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

Stefan Hill's page

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 2,790 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,790 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
plusonetshirt wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Pathfinder = Pathfinder, they have gone way beyond their 3.5e roots and claiming Pathfinder = D&D belittles the amount of effort Paizo have put in over the years. D&D = D&D (currently 5e). If you like playing Warhammer then I would suggest that 4e might be something of interest to you. The 4e D&D mechanics make it really a very good skirmish level table top combat game that really promotes group play. Pathfinder also has good rules that make it again a good skirmish level table top war-game, but in Pathfinder group play can be overridden by individualism.

Didn't mean to offend, I was just commenting on the similarities of DnD and Pathfinder,and we gave up on Warhammer and anything associated with GW some time ago.

I also want to say I'm happy to see a forum with intelegent conversation..unlike some other game forums Ive seen...

I get what you meant, just the whole Pathfinder is D&D and 4e D&D is WoW has been done to death on these and many other forums. Each of the above games play differently and each has merits based on the style of play. None play like a computer based RPG as none limit the player to a set of pre-programmed options on how to handle a situation.

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying from originally GW is a great RPG, 2nd edition from Black Industries is one of my favourite RPGs full stop.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Pathfinder = Pathfinder, they have gone way beyond their 3.5e roots and claiming Pathfinder = D&D belittles the amount of effort Paizo have put in over the years. D&D = D&D (currently 5e). If you like playing Warhammer then I would suggest that 4e might be something of interest to you. The 4e D&D mechanics make it really a very good skirmish level table top combat game that really promotes group play. Pathfinder also has good rules that make it again a good skirmish level table top war-game, but in Pathfinder group play can be overridden by individualism.

Liberty's Edge

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

I have found that in 1e/2e I used to use the lack of HP recovery after an encounter to help with the pacing and placement of further encounters. In PF for sure CLW have changed the way I design an adventure. To start with it really bugged me, the players were nearly always on full HP's straight after the encounter. The idea of beaten and broken heroes facing the odds and winning through still appealed to the GM in me. Then I discovered 'conditions', I now use those liberally in adventures. It is quite normal for my players to safely have all their HP's but have conditions to deal with. For me at least the HP's resource I see as a static number at the start of any combat, but the conditions my players are afflicted with change the encounter.

If adventuring were easy every one would do it ;)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cap. Darling wrote:
It says a single move action only. And talking is a free action. So no talking.

And fair enough, ever tried talking while throwing up ;)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
The best mass combat for an RPG I've ever used or read through is the one from BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia D&D.

I agree with this if you want abstract. The 2nd ed AD&D mass battle system is a great D&D table top war-game, very playable. Also the system in the 2nd ed Birthright campaign boxed set is worth a look, sort of in between abstract and tabletop.

S.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Irnk, Dead-Eye's Prodigal wrote:

Well, I finally picked up my copy from my FNGS. I haven't had the opportunity to thoroughly peruse it yet, but one of my regular gaming friends also has a copy, so the odds of actually playing a session or three have increased significantly. Being the complete geek I am, I also downloaded all the free PDF's for it from the Burning Wheel site. I am reminded of many of the things I liked about Mouse Guard & Burning Wheel already.

Almost tempted to try starting up a PbP here... On the other hand, I was in a PbP here where we tried using Burning Wheel & some things just don't seem to translate nearly as well in that medium.

As I mentioned earlier, we play over Skype using a web based dice roller. Works perfectly and you loose none of the features of the game. Not saying PbP won't also work well of course.

S.

PS: As soon as we hit town I'm a 3rd Level Paladin!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Torchbearer is a game where you rapidly learn that trying to kill something has the horrible downside of the potential of you being killed. Now that may seem obvious, but after playing Torchbearer it has a whole new level of meaning. You better be darn sure you are going to win. Basically we work on the fact if it is bigger than a human and has pointy teeth a Flee or Drive-Off conflict is best :)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As stated previously the most important thing is to keep in mind the assumptions made when calculating DPR and the fact average statistics works well really only over a large, better still infinite, number of stochastic rolls. Very rarely do we roll an infinite number of attacks in a gaming evening unfortunately.

The outcome of squeezing a few more DPR out of your character is ultimately an exercise in theory-crafting and will unlikely result in massive awesomeness at the table.

Still sometimes fun to live in the world of averages.

Actually on that does any one just play 'averages'? Would actually speed up the combat.

S.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Going back to first edition AD&D padded had a higher encumbrance value than leather, and keeping in mind encumbrance is weight plus difficultly to move in. So really 5e is using the disadvantage mechanic to represent this difficultly to move in. As Blue_Drake mentions.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Mainly because we are a niche best hidden from 'the normals' ;)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

We have been playing a campaign since it came out. Great game. Works well for 'some' of the classic D&D adventures, Ravenloft (I6) has a whole new level or terror under the Torchbearer rules. Scared and hungry and without light in the lair of a vampire, hmmmmm, you do the math :)

My Paladin is about to hit Level 3 - of course leveling means almost nothing in Torchbearer. More an indication that you have survived rather than you are achieving greatness.

Works really well across Skype (the way we play), combat is all theater of the mind.

After playing torchbearer you will never look at a full waterskin on you characters sheets without breathing a sigh of relief.

S.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I agree that as long as the spells are not allowed to have a target of a person it would be a fine addition.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:
Ok, I'm going to take the plunge. When I can make my way to the FLGS I'm picking up the PHB. I like what I'm hearing, I liked most of what I saw in the Basic free PDFs, so Hasbro gets a second chance.

Where houstonderek goes others will follow :)

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What I like about 5e so far is you can't do this:

So much complete loss of control of the rules

I spent 4 years getting a 1st ed. Magic-User to 16 level (playing nearly every lunchtime at school) and I don't think he managed 600 hp points of damage in TOTAL.

I am NOT saying PF is a bad game, just any semblance of in game controls to keep things sensible left by Teleport Without Error several years ago.

For me the huge strength of 5e is Adventurers are cool and do neat stuff but they are still just Folks (as Mal would say).

Liberty's Edge

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

Funny how sometimes you have to choose between keeping your cake or eating it.

Liberty's Edge

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

I hope that a 2 edition is a LONG way off. Backwards compatibility never really works, anything 100% backwards compatible is be default reselling you basically the same game. So a 2nd edition of Pathfinder will make some of the splat books not really useable 'off the shelf'. I don't mind the complexity of PF, with a I want a more rules light system than there is alway 5e D&D.

I am REALLY unlikely to buy PF books I already own just because they changed a few rules and added some new art. I like the sideways thinking of Paizo, the Occult book will be a nice addition for me.

S.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
scary harpy wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
I do like the simple approach of 5e and it does make me think of 2nd ed a lot. But then I think, why don't I just play 2nd ed?

Probably because the 2nd edtion had problems.

The major problem I found with 2nd ed. D&D was it was fun. I found that from 3e onwards they seem to have cured my issue with 2nd ed. ;)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Da'ath wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:

"Werewolf: Damage Immunities bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing

damage from nonmagical weapons that aren’t silvered."

This pretty much sums up what I like they have done with 5th ed. The whole 'if I hit hard enough with a stick I can kill anything' of 3e/PF drives me nuts. I had zero issues with some creatures being almost unstoppable with the players were dumb enough to go against them unprepared. Running away IS a valid tactic.

This retro-rule alone means I will be giving 5th ed. a real good go.

Alternatively, you could just do what I and others have done: ignore the "house rules" introduced by Pathfinder that you disagree with. Pathfinder is just another 3rd party publisher with marketing good enough to convince folks it's somehow better than other 3rd party publishers, after all.

This is going to sound crazy to some - but I don't do house rules, never have. I either live with rules as RAW (and that can be grey enough) or play another game. If I'm going to house rule I'll use a game I have made.

Liberty's Edge

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

"Werewolf: Damage Immunities bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing
damage from nonmagical weapons that aren’t silvered."

This pretty much sums up what I like they have done with 5th ed. The whole 'if I hit hard enough with a stick I can kill anything' of 3e/PF drives me nuts. I had zero issues with some creatures being almost unstoppable with the players were dumb enough to go against them unprepared. Running away IS a valid tactic.

This retro-rule alone means I will be giving 5th ed. a real good go.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I do like the simple approach of 5e and it does make me think of 2nd ed a lot. But then I think, why don't I just play 2nd ed?

If it allows an easier entry point for new players into the RPG hobby, rather than computer based RPG's, then WotC gets the thumbs up from me.

I think Paizo is awesome also, but there is no comparison between Pathfinder and 5e other than they are both fantasy RPG's. They aren't in competition as they don't 'do' the same things, they are merely different ways of telling shared fantasy stories.

Glad BOTH games are going to be on the market.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Digitalelf wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
After reading I am happy and will leave my Amazon pre-order in place.
You're not going to convert over from 2nd edition AD&D are you? :-(

Simply put... No. 5th still suffers from every race can be every class (shudder) and no level limits for demi-humans. Not to mention that demi-human is seen now as a racist term ;)

Can't make a world to play in with any d20 game!

Paladins are Human, full stop. Anything else is pure fantasy, er...

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think that WotC releasing the Basic D&D has allowed me to make an informed choice about buying into 5th, meaning PHB, DMG, and MM. After reading I am happy and will leave my Amazon pre-order in place.

Seems a very nice thing WotC has done. There were lots who complained, including some of my players, that they brought 4th (PHB/DMG/MM set) and thought WTF?! This sux, its WoW on paper, etc,etc...

Read the Basic rules and for ZERO dollars you can decide if the rules suit you and your group.

+1 to WotC from me.

Liberty's Edge

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

Nice, something for free that isn't overly complicated and doesn't assume a combat grid.

I believe they did what they said they wanted to do.

Pleased.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Blakmane wrote:
If you are interested in a featless system that functions OK without a grid, why not try ADND 2e? It has its quirks but still functions perfectly well. It also has some AMAZING splat books.

I agree that 2e is an excellent system. However, the multi-classing etc of d20 is appealing. I likely have played my most D&D under 2e, but d20 for better or worse, is still the flavor of the 21st century (warts and all).

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pan wrote:
Sebastrd wrote:
Hama wrote:
Won't buy, won't play. I will never, ever again touch anything with wizards of the coast logo.
Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

Hello there! I see you have met Darth Hama :)

I can understand a major lack of social capital when it comes to WOTC. The whole "never ever buy something from them again" seems a bit extreme. Companies can change folks. I think its prudent to never say never.

Agreed. Anyone buying Hugo Boss or Volkswagen? If we can get over WWI and WWII I would think that WotC crimes against humanity can be safely swept under the rug.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Terquem wrote:
anyone that is put off by the rendition of an upright walking, bipedal, human sized, Dragon headed, winged (or not), fire breathing, sentient, heroic, weapon wielding, five fingered (with opposable thumb), fantasy character, because it has breasts, is being, in my opinion, a bit ridiculous
Oh, I don't think so. I can easily see a legitimate criticism against the need to put breasts on a lizard woman to pander to juvenile male desires.

We're talking about a fantasy game race. The word "need" doesn't enter into anything.

This is just a case of certain people having just enough suspension of disbelief to allow for owlbears and beholders, but not enough to allow for breasts on something with scales.

As when I started playing D&D so I was literally a juvenile male I appreciated breasts on basically anything. That and chainmail bikinis.

Elmore and Parkinson are my childhood D&D artist heroes.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
AoOs started (more than a decade ago) as a neat way to determine whether a wizard in melee could get away with spellcasting, and to make sure people couldn't just randomly walk past a fighter to get at the wizard standing behind him. This, I think, is something that's fairly legitimate to address.

Much more than a decade ago :)

AoO's were in 1e AD&D, just not called that. Still, I get your point.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lamontius wrote:
wait, OP do you mean playing with out a grid or playing without any physical representation on the table at all...as in theatre of the mind, etc?

Good point. Mean Theater of the Mind indeed. Perhaps figures for marching order but not for combat itself.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cap. Darling wrote:
^ This will force most martials to Pick a figthe level or 2 to get power attack.

Not seeing that as a problem, just a feature ;)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Voadam wrote:

Allowing only bonus feats is one way to go. It takes out a bunch of feats from the game and characters without causing too much of a change to class balance for fighters and classes with bonus feats.

Banning any feats that interact with a grid is another way to go.

I really like this idea, thanks. Only bonus feats and perhaps remove the feats that specifically interact with the combat mechanics at the 'grid' level.

Really awesome advice. I'll likely suggest his to the guys, but I think worth a bash for sure.

Appreciated,
S.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For the record we had the same, if not worse, issues when trying 4e without a gird.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CommandoDude wrote:

Removing feats in any form is going to cause balancing issues, especially if you only target certain classes (ESPECIALLY). And unbalanced classes = people who can't fight as well due to power balance will have less fun.

If you want to transition to gridless combat, that's already made easy in PF because you can just translate everything from "squares" to "feet" and feet is easier to abstract than squares.

Many feats effect 5' or need exact square counts to function 'mathematically' - tumble for example. We have tried RAW without grid but it becomes a nightmare when taking into account 5' steps and responses like Step Up feat.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What do people think about a half way option, removing feats from only certain classes?

Edit: Thinking a little more about this. What about just taking out the feats that explicitly deal with square counting during combat. One goal is to remove the need of a combat grid.

Edit2: Note we only use Core rules (i.e. base classes).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hi,

My group and I have been throwing around the idea of not using Feats at all in our new PF game. Has anyone tried this? Any major issues? Feats add a layer of complication and sometimes trap new players that we were wondering if we could just drop.

Thoughts and suggestions?

Cheers,
S.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Legendarius wrote:
The free 5E Basic Rules PDF due out next month should be a good option for a simple system.

I think this would be a really good safe bet. There will be heaps of support and you could 'grow into' full 5e if you liked it. No cash up front means no risk yet a 'modern' system.

Best of all miniatures play is optional so you can play your way vs d20's/4e's 'thou shall play on a grid' approach to combat.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:


I like level limits. That doesn't mean a game without those limitations is badly designed, it's just not for me.

And this is the truth of the matter. Having grown up writing stories that had their 'reality' inter-meshed with the 1e/2e rules the race/class permissiveness of 3e+ stopped me being able to tell those stories with the same feel.

In 3e+ I had to now modify the rules to disallow Halfling Archmages, and was therefore seen as a restrictive or bad DM. In 1e/2e the rules supported my kind of game. I guess had I grown up with 3e+ I would have a different view.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
memorax wrote:
I feel it adds nothing to the rpg. Just a way to shoehorn players into taking humans. Since the developers were either unable or unwilling to add something unique to human in 1E and 2E.

It really was a D&D "the world is like this" device. The rule was there not because it made the game like chess with everyone having equal pieces, it was there to give context to a fantasy world. In many other threads Gygaxian Naturlism is invoked, and that is likely the best explanation for any of the quirks in 1e and many of those were transferred into 2e.

I guess I just got a little annoyed at you throwing around 'bad game design', perhaps when taken piece-meal it is, but in the whole game of 1e (and 2e) it fits with what the designers were trying (on purpose) to achieve. For the same reasons I dislike the that all races can be all classes in 3e+. That to me is, to use your term, is bad, nay horrible, game design (for D&D). Now we have human, short human, shorter human, and shortest human as playable races...

Horses for Courses and it is cool I agree that we all like D&D so much we spend time debating!

Regards Sir!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Digitalelf wrote:
memorax wrote:
Avoiding any 2E games as a player where level limits are implemented.

Do you know what the level limits were in 2nd edition?

Dwarves, Elves, and Half-elves all had level limits in the double-digits; it was only gnomes and halflings that had level limits as low as 8 and 9.

Did you know that the level limit for an elven Mage was 15th level? If that same elven Mage had an INT score of 18, and the optional rules for exceeding level limits was used, his max level would now be 18th level.

Seems kind of silly to me to miss out on the possibility of an awesome gaming experience just because the DM makes use of level limits...

YMMV and all of that.

Oh yeh. And this... :)

Cheers DE.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
memorax wrote:


-Play with no level limits

Even Palladium does a better job with the fluff on class limitations. Dwarves in their world want nothing to do with magic as they almost destroyed not only themselves but also the world.

I refuse to accept what the authors of 1E and 2E wrote on certain aspects of the game in the books. They are very much not the gospel truth or the one true way to play the game.

(1) Bad World design - explain again why every world isn't ruled by 1,000 year old Elven Archmages and perhaps the odd Human Lich? This is clearly pointed out in the 2e DMG as a reason for the level limits.

(2) Gygax and pals wrote the game, if they thought Dwarfs should have wings they were well within their right to make it so. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 1e/2e also don't have spell casting Dwarfs, so? Bad game design?

(3) Again, the racial thing is specifically discussed in the 2e DMG. Showing the game designers were actually concerned about keeping the limits in place during play. Yet many other things are specifically called optional. If it was bad design why after decades were they worried people would drop the limits?

1e multiple reprints and overlapping with 2e - 2e could have changed them, but just added Clerics in core for all races. The designers involved in 1e and 2e either had a valid reason for the limits in terms of making the game behave as they saw it should, even if you disagree, or they were really dense.

I'm arguing from a point of RAW here, of course no person will be arrested for modifying any RPG rules as they wish.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Sorry I was playing it wrong all those years then.

Never said you were. All I was saying was that 1e AD&D by Gygax et al and the tidy up called 2e was NEVER a generic fantasy game. That was it, end of my observation, no personal comments on your play style past or future.

The authors of 1e and 2e have written in their respective rulebooks why they believe limits are in place, if you choose to disagree with their reasoning then that is up to you. But make NO mistake the limits are there because the authors decided they needed to be there to make the game (called D&D) as they saw it should be - they are not an error or bad game design.

Liberty's Edge

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

One thing I enjoyed about 2nd edition was the players I played with, and their attitude towards the numbers. As in, they didn't care about the numbers. People around me were happy with a 15 or 16 for their highest stat. Now if you don't have a 20 or 18 in a stat, people say your character is crap. It was a sad day when my group broke apart and I had to go into the sea of unknown people. And ever since 2003 when they revised 3rd edition, I only come across people who care about the numbers first and foremost, and they might come up with a character. They may even write a 2 sentence backstory if I am lucky!

I love the Pathfinder system, but I miss that feeling of playing with other people's characters, not other people's numbers.

I get what you mean. But I don't think the problem is people can't, just that you need to put a lot of time, into the so called System Mastery, to have a character that doesn't suck in 3e+.

I think in 1e/2e class was more important than stats (not that stats didn't help of course). So your character was rolled and ready to go in a short time and you knew it 'would work', under 3e+ if you aren't careful even with good stats your character could actually not be that helpful to the party.

S.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
memorax wrote:

I completely and utterly disagree about a lack of level for Demi-humans as being a good thing. The explanation given to me always felt like the 2E devs liked playing humans. So to screw over someone wanting to play a Demi-human level limits were imposed. 3E is far from perfect. Good bye and good riddance to leave limits. Nor will anyone convince me otherwise. Any 2E game I'm running while have no level limits. Avoiding any 2E games as a player where level limits are implemented.

Yeah, that was a bad feature. I get the intent, but it didn't really work. You get to play the more powerful character now, but then you'll be crippled later.

Fair enough I suppose, if you're playing the kind of old school game where the thrill is the challenge of keeping the weak character alive long enough to earn a powerful one, but pretty useless in other styles. We'd usually just make a guess how long the campaign would last and pick a race class combination that would work the whole way. If you're stopping at 8th level anyway, who cares if you're limited to 9.

My emphasis - 1e/2e wasn't a generic fantasy RPG it was D&D. Never intended for 'other styles'. Like saying my screwdriver is really bad because it won't bang in nails.

By level 9 or 10 you were 'Name' level. Also remember that the common population was running around with 6-8 hp and really awesome castle may have a unit of 1st level fighters. High level fighters were reserved for running taverns it would seem...

3e+ changed expectations not only rules. Adventurers were truly special in 1e/2e - now the local lute player (say an Expert level 8) could beat the snot out of a low level fighter.

With 3d6 for stats the average is 9-12, that means classes like Druid, Ranger, Paladin etc made up a VERY small proportion of PC's and NPC's a like.

Comparing 1e/2e and 3e+ is rather silly (IMHO), COMPLETELY different games in terms of both mechanics, play and feel.

S.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lucien Malgus wrote:


Well, the kits from the complete books were an attempt at adding a specific flavor to whatever class you were going to play. Some were more miss than hit, and some were interesting.

Have you seen the 'official' apology from the author of the Complete Elves book? Worth a look on TubeYou.

That was an apology LONG in the making!

Agree with what you say about kits and why we dropped them. A 1st Level 'Witch' could have a Rope of Entanglement...

Now having said that we found in Al-Qadim the kits (and modified classes) worked really well - or so we thought. But the Complete books, no so much.

Liberty's Edge

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


Save or die poison and effects.

While simple bad luck could result in a death, raising people (well except Elves) was possible (-1 CON afterwards). Such effects did mean thinking was sometimes involved at the table rather than only during the character generation step.

Liberty's Edge

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


Also, anybody who says that 2E was fun because the combat was FASTER than 3E was probably not playing it RAW. Unless you are possibly comparing playing without mini's in 2E to playing with minis in d20 and counting the set up time.

But 2e by default didn't use miniatures, 3e+ by default does.

That aside.

I prefer 2e IF you play core only. The Complete books and the Options really didn't add anything that seemed to improve the fun of our sessions.

My only issue with core 2e, and this has been pointed out, is a high strength Fighter using Darts machine gun.

I would say the initiative system of 2e for me is the best yet implemented by a D&D game. Added uncertainty each round and made tactically round to round decisions mean something.

3e+ allowing every race to play every class and have unlimited progression completely destroyed the D&D feel for me. Gnome Paladin! Give me a break. In 1e and 2e very good reasons are given for limits and advice NOT to change them. Arguing those limits were wrong is like arguing Gygax got the average height of an Elf wrong...

D&D was NOT a generic fantasy game, it had its own flavor independent of any setting.

S.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Not overly worried about the setting. We have used 1e Greyhawk (1986 boxed version) for every edition including PF.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Logan1138 wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:


I do not understand to idea that if it isn't current it isn't playable?
For some, the issue is finding enough other people. Sometimes it's just much easier finding people to play something current.
This. I would LOVE to play 1st Edition AD&D again but it is pretty difficult finding enough people to play it face-to-face because I don't like gaming via PbP or VTT. This is why I am pretty excited about the possibility of being able to play the currently supported version of D&D again (I don't like 4th Edition nor do I like Pathfinder); hopefully it will be easier to find gamers to play with F2F using Basic D&D.

Understood. I have still a few old friends around. Actually I was thinking you know you have old friends when they start to die of natural causes. Bit of a worry.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
I like playing a currently supported game because the new releases keep my enthusiasm going and spark ideas. It's true I can play older, out of print games, but I dont find myself remaining enthused by them once I've read the sourcebooks if there arent a few upcoming titles to keep me interested.

And that is cool. I guess, and please correct me if I misrepresent you, you more like the books than the game? I hope that makes sense. I understand this. I have many RPG's I will never play but the ideas I find interesting. But as a game, I don't really care about the system unless I think it gets in the way. Rolemaster's combat system for example - calculators and books of tables weren't my thing. AD&D's more abstract approach sat well with me.

I find that movies and books (including comics) usually give me enough ideas without needing company sanctioned source books. I guess this comes from living thought the 2e time period where the term splat book was taken to the n-th degree and then some. Source book overload.

I still haven't used each and every monster from the 1e MM as an adventure hook. So even taking into account 1e/2e I'll die long before the "Products of My Imagination" run out...

I have ensured enough game writers have a cosy retirement. Sorry Paizo staff you will need to fleece the internet generation, not me, to get your 3rd or 4th Ferrari!!!

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Rathendar wrote:

I feel old now because i both remember and played all of Shinhakkaider's and Houstonderek's listed games above.

Thanks Guys!

/cry

Ha I ran a game of Rolemaster last night.

What you mean us you are still making up characters you started in the 80's... ;)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sunderstone wrote:
despite the fact that I miss 1e/2e dearly.

Given you can buy both these core products new (or really cheap 2nd hand - and in some case in better nick than any 4e/PF book) why don't you just get a group together and play either 1e/2e?

I do not understand the idea that if it isn't current it isn't playable?*

I give everyone my word that the CIA or FBI will not (at the urging of Hasbro of course) arrest you for playing an out of print game. And you can quote me.

*I am assuming that games are face to face. Perhaps wrongly.

1 to 50 of 2,790 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.