Saurstalk's page

You have an interesting angle. I have to say, I've seen a dozen suggestions on how to improve metamagic, including some of my own contributions.

If anything, the message to Paizo should be to fix the damnable feats to something simpler and easier to use.

I've added a House Rule to my campaign:

1. Monks are trained in all Simple Weapons (and may use the melee weapons as special monk weapons).

2. Monks may take on any 1 of the Weapon Groups listed under the Fighter as special monk weapons. Then, as available bonus feats, the Monk may take Weapon Group Proficiency and select any one of the remaining Fighter Weapon Groups (per feat) to add as special monk weapons.

No complaints yet.

Smaller thumbnails, or at least different ways to view your downloads, between current thumbnails and lists. IZA GOTZ A LOT OF DOWNLOADS!

I'm not Paizo. But I believe that the answer is that this is NOT part of your subscription. You will have to order it separately. HOWEVER, if you are a subscriber, your subscription discount applies.

I think that one thing we'll be seeing is the Pathfinder AP series giving us the occasional bonus the OP is asking for. Haven't really seen it yet, save the Red Mantis PrC, but the AP strikes me as a perfect dispensory for bonus classes, races, feats, and spells ... or class variants. (I'm a big proponent of the latter.)

[moved to Pathfinder RPG forum]

Krome wrote:

mmm very very very interesting. ANd Monte is a consultant for PfRPG...

"Mmm," indeed. I wonder if you might just find a little bit from the Book of Experimental Might work its way into the Pathfinder RPG beta...?

You are a TEASE.

Athletics (Climb, Jump, Swim) Strength Based

Acrobatics (Balance, Tumble) Dexterity Based
Perception (Listen, Spot) Wisdom Based
Stealth (Hide, Move Silently) Dexterity Based

Let me add some:

Deception (Bluff, Disguise, Gamble) Charisma Based.

(Gamble is another godsend from d20 Modern.)

Discipline (Autohypnosis, Concentration, Endurance, Run) Constitution Based.

(Granted, this turns some feats into skill checks, but I'd also like to get rid of all the +2/+2 feats, and honestly, if you wanted to keep Endurance or Run as a feat, they could simply be rewired to be Skill Focus feats, i.e., +3 to the feat.)

Handle Animal (Handle Animal, Ride) Charisma Based.

(It seems that the various issues that are more Dex-based in Ride could go to Acrobatics. Alternatively, I'd like to see Pilot included. Then, that could work for Ride, Drive, and Pilot.)

Investigate (Investigate, Research, Search) Intelligence Based.

(Investigate and Research are courtesy of d20 Modern. Honestly, d20 Modern has a slew of skills that I remain perplexed that we don't see in D&D.)

I see your point. Perhaps, I can see Diguise fitting in a larger Bluff skill.

Bluff and Disguise should most certainly be rolled together. You could go with Bluff as the namesake, or change it to Deception, which I prefer.

I think Paizo is handling this well with both electronic and hard copy approaches. I know that I'm a customer of both and use both mediums regularly. To what extent Paizo wants to expand the electronic version, who's to say. But what Paizo is doing is what I've been calling for for some years now ... and I'm greatly pleased to see that they've listened. WotC on the other hand. Oh well.

The Nirvana Dragon prompted this issues as it looks a heck uva lot like a dragon from the MacFarlane dragon series. What better way to compete with WotC and build a broader base than to also expand into miniatures with a manufacturer whose miniatures dance in quality are D&D Miniatures.

Heck, for starters, just take the dragons that MacFarlane has already put out and go from there. And it doesn't just have to be dragons. Gods? Demigods? Giants? Runelords? Hero Packs?

I don't know if MacFarlane would be interested (or Paizo for that matter) ... oh, but what a marriage that would be!

After the works were rushed off to the publisher last week, he posted that he'd be returning here to the Boards after a week of recuperation.

I don't know whether he was planning on giving us some heads up or no, but if so ... please please do.

The "problem" with save or die is whiny players. Ironically, most of my gamers LIKE occasionally dying...they get to run monsters then. It is a nice change, and helps me out considerably.

I had this happen in a campaign. One player played the drow assassin hunting down the remaining heroes. Hate to admit it as the DM, but he did a FAR BETTER JOB playing a vile drow assassin than I ever could have.

BTW ... no one survived.

No pressure Jason. :P

I guess what I'm trying to inject is that yeah companies like Paizo and Green Ronin are in it for the love of the hobby but so are most of the staff at Wizards.

Surely, there are people at Wizards and Hasbro who are profit driven. That's their job. But I agree - I suspect that much of the staff is not.

Just because you work for the man doesn't mean you are the man.

To do so that company has to sign on to the GSL, which as I understand it, means that the company can never publish 3.x products, nor quit 4E to return to 3.x products, and most importantly WOTC can cancel the license with the company to publish 4E products.

This in essence means that by agreeing to support 4E, a 3PP can have its business closed by WOTC. WOTC can cancel the license at any time for any reason, and if they do, the 3PP cannot even go back to publishing 3.x material.

I don't read it this way. If a company creates a 4e product line and loses it due to cancellation of the GSL, it has to kiss that product line goodbye. It isn't restricted from creating a new product line. HOWEVER, a company cannot double dip by having a OGL product and a GSL product line. It's a tight fancy dance. I agree that there isn't much incentive to join the dance under a 3PP ... unless 4e really takes off.

But the way things are, there's nothing to stop a 3PP from riding 3rd edition a while longer just to see what happens with 4e (and its 3rd edition sales).

In my campaign, it comes up ... and if you fail your save - you die. Move on. I just don't get it.

Hecks, we found that at higher levels, it was becoming a bit easy to fail your save, die and get raised. So, we added a spin: Will to Life Save. Will Sv. DC 10 + No. of Times You've Died.

A few characters have actually decided not to come back from the dead. No player has complained.

In our campaign:

Natural 1 = Automatic Miss. Natural Fumble. If we use the critical fumble deck, then a card gets drawn. If we don't have the critical fumble deck, then it tends to be the DMs call.

Natural 20 = Automatic Hit. Automatic Critical.

Natural number beyond 20 that falls within the critical threat range = Automatic Critical . . . assuming it hits.

Second Roll = "Confirmation" = "Critical Hit" = Instant Kill.

We've had no problems thus far.

To each their own, I would say. However, the four reasons you shoot down Pathfinder seem rather easy to fix in your own home campaign. For myself, I'll be doing quite a few house rules with Pathfinder - primarily carry overs from 3.5.

Obviously, one problem Paizo faces is to reinvent 3.5, but not so much that you can't pull out a 3.5 splat book and drop it into the game mid-session (with minimal adjustment).

That said, allow me to comment on your complaints.

1. No More Multiple Attacks.

I like this. Star Wars Saga Edition (SWSE) took this on, and added multiple attacks via feats. It took a while to get used to, but in the end, it streamlines game play massively.

2. Make Saves or Dies Weaker.

Sorry. Don't connect here. IMO, classes already have impressive saves. Also, Paizo runs the risk that if it were to re-invent this system, it may not be so backward compatible.

3. Cap Power Attack at 5.

Not sure what this is intended to fix. For consistency, i.e., combat expertise, sure. But on the other hand, I really never understand why combat expertise was capped. (Feather in your cap for this feat that gives a boost beyond defensive fighting.)

4. More Feats.

There be lots of feats out there. Feats upon feats upon feats. Between Pathfinder and all the splat books that exist, I think you'll be satisfied. If you want to widen your horizons, go to d20 Modern, where there exist feats for nl unarmed combat. And I think dueling does exist. (Also, check out Dragon Mag. Lots more feats there.)

In the end, I can understand the issue of "why bother" with Pathfinder. I'm not here to convince you to bother. Only - aside from the saves perhaps - your complaints are already addressed, or relatively easy to address in your home campaign.

It sounds like the biggest hurdle we're facing here isn't the rule, but rather those who abuse the rules. Remember, this is supposed to be all about having fun. If we spend all our time and energy stopping up loop holes, it could stifle game play.

But then again, I've been fortunate to play with reasonable and rational gamers. My players don't abuse the rules. Likewise, if something seems imbalanced, my players tend to be open to house ruling restrictions . . . even at their character's detriment.

I guess that's where the conflict between roleplaying and rollplaying occur.

Paul Watson wrote:

The Beta will be a book by itself that will not need the SRD to play. It will combine the Players and DMs Handbooks, so you'll still need to look elsewhere for the monsters, admittedly.

Mostly correct. The Beta will indeed be a self-contained game that won't require the SRD/core books to play. HOWEVER... we did have to leave out some elements; some of the spells and magic items, for example, and all of the SRD prestige classes. And all of the monsters, of course. The final game WILL have all of this stuff in there (and it'll be a maaaaaasive book as a result!), but for the beta if you want to include prestige classes or some of the "missing spells," you'll need to use the SRD or the core books. Or wait until we issue addendums or something like that to the beta that DOES include them.

But the Beta itself is indeed a closed and complete system in and of itself, yes.

Was Jason able to get the spell lists squeezed in? I know he wanted to, but he was fearing that his final string of sanity might snap in the process.

BTW - I'm up for the one core book, instead of +1. If you have a good binding, it'll last. By the gods, I have books of 700+ pages that I reference regularly (at work) - and they are hold up well.

Given the wikipedia entry, there are 10 positive, 5 noncommital, and 5 negative responses. I suspect that the breakdown of types of responses may have been configured to give the purchaser a sense of more positive than not. (Marketing.)

I'd like to know what the original polyhedron's runes implied - either to disprove my theory (i.e., the Eight ball is a rough and accurate translation) or otherwise to enlighten me.

I'll be ordering Revenge of the Kobold King from Paizo. (Any discount for your loyal subscribers?) Hope springs eternal.

I guess that the problem is that I spend way too much time here. I'm looking for stuff to keep me here - updates, downloads, snaz.

Yes, the messageboards are clean.

Yes, I like the store.

But I want more than a business website. I want a gaming website. Either I'm missing some critical links . . . or I'm not.

I have a large collection of portraits. I get an idea of what class/style I want to play, then pick a race. I go through that race's portraits. I find one that gives me a look I can identify with . . . one the kicks my imagination up for a personality, style, and perhaps a background. I work from there . . . adjusting my perception as the rolls for ability scores play out.

Since for some of us subscribers paizo.com is our FLGS, it would be great to receive a copy of the FRPGDay product in our June shipments.

Wouldn't it?

Just saying,

No pressure or anything.

:)

Alas, I have a FLGS here in town . . . but one that is not participating in Free PRPG Day

Why? WHY? WHY?!

I think it's been established that 4e isn't better - only different. Yes - certain aspects may be better, but others are worse.

Two links that I check on regularly for updates are Goblins and Order of the Stick. Wouldn't it be swell if Paizo entered into a relationship with the artists and posted the latest comic here (with links to each artist's personal site)?

Tatterdemalion wrote:

crosswiredmind wrote:

... and the threadcrap postings continue to flow.

Yep. But they'll go away quicker if we ignore them :)

No, sadly it will not. This kind of crap stops when people get banned and not a moment before. I looked over at the Pathfinder boards and noticed a sharp drop in the trolling after the timeouts were issued.

You could always ignore these threads.

I guess one question is how much Paizo wants to get behind or offer support for 4e. I can't really see much impact by splitting the boards as the OP suggested . . . unless by doing so, it diminishes Paizo's MB capacity for its own product line boards.

Actually, I'd add one spin to Quick Start Adventures. That would be to have at least one available for free as a .pdf download.

Of course, that said, I think the critical component is finding a way to draw people to Paizo's website in the first place.

Maybe some "spell packs" would be a good idea for quick wizard NPCs: Something as 6-7 different concepts with 2-3 spells per level would be more than enough for a "1-encounter" wizard. If you want a full-fleshed out one, then you'd add the missing spells.

Blaster
This wizards just likes to blow things out. He might be an elementalist, a war mage or just a generalist wizard who happens to be prepared for battling today.
1 - Flaming hands, Mage armor, Magic missile.
2 - Acid arrow, Flaming sphere, Web.
3 - Dispel magic, Lightning bolt, Fireball
...

You know - this is a grand idea. I am definitely in support of something like this. In fact, I'd expand it to recommend spell packs for all spellcasters. Obviously, some classes should have more than 1 spell pack available.

brent norton wrote:

Are we getting a DM screen? If not PLEASE.

If there are plans for a DM Screen, please make it Landscape and use heavy. One of the things I thought I read somewhere was that the 4E screen from WotC was going to be of a thickness similar to that of a board game (I believe Monopoly was the example given).

Good DM screen, easy to transport, unfold, and easy to decipher. Yes, please.

Yep—we have to protect them to maintain the watermarking. Normally, this is something the publisher would have to correct, but since it's Wolfgang, and since it's easy, I've fixed the bookmarks.

You can download the updated version for free at your downloads page. (If the file shows that it has already been personalized, you'll need to repersonalize it before you can download the corrected version.)

Thanks Vic. You can disregard my e-mail which raises the same question that you answer here.

Just use half BAB, whatever the classes are.

That's much easier to use, for characters and monsters.

That's how I'm currently house-ruling it.

The reason I ask is because the bookmarks on the .pdf aren't linked to their respective pages . . . which sort of undermines the .pdf's usefulness.

I spoke with Mr. Baur, and he assured me that he hasn't protected KQ3. So, the only other source I can think of is you.

If you did password protect it, please either undo that, so that I may link the bookmarks, or otherwise, please correct the bookmarks, so that I may re-load the .pdf.

If you did not do so, then I am at a loss. I do not know how to "unprotect" the .pdf.

Help?

Erik, your post seems to confirm what I suspected - and that there isn't anything too radical occurring between Alpha and Beta. Jason had hinted on giving us a post after his brain recovers. Can you confirm whether this post will include any 'solid' changes for playtesters to begin incorporating?

It may also be that they delayed because they knew if they released the GSL earlier, it would severely damage initial sales. I certainly would not have bought the set (even out of curiosity) if I had seen the GSL first.

Which brings up an unanswered question - who leaked official .pdfs of the core series in the first place. Anyone find out?

I think someone on these boards suggested that it was a way to drum up support prior to release. (I certainly haven't heard any admissions from WotC on this.)

Now that we’ve seen the rules and the licensing, are they worth the hassle of even bothering to use 4E? Why not pretend it doesn’t exist, like the first Hulk movie?

My opinion - however limited - is no. But it isn't always about the quality of the product. Marketing can do wonders. VHS v. Beta? Anyone?

The point with the GSL is that 3rd party publishers need not decide today, tomorrow, this year, or even next.

Changing gears - I reiterate my plea for Paizo to find ways to draw in new gamers beyond us current loyalists. Be the next White Wolf, West End Games . . . or Wizards of the Coast. : )

Last, is it just me or does WotC seem to be setting itself up for a TSR fall?

I finally took a more comprehensive look at the GSL and SRD.

WotC's lawyers did a pretty good job covering the company's butt and keeping the lid on Pandora's Box, while letting some of what's within trickle free - controlled, or at least with the semblance of control. (Policing this license is going to be a bear. I suspect that WotC won't be overly aggressive. Instead, the GSL covers their arse should they seek enforcement.)

My sense is further solified that WotC perceives that its brand name is strong enough to draw third party publishers in who want a piece of WotC's pie . . . no matter how limited that piece is.

And I also assume the restriction on 4e core monster entries is to keep a lid on slight variations to core creatures (as is the restriction on variances alone). (Not sure just yet how this will work for monsters with class ranks.) Still, this wouldn't stop someone with creative genius like Paizo's to come up with their own monsters (and classes).

I also suspect the hoops and hurdles will keep people from moving in too much into the module adventure grounds that WotC is staking out . . . having learned from 3e that it is a money maker. (Hence, the cancellation of Paizo's Dungeon (and Dragon) license were foreshadowing.)

That all said, I am really glad that Paizo didn't jump on the bandwagon. I agree with Paizo that 3.5 remains a good medium for roleplaying. (And the OGL for 3.5 is a lot more 3rd party friendly.)

It remains to be seen whether WotC's plan proves to be a chokehold or conducive to growth. But it also remains to be seen whether Paizo's strategy will hold profit in the 4e years to come. (Hope so.) Of course, if Paizo should decide to change gears at some point in the future, it will continue to have an avenue.

But did I hear Baur right that he's leaning to staying with 3.5e? It may have been an inference, a hint, a suggestion, or the hours of hard labor speaking. Or I'm simply reading into this as I want.

"They Sue Regularly"

With Wizards of the Coast growing at an explosive rate and beginning to nip at its heels, Williams and TSR began to squeeze the life out of the very market that had supported it. Rather than attempt to grow the marketplace and win in competition, Williams instead tried to banish everybody else from what she apparently viewed as her private domain. Under her management the company began to ruthlessly enforce its own copyrights along with a few it didn't even have (such as a claim that nobody else could use the word "dragon").

It also became incredibly hostile to everyone, especially its fans. As the Internet exploded onto the public consciousness in the early- to mid-90's, Dungeons & Dragons players naturally brought their chosen hobby online. TSR followed them, issuing dozens of cease and desist orders that shut down fan sites. The company even tried to prevent D&D fans from discussing the game in chat rooms and on message boards, earning the derisive nickname: "They Sue Regularly."

The company was hostile to its fans, business partners, and even former associates that didn't have much clout with the company. TSR became infamous for micromanaging its licensing partners, with draconian licensing managers that dictated everything that a licensor could do, from the color of a box to exactly which piece of licensed D&D artwork the licensee would be forced to use. Even Gary Gygax himself wasn't immune. When Gygax created a new RPG system with Game Designer's Workshop called Dangerous Journeys, TSR sued him for copyright infringement. The case was eventually settled when TSR agreed to purchase all rights to...

Need I say "Foreshadowing"?

Actually, this sort of one-sided agreement doesn't really surprise me. In my line of work, if you are holding all the cards, then if anyone wants to play ball, it's by your rules . . . and preferably with the least amount of work on the cardholder's side.

It makes sense if WotC thinks it's the leader of RPGing and 3rd party independents' survival hinges on playing ball.

I imagine that from a business sense, WotC anticipates that, even with the adversity many players have against 4e, eventually the majority of people will come over to 4th edition. Moreover, if people aren't happy with 4e and outspoken against it, WotC has probably written them off already.

So, again, it makes sense.

Depends on if you become accustomed to using a laptop at gaming. While I'm still a paper and book fiend, I keep all my character sheets in .wpd and .doc form on my laptop. So, currently, I print before I play. But it's not necessary.

Oooh...shiny!

I must say, that's some fine looking legal work there.

Not worth my time reading.

Okay. So who's going to make one of those for us?

My question exactly. Hello, Crystal Caste??

I played in the Living Force Star Wars RPGA campaign. In one mod, a player came to the table with an 8th level character whose total BAB was +1 -- love that multiclassing!

He was a great player and character, too. Contrary to some opinions, combat optimization isn't a prerequisite for fun roleplaying.

That was this guy to a T. Not the greatest combatant, but his inability to dedicate himself to one path of training was played to a T . . . and incidentally - matched the player's path in life to a T as well.

Ummm. My bookmarks don't work. Help?

I'm sure this was discussed before . . . but because I'm ignorant, I'll ask it again: Why not just use the standard advancement formula . . . at least as a base for medium and slow advancement? Or turn the standard advancement as the medium.

I think Paizo is really putting the customer first by rolling everything into one book.

Since the beta isn't going to be released until August, will there be a update for Alpha 3? It doesn't have to have everything, but major changes like the changes to combat feats or any others you can think of? I only ask because its just over a month and a half between now and the Beta release, and out of date material makes playtesting slightly less useful, as it gives you less accurate feedback. It doesn't even have to be a full PDF like the Alphas or the Beta, Just something noting the major changes to the rules.

And keep up the good work.

Jason did announce previously that after he allows his brain a few days to recover, he'll give us a post.

If I understand the rules correctly, you can only "dip" into one other class, though. Right?

I'm looking at some of my favorite characters - one was a guy who simply had no clue what to do with his life. So, he dabbled. He tried being a rogue, a bard, a psychic warrior, and eventually a sorcerer.