuable to explain what's going on here. The game has a lot of bonuses, and they tend to usually be "named" bonuses. Named bonuses never stack, meaning that if you have a +1 dog bonus to armor class from some spell, and a +2 dog bonus to armor class from a magic item, you don't get +3. You get +2, which is the bigger of the two numbers. But if you can get a +1 cat bonus to armor class from somewhere, that will stack because it's a different named bonus.

The two most common/fundamental named bonuses are "enhancement" and "circumstance". They kind of mean what they say.

A circumstance bonus comes from a situation or detail which is abnormal. For instance, if Character A tries to slide down a bannister, the DM will assign a DC for (probably) an Acrobatics check. If Character A covers the bannister with butter first, the DM might grant Character A a circumstance bonus to the check, because the circumstance is unusual and modified. It's not permanent.

An enhancement bonus usually comes from an improvement or upgrade of some sort. So if Character A has crafted frictionless pants of sliding, those pants will probably give them a circumstance bonus to Acrobatics checks made to slide on things while sitting.

The point is that enhancement bonuses come from items/equipment being "better". So yeah, a masterwork weapon is just a little bit "better" at hitting things because it's better balanced, or sharper, or a bit stronger. A +1 magic weapon is a} magic, and b} so much "better" that it does more damage than a merely masterwork weapon. The masterwork weapon is "enhanced" relative to a normal weapon, but a +1 weapon is "enhanced" beyond that.

The book says you need a +1 enhancement to use a special ability. Yes, masterwork grants a +1 enhancement. Got it Mr. Technicality guy, but in the very same section, it makes clear what "+1 enhancement" means for purposes of magic. It means the full +1 enhancement, that applies to attack rolls and damage. It's talking about the thing a paragraph earlier, not the thing 300 pages earlier, in the non-magic section of the book.

For balance purposes, you are expected to have spent 2,300gp+ on your weapon before you can add other abilities. The flaming ability is expected to require a budget of 8,300gp+ While cutting the budget by 6,000gp isn't the end of the universe, it's clearly not what's intended.

Step away from the cheese. That +1 enhancement bonus is mostly a tax, deliberately pacing the costing in the game.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Aaaaand... sold.

Another couple years of these sorts of releases and we can petition for Postultimate Psionics!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
I would suggest using a different term, please. Just a friendly thought. ^_^

Just to let you know, this isn't an uncommon usage. Amongst the gaming community, there is an ongoing tradition of comparing and contrasting platforms. The reality is that the PC gaming is in every possible way better than console gaming, but people who have bought XBoxes or Playstations or Nintendo whatevers feel inadequate and try to argue with PC owners, pretending their purchase was sensible. When their delusions are corrected, they often are left with the impression that the PC owners are arrogant as well as superior. The allusion to eugenics is very fitting for the scenario.

Self-deprecating humor aside, not everything that uses terminology that alludes to atrocities past is offensive. This one isn't; it's just reminding PC owners that they're often over-the-line at snobbery.

This off-topic post basically present purely to provide background and explanation, not to start or continue an argument or flame-war.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
KingmanHighborn wrote:
Darn I really don't want to use another browser other then the basic IE on my XP (laptop)and 7 (desktop) computers.

Yes, yes you do. You don't realize you want to, but you want to. WinXP hasn't had a security fix in over a year. Every month, there are new exploits discovered that apply to your OS of choice. Just because you have pulled the trigger five times and not shot yourself in Russian Roulette doesn't mean it's a good idea to keep playing the game.

Malware is increasingly able to penetrate and own XP machines. Staying on that OS with the stock browser is fine for a machine that's not networked, but the moment you hit the web, you're not only endangering yourself, but you're risking annoying everyone else when your machine ends up part of a botnet and is sending spam and infections to everyone else.

Quote:
I don't see why things have to be changed and forced into using Chrome and Firefox and such. Just leave stuff alone.

Since you phrase things that way, it's because the underlying technology used in the older browsers is insecure. When you connect to a secure e-commerce site, the two ends negotiate a common set of encryption routines, trying to use the best that both ends can understand. Older browsers only understand older encryption routines which have been hacked. That means when you use older browsers on secure sites, you're not secure. You just think you are because the browser says so.

E-commerce standards (to simplify, think "banks") are requiring sites that take payments to stop supporting broken, cracked encryption routines. Why? Because they're not interested in paying out losses because someone's account got hacked.

So Paizo isn't allowed to do banking while letting you use a broken browser.

This isn't change for change's sake. This is basically "you need to be issued a new credit card number because the bad guys know your old one." It doesn't matter that they haven't bought a sofa and a 60-inch 4K 3D TV yet.

Quote:
EDIT: For the record not mad at Paizo, just the circumstance.

The circumstances are that as time goes by, more eyes spend more time studying the encryption routines we have, and find that there are critical flaws in older ones that nobody realized were there five or even ten years ago.

I'm sympathetic to your situation, but this isn't the time to ostrich; using Chrome or Firefox is trivial... we all spend the vast, vast majority of our time interacting with web content, not the browser itself, so it really doesn't matter what we use as long as things render right and we're safe.

And yeah, I've got a personal preference, and yea, I hate it when the Mozilla Foundation decides to remove some feature I like, and yeah, I go find plugins that make it behave the way I like, and yeah, change is bad. But I'd change browsers in a heart-beat if my bank balance was at stake.

Hope this helps.

Disclosure: yeah, I'm an IT guy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Dustin, you're arriving at the reality. It's not the device(s), it's the player.

The issue is (and yes, I've got this in one of my games where I DM for 6 players) interruption.

With that many players, things frequently get derailed, where something I say reminds one player or another of some TV quote or YouTube video or whatever, and things grind to a halt as we all listen to a Monty Python clip we've all heard twenty times before. I've tolerated that with this group though it frustrates me somewhat, because I know what that game is to most of the players: it's a every-other-week opportunity to get out of their houses, leave the wives and kids at home, and hang out with their buds. That's important, so if the group as a whole is having a casual night, I let it happen and we get through one encounter in six hours. Other nights I drive things more, if the group seems focused.

That all said, it sounds like most of your group is focused and one player isn't. I'd have The Conversation. First, it's important to not make it a confrontation. It's not his fault, and what he's doing isn't wrong, it's just masturbating in church. Wrong place, wrong time, wrong crowd. I'd try to basically put it that you don't need theme "help" because it distracts you. Put the fault on you, that you can't concentrate and it's hard DMing, so you've got to ask the player to just not do the videos and sounds etc.

No, not once in a while, just don't. "I'll play stuff when I need it." Zero is an easier rule to follow than "less".

Same thing goes for talk about things that aren't the game. "Oh, that reminds me of this time that..." No, please no. Tell him that you can't handle dipping in and out of running a whole universe of NPCs in your head while keeping all the rules straight and remembering what comes next, and planning for making the game as cool as possible when other stories intrude.

Final comment on "that reminds me". When you hear that, say "write it down, we'll talk about it after the game". That works well. Probably four of my six players stick around an hour or more after the game shuts down, just to talk about movies or books, or work issues, or whatever.

Good luck.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
PIXIE DUST wrote:
What do you all think?

I don't think there's any difference between mental stats and physical stats. When I DM for a player who's got a barbarian and he asks if his character can lift a door, I ask for a Strength check. When I DM for a player who's got a wizard and he asks if his character can figure out a puzzle, I ask for an Intelligence check.

Ability scores belong to the character, not the player. As a DM, I have to keep that in mind. It's kind of my job. So when the PCs encounter a situation the players don't KNOW how to handle, I'll let them work on it a bit, then if stumped ask for appropriate rolls.

You don't need to be a 200 IQ player to play a high-Intelligence PC any more than you need to be a body-builder to play a high-Strength PC. Just recognize when it's time to use those numbers on your character sheet. Sometimes you're asking for a Dex check to untie a tricky knot, sometimes you're asking for a Cha check to talk someone into a discount.

As long as you don't ignore the stats line on your character sheet and pretend for some ludicrous reason that you have to role-play half of it, you'll be fine. And yes, if my players running a high-Int PC suggest something truly out-of-character dumb, I'll ask for a check so they realize it. The DM feeds the players the world, it's our job.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Marco Massoudi wrote:
I think it would be a great idea to split the line into 2 different ones

Let me try and illustrate why that "can't" work. The price-per-unit is driven down as the units-produced goes up, yes? So selling more minis of whatever particular mold means that its price is cheaper, yes?

So what happens when you are able to pick exactly which minis you want? You do so. And you don't pick any of the ones you're on the fence about. And you certainly don't pick any that you don't like at all.

Bottom line is that cherry-picking reduces overall sales, which drives up overall price. The individuals market compensates for that by being more expensive overall.

Long story short is that just like getting rid of random packaging, doing the obvious 50/50 monster/NPC split would be bad for the line overall.

Don't stop thinking though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

This is a really cool idea and I'm kind of bummed I didn't notice it earlier. You make me wish there were two more days a week so I could volunteer to DM a similar project in my town.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Pexx wrote:
Simple Solution James Jacobs.......Clones!
Because never in the history of speculative fiction have clone backfired.

I would just like to point out that in fact, never in the history of speculative fiction have James Jacobs clones backfired.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

I could easily be wrong, but I have a recollection from the Alpha/Beta era that Jason pretty much deliberately build the CMB/CMD system to discourage players from using it. The justification I recall - and my memory is less than perfect - was that maneuvers inherently prolong a fight, rarely simplifying or shortening a combat. So the system was build as we see it today, to be a thing that monsters can use to enrich the variety of their actions, and optimized PCs under just the right circumstances can dip into if they insist.

Which isn't to say an optional "maneuvers that work" ruleset would've been unwelcome in Unchained.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
I'd much rather pay someone to do it and know I'm not going to break anything.

I hear - and respect - your position. That said, I'm an IT guy and genuinely want to help. The way you're describing your feelings on the matter, it sounds not unlike someone unwilling to use a light switch, because it could go wrong, so they're going to call an electrician to turn on the lights for them.

There are high-risk and low-risk computing activities. Doing an operating system upgrade is fairly high-risk. Updating driver software for things like video cards is also fairly high-risk. Not in terms of data-loss, but in terms of "something is now acting strange and I need help". Installing a simple, massively well-known application such as Chrome or Firefox is very low-risk. They're both applications that are installed on hundreds of thousands of PCs, and while NO software is free of issues, these ones in particular are well-tested.

The odds of you having anything go awry are very, very low. Also, having a second (or third, or fourth) web browser as an option on a PC doesn't remove the first browser. Meaning that if for some reason you can't get Chrome/Firefox to actually work because <massively unlikely> happens, you can still double-click the blue E to run Internet Explorer.

While this isn't physical-world, adding a web browser is basically the digital equivalent of refilling the paper tray on your printer. Yes, it's a "computer task", but... it's not a complicated or risky one. Removing a paper jam... sure, ask for help. Replacing a fuser... sure, ask for help. But filling the paper tray? Mmmm, very much DIY, for anyone.

Final paragraph. Remember, you're a member of a (friendly) community here, many of which are highly technical, and many of which are in IT. I'm certain that many of us would be more than willing to go PM/e-mail and walk you through the something like three clicks it takes to do this task. I expect I speak for a bunch of us that are cringing when you talk about paying someone like us to do this for you. It just feels... wrong, like saying you're going to pay someone to type things for you because something might go wrong with a keyboard if you do it yourself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Bother me? No.

But yes, I've had the experience of "wait, I didn't write that" in various threads. I still far prefer Paizo's approach to avatars over the free-for-all orgy of booty-shaking animated gifs and whatnot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:

Reposted from here:

I will be frank: one of several primary goals for the Pathfinder Tales line is to attract fiction-loving non-gamers to the world of Pathfinder. And we believe that Tor has the ability to advance that goal farther than we ever could on our own.

Without partnering with Tor, the future of the line would likely not rise above "more of the same." And sure, that's great. But if Tor is able to expand the readership, we might be able to do more and bigger and better things in the future. We might be able to mix things up and do something special outside of the bimonthly paperback novel run. We might be able to attract authors that we can't get right now.* I can't make any promises, of course, but we wouldn't be doing this if we didn't think it gave the line a better future than it would have otherwise.

*Addendum to repost: James tells me that the Tor deal has already allowed us to secure at least one author that we’d been wanting to secure for a while.

I hear you Vic, and I really don't mean to sound like a curmudgeon. More importantly, I don't mean to be one. I absolutely wish you well.

Thing is, this is New Coke. I hear you that the Tor partnership might allow you to do more and bigger and better things. It's a novel line. We want novels. Not bigger and better things. You might do something special. It's a novel line. We want novels. You might be able to attract authors you can't currently get. You know, I can't name a single author (who is still alive) whose contribution would justify the changes... to me. You've got an established stable of very good authors and luring in Hickman and Weiss or Neil Gaiman or Muhammad Ali isn't as attractive to me, the reader, as it sounds on the outside.

New And Improved Tide is fine to write on the outside of the box, but really, we just want a laundry detergent that gets our clothes cleaned. I'm not entirely sure how a line of excellent novels gets meaningfully improved, when there are visible drawbacks.

Again, I wish you well, and intend this only as dialogue, not as argument or bashing. I suspect you've already seen my perspective (Paizo isn't run by short-sighted people), but the All-New 2015 Whatever, "now with none of the things you love and instead a bunch of other things you don't care about"... is a common marketing error.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Ross Byers wrote:
Working with Tor means better distribution, better promotion, and better placement in bookstores. Plus the ability to sell electronic versions in more places.

Be fair. Better distribution is vastly offset by the fact the product just became (significantly) more expensive to purchase and to ship. That it may appear in more bookstores is of no consolation to any of the people who currently have interest in the product.

Also, the ability to sell the electronic version elsewhere is a pointless boon. The ePub version Paizo sold was the ideal product. Two clicks in Calibre (book repository software compatible with basically every book format and every book reader ever) and it's a MOBI, which is what the Kindle wants.

Quote:
Ultimately, those things mean more books sold. Or at least a good shot at more books sold.

You say that. I doubt it. I know I've been mostly buying them when on sale, but given the product changes, that's going to stall out. While that's just me, there've been plenty of threads in customer service with people cancelling this subscription.

People who drive a Prius don't want to hear that the manufacturer has refreshed the product line, and now it's an SUV, costs more, is made in Alaska incurring a shipping up-charge, comes with a shorter warranty (equivalent to ePub), but oh, hey, now members of the SUV-of-the-Month-Club can buy them with their membership.

Quote:
I agree it isn't the fairest thing for existing subscribers, but it's disingenuous to say it makes no sense.

Oh, it's clear it makes sense. Just not to the consumer. For all I know sales were poor, and this change was the only way to continue making the books. Dunno. Don't really care. What is obvious is that there's been a drastic change not only in pricing, but in the product offered, and the benefits for existing purchasers is effectively nonexistent.

Please note: I'm not complaining about any other price change in any other product line.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

What alignment is chopping wood? What alignment is making soup? What alignment is putting your left shoe on before your right shoe.

There are some acts, such as murder, which are universally (excepting by sociopaths) accepted as wrong. Like wood-chopping, porn is not one of them.

I believe the best answer to your question is: mu.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Illeist wrote:
A) What Paizo chooses to do with its products is its own choice. If they decide to send a copy of every pdf I purchase to a third party, they're more than free to do so, with or without my permission.

That's not news, and of course if Paizo changes the terms of the license then it's done.

Quote:


B) Presumably, any Dropbox connection would be strictly opt-in. Not everyone uses Dropbox, and there would be no need to scrap the existing system.

Sure. It'd be hard to shove a copy into a Dropbox account that doesn't exist. Again, not the issue.

Quote:
C) Without a warrant from a court, Dropbox couldn't access any of the material stored in your cloud. This would be a business relationship no different than the US Postal Service contracting with Delta to deliver your mail. (EDIT: Well, Americans' mail.)

And here we have the issue. Couldn't. You actually use the words "couldn't access" as if they were somehow true. Unless I've missed something and Dropbox is using private key encryption at the client end prior to upload (and I'm reasonably sure they're not, and if they were, Paizo would have to have your private key to submit to your account, which is yet another problem), "couldn't" should be replaced with "absolutely, positively can".

I'm not saying "do" or "will". But absolutely can. But that's still not the issue.

We've had countless cases of well-known web services (including password repository sites) being found to be insecure. Username/password databases have been pulled via SQL injection attacks and similar. It's one thing to have some creep on the outside have access to my work-in-progress manuscript, or my resume, or cookie recipe or whatever personal crap I've shoved into Dropbox. It's something entirely different to have watermarked, purchased PDFs there. While Paizo's site being hacked is an equal risk, Paizo won't ban us if that happens. If things start trickling off Dropbox, it's our problem.

I'm a believer in the right tool at the right time for the right reason. And cloud storage is a tool. I don't see it as a personal dump for copyright-applied materials. It's like carrying your entire PDF subscription around on a USB memory stick 24/7 just in case you maybe possibly might "need" it all somewhere unplanned and can't be bothered to log onto Paizo to download the one or two you need. You're one butterfingers moment shy of losing your Paizo account.

There is such a thing as too convenient. And no, I don't think this is a huge deal. It's not. It's just... kind of uncomfortable on the risk/reward scale and I think bearing some minor consideration. In short, the Fappening illustrates the down side of putting things in popular cloud storage that maybe shouldn't be there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
The #1 issue here is that there isn't a weekly blog opening for this. Even if I had material, it couldn't happen.

There's a box. Want to know what it looks like outside of it?

It looks like: "some days get two blog entries".

MAJIKTHISE:
Bloody ‘ell! That’s what I call thinking! Here Vroomfondel, why do we never think of things like that?

VROOMFONDEL:
Dunno. Think our minds must be too highly trained Majikthise.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Fayries wrote:
Hardcover books are seeing a 12% increase, Player Companions and Campaign Settings are seeing a 15% increase. Even spread over two and a half years, that's not inflation.

You can say that, but you'd be wrong. Inflation is a process. What you've linked to is an average of the results of that process over a large number of product types. For instance, energy costs such as electricity where I live have almost doubled in the last five years. Nearly 100% inflation. On the other hand, the price of computer data storage has dropped significantly (as it usually does).

The price of printing materials up 15% in the last few years? Believable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

My only fear - and I expect Endz is bright enough to recognize this - is that over time, the level of patronage has a decent likelihood of tapering off. Lifestyle has to reflect that this income isn't guaranteed.

That said, he deserves this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

You're at 30 characters right now, and you're able to add one more character, for 31. I'd expect that means there's a 32-byte field assigned in the database for the account name, with one byte reserved for... reasons. Increasing this would mean adjusting the database schema (down-time), and everything that talks to it. That means work. Not ludicrous amounts of work, but work. End result: people with excessively massive account names, because nobody would do the work for a 33-byte field (with 1 reserved). It'd be 64-bytes or something.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
More, I think much of that second group can't conceive of anything but another iteration, thus the assumption that it will be just a money-grabbing move or the talk about the design space being filled.

I don't know that's being fair.

Whatever comes next, if it's another iteration, doesn't rock the boat. If it's not backwards-compatible, it's another system. The moment Paizo prints another system to ME it becomes "JUST another system". If I wanted something that isn't 3.x/PF, there is such a wide variety out there that you can rest assured I'd find something. But I don't.

SKR for instance Kickstarted a new system. I really like his design ethic but I didn't back that game because I already have a game system I want to play, and don't have enough hours to play.

It really is a complicated decision for Paizo. At least in my case, the instant the print a system that isn't compatible with 3.x/PF is the instant I have no more incentive to read/try/buy it than any of the other existing systems that I have NOT read/tried/bought.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Let's be real. Here are the possibilities:

1} Pathfinder 1.x continues forever and ever, until the heat-death of the universe. Likelihood: 0%

2} Paizo goes out of business and never releases a Pathfinder 2.x. Likelihood: > 0%

3} Paizo releases a 2.x. Likelihood: > 0%

You get to pick which of the scenarios you'd like to see.

But seriously, while I have no interest in a new edition, I recognize that Paizo isn't likely to be printing new material for the current edition 80 years from now. Or 40. Or 20. Probably not even 10. So yeah, assuming they don't go out of business, a second edition really is a foregone conclusion. Some day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

I think Eberron allows the perfect illustration of why you shouldn't advance the timeline of a setting.

That setting is designed a few years after the end of the Last War, and the politics of the setting allow great intrigue and complexity because of it. One of the races (warforged) exist to represent sort of the shell-shocked PTDS warrior trope, but also the questionable morality of created entities, and a tinge of slavery.

If you advance the timeline after that odd, fragile moment, you close and resolve the questions. You make things... boring.

A setting done right is interesting because there is conflict, and question, and mystery, and energy. Things ARE happening, and the things that have already happened exist only to justify what IS happening. If you do the setting right, there's no need to advance a timeline. You don't WANT to resolve or close things.

In this case, you don't WANT to remove diabolism and Asmodeus from Cheliax. Sure, let it happen in an individual game, or even an AP, but the setting itself should assume adventures have not taken place. Which is what Paizo does.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
The first book of Iron Gods dances around this issue quite neatly. Most of the walls are made of glaucite, an iron/adamantine alloy that's obnoxiously tough, but so hard to salvage and reforge that it's still not worth stealing the walls.

I was going to suggest pretty much exactly that only was going to call it "badamantine".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Tels wrote:
It's not the math, its the requirement for nearly completely separate character sheets.

It's funny. People keep saying this. And yet... there are scads of statblocks in adventure after adventure that add only a few lines of "when not ranging" stats at the end. Rage doesn't actually change very much, at least not if you're not spelling out every derived number that the character could possibly have. Statblocks are amazing if you spend a little while learning how to use them.

Not that I'm opposed to seeing alternate barbarians... this book might be fun in general. I just don't think the problem is as serious as folks are taking it. If it were, we'd have to make alternate versions of pretty much every buff/debuff spell in the book, and do away with ability score damage etc.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

There is SO much lore spread out over the space of Golarion that I really can't be an expert in it. As such, spreading more lore over time isn't attractive to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Faelyn wrote:
Do we really need to have this discussion yet again?

Does it somehow harm you that there exist people who haven't had the benefit of the past X times the conversation has been had?

You don't need to participate; those of us who are willing to dedicate our time to present material for the original poster to consider are the only people who have a meaningful investment.

And no, it doesn't harm me that you ask. Like the OP, I'll just take a moment to reasonably answer you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

What does a "summoner" do? They summon. Very neutral act.
What does a "wizard" do? Magic. Up to the individual to exhibit alignment.
What does a "paladin" do? They explicitly exist to aid others. Clearly Good.

What does an "assassin" do? They specifically exist for the purpose of making individuals dead. Sure, there could be one who only hunts down and kills really bad folk, but when you're looking for a girlfriend and she asks "what do you do for a living?" and your answer is "I kill people", she's not going to be thinking you're Mr. Wonderful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

I'd agree a mixture is best.

My collection now numbers into the many hundreds of minis and while I don't have Race X, Weapon Y Gender Z for every combination, I've got plenty of "tough guy/gal", "caster guy/gal", "noble guy/gal", "sneaky guy/gal", "ranged guy/gal" etc, etc, etc. These minis all exist. You can already buy them. There are so many adventurers out there that everyone should be possible to represent.

That said, more is always... more.

Monsters, same thing happens. I may not happen to have a dragon with tentacles, or a half-bear goblin treant, or whatever freak-of-the-weak appears on Bestiary 9 page 63, but I've got an awful lot that can represent them.

If your goal is "have one of everything that can be", give up. I'm thousands of dollars in and I still frequently don't have* the "right" mini and settle for close-and-gets-the-impression-needed.

*Or can't remember that I do have it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Um, in my opinion the best overall resource for learning to be a "better" DM is your players.

Hear me out. Different players want different things. They're your most useful go-to to learn what you did "wrong" and what you didn't do "right". They can tell you what they want more of, what they want less of, and why a game isn't as good as it should be.

You can read all the blogs in world telling you what so-called masters of the trade have done, and still run a game your players don't like. Sure, amongst my circle a number of us DMs conspire and share tips, hints, advice, but it all comes down to knowing your players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Lacking wings (or any equivalent mundane method of generating lift), it's not Extraordinary, it's Supernatural. Were the skull described as being full of some lighter-than-air gas, there could be some argument.

antimagic field is pretty much a spell that reduces a demilich to "a creature that complains that it can't do anything", because that's all it can do.

For the record, I went through this exact scenario with my Slumbering Tsar group. The demilich in question didn't much like the experience.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
CraziFuzzy wrote:

This is likely a result of a predominance of artistic sorts in this particular market - I for one, as an engineer, however, see absolutely no reason why flipping through pages of a physical book is in any way superior to pressing page up and page down on a keyboard.

So, while I understand where this preference is originating, I still have not gotten an answer to my query of what the player base would do if Paizo DID stop making the print editions. The only proposed answer was 'stop buying from them' - but I can't believe that a majority, or even a significant minority, would give up their hobby instead of simply making the transition to a digital format. Many 3rd party products are only available digitally, and yet they are still purchased.

Nobody said they'd give up the hobby. The statement was stop buying product. I've got so much Pathfinder product already that I literally could play until I die of old age and not finish it.

Now, imagine a scenario where you are browsing, not linearly reading. Say... the Feats section of a book. You place a finger at the feat index, and you start reading downwards. You see a feat you're interested in, so you leaf over a few pages and read it. Leave a finger there. Satisfied? Back to the index. Find another feat. Rinse, repeat. That is a very efficient process with a physical book but awkward with a PDF. Especially PDFs that aren't indexed. Or have bookmarks for Feats/Spells/etc that are "A-K" and "L-Z", where you'll have to page forward a zillion times to find what you're looking for. The back functionality takes into account every page movement, meaning you may need to use it a dozen or more times. Also, jumping back to the Feat index bookmark may or may not get you what you want if the index spans multiple pages.

Now, in the case of the web, this is less an issue, as by definition everything is hyperlinked and you can spawn new tabs. Thing is, touch devices can be annoying as well, and crawling into bed with a book or two to randomly peruse and plot and scheme while de-stressing and falling asleep, that can be nice. Especially when you don't have an LCD/OLED screen shooting you in the face.

Again, this isn't about digi-Amish who just haven't seen the light. We're not idiots, we're not ignorant and we're not "artists". We're educated, technical people who much like good engineers can find the right too for the right job, and know that sometimes a mixture of tools is it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Drop to the Floor is a free action. Dropping halfway can't cost more.
Standing up is a move action. Standing from halfway should reasonably be same.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Frankly I'd rather see a system that turns "smurf" into swear words.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Jeremy Smith wrote:
Printed copies now available for preorder!

Aaaand preordered.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

If you have a move speed of 0ft, can you dismount?

If you have a move speed of 5ft and a Huge mount, can you dismount?

If you have a move speed of 5ft and your mount is standing on difficult terrain, can you dismount?

If you are a slowed halfling wearing full plate, and your mount is standing in difficult terrain, can you dismount?

If you are a slowed halfling wearing full plate, and you are standing in difficult terrain, can you mount?

This is all playing around, but that last example really underlines what's going on here. That halfling has a move speed of 5ft, and leaving a square of difficult terrain would cost 10ft of his/her speed. Yet mount/dismount is silent on the topic of speed. It just does what it says it does, because it's a specific action.

Move Action: A move action allows you to move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time. See Table 8–2 for other move actions.
You can take a move action in place of a standard action. If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move action for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.

The Core Rulebook basically shows us that there are two ways you can use your move action; you can move (up to your speed) or you can do something else. Table 8-2 lists the examples of something else, of which mount/dismount is one. The fact that you are relocated doesn't change that you have not "moved". If you had, you wouldn't have been able to dismount, because that's a different type of "move action" that doesn't include getting-off-your-mount.

I wouldn't focus on "no actual distance"... I'd focus on the word right before it: "move". Mounting/dismounting consumes 0 of your move speed. Thus yes, you can 5ft then mount, or dismount then 5ft. Why? Because you have not moved... you have mounted/dismounted, which is a different thing, like standing up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Actually, if the originator of a thread could prepend alterations, that might be best. That way their comments/clarifications/changes would always be at the top of the thread, and revisionist history wouldn't be a thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

I wouldn't mind gifting a hardcover of this to one of my players' kids, so I too am asking what projected availability looks like for the book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Neat. Nice to see some new psionic content amongst the recent dramatic expansion of Dreamscarred's offerings.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

I get where you're coming from and obviously you can house-rule as you see fit, but confused is already an annoying condition.

Nothing about confusion suggests that a character stops being a valid collective member. If you "do nothing", that's no different from doing nothing voluntarily. Collective membership doesn't require ongoing effort, merely consciousness. If you "babble incoherently", that's what you do. Sure, some or all of that may be telepathic babble, but just as nothing says verbal babble interferes with your party's actions, there's nothing that says telepathic babble would interfere with a collective. If you hurt yourself, it spells out HOW, which doesn't include dropping out of a collective.

In short, these spells - like most things in Pathfinder - say what they do. The collective rules specify how someone gets removed from a collective. That's how.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

I'm not so much going to disagree with you as try to share some perspective with you.

VampByDay wrote:
8)Taking control of characters away from players.

Yeah, it's always annoying when you don't get to do what you want to do. Like how being knocked prone makes it so you can't move. And how being below 0 hit points means you don't get to act at all. Hyperbole, yes, but the premise of the game is adversity. Some rounds you don't get to do what you want to do, and it's no different from any other game that has rules.

VampByDay wrote:
7) "Required items."

The game, for historical reasons, bases its story design on the idea of having a classic party of four, one of which being a wizard and another being a cleric. If you've got those, you don't need wizard-in-a-bottle or cleric-in-a-bottle. The fact that you've got character class options you can take other than wizard and cleric is a good thing. "Required" items enable that to be viable, if difficult.

VampByDay wrote:
6)The perception skill.

A very similar argument could be made for the Knowledge skills. Knowing what your opponents' weaknesses are is immensely, supremely useful. Fact is the skill system is designed so players get to choose who has crucial skills. That there are skills you really, really should have isn't a flaw.

VampByDay wrote:
5)Stuff you can't fix (at your level)

This is by design. Most of the time, the idea is that challenges should actually exist. If you've got the fix for every impediment immediately at hand, that reduces the dramatic storytelling potential of the system. Just as fly coming available changes the game, mooting a lot of Climb checks, the idea is to have a time before that happens, when there is struggle and difficulty. Having cures come around before afflictions would change that, for the worse.

VampByDay wrote:
4)Required magic items

Again, nothing is mandatory. Also, you are given sufficient wealth to acquire recommended-for-balance items. You get to choose if you want to max out those static bonuses or maybe keep them one or two lower than you could, and add variety to your gear. Remember too that you can add magic effects. There's nothing stopping you from having a cloak of resistance +2 and elvenkind. Again, options are good. Building in these bonuses removes choice. Which would be bad.

VampByDay wrote:
3) Monsters with debilitating abilities on every attack.

You know, a lot of this list is turning into "I don't want this game to be hard."

VampByDay wrote:
2)"Save or suck"

Uh. Previous comment applies here too.

VampByDay wrote:
1) Save or die

Well. It turns out that 1, 2, 3, and 8 are all pretty much the same. Sounds to me like you want a game where it's all martials, all the time, and no magic, and you get to always swing a sword, and hitpoints are the only resources that exists. I don't mean this as criticism, but that's kind of what you're describing, when the flaws of Pathfinder are removed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Killer Triangle wrote:
I need help on how I should handle this situation

Kind of kidding, but...

Max out your ranks in Sense Motive the next opportunity you get, without telling the wizard's player. Then ask for frequent checks.

Odds are he hasn't bothered with Bluff.

The moment your character gets the idea the wizard is homicidal, one of several things can happen:

1} Your fighter can (try to) gank the wizard preemptively. I do not recommend this.
2} Your fighter can leave the party.
3} You can leave the game.

PVP is very simple. If his wizard kills your fighter, the wizard's player gets to do what he wants to do, and you do not get to do what you want to do. A game where one player's fun is at the cost of another player's fun is not a good game.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
tony gent wrote:
Hello everyone a quick question for you all to think about are players becoming obsessed with extra rule books more classes Feats spells races

Wait a minute wait a minute wait a minute, chum.

Players are obsessed with extra rulebooks? Odd. I find as a DM, I've got that disease. Really weird how eager I am to snap up the latest, greatest monster manual. Odd how gleefully I lay my hands on whatever strange spells or magic items I can. Truly inexplicable how much exultation I experience when I can throw something new at my players.

Quote:
Would they still play without them ?

They? How about I.

Bluntly, no. Not for more than a one-shot. I've been playing the system for basically fifteen years now. I've played or seen pretty much every meaningful permutation of Core-only and you know, while adventures change, it's still the same player actions available.

Bo. Ring.

Quote:
Ask yourself this question if you said to your players where starting a new game core rules only would they go ok and just get on with it or would they say can I use books xyz as well and not play if they couldn't

Some of my players might, because they're comparatively new. Others would tell me to go find a new system.

Where are we going with this?

Just because I don't want to watch Iron Chef or B*&+!y Arguing Housewives of Wherever doesn't mean I object to them existing. If you don't want to (bother to) learn new material for the game, don't. Your players will either not care (if they're new), grudgingly agree because getting someone to DM for them is a coup to start with, or balk. One of the three.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Ross Byers wrote:
Spell resistance is a lame mechanic - essentially AC for spells. But not on all monsters. Just some monsters.

You know Ross, I'm going to go ahead and devil's advocate here, mostly trying to illustrate that there's more a language issue in your thesis than a logical one. So, with respect...

As phrased, you've already lost me as a sympathetic and open-minded reader, and here's why...

"X is [badthing]. It's [something else]. But [doesn't matter]."

You need to actually compare/contrast with established definitions if you want to convince anyone of anything. We (mostly) all agree that death is a bad thing, so it's reasonable to argue that "murder is bad because it imposes death on a living person."

The premise that SR is a lame mechanic because it is "AC for spells" directly asserts that AC is a lame mechanic in and of itself. That's what you're saying.

Worse, you're saying that it's lame because not every creature has it. You actually repeat yourself, to underline how lame that is. Strangely, bite attacks, grab, energy resistance, and darkvision are also features not all monsters share. As you've written your premise, those are also implicated in the lame-mechanic accusation.

See how this works?

Quote:
It's an extra hurdle - Saves are already like AC for spells.

This lacks any exploration of what that's a bad thing, really. In a game where you've got DR, incorporeality, and concealment on top of DR, one starts to suspect that extra hurdles aren't some weird design flaw; they're a central premise of the system. It's completely, utterly by design that as levels increase, additional layers of defense - of all sorts - come into play.

Pathfinder is all about an arms-race. But you know that.

Quote:
It's often attached to creatures that have elemental resistances, making damage spells even worse options.

Again, this doesn't explain why this is a bad thing. Just as it is an established baseline that some weapons are a better choice than others, some spells and spell types will be better choices than others. There's a reason why there aren't a bunch of options to ensure that a guy with a dagger in his hand deals as much damage as a guy with a greatsword. Greatswords are (generally) more lethal than daggers. So... dominate monster is (generally) more lethal than fireball.

So be it. If you choose suboptimal ways of winning a battle, those ways will be suboptimal.

Quote:
It has odd mechanical implications regarding what is real and what is magical (i.e. spell resistance doesn't protect against a magically conjured boulder falling on you, but does against magically created fire exploding around you), largely giving Conjuration spells a pass.

Decent argument, but one I disagree with. It's not difficult to get that conjuration makes something, and that something is permanent, with no ongoing requirement for magic to sustain its existence. A fireball on the other hand only exists for the duration of the spell, and consists of inherently magical fire, not real fire.

Once you accept that the game provides a mechanism to make ongoing magical effects and to make non-magical objects by use of magic, it becomes kind of... obvious... that something called "spell resistance" wouldn't conjured items.

Quote:
Related, it is often overlooked when developing new spells. Sometimes Spell Resistance is thought of as a balancing spell feature, sometimes it gets a 'No' because that leads to physical impossibilities*, and sometimes because the spell author just wrote something based on the school and it was never revisited.

Uh... so... authors writing for RPGs need to know things and Do It Right?

Quote:
It has no flavorful hooks, making to give responses to knowledge checks other than 'is resistant to magic!', which ceases to be an interesting tidbit after the 80th time.

What? Come on Ross, you're stretching here. You can't present this as if it were fact without simultaneously deriding almost every other attribute in the game. Fey have DR/cold iron because... reasons. Dragons get blindsense because... reasons. It gets really tired to discover that undead are immune to anything with a Fort save because... uh... a Knowledge check said so.

It's up to the DM to micro-manage flavor if they and their players want it. We all try to describe natural armor... "the creature has a chitinous segmented shell, looks like getting at the tender bits is going to be tough." We describe dragons as being so canny, so attuned to the world they predate in that even invisible creatures can't totally hind from them. Apex indeed!

So... "after generations of wizard-wars, the drow have evolved an odd trait where their bodies literally absorb weak magic, absorbing it harmlessly. Sometimes, when they resist an enemy's spell, they hear mental echoes of their long-lost ancestors' suffering from mutilating war-magic."

DMs make flavor. AC, saves, fast healing, all of the game's mechanics... our job to make interesting. And this one is not at all more difficult to define, describe, or justify than most others.

Quote:
It isn't immunity, so monsters cannot really say 'I am above your mortal magic'.

And this is bad why? Resist cold 5 isn't immunity, so monsters that have it can't say 'I am above your chilly cold stuff.' Yeah, the game has ablative and reductive layers of defense as well as negation layers. This is not news, and it's not lame.

Quote:
It applies to spells uniformly, making it less a puzzle (the way elemental resistances are), and more an exercise in finding which spells say 'Spell Resistance: No'.

Wait. You started by doubly stating that it's lame that only some monsters get it (ignoring that you can just as easily imagine an omitted SR 0), and now it's bad because it applies to spells uniformly? You want consistency, or not?

But really, casting is book-keeping. You're already memorizing which spells require Reflex saves, Will saves, Fort saves. You're already worrying about which ones are mind-affecting, which ones are charms, compulsions, fear-effects, and which ones are within the right range. As a player of spell-casters, you know up front that your job is going to involve KNOWING THINGS. Your job isn't to say "I swing my sword this round".

This is a feature, not a bug. This is another beautiful, awesome way in which advanced players have another thing to play with, both offensively and defensively. It's another tool in a DM's arsenal to try to design the ideal four-round combat once their players have obtained spells like win the game. It introduces another value that casters have to pump in order to try to reach the munchkin holy grail of unstoppability. Leaving things at saving throws and resistances isn't the answer because it's really not hard to focus your max-min efforts on your save DCs, and to pick up a few different spells to address different resistances.

No. SR is a mechanic that levels the playing field. It widens the footprint a caster needs to burden himself with so that randomness remains in the system, just like a high-level barbarian missing on his lower iteratives.

Sometimes you succeed, sometimes you don't, and we NEED these layers as players level up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

It's impressive how many of you feel it's wise to bait the moderators with word-choices that are technically correct but clearly innuendo-laden. Brilliant.

I'm not a prude by any stretch of the imagination, but this is simply unwise behaviour when you know what's expected of this community.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Actually, for a moment last year it went up, once.

I was missing it all along, and an enterprising Paizo employee went out of her way to do some digging and discover I was legit. Pleasant surprise all around.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

So... he doesn't like it much, then?

<Grin>


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Realism:

Okay, Mr. Player, before we start this game, I need you to roll oh... twenty Fort saves against disease, because odds are good that your 1st-level character was dead long before they started adventuring.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Archae wrote:
btw what oracle dip nets you blind sense?

Clouded Vision

Source Advanced Player's Guide
Your eyes are obscured, making it difficult for you to see.
Effect

You cannot see anything beyond 30 feet, but you can see as if you had darkvision.

At 5th level, this distance increases to 60 feet.
At 10th level, you gain blindsense out to a range of 30 feet.
At 15th level, you gain blindsight out to a range of 15 feet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Archae wrote:
I understand it is powerful but are'nt the classic gm things kind of boring?

Boring? Hmmm.

Quote:
Blind sense doesn't sense mechanical traps, poison, doesn't help you fight an ogre, there are other ways to handle character with abilities. Its just the current balance prevents a lot of cool things from happening

Okay, please understand I'm NOT trying to argue with you. I'm honestly trying to explain the philosophy behind THIS game. Doesn't mean a} I'm right or b} this game is right for you. So I'm NOT saying "you're wrong". I'm just exploring the things you say, to sound them out. As in, my tone here is intended to be friendly. We're chatting.

That said...

Classic GM things are boring... yet by including blindsense on a PC, I've REDUCED myself to mechanical traps because optical illusions or magical illusions are off the table. I've REDUCED my playbook to poison because I can't have an assassin sneak up. I've REDUCED fighting-an-ogre to "he swings at you", "he swings at you", and "he swings at you" because I can't use "he slides back into the misty fog somewhere and starts peppering you and your friends with thrown daggers", can't use "he throws a bag of sand in your face, temporarily blinding you", can't use "he's also a cleric and casts blindness on you!" and so on.

What I'm saying is that current balance doesn't PREVENT cool things from happening. It ENABLES cool things to happen.

Yes, specific cool things are prevented. Got it. Guy-who-can't-be-snuck-up-on is prevented when you don't let a PC have blindsense. That's true. But guy-who-can't-be-killed is just as awesome, but I think we'd both agree that's just... not fun.

One more example... typically low-level PCs aren't "allowed" to get flight. Flying changes the game. It takes away Climbing, for instance. So forget the scene where your character is dangling by one arm while trying to fend of a crazed harpy. Forget the scene where the rope bridge is cut by the enemy while you're only halfway across. Forget the scene were the princess sticks her head out of the window at the top of the tower and calls for help and you know you need to fight your way in the long way.

Some abilities change the game. Because of that some people prefer to only play 1st-level to about 5th-level, before fly becomes a thing. There are game-changer abilities, and that's about it.

1 to 50 of 437 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.