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

R_Chance's page

2,632 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 2,632 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Nope...I wouldn't think that at all, in fact, the problem in my lowly opinion was that most were NOT familiar with Chainmail (and in fact I haven't played it to this day, so no idea how those rules really worked. They are referenced in the booklets I have of the original D&D, but how it worked is yet a mystery to me in regards to the chainmail rules). That's why the D20 alternate gained favor and popularity in my opinion, and why almost immediately many of the ideas that went into GreyHawk were abounding.

Of course that's my opinion...I could always be wrong, but with how it became more solidified over time with the alternate system becoming the primary system...I'd say chainmail was actually not familiar to most who picked up the D&D rules.

I think chainmail gained more popularity from the D&D rules and more tried to get it...but originally I think D&D in many ways was more of a promotion of the Chainmail rules and pushing those than anything those picking up the booklets were familiar with.

After D&D came out, I think many more people became familiar with chainmail, but not enough to over ride the alternate system becoming the more popular one to game with.

We were all miniature wargamers in the groups I knew back in the day. Chainmail was our "gateway drug" :) TSR even advertised D&D as a "fantasy miniature wargame" as I recall. And Chainmail was their big seller. It took TSR quite a while to sell through their first printing of D&D. Up until D&D all TSR made was miniature wargame rules. Before TSR Chainmail was published by Guidon. D&D appealed to other people too of course. And subsequest printings sold rapidly. I'd guess local experiences with this will be varied and anecdotal.

*edit* I just grabbed a whitebox copy off my shelf and it's subtitled as "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures". Our old woodgrain box label said the same thing iirc. It's squirreled away at my brothers.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan1138 wrote:

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).

Hmmm...I'm an "older player" (age 42, began playing D&D in 1981) and I prefer the simplicity of 5E to 3.X/PF. 5E is closer to B/X and 1E in terms of options and complexity which is what I prefer. It still has a LOT of "new" stuff I don't like (spammable cantrips and non-magical healing are two examples) but I still would actually be willing to play it. I will not play 3.X/PF/4E.

I'd be willing to bet that there is a large group of players like myself (late 30's and older) who prefer 5E's simpler game to the complex "building game" of 3.X/PF/4E.

Another older player here. I started playing D&D in 1974. I'm 56 :) 5E is looking pretty good. For me, it's about the world and the adventure, not the perfect character build.

Bluenose wrote:

R_Chance wrote:

Digitalelf wrote:

Original D&D also listed every weapon, regardless of type, as only doing 1d6 damage.

Most weapons. If I recall, there were several with a + or - ... dagger -1, two handed sword +2... but that might be from EPT or house rules. My OD&D is in my bedroom bookshelf and the wife is asleep. She gets grumpy when I wake her up at midnight :) In any event the Greyhawk supplement dropped in 1975 which used the more typical die ranges for weapons. And weapons had a damage range for man-sized (and smaller) and large. A longsword was 1-8 / 1-12 (vs. large), a two handed sword was 1-10 / 3-18... similar, if not as complex / complete as the range of weapons / damages in 1E.

According to one of the players, Gygax wasn't a fan of having different weapons doing different damage and had to be persuaded to have it as an option. There were also arguments that weapon damage should be based on the HD of the user, too. In retrospect he believes Gygax was probably right. When his book comes out it sounds like it'll be a very interesting read. Old Geezer on the forums, Mike Morcom irl, is the person in question.

In the original D&D combat involved using the Chainmail skirmish rules - an entirely different rule book from D&D. All weapons in that did the same damage (a "hit", translated to D&D as 1d6 damage). The hit probability was based on the weapon vs. armor type (it used 2d6 and a weapon vs. armor matrix). Daggers, for example, were less likely to hit armored characters. This meant that effectively they did less damage than say, a sword. Characters received more attacks as they leveled up. A "Hero" / 4th level Fighting Man, for example, received 4 attacks. The "optional" system introduced in D&D used a d20 and hit probability was based on character level, not weapon type. Characters received one attack (except vs. 0 level and low hit dice monster like Goblins) and, I think, the need for variable weapon damage was born. It made sense for a character to do more damage with his single attack when using a sword vs. a dagger. It also kept the relative advantage of swords over daggers consistent between the early Chainmail based system and the newer d20 optional system. In the beginning I think most D&D players were familiar with Chainmail and had it at hand. As more and more people played D&D who didn't have access to Chainmail the "optional" system came to dominate. That's imo, of course. No way to know for sure. Despite being miniature wargamers we adopted the optional system pretty quickly. Hit probability based on level seemed appropriate for a game in which characters "leveled up" and grew in power.

Well, now I need to go dig up original game booklets, supplements and, of course, Chainmail. Nostalgia ftw!

Digitalelf wrote:

Original D&D also listed every weapon, regardless of type, as only doing 1d6 damage.

Most weapons. If I recall, there were several with a + or - ... dagger -1, two handed sword +2... but that might be from EPT or house rules. My OD&D is in my bedroom bookshelf and the wife is asleep. She gets grumpy when I wake her up at midnight :) In any event the Greyhawk supplement dropped in 1975 which used the more typical die ranges for weapons. And weapons had a damage range for man-sized (and smaller) and large. A longsword was 1-8 / 1-12 (vs. large), a two handed sword was 1-10 / 3-18... similar, if not as complex / complete as the range of weapons / damages in 1E.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KahnyaGnorc wrote:

Freehold DM wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

As far as SJWs are concerned, Asian people are just white people from a different part of the world.

Makes it easier to explain why they're totally not an inconsistency in their whole oppression narrative.

there are plenty of white people who prop up Asians as a model minority and put them into the spotlight as such, especially in tv. Green Hornet was possibly the best example.

Asians are not a minority, but multiple minorities. Asia does stretch from the Urals, Dardanelles, and Suez Canal in the West all the way to the Pacific Ocean and Bering Straight in the East. There are a lot of ethnicities and races in-between.

And you can say the same thing about Europeans / whites, Africans / blacks, etc. We all tend to be lumped into some larger grouping...

I've always called Barbarians "Berserkers" in my game, which encompasses the whole rage bit. The Norse term bare sarc, iirc "without a mail shirt", for frothing mad warriors who fought without armor is where the term berserker comes from (as Secret Wizard mentioned above). A barbarian is, to me, anybody from a non literate tribal society, no matter the character class. And yeah, as Bandw2 says, the Greek term is barbaros, again iirc, it means "babbler" or "babbling idiot", which describes anybody who doesn't speak Greek :) And don't get the Greeks started on those country hicks from Macedonia with their terrible accents, next best thing to barbarians... and in another nod to Secret Wizard, outlander is a good translation of the intent of the Greek term. Just remember to heap the phrase with scorn for those poor wretches who don't speak the proper language of civilized men, Babbling semi-human savages :D

*edit* As an aside, in my game "barbarian" as a term in Common is derived from the Elvish term for "Humans" :)

TriOmegaZero wrote:

R_Chance wrote:

To summarize, this argument could go on forever. Or at least over a thousand posts...

And it has. Many times over.

I know. I usually just ignore them or read / skim them. They tend to be repetitive. Every once in a while I fail my Will save and post in one... the result of which is usually... hey! That's it. Alignment threads are an evil act. I have penance to do :)

5 people marked this as a favorite.

DM control is generally only a problem if your DM is an jerk. If he is, find another DM, because no matter what you can craft / acquire, the DM can always outgun you. If he's a jerk. If he's not, no problem. My 2 cp.

Marroar Gellantara wrote:

R_Chance wrote:

Planar Binding does not have a tag iirc.

The spell: "When you use a calling spell to call an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type."

You use your force of personality to force outsiders to do your biding. Which includes making angels murders orphan. Which if spells are moral actions, would be a good action.

I forgot the end of the spell description. So, right on the tag (and that makes sense), wrong on your ability to force Angels to kill orphans though. Imo. I remembered there being some line in the description that would put a crimp in things like that. So I cracked the giant book and... as the spell states "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to." Asking a supernatural creature of good to commit an evil atrocity probably falls into the "unreasonable commands" category. Ymmv of course, as in all things related to alignment it's pretty much GM territory. Then, of course, the argument over impossible or unreasonable starts :)

Now, if you could impose your will to that extent, the evil of your action (commanding an Angel to slaughter the innocent) would greatly outweigh the good of summoning one to this plane. So, evil is evil. Again, as always in alignment it's imo / ymmv. If you, or rather your GM, considered the actions (the spell and your command to the Angel) of equal weight then you could argue for it cancelling out and being "neutral".

Personally, the point of having a GM is to deal with odd issues like this. How they do this does, I'm positive, vary. Well, dealing with issues like this and avoiding huge encyclopedic collections of rules which could break book shelves and overload hard drives, which has always, to me, been one obvious reason for the vague nature of alignment rules :)

To summarize, this argument could go on forever. Or at least over a thousand posts...

Marroar Gellantara wrote:

R_Chance wrote:

Some of the tags on spells are alignment related. Not all of them...

How so?

Because by that logic enslaving angels via planar binding is a [good] action.

As someone pointed out, you could be killing orphans with these angels, but casting the spell is a good act and thus has consequences. Eventually you may turn good because enslaving angles is a good action.

That person looked at the inverse of doing good with evil spells, but logically the inverse must hold.

I'm not sure what logic you're imputing to me. Personally I don't find good / evil tags to be the same as a "fire" tag. One deals with ethics / morality and the other with energy type. Ymmv. Planar Binding does not have a tag iirc. Planar Binding traps a creature, it doesn't compel them to obey you. You have to "persuade" (in the spell description - Charisma checks w. modifiers) / bargain or otherwise get them to obey you. Good luck, no pun intended, in getting Angels to slaughter orphans.

Somewhere above I gave my take on alignment change and minor aligned actions. That they could push you to the edge but it would take a more significant act to push you over the edge. A minor aligned act pushes a character, slightly, one way or the other. People might careen back and forth within their chosen alignment. Unless they are riding the edge and perform a significant act. Then it's over the edge. That takes some work, or some pretty spectacular acts of good / evil.

I've always assumed good / evil and law / chaos to be relatively equal. A creatures culture / environment pushes them towards one or the other if they are not aligned by nature...

As in all things alignment related, ymmv.

Scythia wrote:

R_Chance wrote:

Dramatically speaking, the "letters" don't matter.

Broadly speaking, I would agree.

In my experience, they (nor the system they represent) don't contribute to or improve storytelling.

I don't think they inhibit storytelling either. They're just a tool to let the GM and player know about where they are in the story.

Scythia wrote:

Jaçinto wrote:

Scythia wrote:

Jaçinto wrote:

Probably wrong here but this feels like it is coming to a roleplay vs rollplay issue. One side uses alignment for story and character development and world immersment, and the other just sees it as a resource to be monitored through a profit/loss system.

Some of us who oppose the idea of aligned spells shifting alignment oppose it because we see it as getting in the way of storytelling and development. In fact some who oppose alignment in general see it as an impediment to telling stories about characters that feel real or compelling.

Real people deal with moral consequences for their actions. Compelling stories can come from someone realizing what they did was horribly evil and feel the need to repent. It shows character development.

This part is exactly why I was saying that alignment can get in the way of good storytelling and character development. No complex or compelling character can have their morality summed up into two letters. Saying "I started out as Lawful Good, but made some hard choices and ended up Neutral" isn't compelling or a good example of development. Dealing with consequences should be based on your actions, not an arbitrary system of absolute moral and ethical categorization. If you murder someone, you face the consequences such as investigation of wrongdoing, potential for family or lover vengeance, facing imprisonment, or loss of property, and potential divine judgement. That a letter might change from G to N, or possibly E depending on severity of the murder, is not necessary to make an interesting story out of it, and can instead distract from focus on the compelling parts of such a story.

In short, someone seeking redemption isn't more compelling because they want to change their letter back to G. They're compelling because of the journey they undergo.

Changes in alignment are simply labeling the stages in that journey. Doesn't change it. Tracking / using alignment is a tool to reflect the characters journey. Things get quantified in games that don't in books or real life. That's to give the GM and players a handle on what is going on and the potential consequences. Properly applied, changing alignment reflects the characters actions over time. Dramatically speaking, the "letters" don't matter.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:

Digitalelf wrote:

Marroar Gellantara wrote:

But yeah, RAW. Spells have no rule making them the action of their type. Fireball isn't a fire action. Casting acid splash doesn't turn me into an ooze.

But those spells do not have [fire] or [ooze] tags associated with them, but Infernal Healing does have a tag associated with it.

Fireball does have the [fire] tag...

So how do you justify fireball not being a fire action when infernal healing is an evil action?

Because "Fire" is not an alignment? Some of the tags on spells are alignment related. Not all of them...

Ninja'd by TriOmegaZero and Deadmanwalking... like getting run over by two cars going opposite directions :)

At least this thread has pulled back from the rather rude posts it had suffered. I was wondering whether there was a discussion still in here that didn't involve sarcasm, aspersions against someone's intelligence or honesty. Glad to see things being debated politely...

The rules on alignment are general. Words like "oppression" etc. describing actions broadly and being open to interpretation. Given the inability to list every possible action (without an encyclopedic collection of possibilities and a new definition of "rules lawyer") this makes sense. The casting of a spell with the "evil" descriptor is specific, and is called out as an evil action. Last time I checked specific trumps general. That goes for "good" too. Casting a spell with the evil descriptor is "evil". The good descriptor is "good". Etc.

If your good character has to perform an evil act for the "greater good", oh well. It's a "necessary evil", as the saying has it, so just do it and take the consequences. Outside of Paladins most characters can commit the occasional "opposite aligned act" without catastrophic consequences, if there are any at all. If, on the other hand you do it frequently... the road to H3ll is paved with good intentions. Or heaven, depending :) Or maybe you just sucked it down and took one for the team. Depending on your perspective.

Alignment exists in D&D / PF. It is a system with absolutes of good and evil. In our world of cultural relativism it often doesn't seem to make sense. It doesn't have to make sense to us. Just to the characters in that world. Role playing. pretending to be someone different, somewhere different. It does make sense in a fantasy world replete with demons and angels. And, in the end, it's up to the GM (or the players in a shared world set up) to decide anyway. So, why drag it onto a forum when the only answer really needed is derived from your GM / group. Unless this is PF society...

Oh, and in this different world there is nothing "wrong" with being evil. In our world evil = "wrong". There, evil thinks it is "right" (as does good) and the opposite is wrong. See how easy that is :D

My 2 cents tossed into the endless sea of alignment arguments...

Ed Reppert wrote:

R_Chance wrote:

That's why neither Pathfinder Unchained or WotC's PHB 2 was a "2.0" version of the game. Both were additive to an existing body of rules...

"Were"? "Unchained" isn't due out until next April! :-)

True, but that's how PF: Unchained has been described. Alternative takes on classes seems to dominate the discussion of it (along with the revised Action system). I'd be happy with "alternative" stealth rules, Feats / Feat effects, Spell descriptions and having a system of unarmed combat integrated directly into regular combat (rather than as a separate subsystem). But, we'll just have to wait and see. In any event "new takes" and "alternatives" seems to cover everything in the current description.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Well, WotC's PHB2 didn't have all the rules either.

That's why neither Pathfinder Unchained or WotC's PHB 2 was a "2.0" version of the game. Both were additive to an existing body of rules...

Of course you might consider it a CRB 2 rather like the PHB 2. I just think some people are expecting too much from 1 regular hardback book.

Looking back at ElementalXX post I see he meant it might be a CRB 2. Maybe, but I'm not sure I'd see it the same way. PF Unchained stirkes me more like UA. Alternative / replacement rules rather than just more classes / rules. We'll see I guess. And it may very well do both...

ElementalXX wrote:

Depending on how this goes this might as well be "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Core Rule Book 2"

It won't cover all the rules, so nnly if you already have the original CRB and a lot of other books :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It was 1974. We were all new to the game, but then so was pretty much everybody else who didn't live in Lake Geneva :) We had been playing miniatures for years, including Chainmail and using the fantasy supplement in Chainmail. It was a natural transition.

Chris Mortika wrote:

And for that matter, why do both SHIELD and HYDRA assume Attillan still exists, after millennia?

Laying aside the other questions, this one is simple. You look because the other guy is looking. If it doesn't exist, oh well. You have the opportunity to mess with the enemy. If it does exist and the other guy finds it you are... well it's an impolite, if accurate, term I shouldn't post on a message board :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheRavyn wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

lorenlord wrote:

But like many of you, I wish and hope that they get a bigger digital presence out there.

Unless and until they do, 5E is dead to me.

New drinking game - every time Bugleyman posts about this, take a shot!


What distillery do you have stock in? :D

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:

Tarantula wrote:

gamer-printer wrote:

Chengar Qordath wrote:

Truth. It's like people think this is supposed to be a fun game instead of "Realistic Fantasy Simulator 2015."

Why is it that "Realistic Fantasy Simulator 2015" = this would not be fun to play. I don't get this notion at all. Perhaps trying to make PF equivalent to that isn't the preferred game, but why would it be "unfun" if it were? I don't see standard PF as the only fun way to play it.

Realistic simulator wouldn't be fun because of the amount of houserules that would have to be applied to get rules for everything. Basically, pathfinder is not a "realistic" game, and so making it one changes the character of the game to a point of not being recognizable as pathfinder any more.

Yeah, I find the sheer amount of rules bloat involved in making the game "realistic" rapidly becomes problematic. Not to mention that in my (anecdotal and limited) experience, most people trying to make the game realistic do it through fairly arbitrary and slapdash rules that often don't actually make the game any more realistic anyway.

Rules bloat? Looking at a couple of shelves of 3.x and PF stuff... I wouldn't say anything added to that is "bloat". Rules "different" maybe... and that's OK. Given the variety of d20 based games variations that have branched off of the tree (including PF) I'm not sure why anyone worries about bloat. Game systems get stretched in different directions to accommodate different ideas and themes. If they get stretched too far from the base, "ding" new game. Not a problem really.

gamer-printer wrote:

While I never said I'd want to play a realistic fantasy simulator game, per se - I'm thinking that what I'd need in such a game versus what you'd expect are probably two different things. And to state that to make Pathfinder into such a game, would undoubtably require so many changes that it wouldn't really be Pathfinder anymore, but as I stated further up thread - who cares, except the people playing that game? Why is it wrong to play a heavily houseruled game for any purpose?

I'm not a simulationist gamer anyway, but if someone was and created playable add-ons to change PF to their liking, wouldn't it be OK at least to that person's game? I see no reason to ever keep a Pathfinder game purely Pathfinder.

I'd say you hit it on the head.

gamer-printer wrote:

I've been looking at both the Tech rules from Paizo, and EN Publishing Santiago setting to create a home game set in a hard sci-fi setting. I see that I'd have to create rules for space travel and ship to ship combat in 3D space since there is nothing I can convert within PF rules to do that. If the game works well, I might publish those add-on rules and perhaps create a full module set in such.

Similarly I've also been considering building a Deadlands-ish, magical Old West setting centering around the gunslinger and gun wielding archetypes for other classes (including a Shootist magus archetype, I've already created).

Both those ideas are quite different from standard Pathfinder, and would really not require too many add-on rules to accomplish, though indeed some would be necessary. I see nothing wrong with playing a Pathfinder game that strays far from the typical. And I don't see a necessity to learn and play a different ruleset to accomplish either. Pathfinder "adjusted" would work just fine in my thinking.

Interesting. I'm not interested in the Gunslinger for my regular game, but I thought it might be fun for a "gunpowder and magic" 17th century type game. Or a pirate themed 18th century type game. My "go to" game for science fiction is either Traveller or Stars Without Number, but a science fiction version of PF / 3.x could be fun.

gamer-printer wrote:

Also, this thread is getting me thinking of a possible low magic PF game where there are no PC casters at all, not even half-casters, but allowing only martials using a stash of "magic items or an artifact" found that was created before the "fall of magic" to serve as the only magic...

And somebody will probably tell you you're "wrong" and expound on why it can't / shouldn't be done...

Shadowborn wrote:

I'm hoping there's a "plan within a plan" here, because otherwise it was just bad TV. Handcuffing him in the front? A guy who's trained to kill with his bare hands? That's usually combined with waist chains and leg restraints exactly so things like this don't happen.

Normally a prisoner is cuffed behind the back (unless their is a medical reason or additional restraints applied or they need to use their hands -- to sign documents for example). I suspect they wanted you (the viewer) to see what happened and having it happen behind the back would have made that difficult. In terms of doing what he did once he slipped the cuffs it wouldn't have made any difference (and for that matter you can do a lot with hands cuffed to the front anyway). So, sloppy restraint procedure or TV necessity. Your pick.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:

Chris Mortika wrote:

Lord Fyre, I presume that ** spoiler omitted **

It will be interesting to see how the bad guys align against Our Team.

Not only that, but you could clearly see that the handcuffs were put on very loosely, not tightened at all. Clearly the whole thing was planned to go down like that... but by whom? Coulson?

Ward cleared his mind and focused before slipping out of the cuffs. They were not especially loose. Cuffs are not supposed to cut off circulation, or be perfectly snug around a wrist. They are not form fitting (ties are better in some ways) nor are they torture devices intended to inflict injury or pain. They are supposed to be tight enough to prevent (normal) prisoners from slipping them off. They made the fatal error of assuming Ward was normal. Ward dislocated his thumbs to slip the cuffs. Muscular dislocation (and relocation) is difficult and painful. And a fairly esoteric skill. Ninja used it to escape bonds, slip through narrow spaces etc. by dislocating various joints and "popping" them back in afterwards. That appeared to be what Ward did.

Irontruth wrote:

I'm ordering a new joystick off Amazon right now.

Damn it... I'm in the Christmas "blackout" phase of the year. I'll have to wait until then to get a new joystick. Or my wife and kids will kill me. Great news though :)

Thanks. Time to order my Print/PDF bundle...

Te'Shen wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
boring7 wrote:
band of murderhobos
This term should be shot dead, and it especially doesnt apply to the Nine Walkers.

As an aside...

Were the Nazgul killers? Yes.
Did they have a home after transitioning to lichdom/the living death where they served Sauron? Not really.

Murderous Hobos TOTALLY APPLIES to the Nazgul, the Ringwraiths, the Black Riders, or simply the Nine.

(Isn't the Nine also one of the Pantheons in The Elderscrolls games?)

If you were referencing the Nine Walkers that was Frodo and company. Not so murder-hoboish all in all :) And the Nazgul did indeed have "homes", or at least the Witch King did... Angmar and later Minas Morgul.

Atarlost wrote:

Quark Blast wrote:

Atarlost wrote:

<snip>Beren and Luthien had possibly just one magic item between them and Luthien was so epically powerful she could put an entire fortress to sleep. That's thousands of hit dice over a range of probably over a mile most of them through solid rock.<snip>

Precisely my point!

In D&D terms Luthien could sing Morgoth <cough>Orcus<cough> to sleep in his own fortress and both Beren and Luthien could just set Balrogs <cough>Balors<cough> on ignore as they gallivant around the continent.

Very high magic indeed.

And yet it's still low magic by PF standards. There are far fewer magic items; no other planes (and therefore no outsiders except the Ainur) except something that can, if you're extremely generous, call the shadow plane; an entire very large school of magic completely missing apart from the healing subschool; and no divine magic.

Magic in Middle Earth is rare but powerful. When people say "low" or "high" magic I think they often aren't using the same definition of the terms. I'd be more apt to look at the scarcity of magic and the effectiveness of it. And how "overt" or subtle it is.

In ME there are fewer magic items, especially in the Third Age. More in the First Age when the armor and weapons of ordinary Dwarves and Elves might be "magic" in the eyes of men. As for outsiders, the Valar have visited ME (and nearly destroyed it with their presence during the war against Morgoth), there are 5 Maiar (? spelling) hanging out pretending to be "wizards" in the Third Age, Balrogs, and Sauron and Morgoth are all outsiders. Even the Noldorin Elves are former residents of heaven and carry the Light of the West within them. Heaven and Middle Earth used to be on the same plane, but heaven (the Uttermost West) was removed from the rest of the world, arguably becoming another plane. And you mentioned the shadow realm in which wraiths exist. and as for divine magic, pretty much anything the "Wizards" do, they are after all essentially angels, as well as anyone revealing the Light of the West (heaven) to discomfort the enemy and his creations.

I'd say magic in Middle Earth was rare (extremely rare in the Third Age), subtle and powerful (more in a strategic sense than in the normal D&D / PF tactical sense). It's a very different take on magic.

Sharoth wrote:

Borderlands the Pre-Sequel comes out tomorrow. There goes a few hundred hours of my life. ~sighs~

Not for me... I have a birthday coming up soon *sigh*. The wife has stopped my self purchasing pending the b-day.

Keep posting :) It's interesting to see your ideas and I like a lot of the basic concepts in your "FAQ" / op above.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Laurefindel wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:
That was the case with Firefly. The Train Job was a good episode but a poor pilot IMO.
'The Train Job' wasn't Firefly's pilot. It's the second episode. I agree that it would be a bad pilot. The real, feature length pilot is called 'Serenity' (like the movie) and sets up the characters nicely.

My point exactly; the actual pilot, serenity was aired after The Train Job which effectively acted as the "revised" pilot. Something about the network people thinking serenity was too slow paced or something, and so The Train Job was commissioned instead.

The episodes of Firefly were played out of order by Fox. Whedon moved Buffy off Fox (which was moving it around to support other shows) and bad things happened to Firefly. A lot of people suspected malicious intent. Myself, I don't ascribe malicious intent to what can be more simply explained by stupidity. But that's just me...

dien wrote:

Our temperatures aren't even blazingly hot right now! :P

I live in Bakersfield. Hot is relative and the 90s (97 today) we have right now is not what I'd call "hot". it's supposed to dip down into the high 80s / low 90s and head back into the 90s next weekend... pretty much the same weather as Fresno :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
jemstone wrote:

Luke may be "the best bush pilot in the outer rim territories," but a lot of that is because of The Force. Wedge is raw, natural talent. Best pilot in the galaxy, hands down.

I'd bet on Han Solo myself :)

Hmm. If I can shake a day lose I might travel 99. Sounds fun.

I don't need the Monster Codex; my world has it's own take on the different monster races. I'll be back for Pathfinder Unchained :)


Yes. Looked over the Kickstarter page and it sounds interesting. Have to massage the budget and figure out what level I want in at :)

Zoe Oakeshott wrote:

From what I remember, a lot of Paizo's product lines aren't actually handled in house, but by contracted companies. If this is the case, it could be that Paizo is simply licensing their IP to these companies, and the costs are the responsibility of those companies. If I am correct about this, it would effect this analysis deeply.

If by "product lines" you mean the various book lines (RPG, APs, etc.), then no. They contract out to people for writing; not companies. Look for the "contributor" tags on people. Unless you're referring to things like Pathfinder Online. That was spun off as a separate company. Miniatures are handled by other companies as well. Paizo doesn't have the expertise for that (Reaper handles metal miniatures, others handle plastic iirc). The printed material (book and PDF) is Paizo. I'd imagine some things besides books might be contracted and/or licensed as well (T-shirts, plush toys, etc.)... but I'm not intimately acquainted with their business.

I don't have "magic shops" as such. Someone may have an item that can be bartered for, bought, or earned. Nosing around other magic using types might turn up some leads on something useful and where / how it can be obtained. Items can be crafted or commissioned. Some institutions (i.e. a temple or magical collegium) might have some minor items they might part with. Patrons may provide items to help in a mission or as rewards for completing it. In short, I avoid the I buy "X" for "Y" GP bit. My game is not as magic heavy as some. Most magic items turn up in treasure / loot. Some are useful and some are future bargaining chips.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a new series; not another volume in the Dresden Files. Steampunk set in a rather different world with towering spires above the clouds and airships... already set to be a trilogy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GoatToucher wrote:

The days of the middlemen are numbered, and have been for years. The FLCS and FLGS are going the way of the dodo, save those who have diversified into providing other services, like providing facilities to do your tabletop or card gaming. Let a comic retailer take all the Marvel or DC comics off the shelf. See how long they last. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I think you're overestimating the current importance of digital products. It's definitely increased in the last several years, but primarily to make niche products available which would not make it to print. The decline of the FLGS is more about the book trade carrying products that had previously been the sole territory of the hobby shop. Digital distribution may be (and I think is) the future, but the future is just that - a ways off. Imo, of course.

GoatToucher wrote:

I have little doubt that comic companies would only expand their business if they introduced a digital distribution method, just as gaming companies who have done the same have. There will always bee people who prefer the tactile sensation of having book-in-hand, and those people can benefit from direct distribution of more limited runs. Just imagine the savings in avoiding printing tens of thousands of physical books, shipping them to distribution centers, and then shipping them to comic shops and book stores. That sweet, sweet digital money is all gravy.

Maybe (even probably). But, PDFs have security issues, file size problems and bandwidth isn't free. Electronic distribution is more likely, in the near future, to enable more small publishers and niche products to find their way into the market (as it has for RPG products).

GoatToucher wrote:

The tide will turn, sooner or later, and those who are tardy getting on the digital bandwagon are only harming themselves in both the long run and the short term. It's a sure thing that part of Paizo's success is their early adoption of digital distribution. People still buy the physical books, but many who would not have bought them buy PDFs instead, and some who have bought them buy PDFs as well.

Subscriptions for physical products is Paizo's bread and butter as far as I know (APs being the largest). The addition of free PDFs for subscribers is a bonus to encourage subscriptions to their physical products and secure their revenue stream. People on the boards here find PDFs to be important. This message board is not really representative of the larger RPG market though. I'd venture to say most Paizo customers don't bother with the boards, even if they order from Paizo.

In the not so immediate future, you may be correct. Not in the next 5 years. Imo, of course.

Arma virumque wrote:

Chris Lambertz wrote:

Removed some posts and replies to them/quoting them about copyright/PDF derail. This kind of discussion really should probably into a different thread entirely. Also, please take note that our policy towards piracy and copyright infringement discussed on our messageboards is not just isolated to our products, but those published by other companies as well. Thanks!

For those playing along at home, here's the final casualty count:

Page 23 (1101-1150): 15 posts remaining, 70% casualty rate
Page 24 (1151-1200): 19 posts remaining, 62% casualty rate

Kudos to Chris for taking the more-or-less surgical route instead of bombing the whole discussion from orbit.

*sigh* And I was so looking forward to a little orbital bombardment... just one nuke from orbit, after all, it's the only way to be sure :)

Seriously it is nice to have the rest of the discussion preserved. So, hey (and not so seriously)! It was a surgical strike from orbit!

I think a lot of the display style has to do with time in the industry. Most of the people making miniatures have been around the block a few times and displaying a painted mini is how it has always been done in a catalog / online. If you wanted to see the unpainted mini that was available for view at the hobby shop. Not, I know, an option that is available to all these days. People used to display their painted minis in shop for that matter.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think what's in and out (classes, races, etc.) depends on the nature of the given campaign (as others have said above). I have run the same campaign / setting since 1974. It has undergone changes (usually when editions changed or during periods of down time due to moves etc.) and that's usually when I fit in new things. When they fit :) The game has a history, cultures are carefully crafted and I like to think it's a coherent world / setting with thousands of years of history / mythology behind it. Minor things are pretty easy to fit in but major changes not so much. My players are comfortable with this and enjoy it. I'm in a reboot phase right now, getting ready to get the game started again.

Things I don't have... gunpowder (and hence Gunslingers), Summoners, Alchemists, Paladins, oriental classes, some feats and certain spells as well as numerous monsters. Why don't I have them... gunpowder: my original players were wargamers, just add gunpowder and watch them blow up the world. No gunpowder, no Gunslingers. Summoners, I have specialists, but didn't have Eidolons. It's a nice concept but doesn't really fit my current / evolved campaign. If you are looking for a literary version of them btw, David Eddings has Magicians in his world who summon "demons" and control them by forcing them into a specific shape. Neat idea, fits pretty well with the evolutions. Alchemists: I already have a system of alchemy in my game, didn't feel the need to shoehorn another in. If I did a steam punk game I'd be thinking Alchemists. Paladins: I have a homebrew Templar class with various abilities and alignments / codes tailored to my campaign / religions. Several of them are pretty close to the Paladin. Oriental classes; the Ninja and Samurai are variant classes which are pretty close to existing base classes. Nothing against them, but no real reason for them to be included, cultural or practical. Some feats have been replaced or made obsolete by homebrew feats. I have my own versions of certain spells (Wish, Miracle, Polymorph, Curses etc.). Monsters: some are in, some aren't. How many humanoid types do you need (for example)? Especially if you have developed a significant history / culture for them. Others just missed the cut or have been replaced by homebrew monsters or variant monsters.

DungeonCrawler_greyhaze wrote:

It is VERY deceptive to the buyer I find. You are shown 1 thing and sent something completely different.

For instance while running a kickstarter, our minis (Dungeon Crawler) come as both Unpainted and Painted miniatures, but we show the production quality of those painted minis - while other kickstarter projects show off MASTER paints done by incredible artists.

So, while they have sprue cutting, filing, assembly, priming, painting, shading, washing and flocking still left to do by the buyer to get them looking remotely that good, that's NOT what they're actually selling you.

We sell finished products, but don't show you master paints when we do, and they just don't compare.

Also, PPMs (pre-painted plastic minis) are far more durable, they can be stored in a drawer or bag, while metal will chip, break and bend if treated like that.

I've been buying miniatures for over 40 years. Metal and unpainted was the norm until recently. I don't find it "deceptive" at all. Inevitably, if you read, it is noted the miniatures are supplied unpainted and unassembled. Miniatures are often shown painted for esthetic reasons and to display detail. It's hard to see details in a photo of an unpainted miniature. Prepping and painting a good miniature is part of the fun. The sense of accomplishment and getting the exact paint job / look you wanted is another part. When you're that vested in a miniature tossing it in a drawer or bag is not likely, although as you mentioned metal miniatures are more susceptible to damage. PPM are good if you don't find it fun or just don't have the time. I'd say it's two markets all right, with some crossover.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

My opinion, is that I do not find the limited choices available to be satisfying. You can tell me why YOU don't find that to be true, but I have read the game and am playing it currently. My opinion on the game is also valid and is true to my own experience with it.

I like character creation. I like how the rules create interactions between the players and the game world. My one complaint is that character development is lacking. I'm fully aware of what you've outlined and I still feel this way.

I understand what you are saying, but disagree. You want the rules to create interactions through mechanics (?yes / no?) The important interactions are, imo, not mechanical. It's about the RP. When I started playing there were few, if any, significant differences between starting low level characters and not that many rules based interactions beyond combat / spells. They became unique as they progressed to the extent they ever did and still managed to interact with the world without everything being "by the rules". The best parts of the game were outside the mechanics as players explored and encountered NPCs and so on. That's why I don't feel the need for every PC to be mechanically distinct. YMMV. Having said that, I can understand the draw of wanting characters to be unique and wanting their connections with the game world laid out... but I just don't need it.

In the end, it's all a matter of degree and individual preference of course.

Naraku666 wrote:

R_Chance wrote:

Undecided. I'll collect both, unsure if I'll switch to DDN. But my game isn't strictly PF, more like 3.X. A combo of 3.5, PF and house rules. I plan on picking up the final DDN rules on release. Regardless, I'll collect both. I like my reading material :)

first of all isnt it DnD not DDN?

Well, that post was a while back... WotC referred to it as DDN throughout the playtest, as others have indicated now that it's out it's D&D. It is referred to variously as DDN, D&D and 5E from what I've seen in various places. D&D and 5E seems to be winning out over DDN. I'm neutral on the name issue :)

Still undecided on 3.X / 5E btw. I have the PHB and it's a good read. Next up the MM. I suspect the key book for me will be the DMG.

*edit* I've played since 1974. I still find myself referring to Pathfinder as "D&D" and generally refer to what I play now as "3.X" given the mix of 3.5, homebrew and Pathfinder elements... old habits die hard :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've read the thread, but I'm just going to answer the original question because that seems to be the thrust, still, of the thread. Reasons:

1. It's a new edition and those are all interesting. I've played since 1974 and I've played, mostly DMing, every edition except 4E. It is not that I thought 4E was "bad" btw, it just wasn't a game I wanted to put my limited time into. And, I would have had to trash my homebrew setting completely to run it, which even 3E didn't make me do.

2. While I like 3.X / PF it has tended to stray away from what interests me, to whit the world and players interactions with it and the NPCs in it. Conversations about "builds" and class comparisons don't have that much interest for me. I'll glance through them, consider how it applies to my game, say a silent thank you for the players I have and move on.

3. Rules light systems don't produce better stories / games but they certainly allow you more time to focus on them. The less prep time occasioned by game crunch the more time to run the game. The restraints on casters, and magic in general, will, imo, make it easier to deal with magic as well.

4. 5E does have that aura of familiarity; it's definitely D&D. Something I found missing from 4E. It seemed like a decent game, just not the game I'd been playing or wanted to play.

5. I'm not tied to any setting but my own for "D&D". I don't use APs (or modules), I do my own. Golarion is interesting as reading material, but then so were Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk and Blackmoor. And while I have used other settings for other games (EPT and Traveller for example) world building is just... fun. Really fun. It ties into my degrees in history and anthropology, my love of literature and mythology. For me, it's about whether or not the rules set will allow me to express my world properly to my players (and, of course, whether or not they will enjoy it). And I think both 3.X (does) and 5E (will) do so.

6. Which brings it back to practical issues. 5E is looking good for reduced prep time (in the long run). Conversion seems pretty straight forward. I haven't decided on "one or the other" and I may run both at different times. We'll see.

But yeah, I'm excited about the new edition :) Why not be?

*Edit* That won't keep me from buying both PF core material and 5E. I'm financially stable and that makes me lucky. I'm glad I don't have to chose over budget reasons. My only constraint is time :(

I'm waiting for the Print/PDF bundle myself, but I think it's worth the wait.

Auxmaulous wrote:

Focusing on healing hp and not long term/degraded conditions.

Though 3rd level Raise Dead (revivify) with no side-effects does lean towards limited long term debilitating conditions/effects as a general design consideration.

At least in Basic

Edit: looking at the newer Basic doc - I'm not seeing any long term conditions (Blindness, etc) - no indications that any effects are permanent besides Petrification. Raise dead (strangely) has more negatives than Revivify. -4 on everything, going down -1 per full (long) rest.

Edit2: they do have creatures with disease - so a dedicated healer would help with that (or maybe even 2nd tier). Though you can try to fight the disease on your own - Rest 3 days then make a 15 Con save.

There are supposed to be rules in the new DMG about lasting damage. Presumably this would require time or magical healing to cure. I believe it's intended with a number of other options in the DMG to produce a more old school type game. We'll see how it turns out.

1 to 50 of 2,632 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.