|
|
|
|
|
jreyst's page
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 1,713 posts (2,544 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.
|
He ran a tweaked version of Keep on the Borderlands called Caves of Chaos. We got in and killed a bunch of stuff but ended up taking a bunch of heat and had to make a break for it near the end. Bruce was really cool and very helpful with the rules and he made sure to remind everyone that if you wanted to do something just say what you want to try and not to think too much about the dice or how it will happen mechanically.. which is really helps with immersion into the game, at least for me. Monte Cook was running the table right next to us but I was too engaged in Bruce's game to spend too much time spying on Monte's table lol
Dennis: I played it at D&DXP and liked it a lot too. I agree it really has an old-school feel to it. I can't really say much about if it will appeal to the more tactical/miniatures oriented players since the "module" we were playing was very rules-light. We didn't get a chance to make up characters or even really LOOK at the rules other than what was represented on the character sheets provided. We did have a nice perk that the table I was at was being run by Bruce Cordell and boy I can tell he is a fan of old-school style games too. I also agree the "skills" were very streamlined.
In Sean's defense, I took his TLDR to mean, "for those of you who don't want to read the long stuff above, the summary is..." not "I'm not reading your posts."
Sean K Reynolds wrote: What I really need is... ...Pathfinder 2.0 in which you all can have the freedom to actually fix things right instead of layering band-aid on top of band-aid on top of gauze on top of dirty old layers of other bandages.
I picked the Union Station hotel uhh because it was close and neat.. in that remodeled train station sort of way. I have no idea if I'll regret it or not though!
I sat and refreshed the page every 30 seconds from like 11:55 am until Noon. Got in, reserved two rooms and all set. <-- Happy gamer!
Woot! Woot! 4-day badge purchased and rooms booked at Crowne Plaza at Historic Union Station! COME ON ONLY 198 DAYS TO GO!
I can't go into details because of the NDA but I can say that if you are a fan of older school gaming, that approach seems to be very do-able in D&D Next.
I played at a table run by Bruce Cordell. Our table focused more on the "theater of the mind" type of play whereas Monte Cook ran a table right next to us and while I didn't see too much I'm under the impression his game was more tactically-oriented. The game ran fast and smooth and I saw lots that reminded me of older editions and little that reminded me of 4e.
This may sound vaguely familiar to some of you...
For every 3 sessions a character has been played he adds +1 to the groups "Teamwork Pool." Any character that has contributed at least 1 point to the pool is considered a member of the team and may draw points from the pool but may not draw more than he has contributed.
For every 10 points in the pool a team member may perform any one teamwork feat once per session. This does not reduce the number of points in the pool.
A team member may add a bonus to any d20 roll he makes, or that affects his character, equal to the number of points he "withdraws" from the pool. Reducing a teamwork pool in this way reduces the number of points in the pool available to other team members and may reduce the number of teamwork feats a team may perform.
Teamwork pools refill at the beginning of every session.
I like the idea of rewarding PCs that stick together over an extended duration. Some players like to swap PCs every other session and having a built-in reward system for longer-term PCs who gain benefits by knowing each others strengths and abilities seems like a nice way to handle that.
Oh, err, yeah, sorry, in that case, for purposes of PFS then yes, any legal character should (has to?) be allowed.
I forgot we were talking about PFS here.
Because GMs put in far, far more effort into a game (preparing between sessions, figuring experience points, creating unique npcs, magic items etc.) I consider defining what is, and isn't part of the gm's world, part of his creative license and right. A GM saying there are no gnomes in his world, even if they're in a core book, does not make him a douche or a mr. meany-pants. He's defining the feel of his world.. or at least that's a right we extend to GMs in the groups I generally play in.
Jiggy wrote: That's a real disservice to your players and the campaign. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but it's about them, not you. In games I gm and play in the GMs enjoyment of the game is important also.
I agree with Jerry.. they will almost assuredly NOT be expending any actual R&D effort into correcting mistakes. At BEST this will be a simple reprint of a decent quality PDF they have left over.
My requests would be that the books do NOT include any sort of corrections or errata (which I'm quite confident they won't) and that they be printed on the exact same type of paper and be bound the exact same way... since my existing 1e PHB, DMG, and MM are currently in better condition than my 1st printing Pathfinder Core Rulebook.. and my 1e books saw years of heavy usage prior to the advent of the internet whereas my Pathfinder book has only been lugged about in my laptop bag to sessions and conventions a few times.
I'm going to D&D Experience next weekend and will be playing in one of the preview sessions as well as attending a seminar and I am on the mailing list to participate in the playtest. Now while I am extremely interested in seeing how this system will be built, if it doesn't come with an actually usable open license of some sort it's a non-starter for me. I might play in someone elses campaign if they run it but I won't run or promote the system.
want
This is one of the things that bugs me as well... saying that a race gets proficiency with all weapons with their name in the name of the weapon... and then creating weapons explicitly for members of that race but not putting the names race in the name of the weapon. Look at the Gnomes of Golarion book too.. same thing. Why not just say "Race X gets proficiency in all light smashing weapons" or "Race Y gains proficiency in all two-handed slashing weapons" or something. Would seem easier to me and wouldn't require that future designers have to remember to name their weapon after the race to make sure they're proficient with it.
Why not just say all orcs gain proficiency in all simple and martial weapons that are slashing (only, i.e. not weapons that are bludgeoning AND slashing, just those that are only slashing.)
It hasn't happened yet lol
Yeah I talked to Gary on FB last night. There were some unforeseen circumstances that delayed its release but for folks looking for Pathfinder Modern I don't think you're going to get it in e20 since that doesn't have Combat Maneuvers or anything else uniquely Pathfinder, whereas Modern Path does.
No problemo Kevin!
Oh wow... missed that! Ok well I suppose mum's the word! Sorry gang!
I doubt they'll have NDA's for everyone playing in the preview games and attending the public seminars... lol
I'll be sure to report back here and on d20pfsrd.com what I think of the seminar and the preview game.
I'm going Saturday and will be in the seminar and then in the afternoon "next iteration" preview game.
Anyone else going?
Nothing personal and no offense but I too never read the fiction posts. If I had my way every day would be either new crunch or explaining/fixing existing crunch but I'm very crunch-oriented.
I'd like at least one blog post per week dedicated to fixing or discussing known poorly worded or mechanically designed aspects of the game, such as stealth and other things that are very frequently talked about/complained about. I'd like an ongoing Design & Development blog as a SEPARATE blog that is all about cutting edge "fixes" to well-accepted broken elements of the game. Then one could use things proposed in that blog in an ongoing playtest for things that might go into a .5 or 2.0 release eventually. Sort of a rolling playtest of possible fixes/tweaks for future releases. Instead we get EXTREMELY intermittent posts about these sorts of things which are then forgotten for months at a time (see Stealth.)
Just an idea.
By the way, I was interviewed last night for the Bamf podcast and we discussed Modern Path a bit. The purpose of the interview was to talk about the Mutants and Masterminds SRD site (www.d20herosrd.com) but d20 Modern and Pathfinder came up so we talked a little about Modern Path as well. The recording should be posted today or tomorrow according to Mike @ Bamf.
By the way folks the GRC team are such strong supporters of Open Gaming that they regularly send me, unrequested, their new products and specifically ask me to post them to the SRD. I'll be adding this but it will be at least a month before I can get to it though. If this product sounds like your cup of tea you should check out http://www.d20modernpf.com/ to see the full base rules then come back here and click the Add to Cart button :)
Lot's of awesome super hero art by the artist Storn A. Cook is being added to the site today. Storn Cook graciously gave permission to use his art and I think it really evokes the super hero feel don't you? His art is scattered throughout the site (the ones without the creative commons logo) so check 'em out!
Fiendish Dire Weasel wrote: I think making skills and knowledge about what your fighting an important part of a combat is highly important. It gives smart fighters an advantage and makes those knowledge skills worthwhile. Agreed. Otherwise, why bother ever investing in Knowledge skills?
Our group always has the GM roll knowledge checks for all PCs immediately upon seeing/detecting/encountering a monster/creature. Those who make their checks (of the appropriate sort, depending on creature type etc.) know the creatures type. Depending on how much the check exceeded the DC determines how much additional info is known. If an Inquisitor does not have the appropriate Knowledge skill to recognize a creature enough to know its type he better have a friend who does and shouts out to him "Its a DEVIL!" (etc.)
Glad to be of service! Spread the word!
Umbral Reaver wrote: If you really want to play Mutants and Masterminds that badly, why don't you just ask your GM to run that instead? Why not either say something helpful/constructive or if this subject doesn't interest you just not say anything? No offense intended, just curious why people feel the need to respond like that.
Fraust wrote: Would love to, but I imagine by the time I get my hands on a copy most of the work will be done... We have already extracted, formatted, and linked the text. All that needs to be done now is to claim a letter of the alphabet then start copying and pasting html out of the extracted file into new pages on the site.
Interested? (i.e. you don't need a book)
Matthew Winn wrote: Oh man, how did I miss this?!?
*runs off to check it out*
Heh :) Just in time for lots of updates I posted today too!
jeremy.smith wrote: And we're going to be hiring someone to do the layout, rather than having me, with my limited skills at layout, doing it. May I recommend Chuck Wright from Frog God Games? He does layout for them AND (last I heard) was looking for a j-o-b.
Paizo was a 3rd Party Publisher but is now Tier 1. Total sales should not be the determining factor in what you and your group will or will not use. The quality of the content should be. So many 3rd Party Publishers put out content that is AT LEAST as good as Paizo stuff that people REALLY need to give some of it a chance. If you're open to the idea but don't know what's the most balanced or well done, just ask on the boards. I'm sure many people will be able to agree on a few that have a solid reputation. I personally have a few where I like their stuff better than Paizo's.. I feel its better designed and more thoroughly tested. I won't go into who I favor since that's not what this thread is about, but the point is simply that people really need to check out the 3pp stuff out there before blanket no-no'ing it. Heck, if you want some free previews, many of them have content on d20pfsrd.com. There's not much risk in free. If you like it, give it the green light in your campaign and set your players free to start buying some of their stuff. After all the more 3pp out there making stuff for Pathfinder, the longer you and I get to continue enjoying new stuff in the game system we all love.
The idea is that a player of a paladin who serves both Sarenrae AND Torag (long story) wanted to make it for a dwarven barbarian party member. I'm trying to determine what you guys think the cost would/should work out to be. The numbers I have on the sheet are nothing more than my notes and thoughts. I'm just curious how others would cost/price that armor essentially.
Hmm not sure why that link above is displaying like it is.
Let's try ONE MORE TIME!
Ok, that looks better. Now, does anyone have any thoughts on the cost of this custom item?
RAFIKI!
Exceedingly cool pics:
Royal Naga
Penanggalen
Dandasuka Rakshasa
Tataka Rakshasa
(I'm only up to the R's...)
Easy. I googled it.
Shield Other wrote: This spell wards the subject and creates a mystic connection between you and the subject so that some of its wounds are transferred to you. The subject gains a +1 deflection bonus to AC and a +1 resistance bonus on saves. Additionally, the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks (including those dealt by special abilities) that deal hit point damage. The amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by you. Forms of harm that do not involve hit points, such as charm effects, temporary ability damage, level draining, and death effects, are not affected. If the subject suffers a reduction of hit points from a lowered Constitution score, the reduction is not split with you because it is not hit point damage. When the spell ends, subsequent damage is no longer divided between the subject and you, but damage already split is not reassigned to the subject.
If you and the subject of the spell move out of range of each other, the spell ends.
Caster #1 (let's say Bob) casts Shield Other on Alice. Alice gets +1 def. bonus to AC and +1 resistance bonus to saves. If Alice takes damage, Bob takes half and Alice takes half. That much is easy.
Now, Caster #2, Carl, casts Shield Other on Alice. As stated, the bonuses don't stack since their the same types of bonuses. I'd say that if Alice takes damage, half goes to Bob (caster #1, the first caster) and half goes to Alice. Then, the second spell comes in and halves it again so that Carl then takes half of what Alice just took and Alice takes half again, effectively meaning that Bob takes half of the overall damage and Alice and Carl take 1/4 each (dividing the remaining half between them.)
I missed your second question about dying. I'd say that if one of the participants dies then they effectively move out of range. They are no longer "there" effectively.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote: I'd love someone to produce a good trap or riddle, with game mechanics, every day. This +a lot. Every time I want to try to add a good puzzle or riddle to a session I go on a massive search online that always ends up with the same old tired riddles and basically no good puzzles. I want game-oriented riddles or puzzles... hell I don't even care if there's a new one every day, just at least a few really good ones would be good enough for me.
|
|
