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

memorax's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 2,756 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,756 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

I maybe running a campaign soon and was wondering what point buy should players use to create characters? Any other suggestions?

Liberty's Edge

Hello Everyone,

were looking for two or more players to join a upcoming Giant slayers campaign. The game is going to be held in Montreal Quebec

A few guidelines:

We are looking for players to be at the table. No Skyping or anything similar. We tried it once before and it's not for myself nor my current players

While we understand that players have lives outside of gaming. We expect a certain commitment to the game. We play once maybe twice a month depending on the availability of players and DM. If your unable and/or unwilling to do please don't waste our times and yours.

Our group is a mix of roleplaying with some minor optimization. So fair warning. We are also pretty laid back. We play to have fun and unwind.

Liberty's Edge

Well said Jiggy. IMO both divine and arane have so many things they can do with magic and class abilities. Even in terms of narrative power, they can do so much more than a Fighter.

Liberty's Edge

Steve Geddes wrote:


This is something I'm going to be very interested in watching play out if 2.0 is ever announced.

To be honest I'm not sure if the word interesting really applies. If anything I'm not sure if it's really something that would be healthy to the hobby imo. Too often some in the hobby want to draw a line in the sand and start something. WHile not offering anything productive to the situation.

Steve Geddes wrote:


As I said above, I think there was huge incentive to "change as little as possible" when Pathfinder was first being developed. My expectation is that significantly more people will be wanting to see Paizo adopt a fresher approach approach, this time around. (Though I'm sure there'll be a number who want to continue to use their current PF stuff).

One can hope. I understand and respect but not agree that they had " change as little as possible". I get that some want the fighter to remain unchanged. I just don't get the whole "Giving Fighters more class features ruins immersion" from some players. As I said before if all that takes then they can't really play other fantasy rpgs.

All I know imo they need to offer more changes a second time around. Not a complete overhaul. More than a rehash.

RDM42 wrote:


More than that, I hate the apparent presented dichotomy between those who 'hate change' and those who want to upend the whole apple cart and start over. You can be perfectly fine with wanting to keep the bones and basics the same while revising and changing a number of things. Say another set of changes on the order of first pathfinder from 3.5 level.

You can have both yes. But their more of a incentive to buy something new imo. Then something that remains unchanged imo. If their was no 5E then they could coast by a second time with a rehash of a rehash. With 5E fixing some of the flaws of 3.5. I think some in the hobby will be more critical this time around in the design process. As well if some of the fans dislike the martial/caster disparity a unchanged edition is not going to take them away from 5E.

Liberty's Edge

Bluenose wrote:


I think for some people, giving the non-magical classes anything that is as good as a spell that isn't "Swing and Hope" would horribly damage their preferences. Magic does special things; magic is special; mundane is ordinary; if an ordinary thing is as good as a special thing then that's wrong; therefore anything done with magic must be better than the same task performed without it. So yes, it would have ruined their sense of backwards compatibility and/or immersion to have fighters that aren't one trick ponies with a trick that isn't all that good.

I just seems lile a excuse to not give fighters nice things imo. I'm not even asking for some of the major changes from other threads. Just something that makes them stand out. As it is they really don't stand out imo. At the same time if some of the fanbase hate change then they should say so. Saying that giving fighters more ruins immersion. Means they can't really play other fantasy rpgs. Earthdawn they can't play that because fighters do more than swing and hit. 5E and 13th Age can't play that their immersion is ruined.

A Fighter is a hard sell at a new gaming table. Unless a player wants to keep it simple. Beyond being a easy class it has nothing to really make it standout from other melee classes. Paladins have class abilites and can smite evil. Barbarians get rage powers and rage. Fighters can swing and hit and they get a joke of a bonus from Bravery.

Liberty's Edge

I doubt very much that giving Fughters more than " I swing and hit ". Would have really ruined backwards compabilty for many fans. Now I can accept the devs wanting to be conservative and implementing no major changes. Only to the most conservative minded changing hating members of the fanbase would the sense of backwards compabilty be ruined IMO. Having better will saves and perhaps more interesting class features. I doubt would ruin gamers immersion. Only if they ruin it for themselves. The Weapon Masters Handbook is a tiny step in the right direction. Perhaps too little too late.

As for A 5E version of Pathfinder I don't see why not. Especially if Paizo is willing to support both the current version of Pathfinder and 5E. As I'm pretty certain those who have played 5E are not going to anywhere near another version of 3.5. For some one if the main reason to switch over to 5E was to get away from 3.5.

Liberty's Edge

Good point yet I still don't think it deserves to be considered a Third level spell.
Second at most.

Liberty's Edge

I would have done more than allow them to do more than "swing and hit". Bravery is a joke and very poor one at that as far as I'm concerned. Weapon Training, Armor Training while useful. Compared to what other classes get to me at least it's a huge resounding "meh".

I look at Paladin ad I class features like Divine Bond, Mercy and Smite Evil. Rangers get Hunters Bond, Favored Terrain, Combat style Feat. Which to me at least are much more interesting features. All the melee classes can wear armor and hit with weapons. The Fighters somewhat better. Their nothing that makes him stand out.

Even the Lore Warden. While a decent archtype. Just does not go far enough imo. Know thy Enemy is great if you don't have a Bard in the group. But even then it's limited by the action economy. At 14th level it becomes a swift action. Would it have killed the Devs to make it a move action at 10th or even 11th level. By then compared to what other classes can do it's not even that interesting. A bard at 7th level can use a move action to give the same bonus and still be able to cast spells. While also having it last fir two extra rounds if the Pc/Npc has Lingering Performance.

With the Level 19th ability almost as bad a joke as Bravery. At least Bravery gives a bonus to will saves. Most players I know who take Fighters or archtypes are already building the character earlier to hit with criticals more often. Again nothing to draw me away from other melee classes with more interesting abilities.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Personally, I think it does way too much for a 2nd level spell. I prefer casters to be higher level before they start opening their own demi-planes on a daily basis. In fact, I'd almost want to make rope trick 4th level, and move secure shelter down to 2nd, so that mundane rest-shelters come online before extraplanar ones.

I agree. When Tiny Hut is a higher level and while giving total cover. Is nowhere near as useful as rope trick. Maybe the devs thought having a climate controlled magic hut would be game breaking. Compre the two rope trick is so much better imo. I also agree at Secure Shelter being a lower level.

Liberty's Edge

So far running and playing. None really. At the very least those run as is anyway. The ones that have been modified by the DMs tend to be more difficult. Even with new players and non-optimized characters most Aps still tend to be too easy.

Liberty's Edge

Their a difference between buying reprints and another edition. I bought a reprint because my first printing spins broke and looked pretty beaten up. I just can't see that happening again with a edition that offers no to little changed. Again I'm not saying it won't sell. I just don't think it will sell as well. I don't even have to spend money on a rehashed edition. All I need to do is take what I need from the SRD.

Liberty's Edge

@Steve

They could have done a lot more with the Fightef class and still maintain backwards compiabity imo. Compared to the upgrade the Paladin received. It could have been so much more IMO.

If they can make a new edition that offers at least 50%+ and still be compabitable with the current edition of PF I might be interested. If not I probably won't purchase it. Reprints are also not worth the expense not unless once again it offers a decent amount of new material. At the very least it needs to include major amounts of errata.

Liberty's Edge

Steve Geddes wrote:


Do you agree that the design goal of backwards compatibility with 3.5 put a severe crimp in just how "innovative" the Pathfinder designers could be? It was desirable that you could pick up a 3.5 module and run it, converting on the fly. If the mechanics of PF had diverged too much that would have been lost.

The could have done more if they truly wanted to and maintain backwards compatibility. They played it safe and I know why. That being said playing it safe does not lead to innovation. At least with the core. To me at least.

Steve Geddes wrote:


Labelling it 'a rehash' or 'a bunch of houserules' and so forth always seems to be missing the point to me. Those labels always read to me as suggesting a casual or haphazard approach. It was in fact a carefully crafted game within some quite awkward constraints.

It is mostly a rehash though. If your going to maintain backwards compatibility it requires little to no changes. To me at least their nothing in the core that comes across as major changes. Some of the flaws in the rpg went from major to minor but their still their imo.

I will admit the books that came after core had some innovative ideas. The core to me was anything but.

Steve Geddes wrote:


I think you're conflating two things. Nowadays, when people say PF2 should be "backwards compatible", I don't think they generally mean compatible with 3.5 - they mean compatible with Pathfinder.

How much 3.5 material is in use isn't really relevant - those people want to keep using the Advanced Class Guide, Pathfinder Unchained, the Player Companions, the Adventure Paths.

If it's possible to maintain backwards compatible and offer 50%+ new material I'm all for it. I don't want the same core that I already have with better production values and art.

Liberty's Edge

I am bearing that in mind. It just seems in my experience that not many people at least in my neck of the woods wang to use or convert 3.5 material. Even with backwards compabilty as a goal they also need to offer something new and fresh. The current edition already offered backwards compabilty. Give me something new. Not necessarily a new edition. More than a rehash with better production values and art.

Spell Compendium is a good book. I'm sure it's banned from most tableland probably PFS because of some of the spells. Especially the various Orb style spells. Wish Paizo instead of wasting time on yet another Bestiary would do their own version of the terrain books from 3.5. It something that is lacking IMO.

Liberty's Edge

I'm not buying that giving more to the Fighter would make backwards compabilty impossible. It's not so much the devs could not. They would not IMO. The Fighter in core is Ok but none of their abilities IMO seem worth the wait. They catered to fans that wanted to see little to no innovation and it shows. I may not like it. It won't make me stop playing Pathfinder. Next edition if the market research shows that at least 5 out of 10 gamers use older material them make it backwards compabilty. If not and only very few do make use of 3.5. Material why bother.

So far since PF was released I have been in one campaign where 3.5. Material was allowed. More often not it's been a polite and/or firm no way. Then being told " no 3.5. Or third party...only Pathfinder.

Liberty's Edge

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. we both have different standards of what innovation is in a rpg. That's not necessarily a bad thing either.

Liberty's Edge

The did add options to the game later on but the core book is still a rehash of a rehash. With house rules. I do get the point your trying to make but the main overall rules are still the same. As for Fighters I'm simply going to disagree.

Liberty's Edge

The Sword wrote:
If you don't like it, don't play it memorax. No one is forcing you to!

I suppose the part about my enjoying it just went over your head. I know it's s hard concept for some to understand. One can both like and criticize something they enjoy. I'm sorry but unless a product has 50%+ it's a rehash to me. One that I enjoy running and playing but I call it as I see it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

All you pointed out is simply a bunch of houserules that were added to different part of the rules. Nothing was done really to fix caster/martial disparity. Nothing about high level gameplay. The Devs did many things with the rpg. Innovation is not one of them IMO. Or at the very least not that much. The Cmd/Cmb mechanic is new to me at least. I like running and playing the rpg. Let's not call a old house with a fresh new coat of paint and some minor repairs a new house

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually prefer some of the names from 3.5. Blackguard sound so much better than anti-Paladin. What your evil arch nemesis aunt of the Paladin or something.

Liberty's Edge

houstonderek wrote:


Scale is irrelevant. Right now, Pathfinder is the "Star Wars" of the RPG world.

I won't say that PF is the SW of the rpg world. It's popular but D&D is the brand name. You mention rpgs and when asked which is a favorite fantasy rpg. It's D&D. Like it or hate it. Only those who really dislike Wotc and what they did to D&D will say Pathfinder. Right now 5E even with it's lackluster release schedule. Has more of a focus. It fixed the flaws of previous editions. It did not innovate but anything that fixes caster/martial disparity is what some of the fanbase wanted and Wotc delivered.

houstonderek wrote:


My point wasn't that TTRPGs are as popular as movies. They aren't. They aren't as popular as the TV show Survivor, even. My point was that people will buy recycled stuff happily, in any genre or medium. The 2000's pop culture, so far, has just been recycling things from the previous two generations. Almost every movie is a sequel or a remake any more, new music is mostly dumbing down older music, even the biggest video game releases are mostly sequels.

Your right but when it comes to rpgs. I think more and more the fans want editions that offer something new and innovate. While also maintaining backwards compiabilty. Which I personally think is impossible. Yes people will buy, watch recycled material. Yet they will also be more picky and discriminating. They want more of the same just not exactly 100%. So they can justify buying, watching, reading, eating the same thing.

houstonderek wrote:


Pathfinder is a 3x retro-clone. It was published so Paizo could keep publishing APs. It innovated nothing, fixed nothing, and that's fine. People liked 3x, it pretty much saved the hobby from even more obscurity and irrelevance, and it was a fun game. Nothing wrong with what Paizo is doing, but they aren't doing anything new and improved.

It's funny that you say that because I think some in the hobby. Wanted more of the same. Yet expected some kind of innovation later on. I fully expected them to not do much in terms of innovation. They have added some new material. But it's nothing at least for me that says innovation. But that's okay because that's what I bought into when I switched from 4E to PF.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

3.5. or Pathfinder. i never get the complaints about the new material. Yes some of the stuff in 3.5. was not that balanced. So is some of the material in Pathfinder. Try playing a Gunslinger in any APs where one fights giants or similar creatures. The Gunslingers never miss a target because of the guns targeting Touch AC.

Liberty's Edge

No it did not fix the flaws of 3.5. It added some new minor houserules. The flaws of the 3.5. rpg engine are still there. Caster/martial disparity. High level gameplay still slows the game down. The CR system that really does not take into account what even a non-optimized party can do. It works and I have fun with it. Overall none of the flaws were really addressed in any significant way imo.

Liberty's Edge

houstonderek wrote:


Again, everyone bought Pathfinder, which did nothing to fix any of 3x's problems. People spent a billion dollars to see a Star Wars movie that was basically the same movie from '77 with some better graphics and slightly different plot. I think you underestimate the current generation's love affair with recycled material.

The did because Wotc dropped 3.5. For fear of no longer being able to purchase 3.5. material. Paizo fills that niche quite nicely. I see no reason as a gamer to buy the same book again with new art and little to no changes. When I already have one. When I can get it for the SRD. I'm trying to look at this objectively. You keep looking at as if everyone will act like you do. Even then if Wotc had kept with 4E. Now with a edition that fixes the flaws. Paizo has to step it up a notch. Not rely on the same product and expect the same sales.

And using Star Wars. Really. The fans will go watch Star Wars en masse or any new thing about Star Wars because it's Star Wars. Pathfinder and rpgs are nowhere near as popular as something like Star Wars or Star Trek. I get what your saying but it's not the best example.

Liberty's Edge

houstonderek wrote:


Funny, what this describes is Pathfinder to a T. Paizo even hired new people to design for their 3.5 clone. Seems to me, judging from most gamers I know, people buy all sorts of recycled stuff.

I just can't see the same amount of gamers buying the same product again imo. Not without any of the flaws fixed. Espcially with 5E that did try to fix flaws. If a gamer dislikes caster/martial disparity, dislikes how long combats take at higher levels. The new core does nothing to fix that why would they switch.

A unchanged rehash I think is going to be a hard sell. I'm not saying it won't sell. But given that Paizo gives it away for free. All you need is one person buying a core rulebook. The rest of a gaming group take from the free SRD. Even backwards compiability is not that important anymore. As more often than not it's "Paizo only no 3pp" from many tables.

Liberty's Edge

Diffan wrote:


Kill....destroy

Semantics are real important here....

[/sarcasm ]

I agree. It went from killing a sleeping creature is evil no matter the circumstances. To it's evil but "exceptions". Sorry no but you don't get to have it both ways. If killing the sleeping sentry and dragon is evil. Then so is the vampire. Undead or not. I'm in favor of disabling a sleeping enemy. When circumstances permit it.

Which is not always the case. It also assumes that the sentry is not going to yell a alarm. It also requires everyone in favor of subduing instead of killing the sleeping enemy. Which again is not always the case. I have to say I love the examples given in subduing a enemy.

Their always perfect ones imo. Is the Paladin still going to risk alerting the enemy if he has hostages he is liberating from camp. The sleeping Dragon if he has hostages is going to ignore them and attack the party. Let me tell you in my games if a enemy has hostages and close enough to them. They will be the first targets. I don't make my npcs/bbegs 80s saturday morning cartoon types.

Here a reason why for all the people saying the end does not justify the means in real life sometimes it does. In the link the officer in charge comes across a german position and surprise them. You think he gave them a chance to arm themselves first in a fair fight. No he shoot first and asked questions later. It's a scene from Band of Brothers.

Go to youtube.com

Liberty's Edge

That's the problem. What is a evil act. Maybe acceptable depending on the situation. The Paladin is on his way out of a enemy camp after rescuing some POWs. Comes across a sleeping sentry. Does he left the sentry be and run the risk of the entire camp being alerted. Or does he kill the sentry in sleep to ensure no alarm is raised. Sometimes game situations in terms of morality are not cut and dry.

& Hwalsh

Why would the Paladin fall. On one hand you say it's a smart plan. But as a DM your still going to penalize the player. The group might as well simply yell and walk up the dragon. Whatever happens either the party or the Paladin is going to get screwed over.

Liberty's Edge

Being honourable does not equal being suicidal IMO. A Paladin is supposed to oppose evil in all its forms. How does throwing his life away in a honourable but futile gesture really accomplish that. It's all good to say a Paladin had to be honourable to the point of willing to commit suicide. Not so much when you take the rest of the party with you. If a Paladin tried that in outlet group he would be heading towards his death with no backup. We're heroic adventurers. Not terminally stupid ones. If a Paladin heroic actions results in a tom. Especially a preventable one he falls. I reward honourable and smart tactics. I don't reward players who throw away their characters lives. Or those of the group.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:


Okay. Numero uno... Stop using the term "lawful stupid" and use the proper term, "honorable."

Their a reason why that term now exists. Their also a difference between acting honorably. Another when a player does it to a degree that put himself and his party at risk. Hence the term Lawful Stupid. You want to portray the second that's fine. Take the risk on your own as a character. Nothing in the Paladin code requires the party to follow a player who wants to play a streotype to stupid degree.

HWalsh wrote:


Then do NOT play a Paladin. Do not play the class that is built to be honorable and valorous. There ARE tactics that can be used by a Paladin, I know, I play an "honorable" Paladin all the time and I use PLENTY of tactics.

Some us actually have a life outside of gaming and it requires more than making characters who die because of poor tactical choices. It's one thing if I do something dumb on purpose and my character dies. I'm not going to play Lawful Stupid only so that my character can die within ten minutes of a game session. I have give up my personal time to go to a game session. I want to have fun. Not spend time wasted on a new character.

HWalsh wrote:


I just don't kill enemies in their sleep.

I can respect that but that's your play style. Not everyone else. Respect that others don't play the game the same you do.

HWalsh wrote:


It is only throwing your life away if you die. I've lived through 9 levels so far playing "pure honor" in one of the most hardcore, nightmarish, DM throws everything at you, pulls no punches, and frequently throws APL+4 enemies against you, games that I have ever seen in 27 years of playing RPGs.

That some very convoluted logic right there. It's a good tactic as long as your character survives. What about everyone else at the table? To they get a say whether or not to have their characters possibly die. Or the Dms game falls part because the players all decided to follow the player using no tactics. Beyond "see evil enemy and charge". Again point to me where it says a Paladin is supposed to commit suicide in fighting evil. That everyone else character is supposed to do the same.

As for never dying because of poor tactical choices. Sorry but I don't beleive it. Not for one minute. Let alone a second. i have been playing almost as long as you have. Too often way too often I have seen both Paladins and non-Paladins dying because of charging straight towards the enemy. Waking up a enemy because it's dishonorable. Maybe luck enough to survive more than dying. But no deaths for 27 years. Sorry don't beleive it.

HWalsh wrote:


We are kept under WBL, we face enemies way stronger than us, and we manage to survive while STILL being honorable.

All well and good. But none of that requires poor tactical choices on the part of a player. None of that requires a Paladin to throw his life away in a futile but honorable gesture.

HWalsh wrote:


Just because YOU can't figure out how to do it doesn't mean it can't be done.

Translation if you don't play it the way I do and only the way I do your doing it wrong.

HWalsh wrote:


One, you don't wake up the sleeping Dragon without everyone being well aware of the plan and knowing to be ready. Two, you make sure everyone knows what is going to happen so that everyone is ready for it. Three, you gather intel about the target before you fight it so that you can prepare ahead of time to deal with it.

All well and good but your asking everyone to risk player death simply because you consider attacking a sleeping opponent dishonorable. One faces player death in every encounter. I refuse to lose a character because of a poor tactical choice. It's not fun for players or DMs. Now if the odds are in your favor with magic, items go for it. Going up against a Dragon that can TPK the party is the very defination of lawful stupid imo. You can;t always plan out every encounter. Want to make poor tactical choices a character YOU take the risk. Not everyone else

HWalsh wrote:


If you have to ask yourself, "Is this evil enough to fall." then the answer is "Yes."

No thanks but that's way too open to extreme personal bias on both the player and DM. We need a Paladin code written by the devs as to what is a evil act.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:


Regardless... Your comment about how you would act as a Paladin is exactly what breaks the Paladin balance-wise.

Why because I use proper tactics and don't play a Paladin as Lawful Stupid. Attacking a sleeping opponent is tactics. A Paladin has to act honorably yes. I don't think that applies to evil creatures imo. I don't play suicidal characters either. Maybe you do I don't. A paladin is given special abilites to be used wisely and smartly against evil. Not to be thrown away on a pointless attack because it's the "heroic" thing to do. It's not to say as a Paladin I always ambush a enemy. I'm also not going to wake up a superior opponent and die. That works in stories and movies.

I'm not going to waste time writing up a character and give him a backstory. Only for him to die within ten minutes of a session because he did the honorable yet poor tactical choice.

HWalsh wrote:


This is all so the Paladin can fight honorably and take evil head on.

No where in the code does it says a Paladin has to stupidly and willingly throw his life away in a pointless heroic gesture. That's great you just yelled at the top of your lungs to wake up the sleeping dragon. It just cost the life of half or maybe the entire party. But hey at least it was "heroic".

The next edition of Pathfinder. The devs need to grow a pair and develop a actual code of what the Paladin can or cannot do. What is considered a evil enough act to make a Paladin fall. It's too damn unclear imo and prone to personal bias from both sides on the alignment issue.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We are agreement about being passionate about Paladins. I refuse to play them as boring Lawful Stupid stick in the mud in terms of alignment. I'm not going to charge blindly towards a live dragon if my Paladin can attack him asleep in his lair. It might not be heroic but I don't play suicidal characters lacking in tactics either. I also dislike those who play them like Dirty Harry with Sword and Shield.

I just felt like some in the thread were shooting down the Op idea because he wanted to think outside the box. 99% of the time I play and most of the players I game with do play a LG Paladin. I don't see why the other 1% who want to try a non-Lg is a bad thing.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would agree about the alignment restrictions if the OP was talking about playing standard D&D. Your pretty much stuck with the alignment restriction and rightfully so in that case imo. In a home game espcially a homebrew campaign setting I don't see why one cannot have a non-lg paladin. Or a similar character with the same abilites.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's no one business to tell others that they can't call a NG Paladin a Paladin. We as a community can tell others in our community many things. Telling them their wrong to implement a change at their own tables is not one of them. I don't care how strongly one feels about the subject. You simply do not do it. Even if I did not agree with the OP it's not business to tell him he can't.

And yes your telling people they are doing it wrong. You can play a non-lawful good Paladin just don't call it a Paladin is doing just that. It's like those who are against change think that by adding "it's not that I'm against just change except" then pretty much show they are against change.

Liberty's Edge

My honest opinion Dug don't give up. Look for a new group. I had to branch out and leave most of my old group behind as well. With two withdrawing into the worlds of MMOs to hide from the reality of life. To another thrash talking about me behind my back to a good friend of mine. To the good ones of the bunch moving away. Don't give up on the hobby because of some rotten apples imo.

bookrat wrote:

Important things like sleeping or playing video games or dog-sitting for a family member.

Maybe it's me but I don't consider any of the above important. With the exception maybe of sleeping. As sometimes ones has to work long hours. Now going to the hospital because a family member or friend is sick. Work. Spending time with the wife/girlfriend is important. Missing more than three session when I DM because of video games gets you banned from my table. You get three warning but after that your gone. I warn a player at the start of the campaign. After that I won't even said a invite by email or in person.

Joining a group is a commitment not a major one. Nor is anyone forced but neither does one show up whenever they feel like. If one cannot or will not commit some time to a campaign. Don't join one. Just like a personal time is precious and their own. So is everyone else at the table.

Liberty's Edge

Is the expanded spell-less ranger the same as the one new paths compendium? Or is it a expansion of the class?

Liberty's Edge

Good luck to you all. Being from Montreal Quebec snow lots of it this time of the year we are usually prepared for it. Though even 2 feet of snow is quite too much for us as well. Then again unlike many places we have a decent snow removal system. Not by choice we have to.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:

I just don't get this crusade to force the actual Paladin class as this one specific LG-Only thing when multiple editions have already clearly labeled it as possibly being many other alignment things. The ideals of a Paladin have changed, shifted, and are different that they were 20 years ago. Paladins have come from different alignments AND ARE STILL CALLED PALADINS despite people labeling them differently.

Yes, at one point a Paladin HAD to be Lawful Good. Then that changed. Then came variants (AD&D 1st & 2nd ed.) Then came different versions that still used the class-name Paladin (v3.5 Paladin of Freedom, Paladin of Tyranny, Paladin of Slaughter. Then OFF came Alignment restrictions (D&D 4th and 5th edition). The ideal belief of LG-only is LONG gone because it no longer serves an actual purpose, at least as it originally had long ago. A Paladin is no longer a Fighter "Plus", thus the need for a alignment restriction no longer has any significance other than to make certain people happy when they pit them in Catch-22 scenarios with every intent to make them fall in mind.

But whatever, people can and do whatever they want in their own games. However the class isn't Mr(s). Snowflake any longer.

Very much agreed and seconded.

To the Op yes they can imo. Take what is said in this thread as suggestions. Not the gospel truth. Name the class whatever you want including Paladin. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Personally I don't see why not and no I don't care about tradition or the days of yore of D&D so don't bother bringing that up to try and convince me otherwise.

Liberty's Edge

Their also a 3.5 version that should be easy to convert.

http://alcyius.com/dndtools/classes/halfling-outrider/index.html

Liberty's Edge

Trogdar wrote:


Sure, I guess you could say that for full breath attacks that you can't avoid, but it seems like the description is pretty weak to me. I would certainly raise an eyebrow at the table that happened at.

It would raise eyebrows at my table as well. Not to mention it should draw a AOO as well. Sticking your hand in a dragons mouth really should never be done imo.

Liberty's Edge

True they don't simply come out of nowhere. But having the backing of a deity. Does not mean the average peasant is simply going to bow to their whims. Or accept their word as law. It's worse if the pc/npc acts Lawful Stupid or Dirty Harry backed by his deity. Unless their a good reason or at the very least the Paladin behaves properly. The average person is not going to risk themselves let alone care. I think people forget the average person is not going to act heroically or self sacrificing like player characters.

As unlike pcs they don't have the power, resources, let alone the bravery to do so. More often than not the laws favor those in power. Good or bad. Rather than the average person. Again Golarion is not 21st century earth. As much as players want it to be it's not. The average person in my game actually behaves like one.

Liberty's Edge

Why would locking up a Paladin lead to political suicide in the first place. It's not a fantasy version of modern day Earth. I wish gamers would stop tacking on modern day morality in fantasy setting where there usually is none.

The only time it might harm a npc or pc politically is if the Paladin was the leader or very well liked in the community. Even then the average person let alone the run of the mill peasant is not going to do a damn thing imo. Rise up against the king or similar figure of authority lawful or not. Then risk losing everything including ones life.

You can forget about it if the player or npc is one of the Lawful Stupid or Dirty Harry style of Paladins. not only are is no one going to do anything. They will cheer from the sidelines as the Paladin is locked up and/or sentenced to die.

It's a different thing in home games espcially ones with more political themes. Average rpg setting at the store. Sorry but no 21st century earth like legal system included.

Liberty's Edge

That's the catch 22 that Paizo faces. Release a rehashed edition and possibly face a lose in sales. Do the same with a new edition and the same happens. Though out of the two the second gives fans a incentive to reinvest the first not so much. At the very least if they do go with a rehash it needs to be decently priced imo.

Scaling feats have been asked for since the release of the PF core when it was shown that the Fighter got very little love imo. Why something like that has not been given official support is beyond me. It's not going to completely fix the caster martial disparity. It sure going to make taking certain feats feel less like a feat tax and something one wants to take.

Dekalinder wrote:

Are you saying that Pathfinder was on the same level as the Rules Compendium?

Well when the core is about 90-95% rehash with 5-10% new material it's a rehash. Of a rpg that was already rehashed. To me at least a core needs 50%+ new material to be consider a new product. I still enjoy playing and running it.

Liberty's Edge

Nathanael Love wrote:


Not buying the same material with little to no changes is the biggest reason to not do a second edition. . .

(Sigh) Paizo can release a rehashed new edition. I don't think it will sell well like the current one. As it needs to offer more than just the same with little to no changes. Personally I would like a new edition but I know I'm probably in the minority. I get that you have strong opinions on certain subjects. Do stop twisting my words and other posters words by making them out to say stuff they never said.

Nathanael Love wrote:


So you acknowledge that from a sales perspective there is no reason so move to a second edition?

I acknowledge no such thing. Eventually their sales may drop and they may have to go to a new edition. In the end it's not my decision or yours. It's Paizo who decides. If they can keep making a profit they should stay with the new edition. If they don't they should make a new edition.

Even then we can still talk about it on the forums if we like whatever they choose to do.

Liberty's Edge

Nathanael Love wrote:


You seem to be the only one saying that "no one" is interested in a rehash of 3.5. . .

Your the one saying that

I never did. All I said that some in the hobby are not interested in the same material with little to no changes. As many would not want to buy the same thing twice. If it a rehash that fixes flaws than they maybe more willing to overlook that it's more of the same.

Nathanael Love wrote:


Moreover, a LOT of people are interested in more Pathfinder books as evidenced by their continued sales.

Which again I never said their current products were not selling. That a new edition needs more than just a rehashing of the same material and better cover art. Why would I buy same model of car. When the only difference is better looking interior and no flaws fixed.

Nathanael Love wrote:


Unchained books could sell at exactly the same price as any other non-CRB hardcover. If they release a book in that line every other year the way they seem to have done with Bestiaries/ NPC books I am confident that they would continue to sell.

You never worked in retail or with the public ever have you. People refuse to spend a nickle on plastic bags. Or buy a reusable bag to save the environment. You think the average gamer because your willing to do so. Is going to behave like you do. Which is the flaw in your reasoning. I don't assume that other members of the hobby act just like me. Unless the Unchained books actually fix flaws at a decent price they maybe a hard thing to sell to the fanbase. How do you promote them exactly. "Buy these set of Unchained books because we the devs refused to fix the flaws in the core book". Good luck on that. Those Unchained books while possibly fixing flaws also highlight them as well.

One of the few things I learned about gamers in this hobby that they are cheap. They also don't like bloat. Will they sell well. Of course. As well as you think they will maybe or maybe not. It depends on the fanbase and the reaction to them.

Nathanael Love wrote:


The best part is, we already know that the day after Pathfinder 2.0 releases, Memorax will realize it wasn't designed to please him and no one else and start asking about Pathfinder 3.0. . .

With you right behind me complaining that they changed too much.

It all depends on how much new material they offer. If it's not at least 50%+ new material I'm simply no going to be interested. I'm being upfront and have been upfront about that from the start.

Liberty's Edge

137ben wrote:


Oh come on, now you're not even trying!

At this point to be honest I would no longer bother responding to him about WW/Onyx Path in this thread imo. I get that he dislikes new editions and spending money on them. That he carries a torch for the original devs. Nothing we say or prove will change his mind at this point. He was and has been proven wrong. Even if he won't admit to it. Don't waste your time.

I'm certainly no longer going to. When one posts a link to a company alive and well that keeps publishing new material. Only to be told that it does not matter and that they are dead. It's a waste of time.

Liberty's Edge

A new edition may alienate older fans. At least it offers a reason to purchase the core again. Offering nothing new but a rehash will also do the same. Yet their very little reason to buy a rehash for some in the hobby. Which keeps getting ignored. I doubt many are going to want to buy into the same rpg again. As they already have it.

Sunshadow makes a good point about releasing a Unchained version of books. Except how many of those does one release before it both enhances the rpg yet also highlights the flaws as well. How many Unchained books does one publish before it becomes too many. How exactly do you promote such a line as well. "Our core system has flaws just buy this set of unchained books and it's all going to work fine".

A set of Unchained books would have to be fairly cheap as well.
The core cost 50$. It's 30$ on Amazon. The Unchained books have to be much less expensive than that imo. Anything more than that would feel like a money grab. So would a new edition but again your also offering something new instead of a rehash. I don't think the community imo as a whole is interested in another rehash of 3.5. With 5E, 13th Age and other non-D&D alternatives. While I can see a rehash selling just not in the same amount as the current core did.

Liberty's Edge

No it's not irreverent because they kept publishing new products for Nwid and OWoD. Publishing OWoD does in no way mean nwod is a failure. The company saw their was still some interest in OWoD. Saw that they could support both versions. Did the smart thing and published it. I get it you don't like Nwod. Miss the original devs working on it. Your reaching now. On a forum your the only person saying Nwod is a failure and no one else. Do you know how rare that is. Especially on the Internet.

Liberty's Edge

The only negative thing that I can say about WW/Onyx path is that they switched over to a POD format through Drivethrurpg. Meaning they disappeared from gaming stores. I can't really blame them though and see why they went POD. But dead hardly. They still were, are and will continue to publish material. I get that NL really liked OWoD and the original devs. At thx point it's anything and everything to keep saying that NWOD was a failure. Now CCP handling of Eve Online is what killed it IMO. No one can deny that.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KestrelZ wrote:


Result, as a player I will explain out of character that my course of action works against the group's interests and apologize. My PC then cuts loose with a lightning bolt. The result is the golem is stronger than before, yet now the group knows not to use electricity against that opponent in the future. My group is understanding enough to forgive me, since I am being consistent and the PCs intention was well placed, even if the action wasn't.

This is the kind of roleplaying I like to see in games. The difference between yourself and some other players. Is that they would keep casting and using a eletrical attack over and over whenever they would meet a flesh golem. Than hide behind roleplaying reasons as something their character would do. That's when imo it becomes a nuisance. Why would you keep casting the same attack that does not work against the same opponent over and over again. Even roleplaying wise it makes no sense imo. Unless the character is insane.

Liberty's Edge

By the time Pathfinder was released. I'm sure the devs were well aware of the martial caster disparity. Then choose to do nothing about it. One can give them a free pass when the first edition of a rpg is released. With 3e, then 3.5. and PF. They knew about it. When fans posted proof with numbers during the playtest were pretty much told that's not the feedback they wanted.

I'm willing to concede that like everyone else the devs make mistakes. Yet don't tell me at the same time it's impossible to predict flaws. Their were some that imo were obvious and were ignored for the sake of backwards compiabilty. Not to mention if it's not the devs job to find flaws who they are paid to do. then who is it. The pizza deliveryman that brings food to their offices.

1 to 50 of 2,756 << 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.