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. 3,382 posts. 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 5 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 3,382 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Hama wrote:
Some dark elements are back in including assassins as well as tieflings. Group play is back with various rules for group exploration and skill checks.
You do know that all this existed in 3E as well as 4E? It's not really back. It never went away.

I think the change is subtle but important. Instead of paying a lifestyle cost and getting to ignore a certain amount of daily expenditures, for example, now those things are called out as gear maintenance, lodging, eating, intrigue from thieves or aristocrats, and so on.

I forget the youtube channel I was watching, but they were going over 5e and one of the guys went on how if something isn't explicitly in the game then it's not really in the game that I found I agree with. Instead, there's a contrivance to make it part of the game. But, in 5e, with just the basic rules, those things are most certainly in the game.

Charlie D. wrote:
You doctor example doesn't match the context of my post. A doctor being unskilled has nothing to do with what he says.

I didn't say the doctor was unskilled. I simply described him as obstinate to adopt new treatments and being voiceferous about it. It's valid.

Charlie D. wrote:

As to RPGs, on this point RPG Pundit would disagree with you. He sees this campaign against him as PR (it helps sell what he writes and it sells books for companies he works for).

I do know that being unable to speak my mind or my side of things can be frustrating. And being prevented from being who you are in public is very much a part of modern life.

By stopping discussion on some type of open forum where everyone can respond honestly and will be called to defend what they say I think we risk a lot as demonstrated in this example.

I guess you could say in those cases I do vote with my wallet. People who are overly pushy with their ideals in a way that could impact decisions around a product negatively in my view don't get me money if I'm aware of them. That's really about all you can do to impact such things.

Then, they're no longer wizards. They're fighters.

Diffan wrote:
System Abuse - Lord knows that we'll eventually see things like DPR-Kings and other such Character_Optimization threads that go into the guts of the system to find the ULTIMATE combo-power build (and that's cool, I'm fine with people who love to system-craft, etc) but the extent it was done in 3E and 4E, I felt bordered on the absurd. Obviously there will be loopholes or RAW vs. RAI questions and debates because the game is created by people, who are not perfect. But with the toned down scope of the system and less emphasis on min/max character builds, I think there will be less emphasis on it.

This is of particualr import to me. Things are worded in a way that lets them be more easily understood and ruled upon.

There's very little gray area as to the general scope of the ability making it easy to spot violations and even giving you (the DM) the ability to more easily rationalize to your players why. That's been a pain point for me in PF. Often, you'll get an ability and RAW says something is legit and the player is right. Even though it doesn't feel right to you and you know it shouldn't 'actually work' there's nothing for you to point to in order to form a common basis to reason why or why not. You don't need to resort to fiat, mother may I, because I said so, and so on type exchanges to work through those issues. It's got a much more cooperative feel while keeping the DM in control of the setting and game, letting players do really cool and flavorful things without even threatening to break the system, and so on. It's great.

Charlie D. wrote:
The question is, if you have a skill and want to practice it should you prevented from doing so because a group of other people don't like what you say?

Yes, even sometimes with urgency. Politics is a great example. If you have a doctor that publicly refuses to read publications and studies on new treatments, it could be reasonably argued he's introducing risk to his practice and his insurance might actually drop him preventing him from practice. For RPGs, though, I would think the same applies. If you have someone who is publicly divisive in his speech and you're trying to build a product to really be big then don't hire them. Or, at the very least, don't hire them in any public capacity. PR is real and has very good uses. Remember the Microsoft guy who said 'deal with it' with the Xbox One mess? He no longer works for Microsoft.

thejeff wrote:
Besides, the whole idea that "Take out the casters" is a valid response to Aux's concern's with the system is ridiculous. Magic and casting classes are a huge part of the feel of D&D and have been from the very start. As far as I can tell, Aux wants a lower powered, grittier version of D&D, not one with huge chunks ripped out and thrown away. Being able to play lower powered casters is part of the appeal.

It's no different than low magic Pathfinder changes. That said, I did read last night that low magic will be addressed in the DMG.

Grit is a very subjective term that has different meanings depending on the person. If comparing the two, I would describe 5e as grittier than PF in that the more mundane aspects of the world are expressed to matter. Things like caring for gear, eating and drinking, housing, and so on are all things said to be a part of your characters activities in a way that's meaningful. That's mostly so in terms of costing them money. But, it gives DMs a perfectly valid reason to give consequences for ignoring those aspects without being 'cheap' or mean to your players. They're told those things matter.

Adjule wrote:

The bolded classes have spellcasting subclasses (eldritch knight and arcane trickster), while I am completely certain that the ranger has spellcasting built into the class itself (not sure if any subclass has the spells removed or not). Paladin the same way.

I am pretty sure that, at least in the PHB, bards, druids, and other spellcasters have no reduced/removed spellcasting subclasses.

Indeed they do, but you don't have to allow them. However, wizards get no 'no magic' option for sure. That's been confirmed for the PHB.

As I said, it prescribes the same thing for backgrounds. If you're doing what the book says then you actually are.

JoeJ wrote:
But will banning casters leave just three or four playable classes? I wouldn't want to run, for example, a Knights of the Round Table campaign with only one martial class. One of the things I liked in 2E was that in several of the Historical Reference guides there were non-casting kits for paladins, rangers, and I think bards too.

Well, so far we know about the barbarian, fighter, monk, ranger, and rogue. I would imagine those certainly have zero magic subclasses. Bards and druids could even have a no/very low magic subclasses depending on what's released. tents-and-Sorcerer-From-the-D-D-Players-Handbook

You could even provide a custom cleric and paladin subclass to highlight martial ability and curb any casting they'd have that would break the standard you have in mind no different than it is encouraged to create custom backgrounds if the provided ones don't fit your concept. Unfortunately I don't see no magic subclasses for sorcerers, wizards, and warlocks. Which, three out of 12 is a distinct minority. It's saying something, imo, when almost half your classes can be perfectly mundane.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of the main points of 5e is to be friendly to being molded as needed by GMs. It is a perfectly fine solution and can be done many times with the tools provided so it gets what you want a good majority of the time without feeling contrived. Magic is described as rare, magic items are explicitly not available for sale. To say 'no casters' for a campaign is perfectly legit and viable.

I have yet to see you point out something that doesn't work. It's like you're waiving your arms screaming foul not at anything in particular but just to say something's wrong. But I'm acting bizarre? Whatever. The only thing you've explicitly stated is that you don't like the system. Nothing will change that. That's all on you. But, if you want to actually talk about the system and its particulars then that's something we can have a discussion over. I have zero interest in 'converting' you or changing your view on it.

I think the simplification for 5e is great for those who weren't around for the older editions. I was three when 2nd edition was released. Sure, I can get a few of the books from my local gaming store, but they're all visibly worn so they aren't being newly printed unlike the full retinue of mint 3.5 books I can get. I love the simplicity because it's the first I've encountered it in the space I enjoy: D&D/PF.

Steve Geddes wrote:
I doubt it's a common position, but for me it's because I'm hoping to see a rules-light system with a lot of support.

This is definitely a factor in it for me.

As I said, carry on.

I never called you an enemy. Do not put words in my mouth. I never prescribed you labels either. Put your offense somewhere else. What I said is correct, though. For someone to have talked like they read the Basic 5e rules, you misrepresent them as a whole by claiming they are inadequate to run the game you want. They're not. That doesn't force you to like the system, but it can fit many play styles and campaigns no less adequately than in previous ones.

My crap? I just outlined your own statements and responded to them candidly. If you don't like that, then make different ones.

If you don't like 5th, that's fine. Carry on. My speech is simply pointing out the features of the system as they are and pointing when things aren't given credit so that it's not misrepresented.

I should add, Auxmaulous, that when I said 'enemies are able to endanger the PCs' I didn't just mean leveled things. Commoners are included in that as well. That's the balance of 5e. Furthermore, political intrigue, diplomacy, and role play (yes, seriously) are all black and white mentions in the text of the Basic rules and soon the PHB. It's far from a pure hack and slash 'kill all the things' game.

Auxmaulous wrote:
It isn't so much about humbling the players - I'm not running my games to do that. And you can find a way to challenge any player in any game system - it's just a question of how high you want to ratchet things up to get them challenged. In PF I need to regularly run CR +3 to +4 encounters just to get a sense of fear (players are moderately to highly optimized). In this game it may be more. I need to playtest encounter after encounter party durability and resource use to get a better idea.

This is fine in 5e, actually. That dragon I mentioned? It's a challenge rating 8. So, assuming you're max level, a +3 CR is wtfpwn in their case. You may still not like the level of the game regardless, but level to CR is pretty tightly configured.

Auxmaulous wrote:
My issue beyond challenge (which is still a concern) is pace and immersion - when it comes to healing, resource use, encounter powers. Yeah, I know immersion is met with but "it's magic/it's fantasy!"....that phrase gets tossed around here quite a bit as cover for anything that doesn't make sense. I don't want to run a redline game 100% of the time, where players get dropped, revivified and then the next day they are cooking bacon and eggs as if nothing happened.

Literally the only two things you'd have to do to seal the low resource feel in a campaign ran otherwise RAW is to not allow spell casters, and restrict healing on a rest. Magic items are out by default except where you award them. They're not on the market at large.

Auxmaulous wrote:
I also would like to run a more "silence of the lambs" feel of exploration - something akin to a mix of fear, wonder and extreme caution (think public storage shed scene/fight with buffalo bill) vs. something that requires the pacing of a Michael Bay movie to keep the players challenged or threatened.

I'd hardly describe 5e as a Michael Bay movie. However, you can run an exploration/horror campaign in most any system. The primary components are the behavior of the GM and players such as no/little table talk, keeping them constantly engaged in the story, and so on. The system is secondary in a horror campaign.

Auxmaulous wrote:
The more I read the more I feel that things are taking a binary approach to success and failure in this system - advantage/disadvantage, easy revive and easy healing - so the only choices are absolute death or 100% full. Every encounter as a full encounter - which works great if you are trying to balance encounter challenge vs. party level but it's horrible if you are running a resource restricted game.

Well, things are binary... even in Pathfinder. You either hit or you don't, you either succeed on a check or you don't, you save or you don't, etc. The choice in combat is far from absolute death or 100% full HP. In fact, there's no point where anyone is safe from anyone else. Enemies will always be able to endanger PCs and vice versa. If taken in that resource restricted campaign, that means you can take the low HP/thirsty/starving (yes, 5e has food/water intake guidelines) party, have a snake bite them and slither away, and they'll actually be in danger and have a challenge to overcome.

If you've read the rules at all and conclude what you've posted, then I'm entirely comfortable asserting you either flipped pages and didn't pay attention, you're discounting many aspects of the system, or you're intentionally misrepresenting its elements. If you're running the game and your players constantly have advantage or disadvantage then you're being way too generous with that mechanic. For a resource restricted game, again, it more depends on the campaign. Nothing forces you to allow everything to your players, nothing says they need to be within a days/weeks journey to a well stocked town, and so on.

Auxmaulous wrote:
Anyway - I'm going over the Basic file again - taking a second look to find problems.

I recommend it. I don't see why you can't do in 5e what you just said you want to do. Pathfinder is no less fantastic.

Auxmaulous wrote:
No, I get it Buri - the power of the PCs is relative to the challenges they may face. I just don't like that "locked in" power and intensity.

Would it be sufficient to be able to humble your players with a goblin raid when they're level 20? With Bounded Accuracy, you can do that.

pauljathome wrote:

That is absurdly powerful. And will take forever to adjudicate with players who are NOT particularly numerate.

I REALLY hope PFS disallows this

No, instead it'll get "FAQ'd" (read: errata'd) so it'll work in PFS.

You guys saying PCs are too high powered should peak at the Starter Set campaign. Yes, PCs awesome but all enemies of the same kind activate on the same initiative. It makes goblin ambushes actually scary especially when they can move up, attack, and back away in the same round without provoking. There's also a dragon you can face... in a campaign for 1-5 level characters. Combat can be brutal. You almost need the awesome to win depending on the situation. And that dragon? Nothing you get by level 5 makes him any kind of easy. It's a b*#@*.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
So, after playing two test sessions of this, one as a player, other as a GM, I can certainly say that I will not be buying a single book. It's not for me. Nor people I game with. And I definitely don't want to introduce it to new people. Pathfinder is more than good enough.

Can you detail why? Which pain points did you run into?

Blazej, I'm not calling you a liar, but I'd really like an example. Granted, I've only stuck to the 5th ed. forums, but I haven't seen that kind of behavior there.

A few backgrounds are the Basic PDF as are descriptions on how to generally treat them.

At this point, it's a direct competitor. They no longer do that and are not aligned with Wizards or D&D outside of the OGL. They are out for their own market share.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, yes, I'm the CEO. :D

I can't bring myself to quite simply avoid coming here because I've been a PF player and GM for a while. I can see why there is bias on a competitors forum but to wholly discount things when it's obvious you either haven't even looked at the competing product, you're lying, or being intentionally obtuse just grates me. In the other thread about trust, people really need to grow up and learn to be accountable for themselves which is another thing that grates on me. Actual age is secondary there which is even more frustrating.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sure it is. There are three forms of ability score generation provided. Use whichever one your group likes. That is modularity.

Also, don't discount the others by soap boxing on one you dislike.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rathendar wrote:
How about you buy it, go to bed, and look to download it after work the next day only to find it not available? Still wouldn't feel wronged?

Nope; I had my opportunity. That'd be when I contact customer service for a refund. Failing that, because the transaction is super fresh, I can call my bank and tell them it was a fraudulent charge because I was denied the product so the business transaction was incomplete and the merchant was unwilling/able to complete it. Like magic I have my money back. I've done this before. It's a matter of understanding who actually works for you and putting that to use.

To the point, as a matter of principle I download my products right away because I don't trust a business. Being a programmer, I'm well aware that business decisions change daily which has sweeping repercussions on tech. I literally see it all the time in emails, in code that I have to ask questions about to find out base assumption has changed, etc. On top of that the random issues that can crop up in tech can also deny you access. Basically, get it while the getting is good.

The concept of trust in business is a PR scam even with Paizo. If they found it expedient to do so, their PDFs would be down in a matter of moments. That's just the reality of business. The only thing in business of import is what you have legal obligations to do so, period. Everything else is secondary. You don't trust companies, or, rather, you shouldn't.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

We're not talking about keeping things for decades. We're talking about something you could have bought yesterday not being in the companies download library tomorrow.

Hope you got the warning email.

So, I bought the product and had a chance to download it. How was I wronged? Just because it wasn't up the next day? That's immaterial. Unless there was a binding agreement (read: in a legal agreement and not some marketing slogan on the site) that you had with DTRPG then there's zero guarantee. That's a universal truth in business. If there were a binding agreement, then you'd have grounds to sue.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I added a list of optional rules built in I could think of. They're all in the Basic pdf.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
As far as I can tell, the whole "adjustable dials"/modularity thing isn't part of the game. Isn't even really being talked about any more. The only vestige I see is the "Use feats or just get stat increases" thing.

It's implemented. New things are being talked about. There are a lot of sidebars in the basic rules talking about optional variants and the DMG will contain many more. If the feats things is all you know about then you're going based on word of mouth rather than looking into the product yourself.

Optional systems off the top of my head:

alternate ability score generation
alternate racial stats depending on race (human is one)
optional encumbrance rules vs the default carry capacity

2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

That's extremely disingenuous of you. There's a big difference between "decide who distributes their products" and "make unavailable something that has already been paid for."

Furthermore, this is precisely the sort of argumentation for which you're constantly taking others to task.

It is technically, financially, and practically untenable to expect a resource to exist forever. Paizo and/or Pathfinder won't always be around, and neither will the PRD. I guarantee it.

Anyway, for some comparison here's a timeline of editions:

d&d: 1974 (3 years)
ad&d: 1977 (12 years)
d&d2e: 1989 (11 years)
d&d3e: 2000 (3 years)
d&d3.5e: 2003 (4 years)
d&d4e: 2007 (7 years)
d&d5e: 2014

pf: 2009 (5 years)

If the time that a company keeps a product available and supports it determines how much trust that company has, then Wizards is still way above Paizo with an average product lifespan of 6.7 years and two whole editions for lasting over a decade. Since 3.5 worked with 3 that shifts their average produce lifespan to 8 years counting them together. The actual problem is a perception and entitlement one.

The PDF thing sucks, but, and this has become acutely important of late, no company is going out of their way to ensure your individual, personal best interest. Not even Paizo does that. You bought the product and got your copy. To keep that copy in the same place and expect nothing to happen ever is, as I said, untenable. The folks who bought them were responsible for their upkeep. Get a thumb drive, keep a zip file locally, and since I'm doing timelines, Dropbox became a thing in 2008: use it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The trust argument is blown way out of proportion. The basic rules are available for free and gives a very good impression of the core game. Look at them and see if you like it or not. There have been many, many articles written on the theory and decisions into Next for all to see. You can accurately see where they're going. Whether or not you like their implementation of those ideals is secondary but is where the trust part comes in. But, again, I would point you to the free basic rules PDF so you can see what that implementation can look like.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Logan1138 wrote:

I plan to (if I ever DM).

I like 5E (at least what little I have seen so far) more than 3.X/4E and Pathfinder but there are still plenty of things that make me cringe including: the evoker's Sculpt Spells ability, healing Hit Dice, "encounter" powers that "recharge" after a short rest and completely healing back to full hit points after a long rest.

To me, it's a strength of the system that you can tweak a couple things and accomplish most of what you want without needing a lot of other changes to keep things balanced. The modularty is nice.

For sculpt spells you could say all the allies gain is advantage on the saving throw and be done with it.

Better yet, the basic rules which include everything you'd need to create and run a character are free.

Logan1138 wrote:
More lethal overall than what? 3E? 4E? Probably not more lethal than 0E or 1E which is the play style I'd like to have replicated.

That's not hard. Just tweak healing on a rest.

The basic rules imply potions and scrolls are about the only magic items in regular supply.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:

Something I haven't seen mentioned here regarding concentration is that it looks like most of the battlefield control spells are also concentration: Antimagic Field, Blade Barrier, Faerie Fire, Globe of Invulnerability, Maze, Wall of Stone, and Web. So a caster can have one of those going or buff somebody, but not both.

This really changes the tactical situation. Most of what worked on the battlefield in 3.5/PF isn't going to work in 5E.

Nope. You'll have to make some genuinely hard choices. That's a good thing though. Wizards occupy the top still in terms of the system overall, but that ceiling has been reduced drastically.

Pan wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I like the sculpt spell ability because it shows that Evokers know their way around destructive magics. It shows that training steadily in the particular school has greater benefits than being a generalist. I'd also like to see what other effects are tied to schools.

I agree with the thought process here but I feel the sculpt bit is ultimately cheesy. I probably shouldn't say this but the no friendly fire thing reminds me of an element I dislike in video games. It just removes an interesting challenge of the game and makes it easier. I wish they would have chosen a different school for the PDF.

It's okay. The game is more lethal overall. It's nice to not have to worry about blasting your friemds.

Do you have prime, Jeraa?

thejeff wrote:

Odd. To me it seemed to counter the preparing spells in higher slots idea and to be much more akin to the AD&D/3.x way where spell effects go up with caster level.

The paradigm you're describing, and the way cantrips work, is how D&D spells have worked for decades. Having to use higher level slots to get those effects is the change, but it moves it away from "who casts it matters almost as much as the spell itself".

Preparing them in a higher slot in and of itself did nothing special.

James Jacobs wrote:

More or less, yeah.

We've mentioned a concept of "divine laws" before that enumerate the ways the gods can and cannot interact with mortals, and what is to be done when they do, and that Rovagug breaking these laws is what started the war that ended with his imprisonment, but we'll not be showing those laws off in public. Because they're not actually written down here at Paizo. Because we're not gods and can't do them justice.

Would you categorize them in either broad strokes laws like the Ten Commandments or more like an Asmodean contract that has so many caveats that it takes a god to work with it without shooting themselves in the foot? Bit of both? Some Commandment main course with contract garnishing, maybe?

A better question might be if you guys have ever directly, seemingly contradicted yourselves with the gods so as to create some real head scratchers. Have you?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lisa Stevens wrote:

We may very well be "kicked down" to #2, but it would be more accurate to say "kicked up" to #2, because Pathfinder continues to grow and sell more and more Core Rulebooks. This quarter we are in right now, the one where D&D 5e is releasing, will see us sell more Beginner's Boxes and Core Rulebooks than any other quarter outside of the ones the two products were released in!

It seems pretty clear to me that D&D5 is going to scratch an itch for some customers that wouldn't be interested in Pathfinder. Different strokes for different folks. I don't think there is all that much overlap between our two markets, which is great for roleplaying games, since that means more people playing RPGs. If we were just divvying up the same shrinking pie, then it would be a losing situation for all. But for my vantage, it seems like RPGs are growing. I know that Pathfinder sure is!


Well, Pathfinder lost me. Customers come and go, absolutely. But, some little things lead by some huge recent moves just ended my enjoyment of the system. Primarly, I can't escape the feeling that PFS is dictating the future direction of Pathfinder at large more and more. Many genuinely unique things got trashed like Crane Wing all because of PFS complaints. The two should be separate. The thing with spells known also smells of the same situation. It all seems to work toward a generalizing of the system skewing towards more of what 4E was.

Also, the manner of sweeping nature of those changes by way of errata rather than making them really work with a new system with staff comments here and there makes me think Paizo will evolve Pathfinder rather than releasing a new edition. Thus, there is no permanence or sense of mastery of the system since what the system is can and will change based on the needs of the moment rather than what works with the system overall.

A minor nitpick has been the recent book styling. Part of what drew me in to the aesthetics of the CRB was that 'old tome' page design. The new style isn't bad. It's just not what hooked me. In relation to the above points this is incredibly minor.

Anyway, I hope you see this as I've thoroughly enjoyed Pathfinder since beta. My introduction was literally during a 3.5 session with my DM dragging our characters through a portal into Golarion where we then made Pathfinder versions of our characters with beta rules. That was cool. I'm sure you do get tons of feedback how awesome Pathfinder is. It really is. The shakiness is something I can't accept from an expensive hobby. Looking at 5th presents a system that is flavorful, concise, and feels genuinely evolutionary in its concepts. I understand that Paizo has a lot invested into what Pathfinder currently is, but I hope you find the courage to really create your own niche and try to solve all those pesky problems that make you feel like you need to change the base system to cater to a vocal minority of your customers.

All the best.

The advancing cantrips ties in to preparing spells in higher level slots conceptually. It also takes a spells effects and creates the paradigm that who casts it matters almost as much as the spell itself. That's an awesome feature to have. I expect classes like the sorcerer to really capitalize on it and can't wait to see what the PHB has in it.

There are 12 classes coming total each with several sublcasses. Through them, vast majority mix melee and casting to some degree. All except the wizard will have a martial option. Similarly, through them all martials will have magic options.

P.H. Dungeon wrote:
For instance, I'll probably start my adventurers pretty poor and make adventure a while to get the money they need to upgrade mundane gear.

Because of the base change that magic items aren't assumed, I'm heavily thinking of changing the economy further. Change the base trade payout to sp instead of gp per day, adjusting the ratios of cp to sp and so on to something more realistic, and adjusting lifestyle costs to work with these as well. Item prices will be tweaked as well. You can finally do something about these issues and not feel like you're screwing over your players.

Galaxy Note Pro. Large enough for comfortable landscape reading combined with side by side app containers make note taking as you read uber easy.

In the typical campaign? Nope. You go from 1 to 20 in a matter of months tops in most of them. Kingmaker is a marked outlier here. In my Rise group I think we've spanned a year, maybe, and that's because we just took some extended downtime.

Someone obviously doesn't get sarcasm...

Scavion wrote:
I like to think that if you build up enough, it causes an isolated climate change. It'd be pretty hard to contain all that rain in a 2 mile radius without wind pushing it outside of that.

The spell does what the spell does. No more, no less.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Outside of my current campaign, I'm done with Pathfinder. The last 6 months has left me with the distinct notion that Paizo is leading Pathfinder with PFS more than anything else. As a system, to lead your development by majority input from the most conservative arm of your player base is just bad, and recent rulings on system wide erratas have no place. PFS should be distinctly its own thing probably with its own CRB equivalent. Until that changes I probably won't be coming back.

5th ed makes a lot of right decisions in that you can spring board so many concepts and gives players and GMs wide latitude to dress things up with just the basic rules. You can say what you want about GM fiat in PF but it's one thing to adapt a system to your game and another entirely to have that kind of flexibility written into the core assumption of the rules that gives you many variants, advice on what affects what, etc. and leaves things open yet mechanically inclusive to give them meaning from within that system. It feels like a more inclusive and overall more robust system from the start rather than putting on a dress of GM bolt ons.

None, because if you are a caster and do utility rather than damage in combat you're 'doing it wrong' and stealing resources from the party! Grrrrr.... change your ways!

JoeJ wrote:
So what fighters need, probably, is not godlike strength and endurance feats (the previously mentioned destroying a mountain or diving into lava) but more ability to diversify.

Like the brawler?

1 to 50 of 3,382 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.