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

Kthulhu's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 8,745 posts (8,819 including aliases). 5 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,426 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

First time GMing, and you not only want to start out with a full AP, but also convert said AP to.a different system?

My advice: slow down. Start out with a smaller adventure, and one written for 5e.

Frog God Games offers a free 5e edition of their module The Wizard's Amulet.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:

I started Playing D&D way back in 1975.

And so far Pathfinder is the best version of the D20 system produced so far.

Disclaimer: Prior to 2000, D&D didn't use the d20 system.

I also disagree. I think the best version of the d20 system is probably Trailblazer.

I've heard of that but never looked into it, mostly because Pathfinder ripped out and consumed its still-beating heart in the arena of market share before I really got heavy into tabletop RPGs.

With that in mind, what do you like about it? What did it do differently when it split and went on its own evolutionary line from 3.5? Why are all 3.5 derivatives I know named after people who make roads through forests?

It actually attempts to FIX some of 3.5's inherent problems, instead of just duct-taping them over and saying that backwards compatibility is more important than a functional system.

YMMV on how successful those fixes were (I think they are largely better than Pathfinder's tweaks), but at least they made the attempt. It also gets some hate for having taken a few cues from 4e, which some here seem to view as the equivalent of child molestation.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Degoon Squad wrote:

I started Playing D&D way back in 1975.

And so far Pathfinder is the best version of the D20 system produced so far.

Disclaimer: Prior to 2000, D&D didn't use the d20 system.

I also disagree. I think the best version of the d20 system is probably Trailblazer.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
AD&D lasted about 12 years, and only had 8 non-core setting-neutral releases...two of which were monster books. And AD&D was almost certainly the most popular RPG to ever be released. 1e didn't have many splats, but what it did offer was a metric f**!-ton of adventures.

It's worth noting that in less than half the time, Pathfinder has already far exceeded this. And that's not even counting the fact that Paizo's books tend to be quite a bit thicker than TSR's were.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

300 pages?

So it's like Kirth's house rules, but cut in half?

:P

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem with giving background a lot of substance in a setting-neutral book is that the more substance you give them, the more likely they are to not fit well with any given setting.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Other editions have some OSR versions, but they are not exact or even very close.

Disagree.

Original D&D (no supplements) - Swords & Wizardry: White Box
Original D&D (most supplements) - Swords & Wizardry: Core Rules
Original D&D (all supplements) - Swords & Wizardry: Complete Rules
Holmes Basic D&D - BlueHolme Prentice Rules
B/X D&D - Labyrinth Lord
BECMI D&D / Rules Cyclopedia - Dark Dungeons
1st Edition - OSRIC

These are all pretty darn close to how the originals worked.

The notable exclusions are 2nd edition, and 2nd edition with the Player's Option stuff added in. I'm unaware of any retro-clones that clone those and stay pretty faithful.

Well, I have found that there is a 2e clone out there. I haven't read through it fully, but what I have skimmed is fairly close to faithful.

For Gold & Glory

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Or just keep releasing adventures without turning the system into a bloody mess.

Yeah. There are quite a few systems that release a (set of) core rulebook(s), and then only release adventures, setting books, or monster books. Some even quite successful, as well. Call of Cthulhu has mostly followed this strategy, and while of may not be as popular as Pathfinder, its hard to argue that it isn't a successful game in its own right. The Basic D&D editions followed this strategy as well. AD&D lasted about 12 years, and only had 8 non-core setting-neutral releases...two of which were monster books. And AD&D was almost certainly the most popular RPG to ever be released. 1e didn't have many splats, but what it did offer was a metric f%&%-ton of adventures.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kratos especially takes advantage of the fact that the condition "dead" doesn't have an actual definition.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:

Pathfinder: Away-from-the-table at rolling a 1st level character. With 39 bloodline options today, it's obviously got a lot more thinking to do to make your sorcerer, and that's without even factoring in crossblooded. Despite there being 39 bloodlines, and having seen maybe 50 sorcerers in play between home games and PFS, I've only seen maybe a half-dozen bloodlines represented (draconic, sylvan, orc, impossible, fey, maybe 2 others...). I've never seen a maestro-blooded sorcerer for example, because it's just not that good.

5e: At-the-table, a 5e draconic sorcerer compared to a PF draconic sorcerer has a lot more options during each round of combat. This is without even factoring in how the action economy has changed. As early as 1st level, a 5e arcane caster can fire a 1d10 ranged touch fire bolt and cast expeditious retreat in the same round.

Exactly. At-table options > away-from-table options.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I've kind of realized lately that Pathfinder (as well as it's predecessors 3.5 and 3.0) are really more of a character-building game with an ancillary fantasy RPG attached. Which some people are into...I can respect that (even if I don't quite understand it).

I personally prefer systems that get out of the way of the adventuring and the roleplaying.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElementalXX wrote:
Hey! i just noticed, Kratos is a munchkin

Also an emo crybaby.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's also worth noting that a lot of things that you can't do in Pathfinder until you take a feat to be able to do it (ie, one of your vaunted choices) are possible in 5e without the need to burn a feat. You don't have to make the choice, you automatically get it for free.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nah, you just apply the +2 modifier to the ally god's +infinity, and compare it to the enemy god's DC of infinity.

End result: The winning god is decided by which one winning makes a better story/adventure.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
insaneogeddon wrote:
Everyone gets like 30 bonus feats
You lost me with this. What are you talking about? Feats are rare since you have to choose between an ability bump or a feat. Sure you can take all feats, but do you really want your primary state to be a 15? If you're a spellcaster that means your DCs are 12. That's pretty low and easy to make the save (granted, not when you roll like me, but still).
I think he's saying you get things for free that would be feats in PF, but I'm not sure.

Gods forbid! You mean characters might be able to both pick their nose AND scratch their ass as early as first level?

Obviously a broken system.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Did anyone actually think that it was big?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't actually hate Pathfinder. I'll even play it. But I do think it's overrated in general. And that's taken to an extreme on these forums...I'm pretty sure at least a few posters here hide the Core Rulebook under their covers at night while touching themselves. :P

I'm not actually a big 4e fan, either. Less of a fan of it than Pathfinder, to be honest. But man...some of the bile that gets spewed here about it is pretty disturbing.

And I have seen people whose entire tirades against 4e is based on them "ruining the Realms". I thought a Greenwood did that back in '87. :P

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:

I don't want a new edition. I want good, playtested fixes to the problems in the current one.

Treat it the way science text books do. Keep the same chassis, but release a new version when new information is discovered. It wouldn't be a new rules set, it would just large scale errata-ing of problems and printing them in an updated volume.

Can we have that?

They've done that already, a couple of times. 3.0 to 3.5, and 3.5 to Pathfinder. There comes a time when it's more efficient to actually replace the pipes rather than slapping layer after layer after layer of duct tape on them to try and see if the leak can be held back for a few more days.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I can't wait to see is how quick of a turnaround some of the posters here will have, from touting the ICv2 numbers as unassailable, to talking about how they are meaningless because of the factors that many people have pointed out over and over.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Got my PHB a couple of days ago. Haven't yet got a chance to do more than skim, but I will say one thing that I haven't really seen mentioned on these boards:

This book is absolutely gorgeous. Its rare in this hobby to find a book where the interior art even equals that of the cover. This book does the nigh-unimaginable...the interior art, on average, (in my less than humble opinion) is actually BETTER than the cover art. And the layout of that art and the accompanying text is brilliant. I don't know of a single other RPG book that I've seen that can compare. Hell, strike the "RPG" qualifier from that last sentence. This book is a work of art.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let me offer an alternate solution. Just because you and he arent a good fit for RPGs together, that doesn't mean that either of you has to quit playing them. Just that of would probably be better if you didn't play them together. If someone else is willing to be a GM, then you could play with the group, minus your boyfriend; while he continues his game with the group minus you.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:
Stealth is still kind of clunky in the 3.5/PF era, which is why Paizo has the Stealth Playtest rules around for a revision/overhaul to the system.

Do you honestly believe that anything is ever going to come of a thread that lasted a month three years ago? That wasn't a play test, that was Paizo throwing something out there to quiet the criticism of how poorly written the Pathfinder stealth rules are for a little while.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's a lot of PDFs up for sale at dndclassics.com.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
The 5e Ruleset with Paizo APs would be the perfect mix for me personally, but unlikely to happen.

One nice thing about rules-light systems...it's a lot easier to convert stuff to work with a lighter system.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
This I don't agree with entirely. They aren't weak, but capitalizing on the brand going forward is going to be harder than many think, especially in non-tabletop game markets.

Non-tabletop environments know D&D as a bunch of computer games, a bunch of novels, and a board game that they play on Big Bang Theory. But before you sprain your arm patting yourself on the back for Paizo's victory, consider this: Non-tabletop environments know Pathfinder as an SUV.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It looks like Skye's dad is Kyle McLachlen. Skye is the spawn of BOB confirmed!

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

When the wizurd is reduced to cowering in a corner and shooting off cantrips, another 2 or three encounters should do nicely.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
strayshift wrote:


DM says: What spells do you have memorised? Can I see them on your character sheet?
DM means: Good (you don't have that crucial one), thought not...

More like

DM says: What spells do you have memorised? Can I see them on your character sheet?
DM means: Hmmm....thought not. Your character is dead weight until the party rests, and you actually bother to list them out.

Shadow Lodge

12 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems to me that a lot of the problems people are expressing over 5e is based on them trying to play 5e exactly the same as if it were 3.x/PFRPG. It's not the same game, and you might have to adjust your expectations. The same as 3.x/PFRPG isn't the same game as 4e, and they play differently. And how neither 3.x/PFRPG or 4e are the same game as 0e/1e/2e/Basic D&D, and they all play differently.

If you can't handle a game not playing exactly the same as 3.x/PFRPG, my suggestion would be to stick to 3.x/PFRPG.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
As a guy who's something of a completionist, I want a new edition for completely different reasons than any that have been listed here. It would give me the nudge needed to jump off the Pathfinder train (ie, stop buying Pathfinder products).
You mean to tell me that you buy more Pathfinder products than I do? Talk about irony.

I like Golarion.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CriticalQuit wrote:
If you really want to give him haste, give him some Boots of Speed. Weapons usually don't have activated spell effects.
CriticalQuit wrote:
As for the time stop, the rules for calculating magic item cost don't seem to go below 1/day for frequency.

Its like I can physically SEE the over-emphasis on rules sapping away imagination and creativity.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Ivan Rûski wrote:
using Pathfinder rules.
Probably still can't do that.
They really do need to find a way around that.

Meh. Just because d20/3.x/PFRPG (arguably) works for a tabletop, that doesn't mean it will necessarily be the best system for a cRPG.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a guy who's something of a completionist, I want a new edition for completely different reasons than any that have been listed here. It would give me the nudge needed to jump off the Pathfinder train (ie, stop buying Pathfinder products).

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Azazyll wrote:
I do not understand the current rules-light fad.

I don't know that I'd call it a fad. Hell, most of the popular gaming systems since 1974 have been simpler than 3.x/Pathfinder. If either of the two is a fad, it's the rules-heavy systems.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm....you love complexity for it's own sake....

Might I suggest FATAL?

:P

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cool.

I'm not sure I would ever use it as intended, but a lot of RPG books that I get I pull the stuff inside apart, throw the pieces on the table, do the same with a bunch of other books, and assemble all the "good bits" into some sort of Frankenstein-like abomination of awesomeness. The legendary levels books were a good source of "good bits".

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Anyways: I don't agree with your opinion that 5e is "better". I do like a lot of things in the game, but the simplification went too far to keep me on board as being my "main" fantasy rpg.

You would really loathe my favorite game, Swords & Wizardry, as it's quite a lot less complicated than 5e. (I do, however, prefer the most structured of the three flavors of S&W).

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just wondering, how is the Legendary Levels update progressing?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't remember many cool 90s cartoons. I remember some really crappy ones, though.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
SeeDarkly_X wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Heck, maybe AntLang will find a soul gem that was deliberately hidden in the microverse?

While I'm sure that was intended as a joke, I was just commenting else where that James Gunn had said that he wanted to use Bug in GotG but couldn't because they "don't have the rights."

He said that at least a week or so ago and it suddenly dawned on me:
Who the hell is working on a Micronauts movie???

Turns out... Bad Robot.
And the most recent news about it is over a year old.

>_<

So yeah... it would seem they don't have the rights to use the microverse either.

What the heck is wrong with Marvel? did they do some kind of drunken auction at some point, at a party, and licensed bits and pieces of their property in exchange for beers? I mean, the micronauts, REALLY? someone ELSE than Marvel Studios has that now... REALLY? wow...

Pretty much. Except change "beers" to "the Cash necessary to continue to publish comic books".

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deuxhero wrote:
Hope the cRPG is turn based. RTWP is the worst thing ever, especially when a turn based game's round mechanics are smashed into the square hole.

One of the reasons I would prefer the action game. I vastly prefer a game that is real-time to turn-based, but wading through a bunch of menus and sub-menus to activate the feat/ability/spell you want to cast sucks the fun out of a game for me. Especially if a monster is eating your face while you're doing so.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Damon Griffin wrote:


I don't want to see...

Bruce Willis as Garibaldi

Oh, c'mon. Jerry Doyle was almost a damned clone. I'm not convinced that Bruce didn't just want to do some "Moonlighting" as a less famous actor, but couldn't be bothered to actually disguise himself.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How does someone possibly manage to resurrect their own thread that's been dead for 7 g%&%*%n years?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I'd rather have an action game where the RPG elements are light. More a mix of Dark Souls and Zelda than Neverwinter Nights or Balder's Gate.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

In high-level games prior to 3e, wizards were very powerful, but some of the ways they are most powerful in d20 games were an absolute joke. If your 20th level wizard cast a save-or-die spell against anything vaguely level-appropriate, then you got to watch the GM roll a 4, tell you it made the save, and then have your face eaten by said monster. If you went full-nova and exhausted all your spells, you didn't have them all back an hour after waking up the next day...you had to spend several days studying your spellbooks to fill up those slots again (10 minutes per spell level for every single spell...a single 9th level spell ate 1.5 hours of preparation time). You didn't max out Concentration so that it would be almost impossible to fizzle while casting a spell, you hoped none of the bad guys were packing 1 hp damage darts. You didn't auto-learn 2x whatever spell you wanted every time you leveled, you picked a single spell every time you got access to a new level of spells, you rolled to see if you could learn it, and if you failed, you moved down to your 2nd choice and repeated the process.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Greylurker wrote:
For all intents and purposes 4E was an entirly new game with the name D&D slapped on the cover. We had no interest in a NEW game. We wanted our current game upgraded and improved.

You realize that's exactly the same sentiment that many had when 3e came out, right? 4e wasn't the first time they had dumped virtually everything about the previous system.

To me, reading through the 5e Basic Rules, it seemed like D&D was actually back again after a 14 year absence. To me, 5e feels more like D&D than 3.0, 3.5, 4e, or Pathfinder ever managed.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I think it is the "combination of rules" design approach that is keeping pathfinder alive and the most popular table top rpg. Why are you playing it otherwise?

I think it's the fact that Paizo puts out adventures and a setting that are pretty good. Take Golarion and the APs away, and Pathfinder would have been just another one of the myriad d20 fantasy variants that nobody really gave a damn about.

As for why play it...some groups unfortunately seem resistant to change, or even trying out something new. Why play another game when we can just play Pathfinder?

1 to 50 of 1,426 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.