Mynafee Gorse

Bill Dunn's page

Goblin Squad Member. Adventure Path Charter Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 6,533 posts (8,392 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 3 Organized Play characters. 27 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,043 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

It depends.

For the most part, rule changes don't bother me much (unless I find the changes themselves problematic). That's because the rules serve a secondary purpose in the game, as I see it, and that purpose is to operationalize what the players want their character to do. How exactly they do so can vary - so the specific rules aren't necessarily that important.

But when a new edition comes along, I'm looking for there to be substantial continuity in the lore and the niches classes, items, and monsters fill. Exactly how they do so may be flexible or they may have more options, but I don't want the old ones closed off. Too much re-imagining and I'll be re-imagining myself playing another game.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
gnoams wrote:
But I am getting sucked in to my example, I wasn't intending this to be an argument about spellcasting, but rather about the setting of DCs in general. "Being easy" is a terrible argument imo, adding 11 should not be difficult for anyone.

It's not about being difficult - it's probably all about being easier than 11. And it is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
I'm surprised there seems to be so much resistance to our wanting a little more rules visability.

I think it's less a case of resistance to more visibility and more a case of "just because you didn't spot it doesn't mean it's a trap" or intent to "hide" rules by the writers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Fumarole wrote:
I'm curious where people get the notion that the majority of the populace only worships one deity. Surely it cannot be solely because of the limited space on a character sheet? Said character sheets also only have space for one character name, but that doesn't mean a character cannot have nicknames or aliases.

This has been a long-standing issue in the fantasy role playing community. I don't know if it's because we've been living in monotheistic cultures too long to really understand polytheism or what, but the idea that a character primarily venerates a specific god in D&D games is probably as old as the game itself.

It might make sense to list a single deity for a cleric because it makes sense they'd be a priest of only a single deity - though they'd obviously venerate every other one just like the rest of the population. But that's about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Corrik wrote:


No, we have, with the plethora of other things that were changed. Tier 4 and 6 casters do not exist anymore. Paladins can not lay on hands and smite in the same combat. Even if a strength spell does come back, odds are it won't increase your character's carrying capacity the same as it did 10 years ago.

Option 1: Things did change, but our characters lack the ability to observe and record this fact.
Option 2: Things always worked like this.

Option 1 is not possible, because otherwise the lore would need to provide an explanation to all of the wizards who have noticed their numbers are completely different now, for all of the Paldins who can cast lay on hands far fewer times in a single combat. That leaves option 2, and if things "always worked like this" then continuity doesn't matter.

There is no option 3 where all of the details are different but somehow continuity is important.

Ultimately, why would issues of in-character continuity be that important? I can see why players may have a problem with an edition change - because things work differently, because things they liked in one edition are changed or gone, etc. But why would anyone feel it has to manifest as a continuity change in the campaign setting that characters would perceive? I really don't understand why it would be an issue.

If you're converting from one edition to another in the middle of a campaign, you're simply going to have to deal with the fact that some things changed form one edition to another whether it's dressed up with a "campaign changing event" or not. That's simply part of changing editions in a rules set when the changes are significant. If you don't want to deal with those changes, then don't change horses mid-stream. If you want to proceed with the switch, I suggest lots of hand-waving and not sweating it as the price you pay for switching.

If the conversion from one edition to the next is between campaigns, then it won't matter. You can just say "Things have always been this way".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I don't really see why there's a limit in the creatures types that can be favored enemy.

Seriously, what is it about the ranger that:
1) invites so much redesign from edition to edition
2) is so oddly done on the first iteration (PF1 excepted)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Danbala wrote:

There were also few things about 2e, that were more difficult as a GM than I expected:

First up: Action List. When I played to 2e at Gen con and I said “I swing my sword” Jack, our GM, would often correct me by saying “Ok. You take a strike action.” I found it irritating at the time, but now that I have a game as GM under my belt, I know why he did that. Each of the actions have different attributes. The GM needs to understand clearly what action you are using because these actions may trigger certain reactions. For example, if you say “I take a potion out go over to James and pour it into James’ mouth” what you are really saying is “I use an interact action to take out a potion. I use a Stride action to move to James. then I use my final action to use Interact to poor the potion into James’ mouth.”

Yeah, I'm with Malk_Content in that you don't need to be that anal. You could say (and I'd hope to see more of this): "I take a potion out, go over to James, and pour it into his mouth. That's an interaction, stride, and interaction for my 3 actions, Dan."

Then it feels more natural for the description, but includes the player accounting for the specifics with the GM.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
zimmerwald1915 wrote:

He's an NPC, and what's more a 2E NPC. He can't "level up" per se.

That’s about as ridiculous a complaint as I have seen. As an NPC, he’s as tough as the story (and GM) choose to make him. And yeah, he can get tougher even if he doesn’t do so the way PCs do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:


This is a good idea, but only really works if your core character concept isn't dependent on one of those uncommon character assets.

Well then it's clear that your core character concept would NOT have worked with that GM in the first place. Good thing you showed up with one that will! Sounds like it works to me.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:


It's the paralysis caused by the unknowns (see any of my above posts, or threads related to this topic for numerous examples of confusion and frustration). As written many common and iconic character concepts simply aren't possible without a GM to allow it. This is incredibly frustrating for players who don't have access to a GM.

If you don't have access to a GM, then what are you playing? If you're creating characters in a vacuum - absent an ongoing game, that's not really affected by rarity. Go nuts and create to you heart's content.

If you aren't creating in a vacuum and have a GM running or intending to run a particular campaign - then you have access to a GM. Ask them!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

It's a challenge with incorporating various tropes from pulp stories and other influences - not all of them were racially sensitive at the time they were published and that may taint things a bit even if Paizo tries to handle them with a more enlightened approach. A gorilla king harkens back to Tarzan stories as well as Gorilla Grodd/King Solovar and makes for a great, evocative hook. And I'm sure that was why it was included on a continent that would be the natural home for a gorilla-dominated society.

Same with the Varisian wagons, Harrow cards, scarves, and shady reputation.

That's the challenge. You want enough familiar tropes to populate a world so that RPGers can relate to them. Cultural, historical, and geographic analogs, tropes in literature and mythology. And you want to do them reasonable justice without having to write a PhD thesis on each one and without suggesting the worst aspects of the tropes and stereotypes involved.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Translucent Wolf wrote:


Paizo saw this coming a while back, and determined to cater to a customer who was interested in a simpler experience in chargen and play. A customer who needed to be guided through the experience and then have assistance with 'well, what should my character do now' from 1 to 20.

And so, we now have PF2, which caters to a customer who enjoys having many of their decisions made for them. Pick a given path in a class, and then at each level, there's only a couple of things to choose from, rather than the massive number of options available in PF1.

<snip>

As things stand today, however, I will not be transitioning the players at my table over to 2e.

Frankly, with the level of disdain you seem to have for the players you think Paizo is catering to, I'm not sure why anybody'd want to play PF2 with you. You certainly did load your language here.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Captain Hawk wrote:


I think the line you object to "could be sexually attracted to a succubus" mean that it doesn't apply if it doesn't feel to your verisimilitude that it should apply. If you've established in the lore of your story that Jack the wizard is not into girls, then some DMs would rule that he's immune to the lure of the succubi, while another DM doesn't feel that way. If a DM thinks rock monsters wouldn't care, then they are immune.

I think it may come down to something like this. Paizo has spent some effort making sure they validate everyone’s gender/sexuality identities and preferences from the game’s perspective. They don’t want some monster in the Bestiary ignoring that effort. How do you think a player would feel if they’ve established their character isn’t into women yet the DM rules, “Yes, you’re still attracted to her?” Kind of invalidates that choice when it’s actually important.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Kind of depends on just how 'activist' you see the gods being. If you take a more Greek model, you figure the gods are constantly meddling in mortal affairs. Alternatively, you could take a more passive approach in which the gods are more concerned with grand cosmic stuff and not stooping to curse a lowly lawyer. Either approach might be valid for a campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

A full attack action can be considered a subset of the set of all full-round actions (which may include things other than making multiple attacks). So they're not exactly the same.

But the kicker here is that since a PC can only take 1 full-round action on his term, he can't do both the Tiger Claw attack and the Flurry of Maneuvers, each of which would take the full-round action. It's like finding out that a plate of potstickers costs $5 and so does a pint of beer. You can't use the same $5 to pay for both of them.

Same with the charge. Each one is a full round action. You don't have enough full round actions in a round to pay for them all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
RangerWickett wrote:

Warning: the following is hearsay from what other people have talked about online. If someone wants to show me this is false, I will gladly delete it.

There also was the disaster that the lead programmer for their online tabletop software committed suicide. 4e was clearly designed to play well in a 'click your power and choose your target on a grid' sort of system, and as I understand it WotC expected to launch a Roll20 style online platform easily 3 years before any of the current players were up and running.

I think they expected 4e to be popular for people playing with laptops, with everyone's characters linked together through a subscription-based service.

Instead, you had to play the game with minis and doing the math in your head, and it was doable, but not what the system was intended for. When the programmer died, I think that whole team lost their drive and it was scrapped.

It's worse than that. He didn't just commit suicide, Joseph Batten stalked and murdered his estranged wife then committed suicide.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

4E's fundamental problems were threefold:

My recollection from the time was that there were some non-rules issues at play too.

The marketting campaign was not well received and the pulling of the Dungeon and Dragon magazine licenses from Paizo was equally unpopular (to an admittedly more limited section of the fanbase).

However, a hugely significant event at the time was the pulling of 3.5 PDFs - many, many people cited that as being a reason they'd never support WotC. It's kind of faded in people's minds I think, but that was a big deal ten years ago.

They did set themselves up with a perfect storm to try to fly into.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Insight wrote:
However, 4e did make a ton of money *and* also led to the even more successful 5e. I suspect if WotC could do it all over again the only major deviation they would make would be to apply some sort of sunset to the OGL (or alternate protections against giving rise to a direct competitor).

You say that 4e led to 5e as if it was all carefully planned, when we can be pretty sure that wasn’t the case. 5e is WotC’s response to 4e’s failure to maintain their 800 lb gorilla position in the industry and I think one of the reasons for its success is the veering away from the carefully structured and complex dance that is 4e into something simpler and more flexible.

And if WotC were able to do it all again, maybe they’d have a sunset clause in the OGL (though we’d all be the poorer for it), but I’m pretty sure they’d also jump right over 4e in order to land on 5e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Zepheri wrote:
So why I can make a critical heal to a friend?

Would you really want to have to make an attack roll to heal a friend? Not only would you have to hit their touch AC (usually fairly easy... but not always), but a natural 1 would be an auto-miss. Usually, I'd prefer a somewhat more reliable healing spell rather than one with those drawbacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Whatever else may be involved, getting a free dirty trick, disarm, or sunder isn't overpowered. I'd argue most of them are underpowered because they don't generally inflict damage and so just prolong a fight (leading to more risk overall) compared to dealing out damage. This, in effect, gives you a chance at using a maneuver and inflicting normal damage but only if the creature provokes an AoO. In other words, finally the manuevers get something nice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Hugo Rune wrote:


I'm not going to disagree that torturing someone for the sake of it isn't evil. But neither do I think that a captured assassin is going to reveal who hired him in exchange for a plate of cookies. I also think your second, blackmail example, sits on the spectrum as the priest would be psychologically tortured.

No, they're probably not going to spill their guts for cookies. That doesn't mean you need to torture them to get that information nor that interrogating them in general is torture.

I would expect someone skilled in Profession (Interrogator) would be able to lead the person they're questioning to reveal more information than someone who isn't skilled - whether that's by successful cross-referential questioning, asking deceptively leading questions, or building a positive relationship and levels of trust.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Corathonv2 wrote:


Chromantic Durgon, I agree that fun is the reason to play the game. But if I, as a player, find out that my decisions are meaningless, my fun is ruined. I think that's what blaphers is driving at.

Why would the GM fudging a die roll every once in a while make player decisions meaningless?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

People get surprisingly rigid on this topic and, I predict, many will be snarky. But for me, I'm the GM - I can edit anything on my side of the screen, adventures, creature stats, and, yes, die rolls. I just do so judiciously rather than willy nilly.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
They've always played second banana. It was just a larger banana than before.

They did basically achieve parity with WotC and D&D right around the time of 4e's D&D Essentials. That's not just second banana, though admittedly it was during the one edition of D&D that, on its own merits, could not keep its publisher in the 800-lb gorilla throne.

But it is true that a more D&Dish edition of D&D (which 5e is) was always going to surge back to that throne and pass PF again.

Ultimately, Paizo's in a tough position. The PF1 rule system is as complete as it's going to get and it creaks with age and clutter, absolutely begging for a new edition to revitalize core sales. But the industry isn't in the same state as it was when PF1 came out so there's less likelihood of it making the same splash and be the same sensation. Meanwhile, 5e has got meteoric popularity and there's a major potential market for more adventure, campaign, and monster content, yet for Paizo to significantly invest in supporting it, they'd undercut their own PF2 (and PF1 for that matter) and make them probably too dependent on WotC's IP again... and that nearly killed them before.


24 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I'm skeptical about 2e too, but for chrissakes, people, they aren't going to invest significant effort in publishing another hardcover for 1e with the 2e launch in August, they aren't kicking your puppies, and they aren't whizzing in your corn flakes. PF1 has pretty much run its course as a product capable of sustaining the needs of the business and I'm willing to bet Paizo's sales data backs that up with all sorts of diminishing returns on the rules supplements.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Cevah wrote:

Grognard here.

I remember playing where failing a save caused all your magic items to be subject to destruction, and not just faling on a natural 1. Getting hit by a fireball was every bit as dangerous for magic item loss as it was from hit point loss. Getting hit by several fireballs was devastating. This is called "hard mode". I had lots of fun.

It is all about expectations. Some want hard mode, others want cushions on all pointy objects to prevent damage. Some don't sweat character death because it is only a speed bump (costing gold to fix) while others wail when their character is hit.

As long as your expectations are met, it is fun.

/cevah

Corollary: If your expectations and those of the GM don't match or if yours don't match the rest of the players', you are in for a bumpy ride. So work those expectations out and adjust them, meld them, or find another table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
zza ni wrote:
is say the summoner has a similar rune appearing on forehead but it doesn't say his glows. so the main problem is the glowing rune on the eidolon.

A good skill check covers all sorts of sins. Considering all eidolons don't suffer a stealth check penalty as part of the rules, I think it's fair to assume that the glowy rune was considered to be inconsequential for such things, if it was considered at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
MrCharisma wrote:


While I agree in real life there's a difference, I don't know that there would enough difference for a different condition in Pathfinder.

As you both said, it's a specific type of Unconsciousness, but Pathfinder doesn't really differentiate. There IS an in-game definition of "Unconscious", so if it falls within that purview then it has an in-game definition. The level of detail you'd be adding to the game to have different levels of unconsciousness is at odds with the ease-of-play aspect that the game strives for (For example there's no difference in your abilities/conditions if you're woken up during deep sleep or REM sleep, even though you'd likely have a very different reaction in real life).

Essentially - While I agree that there is a more nuanced definition - I don't think it's a meaningful difference for game-play.

(I also don't remember why this came up, so if someone's trying to game the system from either direction my default is "Don't game the system".)

Understandable advice - and that's ultimately why I, as a GM, would not equate unconscious with comatose in order to bedevil a character making use of ioun stones.

Most of the mental stats (Wisdom and Charisma) put a character into a state of unconsciousness when at 0, but a creature with an Intelligence of 0 is contrastingly called out as comatose. That strikes me as deliberate and another reason I think any equation of comatose with unconscious is questionable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
MrCharisma wrote:

In the absence of an in-game definition of a term we default to the dictionary definition.

Comatose = unconscious.

That’s going to depend on your dictionary. The ones I’m seeing refer to comatose as a state of deep unconsciousness. Almost all of them add a qualifier to intensify unconscious, hence my comment on reasonable pushback above.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Slim Jim wrote:

In other words, if you're zonked out for any reason, your orbiting cloud dumps onto the ground bouncing everywhere (and, after regaining consciousness, you'll be blowing several rounds looking for them, scooping them up, and reactivating them). -- And now you know why some wizards nail them into their foreheads.

("Significant intelligence damage" would, I presume, be being dropped to 3 or less, or to "Animal-level intelligence". But the game allows Ioun stone use by animal companions, however, provided a PC assists them in activation, so RAW is a bit cloudy here regarding what happens if you're feebleminded. They should remain active so long you're conscious, but if you go unconscious, then by extrapolation you should need the assistance of your allies in reactivating them if still stupefied.)

-- Number of GMs who have ever enforced any of this, in my anecdotal experience? ZERO.

Comatose isn't a defined condition, but the use in various spells and descriptions of things like intelligence damage suggest it's not merely unconsciousness but something more.

I think any GM who ruled any form of unconsciousness to be equivalent of comatose can reasonably expect pushback from players.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Take notes. Jot down notes afterward. Events that happen in the game will be a lot easier to remember.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

We might be waiting a bit. The people in charge decided to inconvenience us and release the movie while my daughter is still away at college. If she doesn't get a chance to see it there (there's a wee, family-run movie theater in Mount Vernon, IA - smallest one I've ever been in), she would not forgive us for seeing it without her.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

The item creation feats were a surprisingly massive change to the system when 3e D&D introduced them and their presence and expectation of being able to convert found items efficiently significantly changed how players interacted with magic items.

I heartily endorse keeping them out of a game. You might want to spend a bit more time and effort, however, making sure you sprinkle about items well-suited to the PCs in return.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
BPorter wrote:

So...there's a problem with the road you're headed down. I got the fact that Carol's challenges were "in her mind", ala the memory loss. But that internal struggle never really put her or anyone she cared about at risk. This, combined with no physical threat, added up to no real tension in the film.

I also didn't criticize Larson at all. In fact, I cited her performance as one of the highlights of the film.

As to the rant you posted to back up your point... complimenting Larson for portraying Carol Danvers/Capt. Marvel well, giving kudos for portraying Carol's confidence with a quiet cool in contrast to Stark or Thor's egos, highlighting the chemistry she had with the cast she had to interact with, and laying my criticism on the directors, writers, and the wasted potential of the Skrull threat, the typical Sam Jackson we got instead of Nick Fury, the eye loss played for a laugh... none of that is valid because A) I'm a guy, and B) the movie 'wasn't made for me'?!? I mean, you didn't come right out and say that, but I can only conclude that's what you mean if you're linking this "rebuttal" of criticism of the movie to me via your earlier post....snip

Frankly, I think you're actually proving TriOmegaZero's point.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
BPorder wrote:


There is a noticeable lack of tension in the film. At NO TIME did I fear for the characters in this film. The prequel structure of the film works against it in this regard.

Going to pull that out of the spoiler tag - I don't think it's particularly spoilery since we all know it's a prequel.

From my perspective, this is something that usually doesn't bother me in a superhero genre movie or comic, because there's usually no reason to fear for most of the principal characters in the genre - superheroes survive.

The genre itself isn't conducive to killing off the super-powered protagonists because its serial in nature - whether comic series or in movie franchises. The tension is almost always sought elsewhere using other suspense-building aspects of the story. "How to they get out of this?" "How does this affect other people?" and so on.

This might actually be a bit different in April since we, as viewers, know that multiple actors have contracts that are ending in Avengers: Endgame. We don't know if they're going to retire, die, or have something else happen to them. The fact that we know something about their future in the franchise is driving tension. Will they kill off Iron Man, Cap, Thor? Who knows?

On the other hand, even though this isn't a prequel, we're pretty sure they aren't killing off Black Widow. Scarlett Johansson's got at least one other moving coming up. Her serial/franchise life will continue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Slim Jim wrote:
Essentially, you're stipulating that since the writers don't English well when it comes to the grammatical purpose of paragraphs, that it is then up to their customers to expect that and to get into the habit of deliberately reading badly in order to compensate and reverse-engineer what it is that they assume was the original intent, which is the opened-ended assumption floodgates every power-gamer craves. I can easily envision players arguing that their full-attack archery atop a moving mount is not even subject to -4 penalties if the mount doesn't exceed a single move -- because why not ignore everything in the paragraph and cherrypick out that one sentence that's concentrated awesome-sauce? I mean, if context is something to be cavalierly discarded whenever desired. (In other words, the exact sort of theory-crafting that the idea of RAW is conceptually intended to rein in.)

No, I'm expecting the reader to engage their brain and read and understand the rules in whole context rather than read like a bot only able to apply limited logic to the situation. That whole context makes the rule pretty clear.

By the way, it's easy to envision a player arguing their full attack archer atop a moving mount isn't subject to the -4 if the mount doesn't exceed a single move... because that penalty is only applied the mount taking a double-move. Frankly, I'm beginning to think we're being trolled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Slim Jim wrote:
Derklord wrote:
The Paragraph is about mounted archery. That's the context.

That's an assumption blatantly at odds with the first sentence of the paragraph. Its context, established in the first sentence, is archery from double-moving or running mounts.

The context of a paragraph is established by its initial sentences. If you're insisting the context is something else (such as a context more broad than was established in the initial sentences), and not only that, but that your interpretation is also what the writers also originally meant (i.e., in opposition to what proper grammar would imply, or RAW) -- then you're essentially maintaining that (a) Paizo's English-fu is crappy, and (b) players must be able to read crappy in order to account for it and thereby glean the one, true intent.

Derklord is more on the money than you are Slim Jim. If we were to follow your suggestion of assuming the opening sentence determines the context, we'd be looking at the paragraph on melee attacks and concluding that the prohibition on full attacks only applies when attacking smaller creatures that are on foot. Since that doesn't make any sense, we're forced to conclude that the paragraph on melee combat from a mount is a mixed bag of rules that all apply to mounted melee combat - much like we're arguing for mounted ranged combat.

Bottom line, there's an explicit allowance to take a full attack while a mount is moving in the Core Rulebook. It fits with the explained rationale for disallowing the same with melee combat two paragraphs earlier. Taken together, it's fairly obvious that mounted archers can take multiple attacks even if their mount moves more than 5'.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Slim Jim wrote:

Mounted archers may be of the opinion that they're always entitled to a full-attack even if their animal moves more than 5'. Actually, they're usually not.

(That, especially in combination with the famously blanked-out soft-cover rule that I referenced earlier in the thread, is why archery builds may seem so overpowering to inexperienced GMs.)

I’ve taken a look at your link and you’re going to have to explain your reasoning for why a mounted archer can’t take a full attack. Claiming the sentence explicitly allowing this refers to a specific context makes no sense in the overall context of the mounted combat rules. The context you should consider is the paragraph earlier that explains melee combat and why the rider can’t take a full attack. Considered together, it sure looks like you can take a full attack with ranged weapons even while the mount is moving.

And with that in mind, I expect Mounted Skirmisher was written with just the melee context in mind, not ranged.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
BryonD wrote:

.

Frankly, "simpler" is just a nice way of saying they dumbed it down. Open-ended narrative driven TTRPGs are *very* complex. If someone can't handle the basic level fractions that PF1E contains, then they also can't handle the demands of modeling a story in a way that truly attempts to capture the nuances of what is happening. I have the ability to enjoy a game that meets my standards and I have the luxury of rejecting games which fail to match that standard. The playtest failed that test badly.
...

More like “dumbed it down” is an asshat way of saying something has been simplified, because it expresses contempt of people who prefer the simpler model.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Charlie Brooks wrote:
It all boils down to the style of story you want the game to tell. Personally, I think +level helps differentiate this game from D&D, and I think everybody benefits if Pathfinder and D&D tell different kinds of stories. However, removing +level should be very easy to do for those who wish to do so.
Differentiate between D&D 5e and PF2, maybe. But there’s another version of D&D that incorporated that treadmill that I ditched for PF1.

PF1 used the same basic treadmill PF2 does. +level to attack, or a fraction of +level with an additional bonus that basically resulted in +level.+level to CMB. +level to CMD. +level to any skill you kept maxed. Caster level was almost always +level. AC was preeeetty close to +level if you actually kept up with all the big 6 boosting items the game assumed you got. Saving throws were a fraction of +level, though probably the most divergent example of it.

This notion that level didn't matter in PF1 doesn't hold up under any sort of scrutiny.

Well, it’s a good thing I didn’t say level didn’t matter then, isn’t it? PF1 doesn’t use the same treadmill as 4e does and PF2 is tapping into. It’s an aspect of the redesign that I am not at all happy with and have definitely preferred 5e’s design. I’ll give PF2 a try, but it’s already got one significant factor riding against it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Charlie Brooks wrote:
It all boils down to the style of story you want the game to tell. Personally, I think +level helps differentiate this game from D&D, and I think everybody benefits if Pathfinder and D&D tell different kinds of stories. However, removing +level should be very easy to do for those who wish to do so.

Differentiate between D&D 5e and PF2, maybe. But there’s another version of D&D that incorporated that treadmill that I ditched for PF1.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Hama wrote:

Rotten tomatoes audience score is about 58%.

Also seems Disney and Bob Iger are unhappy.

Not sure I'd buy anything The Quartering has to sell without checking it for misogynist-laden BS first.

And as far as rottentomatoes goes, the audience scores aren't shown yet. Critics are at 82% btw, which scores a fresh on the tomatometer.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
MER-c wrote:


That aside, I noticed that a lot of posts here that seem to basically only care about continuing 3.5 so I guess the question I have for you is, why did you not just continue to play 3.5? You had the material to last decades, probably longer. So why did you really put your faith and your wallets in a mid sized publishing company who was taking the single biggest risk they possibly could have taken?

Two reasonable ones I can think of off-hand:

Ongoing support.

A current game means easier recruitment of players compared to an out of print game.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I think another thing we need to go is get it out of people's heads that:

1) Good is perfect and any imperfection means they aren't good. Good people (and gods) make mistakes, they have limitations on what they can do. Not choosing to fight every evil out there doesn't make them less good when they're busy fighting some evil.

2) People (and gods) are responsible for what other people do with their own free will. This is a tired old canard that you see in all sorts of media - I'm particularly reminded of Detective Manolis chastising Daredevil for treating Bullseye with mercy and saying that he'd hold Daredevil responsible for any of Bullseye's victims if he recovered and ever got out of prison. It's a common trope and it's utterly BS. Paladins aren't responsible for they offer orc or goblin children mercy and they grow up to act like orcs and goblins. Sarenrae isn't responsible for eschatalogical cultists summoning various spawn of Rovagug and laying waste to civilizations. That's fully on the cultists doing the summoning.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Hythlodeus wrote:

It means choices and options, it means freedom for all the participants in telling the stories we cooperatively want to tell and it means being the true inheritor of the 3.x system that we fell in love with 18 years ago. All of this, paired with quality Adventure Paths as support.

Aside from the APs, PF2 sadly will be nothing of this. It will just be another TTRPG

I get that PF2 isn't a continuation of a system you fell in love with and that's a powerful drug, but my mind boggles with the platitude that PF (and 3x) meant "freedom for all the participants in telling the stories we cooperatively want to tell" and that somehow that doesn't apply to any RPG you put your mind to. They may each have their focus (medieval romance for Pendragon, action-heavy superheroics for Mutants and Masterminds, mind-blowing horror for Call of Cthulhu, etc) but I have yet to encounter an RPG that can't be put to the task of giving all participants freedom to tell the stories they want to tell within their genre. Pathfinder is no different from any other in this regard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi, Wade!

"Oh, no, Salvator's work is reasonably well known about Varisia, but not that far outside of it yet. Though there are some of us a bit more interested in the arts who like to keep our eyes open for masterpieces that are clearly inspired... and inspirational." She starts looking through the paintings and is quickly drawn to one of them.

The painting depicts a handsome man in the process of peeling away the flesh of his arms as if he were taking off a pair of gloves. Underneath, his arms are muscular and covered with glittering blue scales. The man’s expression is one of delight, yet his eyes are empty pits of blackness. Half seen in the shadows beyond him are thousands of humans impaled on towering wooden poles erected in the shadow of an indistinct shape looming on the horizon—perhaps a castle, maybe a mountain, but likely something more.

Laori's eyes widen and her voice becomes a bit more breathless. "Whoa, hoh, ho! Look at this one here! It's incredible! It's almost like he could walk right off this canvas. And those brilliant blues. A Salvator Scream specialty. Oh, my Zon! This is amazing work, Salvator. Absolutely stunning!"

Firdall:
If Laori is hiding anything, you'd be surprised. She's so expressive and enthusiastic she doesn't really seem to have significant barriers.

Laori laughs at Firdall's observation about her chipper-ness, "I admit, I'm a little different from the rest of my fellows. They're much gloomier Guses than I am. But I can't help it. The pain, the suffering, the baring of the soul's torments for all the world to see - it's all just so exciting! I suppose that's what drew me to him and it's what keeps me going."
"Oh, but pish! You don't want to know about me and all that, do you? Salvator is WAY more interesting. I have got to know where you get your ideas. Have you seen a man like this one before?" she asks, indicating the man with the empty pits as eyes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HP: 48/48 | AC 19 /T: 13 /FF: 16 | F: +7 /R: +7 /W: +2 | CMB +5| CMD: 18 (22) | Speed: 50 | Perc +5 | Conditions: none

Minto licks at his and Griffo's wounds to offer some comfort.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male Halfling Druid 5 | HP 38/38 | AC: 16 /T: 14 /FF: 13 | F: +8 /R: +7/ W: +9 | CMB +2 | CMD 15 | Speed 20 | Init. +3 | Perc. +13 | S.M. +3 | Conditions: None

"Oh, thank the gods!" Griffo says with great relief as he rushes forward to Surma's prostrate body, zinging off a stabilize cantrip on the way.

He surveys the situation, carefully looking for any further threats before he runs the risk of making Surma a target again.

Perception: 1d20 + 12 ⇒ (9) + 12 = 21

Assuming there are no obvious threats...
"We're not letting you slip away so easily, Surma. Come on back to us," he says as he touches her with his healing wand.

clw: 1d8 + 1 ⇒ (8) + 1 = 9 wand has 3 charges left
...hey, good time to get that max result


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male Halfling Druid 5 | HP 38/38 | AC: 16 /T: 14 /FF: 13 | F: +8 /R: +7/ W: +9 | CMB +2 | CMD 15 | Speed 20 | Init. +3 | Perc. +13 | S.M. +3 | Conditions: None

I'm worried that if I hit you with more healing, she'll just hit you with another bomb.

1 to 50 of 1,043 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>