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

Rexbo's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 11 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


Michael Donovan wrote:

I would like to see not so much expansion or revision of rules, but more high-quality adventures with greater variety of plot, more setting details, more gamemastering tools/templates (e.g., all of the stats for an orc/hobgob/kobold army, from grunt to general) and basically anything that concentrates on the practical aspects of using of the system for play, rather than on the system itself.

I feel I have to agree somewhat with Michael's comments. I played the old white boxed set of D&D, then moved on to the blue boxed-set, then on to AD&D, then to 2nd Edition. When the news came out about the impending release of 3rd edition, I was furious. I had a huge library of 2nd edition material that literally took up shelves in my gaming library. But when 3e was preceeded by the 12-month countdown in Dragon magazine, I became curious. As soon as the core rulebooks were released, I was astonished. My gaming group immediately chose to switch over. Many of us got together to "study" the new system, and with use of the conversion guide, we had our previous 2e characters up and running in the new syatem. Over the next few years, my 3e collection of books, etc. took up shelves of space in my gaming library.

Then came the announcement of 4e. I was torn. I very much enjoyed the 3.5 system that had made some relatively minor changes and felt there would be little 4e could offer to improve on the game. I found myself asking how much of 3.5 needed fixing to warrant an entirely new numbered edition? I remembered my initial reaction to the news of 3e, however, so I decided to be as fair-minded as I could and check out 4e. I played a few games and I DM'ed a few games, and the entire process left me feeling unsatisfied. In no way did I feel that 4e was an improvement over 3.5. Most frustrating of all was the addition of new classes and races at the exclusion of old ones (yeah I know, the 4e PHB2 fixed that). So I asked not only myself, but others, why did WOTC feel the need to bring out a completely different version of the game? One of the answers I commonly heard was that the vast majority of WOTC's income from D&D products came from the core rulebooks. Now, it seems they had reached the saturation point, and were witnessing a decrease in sales of those three books. Releasing an entirely new set of rules would result in the faithful rebuying the core books, and it might bring in the next generation of gamers.

My current gaming group voted 100% to stay away from 4e. We continued playing 3.5, and have been running through the Rise of the Runelords. Once news of Pathfinder RPG got out, we checked both the Alpha and Beta releases, and bought four copies of the hardcover upon its release. We made the agreement to give it a thorough review before changing over, but within two days unanimously agreed that our next gaming session would be with Pathfinder rules.

So to come full circle and return to my agreement with Michael's comments, if Paizo needs to release an updated version of Pathfinder to make fixes to the system, I do not begrudge them that right. If Paizo decides to follow WOTC's lead and release a new edition just to revitalize revenue streams, I will stick with the original Pathfinder system and have a tremendous amount of fun with an outdated set of rules.

Figured I'd get off the PFS in Phoenix thread and start a new one.

I am with the Southern Arizona Gamers Association which sponsors the Tucson RPG Meetup held on the first Saturday of every month.

I am looking at running PFS during the monthly meetings if there is interest.

Of course, if I can get someone else to help DM, I might be able to play from time-to-time as well, which is a good thing. A very good thing.

Sir_Wulf wrote:

I'm in Tucson, but I've been known to hit Phoenix for games. There are others in the Phoenix area who want to play Pathfinder Society adventures, so we can set something up.

I ran Silent Tide and Silken Caravan at Gencon, so I'm good for DMing those two.

- Jim MacKenzie

I am in Benson, but help organize the Tucson RPG Meetup on the first Saturday of every month. I am thinking of running these at each meeting.

Derek Rex

Well, I missed out on the coveted 16XX, and then missed out on any 1XXX. Now the 2XXX have come and gone, but I did get into the 3XXX range!

Trust me, if PFS fulfills the potential I am seeing with only the briefest of glances, the numbers will quickly get into 5 and 6 digits.

Those of us with 4 digits will become the rock stars of the Society. Wannabes throughout Golarion will want to touch our shirt sleeves and buy us free drinks. Lots of free drinks.

Life is looking good.

Hades wrote:

Another question...

Are WoTC now saying that DUNGEON and DRAGON will be online resources that can be accessed, for free, through their website?

I'm not sure. Nowhere have I seen WotC actually say that Dragon and Dungeon will be online. Instead, I see comments akin to "WotC will be moving the kind of content currently found in those magazines to an online model."

I had always thought there were alreasy doing that with some pretty fine articles, background flavor, and occasional adventure seed. Will they expand that?

Sparrow wrote:

I would always go by the bookstore and buy the newest Dungeon and Dragon.

I will not deal with downloads. I like a product that is real, and tangible, and done. Not something I have to print out and collate myself.
I have been with Dragon for far longer than I ever would have guessed... My first issue was #32. I'm going to miss it.

Sparrow, I started with #40. (sigh)

On Thursday night, approximately 7 hours after the announcement concerning the end of Dragon and Dungeon magazines, Phil Lacefield Jr., the Sales Manager at Paizo, granted Pulp Gamer an exclusive interview.

Phil talked about the end of an era, the reaction of Paizo customers, and the introduction of Paizo's Pathfinder.

You can listen to the interview at the following link:

On Thursday night, approximately 7 hours after the announcement concerning the end of Dragon and Dungeon magazines, Phil Lacefield Jr., the Sales Manager at Paizo, granted Pulp Gamer an exclusive interview.

Phil talked about the end of an era, the reaction of Paizo customers, and the introduction of Paizo's Pathfinder.

You can listen to the interview at the following link:


Thanks for the reply and for helping to clear some of this up. I have been spending quite a few hours going back and forth between Paizo and WotC's forums. There has been a great deal of animosity over this decision, and I have not been immune to the profound sense of loss.

I have noticed that between the two websites, there has been a conspicuous lack of presence of WotC Staff to respond to questions. Meanwhile, several staffers from Paizo have been here to bring us enlightment in troubled times. Thanks.

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

Paizo has no decision-making authority in this matter. I've seen this same notion crop up on the WotC boards today, too, and I can't imagine where it's coming from. If we were allowed to, we'd publish Dragon and Dungeon until the end of time. As licensees, though, we're beholden to the license holder and since WotC has decided to take the brand in house and go another direction with the magazines all we can do is look to our future and plan accordingly. We wish WotC the best in their ventures and hope folks will enjoy what we have to offer.

You can only get month-to-month subscriptions to Dungeon or Dragon on as of 11:00 A.M. this morning. We suspended subscriptions greater than one year nearly six months ago. Unfortunately, our in-bag renewal letters didn't get changed and we've had to deal with the customer service side of that mistake.

There is no grand conspiracy here.

It initially seems the decision was taken out of Paizo's hands by WOTC, but with the comment, "the sales of the magazines were not a factor in this decision.", makes it also seem that Paizo had some decision-making authority in this choice. What were the un-named factors that led Paizo to this decision? Was it truly out of their hands?

It is interesting to note that a friend of mine had his Dragon subscription expire with the latest issue. Three days ago, he received an offer from Paizo to renew in one, two, and three-year increments. Why would Paizo offer a 36-issue subscription in April knowing they would only be able to honor four or five? As I type this comment, I notice I can still go to Paizo and order subscriptions to both magazines. This seems like Paizo is more concerned with taking in money now and then figuring out how to satisfy the customer later - not a wise business move.

Oops, let me add that by checking out the current ability to order on-line, I see that one can only get one issue at a time, not an entire year's subscription. Sorry. That still does not address the mailed subscription offer, however.

Erik Mona wrote:
Ikor wrote:

Were the magazines losing money?

Absolutely not. As far as I know, the sales of the magazines were not a factor in this decision. We're actually very pleased with the sales of the magazines, and in particular with our growing subscriber lists.

Here's hoping that enough readers decide to give Pathfinder and our GameMastery Modules a try. We're extremely excited about the new opportunities we'll have with the new arrangement.


We have a handful of rules we have added:

1) Character Generation: We roll 4d6 and take the best three, BUT all 1's are rerolled. So the worst score possible is a 6 rather than a 3. We have not seen a noticeable increase in the number of 18 scores, but everyone generally has a little bit better character.

2) Hit points: Everyone starts at character level 1 with maximum hit points. Each time a character levels, the minimum hit points will be at least 1/3 of the maximum possible for that die. This does not allow a reroll, instead the roll is automatically converted to 1/3. For a d4 that means the lowest possible result is a 2; d6 = 2; d8 = 3; d10 = 4; d12 = 4. This is before any modification for CON Bonus.

3) Healing with Cure Spells: While casting healing spells in Combat situations, the result of the spell is the exact result of the dice roll, as per the spell's description. We have decided that once the party is out of combat, the healer has the benefit of being a little more attentive to details. As a result, we use the same 1/3 rule as above for healing spells. As most cure spells require the rolling of one or more d8s, all 1 and 2 results are automatically converted to a score of 3 for calculation purposes.

4) True Resurrection: We play in our own home-grown world, but we have a deity who has responsibility over the soul/spirit of all deceased individuals (Much like Kelemvor in Forgotten Realms). We decided that this deity does not object to 'losing' souls through Raise Dead spells, etc. As long as the character loses something in return, i.e., a level, or a CON point. We decided that the deity views True Resurrection as a theft of his property (the soul) without a sufficient loss on the part of the recently resurrected individual. The deity does not view the material component cost of the spell as a sufficient loss, even if covered 100% at the cost of the resurrected individual. As such, all characters who receive a True Resurrection spell have one year following their True Resurrection to make a pilgrimmage to the main temple of the deity and pay homage. This does not require that the character convert or begin 'worshipping' the god of the dead. Even Paladins and other clerics are permitted by their orders to make this pilgrimmage. Failure to make the pilgrimmage results in the True Resurrection being 'revoked' by the god of the dead, with the character's body reverting to the state it was in when the True Resurrection spell was cast a year earlier. Any future True Resurrection cast on a character who has not paid proper homage will never work, although all the lesser spells will.

That's it for now.


MongooseMan wrote:

I finally got tired of lurking and decided to participate in the fun today. I am sure that this has been done in the past, but I would like to know what house rules everybody is using...

I'll prime the thread with a couple from our group.

1) If you roll a 1 on an attack, your opponent gets an attack of opportunity, if they are within the threat range. In addition, if you have multiple attacks, you lose any remaining attacks. We assume your weapons slips, helmet slips down, etc...

2) If you roll back to back 20's on an attack. You do maximum possible damage on your critical hit, assuming the creature is susceptible to critical hits. If it is not susceptible to crits, you do maximum normal damage. You gotta honor those 20's or you dice may become resentful!!!

What does everybody else use?

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.