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. 285 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 285 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

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.

Thank you for the perspective.

I did notice that there were a few places in published (3.5) adventures where CRs were lowered because a monster was inadequately equipped or deliberately made weaker than the standard version in order to hit a desired CR.

I was hoping that by decreasing monster hit points by 50%, that I could at least drop the CR by 1 (if not 2).

And, this wouldn't be a wounded hit point total. It would be the creature's new fully healed total.

Sorry... Meant to say HP, not XP...

Here's the revised version...
How much of a CR adjustment should be made for monsters with half of their normal HP?

(Assuming all other statistics remain the same.)

Yeah... Those aren't issues I see at my table, much.

I'm interested in being able to decrease the hit points of creatures to make them easier to kill, but possibly increase the number of creatures to increase their portion of the action economy.

How much of a CR adjustment should be made for monsters with half of their normal XP?

(Assuming all other statistics remain the same.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's interesting, OmNomNid.

I'm not sure how I'm going to go about this.

James Jacobs wrote:
Drejk wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

Note: We haven't actually started doing anything significant in-house with psychic magic. In fact... the term "psychic magic" isn't even yet something we'll 100% be using. I've certainly got my own ideas on how to handle the subject... and those ideas will certainly influence what we do with the subject... if indeed we ever DO something with it (I hope we do!).

But right now, they're just musings. Not much more.


Whatever you do, don't make psychic powers working as Vancian magic - it will miss the whole point of having psychic powers in the first place.

Now, if we could only have psychic powers be separate from magic... *sigh* One can dream.

I fundamentally disagree.

Having psychic magic work the same way as our current magic system is a significant draw for me. After all, divine magic and arcane magic both follow the same rules. Having psychic magic do the same means you don't have to learn a new system; you could make a psychic character immediately and know how to play him/her.

The point of psychic magic isn't to introduce a new system of rules into the game. The point is to enable a new flavor of magic and mysticism and story elements to exist in the game.

In world, being telepathically contacted by someone using a psychic magic spell and an arcane spell or simply from a telepathic monster should feel the same, after all. So why should the rules feel different?

In fact, that's the primary reason I'm calling it psychc magic and not psionics. Dreamscarred has already done a Pathfinder version of psionics from the 3.5 SRD. I don't want to "overwrite" that by publishing a conflicting or different version of mind-based supernatural powers, and by calling our version "psychic magic" we don't. Psionics and psychic magic can, in theory, exist side by side in a setting. Or you can pick the one you want to use in your game.

My interest in developing and incorporating this type of supernatural element into Pathfinder is...

I like the sound of this.

If you're using Pathfinder as the base for your E6 Campaign, this might help.

Thanks for the replies.

I'm in agreement with the idea that converting the non-spellcasters is easiest.


My first conversion from AE to PFRPG is going to be the Warmain. It looks the simplest. Pretty much a fighter archetype.

After I see how that goes, then I'll better be able to approach the martial classes.

Any advice on converting AE classes to PFRPG?

I'm especially concerned about the 21st to 25th levels, since PFRPG only goes to 20th. Would these classes just lose them? Or, are the PFRPG core classes strong enough to stand side-by-side with 25 level classes?

Also, could the class features from the AE 21st to 25th level be moved down to 16th through 20th without making the classes too strong next to PFRPG classes?

I like how Mythic can be applied to lower level beings. Granted, 13th is high level (to me), but I'm so glad that Mythic can be used before 20th level.

Axial wrote:
The cool thing about these "Demon Lord" rules is that (with a little work) they could be malleable. You could use the same rules to create and stat out Infernal Archdukes or Daemonic Harbingers (Who would be LE and NE, of course) or just use them to represent whatever the main "fiendish" entities are in your unique setting.

Very true.

I'm actually hoping for traits for the Archdukes and Daemonic Harbringers, too. Also, traits for the upper opposition would be nice, too.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I haven't done any kind of analysis of this in PF.

Hi, Sean.

Thank you for your reply!

Very much appreciated.

Thank you, StreamOfTheSky.

That's very interesting.

And, it makes the magus quite scary without the proposed houserule. Makes me thing magi have the best potential crits in the game at 5th level.

Why not have Vital Strike apply to the first successful attack, each round?

Yes, I was just reading that.

That really seems unique (and surprising), to me. I would have thought delivering the spell through the weapon should have negated the possibility of scoring a crit with the spell.

StreamOfTheSky wrote:
Magus...holy crap is it a good deal for him, especially since at level 5+ he can just give any weapon Keen anyway. Not just shocking grasp; frigid touch is possibly even nastier.

I've never played or seen a magus in play.

I didn't realize that the magus' attack benefitted twice from getting a confirmed critical. I would have thought only the weapon could've scored a critical and the spell damage wouldn't be multiplied.

That's an interesting thought.

I'd guess that it's not so much that you get more precise, but it's that it reflects the combatants ability to adapt to the defenses of the opponent.

That said, I'm not likely to adopt this. Just thinking about it.

Thank you.

That's a good point.

The escalation bonus would also apply to the confirmation roll.

Just read a review of 13th Age on

The playtester explained that that game uses an escalation die. A great big d6 that sits on the table and is used by the GM to count up after the first round (maxing out at +6). In 13th Age, the PC's get to add that number to their to hit rolls (and other things).

What if Pathfinder had an escalation die for critical threat ranges? It would make combat more dangerous as the fights wore on. By the 7th round of combat and beyond, the chances of getting a critical threat would be 30% higher.


Sean K. Reynolds: Rant: If Keen and Improved Critical Don't Stack, the Terrorist Will Have Won!

Does SKR's reasoning still hold true for the PFRPG?

Would it be a reasonable houserule to allow keen and improved critical to stack?

And, does anyone know why PF didn't adopt the philosophy that keen and improved critical should stack?


I'd classify cure light wounds as an attack only if it is used to harm an opponent. So, if you cast cure light wounds on an ally, it's not an attack. But, if you cast it on a skeleton, it's a melee attack spell.

Thanks for the input about grapple and the disruptive feat. If I were to implement this feat as written, it would trump disruptive and wouldn't just add a +4 bonus to the check for casting defensively.

That said, I now think the proposed feat is not good, as written. It's too good (because of it's negating grapple and the disruptive feat, entirely).


I agree the feat isn't needed. I do, however like your proposal that it allows the caster to take 10 on concentration checks.

Not sure what direction I'll take on this, if any.

Thanks for the input, everyone.

I like the idea of having it be a feat, instead of a general rule change, Captain Xenon.

Here is what I'm thinking:

Melee Caster
Prerequisite: Combat Casting
You are adept at casting melee attack spells when threatened.
Benefit: You get do not need to make concentration checks when casting or using a melee attack spell or spell-like ability on the defensive or while grappled.


In what ways would I break the game if I houseruled that casting melee attack spells (like shocking grasp) in a threated area do not provoke attacks of opportunity?

Thanks. That's how I thought it worked, but the BB rule made me doubt myself, a little.

Not sure which subforum this belongs in, but since I'm primarily concerned about the full PF RPG rules, I'll ask it here.

I thought I understood this, but then we went on trip and didn't want to take the full Pathfinder RPG and miniatures... So, I bought a copy of the Beginner Box to give it a try.

So, my question is this...

In the Beginner Box,
● there are no attacks of opportunity
● and a caster cannot cast a spell within a threatened area due to inability to concentrate,
unless that spell is a melee attack spell.

So, my question (if I understood the BB rules correctly) is...

In the full PFRPG rules, I'd always thought that the casting of a melee attack spell provoked an AoO when within a threatened area.

● Is that actually the case?
● Or, is it only non-melee attack spells that provoke?

Thank you, James.

That works for me. Fully statted up demon lords following the normal monster creation rules plus Mythic works very well for me.

I fully agree with that, James.

Most of the characters I GM and play are under 10th level.

I only have a handful from AD&D of the 80's that actually reached higher level. And, it's only very few of those that would be epic level if converted to Pathfinder. Those few would be along the lines of the beings from the mythologies presented in the AD&D Legends & Lore.

So, for my purposes, not having official epic rules for Pathfinder works fine.

If I can understand how the demon lords are built, that should be enough for me. The package of Demon Lord Traits in the blog post answers most of this, I think. Just waiting to see how numerical advancement is handled for these beings.

Will there be guidance for statting up homebrewed demon lords? (I'm assuming the answer is yes.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:
I'm still hoping for Epic level support for Pathfinder, in the future, but I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on the Mythic rules asap. And, practically salivating over these demon lords' stat blocks!
I've learned to never say never... but at this point, I'm pretty comfortable saying it's very very very very VERY unlikely you'll see us do "Epic level" content that expands the level cap beyond 21st level. Because that sort of expansion to the game would have required a different set of decisions on how to present demigods like demon lords, and now that they're set in stone with Mythic Adventures, the ship to do post 20th level levels has pretty much sailed.

Thank you for the reply, James.

While I'm sad to read that expanded epic rules are that unlikely, it does give me comfort that if I house-rule how it works based on what's given in the CRB (& Mythic), it won't be overruled any time soon.

Basically, I would have a class level cap (so no 21st level fighters), but no character level cap (so a 15th level fighter, 10th level cleric would be possible). BAB would probably be capped at a max of +20 and base saves at a max of +12.

Can't wait to get a look at one of the demon lord stat blocks!

James Jacobs wrote:
Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Demon lords are intended to be tough. Things that a max level, max tier party will probably TPK against unless...

By "max level, max tier party"... Am I correct in understanding we're talking about 20th level characters with 10 mythic tiers, each?

In other words, max level equals 20th level?

That's exactly what I mean.

20th level, tier 10 is, once Mythic Adventures is out, the highest power level we'll be supporting. Before Mythic Adventures, 20th level was the highest power level we supported.

Thank you, James.

I'm still hoping for Epic level support for Pathfinder, in the future, but I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on the Mythic rules asap. And, practically salivating over these demon lords' stat blocks!

Tangent101 wrote:
I believe that's been the level limit for a while. There are suggestions on how to allow people to go past level 20, but that's just for GMs who want that.

Thank you. I was thinking that 21+ level characters were really considered house-rules territory, even though such levels are briefly mentioned in the CRB. The term "max level" pretty much confirmed it.

Thanks, again.


Must think about this...

James Jacobs wrote:
Demon lords are intended to be tough. Things that a max level, max tier party will probably TPK against unless...

By "max level, max tier party"... Am I correct in understanding we're talking about 20th level characters with 10 mythic tiers, each?

In other words, max level equals 20th level?

This thread might help, too:


Good question!

I'm running The Shackled City. The player's characters have been converted to Pathfinder RPG rules, but I'm running the campaign and the monsters as is.

For me, no conversion is really necessary other than converting a skill check or something similar, here and there. However, it would be possible to do lots of conversion if I were to truly convert all the statistics of the various monsters to 100% Pathfinder. But, I only do that when I have time and if I really think it's necessary.

As far as I can tell, the best advantage to the PF Cleave is that you don't have to drop the target to get the extra attack.

Good question!

I don't know the answer.

BillyGoat wrote:
Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

Wouldn't constitution-less undead die at negative charisma score?


Traits: An undead creature possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).

• No Constitution score. Undead use their Charisma score in place of their Constitution score when calculating hit points, Fortitude saves, and any special ability that relies on Constitution (such as when calculating a breath weapon's DC).

You would have a good argument for that interpretation, but there's no need to worry about it because, from the same list of traits, you get this:

Bestiary, Creature Types, Undead, Traits; pg 310 wrote:
Not at risk of death from massive damage, but is immediately destroyed when reduced to 0 hit points.

I'ts the fifth bullet counting up from the bottom. Honestly, I'd have changed the layout to put it immediately after the one about no Constitution score. Or put the "destroyed at 0" line in the line on Constitution, instead of death-effects & massive damage. Either option makes more sense.

For any who are curious, the exact same trait is listed for Constructs, back on page 307, bottom of first column.

Thank you.

1 to 50 of 285 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 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.