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

Buri's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 3,529 posts. 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 5 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,529 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Wow, Ross was pretty passive/aggressive there. If Paizo dropped the ball on editing, then they dropped the ball. The take away is 'do better' and not 'improve my process for me.' There is always room to do better. If not, then you've reached the end of your ability to compete and might as well close doors. If that means releasing a couple fewer products per year, then so be it. Nothing Wizards can do will drive away their customer base faster than if Paizo's product quality plummets.


Danbala wrote:
Even at +21 you have over optimized for diplomacy at level one. You should expect the target DCs for your level one challenges to be somewhere between 12 and 15. A +11 should pretty much ensure that you succeed as much as you'll need to. You should focus the balance of your build making your character good at some other things.

Not necessarily so. Some APs out there do have very high skill DCs at very early levels just for those people. They even have language like "even though it's very unlikely for the PCs to succeed, if they can do a DC blah blah blah" and often give very nifty insights or even XP to those who can pull it off.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the liberal use of concentration mostly because it takes away that wizards and other full casters are near gods. If you can just rifle off spells one after another without consequence then you might as well be a demigod, start a religion, and start granting spells. The concentration bit makes magic important (potentially even critical) in your spell selection, makes the caster pay attention to make sure they got off the right spells when the situation calls for it, and is a crticial reminder that, yes, in fact, they are very mortal and limited even though they can cast wishes. Some of the individual spells are debateable, sure, but I wouldn't change the precept at all.


I really want to drive home the 'how else would PF look good?' argument, but let's go with the consider your audience one. It's not fair to any stretch, but I don't think you can wholly avoid it here. Chris wants the Pathfinder Defense Force to not be a thing, but no one can deny the Schrodinger mentality on these boards when they want their thing to look good, like a level 20 wizard one shotting Cthulu.


Well, how you present yourself to a group is almost entirely in the purview of roleplay. In that regard, it's really infinite no matter the system.


Slacker2010 wrote:

The Additional Resourses document is a pdf they (as in paizo) dont print. So I dont see the need to keep words down. They could expand on that and have a section of "house rules" to settle most of the hot topics. Best part about this, Mike Brock and others dont need to do it. The VCs and VLs could do most of the heavy lifting.

If PFS took care of the hot topics, 95% of rules threads would be "it should work like this, but ask you GM".

If that happened it would honestly improve my perception of Paizo a ton. Like a metric ton of good will.


Indeed, wis mod once.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

All that sort of stuff wasn't enough for people to consider martials balanced to casters when they ALSO got much higher base bonuses to hit?

Aren't martials just even further behind now that Wizards also get the same attack bonuses?

You sound like you need to read the Basic PDF. You have badly conceived notions about the system and are judging based on them.


The gripe I've seen about the older editions is that they're not actively developed. That's also the big grip about sticking with Pathfinder as it is now if Paizo does a new version. I'm curious how that matters regardless of edition. Have those folks really exhausted all the adventures each system has to offer?

I've been dedicated to Pathfinder for the past 3 years exclusively and lesser so back to beta. I haven't done even half their APs or one off modules and next to none of the PFS seasons.

It makes me scratch my head. Can they only ever have the latest and greatest? That's honestly where I put them mentally, and that's just entitlement to which I give zero credence.


I'm pretty sure that's why 5th has all the optional mechanics that it does. The DMG will have more. The MM has several surrounding monsters as PC and the various templates. TONS of options all around. Will it work for everyone? No. I'd wager if you can't put together a game you can at least be mostly happy with, then it's just not the system for you and you should move on.


Sleep got more powerful than compared to PF's version. There is no save. As long as you roll enough HD then it works. But, since it starts with the closest creature, you can easily get some friendly fire in there.


Likely. A simple statement in the PFS Field Guide would solve many of these issues. Them needing to be addressed on a case by case basis is so incredibly frustrating.


Logan1138 wrote:
Frankly, I was disappointed that WotC didn't keep the spell progression tables like they were in the final (Oct. 2013) playtest packet. Wizards/Clerics/Druids only got 1 slot for 6, 7, 8 and 9 level spells, while Bards topped out at 5th level spells not 9th level like they are in the PHB.

I could go with a single level 7th slot but at lesat 2 6th level slots if I were looking to compromise. Did they explain why bards got that drastic of a bump?


Unless you have a class ability/feat/background/race ability that grants advantage you don't get unless the GM determines it. So far it hasn't been an issue in my group even when I've asked for a disadvantaged roll.


I love that at level 20 in 5th you only ever get 1 8th level slot and 1 9th.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
That's why I said the huge following that PF has is one of the things I most like about it.

I do like that it does have a large fanbase. I'm kind of dismayed, though, that it seems the table top slice of the market can only have one large game out at a time. You either play x or good luck finding a game.

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
It is unfair to expect that the GM can know every single published thing in its entirety and double check every single thing the player does.

Unfair but necessary otherwise they simply don't know. Your only other fall back is to maybe have a player call them out on it who has done the same thing. Then, to make matters tricky, their particular mix of abilities and selections may make something possible that wasn't in isolation so you really do need a familiarity with the options AND how they can combine to serve in that role well.


Keep in mind when you look that many of the backgrounds got rolled up into variants on the others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
I'm reasonably sure no gamer, anywhere, has ever liked any game system just-as-it-is. I'm also willing to bet that every GM has some rule that they've overlooked or didn't know existed, and thus no game system has ever BEEN played just-as-it-is.

For a long, long time I did just this. I enjoyed RAW and welcomed most anyone because of that. I liked that, as long as I stuck to the shrinkwrapped rules, anyone could come play without mental shifts in how 'this is how I play.' The game was the game. Then, the creep in from the PFS crowd practically dictating explicit rewrites of features of that game began dictating how I and those I played with play. It doesn't matter if it was just a few feats. That's now a crossed line, and it's one I can't accept. At that point I mentally walked away while still playing the games. Once I finish out a Rise of the Runelords campaign, and an exception wrt Wrath of the Righteous becuase I have yet to play a mythic character, I'm likely done with Pathfinder overall.


I liked Pathfinder up until about 6 months ago. That's when it became obvious to me how Paizo is treating the game overall, and I hate it. I would liken my discontent more as a vote of no confidence rather than actual hatred of the system.


wakedown wrote:
I am continuously in the mode where I'm mining it for house rules for PF, but am now starting to worry the house rules document is getting unwieldy. :)

~300 pages unwieldy? ;)


Excaliburproxy wrote:
Feats are not core (never forget). The barbarian point = rage powers are neat and give you neat mechanical options. The class I would want an animal companion with (druid) can't find familiar can they? Also: familiars can't attack I am pretty sure. The Warlock gets a familiar that can attack but it does not add your proficiency bonus to attacks (I think) so it is essentially worthless. The warlock familiar is a trap option if you try to build around it. And without scrolls and the like the batman wizard is crap. So I disagree with every last one of your refutations.

You can disagree, but they're each valid. I asked what could you do with one book that you couldn't do with the other. It doesn't matter what's "core." The options are in the PHB to do what I said. Your dislike of wizards not being able to churn out scrolls is a non sequitur in relation to your goal. You don't need scrolls to be a utilitarian caster. Cantrips can carry you the most of the way in 5th.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
I can't build a ranger that buffs the party (unless there are spells that I am forgetting).

Letting your whole party not be subject to difficult terrain in their favored terrain isn't a buff? Interesting.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
My fighter is just as likely to hit with a sword as the rogue or anyone else with the ability score and weapon proficiency.

Actually, as far as straight to-hits, rogue's actually get things that let them hit more often. Fighters tend to do clumpier damage.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
There are fewer options for Sorcerers and Clerics (a mathematically trivial example, I admit).

You mean compared between PF and 5th? That's true.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
I can't build my character around bullying and terrifying my enemies (dazzling display and such; really there are few skills in combat in general)

Disassociate combat with terrorizing and bullying enemies. Given that backgrounds have flaws that can give characters inherent fears, that can be accomplished through pure roleplay. No mechanics needed.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
There is no item creation right? So no item creation builds for my wizard.

As I said, not necessary for your goal. If it's about optimization then, yes, PF gets a +1 here. However, the build is mechanically viable in each. Plus, with 5th's spells you often get more flexibility for each casting. That puts it above PF's spells overall.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
Sorcerer becomes the one class who is soul heir to metamagic.

As they should, but that's a matter of taste and is neither a penalty or bonus.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
You can't even build a fighter that can count on doing maneuvers every round if he wants.

No, you can't. I would argue this one is more taste, though. I find most infinite anything builds nonsensical.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:
I'm not sure how generally aware folks are of the 5e changes, so I'll repeat a couple here since I think movement is more interesting in 5e because of the action economy overhaul.

That's part of my frustration. It's clear that many people critiqueing 5e haven't actually read it, followed its development, or even looked at the many legend and lore articles behind its concepts. Most of them come across as if they're working on rumor, hyperbole, and a passing glance at the Basic rules PDF at best.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
A near-optimal trip (or other combat maneuver) build with martial classes besides the fighter.

Why can't it be a fighter? Bah... okay, there's a feat for this where anyone can get 2 maneuvers and superiority dice. Before you call that 'not optimal' it's about as optimal as 5e gets. The only thing it lacks is the superiority die advancement of the fighter.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
A real deal Batman wizard that don't give two damns about fighting.

Pick non-combat spells. Mage hand can even move magic items in 5e.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
A bard that actually can improve the combat viability of the party every turn consistently and then picks up feat chains to help his buddies out (feinting and the like).

I actually haven't looked at the 5e bard. Bards aren't my thing.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
Barbarians that do cool stuff other than move, hit things with swords, and take damage (admittedly pretty good stuff though).

Define 'cool stuff.' That's too vague.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
Animal companion builds where the animal companion does stuff other than attack in combat.

Make your checks. Get the Find Familiar spell.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
I can think of more if you don't think that is enough.

Please do.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
I think there are some people playing pathfinder and look at 5e then say to themselves "This should be the future of pathfinder." I think that is both right and wrong really. The 3.5 system is clumsy in spots but the core draw: character building and self expression through rules are valuable and should continue to exist in Pathfinder as 5e removes an emphasis from it (to put it mildly, I think).

What's a mechanical expression you can do in the PF CRB that you can't do with the 5e PHB?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps the clincher for me in the 'complexity' side of things is that you can have a metric f-ton of closely related feats yet be completely mechanically innept in a different yet still very related skill set. That's the major failing in Pathfinder. That's also not complexity. It's a sign of unchecked system bloat.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
I have discussed repeatedly how the core mechanics and design philosophy (with its limited numbers of feats over 20 levels and small number of class decisions) is built around giving players far fewer choices over their adventuring career than Pathfinder, 3e, or 4e. This makes me like 5e less. Did you not read my original post?

My post wasn't about you per se. It was about these threads in general. They are often passive aggressive snipes at the system just barely able to get by the anti-edition war rule. And, honestly, with how many posts get deleted by mods here for merely provocative language I'm curious how they exist at all. It basically feels like a double standard.


thejeff wrote:
How do they handle multiclassing for casters? I've only seen the basic rules so far.

Your spell slots are determined by a provided for calculation of each class's levels. For example, you get full credit for wizards, et al. and half credit for ranger levels. A couple also give 3/4 credit. Add up your credits and look at the table in the multiclassing section to determine your final allotment of spells per day.


I can see your points.


Probably. I prefer things like gods to be above normal notions of ability. Thus, no menagerie of feats or 20 levels of classes accurately describes a god.

In terms of general monster design, if your idea of making them powerful is just slapping on every feat under the sun, then I'd challenge you to reevaluate your idea of powerful. If your main concern is 'something PCs can potentially fight and defeat' then, again, I would challenge you to rethink what it takes to accomplish that goal.

Giving them stats like an AC and ability scores is fine. However, when you get to the meat of what makes a god a god, you would do well to follow established patterns and give them wholly unique abilities. The template approach as described earlier is the right idea but I feel it's too verbose and tries to be too all inclusive. Doing such a thing only makes sense if you want to allow PCs to become gods themselves. Otherwise, they should be unique beings.

Even mortal ascended deities like Iomedae would be completely rewritten at the moment of ascension. A common critique of that approach is knowing what's 'fair.' Gods are the easiest to create in this way. They are the personification of their domains, utter masters. Write them as such. However, do so knowing that all beings have potential weaknesses and write those in, too.

This goes beyond simple notions of DR and what penetrates it, regeneration and what interupts it, etc. Creating full fledged deities is more like writing artifact entries than leveling up a PC with 40+ class levels.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing that annoys me about these quite usually passive aggressive 'comparisons' between PF and 5th is that they're comparing a single core book to the myriad of hardbacks, splats, and APs Paizo has done over several years. It's like having one dude trying to fight an army.

For those that criticize the number of options, did you honestly expect Wizards to release a half dozen rule books and multiple complete adventures at once? The first book's purpose is to lay a foundation on which to build other things and other things are coming. I'd challenge you to restrict future games to CRB only and enjoy the miniscule options by comparison.

The main thing that stands out to me in comparison of the two is that PF's feats give me +2 to something or let me not provoke AoOs by level 3 while 5th's feats let me bypass energy resistances and cast spells in response to AoOs by level 4. Fighters get caster goodies by them as well as early as first level or even without them depending on race without cheapening those who are full casters and vice versa. In Pathfinder, pulling off that kind of mix takes SEVERAL levels minimum. This comes down to matters of taste.

Being based on D&D and d20, the base feel of races, classes, and spells are largely the same between each.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
insaneogeddon wrote:
Everyone gets like 30 bonus feats
You lost me with this. What are you talking about? Feats are rare since you have to choose between an ability bump or a feat. Sure you can take all feats, but do you really want your primary state to be a 15? If you're a spellcaster that means your DCs are 12. That's pretty low and easy to make the save (granted, not when you roll like me, but still).
I think he's saying you get things for free that would be feats in PF, but I'm not sure.

Gods forbid! You mean characters might be able to both pick their nose AND scratch their ass as early as first level?

Obviously a broken system.

No way, man. The broken part is that you can open doors without spending a move action. How will GMs cope?!


I wouldn't. Feat spam is a failing of the 3.x paradigm.


I'm not talking about your part. I'm talking about Iomedae's feat list in the OP. Kingdom building rules are easy by comparison.


I'm just curious how anyone can effectively run these gods when they have feat lists like that. You almost need to give them an instruction manual.


Another tip: when clicking on the number of new posts on a thread, do some detection. For small updates (>=~5) display them inline with an inline reply option as well as an option to go to the thread page. This should also save request overhead for frequent visitors and responders.


Just do disintegrate. 10d6+40 damage. That's a level 6 or 7, iirc. The lesson is to not waste high level slots for minimal gains. It's like me complaining in pathfinder I can't damage anyone with magic missile when the opponent has shield up.


I don't think they can get away with being more aggressive. At least, it wouldn't be smart for them to. Their last edition was very much like that. It blew up in their face. Sure, they have a great release with the PHB but for their planning right now, they can't have known that for sure. I hope the subsequent releases and feedback keep being good so they can ramp up a release schedule as time goes on. That will take time.


Ffordesoon wrote:
As a frequent player of Pathfinder and 5e, and a lover of both, I find this statement entirely foreign to my experience with the game. The cull of fiddly cruft (stacking modifiers, stacking buffs, stacking debuffs, skill rank allocation, long feat chains, strict grid rules, etc.) from the core rules makes the game so much easier to play, it's not even funny. Less stuff to keep track of at any one time equals more headspace you can devote to the stuff that's happening in the game proper.

This is my experience as well. And I DM. Not once have I had to field questions about how do x and y work outside of character creation. In play it's all 'I do x' or a bit of roleplay, I roleplay back or explain what happened with x, and it's the next person's turn. It's really freaking snappy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Agreed and seconded. So far I'm liking what I see. Not sure if I will ever run let alone play it. For the first time in a long time I want to play a Paladin. I do think that 5E may give PF a run for it's money.

Holy crap yes. Paladins don't have to be mindless husks of a god anymore. They can be dark, brooding, and seething with hate, even. Most of the 'why can't paladins do/be x' is solved in 5th's rendition.

That makes me curious, though. Given all the critiques and complaints of Pathfinder here, I wonder if Wizards took those into consideration with the intent of drawing in those who shared those views.


sunshadow21 wrote:
This time, they asked people what they wanted, and what they wanted right now was shaped in large part by the rose colored glasses looking at the comparatively distant past; therefore, it does not surprise me that most people are not seeing any problems with the new system yet. It gave them exactly what they wanted to see from their current perspective.

That's certainly some conjecture. You're using rose colored glasses to demean a years long process of democratic selection and refinement. That puts it up toward hyperbole. It's also entirely counter to my experience. So, to paint everyone who likes 5e as 'they' with your attributions is simply wrong.

I was never heavily involved in playing 3rd edition. I played a couple games here and there with some friends but couldn't regularly participate because they lived in another city that was a significant drive. When the PF beta came out, I was in the transnational session that exposed me to the rules, and I've played PF vastly more regularly since it actually released. So, the exact tint on my rose colored glasses is minimal. I can objectively say that 5e's core compared to PF's is simply superior. PHB vs CRB, I want the game the game the PHB describes much more than what the CRB describes.


Lady Redfield wrote:
For what it's worth, the new stuff is vastly superior to the original nWoD system on basically every level.

Get rid of the god-machine, and I'll at least give it a chance.


She might be higher CR but his stats imply being able to kick her ass all the same.


I see it often. I play home games regularly with two PFS VLs, both of whom are store coordinators and have played with my state's VC. As great as they are as people, there's a metric f-ton of ego that can get thrown around the moment question the role of PFS to Paizo and Pathfinder overall even if you just passively ask questions and don't agree with their responses. Then, out come the stories of how one of them run personal games for the likes of Erik Mona and Mike Brock. Evidence? I'll just start recording my conversations.


The two things that spring to mind are:

Legendary Resistance: let's you choose to succeed on a save if you fail.

Magic Resistance: you have advantage on saves versus spells.

These things are in the DMG Basic PDF.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mike Franke wrote:
I'm sure someone has already said this, but what makes you think we aren't already playing the second edition of pathfinder? Look at the evolution of the classes over the last couple of years plus totally new mechanics like grit and arcane pools not to mention the many errata.

Oh hell yeah. I made a thread about this where the Pathfinder Defense Force came out with gusto full of 'where's ur proof?' responses and hyperbolic statements. It got locked before a dozen or so comments. This is absolutely their current strategy. They also issue errata on long time fundamentals of the game for current balance issues, and push it all out as if it's just business as usual all the while trying to say 'oh, no, totes not making a new edition of Pathfinder.'

To me it's utter b+~#@*%+. It's underhanded and ruins any sense of what 'playing Pathfinder' means. When that kind of BS is acceptable then it dilutes the system and co-opts the vast majority of the user base in their new way of doing things even though someone could very well have liked the got into the game for how things were originally done. How? PFS which also happens to be the probably the main reason for the errata in the first place. Those guys have to enforce the current rule set and when those players play outside of PFS there's this dissonance and questions so either gaming groups adapt or face maybe losing players. THEN! The PFS folks complain about the current rules and push changes to make it the way they want because GMs get a hair up their ass because they have to actually think about how to run a game. It then turns into a huge ball of nepotism because the PFS folks like to be chummy from the bottom up.

It's a massive churn that over time makes the game utterly horrible compared to what it was. It's one of the main reasons why I hate Pathfinder in its current implementation. Not so much for the system itself but how Paizo has come to treat it. It's like they can't be confident in their own product so why should I? Then, I have to put up with needless nonsense from my PF gaming group because they're forced to change how they play and naturally I get drug along with them and when I try to play the game I bought I get questioned, rules debates happen, and it's just a s&$~ty experience.


The Forgotten Realms answer is that Mystra actively spreads scrolls everywhere to be found. But, I think the DMG is going to have crafting rules in them. Remember the 5e starter adventure has you liberating an ancient magical forge from baddies. It's a part of the world, but exactly how it's done is sufficiently rare knowledge to not be in the PHB. Thus, it's not assumed to be even a potential option to characters in general.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
There is nothing wrong with not wanting to play a dead edition. One of the many hassles of such is converting the interesting new stuff to your old stuff.

Absolutely not. I'm just saying from what we've already seen time and again on here, Paizo often goes above and beyond in that respect and the community here is top notch for contributing in a myriad number of ways. For something like converting monster entries to a new system being portrayed as life/hobby disrupting is blowing that aspect of converting way out of proportion.


DrDeth wrote:

I am curious- those that really want a new edition- what are you expecting? I mean if you want a new edition as you are hoping they will get rid of alignments or Vancian casting are very likely to not get what they want (not saying that for sure, mind you). Some have asked for Teleporting Fighters. Even a small change like more Skill points for the Fighter may not be in the cards.

Feat taxes may still exist, etc.

So- do you want a new edition as you are hoping for a certain change? What happens if 2nd Ed comes and that change isnt there?

Except that's EXTREMELY unlikely. In the couple of times there's been a Paizo blog where they've completely rewritten something as a thought experiment, it's been great and well received. An entire edition like that might make my head explode. Literally. O.O

I don't want a new edition to compete with 5th. I want a new edition (and have longer than I've wanted to play 5th these last couple months) so that Paizo's creative staff can actually shine without the need to pander to an old system. Their uniquely own mechanics are generally excellent. I want more of that. I want a Pathfinder that is uniquely its own system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Triphoppenskip wrote:
Sure let me quit my job, stop preparing meals, drop all house work etc. that way I'll have plenty of time to devote to my hobby. Lol if only.

Dude(tte), if you gotta quit your job and stop eating just to convert some monster stat arrays and reading an AP book then you either a) work and eat too much or b) play Pathfinder way too much. Either way, lol, that's some dedication.


Adjule wrote:
Aasimar have existed since Planescape in 2nd edition at the earliest that I know of.

Good to know!

1 to 50 of 3,529 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.