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

Vojtech Pribyl's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 1,675 posts. 13 reviews. 2 lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.



1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just second the notions to make the Warpriest a Full BAB, d10 HD class. Alignments other than LG and CE are lacking in the divine warrior department.

A question is if the class really needs to have the spellcasting. Wouldn't it be better if the class only offered Domain-like powers and channel energy?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

likified ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually there are even colors you can only se with darkvision or ones that you can't see with darkvision.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I remember playing level 7 clone (soldier/elite trooper) in a group where everyone except me was a force user / jedi and I don't remember feeling week (okay, I specialised heavily on blaster rifles to the point where i rolled something like 5d12 with burst fire without penalties). I think I could take on any one of them and come on top in the end and I could also work explosives and do a lot of commando work and some piloting.

Jedi might be easier to make powerful, but in Saga it wasn't overwhelming.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I noticed a problem with barbarian statblocks. Those who use composite bows have the damage listed with raging strength, and yet their attack without rage have the bow with the same attack bonus.

Either the bow should have lesser damage bonus or the attack should be decreased due to insufficient strength to pull it... unless the barbarian has throwing returning bow...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That wouůd definitely be nice, even if it was just a web enhancement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yoda to the dark side went. Palpatine defeated wanted he, but not for goodness. Planet dagobah full of terrors controll he wanted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But they make the settings so irresistable!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that it's more likely that PFRPG 2.0 will be compatible with current rules and somewhat keep ties to 3E, than not. If nothing else it would keep older modules relevant and thus allow new system to have access to a large amount of scenarios from the start and it would also keep the older material more attractive to buyers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Breaking his stuff would also make paladin really unhappy...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yoda totally hates horses and dogs. Have you ever seen a horse or a dog in the galaxy far far away? No? That's because the goblins have won there and by eliminating their mortal enemies they have managed to reach full maturity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that the main problem with the dragonborn and their ilk was, that they were suddenly pushed as a common race to all settings. Even those where they weren't so common at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, you can sell only what GM is willing to buy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Have you tried Skeleton Bombs (Classic Horrors Revisited)? +0CR! Killed skelly does d6 piercing damage equal to it's HD within 10 ft of it Ref DC 10 + 1/2 HD for half damage.

Just mob the party with them and wait for a channel energy or something like that ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aehm... not that OGL label has anything in common with the fact that a game is D&D like, or not.

It merely announces whether the license will allow others to freely use the rules. It says nothing about the nature of the rules themselves.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hag coven... three hags take a full-round action and 20 by 20 area is force-caged. Not that it must trap the party within - they only need to block them in a tunnel. Repeat to block escape, and start spamming at-will bestow curses, charm monsters and baleful polymorphs. Suffocate debilitated heroes in renewed forcecubes and cackle manicly. Takes some time, but it's ultimately frustrating on unprepared players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's say that they were lvl 3 warriors (Hey! At least twice as tough as common man from the start), lvl 5 pally is a great hero among them and Ogre (especially ogre warrior 1) is terrible adversary...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Telling tall tales was sort of a popular passtime in meadhalls, wasn't it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Problem here is that current editions allow superheroics and some people like that and some don't, which is fine.

Hp cap and some other strategically placed handbreaks would allow the players to keep the gaming style as deadly and human-like as they would have wanted without forcing the players who don't want to be restrained that way to play more invulnerable characters. But lo! The human limits crowd wants the number bloat as well without challenge escalation? What for? E6 has already shown that a cap system that wrks fine for this. Why should the D&D throw the superhuman abilities out of the window when it's already proven that they can be restrained pretty easily?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alternate crafting system.

Inherent bonus system.

Developing magic items (those that grow with heroes).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So the fact that the part of the players didn't like 4E is their fault rather than designers not determining right what their audience expects/wants?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ralantar wrote:

The OP voiced his feelings and I have to say I agree with a lot of it.

Personally though I'm going to add I hope 5e is a flaming bomb of epic proportions.
So much so that hasbro liquidates WoTC and sells off all of TSR's old IP. Or at the very least looks to sell WoTC along with the licensing. I would love to see Paizo scoop up Forgotten Realms, Krynn, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Planescape.. etc on the cheap and give them a home where they will be appreciated and taken care of instead of strictly milked for profit above all else.
Many will think this harsh, but the fact is WotC lied, repeatedly, to our faces. They swore up and down on their forum that they had no intentions of releasing a 4th edition anytime soon. Not 2 weeks after their repeated denials they suddenly announced that 4th ed was coming soon and well into development, and it was)
Couple that with them driving away a good portion of their creative staff, changing worlds not to improve them but for the sole purpose of reselling them, clamping down on their licensing, defaming their existing fans and the previous editions, canceling subscription magazines.. etc etc..
They have shown themselves to be poor and damaging stewards of the DnD brand in my opinion.

I'd prefer to see Paizo focused on PFRPG and Golarion, they are doing grat and it'd be shame to dillute the talents to multiple settings that could perhaps receive only mediocre support. If the settings went to different 3PPs it could be, but I doubt that they'd generate enough money by themselves if they weren't damn good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Terquem wrote:

Often I am not as eloquent as I should be.

My argument about monster powers in 4e was not meant to be, “It does not make sense.” Rather it was meant to be, “It is unnecessarily cumbersome, therefore making it more difficult, for someone with my simple minded approach, to implement.”

That is to say, for me anyway, I would prefer a system that does not require me to ‘look up’ a monster’s powers in a pinch and instead work out a random encounter, ‘on the fly’, knowing that a particular monster though having a different AC, HP, et al, behaves like a ‘Fighter”. I suppose that is I am trying to say that a less developed form of the game is sufficient for me and that improvements, of any kind, should be very easy for me to manage.

Consider me confused - everything negative you just typed applies far more to 3e, and all the positives apply to 4e. 4e monster building is all about having a very basic shell and adding powers or things you think are interesting. 3e is all about looking up specific powers and spells and exact stats and scaling them precisely to the right level and adding feats and etc, etc.

I'd certainly like to see a list of powers and how do I implement them to the CR. Is that a part of the 4E core? Is the power X equal in strength to power Y, so I can swap them? If I make my own power, is shifting 3 squares worth...

There is a good part of this missing from the game. Perhaps it's part of the DDI tools, but i consider having to pay a subscription fee just to have a complete set of tools a bit foul play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We all know that in-game economy is a can of worms. Ye olde magic shoppe, weapons worth king's ransom...

What if we split resource pool used for equipment and treasure?

Equipment pool would be a resource that a character could invest in items and would represent personal attunement to items, technically inherent bonuses, but still separable from the character and renewable. This thing would be new WBL and work with magic item rules.

Treasure would be material wealth that would work with gold a character cna find and allow the PCs to purchase things like castles, consumables and living necessities, helping to create a somewhat believably working system.

Thoughts?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

We dragged our dead bard through the desert for about three weeks to resurrect him. Well, we really could afford only reincarnation, so we suddenly got a nice little kobold... so we sold our loot, spare organs and parrents to slavery to have him cast a wish on himself to change to human again.

The wording of the wish was: "I want my body back in exactly the same condition as it was three days before"

*Kazzap*

Stinking bard cadaver lies on the sandy ground.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I don't need more power. I want to do something different. I want to play, but not to repeat exactly the same. That's what keeps me happy, not the fact that my well built old character is garbage if compared to my new character. I want to take an old AP and play it with new a character without breezing through. I want to take a core character and not feel underwhelming in a new AP. You think I'm alone?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WPharolin wrote:
Zmar wrote:


For goodness sake! Does that really have to be THIS long :D
Not at all. Originally it was much shorter. I made it longer because I wanted to be as clear as I possible so that I could avoid the undue criticism of people who misread it (the final version will be edited to be clear and as short as possible). The feat does need to be more thorough. It needs to handle more than one circumstance. There needs to be enough flexibility for this to be usable on any sort of character without automatically destroying the games verisimilitude. Intricate abilities, like taunting, DO require longer instruction manuals to prevent stupidity like Antagonizing little girls into melee.

For brevity I'd actually prefer if the feat just forbade the attack on another target (or penalized it heavily, like immediately becomming staggered and concentration to cast if the psell didn't target the antagonizing character/monster).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can anyone sum-up the problem with the Geisha for me? I think I'm failing my perception check again.


©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.