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

Hrothgar Rannúlfr's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 324 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 324 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Admittedly, Pathfinder isn't 3.5, however the 3.5 SRD had different wording for Spring Attack.

3.5 SRD wrote:

3.5 SRD Spring Attack:
Spring Attack [General]

Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4.

When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speed. Moving in this way does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender you attack, though it might provoke attacks of opportunity from other creatures, if appropriate. You can’t use this feat if you are wearing heavy armor.

You must move at least 5 feet both before and after you make your attack in order to utilize the benefits of Spring Attack.

A fighter may select Spring Attack as one of his fighter bonus feats.

There are two conclusions that I see...

1. The wording was deliberately changed to allow immunity to all opportunity attacks in Pathfinding from the target when using Spring Attack. This would likely be correct, as it would support the idea that the spring attack is of a surprising nature, though not surprising enough to cause the target to be flat-footed versus the attack.

2. The wording was changed without considering that the impact of the change in wording would lead to the target of a Spring Attack being unable to make opportunity attacks against the Spring Attacker. This is unlikely, as I think the designer(s) of Pathfinder would have made such wording changes for a reason.

Thank you, Alex Mack and SheepishEidolon.

Are there any abilities which grant an extra melee weapon attack through the use of a swift or immediate action?

So, Spell Combat is a full-round action that includes a full-attack action and a magus spell with a casting time of one standard action (¿or less?).

And, when whirlwind attack is applied, any bonus or extra attacks from feats, spells, or abilities are given up.

So, at best, no extra attack from spell combat on top of whirlwind attack. At worst, no spell combat with whirlwind attack.

Conservatively, I'd lean toward no spell combat with whirlwind attack (reading "bonus" as not necessarily requiring an attack, rather than as "bonus attack or extra attacks"). But, I'm not a rules expert.

Thanks, ThaX and Ravingdork.

Much appreciated.

Interesting discussion.

I can see both sides, as well.

Is there a technical difference between a full-attack action and a full-round action?

Ravingdork wrote:

Did you know you could even spring through your allies, even if they are stacked up against the enemy in a narrow 5-foot-wide coridoor?

If there is no spot open next to the enemy is is still possible, provided you don't end your movement in an occupied square. B-)

It's even been confirmed by the game developers.

Because you never stop moving, the rule that you can't stop in someone's space doesn't apply. That is, until you actually stop moving at the end of your action, then you need your own space. It also helps that the rules support the notion that you can freely moved through allied squares. You still can't move through enemy spaces in most circumstances though.

Makes the feat pretty nifty in certain situations (like the aforementioned hallway), which is good, since making single attacks each round generally isn't considered an optimal combat style.

Very cool, Ravingdork. Thanks for sharing that!

Much appreciated.

I found the Beginner Box very helpful, myself, Avatar the Wizard.

I didn't use it so much for world building. But, I did use it to flesh out a sandbox adventure that is now legendary in the history of our group's campaign.

Also, I really like the pawns.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Pan wrote:
Seems like some folks want a goldilocks edition somewhere just right between PF and 5E. The more I think about it, I start to like the idea.
I believe that's called the Beginner Box.

I agree. And, I really like the Beginner Box.

Great product.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me, I like Pathfinder 1.0 with all the options offerred in the various books & supplements. I don't use them all, but I might use any of them at some point.

I tried 5e for a while, but now I'm back with PF & 3.5 (with some 5e and 1e thrown in). Not looking for a PF 2.0. At least not one that isn't compatible with PF 1.0.

Good reasoning, Goblin_Priest.

That's part of the reason I fell for the original E6 for the game inside the world's most popular roleplaying game before Pathfinder came out.

Even now, it's hard to get players to commit to the idea of a level cap. So, I generally use a slower XP progression because we all enjoy low level play.


What are the best reasons for E4 over E6 or E8?

Thank you, Milo v3 and SlimGuage.

Much appreciated.

Is there any way for a character to gain a bonus to a skill that effectively doubles the skill points put into it?

For instance, if I wanted to put one point per level into disable device, what would allow me to treat it as if I'd put two points into it?

Also, how would one go about getting Dex Mod to damage with ranged weapons?

Having spent some time looking into this, yesterday, it seems that Dex to damage is very hard to get in the PF RPG. I read some discussions about how allowing it can make Strength a dump stat.

Although there are a few ways to get it, mostly related to being a dervish swashbuckler (not sure of the official archetype name), the purest way to get it with all finesse weapons would be via Mythic Weapon Finesse (which is only available to characters when the Mythic Rules are in play and the character has somehow become mythic). Mythic Pathfinder is still an unknown to me. So, I'm not sure how hard that is to get.

Ultimately, for this, I may settle upon a house-ruled feat that requires Weapon Finesse as a pre-requisite and probably only open to fighters of 4th level and higher.

Greater Weapon Finesse
You're an expert with weapons that rely on your agility.
Prerequisite: Weapon Finesse, fighter level 4th or base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When using Weapon Finesse, you may also use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on your damage rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty doesn't apply to either the attack rolls or the damage rolls.

Would that be fair enough?

Ah! I forgot about substitution levels.

Thank you.

Thank you, Cyrad.

Much appreciated.

Hi, everyone.

I don't think there's an official rule allowing a character to have more than one archetype of a class, so I was wondering how allowing a character to somehow gain a second class archetype would affect things?

I'm guessing that in most cases, it won't increase the character's power level to greatly, but it may improve their flexibility.

Have you tried this? If so, how was it?

If not, would you consider allowing it in your game? What drawbacks do you think it might bring?

Saethori wrote:
I was about to quote them, but it seems you're set!

Thank you, Saethori.

Much appreciated!

My apologies... Just found them...



You can use the retraining rules to acquire an archetype for your class or abandon an archetype you have.

To gain an archetype that replaces standard class abilities you already have, you must spend 5 days for every alternate class feature you would add, subtract, or replace by taking that archetype. At the end of the training period, you lose the standard class features and replace them with the archetype's alternate class features (if any).

To abandon an archetype, you must spend 5 days for every alternate class feature you already have from that archetype. At the end of the retraining, you lose the archetype's class features and gain the standard class features for the class.

Swapping one archetype for another requires two retraining sessions: one to abandon the archetype, and then one to gain the new one.
Note that you don't have to use the retraining rules to take an archetype if your class level is low enough that the archetype doesn't modify any of your current class abilities. For example, if you're a 1st-level fighter who wants the archer archetype, that archetype doesn't replace any class abilities until fighter level 2, so you don't need to use the retraining rules at all—once you reach 2nd level, you can just decide to take the archer archetype.

Example: Logan's 4th-level fighter has the archer archetype. Because he is 4th level, he has two alternative class features from his archetype (hawkeye at 2nd level and trick shot at 3rd level), so he must spend 10 days and 400 gp retraining to abandon this archetype. If he were 5th level, he would also have the expert archer alternative class feature, which would increase his retraining to 15 days and 750 gp.

Hi, everyone.

I've been looking over the retraining rules from Ultimate Campaign and a question occurred to me...

Is it possible to retrain a class archetype? If so, what are the rules?

EdOWar wrote:

I've got a wealth of supplemental material I've worked on over the last few years for the Beginner Box, available here.

Included are PFBB conversions for most of the PF classes. And I still write the occasional PFBB related post. Cheers.


Thank you, EdOWar. Much appreciated.

zainale wrote:
silver for silver weapons anywhere? where can i find that info at?

Great question, Zainale.

I love the Pathfinder RPG. It's an amazingly detailed system wire tons of options, including rules for Mithral and Alchemical Silvered weapons.


It's way down the page.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Goth Guru wrote:
Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

Try this one:

That worked.

It amuses me that you could have a cataclysmic healing spell. I guess if you cast it on an undead, it would make more sense.

I don't know the author of this EpicPathfinder 1.6. Nor, have I played into such levels in Pathfinder or 3.X, but I might take a deeper look at it once our group achieves levels close to 20th.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Try this one:

C.Chaser wrote:
I don't know if anyone reads this message board anymore.

Thank you for your suggestions, C.Chaser.

I'm going to look at these and try and decide how to proceed.

master arminas wrote:

I want to thank everyone who helped me on the original thread where we discussed this conversion in full: Silent Saturn, LazarX, Kyrt-ryder, Cheapy, SmiloDan, Drogan Tome, and Robert Gomes. Without their advice and assistance, I doubt that this class would as effective or as fun as it has become. The original thread can be found here, if you are interested.

Once again, I would like to express my thanks to Paizo for developing, making available, and continuing to support the Pathfinder game system and community. You guys have exceeded all of my expectations, and I hope to remain a fervent supporter of your work for years to come.

Master Arminas

The Witchblade, A Revised and Updated Hexblade for the Pathfinder RPG

Master Arminas,

I want to thank you and all who helped you with this class. I'm planning on adding it to our list of available classes.

Having been away from the Pathfinder RPG, for a while, it's nice to return and see such wonderful contributions to the system.

Thank you!

Lady-J wrote:
My Self wrote:
Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

A reflex save to negate in addition to the "to hit" roll?

Is there any precedence for that?

Probably not exactly, although there is a semi-precedent in Cure/Inflict Wounds, Heal/Harm, and Chill Touch which are melee touch attacks with follow-up Will or Fortitude saves to reduce effects.
the thing is in 5th there is no touch ac so all attacks are against normal ac and anything brought in from 5th even if it is a "touch" attack would be against normal ac

I think part of the reason there's no touch AC in 5E is that all classes use the same proficiency bonus for attack rolls. Without having all the PF classes using the same BAB, I think it'd be better to treat attack rolls for spells as PF does and make them versus touch AC.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, Sasquatch did a wonderful job on it.

I'm not sure which world I'll set it in. Probably will be it's own world as described in the book with the possibility to travel to and from other worlds, dimensions, or alternate realities.

A reflex save to negate in addition to the "to hit" roll?

Is there any precedence for that?

QuidEst wrote:
- Steal from 5th Edition. Those are pretty strong.

I think the strongest 5E cantrips should be bumped up to 1st level spells if imported into the PF RPG. Other considerations probably need also be made for some of them.

1st Evocation

Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 120 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous

You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 fire damage. A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn't being worn or carried.

This spell's damage increases by 1d10 when you reach 5th level (2d10), 11th level (3d10), and 17th level (4d10).

As a cantrip, this is probably too powerful (and spamming this all day might get old). But, as a 1st level spell, it could work nicely.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:

The part of the Realms of the Mammoth Lords where megafauna come from (the Earthnavel?) feels kind of Thule-ish, in the 'lost prehistoric lands hidden in the far north' sort of way, to me.

Thank you. I'll have a look at that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:
Thule is a fantasy past of Earth (it's Greenland seen with west at the top of the map, and mostly ice-free), so maybe some time- and galaxy-crossing adventures?

Yes, exactly.

I remember the descriptions of one of the Pathfinder Adventure Paths taking the characters to Earth during a World War to fight Rasputin because Rasputin Must Die!

And, with Red Sonja meeting up with the iconics for the Worldscape, why not a Primeval Thule meets Golarion crossover?

Hi, everyone.

After playing a lot more 5E than Pathfinder, I'm planning to return to Pathfinder for a certain campaign that most of the material that I have is already in PF/3X format.

But, I'm still considering converting a few of the 5E classes to Pathfinder for a particular set of adventures that use the Pathfinder ruleset. After being on a 5E kick for a while, I'm feeling the draw to return to Pathfinder for the crunch. However, 5E seems to give characters things for free that Pathfinder charges a feat for.
Things such as:

• Weapon Expertise.
• Improved Unarmed Strike.
• Moving between attacks during a full attack (as well as full attack and move); basically Spring Attack, but better.
• No chance of arcane spell failure for armor worn (like Arcane Armor Training, but better).
• No opportunity attack for spell casting while threatened (Combat Casting, but better).
• No opportunity attack for combat maneuvers (such as Disarm, Trip, etc...).
• No confirmation roll for criticals (eliminates need for Critical Focus).
• Two Weapon Fighting works differently and is easier.

Have I missed any feats from the Pathfinder Core Rulebook that all 5E characters would have? Does anyone have a list of Pathfinder feats that all 5E characters would be assumed to have?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you both, Cpt_kirstov and SmiloDan.

I hadn't thought of an underground cavern 'land of the lost' as a place to put it, but that could work.

The cosmology isn't really compatible with Golarion's, as far as I can see, but I'm not really all that knowledgeable or Golarion's pantheons.

Other planets are an idea as are undocumented continents.

I just recently found out about Primeval Thule and I really like the idea of it as a setting. It's bronze age. I think most of Golarion is in a much later era as there are gunslingers and stirrups (no stirrups in Primeval Thule).

Hmmm.... I shall have to think on it a little further, but even if the two settings are on different planets or on alternate worlds from one another, I think it might be neat to have some characters from one occasionally cross over into the other.

Or, is there an area of Golarion that is similar to Primeval Thule?

Would Primeval Thule fit anywhere in Golarion?

I'm looking forward to this book. Sounds exciting, to me, even if not used in Golarion.

In fact, one of my friend's and I have been talking about various organizations a character might belong to and what the organization might expect of the character and what the character can expect of the organization. So, this book sounds perfect for us.

Or, maybe this:

The Sword wrote:
for a Pathfinder a Hardcore mode of play

Make the players roll two d20 any time a d20 roll is necessary and take the worst result.

Or, players roll a d12 instead of a d20 whenever a d20 roll is called for and add 1 plus 1/4th of their level to the die roll. Crits only occur if the die roll is a 12 on a d12 and the PC is at least 4th level. (Monsters and NPCs roll a d20 as normal.)

Try this url...

and, here, for the art gallery...

Thank you, Thaine. That's very helpful.

I hadn't realized all that the 5E system assumes the characters have that PF characters don't because of system restrictions.

I guess that converting the other way would likewise increase the power of PF classes beyond design intentions since they'd be picking up all the stuff that PF requires a feat for that 5E gives for free to all.

Thank you very much!

Specifically, I'm interested in the 5E Warlock... But, any conversion guidelines might be helpful.

Also, how much are 5E feats worth compared to PF feats? I'm guesstimating them at about the value of 2 PF feats. Any thoughts?

One of my goals would be to be able to convert from 5E to PF and from PF to 5E.

Guang wrote:
Bob of Westgate wrote:
I guess the question is, with Pathfinder, why would you want to play 5E at all?

I'm trying to see how easy it would be to borrow combat rules from 5e to use against unmodified PF monsters, supplementing or replacing the relevant PF rule.

(original poster)

I don't think it'd be all that hard. In fact, I think it'd be very easy to do.

Advantage/Disadvantage is easy to substitute for various situational modifiers.

Relaxing AoO rules to 5E standards is easy enough.

Allowing arcane casters to cast when wearing armor they are proficient with is easy.

Eliminating confirmation rolls on crit threats is easy (but, may result in too many crits with default PF threat ranges and threat range increasers).

The 5E Death and Dying rules would be easy to import.

I think much of the 5E engine could be used unchanged with 3X characters and monsters.

Werebat wrote:
Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

5E attack bonuses, saves, and skill difficulty checks are on a different scale than PF/3X. Low-level stuff is close, but the disparity rises the higher things get in level. The highest base attack bonus in 5E is +6 compared to +20 in PF/3X. For Saves, it's +6 in 5E compared to +12 in PF/3X. And skill difficulty checks range somewhat higher in PF/3X than in 5E.
Huh. Would you say that 5E in any way resembles E6 (or P6)?

Yes and no.

5E math is closer to what you'd see in E6/P6 (orP7). But, 5E still goes to level 20 and still has spells from 4th to 9th level. But, the ones that some may consider problematic aren't present in 5E Basic (no telling about Core, yet). Also, spell buffs are limited to one at a time, if my understanding is correct.

Magic items are limited, too. The default is that they're extremely rare (can't be bought or sold). Also, the better ones require a character to be "attuned" to them in order to get their benefits. A character can only be "attuned" to a max of three items.

I'm a fan of E6 and have been for years. For me, there are similarities between 5E and E6, but they aren't the same game. 5E still assumes there are four tiers of play, while E6 concentrates on the first two tiers. But, 3X tiers aren't necessarily the same as 5X tiers.

Mathematically, I'd say that 5E extends the "sweet-spot" found in E6 all the way to 20th level. And, that's a huge plus, for me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guang wrote:
Has anyone compared pathfinder and 5e creatures (bestiary entries)? Are they at all inter-compatible?

They're not directly compatible, but I have been tinkering with some homebrew conversion.

5E attack bonuses, saves, and skill difficulty checks are on a different scale than PF/3X. Low-level stuff is close, but the disparity rises the higher things get in level. The highest base attack bonus in 5E is +6 compared to +20 in PF/3X. For Saves, it's +6 in 5E compared to +12 in PF/3X. And skill difficulty checks range somewhat higher in PF/3X than in 5E.

After looking at it and crunching some numbers, I think it'd be easier to convert 3E/PF to 5E than the other direction. That said, I'm waiting to see the 5E Core Rulebooks before doing to much conversion.

Ultimately, I expect our group will convert to 5E for rules but stay with homebrewed conversions of a lot of PF/3X material. Mostly because of the "flatter" math underlying the 5E engine and the fact that we've already have so much PF/3X material.

Pan wrote:
Is using string and rulers really easier or better than a grid?

It's really up to you (especially as it's a system neutral option).

Depending upon the size of the battlefield, rulers, strings, or tape measures might work better for some folks.

For instance, one of our DM's enjoys having large battlefields built in 3D on 4 ft by 8 ft foam boards. He might have several minibattles within a single larger battle all going on at once. If my elf sorcerer with his trusty bow wants to fire a shot at an enemy 3/4's of the way across the board at an angle, it's often quicker to use a tape measure to calculate distance.

Also, he's not a fan of the 1-inch grid. Says it seems too small next to some of the Reaper minis we use. So, gridless works better for him.

Our group played about 3 sessions or so of the 5E Starter Set.

It was very easy to DM. I used miniatures for the first session, but then went to just drawing a map on graph paper and tracking marching order. That worked very well. And, though I expect we'll continue using miniatures, we'll be ditching the grid in favor or string or rulers.

But, what I'm most happy with is the change in the underlying math of the game (resulting from Bounded Accuracy) that allows for low level monsters to remain threats (in larger numbers) at higher levels without adding all kinds of levels to the beasts. Also, the new math doesn't appear to be all that hard to reverse engineer for Pathfinder stuff (so converting Pathfinder material (even the classes and feats) shouldn't be too hard, at all).

So, my plans are to get the core books of DnD5e and homebrew the rest of what I want from my 1e, 2e, 3e/3.5, and PF collection. I plan on continuing to purchase upcoming Paizo products like the Advanced Class Guide and Pathfinder Unchained and use them as sourcebooks for a PF/5E hybrid.

I heartily agree with the idea that "5e seems to be channeling a lot of the aspects of E6 that I was intrigued about."

Thank you, both, for the input.

Much appreciated.

1 to 50 of 324 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.