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

Fake Healer's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 7,376 posts (9,905 including aliases). 8 reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,376 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
The Exchange

SmiloDan wrote:

Just curious, what version? 5th?

And bravo for beginning a Dark Sun campaign where they don't start out as unequipped slaves escaping a slave caravan in the middle of the slave desert filled with slavering monsters.

You mean there are other ways to start a Dark Sun campaign? Preposterous!

LOL....

The Exchange

Watch the first season of Spartacus on Netflix.
Read up on Athas. Athas.org Dark Sun Wiki ...there used to be good site on Athas but apparently it is largely gone.

The Exchange

So I am getting ready to DM a 5E game shortly...I ran one for my kids for a short while but this will be the first one as a serious test where I am running.
I have been in a game for 7 months or so where when I started the group a dude said he would like to run....he has been tossing in on-the-fly houserules ever since. Wanna attack someone? You are a dwarf with a human standing between you and the target so make a perception check to see if you can see the target. Wanna move up into combat? Passing through a friendly player's space requires a Dex check by yourself and the person whose spot you are going through...fail and fall prone.
Basically a ton of houserules to make life difficult and bog down the game. None expressed before hand and none open to discussion (and I tried, siting that we just want to test out the true 5e rules and how they run without a bunch of houserules).
That's why I and half the group are splintering off to run a new game.
To me you add houserules to a game in order to address a problem in the ruleset or add a certain style or flavor to the campaign world. You don't add them in because "I just think that looking at a fight when you are behind a guy is harder" or "I just think that Dragonborn are over-powered so I am eliminating them, so what if I never saw one in play or heard anything negative about them and you guys wanna test out the game".

I currently don't see much I would think of houseruling, although I haven't quite figured out how grappling works if you want to choke someone during it, or stab someone, or what types of weapons are usable in one. I am gonna have to look into that more but I really don't see much that needs attention. The game runs smoothly when we aren't succumbing to DM imposed extra dice rolling not within the rules.
I look forward to seeing the game run as close to RAW as possible and can't wait to give the players that experience also. If something rears it's head I will raise it to the player's attention and we can decide how to fix it or even if it needs fixing.
It's not my game it is OUR game. I don't force MY agenda on the group, we all should decide what goes on in our game to make it fun for all of us.

The Exchange

dot

The Exchange

I have a strange request for a couple or portraits....
I am creating a 5E race for an upcoming campaign and I would love to have some portraits to represent them.
The race has three different offshoots and appearances.
The race is called the Slincendi, and they are basically divided up into the Lacertikind which would be very similar to lizardfolk (and may replace them in my campaign) and probably is easy enough to find pictures and such of but the other 2 offshoots may be harder.
The Naedrikind are an offshoot of humanoid/serpent mix, scaled skin, forked tongue, tail...with 2 varieties, one based on vipers and poisonous snakes, and the other being heavier and based on more of the constrictor types of snakes.
The other offshoot is the Lissamphikind which are humanoid/amphibian mix, which doesn't really pose an issue with frogs (bullywugs and such provide a good pic for them and these may replace them in my campaign also) but the mix of toad is a bit different and I also have a variety based on salamanders and newts.

So if you or anyone feels like taking a shot I could use a viper/humanoid, a constrictor/humanoid, a toad/humanoid, and a salamander or newt/humanoid.
Thanks and I understand if this is to far outside the typical stuff.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lorathorn wrote:
I'm hoping that soon I can compile all of the relevant articles from the WotC site for easy reference. The site itself is not easily navigable.

I agree totally. Their site's layout is difficult to navigate and is confusing. I also find their messageboards to be the same. I wish they could work some of the confusing elements out and make their site work better.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lorathorn wrote:
I'll do my best to continue updating any other free resources. At some point I will also link the web enhancements so that we can just have them all in one place. Regrettably, my time has been spent on other projects, but I don't want to forget this, so bear with me.

Another 35 D&D 5E resources!

I figured I would lend a hand Lorathorn...

The Exchange

Fake Healer wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:

OK, so I have been in Celebration for a while, gamed with some people up in Orlando but it is too far away and was on a bad night/time for me.

I have 2 other people in Celebration and we are now a group of 3, we could use around 1-3 more people that are in or around Celebration. We are primarily Pathfinders but the new D&D 5th edition rules look fun so we are open to that also.
Post here if Celebration is within range for you and you want to game.

UPDATE: We are a good-sized group, looking to expand still if anyone is interested. We also have branched out and are looking to have our group(s) do things like a game night where we bring different games, invite the public and get some newbs playing Settlers of Catan, History of the World or some such and still have a group or 2 that get together for RPGs. Right now the group is mostly focused on RPGs and D&D 5th Edition in the game. We are enjoying it immensely and would welcome any who wish to join.

Update again: We have a good amount of players and are at the point of dividing into 2 separate groups if we can find another player or 2...2 would give us 5 players and a DM for each group. The one group is mostly sticking with D&D only and the other would looking to expand into other rpgs and games along with D&D, like Call of Cthulhu and some others....

Anyone in the area would be welcome to join either group.

The Exchange

I've been playing 5e for 6months now and I love it. It's quick and easy, has a lot of variety for classes so far (and more if you count the free Eberron download and the Elemental evil download) and if I want more of the stuff from other versions it is an absolute breeze to convert over.
Magic items are now special and interesting instead of "great, another 10th level dude...he should have a cloak of resistance, ring of prot, gloves of X, same old same old.
I will worry about the level 20 cap in about 2 years when we reach that level.

Seriously though everyone always b&+!!es about stuff like a level 20 cap, and that there are less options....How many dozens of games do you play in per week that 30 varieties of class options and a level 20 cap is gonna come into play anytime before 2017?

The Exchange

"I made ready to leave, thanking the man for his time."
from Black Wings of Cthulhu: Twenty-one Tales of Lovecraftian Horror. This passage comes from Desert Dreams by Donald R. Burleson.
I only just started the book and am still on Pickman's Other Model....

The Exchange

Very nicely done. I love the use of dots instead of a grid or +'s at the corners of the squares...it makes the floor look more natural and clean. I usually do similar stuff for the larger/more memorable battles in a campaign and I like how you did this. Did you use a wire knife or carve it with an exacto knife?

The Exchange

Mark Thomas 66 wrote:

Yeah I've always figured all conversation comes to a screeching halt when a high level sorceror walks into the room.

Ever stood next to a top notch professional athlete on game day...a sorcerer gives that off.....all the time.

There's a reason some mages hang in the back.

Another example is actor/resses. People get all flustered talking to a person of fame that they recognize. Not all people, but a good amount. George Clooney/Brad Pitt/Norman Reedus/Halle Berry walks into someplace and they are now the topic of conversation and getting all the focus. If a hero with a 25+ charisma wants to go about without being noticed it is gonna take a disguise check (which may have some difficulty adjustment based on local/regional fame).

The Exchange

DM_Blake wrote:
Triune wrote:
I think all of the responses along the lines of "well, if you think about it realistically, this type of character would be screwed over" to be entirely missing the point. This is not a video game. The purpose of the game is to HAVE FUN. If one of the players isn't having fun as a result of your DMing choices, you have failed, end of story. DMs hold all the cards and as such shoulder the lion's share of responsibility. If a player comes to you with a one trick pony before the campaign that you, using the knowledge exclusive to you as a DM, know will not work, it is your responsibility to warn them. That's why they went to you in the first place.

No, that's going too far.

Sure, I agree, the GM should make the game fun for everybody. But the players cannot be childish about it (unless they actually are children). I'm not trying to say the OP or anyone else is childish, but I am trying to say that some players DO have a childish mentality that goes like this: "I have made a one-trick-pony character that must devastate all encounters and if the GM doesn't let me devastate every encounter then the GM is being a big fat bully and it's no fair!"

That's silly and childish.

Now I'm sure nobody posting here has that kind of mentality, but some of the posts on this thread seem to be suggesting that it's a GM's responsibility to handle every player as if they did have it.

I disagree.

It's also the player's responsibility to know his limitations and expect the game-world to occasionally throw him a curve ball that makes him deal with adverse situations.

Triune wrote:
I think a lot of players get trapped in a PFS mindset. One of the major advantages of a home game is that you can play that odd character that wouldn't work anywhere else. You can play a one trick pony that normally wouldn't work because you can trust the DM not to dick you over.
If I make a kobold-slayer with favored enemy kobold, bane weapons vs. kobolds, and every trick I can imagine to make me...

I disagree with your example because this isn't about being a kobold killer and expecting to only fight kobolds. This is more like kobold killer going up against kobolds who are suddenly immune to his damage. The GM made a race of people that is totally immune to a dude that is supposed to be good at controlling people. He created a race to specifically nullify a character's ability with foreknowledge of the character. He could have said "they all have +4 to enchantment saves" but he didn't, he made them immune. This is more like "well the kobolds in this area of the world actually descended from the heavens and technically aren't kobolds so your favored enemy, bane, and all the anti-kobold stuff you have doesn't work on them.

That's bad GMing whether it was intended or not, and even if not intended it should be something the GM sees going on and corrects it. It's bad form.

The Exchange

Between this and the Eberron supplement they put out I am happy. I like the new features, classes and such that they are putting out. They are seeming to be very well balanced against the core despite some not liking some of the ways they are balancing stuff. I love it. Also even if I don't want to add in Eberron stuff, I can reflavor and rename stuff to fit however I feel and it all helps to increase some of the player's options.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Back to the original topic.....
In life I generally give a degree of trust unilaterally to everyone. I tend to take people at face value and assume they aren't actively out to screw me over. As those people perform actions in life around me I give or take away trust depending on the action. The initial degree of trust is usually rather low and grows or shrinks rather quickly.
I follow a similar method with D&D/Pathfinder GMs. When I GM a game tell the players the rule that are available and how I run a game. I tell them that I roll in the open and the dice fall where they fall. I explain that they are the stars and I am setting the stage for them to tell a story.
When I am a player I come to the table with expectations that I am part of a team of people trying to have fun and create a cool story.
I have seen GMs that after several sessions I realized that they are telling THEIR story, not a story of the characters, and there was no variation from their plotline or deviation from how they wanted things to play out. This has shown up as on-the-spot-rules to de-power a player or empower a bad guy that MUST make his showing, or in GM fiat that eliminates a player's action.
I have seen 4-5 bad GMs in my gaming life of around 34 years. I usually figure out after a few sessions what a GM is like and then I decide if I can adjust to their style or not. I have been blessed with long-term groups in the past with good GMs, and I love GMing so it usually works out well but before those and now recently I am finding that since I moved away from long-time group, there are some bad GMs out there.
Currently my tolerance level is lower than usual but I still portion out the trust and try to back that up with privately voicing concerns with GMs if there is something going on that I don't particularly like. If they choose to totally ignore my concerns then I can see that there is a gap between our play styles that either I have to bridge or I have to walk away and find a new game.

I am currently in a game where the GM is using some vague houserule for passing through ally's squares, perception checks for looking past allies into a combat and random ridiculous checks for stuff that is covered in the rules but doesn't fit his view of things and when approached about it was dismissive and showed no concern for my opinion (which mirrors most of the other player's). The group is planning to split shortly with me and another player going to alternate GMing.

The Exchange

So no one has any ideas if there is a Lands of Mystery download somewhere with the labels removed....or any of the old Maps of Mystery?

The Exchange

I miss seeing West maps and Dungeon mag (the print version). That said I am gonna use Lands of Mystery as my campaign world in an upcoming series of campaigns and was wondering if there is a good quality download of it somewhere and maybe a download that has the labels removed (or some of them, don't really mind the regional stuff like "The Inner Sea" and cities but would like ruins and such to disappear). Glad to see I am not the only one with a Maps of Mystery folder of all Dungeon Mags old offerings. It was a Golden Age.

The Exchange

bookrat wrote:
I ban the CRB.

I banned Pathfinder. When I was running Pfinder I saw broken stuff all the time and if you didn't purposely look for every angle in every class/race/feat combo you would be surprised sooner or later. Higher level combat was a combo of rocket tag and endurance simulation with hour long combats being more and more frequent.

I switched to 5E D&D and it is so much easier to play and run and if I want an option for my idea that isn't covered, it is easy to create an option to cover it. I haven't been this happy with a game system since early Basic D&D and maybe Legend of the 5 Rings.

The Exchange

So does RavingDork intend to mount his cock and ride it a lot? If so there are some other feats he should be looking at....

The Exchange

The game is realtime combat with the ability to pause. I read an article a few days ago about it and it spelled that part out. I personally prefer the option to switch from realtime with pause and turn-based (especially the turn-based when playing a single-player game that has a party). I have played a couple of games a long time back that had that ability but don't remember their names, only that I enjoyed the combat aspect of them immensely.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't have a problem with the books or the movie's kink and sex parts. It is fine. What I have a problem with is outside of that...it is a story about a dude who is using mental and verbal abuse to reduce his girlfriend's mental image of herself into her being nothing but his property to do with as he pleases, not just in a sexual manner. He is imposing martial law over her entirety. If you replaced the BDSM elements with straight up beatings, punching, yelling and such you would see better the controlling abuse and mental breaking down of the victim until she has no self-worth and is nothing without her man.
Why women see this as a sexual awakening film is beyond me. I like BDSM, participated in some cool stuff and have no issues with such but is there really a large population of women in the world that want to lose all self worth and be nothing but a meat-puppet for some spoiled brat to play with? I don't think so. I think some are interested in the BDSM parts and purposely blinding themselves to the mental and verbal abuse that goes beyond the bedroom games.

The Exchange

BTW, Hollow's Last Hope and it's followers were written up for 3.5 but the conversion is so terribly simple....just swapping out monsters and some skill updates....that I didn't feel like it was a detractor to it's worth as an easy to run adventure.
Just an FYI...

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will agree with the people saying Rise of the Runelords and Crypt of the Everflame, but here is an option you should definitely explore.....

Hollow's Last Hope. It is a FREE download of a Free RPG Day adventure that has 32 reviews on this site and 4.5 stars out of 5.
I thoroughly enjoyed the module and if you like it there are several other adventures set in the area that can be tacked on to create a mini-campaign, all of which are great modules. Crown of the Kobold King, Carnival of Tears, Hungry are the Dead....all modules that add onto the region of Falcon's Hollow (the main town in Hollow's Last Hope) and expand on the area and campaign. There is also the Guide to Darkmoon Vale that gives a ton of info on the region...64 pages of it!
But like I was saying....for a free, short adventure to test the waters you should absolutely check out Hollow's Last Hope. At worst it isn't what you want, at best you took a risk-free step into a campaign based around 4 adventure modules and a regional supplement book with a ton of details to flesh out your campaign.

Good luck and have fun.

The Exchange

Vic Wertz wrote:
... because he's a fictional character?

Boooo!!!! Party foul! You suck, Wertz, way to break the mood!

lol

The Exchange

D to the O to the T.
And Thanks Lorathorn...having a consolidated list of resources is really cool and make life easy. You rock!

The Exchange

Legowaffles wrote:

I once amused myself with the idea of a Handy Haversack containing about 1,000,000 Type 4 Bags of Holding. The goal being to have enough carrying capacity (spread out though it was) with a strength score of five to literally steal a castle (brick by brick by brick) whilst still being under a light load.

I didn't actually know about a Fortifying Stone. I assume you could not use multiple Fortifying Stones on the same item and benefit from all of them however.

"Extradimensional Spaces

A number of spells and magic items utilize extradimensional spaces, such as rope trick, a bag of holding, a handy haversack, and a portable hole. These spells and magic items create a tiny pocket space that does not exist in any dimension. Such items do not function, however, inside another extradimensional space. If placed inside such a space, they cease to function until removed from the extradimensional space. For example, if a bag of holding is brought into a rope trick, the contents of the bag of holding become inaccessible until the bag of holding is taken outside the rope trick. The only exception to this is when a bag of holding and a portable hole interact, forming a rift to the Astral Plane, as noted in their descriptions."

Placing Bag of Holdings in a Handy Haversack or vice versa makes them cease to work. No castle in bags for you.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MAJT69 wrote:

No, by 'vendor trash' I meant:

"Okay, the fight's over, you search the bodies and find 20 +1 items."

"Okay, stick 'em in the Bag of Holding and we'll sell them back at town.'

In other words, extraneous low-level magic items that exist only to be sold to shops. My players seriously think it undervalues the concept of magic. They want something other than 'Diablo' or similar games where trash loot is commonplace.

So you want a game that fixes the Christmas Tree Effect and the rampant magic items everywhere? That is 5E. I don't understand where you are getting that 5E is going to be mostly represented by MMOs and boardgames...they have slowed down with the supplement books a bit from their past, but they are focusing on good adventures and quality supplements. You have knee-jerked the system based on absolutely zero understanding of how the game is progressing...hit the forums and troll around and you will see more about the path forward, unless you already closed off your mind to 5E. It really is an awesome game for eliminating the magic mart/christmas tree syndrome.

Pathfinder is almost impossible to make work in the same way without massive houserules and such.

The Exchange

Go old school and convert the 3.5 Dungeon mag adventure path Savage Tide. It's too fun not to run through and there is thorough posting on this site about the problem areas and how to correct some of the problematic higher-level stuff.
Diseased Savage Monkeys are too awesome not to unleash upon a group that may have never see such....

The Exchange

Plastic tool and screw/nail organizers work really well and you can label the chambers with sharpies to tell what minis are where without having to root around. Any soft foam can serve to cushion and line the box to keep metal minis from being damaged.
The best part.....they are cheap and they come in a huge variety of sizes and configurations so they can meet whatever need you have.
Lowes or Home Depot. Good luck.

The Exchange

You can't is the proper answer....even fantasy RPGs see archery as a stand still and shoot with a quiver of arrows type of combat style. I think 5E has a better chance of getting close though with movement being something that can be broken up any way you want with attacks spaced within the movement wherever you wish.

The Exchange

Southeast Jerome wrote:

Hmmmmm, official announcement doesn't mention anything about the Adventurers Handbook. Looks like there will be a free PDF with adventure-specific player options, instead. The Princes of the Apocalypse HC will include "new elemental spells and the element-touched genasi as a new playable race," and the free download will include "more new races plus the player content available in Princes of the Apocalypse."

http://dnd.wizards.com/elemental-evil

Not bad.

Adventurers Handbook is scrapped. Mike Mearls made several statements about how Wizards sometimes make plans that change and that mock-ups and proposed covers are not necessarily a guarantee that a product is getting made.

People on the Wizards forums are guessing that the stuff that was to become the Adventurer's Handbook was either too little to warrant a book or some of it was subpar and Wizards decided to merge parts into the Elemental Evil product. There is also going to be a free download of the player content for EE out in March that includes new stuff like possibly race(s), Class(es), spells, and other such.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

Alchemical Allocation is pretty powerful, in that it basically makes something free that would otherwise be living beyond your means (regular use of higher-level potions). I'm not convinced publishing it was a good move. Of course, now that it exists, I'm using it too.

And then there's this Elixir. I'm fairly confident that whoever wrote the elixir, and whoever wrote Alchemical Allocation, did not expect those two to be used. I mean, now that both of them exist, it makes sense to use it, but it's not likely something that the writer(s) planned. It's just an unexpected combination.

I can see how a GM would be frustrated that you bypassed an adventure. The first time, it'd be annoying but the right thing to do would be to say "well, I didn't see that coming.. you're not getting loot from the encounters you never ran into of course, but you're well on your way with your main mission". The second time, he could've been ready for it;

- You still actually need to get to the hostage. He could plan the challenge of the adventure more around getting in than around getting out.

- You might have encounters on the shadow plane. And given how you're getting there at relatively low level, that could be scary.

- Since you don't have a lot of control on where you exit, you might stumble into a random encounter on exit. That could just be a fight, but it could also be something more creative, like in the middle of a tense negotiation between two organized crime cartels. Who now both think the others hired the PCs for a double-cross, so there's this confusing three-way battle.

Have to agree with this. Part of the GM's job is to roll with the punches when your players come up with something legitimately clever.

Yup, too often GMs use "No" as their answer to rolling with the punches or they just plain ban stuff. I can understand that they don't want to be steamrolled but a good GM would find a countermeasure and use it sparingly to show that there is some risk to using a certain action....not that they should constantly use the countermeasure but slip it in enough that the PC knows that the exploit isn't free and without risks.

The Exchange

♣♠Magic♦♥ wrote:
That's a mace. Morningstar is a mace with a chain attaching the ball to the stick instead of directly.

Not correct per Pathfinder/3.5...a morningstar is a shaft with a spikey round head, a mace is a shaft with a variety of different head styles, usually fluted. A flail is like either but with a head attached to the shaft by a length of chain.

Not accurate historically but that is how it pans out in PRPG and 3.5.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
R_Chance wrote:

Another older player here. I started playing D&D in 1974. I'm 56 :) 5E is looking pretty good. For me, it's about the world and the adventure, not the perfect character build.

I started in '79 and I feel the same way...the personality I instill in the character has more to do with who he/she is than any mechanics. I love the options presented in 5E and think that they make a great base to build on. I find the game to be quick, fun and easy to play. This is a welcome relief after spending huge tracts of time creating PCs, NPCs, and customizing monsters. I haven't DMed 5e much but I find that enjoyable also.

Kthulhu wrote:

I prefer games where you spend more time adventuring with the character than creating him / leveling him up.

Also agreed...the games I have played in 5E have awesome pacing to them and at the end of a night I feel like we have accomplished something and advanced the storyline well. In 3.5/Pathfinder I found that often a whole night was spent clearing 2-3 rooms of a dungeon and it sometimes took weeks to get out of dungeon combat mode and into some story advancement.

The Exchange

Kthulhu wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
SR went from shutting down spells to giving "advantage" on saving throws. Another gutted ability in 5th.

3.0 also gutted Spell Resistance. It was much stronger in all the pre-d20 editions, which you have made perfectly clear that you hold in complete contempt.

Of course, I"m making the assumption you actually know anything about them and aren't just mindlessly hating them because they aren't 3.x/PFRPG. Something I've seen on these boards a few times.

Also if we look at advantage/disadvantage the numbers are roughly a +4.5 or -4.5 on average which is a pretty nice bonus to saves. I found the older version of the caster rolling to overcome was usually just a matter of rolling higher than a 5 in most cases if you built to be fairly decent at overcoming SR. I like 5E's approach because it steamlines the mechanical aspect while making it a significant boost.

The Exchange

7 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I'm mostly dismayed at how much play testing and development went into 5th and that the final result is so underwhelming.

David, stating your opinion is one thing, trolling is another... please cut it out.

There's a fine line, isn't there?

Yeah, back about 10 pages of puking on anyone's opinion that likes 5E was the line.

The worst thing I keep hearing from you is "they sure did nerf this or that". No they didn't. They built a new and different game with different parameters for how much damage, what average attack modifiers are, etc.. You keep acting like this is Pathfinder 2 and that damage output, AC, to hit, etc. all should be matching up or it is nerfed. It is a new system that operates in it's own parameter and it does it well despite you hating on it for not being just a new Pathfinder/3.5 clone.
Stop trolling, it is getting old and is making you look petty and juvenile.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
David Bowles wrote:

"since your PCs aren't going to be facing creatures built using the PC rules which probably changes the analysis "

Why not? It doesn't make any sense not to fight other PC classes. PCs are not unique in the world. Throwing that out is a mistake, I think. It also ties the GM's hand in terms of fighting fire with fire when it comes to PC builds.

Whatever ones preferences, that's not how 5E is designed to work. It doesn't have the same simulationist approach that pathfinder does in that realm.

Quote:

"The classes which "lose" multiple attacks "gain" other features and it's difficult to view one feature in isolation (it's not right to consider the various class features as a change - its a different approach to encapsulating a similar concept)"

I'm not sure how anyone can claim that the cleric didn't lose way more than it gained from PF.

My point is that there wasn't a switch from pathfinder to 5E. They're two different approaches to representing similar concepts.

The risk in thinking of it as a change from the pathfinder default is you focus on one difference and interpret it as a "reduction in power" based on how that feature would work if it were imported to a pathfinder game.

I have a friend tossing up between rogue and fighter, for example. He's building spreadsheets, running simulations and doing what he enjoys with character building. The fighter gets more attacks than the rogue, yet the rogue can out damage the fighter (just) - paying for that damage in a reduced survivability. It's not immediately obvious that the two classes' DPRs are going to track so similarly. He hasn't got any interest in a cleric, so I haven't seen similar analysis - nonetheless, I'd be willing to bet there's some feature a 5E cleric gets that a pathfinder cleric doesn't which mitigates the lack of multiple attacks.

Well said and this covers most of my 5E experience so far. It is a different game and saying "allowing movement between the various attacks is powerful and uber" is flat out wrong because in 5E it is balanced. In Pathfinder it would be broken without overhauling the rules a bit to incorporate it.

i wish people would stop hating on 5E without even trying it....just go through the introductory adventure that takes you from 1st to 5th level and you will have a great idea on how well the system performs as a whole. It is elegant, fun, and fast in combat. I also love that the game gives a bit more creative license back to the DM....it's refreshing.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
i like the picture of the halfling in the player's handbook, makes me laugh every time i see it at the bookstore:-)
Yeap, I laugh too as I toss the book on the shelf and pass on buying it.

I hated 4E, but I gave 5E a chance and I am glad I did. If you pass it up for a drawing without even looking at it, then you do yourself an injustice and should be cursing your closed-mind. It isn't perfect but is a good game with some good ingenuity and some nice mechanics. I was staunchly Pathfinder and now I am swayed to 5E and it's elegant simplicity and a return to D&D.

The Exchange

My DM is having us make perception checks throughout combat, not just during surprise. Three rounds in the people in the back still need to make perception checks to see if they can see the bad guy thats been fighting their buddies....
I will have to remember that about Dwarven vision though. It's really irritating how much they keep changing that from edition to edition...I still remember infravision and such...

The Exchange

Terquem wrote:

But if the same sort of situations came up in one of my games, say a PC wanted to "notice" an enemy approaching and there were people between the PC and the enemy (a crowd, friends, whatever) I would categorize the DC of the active Skill Check as either Medium DC 15(2-10 people)or Hard Dc 20 (11+ people) and then apply Disadvantage to the roll if the conditions of Light or such things as smoke or fog applied

So you would rule that in a lit room your 2 allies being between you and an enemy 20 feet away would require a DC 15 perception check to even see that the enemy is there? That seems a bit harsh and would make bars and malls IRL really odd places.

The Exchange

So on the vision thingy- If I am a dwarf standing 10 feet in front of my human friend who is carrying a light source giving off 20 feet of light, I can see 10 feet in the light and then 50 feet with darkvision, or can I only see 10 feet and after that darkvision is nulled because the light is within my square?

The Exchange

Adjule wrote:


Are these things that your DM has said happen? Or are these things you think should be happening but the DM doesn't?

The DM is currently ruling in these ways and I have only seen rules that contradict those rulings....it's frustrating me because I really am trying to stay as close to real rules as possible as we test the system but some of these "houseruley" type of rulings just seem to be slowing down the game and adding in weirdness by making people have to make odd checks to move through allies squares and even seeing if there is an enemy 20 feet away if an ally or 2 are in between the looker and the enemy. I want to gather information to present actual rule info when the weirdness pops up next.

The Exchange

Also what about soft cover or targeting enemies with allies in between you and the enemy? Is there a rule that either gives an advantage/disadvantage or something?
My DM has been running pretty loose on the rules and I want to iron some of this out so I can play the game by the rules instead of by some loose houserules if at all possible.

The Exchange

Is there a rule about making a perception check or something to see an enemy when there is an ally or 2 between you and the enemy?
What about darkvision, does a torch in the area totally negate it or does it work outside of the torch area?
How about moving through a friendly pc's space during combat, is there a check to do it or is it ok as long as you don't end movement in an occupied square?

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sorry to say this but as soon as any person says "Quit being a baby" when I express dislike of a ruling or gaming situation I am done with that person. Who the f**k thinks they can talk to someone like that without a bunch of players that don't want to play with a bully GM? Even if I was one of the other players in the game I would have been out, how dare you disrespect and degrade another player in front of everyone...I don't want to around people like this in a paying job or life in general, why the hell would I put up with that treatment during my fun recreational time.
Most of my old groups would have banded together and told him to leave. We play a co-op game, not a GM is God VS the players.

The Exchange

penut88 wrote:
I want to run rise of the rune lords but my players don't seem to be intrested in playing a prewrittin campange what can I do to intice them a bit more

Sandpoint can be an excellent sandbox to start with...it is a town with a lot going on in and around it. A little bit of prep work can make it more accessible as an open area with some good leads to draw them in different directions. Write up an old fashioned flow chart with all the stuff in the area and any possible side leads....then you can see things clearer and adjust to the party roaming the town exploring as they wish.

The Exchange

bugleyman wrote:

The 5E PHB and MM did not disappoint me; I have no reason to believe the 5E DMG would, either.

On the other hand, if they truly do miss the mark as completely as you fear, I'm reminded of Hanlon's Razor (though I'd substitute "incompetence" for "stupidity.")

I agree. I am loving the PHB and MM, I can't imagine the DMG being a sudden departure from what is already laid out. I will wait until I hold it, have read through it, and have used some of it in game before I condemn it....5e thus far has earned the benefit of the doubt to me.

The Exchange

Had a dog chew up 15-20 of my Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance novels.... He grew out of that kinda stuff though rather quick and was a pretty cool dog, a basset hound with 10" long ears. Broke my heart when she passed. Long-bodied and barrel-chested dogs sometime have their stomachs twist up on them pinching off blood vessels and their throat and intestines. I learned about that from her on Christmas night 2007.
Ah well, I still have a few of the half-chewed reminders lying around sans covers and mostly unimportant pages to remind me of the little darling.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If a friend of 25 years walks out over something that had this much meaning to you then I would seriously re-evaluate the friendship and see where it actually ended, because it's been over for a while if it ever really was in the first place. A friendship is about give and take and compromise, like any relationship.

The Exchange

I love the one post that says "i told him not to turn to page 74!"...too funny. Much respect for a man who wrote books that not only helped foster a love of reading in me but expanded my sense of fantasy, make-believe, and creativity. Thank you for entertaining your passion and entertaining my younger mind. I am saddened but glad to know that the legacy is passed on to my kids....
If you agree with this post turn to page 93.
If not turn to page 4.

1 to 50 of 7,376 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.