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

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 2,594 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 2,594 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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!

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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 :(

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Version 2 of the PHB basic rules is up as is version 1 of the DMs. The v2 Players has a few more pages. The DMs PDF is 61 pages. The DM PDF includes about 160 monsters (and all the information necessary to understand the monsters as well) and 10 NPC types, information about encounters, plus some magic items. Nice look at that end of the game for free. The monsters are basically statblocks and necessary information, the MM should have far more information.

new basic PDFs

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:

That said, I'd happily hear more about Trailblazer?

Bad Axe Games home of Trailblazer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
sunshadow21 wrote:

That was one of the biggest complaints 4E had. I hope they thought the changes through far better this time around, or it could really ugly. The perception that they are actively trying to completely nerf casters permanently and forever in a system that has always heavily featured casters as all powerful and capable of reshaping the world at high levels is not one that is going to help the brand name.

I'm curious, did you ever play OD&D, 1E or 2E? The Magic User was the most powerful class in the end, but he did have weaknesses. Significantly more than in 5E based on my reading of the Basic PDF. 3.X pretty much eliminated the weaknesses of casters. As for 4E, I read the original core books but never played it so I can't say much about it. But no, the casters in 5E are not "completely nerfed". They do have some weaknesses, but then so does every class. As others have said, the style of play may change, but, imo, magic will end up being very powerful. As always. So, relax :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Bought. It sounds good. Having played Chainmail in the early 70s before picking up D&D didn't hurt. Our early D&D campaigns involved mass battles and I've kept it in my campaigns over the last 40 years.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Logan1138 wrote:

Joana wrote:

Iirc, that's how it worked in AD&D: only on a natural 20 and no confirmation roll. (We had a house rule to roll again, and a second natural 20 was triple damage; if you rolled a third 20, it was an instant kill -- but I don't think I ever actually saw it happen.)

In AD&D (at least 1st edition which is all I played) there were no official rules for critical hits that I can recall. Any critical hits in a 1E game would have been due to house rules.

EDIT: It's possible that crits may have come into the game in a Dragon article or Unearthed Arcana but I can't remember all of those additions.

The critical hit rule I remember was from Empire of the Petal Throne (TSR 1975 iirc, which used a variant of the original D&D rules). It was double damage on a 20 and a second confirming roll of 20 was instant death. That was adopted by a lot of D&D players. The background skill system from EPT saw pretty wide usage as well given the lack of any skill system in OD&D.

*EDIT* Steve Geddes linked article above mentions the EPT critical rule, although my memory failed on the instant death additional role - it was 19-20. Thanks for the trip down memory lane Mr. Geddes :)

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Saw it tonight and as I hoped, loved it. Nice to have your expectations for a film fully met :)

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orthos wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Lamontius wrote:

I think one of our group put it best when she said,

"I've decided that the ACG is basically just BESM for Pathfinder, because this is fulfilling every inexplicable anime dream EVER"

I... I don't know what "BESM" is...

Big Eyes Small Mouth. Anime-based roleplay system, I think it's based of Mutants & Masterminds. One of my gaming group guys back a few years ago tried to get us to play a session, it never went anywhere.

BESM was from Guardians of Order. The system was referred to as the Tri Stat system. There was a D20 version of BESM. Mutants and Masterminds is from Green Ronin as is True20.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Landon Winkler wrote:

sunshadow21 wrote:

That part honestly concerns me a lot. It solves the initial problem, to be certain, but to me at least it potentially creates a lot more. The other changes they made I can see potential for working; this one not so much.

I think the "one buff/battlefield effect at a time" part is fairly elegant, but I'm not sure about being disrupted by damage.

It might lead to some really cool gameplay, but it's a huge change.


A huge change for 3.x, normal for 2E and prior editions iirc. Damage always disrupted spell casters in previous editions. Personally I think damage should have a good chance of disrupting spellcasting (if not always). If you're in pain from being hit or dodging to avoid being eviscerated (and a loss of hp could be either) it might just spoil your concentration...

I like the concentration mechanic as well. If you thinks it's a bit harsh allow the effect to wear off after the next round instead of instantly.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There is no licensing agreement currently for 5E. Mike Mearls had asked, rhetorically or otherwise, if the OGL would be a good move for WotC on 5E. We'll see if they go with it or another license when they announce their licensing arrangements come November iirc. In any event the lack of a commitment to the OGL for 5E from WotC hasn't stopped another company (Necromancer) from working on 5E material under the OGL. I have no idea how it will all turn out. In any event Paizo seems completely committed to Pathfinder. No surprise there and I doubt they have the desire or resources to do any 5E work themselves.

Necromancer 5E thread

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:

Has anyone found the page that used to have the errata for the D&D 3.5 books? I think Wizards may have taken that one down entirely.

I went to the regular WotC D&D homepage and searched for the following:

D&D: 3.5 and 3.0 errata and FAQ

It led to an archived page. The errata was available for download and I was able to download a file as a test. It wouldn't let me copy the address for a direct link oddly enough, but you can still, apparently, access it. I already downloaded all the errata I needed for the books I had. I'll probably peruse my saved files and make sure I have anything I need myself.

Good luck.

Edit: I was able to save the page as a favorite and get back to it that way. It was a customer service page btw. I searched for and accessed it from a D&D page that said "D&D has moved", I couldn't access it from the current under construction D&D page (and that could be the problem).

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

By the way, if you want to see the table of contents for the PHB they have an (exclusive I believe) preview on the Escapist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Secane wrote:

Thanks for the breakdown, Tels!
Sorry for annoying you. :(

Will remember to search more in the future!

And I noticed the Fighter unchained thread. Going to pop in and have a look.
I really do hope they take a look at the fighter!
Hope for: +2 more skill points, allow acrobatics, feat bonuses, reflex good save!

Relax Secane. You were far from the only annoying thing in this thread :D And I don't blame you for not reading hundreds of posts chasing the same couple of ideas around and around... I did and I feel like I wasted some time I can never get back :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

We have always used miniatures, coming from a wargame background it was obvious and it settled a lot of issues (marching order, position, tactics etc.). A grid and a tape measure both have their uses. We always used (and use) tape measures / rulers in large outside encounters. Buildings and dungeons are laid out in 5' squares. It really works out about the same. The grid is simply a convenience readily usable for confined spaces. The entire "either / or" bit makes me blink and go "huh?".

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Nice map. Brings back memories of Tegel Manor from Judges Guild back in the day (not just the name). And I liked the link to shaming commanders who violate the Prime Directive. That seemed to be the Federation's take on it :)

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Adjule wrote:

Kalshane wrote:

He is, after all, the one putting the most time and effort into crafting the story and doing all the necessary prep work. Even running something pre-published takes prep time above and beyond reading the material.

I really hope you didn't open a can of worms with this statement, as I have read people calling foul on the bolded portion.

Uh... you were kidding right?

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:

Odraude wrote:

ikarinokami wrote:

I'm think with regards to the summoner they might do what JJ suggested once, which is for the class of have a specific creature that levels up with you, much like an animal companion
Yeah, that's my biggest worry. I really hope they don't do this.

If it makes anyone feel better... I'm not going to be one of the authors on this book, nor am I going to be much involved with its outlining or its development.

Hey! I'd feel better if you were an author :) I generally find myself agreeing with you and even when I don't I find your reasoning sound. I can't think of anyone at Paizo whose work I don't want to see, whether I agree on everything or not. You've got a good crew there.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

And Mike Mearls tweeted on the OGL, specifically whether people thought 5E should go OGL or not... so, it's apparently being considered. We'll see.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Multi player FPS: UT and UT 2003, Quake II and III. Yes, I played both series. Religiously. Along with all the other games in those series (and the Doom series). Oh, and Battlefront 1 / 2.

Single player FPS: F.E.A.R. Loved the AI in that game and the tension. The Jedi Knight series (the Quake III engine FPS games), Unreal. Not so much Half Life (which I enjoyed but not as much).

Coop FPS: Serious Sam series, Left for Dead 2, Quake 2.

RPGs: Elder Scrolls series, Fallout III and NV, NWN series, Hexen II.

Others: Tie Fighter, Wing Commander: Privateer, M.U.L.E. ... too many good games over the years! Which is not a complaint :)

Over all, all time favorite... Hexen II I think atm... the lack of a Hexen III is disappointing (and no, Heretic II didn't make up for it - I like my atmospheric first person games).

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jacob Saltband wrote:

Question for all us oldtimers.

How do you do traps in your games?

Personally I think traps should be DETERRENT (meaning mostly deadly or barriors to continue) rather then a bump in the road (a charge or 2 from the CLW wand and you get some xp). I might give a quarter xp for blundering into or purposely setting it off, also traps that get set off might also set off alarms. You have to have some type of knowledge (trapfinding, disable devise, craft trap, etc) to be able to recognise that that odd something your perception check noticed is actually a trap. As others have said, traps should be in places that make since (secret passages, actual dungeons, etc).

These are some of the things I do to make traps more meaningful.

I use traps where they are appropriate. Traps have a function dependent on the desires (and ability / resources) of those who set them. They may be deadly, they may confine people, they may slow down pursuers, and so on. They shouldn't be insignificant unless their purpose is simply to harass their victims. Or the people who set them were incompetent :D

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't care when, or if, they release a new edition. I use what I like. Period. If you are in an organized play set up this matters. Otherwise, no. That goes for both WotC and Paizo btw :) It will be interesting when Paizo decides on a revision / new edition...

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Prince of Knives wrote:

Wait, wait. Why did the amount of deaths decrease after the XP thing was shifted? XP is awarded for overcoming challenges, not for icing monsters/people. Those solutions shoulda given XP anyway and thus been equally viable.


You're correct.

I use XP myself. I never found the math to be a problem. Other methods work fine for other people I'm sure. As for why I use XP, I don't run APs, so the "story line" isn't set in stone. Encounters differ from trivial to brutally hard. Sessions may include few "encounters" / obstacles or many. I find experience points easier to use. It covers overcoming obstacles by any method, not just combat, and it is effective in handing out rewards appropriate to the level of challenge. In short, it works for me.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Another sale. I have been looking for an unarmored / priest type class. Thanks!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This thread is really... comfortable :D It's nice to read posts that fit your experiences and gaming style. I'm in Bakersfield, California myself.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:

Kender? KENDER? Ugh.

As to dragonborn, they're the "PC gone mad" race. Seriously, a reptile race with mammaries is about the dumbest thing I ever saw.

Drow and tieflings.

All of the above is making me think Next might be "D&D, Annoying Player Edition".

Still going to give the mechanics a shot, even if I have to 86 half of the races published.

It's not like you have to use all races. Several are going to be options in the DMG iirc, not the PHB. They're just covering all the possibilities. I'd rather have them do that than leave standard races out for later books...

But yeah, I can miss Kender, Drow (as a PC race), Dragonborn, and Tieflings. Warforged too, but I'm pretty sure they show up in the DMG.

The DMG sounds interesting btw, kind of a combination of an old DMG and Unearthed Arcana (optional systems etc.).

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:

A half-elven cleric/fighter/mage clocked in at 5/8/5 in 1st edition, I seem to recall...

Half Elf went to 6th level in Fighter and Magic User, high stats could get you to 8th level in either iirc. Cleric I don't recall. They were unlimited in Thief progress...

The level limits for demi-humans went up every edition, from original D&D to 1E to 2E to no limits in 3E. They opened up more classes to demi-humans each new edition as well.

There were classes with level limits as well. The Assassin (in OD&D, 1E), Druid and Monk. I never had the Grandmaster of the Flowers (the 17th level maximum for Monks) but I had fun trying to get there. There were even limited numbers of Monks above 6th level (in OD&D, 7th level in 1E). You had to challenge an NPC to go up and stay at that level. Level limits weren't just for demi-humans in short. In fact you had to be human to be one of them and accept the "limits" in the class. And they introduced classes in which demi-humans weren't limited (Thief).

Demi-humans were the ultimate multiclass characters as well. Humans had a painfully odd way to do it. You advanced in only one class at a time and needed really high attributes to do it at all. Once you embarked on your new class you couldn't "go back" to the old and if you used any class ability from your original class you lost all xp gained for that adventure. Meantime your Half Elf buddy who multi classed in Fighter / Magic User split his experience between the two and leveled up while making use of all his abilities.

There were trade offs depending on what you wanted to be.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I received a notice about it through Marc Miller (I did the T5 Kickstarter). It looks interesting. I always thought Firefly looked a lot like the merchant campaigns we played. Frontier, sidestepping the law (frequently), scratching to make ship payments / upkeep. Of course we stayed the h3ll out of the way of Imperial warships (while breaking the law) and Zhodani too...

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:

Auxmaulous wrote:

Dr.D - you still frequent Aero Hobbies or in that general vicinity?

No longer, I am sorry to say. Of course, now that Gary S. has passed on to that Great Adventure, things aren't the same. I am not sure if any of the ShopRats still play there. I have heard the store is still great place for gaming, tho.

I live in San Jose, but am currently working in Valencia CA. I should go visit.

My brother and I started in June / July 1974. Bakersfield of all places. And I'm back here now after living in half a dozen other states. My brothers game, which he is talking about getting going again, is still original / 1E. He has the later stuff (he owned a hobby shop before retiring), just prefers the older system. I'm looking forward to playing in it. My game is 3.X, starting again after a hiatus soon (crosses fingers). I've been working on some areas (that were still 1E...) and adding some homebrew stuff. Looking forward to that too. Nice to see so many gamers from back in the day here and still gaming.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ShinHakkaider wrote:

LazarX wrote:

R_Chance wrote:

Scott, WotC didn't even turn out a conversion booklet to smooth the transition from 3.5E to 4E like they did from 2E to 3E. .

To be fair, 4E was such a radical departure from the pre-existing d20 structure, that I'm very certain that it would have been impossible to make something that would even begin to fulfill that requirement.

They really didn't try to do a 2e to 3.0 conversion either, and 3.5 to 4 was far more radical a change.

But they really DID do a conversion document for 2E to 3x.

I remember it because right up until very recently I still had my physical copy of it. I just got rid of a bunch of my 3x hardback books including a 3x Players Handbook and this thing was just inside the rear cover.

The conversion booklet made what could have been an immense task considerably easier in moving from 2E to 3E. And 3.5 wasn't even a road bump. My worlds been in play since 1974 though and parts haven't been updated all that recently. it occurred to me to check out what is in front of my players... 1E stuff. Done now :)

As for 4E being different, it was indeed. Too different, which is why I stuck with 3.X instead of converting. Well, that and the fact I preferred 3.X as a game system. 4E was ok, but it wasn't really the same game for me. Now 5E looks to be reasonably compatible (based on the playtest).

Switching is a possibility, just not a done deal for me. I've beaten 3.X into a shape I like and I'm not sure if I want to give it up. Still, there is simplicity going for 5E. 3.X in any form (short of True20 anyway) takes more effort / prep time to run than 5E. That may justify the time it would take to convert (if it gives a better ratio of play time to prep time). If it allows me to run my game the way I want to. It's sounding good. The DMG sounds interesting. Kind of a cross between an old 1/2/3E DMG and Unearthed Arcana (it includes alternate rules such as spell points, adds tactical and mass combat, etc.). The PHB seems to be a pretty complete package (unlike 4Es). They say they have fixed the "monster math" for the MM. I'm looking forward to seeing it all. Amazon is peddling pre-orders for about $35 a pop on all three vs. $50 retail. I prefer ordering from Paizo assuming they carry it and the possibility of ordering from a local shop is there. I'd also like PDFs of the books as well, but the gods know what will happen there.

In any event I enjoy reading Paizo books and will collect the core RPG line anyway, as I do now.

So, we will see what we will see :)

*edit* I still have my conversion booklet. And it's still handy when I run into the odd "uncoverted" / old school area. People have covered a lot of territory in the last 40 years... and they all seem to have different ideas of where to go next and what to do. Keeps me on my toes :D

And, that brings up that this month is *my* 40th anniversary running / playing D&D / PF. June 1974. Or was it July? D@mn. It was that summer, June I think. That's been awhile... but I'm not senile yet! Really! It's just been a long, long time you whippersnappers!

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Diffan wrote:

I converted most of the Prestige Classss from Forgotten Realms 3.5 supplements to Paragon Paths and a few Epic Destinies. I also converted a good portion of magical items found in the Player's Guide to Faerûn 3.5 supplement to 4e items.

Further, I was able to convert some of the NPCs in my games to characters using 4e rules (it was actually easier) and most of my PCs without too much trouble.

I think some people just didnt want to go through the hoops of doing all the stuff for a game they probably didnt initially like.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done. Just that it took more work than other edition changes and that WotC pretty much discouraged the attempt. In the end, if you're determined you can convert from / to most systems. But yeah, the effort wasn't worth it for a game that I didn't find all that compelling.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Snorter wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Every once in a while, I like to make a Traveller character and keep rolling for better stuff until the character dies.

Our Traveller groups always ended up as a lopsided bunch; those who'd used the Mercenary and High Guard generation systems could potentially get 4 times the upgrades you could get from the Core professions, so they'd want to reenlist as many times as they could, in the hope of getting the golden handshake of a free ship in their pension.

So you'd begin the game, and be faced with four murderhobo pensioners, out to blow off some steam, with their laundry list of skills; and that one guy with an ensign who served one term before being dishonourably discharged, with one skill rank to his name, and who was trying to kamikaze his character by behaving like Scrappy Doo.

We did our own expanded generation systems for any profession that didn't have one. Everybody went year by year, not basic. Saved some trouble in terms of character balance that way. Still, the chance of death in character generation did make Traveller character generation uniquely fun. In a twisted kind of way :D

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:

DaveMage wrote:

Jason Beardsley wrote:

magnuskn wrote:
It's extremely unlikely that I'd shift. WotC would have to publish the combined revivification of Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed to make me forget what they did (against the explicit advice of the fans) to the Forgotten Realms. Not to mention that I vastly disliked 4E and that I am very skeptical of their new edition.

To be fair, the transition to 4E was like, their third(?) time they "nuked" the Realms.

No, the comparison really isn't equal. You could use most of the 1E and 2E fluff with all the changes from 1E - 3.x. You could use almost none of it in 4E.

I had zero problems running or playing in 4e Forgotten Realms games using pre-4e campaign materials. I think you probably could have done the same.

Scott, WotC didn't even turn out a conversion booklet to smooth the transition from 3.5E to 4E like they did from 2E to 3E. Iirc there attitude was "don't try". It's why I didn't think about trying to convert my campaign to 4E. Mind you, after reading the core 4E books I wasn't really hot on trying. It looked OK btw, just wasn't my game (I gave my books to a student if you're wondering). Anyway, I guess if you stripped out all the crunch and reinterpreted a lot of the fluff you could do it. Otoh, I don't have any doubt that my 3.x game could convert to 5E if I decide to do it.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

And there's venue. I suspect the 5E adopters are in larger numbers at say... EN World than here. Even the people who breeze by the sub forums about 4E and beyond are, for the most part, Paizo / PF customers. I am. I just plan on buying both :)

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pan wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

Charlie D. wrote:

My struggle with Pathfinder is the Christmas tree effect.

Sadly, 4E suffered from the Christmas Tree effect as well (which sucks, because it would have been SO EASY to correct -- adjust the monster math, keep the powers granted by the item, done).

Hopefully 5E finally fixes the problem...

I hope so too. If 5E bombs I have a feeling nobody will ever try bounded accuracy again; sadly.

I can't see it bombing. The playtest was popular, they seem to be making a lot of the right moves this time and the game played well (imo). It may not dominate the market the way D&D used to but it will be one of the top 2 imo (the other being PF). Anyway, we'll see...

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:

On this subject, one thing that's bugged me when I read excerpts of AD&D material, I see things like 'travels in groups of 1-6' and 'deals 2-12 damage' and find myself wondering... what's the deal with expressing variables that way?

Was it fairly common for people to replace dice with drawing numbered papers out of a hat or something?

Well, it's not like the dice involved weren't obvious and the abbreviations you take for granted now (courtesy of years of 3.x were everything had to be carefully defined) weren't well established then. It was assumed that the range given (i.e. 30-300) would give you the dice used (a d10 x 30 in this case). Of course you could get more complex (i.e. 30d10) but this tended to produce an average amount as opposed to a range. Pre 3.x was simply... less defined and more open to DM interpretation.

*edit* Thinking about it I suspect you could cut the word count by about a third (or more) in a 3.x rules set and have a comprehensible set of rules. I doubt you would have more, or less, disagreements about rules interpretation either. The extra wordage we are so used to now was an attempt to make everything perfectly clear and prevent arguments or misinterpretation. Hence the drive to define every little thing (like dice abbreviations / definitions). I think we all know how that has gone :D

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Diffan wrote:

R_Chance wrote:

I finally read the Mearls interview on The Escapist. I don't know about an "OGL", but some type of license seems implied. That could just be a matter of licensed adventures (like Kobold's) but apparently they want to wait until the whole game is out. Two advantages there (imo), it gives their adventures an open field initially and puts the question off until they see how the games debut goes. Still, we'll see.

I agree. While I'm not a publisher or a RPG expert or designer, I'd probably want to see the full rules and ways in which they interact before starting to write adventures with it.

He mentioned being one of those 3PP designers wanting to get your adventure out the door first. This does eliminate that issue. Hopefully with a better handle on the rules the work that is done will turn out better...

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I finally read the Mearls interview on The Escapist. I don't know about an "OGL", but some type of license seems implied. That could just be a matter of licensed adventures (like Kobold's) but apparently they want to wait until the whole game is out. Two advantages there (imo), it gives their adventures an open field initially and puts the question off until they see how the games debut goes. Still, we'll see.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:

You must be the slowest roller pretty much ever. 3x and 4e combats are painfully slow, with all of the modifiers. In 1e and 2e, the only combats that lasted anything more than twenty minutes or so either involved a huge number of combatants, or used Battlesystem.

From what I've seen, combats will run much faster in 5e.

Speed and simplicity does seem to be one of 5E's major virtues vs. 3.X. I had some huge combats in late 2E. God forbid I try that in 3.X.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't think we ever played strait 2E. It was a 1E / 2E mix. The game worked fine for the most part.

THAC0 was a non issue for me. I had already house ruled a system with no armor as 0. All you needed to know was your base to hit an unarmored character and the AC (ascending, added to base # to hit) and bingo.

Character customization was really about class choice with multi-classing more for demihumans (Elves etc.) than humans. Level limits for non-humans (but those had gone up steadily from the original game to 1E to 2E anyway). The level limits were a trade off for the advantages that demihumans received (infravision as often as not, easy multi-classing, immunities etc.).

Classes did not level up at the same rate. Given the inequality between classes in 3.x I've never really understood why people consider this such a huge issue. Going up more slowly was part of the class balance for Magic Users / Wizards. They were puny / weak / vulnerable at low levels and cosmically powerful at high levels. Now they have eliminated the puny / weak / vulnerable bit at low level, kept the cosmically powerful at high level and let them level up as fast as everybody else. So much for "balance". Thieves moved up fast, Clerics pretty fast, Fighters in the middle and Wizards slowly. And character generation was comparatively quick and easy. Some rolls, some choices and bingo. PCs stories were written in game, not as a back story. It was a shared history that helped make the characters, and games, more memorable for everyone around the table.

Thieves were useful. IIRC, 1E Thieves had fixed percentages as they leveled up while 2E could spread the percentages around. They were not a combat class. They snuck around, climbed, opened stuff and stayed out of the way of combat unless it was a dire necessity.

The game really slowed down in the middle levels and you spent a lot longer at levels 6-10 than now. Those were, imo, the fun levels. Tough enough to survive (if you were smart) not too tough that it was easy.

That said, what attracted me to 3E as a DM was world building stuff. NPC classes, the "it works the same for PCs / NPCs" rules, more comprehensive systems for skills, etc. The relative simplicity of early 3E was a plus, but the massive increase in feats, prestige classes etc. has pretty much killed that. 3.X (including Pathfinder) is, imo, more complex than 2E at present.

My perfect game would combine the two generations (1E / 2E and 3.x) and a lot of my own home brew / house rules are aimed at that idea. Serious nostalgia in this thread... Thanks! :D

1 to 50 of 2,594 << 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.