I had a few questions about how skill points work in this game:
#1.) A favored skill needs to have one rank in it to get that +3, right? So, if I put a rank in a favored skill for the first time, it ends up being +4, correct?
#.2) About the whole "Favored Class" bonus: Do you get that bonus at first level? Also, you pick the bonus each level (as opposed to having to pick for your character's whole career), right?
Sorry for the Newb questions, but I have been out of the loop for a long time and it also has been a while since I have played a really crunch game.
Thanks in advance!
I like the idea from "Trail of Cthulu" that if you have a skill and you are looking in the right place or asking the right questions and it's an important clue, give it to them (tho, to be fair, I believe that rule was also in Spirit of the Century before ToC came out).
I noticed D&D Essentials had the same concept on their skill challenges and I welcomed that crap whole heartedly! (lol)
3.5 Loyalist: what Fin had said about the passive rules, but let me take it a bit further in what their theory was:
It is an attempt to streamline the idea that your character just might spot something they were about to walk into or might have not spotted without looking. It is a low number compared to what you would get if you were actively looking, but for people like me who don't want people to constantly roll on the small details, it's clever and useful.
The Sense motive part is similar to give players clues if they were not thinking that the person at the door of the inn was looking at theme strangely for some reason (tho, I might just tell them that anyway).
It solves the issue of the "Me too" rule. "John, roll perception," then everyone at the table starts to get suspicious or asks "me too, I want to roll per." It also raises suspicions if you roll for the players on some of these because then they know something is up.
Now, common sense does trump these rules, but those were the problems I had that these two passive rules solved.
Hi, I was curious if and how many out there also have taken some of the good ideas of 4th edition and adapted them to your Pathfinder game?
I am not talking about the power system, but some of the things they did to solve issues that Pathfinder did not cover like "Passive perception" & "Passive Insight," for example.
I use the passive rules for those two skills (in the case of PF: "Passive Sense Motive"), movement rules (so movement is 1 square no matter if it is diagonal, but terrain still counts with us) and no confirming critical hits (I always found that kind of mean, so a critical is just a critical). I also don't use random charts (encounters or anything really. Too random ;)
The Pathfinder Society books have you pick from Character Ability arrays and give you a set amount of hit points each level, so there was no need to cross that over (thank you guys for doing that by the way) and the Hero points are way better than the action points (though, the rules are a little more conservative than I like, but it's easy to not be so stingy ;)
I liked their attempt to make non-combat encounters interesting by using Skill Challenges, but in the end found it was a little too meta gaming (or artificial) to the story. I am working on easy rules for social conflict similar to how Savage Worlds does it, but have yet to test them in play (on some social skills rolls, it is not very in depth to just use one roll, especially if you are interrogating someone or trying to convince the village elder to listen to your character about the Ork threat coming their way).
I am not trying to get people to trash D&D because if you are reading this it is obvious which game you like better, but for anyone who had read 4th Ed (especially the essentials line), there was some cool ideas & advice that would work just as well with Pathfinder (I am sure they will get rid of all that in 5th edition ;)
I love the streamlined rules! It all seems to work almost exactly the same way, but much more easy to understand. If you guys were going to do a Pathfinder "2nd edition" (or even something like a 1.5 edition) I would love to see it look a lot like this.
I totally agree with Rixx here! Not only for my benefit (because I am still struggling with it), but for those who want to get into the hobby.
I am excited about this box set, especially after we played with two new people (who had never played rpgs before). They did a good job trying to keep up, but they were still not experienced enough to loan them that 500+ rule book and hope they know what to do with it ;)
Thank you for having this open to the public. I like both you and Wizards, but I like your business practices and how you deliver your products better (I guess you might have more freedom without a big company like Hasbro breathing down your neck). With them, I would have to be apart of D&D insider to get my opinion listened to when it comes to them making changes to rules. I like their system, but that really annoys me about the D&D insider thing. I buy their products, should you not listen to me anyway?
So, thank you for keeping this rule change and question open to your customer regardless of if they are in a subscription or not. :)
I don't understand why you want to make things so complected. Seriously, how do you get through all the action when you have to be concerned with things so obvious they don't need rules (like a Colossal modifier? Seriously, that should not be able to sneak past something that is relevant to the scene!)
Vic Wertz wrote:
Pawns are easier to move around, and easier to read from an angle other than "above." We also like that pawns let us depict full body art instead of just a head shot.
Well, since those tokens have a regular side and a bloodied sided (which is an important feature in D&D's combat), it makes more since for WotC to use those. But since Pathfinder does not use a rule like that, it makes more sense to have the stand ups (and they are easier to see ;)
Just to be clear, that IS a +1 to ANY Ability score on level 4, 8, 12, 16 & 20, right? (so a total of 5 ability points total)
I am one of those that had not played 3.5 before Pathfinder (which I just call Pathfinder anyway).
How we got a Drow to be good is a helm of opposition alignment...
Oh, I am sure I'll come up with some generic redemption story. It does not matter to me that I am playing something unoriginal (it's a lot easier to play those roles anyway). I have just been reading the Transitions trilogy, that that had a lot to do with this. I was surprised my GM said yes, you can play a Drow.... of course knowing him, he will make me pay for that choice ;)
nicklas Læssøe wrote:
It should be mentioned that your party dosnt need to travel only at night. You can both be out during the day, and fight outside. All you get is a measly -1 penalty to attacks. Ofcourse its a disadvantage, but not a deal breaker for any party.
Sorry, I posted that other response before seeing this. Well, that is cool! Thanks :)
Kriss Lambert wrote:
Is it something that means I can't really get out during the day or is it if we were in the dark and someone casts light right then it would screw me up?
If it's the later case, sure I can deal with that. If it's the first... maybe I can get some goggles, cool steam punk looking ones ;) (lol)
My GM is letting me play a drow, but I was curious how others have gotten around the "Light Blindness" disadvantage. I mean, if my drow has been on the surface for a while, you think he could get used to the brightness of outside.
I am not wanting to be a buzz kill for the rest of the party ("oh great, we can only travel at night because of our stupid drow ranger!" etc., )
Thanks everyone for the advice. I don't really mind if the stats are out of date and a little off balance for Runelords because having to convert things for this last adventure I ran helped me learn more of the rules... ironically.
I found printed copies of every one of the RotR APs except for the first, and my players already read the companion for that and are wanting me to run it now.
Each one of those APs has something I like from what I have read, so I just needed to make a choice and just start. I wanted to make sure I did not spend all this money to find out they were updating it right after that.
I am not against PDFs, don't get me wrong. It is a printing issue usually. BUT, I'll work around this, I guess.
I ran that "Master of the Fallen Fortress" as my first adventure (and it went really well) and plan on running "Hollows Last Hope" (which is a good little adventure, to tell you the truth) tomorrow before our party. Our gaming group has been on hiatus, so we are doing these one shots (which is why I had chosen those two), but if we are going to do something on the long term, then I needed to get an AP.
Rise or the Ruinlords comes highly recommended for a first campaign, so I am set on this (I was originally going to try Legacy of Fire, but too many people said start with RotR).
Now, I just have to get down the rules for the game. I have been falling back on the two 3.5 veterans (who have already read the core rules before me), but I need get this stuff down so they don't think I am a slacker (I am not use to this much crunch, that Dragon Age rpg is the extent to my complexity these days ;)
Thanks and cheers!
All the places that sell Pathfinder in my town (OKC) say that this is out of print. Yet, I noticed that this website still sells it, which is cool. BUT, what has me scratching my head is that #1 and two others do not have a PDF version to buy.
Are they planning on re-vamping this Adventure Path for updated Pathfinder rules?
Thanks and cheers
Alex Martin wrote:
If you want a singular sample, Master of The Fallen Fortress should work. Crypt of the Everflame has a little more story detail for a dungeon crawl, so it can certainly work as both an intro module and a springboard for a larger adventure story. I believe Crypt is also designed to be the first fully compatible module built for Pathfinder -so it's more tailored to emphasize the traits of the system.
I actually have the PDF for Crypt of the Everflame (and I like it because it is not your standard dungeon crawl), but did not know if that could be done in one night. All of our gaming group can't make it this Sunday, so I wanted to do something we could get done in one evening for sure (this is more to get me and my wife familiar with the system).
I was intending on running Crypt (and maybe it's two sequels) when we "officially" start up Pathfinder (we have one more Dark Heresy adventure before that guy takes a break and either someone else runs Warhammer or I run Pathfinder), but got distracted by the AP ;)
Thank you for the recommendations of the Runlords.I will pick up the player's companion on that too since I heard they are not only good to get the players into the world and game, but help the GM (PathMaster?) find out whether the campaign would be good for them. That sucks for me that the old APs player's companions are not free like the new ones, but oh well.
One thing that I noticed about this game is the similarities between this and the 40K rpgs. Other than the basic resolution system (and races), Dark Heresy is very similar in concept to Pathfinder in the way the character advances and picks skills & feats.
Thanks to everyone!
That is good to know about the compatibility! One of the players (the Dark Heresy GM) has a lot of 3.5 stuff.
Cavalier is in the Advanced Player's Guide, isn't it? I'll mention the camel spit attack to her (that is pretty funny). My wife wanted to play Kyra while my friend and his wife were just going to make their characters. I figured I can let people changed stuff before we start up a campaign. I wanted to jump in and try this out.
Between the darkness of 40K rpg, Warhammer Fantasy RP and Arkham Horror, we need some epic heroic fantasy to liven things up, so I am really excited about Pathfinder!
I promise that is all I had to say about D&D :) On the Dark Heresy boards they still go off about the 3rd edition of Warhammer and gets old real quick (I have not played it, so I have no real opinions about it).
BTW, I really like how the PDFs for this game are so cheap! It is worth getting them to have for reference at work, so I don't have to drag them with me (although the exercise is good).
I hope people do not mind this post, but I have been lurking for a while and I thought I would not only use this to ask a question, but maybe to sort of introduce myself.
I am an experienced gamer, but I am new to Pathfinder. I checked out the new D&D and despite the fact that I was impressed with some of the changes from the last time I ran that game (2nd edition), I was disappointed with how they pigeon hole characters by level (1-10 dungeon, 11-20th out in the world, etc.) and by the crappy support of their own products. My gaming group loves a mixture of themes for adventures and I am not good at making up my own stuff (I am good at adding on to other people's stuff).
So, finding Pathfinder was great (although it is everywhere, so I don't know why I was being so stubborn).
Not all of our gaming group can get together this Sunday (currently in the middle of a Dark Heresy campaign), so I thought I would take this opportunity to try out Pathfinder.
Two of the four of us that are gaming this Sunday are familiar with 3.5, but not Pathfinder (my wife and I are the newbies). I was just going to run that new demo game (Master of the Fallen Fortress) that came out because I figured we can get through it in a few hours (if not less).
Since the other couple playing (and the two missing players in our group) were big fans of 3.5, I have a funny feeling this will be a standard for our group (like Dark Heresy and Warhammer 2nd Ed.).
So, I was going to run Crypt of the Everflame after this and possibly it's sequels, but was wondering if one of the Adventure Paths might be better?
Any recommendations? I was kind of fancying the "Legacy of Fire" one since my wife is into middle-eastern stuff (she bellydances and we love the music), but I was not sure if there would be problems with the conversions from old 3.5 to new?