Changing from D&D 5th, sell me on Pathfinder?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 241 of 241 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Torger Miltenberger wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

If you want to collaborate on a novel, I recommend doing just that instead of using a RPG framework for it. It'll make for a better story that way. Now if you want to play a game with your friends, I recommend using Pathfinder instead of a collaborative writing framework. It'll make for a better game that way.

And heaven forbid one try to modify a game system such that it could accommodate both, that would be heresy to "True Pathfinder" Burn the Witch!

- Torger

I don't think you can quite frankly. Even if it's not a save or die and just the Barbarian dealing enough damage to chunky salsa your boss, the effect on the narrative is the same. But I'm still eager to be shown how to "do it properly".


LazarX wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
Torger Miltenberger wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
A story does have to worry about pacing, drama and tension, because if it doesn't it will lose the reader's interest. A game does not. A game risks losing a player's interest when their actions don't matter (ala railroad) or they can't participate in the way they'd like to. The fun for a game comes from the player control of the story and decisions their character makes. Not from a GM writing a novel.

For some of us it comes from collaboratively writing a novel together. The player agency part is important. As is pacing drama and tension.

If all I wanted was an efficient loot grind with buddies I'd play an MMO. They do it better and patch broken things on a regular basis.

- Torger

This isa cool sentiment, but PF is an absolutely terrible system for it. It has a ridiculous amount of fiddly bits that serve basically no purpose in achieving that goal. If you want cooperative story telling experience there are far, FAR better systems out there for it.

The point that LoneKnave is making is that while Pathfinder is a roleplaying game, in it's heart and soul it's a war-game that's been having roleplaying layered on top of it for decades. and the nature of the mechanics frequently rubs against a narrative style.

There are rpg's that are suited to the cooperative narrative form of play, the obvious example being Storyteller, of course, then there's Everway and the Cubicle line such as One Ring and Dr. Who Adventures In Time and Space. The one thing they all have in common, is that they are not rules intensive RAW bound games. The mechanics are made deliberately fuzzy to provide narrative flexibility. (Or in the case of Amber Diceless, all but chucked away altogether.)

I understood the point he was trying to make. Strange as this may sound I actually don't much care for fuzzy mechanics. I like that things are spelled out as to how they work and how they don't. Sometimes I don't like how they work and I change it but much of the pathfinder's skeletal structure works very well for what I'm after.

- Torger

Paizo Glitterati Robot

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post and a reply to it. Dial back the grar please.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

This topic is getting kind of heated, guys.


Anzyr wrote:
Kennesty wrote:


That being said all games have some railroading regardless. Anytime you direct your players towards a goal/quest you are putting them on rails. I'm not sure where all this anti-railroading stigma came from because there's also nothing wrong with it.
Not even remotely true. If an NPC says "Those Giants out in yon keep on the border are making everyone in town nervous. We'll have to redouble the guard in case they attack the town." That isn't railroading. That's roleplaying.

Yeah, and if you were to create a quest for the players to go to yon keep and slay the Giant king then they are on the rails as there is a directly intended route for them to go along with a specific end in mind, Killing the Giant King. If the players decided to say screw that and just go drinking in the tavern then they are off the rails. Just because you are being railroaded does not mean you can't roleplay, they are not mutually exclusive.


Anzyr wrote:
Torger Miltenberger wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

If you want to collaborate on a novel, I recommend doing just that instead of using a RPG framework for it. It'll make for a better story that way. Now if you want to play a game with your friends, I recommend using Pathfinder instead of a collaborative writing framework. It'll make for a better game that way.

And heaven forbid one try to modify a game system such that it could accommodate both, that would be heresy to "True Pathfinder" Burn the Witch!

- Torger

I don't think you can quite frankly. Even if it's not a save or die and just the Barbarian dealing enough damage to chunky salsa your boss, the effect on the narrative is the same. But I'm still eager to be shown how to "do it properly".

I would never show someone how to "do it properly" because I firmly believe there is no right or wrong way to utilize the system or parts of the system. Which is where our disconnect stems from.

I could show you how I would do it but you've already exhibited sufficient disregard for house rules of any kind that I have absolutely no desire to do so.

- Torger


Kennesty wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Kennesty wrote:


That being said all games have some railroading regardless. Anytime you direct your players towards a goal/quest you are putting them on rails. I'm not sure where all this anti-railroading stigma came from because there's also nothing wrong with it.
Not even remotely true. If an NPC says "Those Giants out in yon keep on the border are making everyone in town nervous. We'll have to redouble the guard in case they attack the town." That isn't railroading. That's roleplaying.
Yeah, and if you were to create a quest for the players to go to yon keep and slay the Giant king then they are on the rails as there is a directly intended route for them to go along with a specific end in mind, Killing the Giant King. If the players decided to say screw that and just go drinking in the tavern then they are off the rails. Just because you are being railroaded does not mean you can't roleplay, they are not mutually exclusive.

This not what railroading is. A NPC offering a quest and the PCs accepting it is not railroading. If that qualifies as railroading under your definition, it would help if you provide that definition, because that situation is not railroading under any definition I've ever seen.


Torger Miltenberger wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Torger Miltenberger wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

If you want to collaborate on a novel, I recommend doing just that instead of using a RPG framework for it. It'll make for a better story that way. Now if you want to play a game with your friends, I recommend using Pathfinder instead of a collaborative writing framework. It'll make for a better game that way.

And heaven forbid one try to modify a game system such that it could accommodate both, that would be heresy to "True Pathfinder" Burn the Witch!

- Torger

I don't think you can quite frankly. Even if it's not a save or die and just the Barbarian dealing enough damage to chunky salsa your boss, the effect on the narrative is the same. But I'm still eager to be shown how to "do it properly".

I would never show someone how to "do it properly" because I firmly believe there is no right or wrong way to utilize the system or parts of the system. Which is where our disconnect stems from.

I could show you how I would do it but you've already exhibited sufficient disregard for house rules of any kind that I have absolutely no desire to do so.

- Torger

Let me rephrase the question then; How do you preserve narrative drama/tension/pacing when your BBEG can and will be taken out effortlessly? Without railroading.


LoneKnave wrote:
It's like comparing a ferrari and a citroen, but your citroen has jet engines and can be used for amphibious transport.

Damn straight it does! ^_-

But seriously, you're right, my game is of little comparative value to discussions of vanilla pathfinder.

But you'll note I haven't tried to compare it to anything, my main theme has been, stop telling people they're doing it wrong just because they're discussing breaking core assumptions. It's doable and can make for a fun experience has been my whole point.

- Torger


Anzyr wrote:
Let me rephrase the question then; How do you preserve narrative drama/tension/pacing when your BBEG can and will be taken out effortlessly?

Let me rephrase the answer.

By reworking the breaking points in the game that allow the BBEG to be taken out effortlessly.

By altering core assumptions of the game which is what this thread started out being about.

If you're fishing for a RAW answer you're talking to the wrong guy in the wrong thread. You'll note I don't pop up to often in the hardcore RAW threads.

- Torger


A Railroad is at any point in an adventure where the players are guided to a specific place in the story or an end goal. So when they are tasked with the collection of a specific rare magic item whose location is in the mystic cave the players are railroaded into going there. If the GM were to sit down and ask the players where they want to go and have a contingency for anywhere they would go and/or do then they wouldn't be at all railroaded.

If they were doing that and got to some place that would give them a specific goal then they would be boarding the rails and going along.


I like Pathfinder a lot. I also like some other systems a lot. My other favorites include Shadowrun (2nd/3rd editions), World of Darkness (Old), Runequest, Call of Cthulu, and Mutants & Masterminds. I haven't tried 5th edition, mostly because I feel betrayed by 4th edition.

Some systems are rather treasure focused like Pathfinder, Runequest and Shadowrun. Others focus more on who the character is like World of Darkness, Call of Cthulu and Mutants & Masterminds. I find both ways fun, but I hate preparing for one style only to find myself in the other style of game.

It sounds like your group would prefer something like Mutants & Masterminds to something like Pathfinder. It sounds like you want a more narrative and less simulation type game. The focus on wealth as something separate from your innate abilities is basically the dividing line. Batman is really wealthy, but he doesn't hire mercenaries to help the police out and make Gotham safer because that would make a horrible story. You can easily make Batman in narrative games, but in simulation games his identity get revealed, the villains kill a bunch of civilians, corporate raiders steal his fortune, and someone kills him before he can make a close getaway. Play him in Mutants & Masterminds to have fun or Pathfinder as an optimization challenge (but he still won't feel like Batman.)

The Exchange

Are you talking to the original poster, Gregory?


Lincoln Hills wrote:
Are you talking to the original poster, Gregory?

Mostly. I was distracted by the argument though and it had me getting derailed (pun intended) somewhat.


Kennesty wrote:

A Railroad is at any point in an adventure where the players are guided to a specific place in the story or an end goal. So when they are tasked with the collection of a specific rare magic item whose location is in the mystic cave the players are railroaded into going there. If the GM were to sit down and ask the players where they want to go and have a contingency for anywhere they would go and/or do then they wouldn't be at all railroaded.

If they were doing that and got to some place that would give them a specific goal then they would be boarding the rails and going along.

Ok. Well that is not the common definition of the term. The common definition is "When the players have no choice, *but* to follow the story the GM has planned." In the example of the keep with the Giants, the player's can ignore the hook and go boating. Therefore it is not railroading under the common definition. Only if the GM will not allow the players to do anything *but* their hooks, is the story "on rails" and thus railroading.

Sovereign Court

Anzyr wrote:
Kennesty wrote:

A Railroad is at any point in an adventure where the players are guided to a specific place in the story or an end goal. So when they are tasked with the collection of a specific rare magic item whose location is in the mystic cave the players are railroaded into going there. If the GM were to sit down and ask the players where they want to go and have a contingency for anywhere they would go and/or do then they wouldn't be at all railroaded.

If they were doing that and got to some place that would give them a specific goal then they would be boarding the rails and going along.

Ok. Well that is not the common definition of the term. The common definition is "When the players have no choice, *but* to follow the story the GM has planned." In the example of the keep with the Giants, the player's can ignore the hook and go boating. Therefore it is not railroading under the common definition. Only if the GM will not allow the players to do anything *but* their hooks, is the story "on rails" and thus railroading.

That sounds kind of semanticy to me. The group are jerks if they ignore the hook which the GM has prepped for and go boating. So it's the same thing unless the group are jerks. :P


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Kennesty wrote:

A Railroad is at any point in an adventure where the players are guided to a specific place in the story or an end goal. So when they are tasked with the collection of a specific rare magic item whose location is in the mystic cave the players are railroaded into going there. If the GM were to sit down and ask the players where they want to go and have a contingency for anywhere they would go and/or do then they wouldn't be at all railroaded.

If they were doing that and got to some place that would give them a specific goal then they would be boarding the rails and going along.

Ok. Well that is not the common definition of the term. The common definition is "When the players have no choice, *but* to follow the story the GM has planned." In the example of the keep with the Giants, the player's can ignore the hook and go boating. Therefore it is not railroading under the common definition. Only if the GM will not allow the players to do anything *but* their hooks, is the story "on rails" and thus railroading.
That sounds kind of semanticy to me. The group are jerks if they ignore the hook which the GM has prepped for and go boating. So it's the same thing unless the group are jerks. :P

It's really not. It's the GM providing a hook that the PCs aren't interested and don't pursue. It's only railroading if the campaign is "on rails" and the PCs *must* pursue the hook. Because dammit you are going to the keep to fight Giants no exceptions.

Sovereign Court

Anzyr wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Kennesty wrote:

A Railroad is at any point in an adventure where the players are guided to a specific place in the story or an end goal. So when they are tasked with the collection of a specific rare magic item whose location is in the mystic cave the players are railroaded into going there. If the GM were to sit down and ask the players where they want to go and have a contingency for anywhere they would go and/or do then they wouldn't be at all railroaded.

If they were doing that and got to some place that would give them a specific goal then they would be boarding the rails and going along.

Ok. Well that is not the common definition of the term. The common definition is "When the players have no choice, *but* to follow the story the GM has planned." In the example of the keep with the Giants, the player's can ignore the hook and go boating. Therefore it is not railroading under the common definition. Only if the GM will not allow the players to do anything *but* their hooks, is the story "on rails" and thus railroading.
That sounds kind of semanticy to me. The group are jerks if they ignore the hook which the GM has prepped for and go boating. So it's the same thing unless the group are jerks. :P
It's really not. It's the GM providing a hook that the PCs aren't interested and don't pursue. It's only railroading if the campaign is "on rails" and the PCs *must* pursue the hook. Because dammit you are going to the keep to fight Giants no exceptions.

Right - but how often are the players big enough jerks not to follow hooks which they know the GM has spent time prepping for? I've never seen it happen. And if it doesn't happen - then it's a matter of semantics. And if they do ignore the hook - they're jerks. Hence - it's the same thing unless the group is full of jerks.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
[That sounds kind of semanticy to me. The group are jerks if they ignore the hook which the GM has prepped for and go boating. So it's the same thing unless the group are jerks. :P

Nah I actually agree with Anzyr... yea... that's right, I said it.

If the characters wanna bugger off and go boating they should have that option.

They should also not be surprised if the town is in cinders when they get back (depending on how long a boat ride we're talking about).

Point is ignoring a threat should have reasonable consequences but if they characters are ok with them though then the DM hasn't done a very good job of tailoring his hook to the characters.

They should also be prepared for "Sorry guys, that was the adventure I had planned out, we can free form it if you like but don't expect the moon."

- Torger

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow. That sounds like Dragonlance. The heroes went boating, and when they got back, Solace was in cinders.

But from dragons, not giants.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Kennesty wrote:

A Railroad is at any point in an adventure where the players are guided to a specific place in the story or an end goal. So when they are tasked with the collection of a specific rare magic item whose location is in the mystic cave the players are railroaded into going there. If the GM were to sit down and ask the players where they want to go and have a contingency for anywhere they would go and/or do then they wouldn't be at all railroaded.

If they were doing that and got to some place that would give them a specific goal then they would be boarding the rails and going along.

Ok. Well that is not the common definition of the term. The common definition is "When the players have no choice, *but* to follow the story the GM has planned." In the example of the keep with the Giants, the player's can ignore the hook and go boating. Therefore it is not railroading under the common definition. Only if the GM will not allow the players to do anything *but* their hooks, is the story "on rails" and thus railroading.
That sounds kind of semanticy to me. The group are jerks if they ignore the hook which the GM has prepped for and go boating. So it's the same thing unless the group are jerks. :P
It's really not. It's the GM providing a hook that the PCs aren't interested and don't pursue. It's only railroading if the campaign is "on rails" and the PCs *must* pursue the hook. Because dammit you are going to the keep to fight Giants no exceptions.

I'd say there's no hard cutoff. Railroading is a spectrum. There's almost no game so sandboxy that there aren't some rails and no game so railroaded there isn't some freedom of action.

It's a matter of degree and lot of gray area in the middle.


Hrm... I'm not sure I'd call shades of grey railroading. For reference on what railroading is here's a link to TVtropes (you were warned).

Railroading

Some choice quotations for those who want to avoid the madness:

"In short, the GM takes any measure necessary to ensure that there is only one direction the campaign may proceed — his planned direction."

"In practice, the use of Railroading is generally regarded as one sign of a poor GM, as forcing the players down a single predetermined path (like cars on a railroad track, hence the name) runs against to the collaborative nature of a tabletop RPG in the first place, where every player is allowed an equal voice in dictating what happens next."

"Many adventures in early editions had various levels of this, but the original Dragonlance modules (DL1-DL15) were by far the most blatant example. Most of the time the PCs could only do one thing due to the situation, and several times the Dungeon Master was specifically told by the module to take action to force the PCs along a pre-determined path. There were also dire results for the whole game world if the players did manage to avoid doing exactly what they were supposed to. For instance, there was a specific action in the first module which, if nobody did it, resulted in there never being any priests. "

"Pathfinder releases Adventure Paths which are six-volume campaigns that carry player characters from first level to roughly 17th before the end, though this varies. Needless to say, even the most open-ended of them can have some heavy-handed railroading in order to ensure the players are along for the ride. "


thejeff wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Imo the Christmas tree effect is significantly lessened in pathfinder.

Stat items are keyed to two specific slots, which allows all the other slots to remain open for more flavorful items. Obtaining the other bonuses can happen as they are sometimes baked into other items, like robes and other things.

Then there's always the prospect of nixing point buy. If your players roll stats and have them high enough to not need a cloak of resistance or stat items to be effective, then they can instead get other things that are "more fun."

So, @ OP, Pathfinder does have better items involved than 3.x.

Or you could roll and somebody could get lousy stats and need them even more while other PCs are uber-buff already. Why does everyone assume rolling stats means "better stats than point buy"?

You could also just use a higher point buy and get higher stats much more predictably.

Stat boosters are keyed to head and belt, but the rest of the Big Six use up most of the rest of the slots. Not much room, in slots or cash, for the flavorful items. If anything, PF codified the Big Six even more.

cloak, ring, amulet, weapon, armor.

No one really complains about the weapon and armor bit, so worrying about the other three is really all that comes from big six issues.
Don't forget there are ioun stones for stats.
And plenty of items come with resistance bonuses, but in my games most of my players have such good stats that they don't bother with it anyway because they can have something cooler like wings of flying.
Typically, I've found that using low level spells like shield of faith and bearskin not only gives you use of your low level slots, but also nixes the need for big six items in those slots.
Or more likely it eliminates one of them and let's you worry about only the other.

Not to mention there are a bunch of items that include those resistances in pathfinder.

It is less of a problem than you think.

On the stat rolling bit, I have found 2d6 plus 6 to be far superior to most rolling systems, and I personally let my players roll two sets and chose whichever array they like better for their character concept.

Another system I have used is 3d6, treat lowest as an automatic 6, which trends to yield stronger characters, but happier players.

But this is an internet forum and thus anecdote (s) have no effect on whether or not I am a "real gamer."

Tldr; big six is not as big of a problem as people make it out to be.


MAJT69 wrote:

I don't know.

That's why I'm here , to find out if that perception is true or not.

In my opinion 3.5 and PF mechanics do allow for roleplaying and encourage roleplaying. My group do tonnes of roleplaying, and come up with character ideas and personalities before it even gets to mechanics. Then we use the 3.5 and PF mechanics to stat up that concept and make it actually work.

But, if your group found that the 3.5 mechanics damaged roleplaying, then you will find the same thing in PF since nothing has changed on that front aside from archetypes allowing you to play a concept quicker and with much less metagaming your build than Prestige classes did in 3.5.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Torger Miltenberger wrote:

I understood the point he was trying to make. Strange as this may sound I actually don't much care for fuzzy mechanics. I like that things are spelled out as to how they work and how they don't. Sometimes I don't like how they work and I change it but much of the pathfinder's skeletal structure works very well for what I'm after.

- Torger.

And that's perfectly fine. I play Pathfinder too. I've got those three stars of PFS Judge by my name. All I'm asking is for the intellectual honesty to admit that that a preference of one system over another is a choice of priorities in a game. That you find Pathfinder's war-gaming precision of combat to be the dealmaker that you want defined mechanics that put strict lines on the actions of both GM's and Players.

Whereas that's not the requirement of someone playing Storyteller. Sure there are the occasional arguments over rules even at Werewolf tables, but the underlying acceptance of playing a Storyteller like game is that the rules aren't that nailed down and the execution of them will operate frequently on a narrative flexibility.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
MAJT69 wrote:

I don't know.

That's why I'm here , to find out if that perception is true or not.

In my opinion 3.5 and PF mechanics do allow for roleplaying and encourage roleplaying. My group do tonnes of roleplaying, and come up with character ideas and personalities before it even gets to mechanics. Then we use the 3.5 and PF mechanics to stat up that concept and make it actually work.

But, if your group found that the 3.5 mechanics damaged roleplaying, then you will find the same thing in PF since nothing has changed on that front aside from archetypes allowing you to play a concept quicker and with much less metagaming your build than Prestige classes did in 3.5.

I would prefer to think of it as the wargaming focus of D+D and it's successor games built a particular constraining framework on roleplaying. People did and still roleplay in those games, but the wargame foundation sets it's own walls on how that roleplay takes place and how players execute it.

The metagaming is still very much alive in Pathfinder, the 20 level build mentality, the construction of character builds that prioritize maximizing strategic numbers above all else is quite alive here.

Storyteller or {similar type game) characters on the other hand are much more limited in how they can build their characters, but the pieces are much more fuzzy in how they can operate. The differentiation between too similar characters is much more hinged on the fuzzy aspects, rather than the numerical mechanical aspects of Pathfinder.


LazarX wrote:

And that's perfectly fine. I play Pathfinder too. I've got those three stars of PFS Judge by my name. All I'm asking is for the intellectual honesty to admit that that a preference of one system over another is a choice of priorities in a game. That you find Pathfinder's war-gaming precision of combat to be the dealmaker that you want defined mechanics that put strict lines on the actions of both GM's and Players.

Whereas that's not the requirement of someone playing Storyteller. Sure there are the occasional arguments over rules even at Werewolf tables, but the underlying acceptance of playing a Storyteller like game is that the rules aren't that nailed down and the execution of them will operate frequently on a narrative flexibility.

I'm uncertain where you believe we're disagreeing. Perhaps you don't and I'm misinterpreting. Regardless I'm all for groups choosing whatever system they like, based on whatever priorities they have, modifying it (or not) however they choose.

Yay for gaming diversity! \o/

- Torger


LazarX wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
MAJT69 wrote:

I don't know.

That's why I'm here , to find out if that perception is true or not.

In my opinion 3.5 and PF mechanics do allow for roleplaying and encourage roleplaying. My group do tonnes of roleplaying, and come up with character ideas and personalities before it even gets to mechanics. Then we use the 3.5 and PF mechanics to stat up that concept and make it actually work.

But, if your group found that the 3.5 mechanics damaged roleplaying, then you will find the same thing in PF since nothing has changed on that front aside from archetypes allowing you to play a concept quicker and with much less metagaming your build than Prestige classes did in 3.5.

I would prefer to think of it as the wargaming focus of D+D and it's successor games built a particular constraining framework on roleplaying. People did and still roleplay in those games, but the wargame foundation sets it's own walls on how that roleplay takes place and how players execute it.

The metagaming is still very much alive in Pathfinder, the 20 level build mentality, the construction of character builds that prioritize maximizing strategic numbers above all else is quite alive here.

Storyteller or {similar type game) characters on the other hand are much more limited in how they can build their characters, but the pieces are much more fuzzy in how they can operate. The differentiation between too similar characters is much more hinged on the fuzzy aspects, rather than the numerical mechanical aspects of Pathfinder.

On the other hand, much of what you just described of Storyteller was true of earlier editions of D&D as well. BECMI, AD&D, (and 5E as well in many ways). Limited character design, differentiation with "fuzzy" rp, not mechanics, more gm flexibility in rules adjudication, etc.

If those are the games from which PF inherited the wargaming focus, it's surprising it's less prevalent there.

I actually agree in some respects, but I think 3.x was as much of an evolution from the older versions as some of the not so directly related games were. The whole "Build game" of 3.x doesn't really exist in BECMI, 1E or even core 2E. It really started with the 2e splat books.


The OP obviously isn't railroading very much: this thread has been derailed by the PPs (Player Posters).

Shadow Lodge

SmiloDan wrote:
Speaking of railroading and tangents, has anyone ever run an encounter or adventure that uses actual railroads and locomotives? I've been thinking of doing an adventure or at least an encounter or set-piece on a train. Inspired by China Mieville's Railsea (& I suppose his Iron Council too), Felix Gilman's Half-Made World & The Rise of Ransom City, the motion picture Snowpiercer, and even the Lone Ranger (who doesn't want to see a gonzo paladin charge along the top of a moving train??).

If you go beyond D&D/ Pathfinder, one of the most famous campaigns ever published is set on a train.

Horror in the Orient Express


I'm enjoying it- the heheat is popping my popcorn for me, I'm brewing a nice stew over the flame, the broken railway tracks have formed a SUPURB front row seat to this epic wartime film, and I even get to watch some pretty passable discussion over all the fireballs, machine gun fire, and the ping of swords hitting steel minds, all wrapped around a wonderful tragedy coating just out of view. I'm enjoying it, myself, but it's not everyone's cup of tea.


SmiloDan wrote:
Speaking of railroading and tangents, has anyone ever run an encounter or adventure that uses actual railroads and locomotives? I've been thinking of doing an adventure or at least an encounter or set-piece on a train. Inspired by China Mieville's Railsea (& I suppose his Iron Council too), Felix Gilman's Half-Made World & The Rise of Ransom City, the motion picture Snowpiercer, and even the Lone Ranger (who doesn't want to see a gonzo paladin charge along the top of a moving train??).

Sort of!

In an Eberron game, I ran a prepublished adventure...

SPOILER!:
... called Whisper of the Vampire's Blade...

... in which your goal is to hunt down a guy that hops aboard a Lightning Rail. You then have to find him by checking car to car, and maybe entering combat through several.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hmm, maybe you would like Numenera/The Strange's Cypher System better? That system is built for narrative rather than combat and stuff. It does require more effort on part of players and gm though.

Anyway, thing is, no matter how combat heavy of crunchy system is, its up to players and gm to make it good roleplaying wise.

For example, my GM once made us play Shadowrun oneshot made by him and we managed to play through whole 4 fours without getting into combat once. We run away from bugs and solved the other situation peacefully. Which is incredible since he wasn't expecting that and Shadowrun IS combat/tactics heavy game.

So basically, nothing about Pathfinder's rules prevents good roleplaying, rules don't just support combat, they do support roleplaying as well, but no matter what are pros and cons of the system, its up to roleplaying skill of players and gm's abilities to make it a good experience. Does that make sense? ^^;


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are a crap ton of rules that support role playing in ultimate campaign, from fame and prestige to interpersonal relationships and garnering npc boons.

There are enough alternate game systems in that book that you could role play a whole campaign with politics, Game of Thrones style, and using only npc classes and have them be optimized builds.

Hell, there's even a city and kingdom building system that can turn pathfinder into it's own version of monopoly.

If you want more role playing to have effect on your games, pick up that book.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.

To the OP,

I think one of the issues you're group has with 5th is the lack of options so far, and the apparent lack of those being expanded soon.

Turning to pathfinder will give you more options than you can poke a stick at.
Unfortunately it also comes with a system of number crunching and overlapping options that can be abused to make ridiculous builds if you let them.

It also comes with the assumption that certain abilities are present in the party at key levels. It is built into the games design. You can get around those, but quite frankly Pathfinder is a system where magic items are essential and are common.

It's also very complex in maths and remembering how rules interact with all the feats and spells and special abilities. At high levels it becomes difficult to run individual characters let alone DM for a party of them.

They are the things you'll buy into with Pathfinder. My home group still plays it and we enjoy it for the most part.

However, I DM 5th ed as well, and I'm becoming more and more enamoured with it. The games are just as fun. It's easier to get a character concept in the mechanics. It's easier to get fights that work without either wiping parties or being easily wiped in turn. It's also easier to try unusual tricks or tactics since the mechanics aren't constraining.

It puts more control into the DM hand, and that triggers some anger and or fear in a few posters on these boards.

That lays it out for you as I see it.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

To follow-up on what Wrath said, I enjoy PF and 5th Ed.

PF really rewards you for rules mastery. It has very specific rules, and rewards you for squeezing out every little bit of bonus you can find. It also has lots and lots of specific options.

5th Edition is very elegant. It's rules light, and its main mechanic, besides d20+modifier, is advantage/disadvantage. If you have advantage, you roll 2d20 and take the best; if you have disadvantage, you roll 2d20 and take the worst. So if you are invisible, flanking, on higher ground, attacking a prone, sickened and shaken opponent, you get Advantage, not +2+2+1+4+2+2. A lot less number crunching, so the battles are A LOT faster, but just as tactically interesting, as PF. Also, the rules can be loosey-goosey in a fun way. I DM for a LN paladin (Yeah, no more alignment restrictions--just suggestions!) who is now level 3 and hasn't drawn his primary melee weapon yet. He mostly grapples and hits kobolds with other kobolds. Or rips the door he kicked in off its hinges and throws it into a mob of kobolds. Fun stuff like that.


The magic store complex can be resolved by allowing your magic item creators to "consume" magic items as part of the process of upgrading a magic item. So a +1 sword provides 1000gp in materials needed to upgrade your +2 flaming sword to a +2 Flaming Burst sword.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Dark Sorcerer wrote:
The magic store complex can be resolved by allowing your magic item creators to "consume" magic items as part of the process of upgrading a magic item. So a +1 sword provides 1000gp in materials needed to upgrade your +2 flaming sword to a +2 Flaming Burst sword.
There are already rules for upgrading magic items. It just costs the difference. You're 'houseruling' something which is already a rule. Except that it sounds like you're paying for the masterwork weapon again and again.

The houserule removes the need for the magic store middleman. The crafter uses the magic of the low level items as components on a gp for gp basis.


Dark Sorcerer wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Dark Sorcerer wrote:
The magic store complex can be resolved by allowing your magic item creators to "consume" magic items as part of the process of upgrading a magic item. So a +1 sword provides 1000gp in materials needed to upgrade your +2 flaming sword to a +2 Flaming Burst sword.
There are already rules for upgrading magic items. It just costs the difference. You're 'houseruling' something which is already a rule. Except that it sounds like you're paying for the masterwork weapon again and again.
The houserule removes the need for the magic store middleman. The crafter uses the magic of the low level items as components on a gp for gp basis.

There are existing rules for this already, again check out Ultimate Campaign, it has all the answers.


MAJT69 wrote:

Hi, after enjoying playing the new D&D edition for about 6 months, my group have expressed dissatisfaction with the way WotC will be developing the game going forward. While we are happy with the rules, it seems like D&D will mostly be represented by minis, boardgames and the MMO rather than the tabletop game. So we are looking for an alternative. Most of us have played 3.5, didn’t like 4E, and some of us have played Pathfinder about 3 years ago with various degrees of success. The one thing PF clearly has going for it is support from Paizo and plenty of monthly material. However, some of the players have reservations, so as GM I am coming here to voice a few concerns, tap into the experience of PFs many players and see if the game would be right for us, as opposed to 13th Age or something.

I’m not really looking to get into ‘edition wars’ or anything – just trying to get a handle on the state of play of PF three years after I last played it, and see it’s a fit for what we are looking for.

There seem to be two main sticking points, as we are all happy with the quality of production, art, supplements, etc. PF looks very healthy and well-supported, which is ideal. I played 3rd edition for years so I’m familiar with the pros and cons of d20 in general.

The problems are these: wealth-by-level, and the adventure paths. I’ll try and cover them separately as they really are two different things.

Here, I want to ask about the ‘Christmas Tree Syndrome’. One of the things that turned many of us off 3rd edition was the laundry-lists of magic items, because they had the combat bonuses required to function at given levels. This felt like everyone just ended up with the same items with little variation, and nobody went for something cool and offbeat because it was essential to get the ‘Big Six’. Also, players disliked having to trade in their items every few levels, which seemed like a videogame rather than the kind of stories found in books or films, where you just don’t see that happening. Also,...

its a lot of fun.

if you play it and dont like it, nothing we say can change that.

play what you like. if pathfinder and 5th edition dont do it for ya, find another game to play and let us know it goes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for all the replies. Sorry I've not responded but I had to go into hospital at short notice and only just came out.

Anyway, it's interesting that there are so many replies and they are so varied; some think 'sure, you can role-play if you like' and others stress it's a combat-heavy stats-driven optimizing game and you'll be disappointed if you don't play it that way.

So it's quite possible that you can play it how you want at either extreme, or maybe somewhere in the middle.

We got Ultimate Campaign and that seems interesting.

Whether we take the plunge will probably depend on what's in 'Unchained', but there's plenty of food for thought here and I'm grateful for your advice. Thank you, pathfinder people!

201 to 241 of 241 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Changing from D&D 5th, sell me on Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion