DigitalMage's page

Having played every incarnation since Chainmail, D&D has been refined in fits and jerks with constant improvements (4th ED, excepted).

Debatable - PF IMHO made some things worse than in D&D3.5 (grappling I am looking at you) and also 4e has some parts to it that IMHO are improvements over 3.5 or PF (distributed healing, second wind, at will powers etc). Overall I would agree that each edition of D&D (and lets include PF in there) has included what many would consider improvements (4th Ed included) but also introduced or changed mechanics that some, perhaps even many, would consider the opposite.

Then, they playtested and proofed them!

Though proofing wasn't perfect, unfortunately where Paizo chose to change some aspects of the 3.5 rules, they didn't always make those changes in all the appropriate places so there is some contradiction or confusion over some rules that were clear in 3.5.

In the end PF IMHO has definately made some improvements over 3.5, but in other ways made some things worse (the aforementioned grappling, and the healbot nature of clerics).

Overall if someone isn't overly fond of a 3.5 setting or specific books from that game (e.g. Eberron, Book of Nine Swords, Races of the Dragon) then PF is probably the better choice over 3.5 especially as it is still in print. However, for many people 3.5 still appears to be more attractive, evidenced by the consistent high prices of 3.5 PHBs on Ebay.

Depends on the CPU and RAM, on my i7 CPU and 4GB RAM laptop both work excellently

True, but not everyone has such a specced machine, even my work laptop only has 2GB RAM.

Also don't think of putting the core into a netbook (at least the netbooks with reasonable prices) the render is very slow.

Yep, unfortunately I bought a netbook specifically to access game PDFs when I am gaming away from home, so Paizo PDFs become very hard to use if not impossible.

I really wish Paizo took a note from WotC's 4e PDFs (when they were available), my PHB, DMG and MM all render quickly even on my Eee PC and also have the benefit of being easy on the print toner being black text on white apart froom artwork.

I love FATE, Aspects are the mechanic that helps encourage roleplaying - basically you try to describe how your descriptive qualities can aid you, or hamper you (and you want them to hamper you as that is how you earn Fate Points).

An example...
"Slave to the demon drink" can be an Aspect for a character, and one that would seem to be largely a weakness, however the player could invoke it to explain his character having a bottle of whisky in his pocket to use as a bribe, or to create a Molotov cocktail.

But it can of course be a weakness and the player could use it as a self compel to have his character get inebriated whilst on a stake out so that he doesn't notice the suspect leaving until its almost too late making it much harder to pursue. But the player would earn a Fate Point for this.

If you want to check out the FATE system (or at least one variation of it) without spending any money, try downloading Free FATE from here:
http://www.ukroleplayers.com/downloads/free-fate/
Its a 48 page pdf that gives a concise version of the FATE system.

Strands of FATE is proving popular, however I feel it strays too far away from the FATE system, losing many of the things I like about FATE (for example it loses simplicity by introducing the more traditional ability + skill divide).

Just so you know, the Inner Sea Primer is a 32 page introduction to the setting designed for those new to Golarion.

Also, I do advise going hardcopy for the core book and Inner Sea World Guide, adding the PDFs on top if you want them. I found the core book PDF rendered too slowly to be useful as a reference at the game table (despite its great hyperlinking and bookmarks). I also just got the PDF of the Inner Sea World Guide and it is slow to scroll between pages even on my full laptop (never mind my Eee PC).

This edition war is surely over now save the mopping up.

It should be over (with no one edition winning) but for many it obviously isn't.

When I'm told they are spending 3 paragraphs to support a statement that most people here can rephrase in one sentence that generates a lot less room for negative feedback, that's sloppy writing. I don't need to see the article to know that.

I think you do need to see the article if you are going to criticise it for sloppy writing personally. I wouldn't say that Paizo's writing in a Pathfinder RPG book was sloppy without having read it.

Anyway, having actually read the article the paragraphs support that statement in different ways with only a little repetition.

Here is the relevant part of the article

As you roleplay your character’s theme, avoid making choices that you think might annoy other players or make them uncomfortable.

This is the main paragraph that makes the point and does it quite succinctly and with perhaps a more refined touch than our "don't roleplay your character in such a way that you're a dick!" :)

For example, your character might be an eladrin Iliyanbruen guardian who, due to your sheltered upbringing in the Feywild, believes the drow to be a wholly evil race. However, if you use that as an excuse to immediately attack your friend’s character, a drow member of Bregan D’aerthe, it’s not likely to make for a good play session.

First supporting paragraph is an example of the type of roleplaying choice that may annoy other players. I think any RPG player will admit that a concrete example is a good thing and can help understanding - and it is no difference here. I don't see any sloppy writing here.

Think about the fact that your eladrin has just come into a wholly new world and therefore might be unsure about the cultural norms. If everyone else seems okay with a drow in their midst, your character is probably confused by what it means. It could be that drow in this world are unlike those in the Feywild, or it could be that the other people in the world are as evil as drow, and thus everyone might be dangerous. Even if your character encountered your friend’s drow character alone in the woods, choosing to watch and follow that drow (who might have allies nearby or be involved in some larger, dark plot) seems a wiser decision than attacking on sight. Then after you and your friend’s character get to know one another, it will make sense that they become allies (if not friends).

Second supporting paragraph actually goes beyond just reiterating the initial point, but shows (again by using an example) that there are likely other roleplaying choices, no less valid than the original choice, that would allow the game to progress without annoying the other players.

Again, I can't fault this for sloppy writing as it actively expands on the point and makes it clear that it isn't actually a choice between roleplaying your character or not, but a choice between different ways of roleplaying your character.

Regardless of what makes sense for roleplaying, sometimes it should take a back seat to what would be fun for everyone. When you’re confronted with a situation in which you think your character should do something that you know the other characters will not like, think about how those characters’ players might react. Sometimes the mischievous, improper, or stupid thing you think your character should do adds to the fun of everyone at the table. Sometimes such an action only makes you the center of attention at the expense of making the game less fun for everyone else. Make sure you know the difference.

Third supporting paragraph. Now the first part of this is pretty much reiterating the initial point, and could be argued to be sloppy writing, but that isn't the word that springs to mind - "unnecessary" perhaps, "belabouring the point" at most.

However the second part of that paragraph does add something by saying that sometimes a roleplaying choice will involve your character doing something improper or stupid but actually won't necessarily reduce anyone's fun. I.e. its saying "this article isn't saying don't ever have your character do dumb things, just don't have your character do them if it will spoil the fun".

The point it is making is just to be sure you can assess whether your roleplaying choice will add to the fun or reduce it - if its the former, then go with it and do the improper thing, but if its the latter then think twice and try to find another roleplaying choice that will be fun.

I'm not taking to task the article itself (I can't because I haven't read it) but rather the fact that people seem baffled that such an interpretation is even possible.

You say that you are not taking the article to task, however it appears like you are taking WotC to task (that may not be the intention but that is my perception of your posts).

And you are doing that without having even read the article - seriously, I think you need to read the article in full to see why some of us are "baffled that such an interpretation is even possible"; and by interpretation being that the article isn't saying something like "roleplaying shouldn't be at the expense of the fun of the players".

based on what I've seen others comment about the article, it definitely sounds like the usual case of sloppy writing.

Again, I ugre you to go and read the article. Besides which other comments about the article other than the OP's make you think this is sloppy writing. My impression of this thread is that most posters after the OP are indicating that they clearly understand what the article is trying to say and agreeing with it.

I don't agree with the OP, but I also don't agree with those who simply dismiss the OP or any who even hint at the possibility that he may be at least half way correct.

I hope you don't feel I dismissed the OP, I stated that I disagreed and gave a full explanation of why and what I believe the article is talking about.

Also, which other posters hinted of the possibility that the OP may be at least halfway correct? I need to read the thread again because I don't recall any poster making such hints. If you can point them out I can check who dismissed them as I obviously missed something.

Sloppy writing and poor vocabulary may not be the end of the world, and it probably doesn't reflect the actual product, but it is still sloppy writing and poor vocabulary, and for a corporation in WoTC's position to do it so consistently in their public announcements, especially in the RPG industry, is not something that should be encouraged or completely ignored.

I agree, but I really don't think this article is an example of that.

So if we're going to take WotC to task for poor use of terminology and phrasing in this thread even though the focus of this thread isn't an example of it, then can I start taking to task Paizo for their use of the "3.5 OGL Compatible" logo on Pathfinder RPG products that are not 3.5? Or are we only allowed to criticise WotC?

Sorry if that comes off a bit snippy, but for someone who admits to not even reading the article this thread is about you seem to just be wanting to have a go at WotC.

The quote- Regardless of what makes sense for roleplaying, sometimes it should take a back seat to what would be fun for everyone.

Seriously?

Seriously. In fact I am surprised someone is even questioning this. It seems to be an accepted part of roleplaying now that if you're being a dick and justifying it by saying "But its what my character would do" you're still being a dick.

When is it okay to put aside the roleplaying in a roleplaying game for 'fun'?

You don't necessarily put aside the roleplaying, but try to find a way to roleplay in a way that doesn't annoy the other players. But, yes sometimes you have to put roleplaying aside completely if what you are doing would cause the game to crash and burn.

Basically if the extra fun the person not putting aside roleplaying is getting is less than the total amount by which the other players' fun is reduced, then roleplaying should be changed or put aside. The fun of the many outweighs the fun of the one. :)

What I read... Now Jimmy, yes you play Triegnor the Bardic Dragon Slayer, but Bobby wants to play a dragon today and attacking him would hurt his wittle feelings. ???

The trouble is, Jimmy wants to roleplay his character at the expense of another player's fun, but likely doesn't expect the GM to enforce the full consequences of his characters actions.

Imagine this...
GM: Now Jimmy, yes you play Triegnor the Bardic Dragon Slayer, but Bobby wants to play a dragon today and attacking him would likely cause group problems and wouldn't be much fun for Bobby.
Jimmy: But its what my character would do. Triegnor attacks the dragon.
GM: Okay...
Other Players: We step in to protect our dragon buddy.
GM: Okay...
<fight ensues that results in other players and the dragon subduing Triegnor.
Other Players: Okay, there is no way our characters would continue to adventure with someone willing to turn on a member of the group with no real reason other than prejudice. We leave him unconscious and continue on with the quest.
GM: Okay Jimmy, Triegnor wakes battered and bruised but alive. However, although Triegnor will no doubt go on to have great adventures, they won't be with this party and thus won't be roleplayed out in this gaming group. Roll up another character.
Jimmy: But I want to play Triegnor, the others have to let me join the party!
Other Players: But we're just roleplaying our characters like you.
GM: What the matter Jimmy, has not getting to play Triegnor hurt your wittle feelings?

Putting aside the roleplaying to ensure everyone has fun is the good kind of metagaming. Its also one Paizo enforces in the Pathfinder Society Rules:

The goal of Pathfinder Society Organized Play is to provide an enjoyable experience for as many players as possible. Player-versus-player conflict only sours a session. While killing another character might seem like fun to you, it certainly won’t be for that character’s player. Even if you feel killing another character is in character for your PC at this particular moment, just figure out some other way for your character to express herself. In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever.

The bit I bolded is pretty much exactly what that D&D article is saying - so does PFS make you cry a little inside too?

I keep mine folded for transportation, I just fold the map sections back on themselves before laying it down and the map tends to lay fairly flat.

cranewings wrote:

I don't really like XP for anything other than competitive dungeon crawling games that are run RAW. For everything else, I just like leveling when the GM feels like it.

This is probably the most useless post I have seen in weeks. The OP already stated he has tried other ways of doing things...and his group went back to the orginal way. So you don't use exp? Yeah you. You want a medal? Or is it that you guys are sooo far 'advance' beyond exp. that uou need to show your 'superiority' to the rest of you.

I think you're being unfair here. cranewings said nothing much different than what Bill Dunn and dunelord3001 when describing how they handle XP - and as the OP stated...

I'm interested in what other people tend to run with.

I think you are considering customer service to be much higher up the food chain than it actually is. And making a number of judgements about second-hand information that may not reveal exactly what was asked or what the response was.

Not really, I know they probably at quite a distance from the decision makers and those in the know, which is why I would be unsurprised by a non-committal uninformative answer - rather that than trying to blag it IMHO.

For example when I asked customer services about PDFs of D&D books I got what I guess is a stock reply of:
"Thank you for contacting us. There has not been a public announcement as to and future plans to move in the direction of PDF publishing for the D&D books. The only the the customer service team would be allowed to speak about would be something that were announced. With that said we place great value in the feedback, ideas, and suggestions of our customers and I will be happy to pass this along as feedback."

Anyway, I think I have laboured the point enough.

Remember - customer service are usually just uninformed folks at the end of a phone line, with no real control over their product line or PR information. It seems likely that someone called them, asked why the press release made this claim, and they tried to come up with whatever explanation seemed logical to them.

If that was the case, they basically tried to blag it, rather than promise to make appropriate enquiries and respond to the caller with an informed answer. That to me is unprofessional and diminish the credibility of any answers customer support would give.

Hopefully this wasn't the case, but then again, is the alternative any better (they were misinformed by someone who should know better).

Anyone suggesting that this: a) Involves deliberate and intentional misinformation from WotC, and/or b) Will result in any sort of legal action against WotC... is just blowing this way out of proportion.

I agree that the original press release liekly involved neither of these, but it customer service did blag it when queried it comes close to a), but more negligence causing the misinformation than deliberate attempts to misinform.

Completely off topic bit of trivia...

It would be like calling 911 (or 112 in your case)

More likely calling 999 in the UK, I believe we can call 112 but I don't think anyone would think to do that who was brought up in the UK. The reason the 999 number was chosen for emergency calls was I believe because it would be the quickest number to ring on a rotary dial phone. :)

On topic - yeah, its a silly mistake which most people should just roll their eyes at and move one.

What does worry me is the statement that WotC customer department tried to justify the claim by stating all previous city stuff were box sets and not books, which is just untrue even if they go back to their own 3.5 products (Sharn, Stormreach etc).

Please also try to avoid being too close to Continuum (July 20th)

D&D Encounters are likley where the good stuff happens now as far as 4E OP is concerned. I'm wondering how will the GenCon numbers compare.

Are Encounters being run at GenCon?

The impression I got was that ENcounters are designed for play in game stores, which doesn't really work for game stores in the UK where in store play rarely seems to happen (at least in my experience, and mainly due to a lack of space).

All I know is that in the UK, as well as the gamers I know who are Pathfinder lovers, I go to a couple of conventions a year (Conception and Oddcon) and almost everyone I talk to there are big fans of Pathfinder over D&D. So in my small part of the world Paizo is definitely doing great

I have to agree, LFR at those conventions is run, but not nearly as many tables as PFS. In fact...

At Conception 2011 out of 408 table-top games reported as running, Pathfinder came out on top which I think is pretty much all PFS.

1. Pathfinder (91 Tables)
2. D&D 4.0 (48 Tables)
3. Call of Cthulhu (28 Tables)
4. D&D 3.5 and derivatives (23 Tables) (Includes LIHR)
6. Traveller (17 Tables - Joint 6th)
6. WHFRP & WH40K (Dark Heresy & Deathwatch) (17 Tables - Joint 6th)
7. Savage Worlds (14 Tables)
8. Spycraft:FQAC (13 Tables)
9. When Worlds Collide (12 Tables)
10. Grims Gangs (8 Tables)

Source: http://www.ukroleplayers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9897

And that also shows why I got back into PFS, the number of 3.5 games has dropped considerably so if I want a game of 3.x PF seems the better choice.

EDIT: 2010's figures:

356 tables reported

1. D&D 4.0 (80 Tables) (of which 79 were Living Forgotten Realms)
2. D&D 3.0 and 3.5 (50 Tables - unchanged from last year) (includes 23 Pathfinder, 10 LIHR and 4 Dragonmouth)

Source: http://www.ukroleplayers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7295

So from 23 to 91 tables!!!!! I wonder how many will be at Conception 2012?

I think the person you're quoting was saying that if the caster is beside the fighter who has a reach weapon then the caster isn't being threatened. If they're not being threatened then they have no need to step away before they cast

Ah, if that is the case then that makes sense.

Armor spikes + reach weapon. You threaten both 10' and 5'.

Or Improved Unarmed Strike + Reach Weapon; something my Druid could do :)

Right, but a fighter with a longspear or other reach weapon cant use it to threaten a caster doing a 5ft step. Not sure why...

Is there a reason why a fighter with a longspear wouldn'y be able to threaten a magician casting a spell who had stepped 5' away previously? Is this a rule I am missing?

I already congratulated Paizo over on the RPG.net thread a few days ago (which was spawned by the ENWorld thread) but I will re-iterate it again - well done Paizo!

I know this is hardly hard and fast fact (its only based on interviews with a subset of retailer and distributors and doesn't take account of online sales, Paizo or DDI subscriptions) but still it is presumably indicative of the game's popularity,

Whatever issues I have with the Pathfinder RPG I cannot fault the fact that you produce what appear to be high quality products and support them well with map packs, card sets, miniatures (first Ral Partha and now Wizkids) and PDF versions of the books (I just bought 3 more, ncludihng Inner Sea World Guide because it was so cheap).

And this is not to mention the organised play with seems to be the only living game in town in my neck of the woods (Living Traveller has stalled, Living Glorantha has ceased with the licence, and LFR just doesn't get played as much it seems).

So, not worrying about who is second, third or forth, lets just congratulate Paizo on the simple fact that they came first for this quarter.

The fact that you care to ask the question, like you have shows me that you care and that says to me that your ready to step up to the plate. So game on!

Thanks for the support! And its good to know that such topics were being discussed by the venture captains.

Re the newbies bit, the pre-gen characters that include a full description of the feats look very useful and preclude the need to explain everything to a new player. I will definately make use of them when I GM.

I guess you could explain that Convincing Lie provides the ability to not just tell a lie well (the initial bluff check) but to impress upon the person being lied to all the little details and facts and explanations that make the lie work. You basically don't just fast talk the guard, you make a point of getting him to remember the reason why he had never heard of the queen's brother before, and why he couldn't possibly the famed adventurer because of XYZ.

Its the difference between...

Captain of the Guard: Why did you let that man in the Royal chambers?
Guard: He said he was the Queen's brother
Captain: The queen has no brother you idiot! Don't you know anything?
Guard: But, he, oh what did he say? He did prove it.
Captain: What possible proof could he have given, you idiot?
Captain (to his other guards): Quick capture that man!

...and this...

Captain of the Guard: Why did you let that man in the Royal chambers?
Guard: He said he was the Queen's brother
Captain: The queen has no brother you idiot! Don't you know anything?
Guard: No, she really does, you see he is her half brother apparently. It happened back in King Adriel's reign and got hushed up - he had another child out of wedlock.
Captain: What? Preposterous!
Guard: No really, I didn't believe it at first, I remember thinking how could such a scandal have been covered up so well. But he explained that, you see the woman King Adriel made pregnant was a close friend of the Queen's she willing went into hiding to protect her friend from her betrayal.
Captain: Really? It sounds odd, but not totally implausible. Perhaps I should make a discrete enquiry before disturbing the queen and her brother. You did well.

However, if you are going to sign up to judge, then you owe it to your players to prepare the module and to have a sone idea of the game rules. I would recommend judging for friends before you try to judge for strangers. Some people are just jerks.

I always prep scenarios, and have in the pass not-commited to running games at cons because I wasn't sure I would have the scenario written / prepped in time, only to find I play in some games where the GM sits down and says "I didn't finish writing the scenario you signed up to so I am going to run XYZ, is that okay?" :(

Also don't sweat the PF Grapple rules. Our group fought it originally too. CMB/CMD are simply an alternate attack(to hit) and defense(AC) for the Combat Manuever system, it looks overwhelming at first, it's not.

I am actually pretty okay with the PF Grapple rules as I learned them for my grappling half orc Druid PC :) I just don't like them (much prefer 3.5 grapple that actually made sense and was detailed in one section rather than across four different chapters).

Anyway, thanks for all the responses and advice - my reading list has grown a bit (reading Bulldogs! will be postponed) and I am hopong to run at least one scenario for my monthly PFS group before running at cons just to make sure I get it all right - I'll also probably be buying the GM screen in hardcopy too.

Honestly there's not as much to read as you think.

I know that I could probably run a decent PFS game without reading a bit of the new field guide, but as it is part of the core assumption I will take the time to read it (just as I did Seekers or Secrets even though I haven't used it at all!).

I prefer to be absolutely ready than to be found lacking - especially as it is a living campaign rather than just a one-shot campaign ganme with disposable pre-gen characters.

I really don't see why it couldn't work with Eberron.

For other people probably not, but any amount of conversion work is too much considering I have the 3.5 system and am happy with it.

You might be able to improve your reading and comprehension speed.

Yeah, I have read a few articles about helping to speed read but never really stuck with anything long enough to see results - lazy I guess :)

I'm not that fast a reader myself, but I can generally read the Lord of the Rings trilogy over a weekend.

It took me months to read those books, both as a 12 year old and again a few years ago. If I could read at that speed I would be all set.

Need to wait until Christmas for a copy of the Field Guide?

:-?

No, I could buy the PDF as soon as it is released, the issue is the time to read it, it takes me a few weeks to read a 64 page book, possibly less if I am not reading a hardcopy book as well (as I am now). I really am a slow reader, I started Guide to Darkmoon Vale last week and am only on page 10 now :(

I need to finish reading that, finish reading the Eberron Campaign Guide that I am reading in hardcopy, then read the sections of the PF RPG and Bestiary that I have identified and now read the field guide. I really wish I was a faster read and had more time to read.

Just discovered that I need to add a new 64 page book to my reading list before I should be GMing (Field Guide) :(

I doubt I will be ready to GM at OddCon now, maybe ready for Conception.

New book coming out tomorrow. It replaces/supplements Seekers of Secrets (which until now you were supposed to be familiar with instead.)

Seriously?

I only bought Seekers of Secrets because it was part of the core assumption and haven't used that (apart from putting one piece of gear on my PC's character sheet that he has never used) and now I have to buy and read another book?

As far as "required" it's really only required for a GM to own/bring it, but you will benefit greatly from doing so as a player. As a player, you should at the VERY least endeavor to read it over a few times.

Well I was looking at starting GMing PFS, but this will put me back another few weeks :(

Run Pathfinder enough and you'll eventually lose any desire to downgrade back to 3.5. :)

Simply due to the popularity and the lack of PDFs for D&D3.5 I have considered that however three things make me think it won't happen:

1) Although many of the changes in PF I deem good, some changes are terrible IMHO (grapple, Fly skill, channelling - though it took me a while to twig on to that last one).

2) It doesn't support my favourite setting of Eberron - too many small changes have been made so that for me its not compatible.

3) While I considered ditching Eberron and trying to make Golarion my preferred setting (and it is growing on me), the setting "bloat" and the fact that setting material spans two editions (3.5 and PF) has the completionist and perfectionist in me abandoning the idea.

To be honest I had practically given up on PF but it was Pathfinder Society Organised play that got me back playing it and even purchasing several products.

I myself am at the point where I'm considering getting rid of all my 3.5 materials for good.

I have bought more 3.5 books since Pathfinder was released than ever before :)

Maybe I am being a bit dense, but what is the "Pathfinder Society Field Guide"? Apparently every player is supposed to have a copy.

I don't have a problem with a good GM being new to Pathfinder (and not knowing all of the rules). However, you should at least attempt to read the PF rules when you have time, because the subtley's make it quite different.

as posted previously I think I will be doing targeted reading, which will still take me a very significant amount of time (I get little time to read, so even the sections I have identified will likely take me several weeks) - I still don't intend to read the book cover to cover.

And while you're learning, only GM in the level 1-5 range.

This is good advice, and something I was thinking myself, when I volunteer I will indicate my status re the PF rules and ask for level 1 to 5.

Also, I'm not a fan of GMs who want players to only bring up disagreements at the end of a session. If you haven't read the PF rules, your mistake could be game breaking.

As I stated in my original post if the rule mistake is really important I would ask for players to call me on it there and then. Only trivial stuff would I expect to be brought up afterwards or at a break; I still want to know what I got wrong so I can learn but I don't want to bog down the game discussing whether a modifier should be +2 or +3 when the attack would have missed either way.

TBH even in PFS under PF RPG rules I see some rule mistakes being made and I don't call it out if its not material to the game - more than once I have seen a GM not appply both the -4 penalty to firing into melee AND the +4 AC for cover when a PC fires at a foe who is in melee with another PC who also provides cover. If the attacker rolls a total of 9 anyway, its a moot point.

I've found that the continual switching back and forth has destroyed any sort of system mastery I might once have had.

This is one of my big fears and another reason I have not read the PF RPG book cover to cover yet - I only play PF RPG for PFS and prefer 3.5 for any games I play or run. However I have run a 4e campaign now and am currently playing in a 4e cmapaign too and am already starting to confuse the rule between the two now (charging is only a +1 bonus in 4e) so maybe I have to accept that I will get muddled if I want to play 3.5, 4e and PF :)

Some fellow will come to your table with his 10-level half-orc summoner/magus, with spells from Ultimate Combat and Faiths of Balance, with material from Orcs of Golarion, the Guide to the Inner Sea, and a couple of APs. He'll bring all those resources to the table for you to take a look at, but if you're not up-to-speed on how that character works, it will take you at least a half-hour to check everything.

Yeah even if I did read the PF RPG rules, I don't expect to buy any more books beyond the APG so I would be asking the player to explain how his Gunslinger or Magus works anyway. :)

However, there are some things that are VERY different in pathfinder that are a BIG deal to some character classes (I'm thinking, for example, the way smite now works for paladins)

I aim to read the classes section and also the conversion guide will hopefully highlight major changes. Also if I did get a class feature wrong, that is the sort of thing I would expect to be called on there and then.

I'm with the others, except I'd suggest you allow corrections 'in line' to the game. If you're not yet ready to be the authority on the rules, you shouldn't claim the protections of 'after the session'.

As stated the "after the session" would be for trivial rules issues or ones that are a moot point - anything significant I would be happy to correct there and then.

I'd also suggest that reading it won't probably take as long as you might think. MUCH of the book is familiar to you.

Trust me, I am a slow reader, and don't get too much time to read (maybe 3 hours a week, perhaps a couple hours more if I have a book in PDF format and it renders on my phone) - reading the PF RPG core rulebook cover to cover would likely take me a few months! And I still have books I bought 3 years ago sitting on my shelf unread so I my reading time is very precious.

If you have the time, make sure you can prep. Although I never feel I've taken enough time to prep. (I'm GMing at GENCON...what am I doing online?)

Definately, I always prep and for pre-written scenarios I like to read them twice, making notes and looking up every feat and spell NPCs have. So I won't be an emergency PFS GM, but hopefully with some pre-planning I can commit to run a few scenarios at a convention (I ran 3 different PFS scenarios at Conception in Season Zero).

I too am a human fan, but I also like half-orcs in both 3.5 and PF.

I am an Eberron fan and so Warforged and to a lesser degree Shifters are also interesting.

I am curious what the 3.5 Dragonborn is like, I have only skimmed the Races of the Dragon entry for them, but they appear to be quite different to the 4e version, basically being a reincarnation of other races.

Oh and prior to running a scenario it's good to check up those non-core feats from PRD. I think they are listed there as well.

That is a good idea - anything not in core, APG or Seekers of Secrets I can hopefully look up in the PRD.

You might get some use out of this thread as well:

What are some things about the Pathfinder rules that you think most people do not know?

Yeah. I have been following that thread and was the one I was referrin to when I said "try to make a note of any interesting stuff that gets mentioned on these forums (e.g. in the thread about PF rules people don't know)"

I know that I shafted an entire party once due to failing to realize that glitterdust now allows a save each round to overcome blindness.

I don't have all teh 3.5 feats and spells memorised so I will be looking up any NPCs' feats and spells and magic items anyway so hopefully I won't fall foul of such changes :)

I would suggest looking through the classes to get an idea of how they have changed (0th level spells, paladin smite, rage powers, etc), checking out the common feats to see what has changed (Dodge, combat expertise, power attack, cleave have all changed) and looking through the combat chapter, specifically the CMB and CMD rules. That would all hold you in good stead for GMing.

That is all great advice. I will read those sections, and have already read the CM stuff but will also print out the Pathfinder SORD for quick reference too.

The inner sea primer is a good intro to the setting.

Would it give me anything the Gazateer doesn't?

As for the quick read...

The combat section, and the magic section, sans spells, and maybe the DM section.

Magic section as well and DM section, got it.

The [ 3.5 Conversion Guide ] covers some of the basic differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder RPG.

I had downloaded that nearly a couple of years ago now, but hadn't really looked at it. It looks as though it will be useful highlighting the key class changes. Thanks for the tip!

To this, I would add reading the Glossary [...] and the Monster Abilities from the Bestiary (tho you cold look those up on an "as needed" basis, a quick skim certainly helps).

Added those to the list :)

DigitalMage, if I came across as too aggressive, I apologize.

No apologies necessary, your "bite" was in response to a hypothetical comment / attitude that I wouldn't make at the gaming table. All advice is appreciated!

People can spend a lot of resources healing, given that there's no dedicated healer due to random party makeup. Thus, any error that results in gimping a PC's abilities or making a monster/trap too strong can lead to more charges used off their precious wand of cure light wounds,

Cool I will bear that in mind! Ta.

I think I will read the core of the suggested chapters and try to make a note of any interesting stuff that gets mentioned on these forums (e.g. in the thread about PF rules people don't know). However even reading all the rules I still will likely get tripped up on occassion as I will have D&D3.5, D&D4e and PF rules all sloshing around in my head :)

but with a bit of bite too.

You're not kidding! :)

Since the Society rules are meant to produce a level playing field (EX: no crafting skills, and much tighter purchasing guidelines), your minor errors may have repercussions to players months from your actual game play.

The lack of crafting in PFS is a good thing for me - one less thing to worry about. And yes, I would want correcting if a rule change would make a significant difference, e.g. difference between a player losing a magic item or not, or between life and death for example. Are there other things like that to look out for?

You state "The reason is that I haven't read the PF RPG rule book, and honestly can't see myself doing so", and frankly that seems a bit elitist.

I didn't mean to sound elitist, just realistic, and I imagine we might actually have a disconnect between what we mean by "read the book". I read RPG books cover to cover, whether its a rulebook, a campaign guide or scenario. Pathfinder RPG is 560 odd pages long, and to be honest that would take me months to read through cover to cover and as I would only be using it to play in PFS I would like to make better use of my time and read some of my many other game books.

Does every PFS GM read the book cover to cover?

However, I do read bits of the book relating to my character. I guess what I need to do before I GM PFS is to read specific sections, like racial traits, classes (at least up to level 8 or so, definately not above 12th level), new skills, key feats (Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Dodge etc), the entire combat chapter most likely, and perhaps the Magic chapter?

The trouble is, I don't know all the little changes PF made, and so don't necessarily know which bits of the book I really need to take note of without reading it all cover to cover. As an example, for all I know Paizo now have standing from prone not provoking an AoO (though I don't think so).

honestly if I sat in on a game and the GM said they had no intention of reading the rule book, I would politely leave the table and contact the session organizer to have them removed from the active roster.

This is the sort of reaction I was worried about, I would rather not GM than ruin the expectations of even one player. Having said that, I wouldn't state that I have no intention to read the rulebook - that was more for context in this thread - instead I would just indicate that I may not have caught all the changes between 3.5 and PF (and this is because I still run and play 3.5 in games that are not PFS).

That being said, I applaud that you're willing to GM in the first place. It take a considerable amount of time to properly prepare to run a game well, and good GM's are in short supply in any game environment. And in general, folks will be willing to help out a GM new to the rule set when, as you pointed out in your example, you stated up front that you might have trouble with the finer differences between 3.5 and PFS.

Cool, it looks like you may be happy if I was GMing for you as long as I didn't make my elitist sounding comment :)

I think he meant that he hasn't read the rulebook cover to cover; I think most PFRPG players & GMs would say the same, frankly.

Exactly and I guess maybe I am strange in that way, but I guess I do have to change my reading behaviour and do some focused reading even if I don't read it cover to cover.

On a somewhat related note, I only have the Gazateer, not the Inner Sea World Guide - is that going to be an issue? I have read Seekers of Secrets and Guide to Absalam as well as the Gazateer and am currently reading Guide to Darkmoon Vale.

Thanks for all the responses so far, they have been more receptive to the idea than I had perhaps thought might be the case.

By the book, give it a quick read, learn as much as you can about the changes.

Did you mean "buy the book"? If so, don't worry I have the PDF and a hardcopy (all nicely indexed with stickies) and I also have PDFs of the Bestiary, GM Screen and APG.

What do you mean exactly by "give it a quick read"? Are there certain sections I should read? Someone did a guide to reading the D&D4e PHB in 40 pages for example - a guide to focussing on what is important - does such exist for PF?

As a GM, you're expected to have at the table a copy of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook and Bestiary.

I only have the Bestiary in PDF format. I would likely printout the pages needed for the scenario's monsters but am I expected to have a physical copy in case a player uses Summon Nature's Ally or something? If so I guess I would need to make a purchase (and use up valuable shelf space :( )

The players will often help you out anyway, eg the Monk player will be more familiar with 3.5 to PFS changes to the grapple rules

I really don't like the PF Grapple rules (and I was happy with the 3.5 rules) - however I have read them, including the blog clarifications because my Druid character is a grappler, so that shouldn't be too much of a problem :)

Equally I know about channelling as I have played Clerics.

I would of course also read up on any rules that I know I will need based upon the content of the scenario.

and don't even get me started on Eidolons!

Yeah, I know zilch about them other than I think they are to do with the summoner class. I guess I will have to rely on players knowing the rules of their own classes - for example I have no idea how firearms combat differs from regular ranged combat for Gunslingers.

I would recommend that you do spend some time reading at least some sections of the core rulebook but that can be done over time. (Classes, feats and the combat section should be looked at).

Cool, I guess maybe I do need to read a few chapters - no need to read cover to cover as I normally do with an RPG book. So should I read those chapters completely, or for example should I read the general Feat info, the table of Feats and then look at the detail of some of the more common feats e.g. Power Attack?

If you're running at any UK conventions that I am at then feel free to come and talk with me and you can always email me too. I want to encourage more people to GM!

Yes, it would likely be at either OddCon if I can commit myself to going or Conception.

It was my struggle to get signed up to games at this year's Conception and the 15 min earlier mustering for living games that really made me consider GMing again (I GMed PFS season zero at Conception before).

I enjoy playing in PFS games but know that it can be hard to get into scenarios at some of the conventions I attend, so I am thinking about offering to GM some scenarios.

I GMed PFS during Season Zero when it was run under the D&D 3.5 rules but haven't run PFS since its move to the PF RPG rules. The reason is that I haven't read the PF RPG rule book, and honestly can't see myself doing so.

I know the 3.5 rules fairly well and I have read the bits of PF RPG I need to play my characters, but because of this I am not aware of all the changes PF RPG made. For example I initially did not realise the Heal skill can be used to heal some Hit Points now via "Treat Deadly Wounds", or that every class can now find traps regardless of DC and the Trapfinding class ability just provides a bonus to do so.

The point is there may be more significant rules changes out there that I am not aware of and if I were to GM would potentially rule incorrectly in line with 3.5 rather than PF RPG.

So, if you sat down at a table to play PFS and the GM says up front:

"Just so you know, I am familiar with D&D3.5 but haven't completely read the Pathfinder RPG, so I may make a few wrong rules calls. If its really important to the scenario, please call me on it. However if it is not so important, please let it got for the moment and inform me after the session or in a break, okay?"

How would you react?

Would you be annoyed that your GM is not competent enough?

Your thoughts and feedback would be welcomed!

Technically its not a sunder attempt: its an attack on a weapon. We know that sunder draws an AoO, but not all attacks on weapons.

Apart from Sunder (and Disarm) what other attacks on weapons are defined / described in the rules?

In Golarion, tavern owners are expert/commoners. There's a great section on page 253 of the Inner Sea Guide that tackes the problem. Bascially, "mundane" NPCs are level 1-5, "exceptional" NPCs (leaders, heroes, notables, sages) are level 6-10, "powerful", unique and important NPCs are level 11-15, while the 16+ territory is "legendeary", with likes of Runelords, nation leaders and supervillains.

That spread sounds about what I like, so does the Inner Sea Magic book change that a little (or a lot)?

Out of interest, what sort of, and how many, NPCs are in the 8 to 14 level range? E.g. are there any level 10 fighter tavern owners?

Are there many NPCs level 15+?

I am used to Eberron where higher level characters are fairly rare, and I believe the only 20th level NPC named in the setting guide is the Great Druid Oalian, who is an awakened great pine tree and so simply cannot go gallavanting around the world solving issues.

I believe it is up for debate as it is not clearly defined. The wizard is making a touch attack against an item, not the opponent.

I know Sunder is a combat manouevre but I personally would take that as a guide and would say the wizard provokes an AoO.

This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects.

We disagree. This is directly taken from the Magic chapter about spells that target objects.

I think the text "This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects" is just saying that because a spell has the "(object)" note against its Saving Throw entry it does not necessarily mean the spell can only be cast on items. For example Invisibility can be cast on both creatures or objects.

Instead we should look to the Target entry for a spell to determine whether it can be cast against only objects. Shrink Item can only be cast against items, and not creatures. So the target of the spell cannot be the Giant, but must be his weapon specifically.

If the wizard was casting Invisibility on the giant, then the wizard could target the giant himself (and wouldn't therefore provoke an AoO), and the spell would also affect his gear. If the giant wanted to resist being turned invisible for some reason he would resist, and his items would also get to make saving throws as well because "they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell". So you could get the situation where the giant fails his save and becomes invisible but some of his gear makes the save and stays visible. :)

Strands of FATE is certainly popular at the momemt, but it is actually quite a different off shoot of regular FATE as seen in products like Dresden Files, Spirit of the Century, Starblazer Adventures, Legends of Anglerre, Diaspora and Bulldogs!

I have a copy of SoF but haven't fully read it - despite me absolutely loving FATE, SoF just doesn't grab me, it seems to get rid of some of the stuff like about FATE and add back some of the stuff I am glad FATE ditched (the Ability vs Skill split for example).

IMHO SoF is as different to regular FATE as Icons is, and the developers of Icons don't consider it a FATE game, just FATE inspired.

If you want to check out how regular FATE works in games like SotC and Dresden you can check out Free FATE that I put together (Dresden changes some things but it more similar than DResden is to SoF):

http://www.ukroleplayers.com/downloads/free-fate/

As long as him not joining in the social stuff itself isn't annoying you, its just the trying to convince another player to leave early that is the problem then perhaps structure the games night so that the vast majority of the socialising is done before the gaming starts or afterwards. This way you can say to the player that if he isn't worried about socialising he can arrive an hour later than everyone else, or leave an hour earlier (specify specific times when you will start gaming by).

But make it clear that if the player giving him a ride wants to join in the social then the unsocial player will need to get to the game (if social is before) or get home (if social is at end) under his own steam.

As for the other issues, e.g. power gaming, ask him what he wants out of gaming and ask the same of yourself and your other players it may just be that you have differing styles of play - if a compromise cannot be made then he may be better finding another group.

As for counting as flanking when grappled... You can't make AoO when grappled, so you don't threaten (threatening being a part of the AoO rules in the first place), so you don't count as flanking.

Is that really the case? No AoO = Not threatening?

I know Threatening is a requirement for being able to make AoOs, but I didn't believe being able to make AoOs was a requirement for Threatening.

Note in 3.5 this was clear, if you were grappling you didn't Threaten (so definately no AoO or Flanking), however Paizo explicitly changed that to say if you're grappling you can't make AoOs, so I infer that was intended so that you could be grappling someone and still provide flanking to your ally on the opposite side of the foe you are grappling - especially since Paizo also made the change that you don't move into your grappler's square and so there is definite placement to rule on flanking.

Re Pun Pun:
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Pun-Pun_(3.5e_Optimized_Character_Build)

Question - I see that the majority of responses are from the 95%GM group. Do you find, on those rare occasions when you do play, that you have to rein yourself in to keep from being a GM-Player?

Yes, I tend to bite my tongue when things aren't done RAW, only pointing something out if its really important. For example, in a recent D&D4e session someone was using forced movement to push someone over a balcony - technically that isn't possible as you can only force move someone where they could walk (so off an unrailed precipise is fine, but not over a balcony).

However, it was cool so I didn't say anything. Then rather than a Save the DM makes an Acrobatics check to see if the foe can avoid being pushed over the edge.

Not RAW, but it all made sense.

In terms of Pathfinder RPG I am 100% a player. I have considered GMing for PFS but I am coming to the conclusion that it is unlikley I will GM because I can't be arsed to read the rule book fully, which I would want to do before GMing.

In terms of RPGs in general I very much prefer to GM and overall I GM most of the time. I started RPGing as a GM and only rarely played in the first few years of gaming.

The Noble; a socially based class that has influence within society as class features.

Marvel at more of their artwork here:
Avalanche Press on RPG.net Index

I particularly like the Arnold line tracing on All for One and One for All

But what you, or any who do not want Mythic level material, is you don’t want those of us who want 20+ material to have it, period. Not a delay, but no Mythic book at all. Just so another book, that you do want, is not delayed.

No book for us, delayed book for you. Do you see where I am coming from here?

I think you are making an inference that wasn't meant to be made. I was not suggesting that Epic level book should never be made, just that Paizo should be aware of how many people wouldn't want it ever, so that they can prioritise it appropriately over books that people do want.

Take this example of two books that Paizo were planning on doing...

Utimate Explorer: 800 people state they would be interested in this book compared to 200 who indicate that they would not

Epic Level Guidebook: 400 people state they would be interested in this book compared to 600 who indicated that they would not

With that information it would be wise for Paizo to produce Ultimate Explorer before Epic level Guidebook, there is no suggestion that the latter would never be produced but that not enough people are interested to make it a priority over Ultimate Explorer.

The reason why threads asking for those who are not interested are needed, is because by themselves the results of a poll asking who is interested doesn't give an indication of what size sample you have.

E.g. A poll asks the question are you interested in an Epic Level book? It only has one option "Yes". 400 people respond to the poll indicating that they would be interested.

Now obviously Pathfinder has a bigger customer base than 400, but Paizo know that not everyone would have seen the poll or bothered to respond if they had, so they think maybe 400 is actually a very positive reaction. But by itself 400 doesn't really give an indication as to what proportion of PF players would be interested in the book.

But what if the poll had allowed a "No" option? And 1600 people had voted "No". That 400 "Yes" vote now gets a context, 20% of those who responded to the poll were interested in an Epic Level book, 80% weren't.

Now if that poll was considered representative of Paizo's player base (unlikely but go with me here), then maybe Paizo could assume approximately 20% of their players may be interested in such a book.

I would point out to those people, whomever they may be, that Paizo puts a lot of effort into tons of stuff I couldn't give two turds about, but it doesn't put me off the ones I do.

But what if the products you do like become fewer and fewer in comparison to those you don't?

Would people be happy if Bestiary 3 was delayed for 6 months because Paizo prioritised an Epic Level book ahead of it?

What if Paizo had delayed producing the Inner Sea World Guide because they wanted an Epic Level book produced so they could include some epic level PCs in Guide?

In the end I really don't care either way, as I said I am unlikley to buy any PF RPG products, but some people would like to express their lack of desire to buy such a product to counter balance those who post an interest.