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. 9,347 posts (9,421 including aliases). 5 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,691 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
I dunno... what would you Americans think of some podunk country you never liked making a comedy about how two of their soldiers get the job of assassinating your current president? I could see "some" steam rising about it, to be perfectly honest.
I dont know seeing that the GOP hates the current President they probably wouldn't mind seeing him dead.

And how exactly does this differ from the DNP during the Bush administration?

Shadow Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

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

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
emirikol wrote:
Eventually, these systems favor the player who is the loudest, whiniest, or gripes the most at the table about what he wants his character to be able to do.

Ironically, something that rules-heavy advocates have proven to excel at.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
strayshift wrote:
All over version 5 is D&D Dumbed Down (AD&D,D,D.) and whilst fine for a one off game or players who just want to play a 'simple system' it will eventually have to become more sophisticated to appeal to a lot of older players in the long run (although I suspect it is aiming for a 'new crowd' which is fine).

I guess Pathfinder players who become even more sophisticated can move on to FATAL, using your logic.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder is nerfed, the Megaversal system has much larger numbers. Puny Pathfinder characters don't even have a single point of SDC.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
I suspect 5th has some form of WBL as well, or everything is just that nerfed. I did look at the DMG, and even for a level 30 monster, the recommended AC was 19. So maybe things are just that nerfed.

It is not nerfed, it is a different f&++ing system.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I hate about Pathfinder is WBL.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
Just sayin'
If your GM is throwing you into the Mana Wastes or facing you against cabals of beholders, that's introducing AMFs through fiat.

As much as I hate to seem even for a moment like I'm in agreement with David Bowles, if you extend GM fiat that far, then the mere fact that an adventure happens is GM fiat.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you're playing a high level caster and you're focusing on DAMAGE, the YOU are the one who isn't gaming it out well.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Yeah, he wasn't as good in the films as he was in the book.

That's saying something, given that he wasn't in the book.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess we'll see when they put out the fourth edition of 3.0 (AKA Pathfinder 2e).

I'm wondering if it's major change is to admit Paizo's bias and relegate all non-caster classes to NPC class status.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:
If you like AD&D, I'd recommend 5e whole heartedly. No, the mechanics are not the same, not really, but the FEEL is there. It's like they pretty much do all the cool AD&D things, but in a more modern, better edited way.

It's like I said before in another thread. To me, it FEELS like Dungeons & Dragons is back, after an absence of about 15 years.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Remember, it's an actual campaign. Are there PC options you don't allow in your campaign? I know there's plenty I don't allow in mine. How are your restrictions any less "arbitrary" than those in PFS?

Everyone who plays in or runs a "home" campaign has some degree of input into those restrictions. Whereas with PFS, the overwhelming number of people who play AND run them, do not.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:


What do these words mean?

Seriously, outside of the mechanical context of 3.5, what do you mean by "scales with the BAB of the Ork?" BAB is a mechanical construct that 5E doesn't use.

It's what he's done the entire thread. Isolate a mechanic of 5e that doesn't work well if you throw it into 3.x, and then criticize it for that, without taking into account that the mechanic is designed for a completely different system.

Really, David, I just have to ask....what are you looking for in this thread?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's something that David Bowles doesn't seem to be getting. The default is that you don't have to use the PC creation rules for monsters. That doesn't mean you can't use a portion of those rules if you want to. If you think a monster should have Power Attack.....give it Power Attack!

Monster creation isn't shackled to the PC rules, but it also isn't shackled away from them either.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
The Ork needs power attack so the effect of it scales with the BAB of the Ork.

Which does NOT require a feat. It's just a bonus to damage, combined with a penalty to hit. Nothing about that inherently requires it to come from a feat, except for your obsessive need to chain 5e to 3.x restrictions.

David Bowles wrote:
Monsters built like PCs level the playing field for both the players and GM. It also gives the GM opportunity to build some really cool mosnters!

Know what else gives the DM the opportunity to build some really cool monsters? Unshackling him from the overly restrictive "rules" that govern monster creation under 3.x/PFRPG.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gee, they deal with the worst scum of humanity on a day-to-day basis. I can't understand why some of them become cynical.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

It's only underwhelming to you because you, for some unknown reason, expected WotC to publish the PRD, but with art added. From your posts, that seems to be literally the only think that would have made you happy.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

SNEAKLANCEPOUNCE!

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
since you can't shake it up by changing the roster

Sure you can. Spidey, Wolverine, Hulk, and Ghost Rider

:P

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
graystone wrote:
Claxon wrote:
I was just trying to say that people keep saying that Paizo hates rogues, and I simply don't think that's true.
Maybe not hate but they don't seem very interested in making them better.
Pathfinder Unchained and its entire redesign of the Rogue Class would seem to argue against this point.

I wouldn't make that claim until I've reviewed the final product.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
The Human Diversion wrote:

The biggest thing for me are rogue talents; quite a few of the rogue talents that are once per day are things other classes get unlimited times per day as a base part of their class.

.
.
.
Anyway, IMHO, rogues could be fixed through talent changes alone.
Agree. But giving rogue bad talents was probably the paizo's idea, not sure why, but it seems imposible to me that all this year all the books are filled with bad taletns by mistake.

They pretty much left the rogue alone. However, they bumped practically everything else up a few notches. So they show their rogue hate not through active malice, but through neglect.

This will probably get one of the devs to come in and yell at me / delete this post, but it almost seems like, as much as they deny that they think there's a martial/caster divide, they often seem like they're trying to make it even worse. Some of the weakest classes get the the least out of their splats, whereas their strongest classes get all kinds of love to build them up even further.

I hate to say this, and I know that I'll get a LOT of hate from the PDF for it, but it may be that Paizo isn't all that great as rules designers. Let's face it, the majority of their success is the adventures, and the entire system is built on the skeleton of a system that they did NOT write. They made a few improvements, but they've also made some things worse, and I haven't seen much since the core rules to suggest that any brilliance in game design exists within Paizo.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I've decided to make a post to bring the UNUSUAL back, since this thread seems to have strayed into more general recommendations. These are all 3PP books that I like, and they all differ in some manner from the default expected fantasy world (or at the very least are criminally underrated/underappreciated/not discussed much):

Campaign Settings
==================
Zombie Sky Press's It Came from the Stars
LPJ Design's Obsidian Apocalypse
ICOSA Entertainment's Pure Steam
Fat Goblin Games' Shadows Over Vathak

Adventures
===========
EN Publishing's Zeitgeist
Savage Mojo's Dungeonlands
Frog God Games' Spire of Iron & Crystal
BRW Games' Castle of the Mad Archmage

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally find items that merely make an existing number bigger to be absolutely the most boring items in the entire catalog of Magic items. Even (and especially) the vaunted "Big Six".

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a huge mega-fan of Frog God Games. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend anything they've put out.

Dreamscarred Press is probably the best source of game mechanics for the Pathfinder RPG. Yes, they beat Paizo.

Kobold Press's Midgard is a great setting.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

To be blunt, a system other than Mathfinder/v3.X.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

5th and 2nd are really mechanically nothing alike. The similarities are really only in some of the philosophies behind the games.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Can't be that, since an edition that came out around that time did it's best to marginalize the role of the DM as much as possible.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
goldomark wrote:
Wrath wrote:
As a man who's DM'd for over 30 years now, (although the first few were pretty damn awful since I was only young), this system is easy and makes game play swift and fun.
I started playing/DMing in 1992. We've had no issue with fun or swiftness.

Well, play didn't really begin to slow down to a crawl until 2000.

Gee, what happened in 2000 that could have caused that?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
goldomark wrote:
Diffan wrote:


I wouldn't call it arbitrary, more like "I don't need a complex formula, or Class XX by level Y to wield two weapons, or Have X, Y, Z feat to make what I want the beast to do work the way I [the DM] intend". The whole 'conform to the everyone uses the same creation process' is one of the worst things I felt was bolted onto 3E and Pathfinder, especially when the system assumes all feats/skills/class options are equal and they're FAR FAR from it.
There is nothing complex about it. Like TAC0 was never complex. It was math a 12 year old should have been able to do. It can be long. That I agree with, but like anything, with practice you start to know the stuff and creation takes a lot less time.

It's not complex....it's f~@!ing tedious. Which is far worse. Pathfinder, like 3.0 and 3.5 before it, ascribe to the philosphy that more is better. Especially when it comes to modifiers. Trying to make sure you remember every one of dozens of different modifiers to every single g!!&!$n roll you make is tedious and exhausting. It's not fun in any conceivable way.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder doesn't have stats int their Bestiaries. I say this because I have redefined "Stats" to mean Frequency, Activity Cycle, Diet, and Morale.

:P

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
2nd ed didn't even have stats for the monsters in the Monster Manual.

Troll confirmed.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Guns that fire lightsaber bullets.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:
Honestly, it feels like you are just trying to find things to not like about 5th edition, just as Kthulhu said.

Or are just making things up, like with the armor/stealth thing. If you aren't familiar enough with the system to make valid complaints, then don't make up something just to complain, it's pretty easy for someone with the PHB (or even just the Player's Basic Rules) to point out that what you have claimed isn't true.

Shadow Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

And you never will, because:

1) You've determined, after one session, that the game isn't for you,
2) you look for things that people say about the game with the intention of taking them out of context as proof that poor maligned spellcasters have been nerfed to become unplayable (pretty f*&!ing laughable, given the history of the game),
3) and most importantly, you don't WANT to like 5e.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Psionics is psionics.

Psychic magic is an attempt to replicate psionics using magic.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
I can see us getting a bestiary every year. Well at least until we get 5-7 Bestiaries. I wouldn't mind a bestiary that is nothing but reprints so we could get caught up on the APs and other products.

Last time I asked for that, I got smacked down big time, like "NO, WE DON'T WANT AP MONSTERS IN BESTIARIES! GET OUT OF HERE!"

Give me a separate book called "Adventure Path Bestiary" with 300 monsters from the APs. Look, the APs have a lot of unique monsters that could be used anywhere else. However, not everyone is willing to buy each and every AP booklet to get the monsters.

Yes, some monsters have been reprinted in Bestiaries, but only a fraction.

As I think back about it, I don't really want B5 to have loads of AP monsters as well, BUT I'd like to get a separate spin-off-like book that regroups ALL the monsters from APs.

One thing I wish they would do is add a footnote that the monster also appeared in the AP volume. That way you have the stat block handy in the Bestiary, and if you want to look up the additonal information (ecology, etc) available in the AP volume, you have a handy reference for which one it's in.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

If you play a 5e caster with the same strategies and assumptions that you use for a PF caster, then yeah, they will suck.

Maybe you should try playing them like a 5e caster. Mind-boggling concept, I know, but maybe give it a whirl, just for the hell of it?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
no one here really seems to know how the game plays when the martials have 3-4 swings on the move

better

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

David Bowles - I think part of the problem that you seem to be having with 5e is something I've seen a lot of on these forums....you look at individual differences between PF and 5e, but you either view them in relation to a PF game, or disregard all the other differences that are in 5e. There are a LOT of differences between PF and 5e, and that means that you can't just judge the individual differences without taking that into consideration.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

Or to the players:

"what steps have you taken to make your characters living and breathing creatures and not just a statblock of mindless numbers with a bag of loot and an XP bubble attached?"

C'mon Rin. This isn't 1974. Monsters have feelings too. And motivations. And names. When required.

I tend to name the monsters my characters meet. An example: Alternate Sheath the First.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It sounds to me like your biggest problem with the system is that it doesn't give spellcasters a "win" button.

And yes, a party that has serious different roles filled is definitively stronger than a party that over-specializes. That ain't rocket science.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A spellcaster shouldn't be able to ignore the enemy that's standing right next to him when he's trying to cast. Whether that enemy be a martial or a spellcaster.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I kinda like the lack of iconics...hopefull that will mean more variety in the art, instead of recycling the same characters over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
I thought 5E's change to Knock was inspired.

Agreed. It's so simple yet brilliant. Hell, the name of the spell is KNOCK...how did this slight nerf manage to take 40 years?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
For those asking, dnd-tools was for 3.5 material. I'm thinking the reason they (WotC via the law company they hired) shut it down is that they want people to move away from DnD 3.5, and purchase the "latest and greatest" DnD 4th and 5th editions. So, not entirely without reason, but still very, very sad.

There's also the minor fact that another company is using their brand "DnD" for profit. If you don't protect your IP, then you can legally lose the right to it.

Of douse, what fun is this thread if you can't baselessly accuse WotC of fascism?

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:


One more point about 5th: I hate it that martials can take a move and then get all thier attacks. 5th, from what I have seen, is balanced very heavily in favor of martials. I would, for example, never play a cleric in 5th. I'd make someone else do that job.

I'm sorry it doesn't default to your expectation of "Casters rule, martialz drool!"

Happily for you, that still seems to be one of the.cornerstones of Pathfinder.

1 to 50 of 1,691 << 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.