Secret Wizard wrote:
How do you handle skills and feats?
The conversions I want to do are more along the lines of DM side. PC construction is beyond what I'm able to conceive.
I'm thinking of converting a few PFS Scenarios, Dragon's Demand, and Rise of the Runelords first, and maybe Crypt of the Everflame.
Taking an informal poll...
Did it take your group more than one average session length to finish Thistletop? If it did take multiple sessions, how many sessions for the first floor portion?
If I can recall correctly I think we did the first floor in one sessions and part of the basement, and then we finished the basement in a second session.
But, after reading through it, I can see Thistletop taking 3 sessions total, easily. How fast did our group do it? And how many long rests?
As a DM, I had yearned for the simplicity that DnD 5e has delivered on. But I also really appreciate and want to use all this PF (specifically Golarion) material I've collected over the years.
So, since 5e is very structurally similar to d20, I'm working on converting PF material I'm going to use in game, and post it up for other folks online.
It took me about 30 minutes to do Burnt Offerings. The most time consuming thing was making sure challenge versus level progression was balanced. Right now I'm working on the math conversions and substituting monsters, like for like, such as switching Sinspawns for Nothics with minor re-writes.
Surely, we'll know more once the Monster Manual and DM's Guide is out, but I thought I'd go ahead and get a jump start, and see if anyone else planned on doing the same, and see if they wanted to contribute to the wiki (Google Site) I'm about to launch.
Let me know if there is any interest...
If anyone here is interested in playing online, I'm trying to get this Google Group off the ground, modeled off Pathfinder Society Online Collective. Adventurer's League is still brand new, but it should grow pretty quickly.
The link to their Player's Guide is here: http://media.wizards.com/downloads/dnd/ADVLeague_PlayerGuide_TODv1.pdf
Looks to me like a less hardcore PFS with very similar elements. There's not a lot of support for online play, which is a shame. But this is what PFS players will be sitting next to in a few weeks, maybe even Wednesday.
What do you guys think?
I read all the playtest rules, but I didn't do the surveys. I still feel like I got everything I wanted. I've been DMing RIse of the Runelords for the past year using PF, and I just started to get burned out around level 8. I found myself doing more math and less exploration of the narrative elements of the game and at the table we were spending more and more time talking about rules elements and what character/monster could or couldn't do, and while this was fun in the same way deck building in magic is fun, I personally yearned for something else. I have a two players from my long term group that really enjoy character optimization and I'm sure they would prefer to stick to PF. But since neither of them want to GM PF, they'll have to find someone that wants to.
I think Wizards is doing a smart thing and producing a game for DMs. Their first product was a DM product. The reason I think this is clever is that DM are organizers of games. Ask yourself, if you're primarily DM or are a player, how hard is it to find a game? If you don't live in an area with other roleplayers, on roll20, it appears that advertisements for DMs appears 50 times as often as an add for players. I can DM/GM a game anytime I want, pretty much. And if I was willing, I could bring in new players. With 5e, I probably will, because of how easy it is to play.
Played one session so far, and read (I think) all the material that has been released. Super happy with I'm seeing, and I burned out on GMing PF and 4e long ago.
5e seems to be channeling a lot of aspects of E6 that I was intrigued about. It carries a lot of the simplicity, and still give players enough choices for players to feel progression. If feats and spells remain in line with this, through subsequent products and levels, I think 5e will pretty much filled the niche for me.
In both of the most recent editions of the DnD 4e and 3.X, I noticed players tended towards the character creation and math aspects of RPGs. Character optimization, tinkering with math was a pretty huge component of the conversation and forum talk that I saw. I think this will remain a strong niche and folks that don't mind having that as an aspect of their game will either stick to PF or move on to other games that cater to it.
As a DM, I think 5e built something I can work with. I've noticed since we've started our campaign I'm going through my old material from Dragon and 1e all the way to 3.5 stuff looking for campaign material. Not for builds, but for story. I like the fact that I can spend as little or as much time as I want, and that I'll be able to build encounters on fly. This was possible in other editions, but I realize that the stress of doing so will just be lower.
For my campaign I'm doing my own reboot of Forgotten Realms, using only the Greybox and FR1-6. So we're playing as though nothing in the novels ever happened (mostly because so much has happened, I can't really track it all). The world's going to be grittier, and less forgiving. More George Martin than Tolkien.
And I like that this is all really easy to do without having to be an expert in the rules.
Does a creature threaten AoO with both at all times?
Googled and searched for this. The only thing that comes up is the FAQ for TWF + armor spikes which doesn't seem to answer this question. I'm not really sure how to interpret Armor Spikes being treated as a light weapon and therefore needed to be used by a hand. If armor spikes are like daggers, then PC with a reach weapon wouldn't threaten, because he would need to be holding a dagger. But if it's treated like unarmed strike, he would threaten.
I'm guess I'm also asking how this is ruled on for PFS play, as well as RAW.
I roll a few checks which would happen passively behind the screen, such as perception, or sometimes sense motive.
Another strategy with this, that I like in order to keep the game becoming just about the player's math and character sheet, is that I ask players what they want to do. And if there is a success fail component to their action, I ask them to describe the activity and then I as GM tell them what skill check or ability check to use. If they give a particularly innovative or appropriately effective description of how they want to do the thing, I may give a +2 bonus to the roll.
This way, players are less constrained by their character sheet and thinking more about what their character is actually doing.
Is the cheapest solution. You won't generally need to redraw that many maps in 1 session. I would only draw out the ones where positioning and terrain elements can really impact the outcome.
Another solution is http://www.amazon.com/Adams-Easel-Inches-2-Pack-EP927342/dp/B0038JE9KM/ref= sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1382395375&sr=8-1&keywords=1+inch+grid+paper , which will be pricier over time, but can save you time, and pre-draw more maps.
I use roll20.net, and we play online. But for Rise of the Runelords there are a lot of good pre rendered maps you can print out, if you do a quick search, or check the AP forum under resources.
Yep. Had this debate already. When creating characters above 1st level, what do you use to help them determine their starting gear and magic items?
I was also pretty sure all the rules were guidelines, or at least players speak about it this way.
I just wanted to a way to accurately determine character power.
Actually, I'm having the exact same issue as you, and have a similar DMing issues (forgetting powers), and I'm actually at the exact same place in RotRL as your group as well.
An our group took out Xanesia at level 5, which made it way more interested. I even added a fight outside the tower with some remaining mercs from Brothers of the Seven after that fight, which finally brought one player down to neg HP.
We have a Dwarf Inquisitor (optimzed), Wizard-Conjuration - optimized in terms of spell and int 20) Fighter/Cleric (non-optimized, I had to hook him up with some magic items to bring him in line with the optimized characters) and Magus (not optimized).
I was thinking Mythic Adventures was a blessing in disguise for GMs, and as it stands, I would not open it up for players to scour for new abilities. It may be a way for GMs to expand current monsters while while being able to roughly calculate encounter strength. And a good way to spice up old monsters for experienced players who basically know the bestiary monsters inside and out.
Completely rewriting encounters seems like a complete waste of an AP and not a good option for me. If I wanted (had time) to write my own stuff, I would. I ran an AP to have prepackaged encounters and a good story to go along with them.
Not remember powers is not an uncommon problem for GMs who don't have hours and hours to memorize this stuff. I think it has to do with how stat blocks are written/designed. Something I may try is highlighting (I know it ruins the book) or highlighting in your PDF, important powers that should come into play during an encounter to help remember them.
I'm about to start Walking Scarecrows from Skinsaw Murders and I'm curious if anyone has any experience with this section on VTT.
This fight is different from the other ones in terms of presentation in the book, and there are not specific battle mats or well described area.
So I was thinking I would show the larger overview map and ask them what area they wanted to investigate, and then zoom in for fights to a generic battle map of farmland area.
I just wanted to see how other folks have run this?
Interesting. Where's the source this line is printed because I couldn't find it in the SRD. This would also seem to solve the question about whether a character affected by Hold Person could delay, and then act after a companion was able to cast Dispel Magic.
Edit: Pathfinder seemed to have changed the description of paralyze from the 3.5 SRD. If so, I think then the meaning of this has to be reinterpreted.
I don't disagree with your math, but a missing part of this kind of equation is that a unconscious or dead character does 0 damage per round.
And yes unintelligent healing is unintelligent, along with over healing and over damaging is just wasteful or non-tactical.
When the group dynamics is working, my players are only healing when necessary to reduce that a character will fall in combat and deal no damage, but yes, offensive is the best defensive. If there was really no chance that the character would fall in combat and the characters knew that, and they choose to heal anyways, that would be dumb. But how much information do PCs have about monster's attack triage?