Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Mynafee Gorse

Bill Dunn's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 4,530 posts (5,053 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 15 aliases.


1 to 50 of 4,530 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm chalking this down mainly to bad player attitude. "How dare the GM make things tough for us by using tactics!" I understand how frustrating it can be to fight an enemy who won't stand there and let you pound on him. But not all enemies should be that dumb then they don't have to be.

Right up at the door, you can smell a foul odor - it smells like some kind of animal, and it isn't pleasant. But it isn't until Alara opens the door a crack that the stench really hits home. It is very strong and pungent with a reptilian tang to it.

Visually, the room is a mess. Old bunks that once may have populated orderly rows for soldiers lie scattered about in heaps of trash. In the center of the room, debris seems to have been collected into something like a nest - a nest that holds an unpleasant-looking creature. It appears to be a large lizard but much of its skin is in tatters with strips of it hanging off its body, particularly up near and around the head.

Perception: 1d20 + 8 ⇒ (13) + 8 = 21

With a hiss, it's head swivels in the direction of the door. Though skin hangs down into its eyes, it has noticed Alara's peeping.

Alara: 1d20 + 3 ⇒ (4) + 3 = 7
Ash: 1d20 + 1 ⇒ (6) + 1 = 7
Masamune: 1d20 + 3 ⇒ (15) + 3 = 18
Piper: 1d20 + 2 ⇒ (18) + 2 = 20
Rawnie: 1d20 + 1 ⇒ (1) + 1 = 2
lizard: 1d20 + 2 ⇒ (17) + 2 = 19

It also reacts surprisingly fast as only Piper will be able to react to its presence before it moves...

The northern door (and that area of the building) lacks the relative grandeur of the main doors of the keep. It appears considerably more utilitarian - possibly an entrance used for servants, hirelings, or soldiery.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's in the action economy. Presumably most of his buff spells would be a standard action - something not compatible with making attacks in the same round because that would also require either a standard action or a full action. So, if his thought is to use his lower bonus iterative attack to hit himself, he's already used his higher bonus one to attack (that's the attack with a reasonable chance of hitting), then he'd get his buff as a swift action in combo with the lower-bonus attack that he's effectively eating but would probably miss with anyway. One round to accomplish what he would normally be doing in two - attacking with a reasonable bonus and getting a buff.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That argument, that the enemy restriction "is a technicality" would also throw up a red flag for me. You're basically trying to rules lawyer a way to get this to work by interpreting away a restriction as irrelevant.

What it comes down to is wanting to find a way to buff yourself as a swift action with an attack that's likely to be a waste anyway thus gaining at least one attack with a reasonable chance of success and a buff that would otherwise take 2 rounds to accomplish. And that's when the power is intended to apply an offensive touch spell to an otherwise low- or no-damage attack. I just don't see that as an appropriate trade-off.

After several minutes of searching, it becomes apparent that either the ettercap was incredibly good at hiding things... or he was very poor. Plenty of bones of various animals can be found, but nothing of any significant value. The stables have a very "lived-in" look to them, so it appears the ettercap and his pet spider have had the run of the place for some time.

Where to next?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Morphling wrote:
Okay, I know this is gonna be pretty unorthodox and weird, so bear with me. Is it possible to attack yourself as part of a full attack? I'm working with my blood conduit bloodrager, and I was thinking that an interesting way to throw a quick self-buff on himself during combat would be to hit himself with an unarmed strike with his lowest iterative, and use the Spell Conduit ability to throw a beneficial touch spell on himself at the end of a full attack. Yes, I know, it specifies "an enemy." Ignore that bit for this thread.

I've bolded a bit in my quote of your original post. This is probably why I would consider the move a bit cheesy and wouldn't allow it in any games I run. You're basically metagaming the system to turn a lower-percentage attack into an auto-success buff on the sly.

The stable, as it turns out, is just one large chamber with smallish stalls for stabling horses. The wooden walls are gray with age and dusty webbing and sag ominously, though the building still seems relatively sound. A small, old forge sits in southern end, nearest your point of entry.
There do not seem to be any other creatures or obvious threats in the area.

From your vantage point, there are several potential places to go. On the ground floor map are doors to the stable (where the ettercap and spider came from), a set of main doors to the keep of the castle, and a couple of other doors a bit more on the flanks of the main keep. One of these is in the courtyard where the ogrekin were initially fighting. There appear to be a few options at the parapet level as well.

Still, nobody has spotted you so far.

It's the work of several back-breaking minutes, the dire corby bodies being fairly heavy (no sign of hollow bones), but eventually the two from up on the parapet are replaced. The ogrekin are somewhat more difficult to budge being a bit over 300 lbs each. But, with little or no time pressure, the group is able to muscle them into some semblance of livelihood. The ettercap and spider prove much easier to move around than the dire corbies and ogrekin.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have been slow to add it. A short description of Bormann Grimm:

Bormann Grimm has all the look of a dark man. His black hair is close-cropped in a no-nonsense manner to fit easily under his armored helmet. His beard, already streaked with a little premature gray, is kept in a pair of neat braids. His eyes are such a dark color, they appear to be black as well. With this as a base, he has taken to accentuating his dark mien by applying dark colors to his scale armor, his outer traveling clothing, cloaks, and boots. He is often mistaken for a dwarf freshly in mourning. And in a sense, he is as his clan mourns the fall of Koldukar, fueling their thirst for vengeance against the enemies of dwarfkind.

The bodies clean up reasonably well, though the ogrekin really started as a mess, at least the blood is all cleaned up.
Now, where do you want to put everything?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:

Once you've got people bandying around terms like "lying" when what you really have is a different point of view, you've got edition warring. And we have had it in this thread both before and after your post.

Or you know "number porn" or "endless treadmill" or whatever else you wanted to pull out before.

Incidentally, in the follow-up clarification, it was not the edition that was a lie (which was apologized for), but the edition as presented within arguments which is.

I'm going to disagree a bit here. It's not taking shots at an edition of a game that's edition warring. Criticism goes on all the time, always has, always will whether you're talking about QWLF, murder hobos, treadmills, number porn, video-gamey, roll-playing, or less emotion-laden terms.

It's the taking shots at and misrepresenting the people and their motivations that's the real hallmark of edition warring.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malwing wrote:

Who is really edition warring really? Its been a while since I checked up on this thread but the gist I'm getting is that 5th ed is good but some of it's mechanics can stay the hell away from Pathfinder because it's fine staying over in 5th ed.

Once you've got people bandying around terms like "lying" when what you really have is a different point of view, you've got edition warring. And we have had it in this thread both before and after your post.

As an aside, since I think the discussion is going nicely, Spivey's graveyard isn't far if that's where you'd want to go rest. But I don't want to prejudice the discussion either for resting or for pressing on. That decision, I leave to you.

I am going to unmask some very trivial areas that I don't make you explore individually - the other towers along the wall. They have now been updated on the ground floor map.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Something I would like to see in a revised Pathfinder game is a clarification of order of operations. Little things like when you roll concealment against an attack.
There's a dispute in this case?

As far as I'm aware the rules don't actually dictate which comes first.

I always have the players roll miss chance first, that way they don't roll attacks if the attack couldn't hit and they don't get bummed out by missing out on a crit or something like that.

I always roll concealment after the attack roll. Then if is a crit, I get to see the player's crestfallen face. Warms the cockles of my RBGM heart.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Something I would like to see in a revised Pathfinder game is a clarification of order of operations. Little things like when you roll concealment against an attack.

There's a dispute in this case?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lorathorn wrote:

This, I am led to believe, is the reason for 5th edition and the design principals that extended the "sweet spot" of play. All games become unhinged when you reach upper levels, as the proliferation of high powered options, magic item accrual, and bonus stacking can quickly make a game less about a shared tactical story and fight time, and more about an arms race curated by paralegals and accountants.

Those who have been through the experience can attest to the intense levels of frustration, having tried their hardest to just return to the simplicity of telling a story, challenging the players in a way that is fun, and finding the moments of cinematic glory that come from a well balanced encounter.

Can higher level play be done right? I would wager that it can and has, but the implementation of it is a skill set that is clearly distinct from the definition that drives lower level play. Before we even implement mythic play, it seems that there is a need to codify the structure necessary to enjoy the higher level play that already exists within the 20 level paradigm.

I think high level play can be done right, but it's not just a function of game design. 4e's take on it, particularly with the scheduled bonus advancements and mathematic attempt to extend the sweet spot, relied on game design to deliver it and was a pretty tightly constrained design - and even then the opportunities for high level PCs to stunlock opponents into oblivion got out of hand.

A significant element of good high level play really has to come from GMs understanding the PCs the players have created. The more choices available in a game system (like Champions, Mutants and Masterminds, or 3e/PF) the more important this is. Rather than focus on rules at that level, I think more game design resources need to focus on analyzing what various choices lead to in the game. Champions does this reasonably well with some powers that have the potential to derail campaigns. PF could use a lot more of it, particularly when spells like fly and teleport become commonly available.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:

One adventure to get it right was "Diplomacy" (Dungeon #144), IIRC, in which an 18th level party is trying to outmaneuver various other bidders for a demi-plane full of diamonds or something. It provides a reason for high-level enemies to be in one place, minimizes mindless combat and endless slog-fests, and assumes that everyone is actually using the abilities they have (you're pretty much assumed to have a diplomancer bard backed by major arcane and divine support).

And I think this underscores why there aren't many adventures written for really high levels. I remember that issue and, as good as the adventure is, it's hard to assume that every campaign will have a diplomancer bard because, by the time PCs are that level, there have been a lot of build choices that may have shifted PCs a totally different way. The market for that publication is going to be pretty small.

Unfortunately, that's also the segment of the market that could use the most support from creative adventure writers.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Oh, why not? Sounds like a fun group. So I'd like to pitch a barbarian dwarf - battle rager, really, named Bormann Grimm.

Bormann Grimm:

Bormann Grimm
Male dwarf barbarian (invulnerable rager) 1 (Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player's Guide 79)
N Medium humanoid (dwarf)
Init +1; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +5
AC 16, touch 11, flat-footed 15 (+5 armor, +1 Dex)
hp 15 (1d12+3)
Fort +5, Ref +2, Will +1; +2 vs. poison, spells, and spell-like abilities, +2 trait bonus vs. fear
Defensive Abilities defensive training
Speed 30 ft.
Melee dagger +4 (1d4+3/19-20) or
. . greataxe +4 (1d12+4/×3)
Ranged shortbow +2 (1d6/×3)
Special Attacks hatred, rage (7 rounds/day)
Str 17, Dex 12, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8
Base Atk +1; CMB +4; CMD 15 (19 vs. bull rush, 19 vs. trip)
Feats Raging Vitality[APG]
Traits courageous, roll with it
Skills Appraise +0 (+2 to assess nonmagical metals or gemstones), Climb +3, Intimidate +3, Knowledge (nature) +4, Perception +5 (+7 to notice unusual stonework), Survival +5; Racial Modifiers +2 Appraise to assess nonmagical metals or gemstones, +2 Perception to notice unusual stonework
Languages Common, Dwarven
SQ fast movement
Other Gear scale mail, arrows (20), dagger, greataxe, shortbow, backpack, bedroll, belt pouch, blanket, flint and steel, hemp rope (50 ft.), mug/tankard, sack, sack, sack, trail rations (5), waterskin, whetstone, 67 gp, 5 sp, 6 cp
Special Abilities
Courageous +2 save vs. fear.
Darkvision (60 feet) You can see in the dark (black and white vision only).
Defensive Training +4 Gain a dodge bonus to AC vs monsters of the Giant subtype.
Fast Movement +10 (Ex) +10 feet to speed, unless heavily loaded.
Greed +2 to Appraise to determine price of nonmagic goods with precious metals or gemstones.
Hatred +1 Gain a racial bonus to attacks vs Goblinoids/Orcs.
Rage (7 rounds/day) (Ex) +4 Str, +4 Con, +2 to Will saves, -2 to AC when enraged.
Raging Vitality +2 CON while raging, Rage does not end if you become unconscious.
Roll With It (2/day) Negate critical hit from giantish foe.
Stonecunning +2 +2 bonus to Perception vs. unusual stonework. Free check within 10 feet.

Bormann Grimm comes from a long line of doughty warriors. The Grimm clan once served the greatest lords of the Sky Citadels, particularly at Koldukar, as elite warriors. When the orcs under Belkzen conquered Koldukar, clan patriarch Gordoc Grimm swore the extended family to the path of vengeance. Grimms have followed that path to this day, though their status as elite warriors has transformed over the years from being canny fighters to being battle ragers, unleashing brutal power by daring death in a lethal frenzy. Bormann continues this proud tradition and serves as a guard for traders around the Belkzen region so that he may increase his chances of encountering (and thus destroying) orcs and their allies. No challenge is too tough for a Grimm.

Grimms are usually fairly humorless, taking life a bit too seriously for their own good. Bormann also proudly follows in this tradition. It is only in the din of battle that a Grimm is likely to smile and that is for the joy of destroying the enemies of the dwarves.

The invulnerable rager seemed a good fit as an archetype from the APG. I haven't played a barbarian under PF rules yet and I'm interested in seeing how rage powers work for me. Otherwise, he's fairly traditional barbarian.

My timezone is CDT (currently) or America/Chicago by other naming standards. GMT-5 while under daylight saving time (GMT-6 normally). Egad, DST annoys me.

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

Yeah, well, Hackmaster is really a game that parodies the worst of old school gaming behavior by accentuating it.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So, the GM put a trapped undead creature at the bottom of a well, in a situation such that the cleric could kill it without facing any real risk, and still awarded XP for it? And did so solely to the cleric?

I assume the cleric player is offering the GM sexual favors or bribe money to explain that kind of decision.

Round 4: No venom damage.

Ash's ministrations manage to prevent Masamune's numbness from getting worse.

And since Ash's heal check is much better than Masamune's Fort save, I'll roll round 5... and the venom has been sufficiently extracted that it will no longer cause Masamune problems. The 3 points of Dex damage will remain until healed or fixed with lesser restoration.
Heal check 2: 1d20 + 11 ⇒ (10) + 11 = 21

The bodies are pulled in, the gates are closing (though the inner ones now lack locking mechanisms), and with a great effort, Masamune slices into the ettercap and the creature falls and moves no more.

The venom of the ettercap still courses through Masamune's system, slowly deadening his nerves and reactions.
Round 3 Dex damage: 1d2 ⇒ 1
1 more point of Dex damage

The adventurers are now in sole control of the gatehouse with no apparent enemies about in the courtyards or on the walls. In fact, there is no apparent reaction to the short burst of violence at all.

None of the dead creatures seems to have any valuables on them, nor is there sign of any in the gatehouse.

The ettercap venom has a substantial duration and virulence. Two saves in a row must be made to shrug off further effects naturally. The heal skill can help compensate. And don't forget that Spivy is back at the cemetery - willing to offer her healing services if anyone wants to head back there.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:
I don't think Marvels said anything, but Crystal is almost certainly in the FF license since she was a member. T'Challa appeared in FF first, but spent most of his time in anthology and Avengers books or his own books.

An awful lot of characters first appeared in the FF even though they spent most of their time in other books. I suspect they're a bit stricter on the license than just having appeared in or been a temporary member (particularly for Luke Cage).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Morzadian wrote:

A AD&D Red Dragon has an AC -1 with 9-11 HD, plus magic use, a peasant would need a 20 to hit the dragon if the dragon did not cast a Protection from Normal Missiles spell, which did not give DR but immunity no less.

Making it IMPOSSIBLE for a mob of peasants to kill a AD&D dragon.

Maybe you were thinking about D&D 5e because they can definitely do it there.

Uh-huh. Spells. Something 60% of all red dragons capable of speech (only 75% for that) in 1e AD&D couldn't do at all.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Seerow wrote:
So basically just like flanking in more recent games?

No, not "just like flanking". Depending on how choice that shield is and the surrounded PC's Dexterity, it could be a several point swing in AC.

Good thing I'm not accusing you of lying or ignoring that little difference. 'cause that would be being a dick.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zardnaar wrote:

Hard to say 3.0 was the big hit, 3.5 sold less than 3.0 and it seems PF has sold less than 3.5.

I think the major things 3.0 had going for it was a combination of factors. THey got rid of level limits and racial restrictions for example and ascending ACs are more intuitive than descending ACs and THAC0. So 3.0 for the most part had better mechanics in terms of being user friendly than AD&D.

But 3.0 created new problems of its own that in a lot of ways are worse than the problems it solved. Balance for example is actually better in 2E than in 3.x games and thats with things like differnet xp tables for the classes.

I'm not going to dispute that 3e was a big hit. It clearly was and was well received by a large portion of the market. But I agree that it really did introduce some complications, even problems, to D&D that PF has only nibbled at fixing. Escalating combat modifiers (partly through buffs and partly through open-ended stat increases) and arbitrarily escalated natural armor bonuses to balance the challenge are part of those complications that particularly affect the martial characters on the 3/4 BAB track. Caster/non-caster balance is worse in 3e/PF, in part, because of stat increases and weak saving throws compared to AD&D (not because they're on the same XP table - that argument, I think, is really a non-starter).

A 2nd edition of PF could work to cleaning up some of those problems. And while bounded accuracy can work pretty well for some of them, it's not a method PF needs to use wholesale (though the related idea of capping stats and/or save DC inputs is a particularly strong one that I would advocate). The methods PF uses in the future to improve the game do not have to be the same as the ones WotC incorporates into D&D.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Seerow wrote:

Disagree. This is actually one of the big lies that people have perpetuated to try to sell Bounded Accuracy. Trying to retcon it to say that old school AD&D was a bounded system and numbers didn't scale as much. All of the core numbers scaled just as much as in 3e/PF, what didn't scale as much was attributes, various "other" bonuses from class features/spells, and to a lesser degree magic items (magic Items were a much bigger deal in AD&D than they are in 5e though)

In AD&D the base AC is 10, and the Fighter would hit AC0 relatively early, as soon as he had enough loot to buy himself some full plate. A level 15+ Fighter is rocking AC-5 to -10. Similarly, his saves have at this point gone from 10-20% across the board to closer to 80-90% across the board; his THAC0 has gone from 19 down to 0. Oh and Fighters had the ability to make one attack per class level against low level enemies (such as orcs)

The AD&D Fighter had fewer hitpoints than 3e, and most of the more commonly used high level defenses were less common or non-existent at that point in time, but a high level AD&D fighter had nothing to fear from a squad of orcs. He had an AC that they needed a natural 20 to hit, a THAC0 low enough to hit them except on a 1, and could kill more than 10 of them every round. AD&D Fighters would wade through 100+ orcs before dying. And that's just the fighter, not even the rest of the party! Throw in a Cleric and a Wizard and you're taking down large armies.

Lies? Because someone disagrees with your analysis? That's pretty... strongly put, even obnoxious.

There are elements of the offense that scaled in AD&D just like 3e and PF, true. But the defense was fairly closely bounded. AC0 was attainable, but it was much harder to get better than -2 to -5 (equivalent to AC 22 to 25) because you couldn't count on getting the magical items that you can in 3e that send the AC scaling quite a bit higher. Moreover, that AC tended to drop when surrounded (as multiple orcs tend to do). If a substantial amount was based on having a magic shield, most of the orcs didn't have to worry about it thanks to facing rules.

And those multple attacks? They got them against creatures with fewer than 1 HD - kobolds and goblins, but not orcs. High level fighters just their 3/2 or 2/1 attacks. Not quite the army-rending force you might remember.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:

But the way she was "calling herself a monster" implies that she feels that she is one because she cannot have children. This has to do with the scene with Banner in the farmhouse. (Note: calling herself a "monster" because of the evil deeds she is trying to atone for would have been quite different.)

You've taken quite a piling on for this one already, so I don't direct this at you. But you really can see how myopic focus on Black Widow can be. How she is treated and developed is scrutinized and criticized more than any of the other characters in the MCU.

Mark Ruffalo had a few comments about that on Reddit (further discussed here on Salon: Mark Ruffalo Defends Joss Whedon). He thinks it's because there are so few other female heroic characters in the mix to really talk about. And I think he has a point. I don't think that necessarily excuses the vitriol flying around because of the myopia, but I think it helps explain why it's there.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:

When people think of Marvel female characters I don't think they consider Gemorra and her sister (that blue android thing).

I'm pretty sure that when people think of Marvel characters in general, they weren't thinking of any of the Guardians of the Galaxy before the movie. That's the brilliance of that movie - they took relatively obscure characters and made an effing blockbuster out of them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Seerow wrote:

Basically compared to what players are used to in 3e or PF, high level player characters are made out of tissue paper. And while it's still relatively balanced when fighting a level appropriate encounter, when you run into a small squad of orc mooks at level 10 and somebody nearly dies, that is a huge tonal shift. While there are in fact players who like the idea that a handful of orcs can challenge characters regardless of level (my experience is this is mostly DMs who never quite got how to handle high level play), for just as many the idea that high level characters who are out slaying dragons and challenging gods are having trouble with a handful of ordinary orcs is ridiculous. That disconnect is antithetical to the premise high level play has operated on for decades.

A tonal shift? Maybe. But then I could see some older school players say, "Yeah, a shift back to playing D&D instead of what 3e turned D&D into." Because those D&D and AD&D PCs frequently had ACs lowly orcs could hit and had a lot fewer hit points than they had in 3e. Commoners could kill giants and dragons in those days as well.

There may be a tonal shift, but don't forget that 3e ushered in a tonal shift of its own.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Morzadian wrote:

Bounded Accuracy strips away the concept of level. A 10th-level Fighter is no better at fighting than a 1st-level Fighter with the exception of special abilities like multiple attacks.

And AC is significantly lower across the board. It's less simulation (associated mechanic) and more democratic (disassociated mechanic). Low level NPCs (large in number) can kill dragons and demons in D&D 5e.

It's not an alternative option for combat but a totally different game system, and it's incredibly divisive. It would shatter the fan base of Pathfinder if introduced in a new edition.

If you enjoy that style of game play, play D&D 5e, as Bounded Accuracy has no place in Pathfinder.

Not quite. In fact, I'd be more tempted to say "not even close." Bounded accuracy doesn't strip away the concept of level - it just reduces a significant part of its impact on the numbers game. Levels are quite well-represented in many other ways. And 1st level fighters aren't as good at fighting as 10th level fighters, even with the numbers game. The difference in proficiency bonus may be small, but the difference in hit points remains large and the 10th level fighter has had a few chances to pack on stat improvements/feats compared to the 1st level fighter.

I won't get into the misuse of associative and dissociative mechanics here. But the idea that lower ACs and demonic/draconic vulnerability is somehow more dissociative than functionally unbounded ACs and invulnerable demons/dragons is a strange one. Neither end of that scale (vulnerability <--> invulnerability) really involves the associative/dissociative mechanic debate since neither involves stepping outside of the character's viewpoint and making decisions about metagame mechanics as part of play.

As far as being incredibly divisive - 4e was incredibly divisive (and remains so as far as I can tell). In the places I hang out, in person and online, 5e has been far more uniting and well-received.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thorin001 wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:

It is the concept that the dice should be a bigger factor in determining success than character ability.
What? That is not even close to accurate or factual.
Really? Biggest possible modifier at 20th level is +11 (stat+proficiency) The D20 has a swing of 19. The die is far more relevant than ability. And it is even more pronounced at lower levels. Add to that the fact that no auto success due to high skills was a big part of the design philosophy. So my comment is both accurate and factual.

It is if putting the cart in front of the horse makes for a functional arrangement. Your statement is kind of like saying the concept of the sacrament of Communion is to have a little bread and wine with the church service. It involves bread and wine, but that's not really its concept.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Actually Bonded Accuracy started in 4e, they just didn't call it bonded accuracy. There were a few differences. First, with Attack bonuses the range was further from a +0 to a +10. Next, it was normally associated with a power on a stat (such as STR for Fighters or DEX for Rogues typically, or INT for Wizards) instead of being a base for normal attacks across the range. Everyone got the same bonuse to hit, but due to the powers system, they would normally use the stat that was associated with their class to utilize their bonus to hit.

There are some 4e fans who claim bounded accuracy started with 4e, but I consider that claim extremely far-fetched. The goal of of the bonus structure in 4e wasn't bounded accuracy at all - it was extending the sweet spot of gaming through the entire level run by maintaining offensive and defensive parity between like-leveled opponents. The number bloat as you went up in levels was only a little slower than 3e - moreover, if you slipped in your advancement schedule with higher bonuses to weapons and stats, you fell behind on the treadmill.

The bounded accuracy of 5e is far more about putting bounds on the bonuses so that high level characters don't outstrip lower level ones nearly as badly. Scheduled optimization isn't as important. Metagame constructs like minion versions of NPCs with inflated offense and gimped hit points aren't necessary because low-level participants are more significant contributors to encounters throughout the life of the campaign. And most number bloat, and if you've ever seen stat blocks for creatures like Demogorgon you know what I mean, can go away.

EDIT: Bounded accuracy also reduces the effect of number bloated skills so you can have fewer cases of lopsided opposed skill disparities.

5e is a fantastic breath of fresh air compared to the fussinesses of 3e and Pathfinder. And that's why it now has a place at my table alongside PF.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
IS the wizard as skilled as the warrior with weapons? Or do they just have the same class bonus?

Generally not. Their proficiency bonus is the same, but they likely haven't put their best rolls in the physical stats that govern weapon combat rolls. They also get fewer attacks per attack action and are proficient with fewer weapons.

They are probably as good with their spells as a fighter is with his weapons, though.

Masamune Mitsuhide wrote:
One question, When does Masamune make the save for his poison. Is it at the beginning of his turn or at the end?

Making a save isn't a set part of the action economy in PF - you just roll them when you need to. When running PF, I've usually tried to have the save occur at the same point in the turn order as it was required - in this case, on the ettercap's turn. Since the end of your turn is right when the ettercap goes, that's pretty much close enough. If I were to have you roll it at the beginning of your turn, that would kind of cheat you out of an action to try get it dealt with

Wow. The dice really aren't helping Masamune out tonight.

The surprisingly quick reflexes of ettercap, despite its injuries, keep it from further harm at Masamune's hand. Moreover, they enable the desperate creature to press its attacks.

Claw 1: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (6) + 5 = 11
Claw 2: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (15) + 5 = 20
Bite: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (19) + 5 = 24

Once again, the samurai is subjected to the claws and bite of the creature - for a combined total of 14 more hit points of damage.
Claw damage: 1d4 + 2 ⇒ (4) + 2 = 6
Bite damage: 1d6 + 2 ⇒ (6) + 2 = 8

This time, the samurai feels the effect of the poison as he feels a numbing of his extremities. The poison does 2 points of Dexterity damage.
Poison damage: 1d2 ⇒ 2

The second dose of poison inflicts no more damage, nor requires more saves to be made at any particular time, but it does increase the duration and the save DC

And now that the ettercap has had his say, it's everybody else's turn.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

It is a fool's errand to overtly apply "logic" to a fantasy game, and press it even further, for non-casters.

No it isn't. The existence of one totally fantasy element doesn't require every other element to be as totally fantasy.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Oh, I can. It's the closeted approach. Be however weird you want in private, but stay respectable and "normal" in public and you don't have to worry about your weirdness getting in the way of the rest of your ambitions.

As opposed to helping change the world so that trans people or other LGBTQ types can openly be themselves. And even the furries.

I can see your point. Fortunately, I do live and work in an area where people are usually pretty open about letting their freak flag fly.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Eben TheQuiet wrote:

I can’t imagine this panel of doctors, lawyers, and military-folk—had they witnessed the interaction—would be like, “Oh, good on ya, A … way to hear what we said and apply it appropriately in your life and social group.”

Oh, I sure can. On the other hand, I can't really imagine the doctors, lawyers, and military types who would embrace that sort of interaction being at a furry con in the first place.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Berik wrote:

This really doesn't sound like a game issue to me, this sounds like a friends issue. I mean, you have player A who has suddenly apparently drastically changed in personality. He's decided to drastically change not only his own behaviour, but also his behaviour towards his friends because of what some random people at a furry convention said to him?

Player T then sounds like she's depressed and dwelling on the negative repeatedly at the game. Is this how she is all the time, or is it getting worse or better? Either way she's apparently fairly fragile right now as well for some reason.

If you're friends with these two people letting it all play out just to see what happens shouldn't be an option. You need to talk to them and work out what's going on.

Yeah, it sounds like a mix of issues.

It sounds like T goes on about her issues as transgendered, which can be a bit frustrating if you're there to play and not be someone's support group. However, if T sees them as friends and this is their primary gathering, of course, she's going to view them as part of her support group like she would any other group of friends. But maybe she needs to be more respectful of other people's social agendas at the table.

It sounds like A, possibly due to other frustrations, has been undergoing a political viewpoint shift and has latched onto a way to absolve himself of his privilege guilt and is being a dick about it.

Now, I understand that you have to accept personal responsibility for the things you can change about yourself and your environment rather than just whine (which is why I don't have much sympathy for people who undergo unusual body modifications like ball bearings under the skin and then wonder why they can't get certain jobs). But there are a whole lot of things you can't directly change or the only way to alleviate them is to "stay in the closet" which is contrary to the whole point of being and accepting who and what you are and pushing for equal rights. And it is this last point that, based on the OP's posts, I think A is missing and why I think he's the more troubling of the two players involved in this brouhaha.

That's my gut reaction from what I've read of the OP's posts. I could be wrong. In fact, I would like to be wrong about A and he isn't as bad as I'm thinking. But my gut reaction wasn't very positive.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Canthin wrote:

I'm not sure it is possible for TOTAL cover only from one side, but since COVER one way and no cover from the other (if B was one square higher) is definitely possible, it could be possible.

If you're "peeking around" cover or otherwise hoping to make an attack, you have to be exposing something. And that would make this more of an improved cover situation rather than total cover.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Claxon wrote:

Actually it kind of does. The thing is you can have something grant you concealment, which enables you to make a stealth check to avoid being seen.

Example being a bush, it obscures but does not completely block sight. You are in the bush looking out and don't take penalties, but can hide in it. However, those looking for you must now beat your stealth score, but they can see you if they succeed.

Only cover automatically prevents you from being seen, but will also prevent you from seeing them.

True. And what this means, ultimately, is that you may be able to see them, but just because there's a line of sight, that doesn't mean they see you. That's the point of stealth, after all, to not be seen when you are otherwise in a position where you might be seen.

So, yes, I don't see any problem with casting from a stealthy position. And I would impose the sniping rule penalty for staying hidden after casting a spell on someone. It's not an attack roll, but it is clearly an "attack" in the sense that it is casting a spell on a presumably unwilling target. If that is considered an attack for the invisibility spell, I'm quite content with considering it an attack for using the sniping rule as well. It fits the same general principle - attacking someone draws attention and gives the target a chance to spot their assailant.

OK, Masamune's Fort save - using his resolve:resolute ability
Fort Save A: 1d20 + 3 ⇒ (6) + 3 = 9
Fort Save B: 1d20 + 3 ⇒ (16) + 3 = 19
and suffers no immediate ill effect of the ettercap's venom. Unfortunately, an ettercap's venom is pretty virulent and will require a second successful save next round to resist fully.

You are correct, Ash. It is everybody else's turn.
And I need a Fort save from Masamune that can happen outside of normal turns. I'd roll it but the samurai has a class ability that can affect saves.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah, you're going to get people interested in these campaigns - no problem. I'd love to give Savage Tide a try. I've run Shackled City and I'm just about to start running an Age of Worms campaign using the 5e D&D rules. So, for me, it would be Savage Tide by elimination.

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

I don't think there's an elephant in this room. Burnout and methods of recharging are fairly well-discussed topics on various message boards. And this thread has plenty of good advice.

Since you already have some good info about what seems to get the group excited, my advice is to incorporate those tactics in the game you run - but with some alternative pacing and ideas being worked in to keep from being burned out.

Being a long-term gamer as well (playing since 1981), I've recognized that variety really helps keep the games I play from going stale. So variations in campaigns, varieties of games, variations in the characters I try to play - all help keep things fresh. I've also recognized that some of the games that interested me in my younger days don't appeal that much to me now but they might in the future as my tastes and preferences change again. I shouldn't pigeon-hole myself into one game or style of play - I'm more complex than that and my understanding of my own gaming preferences is always a moving target.

The ettercap reels under Masamune's offensive. No longer audibly sobbing, the creature seems to be simply gasping to draw breath. Once again, it tries to strike back at the samurai.

Claw 1: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (13) + 5 = 18
Claw 2: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (16) + 5 = 21
Bite: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (15) + 5 = 20
Claw 2 damage: 1d4 + 2 ⇒ (3) + 2 = 5
Bite damage: 1d6 + 2 ⇒ (4) + 2 = 6

A claw finally makes it past Masamune's armor. 5 points of damage
And then, the ettercap's mandibles catch a purchase as well. 6 points of damage and a Fort save

Ettercap: -28
Masamune: -11

The ogrekin spasms violently as the electricity courses through his body. Then he collapses to the ground and moves no more.

1 to 50 of 4,530 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.