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

memorax's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 2,148 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,148 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Dms who insist that even at level 10 or higher. That players still act like first level noobs. If you think that were just casually going to walk into a room without looking for traps or expecting at least a attack by second or third level guess again. Experience has to count for something. As well common sense. If rooms 1-10 had traps then it's a pretty safe bet that 11-20 will also have traps.

As for items we still collect any kind of item. Yet at the same time I'm not going to fault a player for wanting a better item. I mean if I have a chance to get a top of the line sports car over what I have I'm going to take the better car. I might keep a +1 weapon in reserve but only one. At a certain level it simply loses it's coolness factor imo.

Liberty's Edge

Ipslore the Red wrote:


That would be the ever-reliable seugathi, it seems. Its SLAs don't help, either.

Thanks Isplore this is the creature. What's amazing is that the group that was wiped out managed to total 25 failed will saves. Five members insane five failed sales. With one survivor.

Liberty's Edge

I don't remember the name of the monster. Simply that it has the body of a snake with tentacles on the face. What makes it difficult to beat is it Madness or Insanity aura. Enough failed saves and any pc is permanently insane. Not too much at high level. Yet the monster is apprently a low enough CR to cause a TPK. It happened in a game a few months back. I was not a player yet heard what had happened. Out of a party of six players. Five went insane. The only survivor escaped.

Liberty's Edge

Mackenzie Kavanaugh wrote:


And breaking the game is the only reason players ask for stuff from outside sources.

That's assuming the worst from players. As well as outside sources imo. Pathfinder is sold as being compatiable with 3.5. So why would a player not ask if he could use something from that edition. I usually don't allow it but I don't automatically ban any requests either. To be honest the main reason I allow 3.5 material. Is that sometimes it's simply better and more useful than the PF material. Their rules, feats, archtypes that I would need to be paid at least six figures to take. So much material that is simply not worth the paper it's printed on imo. I had such high hopes for Craft Ooze that I would rather drop out of a game then be forced to take such a bad option.

I'm also glad I'm not a designer on the rpg as well. People demanded that PF be 3.5 compitable. Meaning that flaws in the game had to remain for the most part untouched. Only to find that the same people doing the demanding are not really losing the 3.5 material. A lost opprtunity to fix the flaws.

Liberty's Edge

The dice are a big factor. As well as what opponent they are fighting. My game on Saturday I hit a party of four with a Prismatic Ray. Two players one a pc another a cohort were petrified. Another badly damaged. I admit to adding more hit points and abilites to make a encounter interesting and last longer. As well the standard one monster a room should be changed as needed. I was running a AP. It called for a wizard BBEG then in another room a CR 14 Demon. I had them both team up and altered the encounter accordingly. The Demon betrayed the wizard and it was still a decent fight. Two CR 14 creatures against a weakened group would have been a TPK.

Liberty's Edge

My advice take a look at your players character sheets. See what they can do. Take whatever CR approriate monster your going to throw at them and expect to modify it. Sometimes alot imo. The CR system assumes a group of beginnners who don't optimize. Before I kicked out the Gunslinger from Rise of the runelords game. I had to triple and later multiply by four the hit points off Giants. As he never missed and the player was somewhat of a optimizer.

Liberty's Edge

I wanted to ask Zarzulan if I could use the material in your link.

Liberty's Edge

Thanks Zarzulan much appreciated. I totally forgot that the original was in a big jungle so the Mwangi Expense is a better spot imo.

Liberty's Edge

i'm thinking of running the Shackled City after I finish my current AP. Where would be a good spot to locate it? I'm thinking the Worldwound or Cheliax.

Liberty's Edge

Tangent101 wrote:


@Memorax: What I would do was negate the ability of Gunslingers to use Grit to increase their Touch AC range, and not allow them to use the more advanced firearms. If the only firearm they can use that has a decent range modifier is the Musket, then they're going to have to be within a giant's reach (and thus suffer AoO) to hit that Touch AC.

That's a decent fix. Running Runelords with a player using one. Also somewhat optimized. If I don't double or triple the hp of gaints or large sized creatures they don't stand a chance. I still say if the devs had done a better job with Mythic and optimized the opponents the AP would have been better. With Runelords if I don't the enemies are too damn easy to beat.

Liberty's Edge

The various traits feats, spells that give bonuses against demons. Is not the major flaw of the ap. Most later aps have the same. I'm sure the Giantslayers Handbook has some similar anti-giant imo. The Giants AP I would ban Gunslingers because they will never miss the target no matter how protected. Since they target touch AC which is a low number on giants.

It's that the encounters are designed for new players as usual so even with a group that optimizes slightly the encounters if unchanged are easy to beat. It's also not helped that the Mythic Rules don't scale well either. Being Mythic the AP should have been designed from the ground up to be for experienced players who do some optimization imo. This is not the right AP for a novice player and dm to be running to get into Pathfinder.

Liberty's Edge

Grease is not useless. The save to walk through a area at half speed is very easy to do. As well as the Reflex save at higher levels depending on the type of creatures the group fights. Still damn useful imo.

Liberty's Edge

I can't recommend the Empress Trilogy by Karen Miller. I'm all for strong female characters. Yet as one reads more of the series the main character comes across as a nutcase imo. Infecting one of the make characters with a magical form of a STD. Making him sterile. Just so he does not get someone else pregnant with the Chosen Child. Killing her first child love interest simply because of prophecy and/or she does not approve of his choice. In front of him. With the live interest being pregnant. It's the only series which made me wonder if the author had some sort of mental health issues. Only read if you can find used or receive as a gift.

Liberty's Edge

I still don't understand why they at least tried not to do some optmizing on the npcs. I get that the design philosophy is that every AP has to be for complete noobs to the hobby. Yet in the case of this AP it was a huge mistake imo. It's not the best AP for both a novice DM and players to be introduced to the hobby. Second all they had to was put a disclaimer on every module that said "for experienced players and DMs only". It's bad enough the regular APs suffer from the npcs being underpowered. Im a Mythic one it's asking for trouble imo.

Liberty's Edge

I understand about the feat tax. I despise it so much. Nothing good imo.

Liberty's Edge

I have both and I agree. Though a extra performance per level would be a good addition.

Liberty's Edge

No one is saying that the Archeologist is useless. The archtypes luck ability could be changed to one extra performance per level. Even with a 18 Cha and Extra Performance. That comes out to fourteen rounds up until level 20. Not enough imo. As well Extra Perfromance while useful is not worth taking more than once imo.

Sure if a person takes the feat. Fates favored and Someone else takes a Bard. Too many ifs imo. Not everyone has or uses system madrery. I'm playing one but only because it's better than a Rogue and the group I'm playing in needs someone with Trapfinding. Otherwise regular Bard for me.

Liberty's Edge

At the same time a healthy does of common sense is all that is needed sometimes as well. I don't need a dieticien to tell me that too much sugar and salt is bad for one health.

Anyone with common sense could see that TSR was headed for ruin. The sheer amount of product even at the best of times seems excessive. I knew gamers in the hobby that played FR, Dragonlance and some Spelljammer. Most avoided the other settings. Sourcebooks, cards whatever. Anything they could publish and sell they did. Even at that young age I could see that the hobby simply could not support the sheer amount of product imo.

Liberty's Edge

Don't get me wrong Mysterious Stranger. I enjoy the archtype. To me I would rather play it then a standard Rogue. I do agree that the he rounds per luck increased to +1 per level is needed imo.

Liberty's Edge

Anzyr wrote:


The "fix" was to basically reinvent the game. No one was asking for that. Don't get me wrong the reinvented game certainly attracted people who liked that, but I wanted improvements to the old game, not a brand new one. 5E handles this well and had that been 4th Edition I may well have converted, saving 3.5 for "advanced" play.

Sometimes it's not possible to do it with the existing rpg rules. Look at the PF. Martials still are not as good. Casters are pretty powerful. none of the new material with the exception of the Advanced Class guide really does it justice. Maybe Pathfinder Unchained yet I'm not holding my breath on that.

Palladium Books rules is a good example. no major changes or alterations. They used to be in the top ten alongside Wotc and White wolf. Now their not even in the bottom twenty anymore. No fixes to the rules meant fans left and went elsewhere. One can houserule. Yet houseruling never was, is or ever will be a selling feature of any rpg imo.

I get that some wanted a familiar game. I don't think with Pathfinder it maybe possible without major changes. Unchained may work yet it may also simply not be enough.

Liberty's Edge

Backwards compiability as a defense to me at least is not that much of a reason anymore. More often than even before PF was released. Many DMs stuck with core only for 3.5. At least in my experience at the gaming table and forums. Even here the rallying cry is "core only and not else!". I think for them to make actual fixes to the game they had too shed the baggage of third edition to some extent. Pathfinder kept with 3.5 chassis yet it also came with the same problems as well. Their a point where one can't keep using the same rules if they keep having the same flaws and issues imo. Even Call of Cthulhu 7E while the same has enough new material. That it's not simply a rehash with new art and organization.

Another problem is without any major changes why bother buying into the same system twice. Support of course is a reason. Yet if for example one has the entire 3E library it also seems redudant imo. That's onme of the reason I never got onboard with Hero System 6E. I bought PF which is mostly a rehash of 3.5. I was not going to do it a second time. Given that I had most if not all of the 5E Hero books.

It occured to me that if they had dropped some of the terminology from 4E. It would have been more accepted imo. Gamers saw terms like powers, healing surges and short and long rest. Then lost their minds. Funny though that 5E still has some of the same elements with more familiar terminalogy.I'm not a huge fan of 4E anymore. Yet not as much as PF either. So far alot of the material has been disappointing to me at least. The devs still refuse to find the proper middle ground. Fluff with the right amount of crunch.

Liberty's Edge

Here the thing. It requires as usual to take feat A. With trait B. Then racial ability C to make it work. Where could take a regular Bard. A level or two dip and Rogue without taking any feats, traits or racial abilites and still be better than the Archeologist imo. Even with the combo that Mysterious Stranger posted above. By the time I get that +4 everyone else has the same bonuses. Even with Fate favored my bonus is only a +2. The Oracle and Cleric are getting better abilites then I am. Again it's not a useless ability. It's a decent one that requires certain elements combined to be great.

As a DM it would make my day ifd a player running a bard took that archtype. A regular bard in the right hands can make a inexperienced DM at the table break into tears. With the right feats, traits and racial abilites it can make running a game really hard. Inspire courage, combined with Haste and Good Hope. Having the various Finale spells in reserve. Oh the Fighter failed his will save make it again. I stopped singing and the spell I'm using allows a extra standard or move action your choice. The Archeologist can do that as well. To a lesser extent. I don't think adding a extra performance per level would have made the luck ability more powerful imo.

Liberty's Edge

I can't really fault them for trying to get other fans beyond just tabletop fans with 4E. Every edition with 2E to me felt somewhat like it had computer game elements imo. Having to rest a certain amount of time to get spells back. Certain options being better then others. I know that some in the hobby like to pretend that computer games developers never borrowed from D&D and vice versa but both did. It became a running gag in our gaming circle then whenever we had to stop and rest. "Were hurt and out of spells. Time to click the fireplace icon in the upper right hand corner and rest for 8 hours".

I kind of liked some of the changes with 4E FR. Too many gods with too many similar portfoilios. Do we really need a god focused on the regular aspects of war. The one for strategic. Another for the chaos. Too many high level npcs. That they kind of made powerless in Fr novels on purpose.

To me it goes to show that the fanbase like to say the want change. Yet truly only want to complain and want no change. All the complaints that I hear about 3.5./PF were fixed to some degree or another in 4E. Yet the same people who complained about the problems in 3.5/PF then complained that they actually fixed the flaws of 3.5./PF. Which makes me glad I'm not a game designer and embaressed to be a fan of the hobby sometimes and certain fans within the hobby.

Liberty's Edge

Marroar Gellantara wrote:


That seems bad until you realize that extra bardic performance works on that for an extra 6 uses.

Even with the six extra performances it's stillnit that great imo. A potential twelve to fourteen performances at level 15 is hardly worth the trade. Not to mention if I have to keep taking extra performance more than once. I might as well just take a regular bard. With a level dip in Rogue. The Archtype had a few decent abilities imo. Even then the Rogue talents being what they are as well it's not worth the loss of some bardic abilities.

Liberty's Edge

While certainly not the worst. The Archeologist Luck ability deserves a mention as well. Take the Bard Inspirre Courage ability and make if a swift action. As a self buff. It sounds good. Except one gets 4 + Cha modifier number of uses. So it's entirely possible that a 15th level Bard will have eight uses of a major ability. At higher levels it's simply going to last through combat. Not to mention a loss of all the other Bardic songs. Last regular bRd on the right hands wreaks more havoc.

I just don't understand the design philosophy for some of the archtypes. Cloistered Cleric like another poster has mentioned is a good example. A loss of a domain for some very low bonus and Scribe Scroll as a feat.

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
I think it's really more of an attempt by the 3.x crowd to marginalize 4e than anything else.

Agreed and very much seconded. Their a segment of 3.5. Players in my area that refuse to play it run PF. Thinking it's too similar to 3.5. By that logic then PF is a failure.

Liberty's Edge

I sometimes wonder how they judge whether something should be nerfed or not. To me at least it's very strange. Another example of a bad nerf is the Archaeologist luck ability. If you think the Tea Ceremony duration is short. The luck ability is even worse imo. A 15th level Archaeologist who say only has a 16 cha. Never takes any feats to get more rounds has 7 rounds of ability at 15th level. Seeing how one loses from the standard Bard it's simply too little. Some of the extra abilites are great. Yet cosnidering how poor many of the rogue Talents are I feel like it's a dwongrade rather than a upgrade imo. I can't take talents that enhance sneak attack. As I don't have sneak attack. Other talents are too weak or too situational. I enjoy playing and running the Archaeologist. i sometimes wonder if I should have just taken a level dip in Rogue.

My DM houseruled that I get a extra performance per level. He is thinking maybe two. The only difference is that it's quicker to use and can only inspire one person. That is somehow more powerful than the standard Bard ability. That can affect a entire group. I well played Bard with the right feats and spells can make a group almost unstoppable. Take Gnome as a class and the racial ability of a extra performance per level and one is never going to run out of rounds.

I know they may have wanted to go with a Indiana Jones vibe and feel Except unlike Harrison Ford my pc does not get script and plot immunity guarenting that my character will always survive.

The link to the archtype: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-a rchetypes/archaeologist

Liberty's Edge

I like the books but found the movies much better. So no havoc is not in the " vast vast minority" at all. Seriously people need to stop with the whole "if you don't agree with me you opinion is in the minority" line of reasoning. I don't like liver. I don't say that those who like it are in the minority.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another pet peeve. What is it about Wealth By level that annoys so many dms. It makes sense that by a certain level a player should have a certain amount of treasure and gold. Unless the character is roleplaying a Vow of Poverty.

If I'm starting at level 10. I sure as hell wan more than a rusty dagger and a codpiece. At the very least a good in game reason. And no because as a dm he or she does not like it is not good enough. I'm willing to play the poor adventurer between levels 1-5. After that I want more than just starting money. I try to talk it out with the DM. If that fails I leave. I don't play in games designed for characters to commit siucide when confronting the enemy.

Liberty's Edge

If Rob was at my table as a DM. Right off he would get a warning to knock off attacking helpless npcs. Without a good reason. As well as another warning about his alignment restriction. If he was Lawful Evil then MAYBE I culd see it being within alignment. Even then LE does not mean pyscho killcrazy nutjob.

I had a similar situation minus the player dying in a recent session. Thew player who I shall call "Ted" decided that even if the npc surrendered he was going to kill the npc. Against the others players wishes. To take treasure and xp. As well as metagmaing somewhat as the npc had a ability that was used against us. Long story short the player very grudgingly backed down an let the npc live. Mind you the DM did not help his side with the npc then attacking us a session later. Somewhat a bit of a dick move on the dms part. As I may not show mercy as often if the npcs turn right around and attack.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

To be honest I don't think Rob was screwed over at all. Bad enough he had to one up a player in the group simply for vanity reasons. He then decides to attack a opponent who not only surrender but was also blind. Probably going against his Monk class alignment as well. As far as I'm concerned "rob" got exactly what he deserved. Player actions at the table good or bad. Have good and bad consequences as well. If a player does not want to suffer something negative at the table. It's up to him to roleplay properly.

Liberty's Edge

Again I'm not saying complex rpgs or rules are not popular. I don't think it's as popular as it used to be imo. As for the popularity of Pathfinder some of it is due to character design and the somewhat modular aspect of the system. Some because it's D&D. Which is one of the more popular rpgs on the market. One can't go wrong in writing material for D&D imo. It's also the general change in outlook of the gaming population as well imo. Make a character as fast as possible with the least amount of rules as possible imo. I don't agree with that yet I also can't fault such a philosophy. If there was a miracle pill to lose weight over dieting and exercise I would take the miracle pill in a heartbeat.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:


I think they have a topical cream for that. ;-)

LOL

Having played third edition then some 4E and now Pathfinder. I'm actually enjoying reading my Rifts books again. From the balance and nerfs of third edition and Pathfinder. To set of rules that for the most part tosses balance out the window is refreshing.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:


I'd be really hesitant to ascribe failures (or slumps) in individual game systems to something as high level as rules heavy/rules light.

I think it is a factor a big one imo. I used to just be a fan of rulesheavy rpgs. Over the years I went more towards rules light. I still enjoy rules heavy. It's not my preference. At the same time I think some in the hobby put up with rules heavy rpgs because at the time that was the only thing avaliable imo. When rules light came out being easier and faster and to learn. They went towards that. Look at the market. The main non-D&D rpgs of the moment are Fate followed by Savage Worlds. I have yet to see any new rpg that is rules heavy become popular. I might be wrong and they may very well be. So far I'm not seeing anyone releasing it.

thejeff wrote:


Over the same years Hero and GURPS haven't been doing great, Pathfinder has been growing. And SJG has been supported by Munchkin for years, IIRC. There may well be other trends or internal reasons that explain their decline.

With Hero the 5E of the book is very large. Already some who wanted to get back into the system were frightened away. With 6E they catered just to the hardcore fanabse. With no real significant changes to the system. No attempt to reduce the complexity. Made worse that it became two big books. It was almost like they listened to no one but the hardcore fans. Between the cost of both books.The cost of publishing both books. No attempt to offer much in terms of new material in a new edition. Think a 3.5. to PF. The trend towards rules light games. Vastly overestimating the popularity of the system. Compared to D&D fans the number of Hero System fans imo is nowhere even close. It was a disaster imo waiting to happen.

I think people in the hobby forget. If for example I dislike rules heavy/complex systems. Why would I invest in it another time. If the changes between editions is so small again why invest. Having bought both core books. I returned 6E and am sticking with 5E. More support and no real incentive to switch over. I liked the changes in 6E. The price tag was simply not worth it imo.

thejeff wrote:


Different people will still like each and some will like both for different things. Which games are most popular will change and that may make it look like rules light is winning or rules heavy is, but I doubt it's nearly that simple.

I think to a certain extent it is that simple. Why use the rpg that is more complex. When one can do the same in a rules light rpg. Maybe it's a changing community of gamers. To be honest I don't know. Rules complex rpgs are here to stay to be sure. I just don't see the trend suddenly revering from rules light ro complex anytime soon.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

their the thing. I may not like every rpg on the market. I'm not telling people not to play them. Or assume that because I dislike a rpg then everyone else will or should. Too often in the hobby their is no middle ground. It's the same logic and I use the term loosely. When someone says a rpg will fail because they don't like it. I may dislike some design elements of Pathfinder. I don't think it's going to fail.

While I like complexity it's not what the current or even some of the older generation like imo. If they did companies like Hero Games would be making a profit. As it stands HG is not dead but on life support. There more uodates on 3pp support then any new product. Gurps while still supported by Steve Jackson Games relies more heavily on Munchkin for their profits.

Developers of tabletop rpgs have to go with the trends imo. If it's more complexity then they publish rpgs with that. If it's rules light the same. I don't think were every going to see a return to rules heavy rpgs. I'm not saying they will disappear. Just that for better or worse rules light rpgs are here to stay. Nor can I see a negative. Short of the rules light rpgs not being as comprehensive. Even then I sometimes wonder if they really are rules light. Instead of one big book like Hero System 5E they spread the rules over multiple sourcebooks. It feels lighter because it's more spread out.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:


I guess Pathfinder players who become even more sophisticated can move on to FATAL, using your logic.

Don't mention FATAL ever. Though I get the point. I'm old school as well. 5E appeals to me. I like complex crunchy systems. I also like rules light as well. To me Pathfinder is a mix of the two. Which I like as well. The whole "rpg xyz is dumbed down" is simply someone saying that they don't like the rpg while trying not to say it. It's the same in the hobby when someone goes " I'm not against change in a rpg but" then proceed to really show that they don't liek change. I also wish some would also stop talking for the me and everyone else in the hobby. Just because some don't like 5E or any other rpg does not necessairly mean that everyone else will. I'm pretty sure some old school gamer besides myself like 5E.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:


I'm also 42, playing since '83, and I couldn't agree more.

I used to believe more complexity meant a superior system.

I got better. ;-)

I'm 41 and I like both. Sometimes complexity in small doses can be fun. Then again I'm a fan of Rifts so what do I know.

Liberty's Edge

8FoldPath wrote:


I do see what you are saying, they are still a business and as a result they will need to be treated as such. However business can be conducted in many ways. I feel business is conducted in a way that primarily benefits the customer here. You can chose to spend very little here and still play the game or you can spend lots the choice is the customers. They should get some browny points for that :)

Well at the same time I'm not sure I really should be thanking them for something any smart company does. Giving and having customer service is a must for most companies. Some can get by because of having deep pockets. I guess for me to consider anyone a family member and/or friend it has to be someone I know for a long time. Not someone who sells me a product. Despite my complaints about their product. I do think the people that work at Paizo are good people. At the same time I barely know them.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
I love Pathfinder, but at this point, I have very little faith in Paizo's ability and willingness to balance the game.

Seconded. I like much of their material. They is also a lack of willigness to find a middle ground when it comes to feats.

Liberty's Edge

The only real disadvantage and not much of one for a beginner playing a Ranger is that eventually one has to specialize in ranged or two weapon. Ranged is imo the better choice. It's not to say that a Ranger can't do both. The focus is on one combat style eventually.

Liberty's Edge

I just want to give a big thank you to Greystaff. He sent me his notes asap. Much appreciated.

Liberty's Edge

The problem with norberger is that his alignment is Neutral Evil. So I'm not sure how a character playing a Cleric in a group would fit into a good or neutral aligned group. Thanks for the link TMZ

Liberty's Edge

No Gunslingers. The touch ACs of many of the npcs are so easy to hit it becomes a turkey shoot for the Gunslinger. Espcially if the person running the Gunslinger has no system mastery. The person running the character did so much damage in my games. I was doubling in some cases tripling the hit points to avoid a one shot kill. A dedicated archer is better and is less of a headache for a DM. If traps are a worry I would recommend the Archeologist or Investigator. I find both do a better job of trapfinding then the Rogue does. Or a Bard with a level dip with Rogue.

My only other recommendation is to take a hard look at what the party can do and then at the npcs. Like most APs the npcs are poorly built. So much so that even a party with beginners could easily defeat some of the BBEGS. For example one of them has no crowd control spells yet the pcs are supposed to fight the npc in a enclosed area. As well the human fort occupied by Ogres should be redone completely. Large creatures in a medium sized structure are at a disadvantage. Keep the Ogres outside the fort. Replace with Bugbear, Hobgoblins or Orcs. Not to mention the Ogres in Pathfinder are a rather special lot. Think the Hills have Eyes types. So that may bother some more squeamsih players.

Liberty's Edge

I'm thinking of running the Adventure Path at a alter date set in Golarion. Which god would replace the Greyhawk gods?

St Cuthbert = Iomedea

Pelor = Sarenrae

Kord = Gorum?

Wee Jas = Nethys

Olidammara = Cayden Cailean

Fharlanghn = Desna

Moradin = Torag

Yondalla = Chaldira

Garl Glittergold = Abadar

Anyone I'm missing from the list? Or that others have added?

Liberty's Edge

At low levels and in the hands of someone who does not know what he is doing. Then sure a Wizard at low level may not have as much damage output as a martial character. To sit there and tell me with a straight face at mid to high levels casters damage output sucks. I can honestly say that you don't know what your talking about. Again unless the person running the Wizard is a complete novice to the hobby. Otherwise just with the core I can do so much more than a martial character without their support. Who needs martial support when one can summon Elementals. Who are Neutral in alignment and are unaffected by any of the Protection spells. Magic Missile, Lightning Bolt, Fireball, Cone of Cold, Ice Storm etc.. Casters stink with causing damage at high levels...gimme a break.

Liberty's Edge

I meant no offence Jeff. It is a interesting case study in terms of gamer behaviors and tastes though.

I'm not that huge a fan of 4E like I used to be. I would probably play in a game of it. I'm more interested in 5E. Or even something completely different like Rifts. Though David true feeling about 5E do keep emerging as this thread keeps going on imo. He tries to pass himself as being open minded about yet is anything but imo.

Liberty's Edge

David Bowles wrote:


GMs should prepare and casters should know their spells. That's common courtesy. I imagine there is GM prep even for 5th. Maybe not, though. To me, prepping is the fun part of GMing.

Both players and dms should know their spells and abilites. I find that I could run a 5E with little preparation and not have to worry about it slowing down in play. Eve nwith Hero Lab and a cheat sheet the various modifier in Pathfinder can be a pain in the behind.

Liberty's Edge

David Bowles wrote:
People proficient with 3.X don't have to bend over to make it work. Speed and ease of play only get you so far.

You kind of do actually at mid to higher levels imo. A cheat sheet is almost mandatory imo. As most modifiers don't stack. So if I cast a spell that provides a morale bonus. The cleric with Nobility as a domain can't use his Inspiring Word domain ability as they don't stack. Then their is the various modifiers from spells and items one needs to keep track off. As again similar bonuses don't stack. Take a look at the description for Haste as a spell it's not a lot but enough to remember.

The game slows down when players who use casters don't know their spells. Flipping through the core and various books the delays do add up. One had the same problem in previous edition as well. Not so much as in third edition/PF. Even as a dm having tio flip through books to find out what feat XYZ does slows the game down. Trying running a game frm level 1-20 with players and a dm who does not prepare ahead of time and tell me how fast it goes.

David Bowles wrote:


There are only CR limits in PFS, not PF homebrew. I don't use the CR system at all when I run, because I can do math on my own.

Well CR is a good way to judge if a group of players can fight something. One can also use the throw a powerful monster and hope the players run away approach. Except that leads to tpks and unhappy players.

David Bowles wrote:


5th's organized play rules are quite poor, imo. That's a big obstacle to killing off PF, even if they capture over half the market share

I think your putting too much faith in organized play. Most games unless players and dms can't find players are home games imo. We were running games long before Paizo even had a organized play.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:


Or he could stick to PF.

I assumed as much since he keeps tryingt to compare what 5E can do to PF

thejeff wrote:


3.x did a lot more than remove "onwtruwayism limits". For one thing, it introduced the whole "build game" part of the hobby. Or at least vastly amplified it.

It did make it easier to run the game as well. Their is no CR limits in 2E. Or anything that helps with judging what one can throw at a approriate level party. It seems to me at least trial and error. Which can leads to tpks. Uild" a game that is true. It also added some more complexity to the game as well.

thejeff wrote:


For me, 3.x/PF still feels like D&D, even though there are parts of the system I dislike. 4th didn't. Though it played well enough objectively, without the D&D feel, that wasn't enough to keep me interested. I'm aware that's an entirely subjective feeling, but subjective feelings are an important part of appeal.
5E seems to have the feel again. It's too soon to tell if it'll avoid what wound up annoying me about 3.x and avoided bringing back what I didn't like about AD&D (which I've mostly forgotten, it having been a long time.)

I play PF and dislike some elements as well. It's fdunny because many elements of 5E were in 4E. They just repackaged them differently so hearing a fellow gamer like one but not the other is interesting. Same reason that 4E was less complex than third edition because fans asked for it. Yet with 4E is was not as well received. Now with 5E it is. We really don't know what we want sometimes do we.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:

Some certainly will shift over. Others will stay. Unlike shifts from AD&D->2E or 2E->3.0 or 3.5->PF or 4E, PF isn't going away. Support won't be drying up, so I doubt games will be either. Certainly less so than with previous shifts.

Support for 4E is done though. It'll be interesting to see what happens with its fans. Move on to 5E? Switch to a 3rd part clone? (13th Age is something of a 4E clone, right?)

I think you maybe surprised. The attitudes of gamers have changed imo. gone are the days where a player will bend over backwards to make a rpg system work. They find one that is fast, easy and with relatively small amount of flaws and stay with that. It's the reason why Hero System despite being one of the more complete and flexiable generic rpgs on the market has lot much of it's market share. With Fate, Savage Worlds that while not as comprehensive are much faster and easier to play and run. Gamers with more than one choice of rpg just don't want to put with issues within rpgs imo. It's not just the younger generation as well. When the hobby stops becoming fun and feels like a job most take a hard look at the rpgs they run and play and switch accordingly.

1 to 50 of 2,148 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.