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. 2,770 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,770 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Andoran

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...

Andoran

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.

Andoran

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.

Andoran

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).

Andoran

4 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.

Andoran

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.

Andoran

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.

Andoran

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.

Andoran

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 ;)

Andoran

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.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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

Andoran

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.

Andoran

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).

Andoran

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.

Andoran

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.

Andoran

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.

Andoran

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!

Andoran

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.

Andoran

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.

Andoran

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.

Andoran

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.

Andoran

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.

Andoran

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.

Andoran

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.

Andoran

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.

Andoran

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.

Andoran

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.

Andoran

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!!!

Andoran

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... ;)

Andoran

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.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The only people I need to support my current game are the people I actually play with. We still play Star Frontiers now and then for Zebulon's sake!

The internet has, for good and bad, given everyone's opinions a wide audience. Those who fail see that others may hold a differing opinion are always going to cause issues.

So in my opinion...

If I was to meet some of the posters in RL to play a TTRPG they would be:

1e = houstonderek
2e = digitalelf
PF = Paizo staff
4e = Scott Betts

Why, because I think these all of these people LOVE there chosen favorite game. And that in my opinion is ALL you need to have a wickedly fun time with ANY TTRPG.

Ladies and Gentlemen it pleases me to say we all seem to be arguing one central commonly aligned point... Pen & Paper RPG's are awesome!

Although it does seem at times we are arguing that Blue is better than Green... ;)

Andoran

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

As my only two 3pp works I own are Liche Lords and Dragon Lords by Mayfair games for 1e, I am not really worried about any sort of OGL.

3.5e/PF/4e having such a formal reliance on miniatures in play turned me off seriously adopting any of these games. I learned my D&D under 1e at High School were we played at lunch time (about 40 mins game time). We managed to play many adventures from TSR during a year due to the game not having a formal miniatures structure making combats much longer.

OGL never was something that made me want to try d20, it was more that it was the 'latet' version of a game I really liked.

My point... DDN doesn't assume miniature play so I am interested in having a bash and even if there is zero 3pp publications it won't influence my opinon of the game.

It is a tricky one, with the relese of the old D&D's from WotC all editions are sort of current. I know retro-clones have been around for a while. But why would I play those when I can buy a brand new copy of 1e?

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I was thinking like the PF beta.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Any idea if the free PDF will be available as a pay print version?

Andoran

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

Well done WotC I say. Good for the hobby, getting people involved for free. Don't care if they then move on to another game, just keeping Pen & Paper RPG's in the public eye is great.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
That table... ugh. It is legendary for its sheer intractability. It's a brilliant idea to make mandatory if they want most people to give up in disgust.

I really am interested to know what you found so bad about it. The character sheets from TSR had space for the modifiers, they only applied to armored opponents, and they made weapons behave differently enough. Under 2e and beyond you can say d4 weapon, d6 weapon, d8 weapon... etc and rewlly that is about your choice. PF added some more fluffy bits but basically still your choices.

The modifiers also made armor or lack of behave as you would envision it too.

Obviously from you post you really think it was a bad idea.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Does it matter? In a level or so your character will be down ye olde magick item shoppe buying something better. Naming magic items in PF is like naming your characters socks.

My point, don't spent too much time worrying. Just choose something that sounds good to you. But unless you have an item not suited for your level it'll be vendor trash in a couple of sessions.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
And remember how multiple rolls make the odds so much worse. If everyone has to roll or even if the ranger and rogue have to roll multiple times, you might as well just attack the dragon.

I completely agree. As DM I would use a roll vs a take 10 when I wanted a little more uncertainty in the situation. Really would come down to if the players were likely to have more or less fun. If they were fully ready or I knew the dragon would parley then roll. If the party was not looking so hot and the players were just a bunch to homicidal manics and take 10 would be an auto-success I would go with that. TPK's are fun for exactly no one...

Andoran

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

The 1e character sheets had a line for each weapon so it wasn't such a pain to keep track of. No where near the seeming endless modifiers of 3e/4e.

I could run a battle from start to finish with players vs a dragon, some ogres, and an angry fish using 1e in about the same time it takes me to write down the initiative order in a d20 game... Modern mechanics, was a definite step in A direction.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:
The new "d&d" logo is horrible, but the artwork is neat.

He tells it like it was gospel!

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
We never bothered with them, but we did use weapon speed factors.

We found trying to understand the initiative system of 1e and weapon speed factors was about billion times more complicated than using the to hit adjustments.

Weapon speed factors were in spell casting and was it surprise or first round attacks?

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I also think that the story progression should be considered.

Random town guard that at worst would result in a quick fight, T10 seems the best option as not to slow down the game with a pointless combat or bluff interaction or whatever. In short the random guard is backdrop not story.

Now the dragon sleeping. Always a roll in my books. I'll assume the dragon is there for a reason and important. Why roll? Because chance/skill now plays a part in the story. Is the dragon deeply asleep or just napping? The perception check die roll helps determine that. The players would be rolling likewise. Obviously the story takes a very different turn if the dragon wakes verses continues to sleep.

Andoran

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

Back in the day where the choices were Basic/Expert D&D or AD&D (1e) we used the full table of weapon to hit modifiers against armour class (when it went from 10 down).

We had a retro-game using 1e AD&D the other weekend and again used the weapon vs armour adjustments. We were reminded how good they were at making weapons different and interesting. For example against a platemail + shield opponent a Long Sword gets a -2 to hit, whereas the Footman's Pick get +2. A full 40% advantage using the pick against a heavily armoured person. The reverse is true against unarmoured opponents.

-7 to hit with quarter staff against platemail + shield!

I really like this. I think unlikely, but I would like to see this as an option in d20 type D&D.

Andoran

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

With the new release of the old 2e, we are playing 2e. Will likely pick up the core 5th ed. But it'll have to be pretty darn good to edge out 2e.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
gamer-printer wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Don't forget your type F or E poison on your darts. Goodbye wizards.
Its funnier to not use any poison, and just watch them vet more and more frustrated as they burn off all their spells as you disrupt them with 1 point of damage each.
Never heard of a spell called stone skin?
Unless memory is not serving me well, I don't think Stoneskin existed prior to 3x. So OD&D/1e - 2e wizards were very much susceptable to dart strikes.

Stoneskin first appeared in 2e. The spell stated that for each stoneskin charge used no damage was taken. This was, and I think wrongly, taken to be that it made the mage immune to loosing any spell currently being cast. Nowhere in the spell description does it say this. All the spells description says is hit or miss a stoneskin charge is used up. So if a claw/claw/bite attack occured then 3 stoneskin charges would be used irrespective of the attack rolls. This meant in most cases actually rolling to hit did not matter. However for a caster to lose a spell they are currently casting all that was required was for them to be hit. It isn't stated (from memory) that a point or more of damage is required.

In short even with a stoneskin spell running if a mage was casting a spell to hit rolls were still made to check for spell disruption even if ultimately zero hit point damage would be inflicted. I say this because no where in the stoneskin spell discription does it state you do not follow normal combat produres, i.e. roll to hit etc.

S.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
John Kretzer wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Don't forget your type F or E poison on your darts. Goodbye wizards.
Its funnier to not use any poison, and just watch them vet more and more frustrated as they burn off all their spells as you disrupt them with 1 point of damage each.

Never heard of a spell called stone skin?

Pretty sure stone skin while protected from damage did not protect from spell disruption. 2e never stated that damage was the cut off point for losing a spell. A wobbly ship deck was enough.

I do know of some groups that did play the Stoneskin was the ultimate in Mage-wear, but we never believed that was the intent.

S.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
lokiare wrote:
d20+mods to beat a target number

Or get less than a target number, e.g. saving throws.

In terms of years 1e/2e still wins hands down in 'years played'. Actually I imagine in 'total number of people played' also.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Terquem wrote:
Personaly I'd like to see a break with tradition and not have a "Monster Manual" at all, but see releases of box sets with loose pages for monsters and their associated pawns (but what am I saying, only Paizo is smart enough to do something like this).

Loose pages in 2e ended up a nightmare. I think failed experiment is the term.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

"Players fight the most fearsome monster of all time in an exciting multi-platform gaming experience"

Really?!

I really think that the saying Lawyers would be the first with their backs against the wall when the revolution comes should be amended to:

Marketing should be the first with their back against the wall when the revolution comes or tomorrow. Which ever comes first.

It is almost like marketing people get educated at schools that teach a major in meaningless phrases rather than grammar!

Looking forward to game, not looking forward to the dribble the marketing department will inflict upon us running up to the release.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
I suppose I have this fantasy about finding the perfect rpg that will run just how I want it to, but the reality is that I've played tons of different systems over the

As the editions of D&D start stacking up I come to realize that I had passed the 'perfect' D&D for me, and that was 2nd ed.

It allows me to play the version of D&D I like, the game 'feels' right, with the classes function as I picture in a Sword & Sandal setting. Really like what they did with specialist mages and cleric/druid spheres.

I find the classes act to have the party work together far more than happened in 3e (solo CoDzilla's or Destructo-Wizards) and not as forced seeming as in 4e.

I like D&DN quite a lot, but with the re-release of 2nd ed. I just can't see myself playing it much.

S.

1 to 50 of 2,770 << 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.