|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
So with magic items and spells this is no big deal. Without magic items and spells and a 100% defensive position the highest you are going to reach would be 18(plate) +2 (shield) = 20. The magic items you listed are essentially the best available and whenever another player uses a spell on you they are losing that option for themselves (checks and balances). Likewise, choosing to go 100% defensive means that you can't do any damage (again checks and balances). This is a non-issue.
The same is true of your hit calculation. Without the very best magic items and without spells cast on you, +5 (20 str) +6 (proficiency bonus) is +11 to hit. Again, this is a non-issue.
I would like to see the links were they promised to do anything and what these promises were. Maybe they tried and couldn't get it to work without breaking the game? Could you provide specific examples? I know that you are trying to avoid an edition war, but posts which aren't specific tend to come off as a soap box and tend to push rational conversation away and promote the very thing you wish to avoid.
From what I can tell, the DMG makes it so you can take a relatively simple game and add optional rules to it to get more of a tactical game that is grid dependent. I think that is really great because I want to bring some of those rules into the game but not all of them.
As far as ACs of 32 and hits of +17...how? I have been playing pretty hardcore and the highest I can get on AC without magic armor is 20 (magic armor isn't going to get you +12 to AC though). To hit would be +9 if both Ability score increases are taken over feats. I would be interested to see this math.
Oh. Yeah. I didn't pick up on it. I see that now. It is late and I only had 1 cup of coffee today.
Also, there is a sphere inside the cube. He is shy.
Not following. Yesterday, using the internet, I read comments that expressed anger at 5E not being as modular as promised. But if the OP's comments above are true it seems reasonably modular to me.
I will never understand this mentality. The OP is stating an opinion in a public forum. He clearly wants feedback on his opinions - that includes criticism. If he didn't want it, he might as well stand in front of a mirror and yell at himself.
I would not support any personal attacks, but I do believe that his expectations were off and it isn't out of line to point that out.
I think you misunderstood what modularity means. It doesn't mean that you will be able to make 5E look like 4E, 3E, or 2E (that would be impossible). It does mean that you will be able to add or ignore elements in the game without breaking it. From what I can tell the PHB is pretty much the basic bare bones game with a few options for gridded play and the DMG is adding a whole bunch of combat and grid options. You can basically take a simple game and add things onto it to make it more tactical and complicated. Additionally, it is really easy to add reasonable house rules without breaking the game - or so it has been in my experience.
When I was 8 or so I was laying in bed under the blankets with a flashlight playing with those little toy plastic Indians (like the classic army green soldiers). I was laying on my stomach when I could hear a drum noise that sounded far away but it started getting louder. I was scared to come out from under the covers. I buried my head in my pillow and at some point I couldn't tell if I was hearing drums or if it was my heart beating. Just then I heard some sort of wind instrument like a flute or something softly playing from my bedroom door. I took the covers off my head and turned to look at the door and I could see the silhouette of a man standing in the doorway to my room. I tried to move but I couldn't. I was paralyzed. Also, I could feel something pressed down on my back. I remember being more terrified than I had every been in my life. The music continued to play and got louder and louder. I could tell from the silhouette that the man was the source of the music but I couldn't figure out what was on my back and why I couldn't move. Finally something snapped and I started screaming. Before I knew I could see my father burst through were the silhouette once stood in the doorway and the pressure on my back was gone and I could move again.
For years I was terrified that whenever I heard my beating heart that I would summon this shadowy man to me. Looking back, I recognize that I probably suffered some form of sleep paralysis as my experience sort of hits all of the red flags. I must have fallen asleep while playing with my toys.
Really? I love Pathfinder and I have been playing since 2E. Additionally love all of the rules-lite clones and run them when I can find a full group. Almost all of my friends play 3E of some type and they all seem to love the game. I don't find it "dumbed down" at all. In fact, I am not sure what that even means. Maybe because they got rid of situational modifiers for the disadvantage/advantage mechanic and rolled commonly taken feats into specializations? I happen to like those features. The few friends I have that enjoy playing rules-lite rpgs are coming back into the D&D fold after years away from it.
Given the sales figures of 5e so far I think the pricing seems about right to me.
I suppose. However, if you look at their competition I think it is about $10 too high. That isn't a huge deal. I expected it to be about $39.99. There are definitely people who are refusing to buy it because of the price though and many more opting to not purchase it at their FLGS because of the price difference with Amazon.
This is the key argument I see...people are already too invested to switch. That makes sense. My entire pathfinder collection was lost when I moved along with some other stuff that makes me want to cry in a closet so I don't mind buying these new books.
I think it is a bit unfair to suggest that they would switch editions in a few years. 4E lasted 6-7 years? That exceeds my definition of a few. Pathfinder has been out for about 5 years right? Also, a 6-7 year tenure for a game that was hated by a huge chunk of the community is not bad. I guess you are referring to 3/3.5E. I would argue thought that many consumers wanted something new. There were things that were perceived as broken with the game. It just turned out that 4E wasn't what many of them wanted and they were willing to play a game they thought was broken over that particular edition.
Well I love Pathfinder. I plan on still being a customer and playing in games and I still run a game. I just will also play in 5E and run 5E games. It isn't a religion - you can pick more than one.
I completely disagree about 2007 Deja vu. It is so different this time around. No irritating build up, no secrecy as far as the design direction and no shock. When 4E came out there was an instant backlash. I remember watching the reviews pop up on Amazon - one bad review after another. That week the youtube reviews starting coming out and they were just hostile. The community instantly reacted poorly. I recall this because I was super worried about the fact that I had just dropped all of that cash on new books. I stuck it out for just under a year and abandoned it - but I knew it wasn't a good fit for me on the first game. This time around the reviews are overwhelmingly positive. Additionally, people have been testing it for over a year. This time around seems totally different.
Of course people have the same complaints about 3.5E that they did when waiting for 4E. They are REAL problems. They didn't go away. They just weren't as bad for some people as 4E was. I have heard those same issues about 3.5E discussed for the last 10 years or so. People wanted a new edition. A great many just didn't want 4E.
Just to be clear...you are talking about 5E D&D right? Not some other game?
The entire premise of 5th Ed seems to be to dumb it down, make combat take longer, and continue to bend the curve towards martials away from casters.
Have you played 5E or read it? I am curious because I didn't get this impression when I played or read it. Additionally, combat was very fast. I played in a game last night and the speed of the combat was one of the features that stood out to me. Additionally, 5E essentially just got rid of all of the various situational modifiers and replaced them with the disadvantage/advantage system - you call that dumbed-down but I find it elegant.
Not sure what you mean here. Class flexibility, combat flexibility, spell flexibility? You aren't saying anything specific here.
This does not equal:
...they don't even have an idea of how to do a campaign guide for FR yet.
The PHB just came out. The MM is coming out soon. The DM guide is still in the works but coming out in November. When a new edition of D&D comes out does the campaign setting typically come out at the same time as the PHB? I don't remember it ever being like that. Also, I would imagine that putting together a campaign setting from already existing source material takes much less time than designing a new game. I think your statement is an overreaction.
I couldn't think of any American jokes about Americans - we need some! There are plenty of jokes about specific areas of America. I searched for some jokes about Americans but most of the ones I found were probably derived in another country. They were really funny though. I liked this one:
That is pretty much how I felt. I finished my doctorate at 33.
Josh M. wrote:
You must be playing with people who have been your friends externally to the game for some time - your tolerance is more understandable if that is the case. The people I play with I have met through gaming. The ones I have now are my friends because they weren't inconsiderate jerks who repeatedly canceled on our group - we weeded those people out.
Also, the medium for the social activity may simply be a game, however, the preparations to GM it and host it equal time and in some cases money. Additionally, the GM and other players may have had opportunities to do something else the night of the game and are now left sitting at home without plans if the game falls through.
Actually I meant replacing them using a hit man. There is a lake near my house that is full of the bodies of inconsiderate tabletop gamers :D
Ellis Mirari wrote:
Pretty much. Though I am not GMing in a store the structure is similar. I met my current group by throwing up an advert for players. I live in the DC area so there were lots of responses. We became friends through the regularly scheduled game.
Josh M. wrote:
Well I am pretty flexible about which "circumstances warrant it". However, I have allotted my very limited time to planning the session as well as turned down other social activities so that I could be available to GM. If people aren't turning up for petty reasons and potentially ruining games I would look for people who are more reliable and get rid of those who consider the game to be "something to do if nothing better comes along".
Also, I have done this with friends and we are still friends. I just tell them that I am going to replace them with someone who wants to play more frequently and maybe they can play every now and then if someone is unable to make it or I think and extra player works for that session. Typically players who are flaky aren't really devastated by losing their permanent spot.
Justin Rocket wrote:
If it is me you are referring to than I apologize for asserting that. It wasn't what I meant. You were implying that the PPACA was part of the resolution that failed Monday. We were trying to tell you that it wasn't and I mentioned that this move was unprecedented and was not a failure on the Democrats part to not negotiate. From your posts you seem to believe that the PPACA was funded through the resolution and that the house was simply removing it. I said that what the GOP was doing was unprecedented, meaning to make it clear that laws have not been defunded prior to implementation on financial resolutions that they are not part of. Looking back at it what I said was much more muddled.
Can you give an example of one that was defunded before it was implemented and failed?
Yes government programs whose cost exceeds what is available in appropriations or funds. The PPACA is funded through its own tax.
Justin Rocket wrote:
Congress already passed the PPACA. It has to be funded until it is repealed. Laws cannot be repealed by refusing to sign funding bills. Additionally, concessions and negotiations were already made 3 years ago to such an extent that Obama is criticized heavily for compromising too much with conservatives. I am sorry but you clearly just do not understand what is going on here.
Justin Rocket wrote:
So do you support creating a new legislative mechanism to repeal laws by attaching provisions to funding bills that defund what was democratically agreed upon? Regardless of how you feel about the PPACA - doesn't that strike you as undemocratic and a step in the wrong direction for your big picture goals discussed above? Imagine if it worked. The democrats will use it on the republicans. It would be chaos.
Justin Rocket wrote:
They weren't negotiating on the PPAC. It was enacted 3 years ago and became law. It has to be funded unless it can be repealed. That is the process. What is happening now, to my knowledge, has never happened before. It is a political pathway that bypasses the democratic process. It cannot be allowed to work regardless of what it is about.
Justin Rocket wrote:
But the PPACA was already enacted by both chambers of congress 3 years ago after heavy compromise from the left. There is a legislative process to challenge established laws - the Republicans have failed 41 times (I think?) to repeal the PPACA via this process. The next step would be to win future elections and to continue to challenge it.
The PPACA was not part of the spending bill. The spending bill is being used as a last attempt to stop the PPACA through unprecedented strategy based on extortion.