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. 4,617 posts (5,189 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 15 aliases.


1 to 50 of 505 << 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

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.


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

* Hardy as Max was a non-event. The personality tics Mel did naturally Hardy attempts, but they seem forced. Max in Fury Road has zero personality.

At first blush, it does kind of look like that. But with a little more reflection and reading some thoughtful reviews, I think there's much more to him in this movie. At the start, he's pretty much just an animal - fight or flight, possessive about his lifeline (his car). But as the movie progresses, he starts to learn how to interact like a human again until he transforms from animal to warrior to healer. I'm kind of digging that idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Albatoonoe wrote:
As someone that loves David Lynch, Kyle MacLachlan, and Patrick Stewart, I'm not sure why I didn't like that Dune.

Because it sucked? Because the screenplay was a tortured mess? Because it blatantly misses important themes in the book? All these and more can explain why you may not have liked David Lynch's Dune movie.


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


Quicksilver's death and the bizarre perception that 'bad luck' is too complicated a concept to introduce and that they had to therefore give the Scarlet Witch 'simpler' powers like telepathy and telekinesis, are far bigger quibbles for me than Cap shrugging off an attack from someone who was supposed to be a credible threat to people much tougher than Cap, like Thor and the Hulk.

I can live with it. The Scarlet Witch's powers are an ill-defined mess in the comics. They might as well call it "Gonna eff you up" power since there's no other rhyme or reason to it. That offers the writers a lot of narrative leeway, but it often ends up feeling a bit dues ex machina when her powers save the day. I have absolutely no problem with a bit of redefinition.


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


I personally, liked FAR MORE about the 5e PHB, than I didn't. Don't want to get into an "additions war", but yeah, there was some good stuff there. Also for me personally, my issue is with what came after. A lackluster DMG, and MM- and then, nothing substantial.

Lackluster MM for 5e? Man, that thing's refreshing my inspiration for quite a few monsters in ways that no other WotC-era MM has. I'm really liking that book.


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

You know, the way things have been playing out (as related by the OP) aren't my cup of tea either, but outright crapping on someone else's game is rude. Maybe his players like the game as it plays out - if so, then it's fine.


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


TL;DR: I despise point-buy precisely because I DO value fairness.

Different definitions of fairness make a huge difference around this topic.


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


Seeing as the whole thing about "New Coke" was switching from cane sugar to HFCS, basically, I'd say most Coke drinkers probably have. ;-)

That's been debunked.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bluenose wrote:
KestrelZ wrote:
At least you don't have to randomly roll a background like Traveler and potentially die at character creation.
Traveller is an odd duck, but there's only a few situations/versions where you'd randomly roll to get into a career, playing Classic Traveller and failing an enlistment roll being one of those. Anyway, it's in keeping with the randomness in character generation for Traveller, where in current D&D the randomness is rather out of place.

Character generation in Traveller is a game-within-a-game. How far can you keep rolling a decent character, gaining skills and more mustering out benefits, before you die?

But as far as D&D randomness being out of place? It's right where it has always been. I don't see how it's at all out of place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mplindustries wrote:
And I don't believe for a second that a lawful good outsider would be cool trusting a lich.

Oh, I think it's possible that a hound archon could trust a lich. It all depends on the lich. But a lich who is a former general for the Whispering Tyrant?!? I'm not sure I'd trust the hound archon's judgment and assume he was under some form of dominion.

I think the OP is much better off just having the job given to them by the archon in the first place. He can say he's working for a powerful patron and not identify who he is. Even then, they may not trust the hound archon and expect a hidden agenda - but that could then be for them to investigate.

Either way, having them rub elbows with a powerful lich when you're already assuming they'll do something self-destructive and torpedo the whole adventure sounds like a colossally bad plan. "Let's get involved in a land war in Asia" levels of bad.


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.


1 person 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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Yeah, that's a good point. I haven't actually seen THAC0 nostalgia though. I guess it was an innovation over the tables, though.

It was. But then turning AC around and using a base attack bonus is a substantial usability improvement over using THAC0 as well.


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


I think it's wotc management who's holding them back, not Hasbro. From what I've heard, wotc management is rather poor in many ways.

I believe current WotC CEO Greg Leeds was a transplant from Hasbro. Sent to promulgate Hasbro culture in WotC management?


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

That part I don't buy. Lots of people in the hobby are excited by the OGL, but I don't see how it translates directly to business success.

It took a long time for PF to surpass 4E, despite 4E not having an OGL. Arguably it only did so as 4E was shutting down.

5E is not likely to challenge PF in total sales after the initial Core spike passes because they're not putting out as many books. That would continue to be true if there was an OGL - at least as far as WotC sales and thus revenue go.

Would more (non-revenue generating) 3pp material drive more Core purchases? Maybe. Enough to matter? Maybe. Enough more to give up whatever control they have left over their IP? Much harder to say.

I don't think an OGL necessarily translates into success any more than a more restrictive license - however - there are fantastic things that a less-restrictive license can bring.

1) Story - WotC has some reluctance to write adventures in large numbers and though they are clearly spending more effort with them now, 3rd party adventures can stoke the market through support of busy game masters

2) Utility - There are quite a few electronic tools out there for Pathfinder players and GMs that make my life easier at the game table. In some cases, they are rehashes of the rules but with differing organizational structures that make it easier for me to find and use the information I need - and without having to lug around the books. Those may not help Paizo's bottom line directly, but by making me a happier player and GM, it probably helps me be better disposed toward certain types of PF products.


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

What makes you think any of those things are directives from Hasbro?

Hasbro is doing really, really well. Is there a reason to think they don't have talented executive and decent managers? Managers who recognise the folly of trying to set policy from afar on character generators around a minor property in a relatively small subsidiary?

I think any mismanagement of those issues lies with Wizards. This "meddling mega corporation" perspective just doesn't gel with how the world works. We may care about D&D but why would a Hasbro suit? If they're wasting their time making pronouncements about the ogl (rather than leaving it to the people they're paying to make those decisions) then Hasbro shareholders have reason for concern.

I'm not so sure about that. They may not be consistently on the radar of the higher-ups at Hasbro, but I strongly suspect IP licensing isn't just a WotC decision. Scott Rouse, former D&D Brand Manager, alluded to some serious struggles over the licensing in the run-up to 4e. And I think policies from higher up best explain them, the about-face on the OGL, the delays in the GSL, and the reason PDF sales got pulled under 4e.


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


Yep. Petey wanted to cash out. Blame him for Hasbro. But, had he not started WotC (and published M:TG) and made a ton of money, TSR was over. WotC pretty much kept TTRPGs relevant. Just be thankful Lisa and her crew, Pramas, Wolfgang, and a gang of others who were rejuvenated by the popularity of 3x, were there to carry the torch when WotC sold out and bean counters took over the decision making from the talent.

Let's not simply blame Peter for wanting to "cash out". Selling to Hasbro enabled quite a few people who invested a lot into WotC to get the payback they deserved.


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

But it does seem a pretty reasonable interpretation to use Ride-by attack to get the rider's attack with a lance, continue movement, and let the mount get its follow-up charge attacks in even if you don't allow the ride-by attack feat to allow movement to continue after that point.


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

Pathfinder is a fantasy adventure role playing game. The rules are meant to facilitate having fantasy adventures in a relatively easily administered manner - not throw up barriers to entirely reasonable actions via over-pedantic, tortured readings.

So, yes, of course you can charge with a reach weapon like a lance.


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


It took them a while to be right, but FATAL proves their point.

Not really. RPGs aren't some kind of slippery slope that inevitably leads to FATAL or RaHoWa any more than the invention of language is a slippery slope that leads to angsty teen poetry.


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

I actually do allow retries on knowledge checks... As long as the situation has changed enough that the PCs has new inroads into the information. That also usually comes with a new DC too. For example, a PC tries to use know (the planes) to identify a demon based on limited observation (like a glimpse or seeing the effects of his powers), he can retry when he has better and more direct observation, and I even let him retry if they capture the wizard who called it and interrogation reveals it to be a glabrezu.

1 to 50 of 505 << 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.