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. 4,763 posts (5,427 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 16 aliases.


1 to 50 of 543 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
AntiDjinn wrote:
Knowing your party's take 10 numbers for various skills is a great tool for a DM to set the DC's for a skill check or encounter. The take 10 number is that "just under 50%" mark for a DC. It is also a good way to waive a roll entirely when there is no reasonable way a trained person should fail a check (or when you didn't intend for a specific minor dice roll to derail an entire adventure): "If you are trained in knowledge, local, then you have heard of this guy" is the same as saying "The DC on the knowledge local check to recognize his name is under your take 10 for the skill so we don't have to wait while you pull out your phone, boot up your dice rolling app, then spend 30 seconds staring at the screen and doing math in your head before telling me the result."

I agree that knowing a PC's take 10 results can be helpful because it does allow a GM to waive rolling lots of situations. But I wouldn't use it to set the DC itself, at least not very often. I'm in the camp that DCs are what they are and should be set independently of the specifics of the PCs as much as possible.


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

I keep wondering if people are thinking of 3e's cover rule when they're bringing up the possibility of hitting their ally. In 3e, not only did a person shooting into melee suffer -4 to hit (amelioratable by precise shot) but if there was anything between them and the melee, including their own ally, the target got a cover bonus and if you missed by a margin less than the cover bonus, you might hit the cover. And that could be your buddy. See page 123 of the 3.0 PH.

They demoted that rule in 3.5.


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

The Additional Resources document allows the Pantheons and Aroden appears on the cultural pantheon. Granted, it's qualified by a parenthetical (before his death) but he hasn't exactly been removed from the list. I can't really imagine anyone raising a stink about listing a character as an Aroden worshiper if you aren't deriving a mechanical benefit from your worship. After all, if you can worship none, then worshiping something that isn't a god (or no longer is one) doesn't seem a very far step.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
. This means that the player can't just say, "Before I go into the ball I put a flower in my lapel -- maybe it will give me a bonus to Diplomacy" -- because they know it won't.
While I agree with most of the post this is wrong. As the GM can give you a circumstance bonus for doing so. Circumstance bonuses still are sort of based on "Mother May I".

I increasingly detest characterizing any refereed RPG as "Mother may I". It's just more of one group of players talking down to another or players of one game talking down to players of another.


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

Sounds like a potential style clash to me and nothing more. If their style doesn't work for you, let them know. I'd strongly suggest giving it a few sessions before making that decision.


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

Sort of yes, sort of no. You really don't want to step on another players toes - that's just bad etiquette. That said, have you worked with the slayer player at all or is it the GM being overly heavy-handed on the slayer's part? What's the slayer player's take on all of this - the way you're writing it sounds like it's all coming from the GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sambo wrote:
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
It really does not matter because if you attempt to use either ability you are breaking the rules of the fight. Cheating in a friendly fight is not really an honorable thing to do. Probably not enough to cause you to fall, but if I were the GM your abilities would fail as a warning.
Ok, i guess i have to give the background anyway. My character doesn't care about the local laws or even those of the country. It is an orc/goblin/ogre country that we entered just to find an important dwarf prisoner being held by the ogres. My deity certainly does not care about being honorable to ogres. My deity is Iomedae, god of glory, sun, truth maybe, and some other irrelevant things. The paladins of this god send crusades on "innocent" evil races, monsters, and other groups. I have a phylactery of faithfulness, so as long as I contemplate something I can't really fall. Keep in mind that only evil acts and breaking the code of conduct make a paladin fall, not breaking laws(I have to say, most of the time breaking the code of conduct would mean breaking the law, but not in this particular case). The only reasons I am concerned with the rules of this fight are: 1. We could fail to get the dwarf. 2. I could lose an important finger, like a thumb or something!

Laws shmaws, if you agreed to the terms of the fight and you break them, that's your own honor on the line. While it wouldn't be something that would require a fall, I'd be slapping you with stiff penance if I were the GM and you cheated in the fight. Iomedae may be a crusader but she's got integrity and honor and should expect the same of her paladins. The oath written up in Inner Sea Gods calls out giving honor to worthy enemies and suffering death before dishonor. There's a nice line in there "I will not tarnish her glory with base actions."

My advice would be that if you can't win honorably, lose honorably.


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


So after 6 years of Pathfinder being around and perhaps up to 15 years of 3.x games I was wondering what peoples opinion here is on sacred cows? How many of the following things do you regard as essential to your enjoyment of Pathfinder in particular or 3.x gaming in general.

None of those things rise to the level of sacred cow. For sacred cows, I'd be looking more at:

1. Vancian casting model
2. 6 stats, ranged 3-18 on a bell curve
3. healing is divine magic, not arcane
4. paladins are primarily designed around their LG model and fight evil
5. humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, half-elves, and half-orcs are core PC races
6. level based advancement
7. class based abilities
8. fighters fight, rangers track, rogues find traps, wizards use spells, clerics heal, monks use martial arts styles - each of these may do a bit more than those options, but those options are core features to those classes
9. Dragons come in good metallic and evil chromatic varieties
10. Characters have saving throws as last-ditch defenses against things that would normally have no defense

And so on...


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

Stuff I was listening to when I was 11?

AC/DC, Blondie, Cheap Trick, the Cars, Supertramp, Styx, Queen. Lots of good albums around 1979-80.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DM Beckett wrote:
THAC0 wasn't really as bad as a lot of people seem to think. I like the D20 To Hit system better, but I'm honestly tempted to say that it's more problematic or complicated than THAC0, if you remember all the various modifiers that may or may not apply on any given round. I can't count how many times I've heard "Oh, Oh. I forgot to add in the +2 for _____, does that still miss?"

As many buffs as there are in 3e/PF, a lot of people forget that 2e had a lot of modifiers as well. You could stack bless, chant, and prayer together, get bonuses for attacking from the rear or flank, negate shields attacking from the rear or opposite flank, as well as gain the same situational bonuses you see in PF.

DM Beckett wrote:


Another aspect I liked about 2E is that there was an upper limit to most things. Both from an asthetic point of view and a mechanical one. For example, if you managed to get to a Strength Score of 25, you knew that you where basically amongst the strongest individual in existence. On par with deities of Strength, the Hulk, etc. . . Similarly, Skill where defined. Or rather defined against everything in existence rather than things of your CR/HD. So, if you had a Rank in (the equivalent to) Knowledge Religion, you where actually very proficient about that, on par with many of the greatest scholars in the world(s) about Religion.

This is, I believe, an important point of difference between 1e/2e and 3e/PF. By comparison, the target numbers you needed to hit in 1e/2e were tightly constrained. ACs ranged from 10 to -10 (with a few special exceptions), Saving Throws were all within a d20's range. The change in the 3e family drives a lot of impulse to optimize to keep up as well as give you the easy tools to do so with the magic item economy. It's still possible to play with the older style, but you have to make that part of your table's culture. Fortunately for me, this is relatively easy since we've been playing since before the 3e family of games was published. We've already got the older school culture.

This is one reason why some of us from the older days of D&D are finding a 5e so refreshing compared to PF.


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

Not to sound too flip, but your logical thing to request, depending on the reader's perspective, may look a lot like telling Paizo the rules need to be changed to fix a problem that someone else considers a feature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
You can't please everyone, so who do you please? A conundrum indeed.

When in doubt, I'd tell a game designer to stick to his or her vision of the game like I would anyone else generating intellectual property. I think it's better to pick a hill or two to stand on and see the market that develops around it than try to be everything to everyone.

In other words, who should the designers please? Themselves first.


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

I doubt I'd ever say looting was a "Good" action as far as alignment goes. Neutral, sure. Evil, potentially. But it would ultimately depend on the situation.


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

As a player, being put in a situation like this would pretty much piss me off. Why exactly would good gods be pre-empting a doomsday scenario by engaging in mass murder? How fun or satisfying would that be to play through it? Wouldn't a more LG reaction from a deity be trying to find a way to stop the doomsday? Or protect their own flocks from having their souls consigned to the Abyss by the doomsday? Either seem more appropriate than trying to kill 'em all before evil gets around to it.


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


To be fair to your friend, I've yet to read any book (pathfinder or otherwise) as flavorful as 2e's Planescape campaign setting. I mean - come on - you have the entire entry box set into the campaign setting written in-character from a person from that campaign setting. And nearly every Planescape book is written like that! It's fantastic! I've yet to read a pathfinder book written from the perspective of a character in that setting. It just doesn't happen anymore. Think about it - how many pathfinder books are written in heavy slang of the local culture the book was written for? I haven't found one yet.

You've just described the reason I hated reading Planescape materials. I found that patois extremely annoying.


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

I've never seen crafting magic items drive up a PC's WBL.
I've never seen having a cohort craft for you be a problem.
I've never seen magic item buying/crafting cause a serious problem - it has shown a tendency toward the Big 6 but that's not exactly a big problem - more a minor disappointment.
I've never seen the difference between using a craft skill and a fabricate spell be an issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:


we just point out that that's not an excuse, the game shouldn't require an experienced GM to function, maybe some people get a little flustered when it's ignored time and time again, but what can you do.

I think the game works just fine without an experienced GM too. What it really needs is cooperation. An inexperienced GM with good player cooperation can still run a very good game. They'll make mistakes but cooperative players can smooth those over and everybody can learn from the occasion. Moreover, they learn how the game can work best for their group any play style.


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


Tieflings are okay. I don't love them, but I don't dislike them, either. There's nothing inherently bad about the race.

I dislike the presence of tieflings without the presence of their natural counterpart - the aasimar.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:

Having the invisible cleric not provide flanking violates the (unwritten but intuitively true) rule that players should not be penalized for having and using good abilities. In this case, the proposal is that a character who fails to perceive the cleric is not flanked -- so he would actually benefit from having a poor Perception and/or lacking the ability to see invisible creatures.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot and say that it's a monster or NPC doing the invisible lurking to flank PCs with his thieves' guild buddies. Only the GM knows where the thing is except that suddenly PCs start being subject to sneak attacks without reason. No feints are occurring. Nobody is apparently flanked. Nobody is flatfooted. And the invisible NPC? He's just standing there, motionless with a dagger in his hand, to avoid being detected but still, technically, threatening.

I'm not certain the players are going to be quite so concerned about being penalized for having and using good abilities as much as they may be irritated about unfair, GM-contrived situations.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
memorax wrote:
It is frustrating though. I'm not saying they have to cater to our whims. There a point though where you ask, beg and plead. Yet the feedback is ignored. Speaking for myself if a company rpg or not. Keeps repeating the same mistakes. I don't give them praise. It's not to say I don't enjoy the game I do. I don't see why one can't be both a fan and be critical of them as well.

Certainly one can be a fan and critical. But an awful lot of the criticism coming from the boards lately has been borderline to blatantly insulting. That's less criticism than abuse.


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

This is one of those oddball cases in which the GM needs to use his or her discretion. If there's nothing that has revealed the invisible priest to the target, then it doesn't really make sense for the target to be flanked with respect to the rogue's attacks. I'm perfectly ok with a character bring unable to concentrate on just one opponent and be forced into being flanked, but as I see it, he needs to be aware of opponents to be subjected to flank.


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

I'm enjoying Pathfinder a great deal. It still provides much of the D&D-style adventuring I like, particularly when viewed as a toolbox game with options for a GM to include (or not include) in their campaign. That isn't to say I'm not also liking 5e D&D - they scratch different itches I happen to have.

I'm not enjoying the boards nearly as much as I used to though. But that's a function of the community around it rather than Paizo itself.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Brother Fen wrote:

I have a similar occurrence at my table where some of the long time players don't like the way a younger player runs their cleric. I snip it in the bud every time with a quick - "he can play the character how he likes", and that's the end of it.

I have to do that a little bit too in a game I run. I've got 2 parents who sometimes try to jump in to tell their 8 year old daughter what she can and can't do. I had to raise my voice to shut that down one night and told them they can advise, but Zoe needs to make her own decisions.


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

When a certain thing happened, we had some interesting reactions in the theater. One small child said "bye-bye" while I heard sobs from two distinct areas of the audience.

Overall, I really liked it. My kids didn't cry, but by the end, their parents sure were.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rub-Eta wrote:
The problem with spell casters are the spells, not the casters them selves or their ability to cast them. Making it eat up more feats/skill ranks doesn't mean anything to them, as they'll go to that length and still be as powerful as they are in the normal system. It's not a fix, just a minor inconvenience.

As a fantasy RPG, I want my magic to do things that are pretty magical. Most spells aren't a problem to me. The problem is in the ease with which magic can be used. It's far too convenient and cheap when it should involve more trade-off. Wands are a primary culprit when it comes to cheap utility. They should be curtailed. Plus, it's too easy to cast in a fight and too hard to disrupt the casting. The standard action is convenient and easy from a game rule and usability perspective, but it contributes to the relative undisruptability of the caster. I'd make a lot more spells, particularly the save or sit spells, full round to cast.

Rub-Eta wrote:

It's not the size of the lists that is the problem, it's specific spells and their effect on the game that casters can create but martials can't. The difference between a caster and a martial is great due to this. This IS the problem and therefore it's what needs to be fixed, not something else surrounding the spells.

Totally not a problem, at least not as far as I'm concerned. When the spells are game changing, they change the game for everybody, and when that's the case, it doesn't really matter which specific character does it. The whole party ultimately benefits (or suffers).

That said, I think the rules could use more explanation about the pros and cons of certain spells and how they affect the game, like the description of power in Champions (well worth looking into if you have a copy around). And GMs should be encouraged to delete spells from lists that they don't want to have to deal with.


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

The game can be approached with quite a few styles of play and if you're in reasonable agreement with your players over style, then Pathfinder works just fine with long term planners as well as non-planners. The problems arise, as you might have noticed in this thread, when the styles conflict. Hopefully, with good communication, you can work through any conflicts in your game better than gamers can over the internet message boards (where the tendency to dig in is highly observable).


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

Uuuugh. I came here to finally get some productive advice to drown out all the stupid arguing on the other thread.

What did I get? More stupid arguing. I could dig through here to find the on-topic posts, but I don't really have the energy.

Come on, people. You already have a thread for this. Go over there and leave this one in peace. If you don't think martials need fixing, go over there and make your case.

Well, if you're asking, I've already posted several things over to the thread on what I'd change about PF. Here are some examples that seem relevant here:

I wrote:

1. Get rid of small weapons and 3.5's irritating weapon sizes. Sure, it added an element of simulationism, but it's the only edition that did it and it's a pain the the butt for small characters. PF doesn't need to follow that path.

2. All saves are based on 1/2 HD, even weak ones. Strong saves gets a +2 class bonus added at end. Simplifies multiclassing and boosts weak saves.

6. Pare down the clerical combat buffs

7. Scale the combat feats so they get better with levels

9. Possibly gut the wands entirely into combat-application wands only.

10. Reform SR into bonus to saves rather than all or nothing.

11. Boost evocations by getting rid of dice caps, keep at standard action. Most other spells go to 1 round casting times, particularly the save or sit spells.

13. Give fighters 4 skill points/level. Maybe sorcerers too. Strongly consider some of the skill options in Unchanined like the 2 tiers of skills.

Thinking more about it, I'd also cut down the strength bonuses given by size to pare CMB and CMD down a bit and possibly include some damage with combat maneuvers (maybe half?) so that they provide more benefit in actually ending a fight and are more worthwhile to execute. I'd probably just condense each maneuver chain down to a single feat that scales to include the upper chain benefits.

Overall, one of the biggest problems in the PF game, in my estimation, is magic item creation. PF has taken great strides in enabling mundane characters to craft items too, but I'd probably just cut it down to investment in the relevant craft skill and the item creation feat - if I kept easy item creation at all (I'd be content to ditch it entirely). In 1e and 2e, the random magic item tables were skewed toward expendable potions, expendable scrolls, and martial items and quite far away from wizard-focused items. I run my games embracing that lost principle and I think it should return to the treasure guidelines and random tables.


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


TL;DR: "A good DM can fix this mess" is not a reason for people to pay $50 for a rulebook.

It isn't a reason not to buy one either. You have to approach the game like you do Champions. It's a very broad game in the things it includes, but the GM is encouraged to make it work for his group and his style of running the game. Far too many people take the assumption that if it's in the game it has to work for everybody and everybody's style. That is not true and never has been in any form of D&D.


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


Also, fun is subjective. Fun is not a valid argument in questions of balance. I had fun playing a Kobold Dragonfire Adept in 3.5... next to a machinegun rogue... does not necessarily mean they were well balanced against each other...

Was the rogue player having fun too? Were either of you having fun at the other one's expense? If the former question is yes and the latter is no, then I'd submit that relative balance between he two didn't matter.


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


But what happens IF YOU DON'T HAVE A WIZARD?

THAT is the problem, the game COMPLETELY CHANGES if you have a wizard, or any caster really. If you add an extra martials you really don't chnge much... just make things a little tougher so they don't die in combat so quickly, but if you add a wizard you need to completely change things because they can completely ignore things that would plague a fighter... and nothing short of intentional GM harrassment can really stop them ("Suddenly some random mage that is 13 levels higher than you teleports into your Private Mage Tower, dispells are your stuff, destroys your spare books and clones, and goes away. At the same time some rogue steals yoru current spell book SO HA!!!! NO SPELL CASTING FOR YOU!")

Who cares whether or not the game completely changes if you have a high level caster or not? If you don't have one, your game takes one trajectory. If you have them, it takes another. This is part of the brilliance of RPGs - all sorts of options are possible depending on what the PCs are, what they have, what they want to do. Traveller ends up being a pretty different game depending on whether or not the PCs have a starship - so the GM prepares the game accordingly - like a GM does in PF and D&D-based games depending on what the players bring to the table.


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


Success does not mean that the system is not without it's faults. There are many people who don't know the disparity because there are many people who think throwing a basic fireball with no Meta-Magic is still a good thing to do at level 8...

Are they having fun with it? Then it's a pretty good thing to do.

PIXIE DUST wrote:
The Forum is primary biased towards those WITH HEAVY SYSTEM KNOWLEDGE. And if those who really know the system CONSISTENTLY complain that this problem exists, chances are, it probably exists. If people don't know it because they don't know the game/have a GM playing on easy then that does not mean the system is not broke, it just means they just are not knowledgable enough to see it.

The forum his primarily biased toward people active on-line, interested in the game, and with an axe to grind in some way, shape, or form. Not necessarily toward those with heavy system knowledge.

Of course, just because you think it's broken, doesn't mean that's true for everybody. Nor is it necessarily true that people with a different assessment from yours aren't knowledgeable of the game. They may not feel the issue is as important as you think it is.


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


They really don't.

The difference between a level 1 Fighter and a level 20 Fighter who have to move and attack with a sword is purely the numbers. Both will be forced to move and make one attack.

Meanwhile the Wizard goes from "Summon a badger" to "Make clones of Demon Lords while relaxing on your private time while Astral Projecting to do anything with virtually guaranteed safety while safe in the knowledge that should they die they'll just wake up in one of their clones".

See the difference?

Mostly, I'm seeing an issue in play style that it's up to the table to police. Why would a group of players allow one of them to astrally project in to the adventure without taking the rest of them in the same manner (since, clearly, he can)? I can't think of too many that would allow that. Yet you're showing me that's an issue that a lot of these complaints about quadratic wizards linear fights hinge on. Yes, wizards and other full casters get some powers to control the narrative that martials don't get, but if this is a group of adventurers, those powers largely serve to open up new vistas for the group as a whole. The high level casters can cast astral projection? Great - let's all go project ourselves to new worlds and adventure there! That it's the wizard, not the fighter, initiating the ability is largely immaterial.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PIXIE DUST wrote:


Well considering how often this thread tends to pop up, I believe you sir, are the minority...

Considering how the forums are a pretty biased selection of gamers and it's many of the same people participating in these threads saying the same things (both pro and con), I think that's an inference on very weak evidence.

Pathfinder, and D&D in general, has been fantastically successful despite decades of caster/martial difference. Various editions have handled things somewhat differently, and some more successfully than others, yet the games remain quite successful. 4e, an edition that radically changed the power balance between the casters and martials, failed to supplant the editions that retained differences. Somehow, I don't really think I'm in the minority.


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


Not to be accusatory but the very problem with martials is the very thought that they need to be grounded in realism. By grounding them to realism by default just hurts those of us who WANT to play the cool Heroes of legend. You can always choose NOT to use the super powers in a system like that, as it stands we can't CHOOSE to play a super powered game without creating a whole host of house rules and custom feats and such.

E6? Why would I play E6 when the broader range of PF levels works just fine for me? I'm not having significant problems with the difference between casters and martials when I run PF, so why should I pare the game down?

I think that the way you prefer your martial characters you may have chosen to play the wrong game system. If you wanted to play your interpretation of "Heroes of Legend", why did you pick a D&D variant rather than Mutants and Masterminds or Champions, both of which would seem to fit your needs, at least for the martial characters, better than Pathfinder?

I understand a desire to mold the game into a form you would prefer. We all do it to some degree, and as GMs we are expected to, but there comes a point when you have to realize the game as it is won't fit your particular ambitions and would require more work than investing in a new system. I wouldn't mind seeing some more goodies go the martial character's way (like better scaling feats), but I like the majority of the PF system as it is - Hell, I've been enthusiastically playing some variation of it for the last 34 years as my main fantasy RPG.


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

The part of my wish list I can think of right now:

1. Get rid of small weapons and 3.5's irritating weapon sizes. Sure, it added an element of simulationism, but it's the only edition that did it and it's a pain the the butt for small characters. PF doesn't need to follow that path.

2. All saves are based on 1/2 HD, even weak ones. Strong saves gets a +2 class bonus added at end. Simplifies multiclassing and boosts weak saves.

3. Stat caps. 5e settled on 20, I would consider 24.

4. Cap on anything that can add to a DC. Spells can add max of 9 already, nothing coming from HD or level should exceed +10 (keep the DCs of high HD monsters in check).

5. More MAD. Pair up the stats into 1 offensive/1 defensive. Strength/Constitution, Charisma/Wisdom, Intelligence/Dexterity. Yep, make Int the quickness/deftness offensive stat. I'd consider reskinning it Acuity. Con/Wis/Dex affect saves, Str/Cha/Int affect attacks and spell DCs.

6. Pare down the clerical combat buffs

7. Scale the combat feats so they get better with levels

8. Reconfigure magic item costs to increase cost of Big6 and make upper level healing over the cure light wand viable. That may mean scaling magical healing more like magical spell damage.

9. Possibly gut the wands entirely into combat-application wands only.

10. Reform SR into bonus to saves rather than all or nothing.

11. Boost evocations by getting rid of dice caps, keep at standard action. Most other spells go to 1 round casting times, particularly the save or sit spells.

12. Give save or sit spells an alternate effect like daze or sickened, lasting no more than a round, for successful save so that they aren't wasted actions when they fail, but so that they aren't crippling either.

13. Give fighters 4 skill points/level. Maybe sorcerers too. Strongly consider some of the skill options in Unchanined like the 2 tiers of skills.

14. Implement something like backgrounds from 5e.


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


Really. Do you really want another book as thick as the CRB that only has all the "Unwritten Rules" for everyone to look through when there is an argument about silly stuff like this?

I wouldn't expect you'd need another book as thick as the CRB, not when judicious use of sidebars to illuminate designer rationale every once in a while would suffice.

But seriously, one person's "silly stuff" is another person's point of interest. Being dismissive of it isn't going to make the issue go away.


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

Welcome to trade-offs. If you don't think you can tote enough gear with a 10 strength, increase it or prune back your gear. Simple as that. And, yes, it is supposed to work that way.


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

Our long national nightmare is over.


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

Between the barbazu beard and the gillman sea knife, you kind of get the impression that not all designers and editors are working off the same unwritten rules, don't you?


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


Out of character I know this is a bad idea. Without the enchantment I will kill the party and raise an army of kobolds and lizardfolk at the first opportunity.

... why? Why would your character, at the first opportunity, kill his adventuring companions - who are probably pretty effective at helping him enrich himself - and then raise an army of kobolds and lizardfolk when you're on a trajectory to raise an army of more reliable humans and even carve out a small kingdom for yourselves? Is his alignment Evil or Foolishly Impatient?

There's an old story, the version I know comes from Robert Duvall's character in Colors. There are two bulls, a young one and an old one. The young one says, "Let's run down to the valley and screw a couple of cows." The old one says, "No, let's walk down and screw them all."


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

Welcome to the downside of pinning down the developer team - you may get an answer you don't want. It's a lot like dealing vague federal regulations. You generally don't want to seek out clarification because... you might get it.


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


Like I said before, I have aspergers, its high functioning autism and a developmental dissablity. I can't read facial cues, vocial tone, ect.. I never will be able to do that. RPGs were my one escape and plessure growing up. Playing them I was not teased but accepted. Now people are saying because I have no social skills I can't play a character they way i want?

Discriminate much? Reading here how some people force others to play a character when they are playing everything by the rules is really turning me away from a hobby I used to love. Thanks.

If you're not playing at their table, why does it matter? Find a table compatible with the style of game you want to play.


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

So, I point out that you are literally judging people's performance. You disagree, but then confirm that you are indeed judging people's performance.

Got it.

If that's your table, power to you. I've already stated why I don't like it.

You're talking like you don't judge what people do at your table. That seems odd to me - someone in the role of GM who won't judge? I know that as GM in any RPG, I'm doing that a lot - I judge how successful the PCs' actions are all the time. And I suspect you really are doing quite a lot of it too, but perhaps not recognizing it under that term because of some negative and possibly misplaced notion of what "judging" someone is.


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

Yeah, you're not alone. The Alexandrian is well known for picking and choosing numbers to match his articles needs, and to use those to write very controversial articles.

I mean- a genius blacksmith? When they are known for their great strength? Not that you couldnt have both IRL, but in a game where you get a array of 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, (or even 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) it's pretty hard to justify a high Str AND a high Int. Not to mention a decent Con.

It's just possible for a 5th level human to have one 18, assuming elite array, but first of all, elite array should not be assumed, and then that leaves a 14 for the next highest stat.

His numbers are bogus.

He also leaves out Aragorns other activities later, such as being totally fearless in the face of a undead army.

To be fair, that 18 Intelligence blacksmith is called out as exceptional - an Einstein of his field. He also has an average blacksmith with an Int bonus of +1 to illustrate that it's not that hard to get a +10 right off the bat. Somehow, everyone fails to remember that in their haste to apply the snark...

And that's without even mentioning that Alexander would have statted him with 3 levels of paladin - and thus some pretty good powers against fear.


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

Me: " I want to be charming to the bad guys girlfriend when I see Her at the party so she will give me the key code. I rolled a critical success."

GM: "What do you say to the women at the party to charm Her and have Her reveal the key code to you?"

Me: "Well since me, the player, has no idea how to handle myself in this situation, I don't know what to say. But my character has done this hundreds of times before, and I made the roll, so my character says the right thing."

Thats how it should be handled.

In the games I run, it falls a bit short. I don't ask for a heck of a lot more, but I would be pushing for more details about it. What kind of charming are you trying to be? Seductive? Friendly? Formal? I'm not going to require you to give speeches or anything if that's something you can't do, but I expect a degree of analysis, strategy, and tactics just as I expect it in combat and exploration scenes. And I reward it as well. Frankly, I'd get just as annoyed at a fighter's player who doesn't understand their feats or a skill monkey who doesn't use their skills.

If all detail is going to be stripped from any particular element of the game, including social interaction, it's not a game I'm going to run.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Albatoonoe wrote:
Isn't the bigger problem here the SAD classes, rather than the point buy? If SAD classes didn't exist, what would everyone's opinion be on rolling vs. point buy?

It probably wouldn't change my preference much. Point buy works for some games like Mutants and Masterminds and Champions since everything in those games must be by design. But there's plenty of space in the RPG world for games in which you discover your character. Plus, the impact of imbalanced stats isn't a game breaker by any means.

1 to 50 of 543 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.