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. 4,535 posts (5,061 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 15 aliases.


1 to 50 of 482 << 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 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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
jtaylor73003 wrote:
I have complex reason why I value my time, and so anything I chose to do must meet a certain level of value or I wasted my time. This applies all things I decide to do from going to the movies to going on dates, etc.

I almost hate to say it, but I think this will set you up for a lot of disappointment in the future. And not just with respect to gaming.


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


To look at it from yet another angle, imagine that a 20th-level fighter is training alongside a 1st-level fighter. They're each attacking a target dummy 20 times.

In a series of 20 attacks, the 20th-level fighter only hits his target 4 more times than the 1st-level fighter. What the crap.

Keep in mind that your proficiency bonus isn't the only way you're improving. That 20th level fighter has probably got his strength maxed out now while the 1st level fighter probably doesn't. That'll account for another 1-2 successes. He may have a +1-+3 magic weapon. That's another 1-3 successes. He can attack that dummy 80 times in the time it takes that 1st level fighter to hit it 20 times, alternatively, he gets done in 5 rounds what the 1st level fighter takes 20 to accomplish. And that's without even touching the archetype features he might have or the fact that he's a heck of a lot more durable.

If you ignore every other probable advancement, sure, that 20th level fighter only hits a little more often than that 1st level fighter. But then, he also doesn't have to since most opponents have an AC within the 1st level fighter's ability.


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

And compared with 4e, the core mechanics have been made more complicated and the balance made worse.

See, from my perspective, those would be "more interesting" and "better" rather than "more complicated" and "worse".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bluenose wrote:
Kalshane wrote:
Yes, there are saves for all 6 stats, though most effects target one of the traditional 3 of Dex, Con and Wis.
Wait, when did the "traditional" saves become Dex, Con and Wis? Because it certainly wasn't that way in any edition of D&D prior to 2000.

I think 15 years of Fort, Ref, and Will through roughly 3 editions counts as a tradition. That there was another, different tradition before them doesn't negate that.


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

I think there are some things I would call odd perceptions in the original post.

The rules are treated a lot less differently than you think. They're both abstractions that manage how things go on. They have different elements within them that offer some aspect of simulation. I think Pathfinder's may be a bit more specific in some areas such as weapon sizing and the use of certain modifiers in combat (strength vs dex builds and using feats to compensate) yet 5e includes some that accomplish similar simulative goals as well (versatile and finesse weapon properties, disadvantage on small characters using heavy weapons) but with, I think, a bit less overhead and fine detail.

I also wouldn't call skills handwaved. An important distinction between the two games is that the 5e is oriented around a "stat check" (d20+stat mod). That is the game's primary mechanical focus. PC wants to do something that the DM feels needs a check to determine success - he assigns a stat check. Even combat is fundamentally driven by the stat check, as are saving throws. But every situation in which a proficiency could apply (proficiency in a weapon, proficiency in a tool, proficiency in an area of skill/knowledge), the PC gets to add their level-based proficiency bonus. In many cases, particularly with skills and knowledge, the DM has a lot of discretion on which proficiencies may apply and what DC seems appropriate. But this really isn't that far a step from the d20-based PF. I'd even say it harkens nicely back to some of the skill/check guidelines that first came out with D&D 3.0 and drifted away when the content from the PH and DMG got combined and condensed into the single PF Core Rulebook.


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

I'm not sure I'd the rules absolutely require an acrobatics roll for something like this. The PCs are invisible and so won't provoke an AoO, period, and the acrobatics roll is to avoid an AoO. So no matter what people think the rules are saying, we're well into GM adjudication and the right answer is the one that works best for you, your players, and the pacing of the game.

First - all turning invisible and trying to escape is a good plan, and may be a necessary one to prevent a TPK. My inclination is to not make it too hard to accomplish since they're already stacking the deck in their favor by turning invisible.

Second - The orcs won't be able to see and target them with AoO as long as they're invisible. But the PCs will want to avoid giving away their exact position or they'll likely just be in the orc soup again once the orcs adjust. So avoiding contact and avoiding excess noise are both important.

I'd have them make stealth rolls to determine how well their general movement is going to give them away to the orcs' perceptions. This will be important more for the follow-up rounds and how the orcs will adjust.

Then I'd have them roll acrobatics just to avoid making contact with wary orcs milling about their combat spaces, but I would cut the DC down from the CMD that normally sets the DC. The situations are different with the orcs significantly hampered relative to the normal case. Off hand, using the Acrobatics skill as a model, what's the difference between moving through an opponent's square and past them? It's 5. I'd set the base DC at 5 and then modify it by how fast they're moving. I wouldn't add +2 for every orc whose threatened spaces they move through. Most of those can't target them and are irrelevant and shouldn't add to the DC. I'd only add for each actual orc space they move through.

As far as failing, I'd take a look at how close they got to the DC. If they didn't even make the DC I set without any +2s for additional orcs, I'd say they bumped into the first one and halt movement. If they failed at some point but would have passed by just one, I'd prorate how far they got into the mass based on how close they got to the final and then I'd just displace the orcs they passed to carve out a space for them to start in for their next move action. Every orc in reach will almost certainly attack that space (with the 50% miss) but, as long as the PC keeps his head and doesn't strike back, he can try again next round, hopefully with a shorter path to escape.


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

Since rider and mount are both performing a charge, which is movement, then attack, the charge ends the moment either can reach their target.

There is no stipulation in the rules for choice (outside of feats, such as Ride-By Attack and Wheeling Charge).

Why would you interpret the rules in such a way as to make it so dysfunctional? Shouldn't the assumption be that the rules are intended to work?


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

I generally consider it a tendency or preference to respect authority - all other things considering. That doesn't mean that the current authority will always be preferred. I expect a lawful character to be uncomfortable with bucking legal authority without the justification of an authority with a higher priority. And even then, I expect them to try to reconcile them and respect both whenever they can.

That's my take on lawful as a GM.


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

Having been playing a summoner for a while, early access to some spells doesn't seem problematic in adventure time. Haste a little early is a win for the whole party so it's not a question of overshadowing the other players.

The problem that keeps cropping up, as I see it, is the issue of magic item creation. And since that keeps coming up as a problem in many class imbalance issues, my inclination is to see that as the root of many problems in 3e and Pathfinder. Without the ability to make haste as a wand as a 2nd level spell or improved invisibility potions, the issue of summoner spells is contained to adventuring use and, in my experience, is not much of a problem.

It's not for nothing I'm happy to see 5th edition D&D severely curtail magic item creation and availability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Robert Hetherington wrote:
If you keep reading to page 2 of the thread there is another important post from SKR on the topic.

Personally, I think way too much is made of the "directly toward" phrase. Comparing the 3.0 and 3.5 versions, I assume that the "directly toward" phrase was meant to replace 3.0's declaration that the charge must be in a straight line and disallowing running past to strike from another direction. The interpretive focus that leads to the idea that the squares must be "head-on" at the end (clearly contradicting the possibility of ride-by attacks as well as standard jousting tournaments) is far too myopic to be reasonable.

My rule of thumb: If it can be interpreted to make the game break or product foolish results, that's almost certainly not its intention.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Skeld wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I just don't see how it takes so much effort not to swear.
Maybe you should try an experiment. Have a friend quietly observe you for a few sessions, jotting down expressions you use frequently. Then spend the rest of the campaign not using them under threat of being kicked out.

I don't know... If swearing is such a deeply ingrained behavior that you simply cannot control yourself, then it will probably cause problems in other areas of your social interactions.

-Skeld

Edit: what I mean by the above is that swearing can be situationally dependent; there are times it's more socially acceptable than other times and that's dictated not only by the setting but by the audience as well. Swearing in the wrong setting and/or audience can leave others with the impression that the swearer lacks self-control. Whether or not it's ok for others to make those types of judgements is another topic.

The point is - what polite society calls profanity is part of the vernacular in some parts of society. People who think it's easy to change the way others speak have probably never tried it themselves.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I just don't see how it takes so much effort not to swear.

Maybe you should try an experiment. Have a friend quietly observe you for a few sessions, jotting down expressions you use frequently. Then spend the rest of the campaign not using them under threat of being kicked out.


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


I can't believe Paizo thought that extending the duration by a factor of 10 wasn't broken!

It's not particularly broken. As others have said, most combats are over long before that duration comes up. And if PCs are looting and searching areas, the monsters will finish up their durations faster than you think. If they want to use them for multiple combats, they need to keep the pressure on and that probably undermines healing between combat as well as other buffs.

The main overpowered aspect of the master summoner for a PC really is being able to use the summon monster SLA concurrently. The main summoner can't and can't even do so with his eidolon around. I'm playing a summoner in Skull and Shackles and there are quite a few times I wish I had been able to do multiple SLA summons at the same time but have had to settle for sequential.

The master summoner has a role in PF but that role isn't right for every game. He's great for war-oriented campaigns since he can spam a lot of troops that the GM can deal with narratively rather than roll dice for and he's great as an enemy for PCs. But his summoning powers and how they work don't work with traditional 4-man dungeon-crawlng very well.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
The guy's a bard, there is literally no way he could be useless in an encounter unless he is making a deliberate attempt to do so.

But that usefulness is probably not related to how the player saw the PC as he was building him and that means the interests he built into that character aren't being served. It's like playing Johnny Storm in a fist-fight. He can do it, but he's the Human Torch, man! If you are denying him any chances to "Flame on!", you're going to make the game suck for him.


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

Construct-heavy adventuring areas may be thematic, but they can also be monotonous, particularly for PCs geared up for other kinds of enemies. Include a bit more diversity in your encounters.

The only real balance issue with RPGs, as far as I'm concerned, is balancing the focus each PC gets in opportunities to have fun, to hold the spotlight and shine, and be treated as an equal voice in the game. So give the bard something to do that is as worthwhile as fighting constructs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Joey Virtue wrote:
I got screwed out of mine cause i had Left over dungeon and dragons subscriptions that I rolled over to start them but I have been here since the start.

That's weird. Changing my Dungeon sub to PF was what got me my charter subscriber title.


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


I truly believe that the AoO on a prone person trying to stand up happens BEFORE the person trys to stand up. I believe this is the reason a trip lock is not possible. I believe that is the point of both the 3.5 and Paizo FAQ's on the matter.

If this is the case, then what provoked the AoO? What did the prone target do to provoke the AoO? Apparently nothing since it was before he tried to stand up. Does this really make sense to you?

The mainstream interpretation (and I'm going to boldly say, the correct one) is that the prone target starts to move in a way that provokes the AoO. Now we get into a situation in which they must be resolved in a particular order. That doesn't mean they fully occur in that order - since the triggering move action starts before the AoO (otherwise no AoO could be provoked) and finishes after - just that they are resolved in that order. And if the AoO's result makes the rest of the move invalid, bye bye move action. If it does not, the move action continues to its resolution.


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

I could've sworn I remembered seeing an age suggestion on the Beginner Box. Amazon says 13+.

When a company tells me what age range their product is for, I believe them.

Reconsider that. For most physical products, including games, the age suggestions are set substantially because of product safety regulations. Products for kids under 13 are expected to go through more rigorous (and expensive) testing. So even if a product is suitable for kids under 13 (like the Beginner Box), many will say 13 just to avoid stricter standards.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Uwotm8 wrote:
Obo wrote:
If you are gming you are not paizos copyright police. Your job is to officiate a game.
GMs in PFS are specifically tasked with these duties. Yes, they are Paizo's copyright police, as you put it.

You know, I really don't think they are. The requirement for a player to have the appropriate resources at the table is pretty much written in terms of making sure the rules are there so the GM has a source to review for running the game, not strictly to enforce copyright or ferret out rule-breakers. The PFS guidelines are pretty softball on the issue to the point that I think taking a hard nosed approach is setting a dissonant tone and is probably bad for PFS in the long run.


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

I broke down and bought HeroLab a little over a year ago and it really makes things a lot easier to manage - particularly at the table with a live HeroLab app going (although, on the iPad version, my iPad 2 is a bit crashy with it). Buffs and other niggling details make PF a lot easier to manage, particularly as characters get level up and get more complex.

That said, I only use materials in HeroLab that I also have in other formats and I tote my PDFs around on my iPad. If I paid money to attend a convention event (where marshaling a table is difficult and chaotic enough) and was turned away because of either the iPad or HeroLab, I'd be pretty pissed off and the event organizer and Venture Captain/Lieutenant would be alerted.

If PFS at Gen Con can get along with the PF Character Creation Station at the Lone Wolf booth, then I think pretty much any PFS GM should be able to do so as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Prestidigitation is one hour, not permanent like Mirror Polish. Plus it's debatable Prestidigitation can even provide such a level of reflection...

Actually, making something dirty or clean by prestidigitation is pretty much permanent (pending getting cleaned up or dirtied again). But I agree that cleaning isn't the same as putting a mirror shine on a bit of metal.

Mirror Polish is probably still too specialized to really be a useful spell for most adventuring characters, though.


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

When most people say 'it is not a rule' they are not saying 'it is a soft rule' or something similar.

The problem is that when some people say it is not a rule and then call it a guideline (if they even do that) they are dismissing it as if guidelines are completely not worth their, or anyone else's, time. (I have seen this time and again in any discussion regarding WBL.)

I disagree with that assumption. I suspect it has more to deal with encouraging people to not slavishly follow the table because it's a guideline, rather than get hung up on the rules as written fetish that's common across the internet. At the very least, that's why I refer to it as a guideline rather than a rule.

1 to 50 of 482 << 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.