So, for those saying "There's nothing wrong with rules":
How do you run it?
Can you leave cover and sneak attack if you can reach the target in a round?
Can you cross between two areas of cover without losing stealth?
The key thing for me is whether combat has started or not. If combat is ongoing characters have no facing as they are considered to be constantly looking around for incoming threats. So in combat, no, no sneaking up to attack someone if that involves you leaving cover and concealment. Also no moving between two areas of cover.
Before initiative is rolled however its a different story. A guard at a town gate may not be looking around constantly (that state of alertness is hard to keep up) and indeed even if alert may be focusing on the area outside the gate (and so is not observing the area behind him inside the town gate; at least not with his eyes). So in such an instance if this is how the GM describes the scene a PC could sneak up on that guard, or move across open ground behind him (assuming he makes his stealth check).
Now if a PC wanted to approach the guard from outside the town gate (i.e. the area being observed) then that would normally be impossible as it would mean leaving cover or concealment - however there rules say "If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth."
So if the guards are distracted a PC could sneak up and attack them, or move through open terrain. This distraction could be a Bluff check, but could also simply be a servant bringing the guard his evening meal and that guard turning to the servant for a few seconds, or even just one guard turning to the other to have a chat. The key thing is outside of the strict timing of a combat round PCs can wait for that momentary distraction and then act quickly (and thus have the -10 penalty).
Of course having said all that I play 3.5 mainly (only PF RPG for PFS) and 3.5 has explicit rules for moving between open areas and up on someone (from Complete Adventurer and reprinted, albeit with a slight error due to reformatting, in Rules Compendium):
Complete Adventurer page 101 wrote:
Move between Cover: If you’re already hiding (thanks to cover or concealment) and you have at least 5 ranks in Hide, you can make a Hide check (with a penalty) to try to move across an area that does not offer cover or concealment without revealing yourself. For every 5 ranks in Hide you possess, you can move up to 5 feet between one hiding place and another. For every 5 feet of open space you must cross between hiding places, you take a –5 penalty on your Hide check. If you move at more than one-half your speed, you also take the normal penalty on Hide checks when moving quickly (–10 for moving faster than normal speed, or –5 for moving between half speed and normal speed).
You can also use this option to sneak up on someone from a hiding place. For every 5 feet of open space between you and the target, you take a –5 penalty on your Hide check. If your Hide check succeeds, your target doesn't notice you until you attack or make some other attention-grabbing action. Such a target is treated as being flat-footed with respect to you.
Yes, it is metagaming, but most likely it is a good type of metagaming, especially if the GM is running a pre-published scenario that is written with the assumption of a "balanced party".
So... read two pages and no one has mentioned my reason for the success.
The one thing Pathfinder does do is concentrate it's efforts into one setting. Though the "kitchen sink" setting (like Eberron) sometimes gets it's detractors, this setting has stirred the imaginations of many through excellent products that treat the setting as a place instead of a generic placemat.
For me, the fact that Pathfinder RPG only has one official (i.e. Paizo created) setting is actually a turn off.
I got into D&D with 3.5 and I bought the 3.0 Forgotten Realms setting book thinking that would be my D&D setting (I liked the map with trade routes etc) - however I got really bored slogging through reading the book (Dale after Dale after Dale!). If FR had been the only D&D setting available I think my love of D&D would have been shortlived, but luckily there was Eberron! :)
I love how Eberron is a kitchen sink setting, but it is done in such a way that it has a cohesive theme and feel. Golarion on the other hand feels like a hodge-podge of mini-settings, and while I can like some individually (Darkmoon Vale for example) as whole it feels "bitty".
So because Golarion is the only setting for PF, and it isn't one I am fond of, my interest in PF isn't as great as it could have been.
9 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
It came up in another thread that errata had changed the Pinned condition in the following manner:
In the Pinned condition, in the second sentence, change "flat-footed" to "denied its Dexterity bonus."
Am I right in taking this to mean the Pinned character is denied its Dexterity bonus to everything, i.e. Reflex Saves, Dex based Skills, AC, CMD, CMB (if have Agile Maneouvres or character is Tiny or smaller) etc?
Or should it actually read as "denied its Dexterity bonus to AC."?
I must admit the blog entry isn't clear on its intent in regards to the following sentences:
"The addition of a Flank trick and an Aid trick means that pets do not, by default, know how to perform these, even if they know the Attack trick. If you command your companion to attack, it will take the most direct route. If you want your companion to always flank, you now need the Flank trick."
The first sentence could be read as either:
"The addition of a Flank trick and an Aid trick means that pets do not, by default, know how to perform these tricks"
or it could be read as
"The addition of a Flank trick and an Aid trick means that pets do not, by default, know how to perform these actions"
The former I would agree with, the latter I would not necessarily agree with - a wolf could know how to flank (and could thus get a flanking bonus if in the position and possibly choose to flank of its own accord) but it would have to be pushed to perform the Flank trick if the Druid wanted it to always seek a flanking position and stay adjacent to a particular foe.
I actually think the third sentence means the former interpretation is correct but I could see how some GMs may read that as "Without the Flank trick an animal companion will never ever seek out a flanking position unless pushed to do so".
The second sentence does worry me though "If you command your companion to attack, it will take the most direct route" - really? Even if that means moving within a few feet of several sword and fire wielding goblins? An animal companion wouldn't circle around those foes to reach its specified target? What if the animal's direct route meant leaping across a lava filled pit? Would it always risk failing the jump, or might it actually think to circle around?
What is worse is that there is no new trick to get an animal companion to move in a specific route, so theoretically animals never circumvent possible hazards if they don't physically stop their movement.
* * *
Overall my worry with the new tricks is that some (possibly overzealous) GMs will assume that if an animal is not trained in one of the new tricks it will never, ever, take that action of its own accord in order to accomplish another Trick.
For example, I fear a GM may rule that a dog successfully given the Defend command could not attempt to perform the Drag combat manoeuvre to drag a foe off from the person it is guarding because it hasn't been given the Manoeuvre (Drag) trick.
Or that a dog successfully given the Track command will never use its Stealth skill when doing so because it has not also been given the Sneak trick even if Track was taught as part of the Hunting purpose where the idea is to track and sneak up on prey.
Or that a dog told to Guard whilst the party sleep in camp will always do so in absolute silence, never barking to warn off any intruders, because such barking would also likely wake the party - and raising an alarm is part of the new Watch trick.
Hopefully GMs will be able to recognise the difference between:
a) the animal wanting to act in a certain way and being able to do so
...and...
b) the character wanting his animal to act in a certain way and being unable to command them to do so
Yes, I've rearely seen a push or any kind of handle animal roll at a PFS table.
Perhaps you have, but as you are merely an onlooker and not the person running the PC with animal companion, you haven't recognised it.
For example, in a recent PFS scenario whilst exploring some sewers I had my Druid push his dog animal companion to Stay at an intersection (as his doesn't have the Stay trick). What you as another player may have simply seen is me say "Grelow turns to Barrow holds up a finger and says 'Stay!".
However, in my own mind I had already thought "Push DC is 25, Grelow's Handle Animal skill modifier is +11 but with his companion he gets a +4 making it +15. As we're not in combat or in a stressful situation, I can Take 10 and automatically succeed."
Now of course I could have verbalised all that and explained it to the other players, but it was simply quicker to say "Grelow turns to Barrow holds up a finger and says 'Stay!"
If the GM had been uncertain as to whether I was following the rules he could ask and I would explain, or he may have already glanced at my character sheet and figured it out himself.
Even if animals had to eat AOOs, it's still NPC resources going to damage entities that basically don't matter.
Entities that basically don't matter? Is that how you see animal companions? I know damn well that my Druid's animal companion Barrow matters a whole lot to Grelow, and having that animal companion die would be a downer for me as a player too.
So yes, having a GM run an animal companion in a manner that forces it to "eat AoOs" when the player doesn't think that is how the animal would act can be a big deal, almost as bad as the GM running the PC to take those AoOs. You talk about it being like the player has two PCs, and yeah, it is a bit like that - the animal companion means something to the player and that is why they want to run it.
Wow Brun, how do you get a trivial Handle Check by 5th leve1? (My druid would like to know)
If CHA is not a dump stat (lets say it is 12) we get a skill of +9 at 5th.
From link we get +4
From Training Harness we get +2
From Skill Focus we get +3.
For a total of +18 … the DC to push a trick is 25 (27 if they are wounded … which is likely in combat).
If you train your animal companion tricks that are most likely to be used in combat, and leave the non-combat tricks untrained, you can Take 10 to push for those latter tricks. I now regret training my animal companion the Perform trick, as now my druid could Take 10 and push him to perform that trick automatically.
No player control of companion outside of the Handle Animal mechanic /which works the same for 100%-legit NPC animals/.
Change that to "No character control of companion outside of the Handle Animal mechanic" and I would agree with you.
I feel that those pushing for GM control of animal companions believe players cannot be trusted not to metagame and play their character's animal companion and the character as if they shared the same knowledge, motivation and tactical ability.
Unfortunately, whilst having GMs controlling animal companions may solve the problem for those players who do metagame, it could severely spoil the fun of those of us who don't metagame and can play the animal companions in a manner that can and does sometimes conflict with the wishes of the character.
Seriously, if I turned up to PFS games and the GMs insisted on playing my character's animal companion and this resulted in erratic behaviour for the AC (e.g. portrayed as a cowardly but cute mutt by one GM and as a snarling unapproachable dog by another GM) then I would likely choose to have my animal companion stay back on the character's farm and play without him.
Animal companions actually require Handle Animal checks to get them to do what you want. Thats why druids get a +4 bonus on Handle Animal checks when dealing with their companion.
The alternative to the GM controlling the animal is not the character controlling it, rather the alternative is the player controlling it.
So the player can control the AC just like he controls his PC, but if he doesn't follow the rules, or has the AC act out of character or too intelligent for an animal, the GM can step in just like he would step in if the player had their PC break a rule (e.g. like ignoring encumbrance penalties) or play against abilities (e.g. make a rousing speech with eloquent use of long words when the PC had Charisma 6 and Intelligence 7).
Using the term "pirating" might have been harsh. Might have. But I honestly don't know what else to call it.
How about "sharing" (if the players are both in the same game) or "loaning" (if the owning player is not there)? This is isn't like file sharing, where actually the original person gets to keep a copy as well as giving the other person a copy.
Mystically Inclined wrote:
"I want to use options presented in your books, but I don't want to buy the books."
And this isn't a form of theft because... ??
The same reason that when you run a game for someone new to Pathfinder and you let them reference your copy of the core rulebook it isn't theft.
The same reason its not theft when I have friends around to watch a DVD I bought isn't theft.
The same reason its not theft when I lend a friend a CD isn't theft.
All the PFS guide says is that:
"In order to utilize content from an Additional Resource, a player must have a physical copy of the Additional Resource in question, a name-watermarked Paizo PDF of it, or a printout of the relevant pages from it, as well as a copy of the current version of the Additional Resources list."
The only reason the name-watermarked bit in there is to try to prevent PDF piracy, but that isn't necessary with a physical book because if one player is using it, the other can't unless they happen to be at the same table.
Mystically Inclined wrote:
Now if the two players want to sit at different tables, or if the table is at a convention, I don't think this is nearly as workable.
Yep, and that is why I said "you run the risk of not being able to play that character".
I would raise the issue with the group as a whole something like this:
"Hi everyone, can I discuss something with the group please? Cool, I can see that Dave is playing up the personality of his Drow Rogue by keeping some of the loot he finds to himself and lying to the party about it. In game I can see that may be exactly what his character would do, but out of game I as a player have a bit of an issue with it.
"Now if everyone else is cool with it, and the GM takes the lower level of wealth we are effectively receiving into account, I guess I will go along with it.
"But if its an issue with some of you other players maybe we could ask you Dave to alter the way your character acts a little - lets say your character realises he may be best not risking alienating the party to which he has to entrust his life every fight. Maybe then he chooses not to steal from his party, just others?
"However if everyone is cool with Dave's character effectively stealing from the party because that is what his character would do, is everyone cool with in game consequences when my and the other players' characters find out and also act in character?
"Dave are you okay with the possible outcome that the rest of the party may decide to not want to adventure with your character and so the GM may ask you to make another character? Or depending on how it all comes out is everyone okay with PC versus PC combat and potential death?
"GM, if it comes out in game, and the rest of the party are happy to allow Dave's character to remain with the party, would it screw anything up if I had my character leave and make a new one better suited to the group?"
I had a similar situation with one player threatening to kill a bound prisoner, I made it clear that I would be willing to give up my current character if he was in the minority of having an in game issue with this, and create a new character better suited for such a ruthless party. In the end the other player toned down his blood thirsty nature.
I think you can retrain an animal, swapping out tricks on a 1 per 1 basis. I'll look around for something more concrete later.
However that requires giving up a trick, so my point still stands - its not just a matter of buying the book to regain use of the things that you had before.
What worries me is whether these new tricks will change how a GM adjudicates Animal Companion movement in melee and how much leeway I get as a player to move my animal companion.
For example, say I direct my animal companion Dog (D) to attack a Goblin (G). Empty squares are shown by O. Dog moves in from the South and attacks Goblin using most direct route.
OOOO
OOGO
OODO
Now a Hobgoblin (H) approaches from the West with a Reach weapon and attacks Dog
OOOO
OOGO
HODO
On the Dog's turn I have him make a 5' Step North East to continue to attack the Goblin but get away from the Hobgoblin.
OOOO
OOGD HOOO
Now, I think that is reasonable and I hope a GM would see that the 5' Step is based on survival instinct of the Dog.
However, what if another PC Fighter (F) was already in combat with the Goblin when the Dog moves in from the South to attack?
OOOO
OFGO
OODO
And for some reason the Hobgoblin still moves in and attacks the dog...
OOOO
OFGO
HODO
If I the player then have the Dog 5' Step North East, would a GM disallow it saying that I was moving the Dog into a flanking position and it would need to be Pushed to do that (as the Dog is not trained in the Flank trick)?
OOOO
OFGD HOOO
Does anyone else share my concerns?
Does Attack now mean, attack and never move except to pursue the target?
I think the problem here is the desire to look at the problem in an IC vacuum, with nothing else considered. While this might seem to be the best or most pure way to look at the issue, it's also a complete fallicy.
This is a game people played with people who willfully suspend a lot of disbelief in order to have some fun together. But this suspension of disbelief does not equal moral get out of jail free card in terms of how "in character" effects "out of character." As PFS puts it, "It's what my character would do" is not an acceptable excuse to being a jerk.
This, absolutely this. There is no objectively right or wrong way to deal with the question of whether a cohort should get an extra share.
Rather the players and GM should discuss the situation and when they decide on the answer (e.g. he gets an equal share / he gets a lesser share / he gets no share) and any conditions (he gets no share but he will be looking out for his leader first and foremost / he gets a share but then so does my animal companion) then come up with an in character reason why that is the case.
If the player whose character has the Leadership feat gets to play their cohort as a second character some players will feel the benefit of getting extra "screen time" should be at the cost of equipping both PCs out of a single share of loot. Meanwhile other groups will be happy to split the loot equally, especially if the cohort is played by the GM. It all comes down to how that group feels.
TL;DR - this is a time when metagaming is a good thing, decide how to split loot out of game, and the come up with an in game reason for the decision.
Because the situation of having to buy a new book to regain use of the things that you had before is not really fair. (Although you should buy the Animal Archive if you can because it is one of the best of the Player Companion books so far.)
Its not just a matter of buying the book to regain use of the things that you had before though, if your animal companion is already at the limit on the number of Tricks known* you could not train your animal Flank.
I worry that adding extra tricks may mean some players will start leaving out basic tricks like Heel and Come; which GMs should then play up the consequences of (e.g. the animal not following the character into a dungeon) but more than likely will be hand waved because such a consequence is a diversion from the story and unnecessarily adding to the length of time it takes to play a PFS scenario. I can see a lot of Take 20 to push an animal companion to Heel and Come going on :)
*E.g. A 5th level Druid's Intelligence 2 animal companion would have 8 tricks, my PFS character's dog is trained for Hunting (Attack, Down, Fetch, Heel, Seek, Track) and has been taught the bonus tricks of Come & Perform.
The current Core Assumption per v4.3 of the Guide to PFS Organised Play states:
"Pathfinder Society Organized Play assumes that every player has the following resources.
• Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook
• Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Pathfinder Society Field Guide
• Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play (this document)"
That to me basically reads as "To play in PFS you need to own the following books", indeed I have previously bought Seekers of Secrets and the Field Guide purely because they were stated to be part of the Core Assumption even though I didn't actually use any material from them. [Edit: Indeed I have learnt my lesson and at present don't plan to buy the Pathfinder Society Primer]
I would be very wary of adding extra books to the core assumption as it may put off potential new players joining PFS organised play ("I have to buy how many books? Animal Archive? My character doesn't have an animal, why am I required to buy that book????")
If you add Animal Companion to the core assumption, you should really add the APG as well for the new Combat Manoeuvres.
Personally, my suggestion is to split the Core Assumption into a Player Assumption and a GM Assumption. Players should only be assumed to own the core rulebook (IMHO) but GMs should perhaps be assumed to be familiar with the following material:
- Core rulebook
- Bestiary
- APG
- Field Guide (or its upcoming replacement)
- Animal Archive
The good thing about this is that the GMs can be encouraged to get that familiarity via the PFSRD. Maybe even make the core assumption for GMs have specific sections of books and give a PFSRD alternative, e.g.
- APG Combat Manoeuvres page 320-322 (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/advancedNewRules.html#_combat- maneuvers)
To put it bluntly, it is lazy GMing to want to use diagonal corridors and represent them with dungeon tiles without adjusting for the implications of problems with 10' reach along diagonals. A GM could put a modicum of extra effort to abstract in a rectilinear diagonal path or a phantom square or some such tool to address the problem. If, instead, he says, "Well, sorry, it's too much trouble to deal with that so you're SOL," then he's being lazy.
Yep, you're right, it is lazy GMing to want to use game aids such as Dungeon Tiles - and that is a good thing, because it makes the game flow smoother and quicker.
I mean, by your logic, using square based movement is lazy as well and we should just be using tape measures and allow PCs to move in whichever direction they wish. But I imagine that would slow combats down somewhat and so we use the lazy approach.
Personally, if I am going to be a lazy GM, rather than go to the "extra effort to abstract in a rectilinear diagonal path or a phantom square" I would just houserule in the 3.5 rule - even easier, and probably a lot quicker to explain to players too! And I can use my dungeon tiles as is, without having to screw around with changing the alignment of the grid.
it does not say "A successful attack against a square" which would be vs AC 5, but 'into'.
You pick a square, make an attack against the full AC of anyone in it..
I agree this is how it's supposed to work... But note the actual text:
Quote:
You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies.
It straight up says you can't attack the opponent who has total concealment.
You aren't attacking them, you aren't targetting their AC.
The way I read that is that you can't deliberately target the opponent because you can't see them, however you can swing your sword into the square they are in and hope to hit them.
Their AC would still apply - their Armour doesn't suddenly become useless, they can still try to dodge the incoming blows, but in addition half of those blows may be coming nowhere near the target as the foe is swinging blindly (50% miss chance).
Gorbacz you didn't quote anyone in your post, so apologies if you weren't referring to me, however, if my overblown ego is correct and I was the subject of your post :) ...
Gorbacz wrote:
Gee man, the lengths you go to make sure everybody gets the message that WotC is the best thing that happened to humanity since Red Cross never ceases to amaze. :)
You obviously misinterpret my posts then, I never try to make out that WotC are some amazingly good company, rather my posts try to provide a counterpoint to the lengths you seem to go to in order to paint WotC as some sort of evil villain of a company intent on causing harm and annoyance to their current and former customers. :)
Gorbacz wrote:
The 24h window was ridiculously short, double so for people who live several time zones away (the news hit in the middle of the night for us, and I didn't notice it until I returned from work in the evening).
I am not saying it wasn't short, the point I was trying to make was that it was more than DriveThru customers got, and if anyone benefited from that small window they likely had Paizo to thank for it - and that if WotC really were deliberately intent on kicking people in the groin for buying from Paizo they could have likely refused Paizo's request completely.
Gorbacz wrote:
It was a jerk move.
If you're talking about the original business decision to pull sale of PDFs then I am in complete agreement, I had a long list of WotC PDFs I planned to purchase as funds were available.
Gorbacz wrote:
No amount of trying of trying to convince us that it was all customers' fault is going to change that.
I don't believe anyone was trying to convince you that someone losing access to their purchased PDFs was all the customer's fault. However, I was saying that if someone failed to download and / or back up their PDFs then they should recognise that they have some responsibility (not all) in the matter.
And that it could even be argued that Paizo (and I would argue OneBookShelf as well) should perhaps make it clearer that PDFs can be withdrawn from sale and download and encourage customers to make backups. And no, I am not saying its Paizo's fault, but rather Paizo could perhaps look to make improvements to avoid such situations in the future (hence my suggestion of adding text to the Downloads store page).
Gorbacz wrote:
so it's a good moment for rolling eyes and poking fun at them. Again.
Ah, so WotC returning to PDF sales is just an opportunity to poke fun at them for their original business decision (again) and I guess to say "I told you so"? Okay, have fun with that.
Gorbacz wrote:
Because stupid business practices deserve to be pointed out and laughed at.
The decision to pull PDFs was stupid and at the time I was likely one of those to also point it out. I also contacted WotC customer services a few times asking if PDFs would go on sale again, so that they at least were aware that people did still want to legally purchase rather than pirate.
However, I don't believe you or I would argue WotC's decision to start selling PDFs again (i.e. what this thread is about) is a bad business practice to be "pointed out and laughed at".
Rather it seems to be WotC's decision to do so exclusively via OneBookShelf that you seem to have a problem with. Which is fair enough, however my problem with that is that:
a) neither of us has enough knowledge of the situation to know whether that is a worse business decision than selling via Paizo as well. Like I said in previous posts, I know previously DriveThru charged less commission if they were the exclusive distributor - so maybe someone has done the maths and they don't feel any extra sales that may be gained via Paizo would offset any financial loss on OBS sales. We simply don't know. So while we could maybe display our disappointment with the decision, we perhaps shouldn't mock that decision like its an obviously bad business practice.
b) you use very emotive phrasing to describe how you feel about WotC's decision not to distribute PDFs via Paizo and do so in such a way as to imply some unethical intent on WotC's part, rather than what may actually be good business practice.
"So I'm getting kicked in my groins for buying PDFs from Paizo just because?"
"Well, that's low"
"we're collateral damage"
TL;DR - I am trying to present a less emotive counterpoint to your comments, which you then seem to interpret (perhaps due to your obvious dislike of WotC) as trying to make out that WotC is whiter-than-whiter when that is not the case (both in the sense that it is not what I am doing, and that WotC is not whiter-than-white!)
So I'm getting kicked in my groins for buying PDFs from Paizo just because? Well, that's low. I've backed everything up, but I can imagine somebody who's now facing the prospect of re-purchasing everything. /golfclap WotC
You did the correct thing and downloaded your purchases and backed them up.
Did Paizo promise that you would be able to download any purchases indefinitely? If so, perhaps Paizo are at fault for promising something they could not deliver?
If Paizo didn't make that promise, did they at least indicate that some PDFs may become unavailable preventing future download and that you should backup your files? If not (and I don't see such a statement / suggestion on the Downloads store page even after WotC pulled their PDFs) then perhaps Paizo should have done.
I know when I originally registered with DriveThruRPG I was informed I would get a limited number of downloads (I think it was originally 5) so I knew I had to backup my PDFs, and even now that limit has been relaxed the FAQs include the following:
DriveThruRPG wrote:
How do I back up my ebooks?
You can back up ebooks simply by copying them to a secure location, burning them to a disc, or saving to a flash drive or external hard drive. If you lose your ebooks, you can generally download them again from your order history. Just log in and go to My Account and click on your order to view the order details and download links. We reserve the right not to replace lost books. So please back up your books!
That last sentence (emphasis is mine) is the clear advice that you may not be able to download your purchases in future so back them up!
So I think calling WotC "low" and implying that they have figuratively kicked you in the groin for buying PDFs from Paizo just because they now choose to go exclusively with OneBookShelf is a little unfair. I can see how it could be disappointing to those who purchased via Paizo, yes, but to make out its some evil intent on the big bad WotC is risible.
I don't believe they haven't chosen to go exclusively with OneBookShelf now "just because" or to intentionally piss of Paizo customers - more likely if they do still have any fears over PDF piracy, if they have a single retailer they have reduced the potential number of points at which a PDF could get into the wild.
OBS with its DriveThru and RPGNow sites is the main place to go for PDFs (if I could buy Paizo PDFs from there instead of Paizo, I would). The fact that they can also provide a personalised store front with just WotC products displayed (i.e. dndclassics.com) was also a great attraction (especially as existing OBS customers don't have to re-register as its just a new skin for the same back end).
Also OneBookShelf has print on demand and that is something that WotC likely took into account.
Its basically a filter for DriveThruRPG.com / RPGnow.com so if you made any previous purchases they should all tie in. Hopefully the catalogue will be building over time back to what it once was.
I have already made purchases of Basic, 3.5 and 4e PDFs :)
I wonder if the OP has considered that if majority of 3.5 players adopted the "we never want another revision of our favorite ruleset" mindset, Pathfinder would never come into being or would die a quick death.
Yep, I find it odd when some people in one breath say about 3.5:
Morain wrote:
I really felt cheated having to rebuy all books again.
Then in the next breath say:
Morain wrote:
When WotC announced 4.0 I had had it. That was why me and all my friends changed to Pathfinder as soon as we heard about it.
I.e. buying all new books again! :)
Kthulhu wrote:
Hell, I'd love for them to dump the d20 system altogether.
If that happened it would kill what interest I have in PF. I play PF because PFS is the closest I can get to playing a 3.5 living campaign that is popular. I am not a big fan of Golarion as a setting and if Paizo dumped the d20 ruleset the Pathfinder setting would be the only thing that would allow them to continue credibly using the Pathfinder name.
I had the benefit of only buying into D&D with 3.5 and so never had the issue with the 3.0 to 3.5 upgrade - though I must admit I very rarely buy 3.0 material as I like 100% compatibility.
Ironically, although initially hesitant about 4e, I have got into it mainly because it offers me something different. I have read the core books and bought many more supplements and had a DDI account for quite a while.
Pathfinder on the other hand does nothing for me, it just isn't enough of a change for me - like you with 3.0 to 3.5 I think "why bother with PF?" I still haven't read the core rulebook (but picked up enough to run PFS) and bought a couple of supplements, but if it wasn't for PFS Organised Play I would never bother with PF, instead sticking with 3.5 (yes I play and buy for both 3.5 and 4e because they are different enough for me to want to play both).
So if Paizo released a PF2e, I ma not too bothered - if PF2e was a fundamental change I may get excited about it and play it instead of or as well as 3.5, 4e and Next. If its a small change I may still get it to continue PFS but again not bother reading just try to absorb the changes from the forums, conversion notes and referencing the core book.
Personally I think PF could do with a decent revision and simplification of some rules - for every good thing Paizo changed from 3.5 they seemed to introduce extra complexity and / or vagueness :(
Hmm, if I'm reading that correctly, it can be case as a swift / immediate action (although the spell doesn't specify the trigger condition for taking that immediate action, which is a significant omission).
I can't recall, but do you actually need a specific trigger? Can't you just decide to use an Immediate Action?
This looks very nice, after Vehicles and Ancient Dungeon I was thinking about cancelling my subscription, but this is the sort of thing I like. Well done, especially for making it compatible with the Map Pack Sewers :)
I love it when they change rules that work and make things more complicated than they needed to be.
Yep, its this sort of stuff that makes me not able to fully embrace PF despite all the great improvements they made over 3.5, and so I stick with 3.5 and maybe ponder about a PF 2nd edition.
So for the time in which the Pathfinder RPG has been in existence, Pathfinder has now managed to tied with D&D for the number of top spots in the IcV2 RPG rankings; D&D and Pathfinder both have five 1st places plus one Joint 1st (with each other).
This is just in relation to changes from 3.5, and are just the ones to sprint to mind...
I dislike the fact that you can trip with any weapon, rather than just weapons with the Trip property.
I dislike the Grapple rules - too much extra complication, recalculation of stats, and unintuitive results.
I dislike channelling for healing (despite initially liking the idea).
I dislike the exception to the rule re fright conditions not stacking that had to be added because PF changes the way Intimidate works (allowing demoralise to make a character Shaken for more than a turn).
I dislike the vagueness that has been added when there previously was none (I think the Sunder thread epitomises this).
Having said that, there are loads of rules changes I really like, unfortunately the above niggles (and others like it) make me not want to use PF in place of 3.5.
I've got a few products like this and my experience is that it's cooler in idea than in execution unfortunately. It's a pain storing lots of fiddly bits in an accessible way.
I found a solution for storing my Dungeon Tiles (which have varying sizes of pieces)...
Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo 4 Photo 5 Photo 6 showing two boxes of Dungeon Tiles. One contains all the first series of tiles (DT 1 through 7) with an extra copy of DT4 Ruins of the Wild (8 sets in total). One contains all the second series of tiles (DU1 through 6 at present) with an extra copy of DU4 Arcane Towers and DU6 Harrowing Halls (8 sets in total).
Photo 7 I mark the edges of my tiles with felt tip pens to indicate which set they are from. Green is used for the original series (DT) and Red for the second series (DU). The number of marks indicates which set they are from in that series. In this picture I can see that these are from Series 2, Set 3, i.e. Caves of Carnage.
Photo 8 I use Smartz zip lock bags to hold the tiles I need for a particular encounter. This makes it easy to set up an encounter and also to transport just the tiles I need if I am not playing at home.
I own pretty much all the map packs and flip mats but I don't run Adventure Paths* so am not worried whether the maps tie in or not, I just don't want them to be too specific, either to and APs or to Golarion (I use map packs for my Eberron and Freeport games).
I do like it when PFS scenarios make use of map packs and flip maps though, so yes that is very useful.
What I do want to see are map packs that can be configured to make up a while scene, e.g. a whole mansion, rather than individual rooms (Haunted Mansion & Palace I am looking at you!).
Also I want the map packs to be configurable into more than one configuration - so make sure no furniture or other set dressing spans two map pack sections (so if you re-arrange them you don't get half a chair etc) also make doorways be in common places (e.g single doors in middle of of the short end and double doors in middle of long ends).
I recently tried to use my map packs to create a floor of bedrooms in a palace (Sea Lord's Palace in Freeport) and despite some interesting rooms in Map Pakc Fortress etc, I couldn't make a cohesive whole and so ended up using Dungeon Tiles instead.
TL;DR:
Happy for tie ins with APs as long as they are not too specific.
Tie ins to PFS scenarios welcomed but again don't make them too specific.
Prefer nothing Golarion specific.
Want Map Packs to create whole buildings etc rather than single rooms.
Want Map Packs to be more flexible in how they can be arranged.
*I am too busy to read a 96 page scenario, so I write my own. I also find the APs last too long, I prefer shorter campaigns; I started playing RotRL and only made it to the second book before leaving the group, two other players left before making it to the end as well.
I would buy a book like the old 3.5 Spell Compendium for Pathfinder, absolutely.
Well, if you are one of those people who do actually feel PF is backwards compatible then you might be interested to know that WotC are apparently going to reprint the 3.5 Spell Compendium.
They plan to reprint it, too?
What else are they going to reprint now?
Apparently so, listings are appearing on Amazon, and WotC did a survey about what else to reprint quite some time ago.
I think that third party compilations especially apps for IOS and Android will do the ticket for me. Like the man said above, any such physical book will be outdated by the next spell supplement that comes out.
I was about to suggest the Pathfinder Spellbook (by Shaking Earth), I have it on my Android phone and it is pretty good as you can also create your own spell lists (e.g. all the Spells your Sorcerer knows). I am not sure its fully up to date with all the OGC spells but it says it has Ultimate Combat spells in there as of v2.9.
I have a full set of 3.5 books collecting dust. Getting another set of 3.5 books to collect more dust isn't in my game plan.
That's cool, the books aren't for you, they aren't for everyone. I have many RPG books including several from Paizo that are gathering dust on my shelves, however I will be using my new 3.5 corebooks tonight!
At the risk of sounding like a commercial...Kickstarter is a great place to find new games, and at a reasonable price. You're also supporting someone's dream.
Yes, Kickstarter is great, I have backed several projects:
Bulldogs! - Sci Fi that Kicks Ass (FATE)
The Demolished Ones (FATE)
The Order of the Stick Reprint Drive
Full Moon: An RPG of Life on the Lunar Frontier (FATE)
Deadlands Noir
Midgard Bestiary for 4th Edition
I don't understand. I know there are adventure path. So?
I guess some people feel that the quality of the Golarion setting and the Adventure Paths makes the Pathfinder RPG what is? I have seen it before in RPG.net threads where someone asks to sell them on the Pathfinder RPG, some people talk up the setting rather than actually talk up the RPG.
Hmm, the reason for cancelling was not enough support, by that I assume they mean not enough demand.
Now was there not enough demand because of the specific implementation?
Not enough demand because people who want to play online already have chosen a VTT application?
Not enough demand because it was branded as Beta and people were wanting to wait for the final version (i.e. demand was based on the number of early adopters)?
Not enough demand for WotC to believe they will make a "decent" return on the investment they are putting into it (how efficient are they using that investment)?
It would be worth Paizo exploring all of these issues because if they don't they could well find their VTT not being a worthwhile investment - and it would be even more embarrassing for Paizo to cancel their VTT due to lack of demand when people could point to WotC and say "Duh! Was WotC's experience not a clue for you?"
Personally I think Paizo would push ahead with the VTT anyway, a) because they likely don't expect as big a ROI as WotC, b) because they may intend to run it as a loss leader anyway, and c) they wouldn't want the even greater embarrassment of cancelling their VTT after WotC cancelled theirs.
Personally, I doubt I would ever use a VTT. I looked into them once, but for me if I am going to be looking at a screen and typing stuff in, I would prefer to play a computer game - roleplaying for me is sitting round a table enjoying the social aspect.
I was talking about the 3.5 mechanic, and even turning then can be burden. This is not true of all undead, but for too many of them it is true.
So if we're talking about just turning (rather than destroying) was "turn undead struggles to even handle a single creature that is CR 10 below the APL of the party" a bit of an exaggeration?
From my examples, Turn Undead with a basic Cleric (Charisma of only 12, no extra abilities other than 5 ranks in Knowledge Religion) can be expected to handle a single creature that is CR 1 to 4 below the APL.
wraithstrike wrote:
Using the mummy as an example a level 5 cleric which is an APL=CR(easy fight) will have a hard time doing so.
According to the DMG APL=CR is Challenging (or at best Easy if handled properly which could mean pushing foes over cliff etc, CR less than APL is Easy).
Our fairly basic cleric of level 5 would need to roll a 16 on a d20 (25% chance) and only minimum turning damage (2 on 2d6 + 5 for level + 1 for charisma) to turn a Mummy - so yes, a hard time but not impossible.
wraithstrike wrote:
The spectre has +2 turn resistence so it is not that easy to turn either.
I took that into account I believe, without the Turn Resistance a level 6 cleric (i.e. 1 below the CR) could expect to turn two spectres.
wraithstrike wrote:
As to the Sun Domain idea, that is point against Turn Undead. You should have be a cleric of deity X to make an ability useful.
The Sun Domain doesn't make Turn Undead useful - its already useful IMHO, the Sun Domain just makes it extremely useful once a day as it can end an encounter in a single go.
wraithstrike wrote:
Others also pointed out that turn undead had various uses if you took feats from splat books. That does not make turn undead useful.
I think we will have to agree to disagree, I think Turn Undead is useful, those other things just make it more useful.
IMHO it would be poor design to make a general cleric ability able to work against CR = APL pretty much most of the time, and then have extra feats and features that make that go from expected to probable to automatic. All that does is force a GM to throw higher CR undead at the party so they have a chance to survive.
In my example I used a simple cleric with only slightly above average Charisma and it seems eminently useful - just not a automatic success or encounter ending class feature.
Although I quite like Channelling to hurt undead (and may even prefer it to 3.5's Turn Undead), overall I prefer 3.5's Turn Undead because I really dislike Channelling's ability to heal.
I never said they could not be added. Without going to check my post my point was that turn undead struggles to even handle a single creature that is CR 10 below the APL of the party. [...]
With all of that aside it still takes a high roll to get rid of a minion, which is one of many reasons why I am not sad to see it go. The cleric is better off summoning or gating something in to deal with it/them.
I haven't caught up completely with this thread so I am probably missing something, but could you elaborate on what you mean by "turn undead struggles to even handle a single creature that is CR 10 below the APL of the party"? I assume you are talking about the 3.5 Turn Undead mechanic. Are you talking about Destroying rather than just Turning?
I am not overly familiar with 3.5 Turning but in my earlier post here I worked out that a basic level 2 cleric could Turn undead in the CR 1/3 to CR 1 range (and turn quite a few of them, enough to make the Encounter Level APL+1 or APL+2.
Does this drop off at higher levels?
Taking a cleric with Charisma 12 (+1), Knowledge (Religion) 5 ranks (i.e. nothing too over the top) the average results would be:
Turning Check: d20 +1 (Cha) +2 (5 ranks in Religion) gives an expected result of 13 therefore can turn Undead with (Cleric Level +1) Hit Dice or less
Turning Damage: 2d6 + cleric level + 1 (Cha) gives an expected result of (8+ cleric level) hit dice of damage
So looking at some higher CR undead...
Mummy (CR5 / 8 Hit Dice)
Level 7 to Turn one, Level 16 to Destroy three
Spectre (CR7 / 7 HD +2 Turn Resistance)
Level 8 to Turn one, 18 to Destroy two
Bodak (CR8 / 9 HD)
Level 8 to Turn one, Level 18 to Destroy two
Large Dread Wraith (CR11 / 16 HD)
Level 15 to Turn one, Level 32 to Destroy two
So yeah, I guess I can see how if you are talking about destroying then APL has to drastically outweigh CR at higher levels, but for just turning, not so much.
However if you have the Sun domain once a day you could destroy all those you could turn, so a Level 15 Sun Domain Cleric could expect to Destroy a Large Dread Wraith. CR 11 vs APL 15.
Moving on from average rolls, if you can achieve a roll of 16 on the turning check (for a total of 19) so able to affect (Level +3) then a level 5 cleric could turn a mummy (CR5), a level 6 cleric could turn a Spectre (CR7) or a Bodak (CR8) and a Level 13 cleric could turn a Large Dread Wraith (CR11).
Reality check - in-combat healing in D&D/PF makes no sense apart from heal.
In the reality of the 3.5 and PF games I have played in, in-combat healing does happen (and not just for Heal). Maybe I am not playing with the most optimised characters or players who aren't tactically great, but in combats I have witnessed if the in-combat healing didn't happen PCs would have died!
I remember in my first PF campaign (started during the beta rules) when I was playing the cleric, the fighter PC ran in gung-ho to a fight and got soundly whacked to near death. All the other PCs then started hammering the monster but I felt obliged to heal the fighter (rather than run the risk of him being targeted again and most likely killed, so I did) and so didn't get to act against the monster that round.
Next round fighter gets up and along with all the other PCs killed the monster before I could act again. A rather boring combat for my cleric :(
I guess my experiences may be the minority, but I can't imagine they are unique.
Gorbacz wrote:
Channelling positive is for spending less money on happysticks.
Happysticks - something else I really hate. If the game's design is going to expect PCs to heal up to full HP each night, or even up after each battle, just have a blanket rule that says that rather than rely on spamming Wands of Cure Light Wounds or Clerical Channelling.
4e did this and whilst I hated the rule (I call it the Hit Point Yo-yo) it did at least spare me the imagery of "happysticks" and could also occur with a completely non-magical party should players choose.
In terms of backwards compatibility and ease of conversion I find that most people who find it easy are usually concerned with using 3.5 adventures & monsters in a PF game. In these instances, conversion is probably easy - because it doesn't have to be accurate, a monster will only see play in a single encounter and so any conversion only has to be "good enough". If it turns out it was a bit underpowered, who cares it won't be seen again, or if it is the GM can do a bit more conversion work (ditto if its overpowered).
In the end, I would be curious how easily I could use a 4e monster in a 3.5 game assuming I know the 4e terminology (i.e. that Shift means move without provoking AoO, Recharge means rolling a d6 to see if a power is available again once expended).
I imagine I could just take 10 off Reflex, Will and Fortitude defences and have them rolled, cut HP in half and maybe require an attack against Touch AC for effects that would target Reflex, and have Saves versus the attack bonus +10 for attacks that would normally target Fort and Will.
All that I could do on the fly and it would probably be "good enough" to work. So in that respect 4e adventures could be considered 3.5 compatible to some degree.
However, conversion of stuff that the PCs will use - feats, classes, prestige classes, equipment, spells etc require a bit more conversion work and thought. This is because those mechanics are going to be in the game for a long while, and if they prove to be under or over powered any attempt to "tweak" the conversion may come up against player resistance.
This is the sort of times when I imagine some people may complain that conversion isn't easy and thus question backwards compatibility. There is no way that a 4e class for a PC would be compatible!
And it becomes even more "iffy" when using PF material in a PF game, for example using the APG in a 3.5 game (it is labelled as "3.5 OGL Compatible" after all) may find the GM and player scratching their heads on how to use alternate Favoured Class benefits if they are unfamiliar with the PF core rulebook and how the favoured class mechanic has changed significantly.
Ouch! I could never do such a thing. A few months back I was getting rid of a load of RPG books (complete run of 1st to 3rd Ed of Shadowrun, complete FASA & LRG Earthdawn books etc) so I could get more shelf space (scarily I have filled it all again).
I didn't want much money for them and so put them on a Bring & Buy at a convention for the minimum amount, those that didn't sell I just gave away as I couldn't stand to just dump them. Hopefully someone somewhere is getting some enjoyment out of them.
The thing is, a rule set can never exhaustively cover all possible actions a player may want their character to take - so a good ruleset gives the rules for the most common and likely actions and then guidelines on how to handle other actions.
I therefore don't see D&D Next as being a "Mother May I?" system, there seem to be quite concrete rules for many actions, along with guidance to allow the GM to adjudicate other actions not covered.
Here is a pertinent quite from under the section entitled "GM May I?":
Monte Cook's Blog wrote:
Speaking of which, it's also important that the rules present themselves in such a way that the GM isn't providing "permission," he's adjudicating. It's a fine difference, but an important one. When a player says, "Can my character jump across the pit?" she's not asking, "May my character jump across the pit?" She's asking, "Does it seem possible that my character could jump across the pit?" Players are in control of their characters. They don't need GM permission.
I'm still boycotting HASBRO/WoTC and i urge all my close gaming friends to do the same.
By all means inform your friends of your feelings, but I urge you to then let them make up their own minds. The people within WotC change, policies change, the WotC now isn't the same as that 4 years ago!
WotC has done some great things and some bad, unfortunately it seems for many people any bad stuff immediately makes them forget the great stuff, but no matter how much new good stuff they do the bad will never be forgiven.
Whilst I am not a huge WotC fan and don't agree with all they have done, I like to keep an open mind and assess each thing they do on its own merits.
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Paizo is also an honorable company with a genuine interest in player feedback.
From the looks of things WotC are also genuinely interested in feedback with this playtest, from blogs, to chats, to forums, and the forthcoming surveys.
But the bad side is it's a bit TOO simplistic. Mainly the part where you can't have multiple factors of Advantage and that Disadvantage cancles everything else out.
I agree that it might be a bit too simplistic in that mutiple factors don't stack, however as I read it a single Disadvantage doesn't cancel out every Advantage, rather if you have more Advantages than Disadvantages you have Advantage, and vice versa.
I think this is one thing WotC really needs to clarify.
Although I appreciate 4e as a game, and have even run a campaign of it, I had my issues with it and believed that I still preferred 3.5. However my recent experiences of running the 3.5 Freeport Trilogy and having to GM pre-written NPCs I found myself longing for the ease of use of 4e's NPC stat blocks.
And although I dislike house ruling things (adding in official optional rules I am fine with) I decided to try to put together a few house rules to patch the things I didn't like about 4e (you may have seen my threads on Lingering Wounds etc).
And now that I have put together a list of house rules and optional rules and material (from Dragon magazine) to use I find I am excited about GMing some 4e again and trying out some of these rules.
Indeed I am so enthused I bought Adventurer's Vault off Ebay (flagged up following reading of the Alchemist Theme from Dragon).
And yet funnily, I am also still looking forward to D&D Next.
I also am curious about running 3.5 campaigns where I create the NPCs and so am more intimately aware of their capabilities and spell choices. I hope that such games will run smoother.
D&D seems to be that odd game in my collection where I am actively enthused about multiple editions of the same game at the same time - something that has not happened before (normally I move on to the next edition and leave the old behind, or don't bother to upgrade).
I guess its because each edition 3.5, 4e and Next seem to be quite different in the mechanics whilst still retaining a familiar central core of rules (the d20 mechanics, abilities, classes etc) and so all interest me on a mechanical level and offer different things.
So hats off to WotC for producing a game that has done something no other game has managed to do!
DigitalMage
