But you sometimes have mass battles where players are actively interested in outcome (eg: they are running a kingdom and fight a war) or the battle is on a scale big enough for mass combat yet small enough for the players to influence (eg: raid on Sandpoint from PF4).
RAW it doesn't, because in order for the ring to trigger you must be the target of the spell, and in this case the enemy's dispel is targeted on the buff.
It will work if the enemy targets you as a creature (trying to remove any spell in general), it won't work if he targets a specific named spell affecting you.
That's one problem, yes. Why did they claim it was one of the major selling points of PF if they weren't going to fix it? I can understand saying "Okay, this is unfixable without scrapping everything." I cannot understand "We're going to say we're fixing this, then not actually fix it." You aren't seeing me criticizing 3.5 for this because 3.5 didn't set out to fix the gap between spellcasters and melee.
Could you point me to any spot where Paizo claimed that PF will bring casters and melee back into the same line ? I have a hard time finding that. From the official promo material I can see that following were touted:
- streamlining combat maneuvres into one mechanic
- removing dead levels
- skill consolidation
- new feats/class options
- new XP system and CR/XP relation
- magic item creation no longer caster only
- poison/diesase revamp
- spell changes
Except for the varying degree of success with maneuvres (again, note: PF doesn't claim to "make all CM's viable and effective", it claims to "streamline into one mechanic") I believe that all of those are present. Class re-balancing is not on the list, alas.
Heck, if you read Jason's design goals from Alpha and Beta you won't find even one sentence that goes along the line of "Spellcasters vs. others imbalance and how we're going to fix it".
So you might say that either Jason is blind and doesn't see the imbalance (unlikely) or that he went with the "unfixable without reinventing the system, which we won't do".
On a side note - while I'm not really a 4e person, my players are asking for a one-shot 4e game to see what the fuss is all about. Anybody up to recommend me a solid 1st lvl module ?
Bear in mind that a) I don't have the time for home brewing, need premade stuff here b) Keep on the Shadowfell is not an option, downloaded it and didn't like it really - far too simplistic plot/RP-wise.
The only "generic" support rulebook I would be after is Psionics. Following that, I think that Paizo should release one Bestiary and one "theme" book (Far East ? Deep Space ? Frozen North ?) per year.
Since I don't have the CS PDF I will *love* to buy a digital upgraded PFRPG version - with new crunchy bits - while keeping my 3.5 book (signed by Paizo staff at GenCon) for bedtime reading.
I don't have issues with PF grapple rules. And I didn't have many issues with 3.5 grapple. But I am aware that this particular rule subsystem is the D&D equivalent of 80's Beirut ... and everybody has his own idea of how grappling should be worked out.
A Man In Black wrote:
MONSTERS
Dragons - OK, you have a 3.5 dragon with some CR, you take the PF dragon with the same CR, the dragons are OGL, the problem is ... ?
MM1 monsters not in bestiary - apart from WotC intellectual property and a few monsters nobody cared about, we're missing anything crucial ?
OK, Monsters with PC classes. Having faced this issue I say there's the low road (run them as written, g&* d@#n the fact that NPC Barbarian won't have rage powers) or the high road (restat from grounds up). But you're not *forced* to take the high road in order to run the encounter.
A Man In Black wrote:
NOT FIXED ENOUGH
As far as I understand your recent posts, you're in the "3.5 casters are gods, melee sucks donkey balls" camp. OK, that means you have an issue with a problem which lies at a very deep bottom of the rule system, and trying to alleviate that would likely throw the game upside down. And that's not going to happen due to business factor outlined earlier.
Did you ever try to run a 3.5 adventure under PF rules ? How much time did you *have* (as in, was necessary in order to be used with PFRPG) to spend converting it ?
It's not the prep time, it's the gotchas. "Oh, huh, that level 3 cleric behind two skeletons just TPKed the group." "Oh, you want to grapple him? Hold up while I do some math..." "Oh, he just walked out of the Solid Fog? Can I take my action back?"
It's almost exactly the same as my 3.5 experience.
OK, but that means that your idea of backwards compatibility says that the mechanics stay the same. You want the grapple to remain an opposed check, solid fog to slow everyone to 5ft and the turn undead to be silly useless. If something of that changes, it's not backwards compatible for you.
As far as I understand, Paizo's vision of backwards compatibility means that you can take an exisitng 3.5 AP (and APs are what floats the boat for Paizo, in terms of both creativity and income) and run it under 3.5 with minimum prep time. I strongly believe that was one of the major goals of Jason.
I am running RotRL under PFRPG rules and I can say that it doesn't go according to your vision of BC (ok guys, detect magic works now like this ...) but it does according to Paizo idea of BC (hmm an NPC, let's calculate his CMD/CMB/Concentration and off we go).
Most of the folks why cry foul about PF being a missed chance to make 4.0 the way (they) think it should look like completely forget that Paizo has a massive backstock of 3.5 material they make a living off. And since it's gaming industry, we all know that "living" means ramen and discount toilet paper, so one has to count his blessings.
Semantics. Pathfinder's backwards compatibility requires a ton of obnoxious conversion, just like 3.5's backwards compatibility requires a ton of obnoxious conversion. It does not work very well in the same way that 3.5's didn't work very well.
Did you ever try to run a 3.5 adventure under PF rules ? How much time did you *have* (as in, was necessary in order to be used with PFRPG) to spend converting it ?
Look James ... you area a freakin' Dire Fiendish T-rex. That Mona guy, he's just some midget with depth perception issues. You go tell him. We want a daemon book. And we want Todd to write it.*
* even if it means that the daemon book will end up 300 pages long and SKR will get a stroke while developing it.
I meant Dungeon Survival Guide , which was one of the most atrocious d20 products ever. The reviews on Amazon speak for themselves, the book gets one star on average.
Devils ... fools. They think that making mortals lick their heels and call them "master" is what being evil is all about.
Demons ... cretins. Rend and tear and maim and rape and kill and burn and ... are we asleep yet ?
Now, we don't want you to be our pawns. We don't want you to sell your mother and daughter into slavery. We also don't want to flay you alive or to turn your body into a pile of sentient goo.
We just want to annihilate you and eat your soul. Nothing personal, eh ?
Gorbacz
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Chronicles, Pathfinder Companion Subscriber),
Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 05:42 AM
Thanks. OK, let's make the early flight a Druid scooby snack and give the Cavalier a flying horse/pony/ flying fish around lvl 10-12. Sounds reasonable ? Maybe an option to swap Ride-by Attack for Fly-by Attack as well. Hmm.
Gorbacz
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Chronicles, Pathfinder Companion Subscriber),
Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 05:30 AM
Cavaliers should have an option of a flying mount (pegasus ? hippogriff ... oh wait, no hippos in the bestiary. nightmare ?) at some point. I'm just not sure which point should that be at ?
Gorbacz
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Chronicles, Pathfinder Companion Subscriber),
Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 04:27 AM
I allow the PHB2 as it is. If somebody takes a psionic/ToM/ToB class - fine, the book is in. I also liberally drop MIC items around because they are fun, cool, thematic, and most are balanced. I generally don't allow Spell Compendium for oh so many reasons, with some exceptions.
As for the other splats ... I try to avoid even showing them to the players, because I know that half my group will just roll eyes and the other will begin OCD dumpster diving for killer combos.
Gorbacz
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Chronicles, Pathfinder Companion Subscriber),
Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 05:50 AM
Beholders are intellectual property of Wizards of the Coast, and as such cannot be used by any third party. Your best bet is to get the number cranking and convert said beholder to PFRPG using the guidelines from the Bestiary and Conversion Guide.
For the very same reason, the following are missing:
- kuo toa
- mind flayer
- githzerai
- githyanki
- carrion crawler
- umber hulk
- displacer beast
- slaadi
Also, the names "eladrin" and "guardinal" are also WotC IP. However, the actual monsters are NOT, so you get your Bralani and Avornals, except that they are called Azatas and Agathions in Pathfinder.
Gorbacz
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Chronicles, Pathfinder Companion Subscriber),
Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 05:49 AM
I'll tell you a story about "RP aggro"
It was in the Fortress of Stone Giants...
Spoiler:
The party entered the room where a jotunblood giant dwells. Since he could meld into the earth, he made hit-and-run attacks without taking many hits, and his fast healing meant he could recover easily. The party was at loss as to how to drive him out to the surface...
And then the PC Binder began making horrible insults in Giant. He made a stellar Intimidate check and I ruled out that the enemy was so insulted that he surfaced and flew into a blind rage, trying to splat the offender. Consequently, the party was able to cut him to ribbons.
Gorbacz
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Chronicles, Pathfinder Companion Subscriber),
Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 05:22 AM
Scouts, Warlocks, Binders, Witches and Swashbucklers are all open names, and as long as you don't copy WotC closed content, it's fine.
But a "Radiant Servant of Serenrae" is too close for comfort, for me at least (and yes, ahum, I am shark...sorry, lawyer). Many 3PP have gotten away with close calls to WotC property (Pact Magic books, for example).
But given their increasingly high profile, Paizo might be subject to much more attention from WotC legal department than any other d20 company.
And most importantly: Paizo made it clear that even if they could, they will never try to sidestep, circumvent or copy WotC material. So, no "Shining Devotees of Iomedae" or "Tentacled Brain Suckers". Paizo seems to be much more focused on coming up with their own original cool stuff.
Meanwhile, the conversion guide will handle any necessary work.
Gorbacz
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Chronicles, Pathfinder Companion Subscriber),
Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 01:46 AM
My rule is that you leave your sexual/religious/political orientation at the doorstep when we play my PF games. I do know that most of my group are liberal folks whose heart beats at the left side of their chest, but that's not my concern. I can GM anyone as long as he doesn't bring his issues with anything up.
However, sometimes the lines blur. In our Werewolf game (where I am a player), I play a Get of Fenris garou who is a reformed neo-nazi (argh, Godwin's Law !). Basically he was a hardcore skinhead until several events forced him to rethink his ways. Now he is much more a temperate person, but the bald shaved heads and Celtic cross tattoos are a dead giveaway, forcing him into many sticky social situations.
It's a tough character to RP, still retaining some of his "might is right" attitude but without the racism or "kick everyone's ass" attitude. But I like RP challenges !
Gorbacz
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Chronicles, Pathfinder Companion Subscriber),
Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 01:23 AM
Well, it's d20. And in d20, the attack bonus/damage output scales up far quicker than HP/AC does. It's a natural part of the system paradigm, and with few rare exceptions you will always come out better by dealing more damage faster than trying to turtle it. Kill them before they kill you.
That's not something that PFRPG can change, not without re-writing much of the system and kissing Backwards Compatibility goodbye.
As for the aggro, it's much up to the GM. Stupid monsters should go after the one that hurts them the most, which likely means the melee characters. Intelligent foes on the other hand, will know better to take out the healers/casters first while using crowd control to keep the melee at bay, so to speak using MMO lingo.
Make the Winter Council a bunch of evil bastards (except the Calistra priestess, who is inclined to help the PCs), who plan to kill the PCs before they can reveal the whole drow shame story to the outside world. Assassination attempts and sneaky elven politics quickly point out that if the world is to be saved, the Winter Council must be taken out of the picture.
Have the elven queen approach the PCs and ask them to take the council out - covertly. The queen will be open about the succubus prisoner, and ask the PCs to use her as a way to get to Thorn's End. Ignore the whole "help the demons besiege Thorn's End" shtick, instead get the PCs to run the demon blockade and infiltrate Thron's End while making sure not to kill any non-evil elves there (great challenge, as Elves are immune to sleep).
Eventually have them face the Winter Council in combat, and at some point have Hialin go emo and turn into drow, at which points the demons enter, allegiances shift and things go south.
Basically just cut the whole "double betrayal" bit (make the Queen a honest-to-good NPC who just happens to have her hands tied in regard to taking the Council out) and run Thorn's End as a good old dungeon hack.
Man, I so wish Greg Vaughn would have written this adventure, he is perfect for cool dungeon crawls.
I would rule that it's arcane caster levels only. This is an obvious Eldritch Knight/Duskblade feat, and divine casters *really* don't need any further melee buffs than they already have.
Memory of Darkness. If I ever get to run it I will just ditch the module (except for a few ideas) and start from the scratch. Too much heavy-handed rail-roading for my tastes.
Is that the one where...
** spoiler omitted **
I really liked that adventure, but yeah, it would require the players to play ball with the premise in order for it to work.
No, the drow undercover one is cool. The sucky one is ...
Spoiler:
The fifth one, where the party gets betrayed by their allies, then betrayed by their new allies, then expected to pretend to betray their first allies, breaking into a dungeon which is not a dungeon because you're supposed not to kill anybody, and finally everybody gets betrayed by the BBEG which results in a crazy combat with at least 5 high level NPV casters (on either sides), several demons and General Confusion.
Oh and it's the biggest railroad since Terrible Trouble at Tragidore, and that's saying something
Yeah, Second Darkness is where Paizo dropped the ball. It's not like it's "bad", it's more "requires heavy DM re-writing including a redo of one adventure".
Legacy of Fire on the other hand, looks like all kinds of awesome.
Which adventure needs rewriting? I have been very bad about reading my APs...
Memory of Darkness. If I ever get to run it I will just ditch the module (except for a few ideas) and start from the scratch. Too much heavy-handed rail-roading for my tastes.
"Dammit, we used to be a peaceful jettisoned periodicals department, had a few nice products, life was beautiful - and now we have that megahit RPG line thing and have to do multiple printings and feed cave raptors and make sure Crystal writes the blog and keep answering those freaky emails from Richard Pett, life sucks big time ..."
Gorbacz
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Chronicles, Pathfinder Companion Subscriber),
Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 08:40 AM
Yeah, Second Darkness is where Paizo dropped the ball. It's not like it's "bad", it's more "requires heavy DM re-writing including a redo of one adventure".
Legacy of Fire on the other hand, looks like all kinds of awesome.
Gorbacz
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Chronicles, Pathfinder Companion Subscriber),
Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 08:05 AM
Well, I believe that the majority of people are still playing RotRL, CotCT and SD, and their LoF is sitting happily on the shelf and waiting for it's time :)
1. The Rakshasa has no mirror image by default. You must have confused it with minor image (yeah, happens to me as well.)
2. Bum rush it. It's Pathfinder, casting while threatened is no longer a breeze and Rakshasa has CL 7, +3 casting stat and no Combat Casting so casting defensively is a problem. And even if, damage spells are never battle winners, and DC 16 spells are not much of a trouble at lvl 10.
It can't fly / teleport, so getting away from you is a problem,
3. grease, stinking cloud, black tentacles, fog spells .. and god forbid if SC is in play, orbs ahoy. SR is powerful, but there are means of countering it.
4. Dispel the bugger. I assume that any self-respecting party has a couple of dispels handy at that point.
4. summon some nice, tough monster. With a lot of HP.
5. If you have a dedicated maneuver monkey, go for it. The CMD is not that great.
6. Once you have the kitty cornered: just power attack with 2h weapons until you chip the HP off. And in case it manages a rare soundly damaging full attack, have the cleric sigh loudly and throw some heals.
Gorbacz
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Chronicles, Pathfinder Companion Subscriber),
Mon, Nov 16, 2009, 11:30 AM
Well, your'e not supposed to compare monsters vs. monsters, but monsters against a PC party. And an average, balanced lvl 10 PC party will take down a Rakshasa without major hiccups. Sure, it will be a time-consuming and frustrating fight, but still I don't any major issues with the monster as it as.
Gorbacz
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Chronicles, Pathfinder Companion Subscriber),
Mon, Nov 16, 2009, 10:54 AM
The Rakshasas have ho-hum Fort and Will saves, and they really do funny amount of damage per round (around 20 on a full attack which connects with everything). A Fire Giant does 77 dmg with a fully connecting full attack, 103 if he Power Attacks. You can actually heal up thru a fight with Rakshasa while the party dispels his buffs, targets his saves or just wallops him to the ground.
Gorbacz
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Chronicles, Pathfinder Companion Subscriber),
