A lot of the threads here seem to be from existing PF players. I was just wondering if anyone else, like me, is not currently playing PF but is here to check out 2E.
I think it would help Paizo to know how many new people they are drawing in (or like me back in) because of the possibilities of 2E. I liked PF 1E but the math outweighed the fun for me after a few years.
If 2E fixes that I may start playing PF again in August. My group loves playtesting so they would be onboard as well.
Why did 2E interest me? The promise to remove the Christmas tree effect but keep character creation options, the possibility of reduced complexity in creating NPCs/monsters, the change to actions in combat while keeping fights tactically full, and adding in the alchemist and goblin to make PF its own unique system.
I like the idea of starting fresh again. And the possiblity of great 3rd party support. I also want to create my own world to game in and PF would be great for that if I don't feel like I'm fighting with the rules.
Adventure paths usually wrap up around level 15. I wonder if it would make sense to have Starfinder end at 15th level to directly work with the adventure path. It would also open up more pages for other needed rules like starships and robots.
Another advantage would be that a person brand new to Starfinder could buy one adventure path and play the ENTIRE game (all levels). You can’t do this with Pathfinder just by playing the adventure paths. I know I would see that as a major plus.
As to drawbacks, I really don’t see any. You can have planar travel and all the high level stuff easily by level 15.
I sent in my item. Getting in to RPG Superstar is like learning to fight. You have to be willing to get the crap beat out of yourself until you learn to win or die trying. Getting in can't be worse than 2011? Right? Right!!!???
Also, thanks to Lisa for posting the link to the Hitler rejection video. And try beer. Beer helps before submitting. Really, it does.
Peace out and good luck to everyone who submits. Getting in ain't nothing compared to archtypes. Archteypes. Damn your eyes, archetypes.
I don’t recall using minotaurs before and I’ve found some issues with the Bestiary entry.
Why would a minotaur use powerful charge? The attack does 2d6+6 damage while the greataxe it wields does 3d6+6. Seems like the charge should do gore +10 (3d6+6 damage) for triple damage. [BAB +6] + [Str bonus +4] equals +10 to attack.
Minotuar as listed:
My version (refigured attack math and triple damage [Str +4 x3 as it is no longer a secondary attack] plus [1d6 die of damage x3]:
Also, the math seems off for a minotaur’s normal attacks and for the attack for charging gore (as noted above).
Minotaur as listed:
My calculations show:
With a greataxe: [BAB of +6/+1] + [Str bonus +4/+4]. Gore is [BAB of +6] + [secondary -5] + [Str bonus +4] equals +5. Damage is correct at 3d6+6 for axe and 1d6+2 for gore.
Greataxe with Power Attack is -2 to hit and +6 damage for greataxe and +2 for secondary gore. Damage is axe 3d6+12 and gore damage is 1d6+4.
Am I missing something in the math? I’m using the second printing version of the Bestiary.
What? That sounds like paranoid delusions to me. Other people coming over and burning your books???
Tongue in cheek. I don't think 4E only adopters can time travel either.:)
However, I will let the Wizards D&D forums speak for themselves. Join an already existing thread talking about possible changes/improvements to D&D and mention anything you may have liked about previous editions that you think would be good to bring back to the current edition.
I'd wear boots, a tinfoil hat, and an asbestos suit though.
So, you think hateful behavior here is ok because some people supposedly behave hateful too, on another board?
Since I didn't say that, I'd have to say no. The original poster asked if the guy who had posted was serious. I figured he was tongue in cheek but feeling the pressure from 4E only adopters. I have too.
I wade through the abuse on Wizard's site because I do like D&D the game and would like to see fans past and present get along. But quite a few posters over there don't see things the same way. So a tongue in cheek reaction is understandable, from my point of view.
These same posters freak out about 5E, saying it would be unfair to take away 4E from there, they'd leave the hobby, etc. The irony is hard to miss and if I'm a bit flippant about it, well, who wouldn't be after all the conflict of the last few years?
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
In fairness, a large vocal voice over at Wizard's forums wants to go back in time and destroy both 3E and 3.5. And they aren't fans of Paizo or Pathfinder either or fans of fans of Paizo or PF even those who also play 4E (ask 'em, they'll tell you). If they could get my address they would enjoy coming over, taking every d20 book I have (maybe not my 4E books but who knows?), and burning them on my lawn.
To these fans, the only D&D is 4E and they will make sure you don't forgot it. They are also likely to forgot that Wizards itself do not invent D&D and that the 4E core rulebooks have more than a fair share of errors that make the game unpleasant to nearly unplayable as written (but the books are OOP so it is all good now).
So having some friction between 4E only players and everyone else who plays RPGs on the planet (even if one of those games is 4E) does make some sense.
Also, don't bring up the Ennies with those guys. Seriously.
Chris Self wrote:
10:30? Must be nice, I've already been working 4 hours by that point in my day. Well, I've been at work for 4 hours by that point in my day.
If I'm reading the descriptions right, it sounds like the Rules forum is for clarification and understanding of how a rule works.
The Advice forum seems like the place to take about optimization--a place to give advice about how to play the game.
I don't think an optimization forum makes sense since that isn't a goal of the standard Pathfinder ruleset. Paizo would be encouraging a style of play that they frankly aren't pursuing which would be really confusing to new players just looking for rule advice.
Posting in the Advice forum, on the other hand, allows power gamers a chance to share opinions and discuss without confusing new players looking for basic answers in the rules forums. And since it is advice, it comes across as a way of playing that some gamers would really like to see more of, without forcing a discussion of whether the official rules need to be changed to support that playstyle.
I dropped XP all together and am using Steps from Monte Cook's World of Darkness.
I also dropped treasure pile building. Instead, the PCs turn in everything looted (they are privateers) and get one decent magic item a level (they can tweak it a bit for more gold, two items etc. but they make those suggestions).
Cutting out XP and treasure math renewed my interest in writing adventures for PF. Otherwise, too much time was spent on spreadsheets and subtracting and adding up numbers in the thousands or tens of thousands.
Which brings up a point. Why is XP in the thousands? Why not the hundreds? Say, 130 XP to go to 2nd level? Heck, with the right tweaks, XP could down to the tens (13 XP to go to 2nd).
Treasure could be cut down to the hundreds (or even tens with a few tweaks) as well.
The magus is my group is searching for his blade at tonight's game. We just finished Harrowstone. On the way north, the magus has to visit the lady of the lake (the big lake north of the village) and defeat some of her enemies to be given the blade.
The lady of the lake is a witch. She's got a creepy Yoda from Dagobah vibe (the whole going into the Darkside cave, "I'm not afraid", "you will be, you will be" thing). She'll preview some of the upcoming stuff for CC and warn the magus of the power of the blade.
Just curious, if you DM 3.5 what do you do with new to RPGs players? Do they have to go hunt down a PHB 3.5 to play in your games?
I just couldn't imagine telling my three new players to go find a PHB 3.5 somewhere so they could play. But maybe that happens more often than I realize (with maybe multiple editions even--ie AD&D 1E DMs maybe also require new players to look up a PHB 1E)?
Looks like a PHB 3.5 runs from around $20 used to around $80 new (I'll disregard the $330 one). So not impossible to find or too expensive if you're willing to buy a used book.
It just seems impractical to try to get new players to shop online for out of print books. Again, I'm honestly curious how it works.
I thought DDI cost about $120 a year and once you unsubscribe it is gone? Seems expensive to me. Last I checked, Hero Lab was $20 for the core rulebook and the rules from Inner Sea World guide and $9.99 for APG. That's about 3 months of DDI and you keep it, right?
I realize the GM would have to throw in another $25 bucks for the monsters but even so that's $55 to own the whole package (Core, APG, Inner Sea rules, and two Bestaries) not just rent it.
I don't use 3.5 at all anymore. I'm just about to trade in my PHB 2 3.5 because I now have the magus to replace the duskblade.
Half of my six players were brand new to RPGs last year and two of them started with PF. Trying to add in 3.5 wouldn't make sense--it is out of print and out of mind for everybody else in my game group.
Pathfinder has been very helpful in finding new players I'll say. The new box coming should add quite a few more to the ranks. I wouldn't want to create a barrier to new players coming to my table by trying to retrofit a defunct system.
And as I think about it, I really didn't use much 3.5 stuff beyond the core except for monster manuals. I use more Pathfinder books than I ever used 3.5 race/class/magic/terrain/monster specific/crazy new approach to magic books.
And some of the products listed here are OOP. All of Mongoose's 4E stuff is OOP and worth about $5 new (from their own site). Mongoose is just starting up with Pathfinder product (slowly and carefully!) this year. Even ENWorld has been talked into doing PF adventure paths.
Wizards has a list of 3PP but it is out of date (Mongoose is still listed for example).
Lots of good info in all of these posts. Thanks.
Just some clarity:
Everything else (spells and other magic items) would stay.
And now by "shop" I assume you are referring to "magic shop" which from what I understand is apparently a standard in other peoples games.
Just a quick note, the magic shop is standard in PF (and was in 3.5 as well). Every settlement has several magic items for sale by the RAW.
And I hate the magic shop. So I'm going to have an uphill battle trying to get rid of it (if I decide to try to get rid of it). Players reading the Core Rulebook will be confused when they can't buy and sell magic items.
The arm itself does not give an extra attack, true. But it does say it CAN be used with Two-Weapon Fighting. And Multiweapon replaces Two-Weapon Fighting (the feat) for creatures with 3 or more arms. That feat isn't clear whether it allows extra attacks beyond the one extra that Two Weapon Fighting provides in the CRB.
As to using two greatswords, the arms don't work that way because Two Weapon Fighting requires either one weapon in each hand or a double weapon. A GM could house rule this, but I'd think the penalties to attack would be great.
Basically, I feel the devs should have had a sidebar explaining four weapon fighting. Four arms is a big change to the PF rules and explanation is going to be needed.
A guy walks into a bar with four arms, two heads, two torsos, a tentacle, and wings.
No, not the start of a joke, this is a 6th level alchemist using Ultimate Magic (and a feat taken a couple of times from the APG). All of those appendages are extraordinary abilities—the alchemist always has them (though he can mostly hide the extra torso and head if he’d like).
I have two concerns with alchemists growing new appendages.
One, I’m only allowing a strict interpretation of Two-Weapon Fighting which allows one extra attack with an off hand (no matter how manner off hands you happen to have).
I could see a generous GM giving out an attack for each off hand, however, based on the multiweapon feat from the Bestiary. And then having an elf alchemist vivisectionist at 4th level attacking with flanking with a longsword and three shortswords and doing an extra 2d6 in sneak attack damage four times for a possible total damage of 1d8 plus 11d6.
My other concern with the extra appendages is it seems to go against the no monsters as PCs theme that Paizo is going with. Even having a goblin book for PCs was a big deal. But now I can have my PC go to the bar with Jon the alchemist and then the next night I see him he’s grown a third arm? Wouldn’t that cause Jon some challenges in a social sense?
I look at the Core Rulebook and I see high fantasy—elves and dwarves and quests against evil wizards and dragons. The APG added some horror elements in, but it all seemed to work together.
And Ultimate Magic mostly fits as well. But an alchemist with a twin sticking out of him and a tumor that with the right training jumps out and takes hits just doesn’t seem to fit—yet. I’m still trying to see how it will all work together seamlessly. I hope.
Anyone else struggling with both the rules of using four arms as well as the changes to how most PCs look and act in a roleplaying sense?
I'd love to hear the design reasons behind adding in a rule to allow an alchemist to grow new appendages and how the rules should work for four weapon fighting.
Crimson Jester wrote:
Thanks, but I just needed to blow off steam. I was in an existential mood. I'm all better now.
Leafar the Lost wrote:
And hopefully soon!
He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon."
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
If reality is crazy but true what does that say about reality?
And good evidence you present about world strangeness: a smurf movie. I bet it will be smurfy. Smurfs are strange. And smurfy.
Again I say, SISO.
Smurfs. Cool, but weird. Why pants but no shirts for the guys? And speaking of male smurfs, they lack realism—leading to my next point.
Why do male animals need nipples from a biological point of view? Some guys might enjoy having them, sure, but why do they exist?
I play games and pretend to be a wizard or a dragon. To me, I’m being social, hanging with friends, and telling stories--a long human tradition and a tradition I greatly value. To some others, some whose opinions I actually value, my hobby makes me creepy and they say I need to grow up and stop playing pretend and wasting money and time. Which leads to my next point.
I work in a cube. I don’t have a door or a ceiling or a fourth wall. I stare at a rectangle that throws out light and radiation and work with pressed plant life imprinted with chemicals arranged into symbols our little-understood and not completely utilized sentient minds can interpret and use to force change on the world (not necessarily valuable change). Who came up with this idea as a way of life? How did I end up buying into the idea as well?
I breathe in invisible microscopic molecules to stay alive. Organs I cannot see and blood I don’t want to see perform millions of functions I don’t consciously control to keep me alive.
I spend a third of my life (okay in my case maybe only a fourth) completely disconnected from conscious physical existence, many times experiencing vivid hallucinations that seem real at the time but fade away to nothing soon enough (except for the vampire dream and that zombie dream, I remember those).
I walk on a roundish ball that spins at tremendous speed through a choking, airless void.
An invisible powerful force keeps me from being flung out into the void. An invisible powerful force (mostly) shields me from the harmful effects of that same void and the star that also hangs in the void.
A big sphere of flaming gas millions of miles away keeps me warm and makes my food grow. It is exactly the right distance away to allow for sentient life, atmosphere and those molecules I need, and for plant life to grow. Without it being perfectly positioned either the lights and heat go out or this orb becomes a blazing furnace.
I am sentient (well semi-sentient in my case perhaps). Same say it was a freak accident, others say it was design, and some say who knows why?
And yet, we have found zero evidence of other sentient life in what we assume is an infinite universe despite there being many more planets in this solar system alone. A whole infinite universe of dead planets, airless void, radiation, fire, and dust. And us on this one planet that can keep us alive through a complex chain of events whose probability of all happening just right is almost impossible to calculate with mathematics. Some people think other life exists but the majority of people dismiss these believers as kooks, freaks, or charlatans. And yet our fiction is filled with other forms of life, other worlds, and other realities. We talk about alien life but only safely in our fiction.
Evidence says big reptiles used to run around eating each other but no one was around to actually see it (and who would want to be?). Why? What was the point?
We live for only a handful of decades. Billions of people have died and thousands more die every day. We don’t know where the sentient parts of all those people went.
In fact, many people believe that no one has personally experienced what happens when you die (‘cause then you’d be dead and can’t tell us) or if someone has told us not everyone (the majority) believes them. People who think they know what happens after you die tend to get marginalized by the majority of people as kooks, freaks, intolerants, or charlatans. And talking about what happens after you die is considered impolite at best, maybe taboo, and perhaps even rude.
Are we biological randomness programmed by hidden genes and environment? Something more? Something less? Or does every single human have value because he or she is created in the image of God? And if so, how do we know as we’ve never seen God?
Some people whose opinions I value think that my hobby of gaming is weird. But look at some of my points above. At times, I think stark raving reality is even more weird.
Perhaps I need more sleep. Or more randomness. Or more God. Or maybe all three.
My third idea would be to not automatically award gold. Instead, the characters in game could indicate that they are looking for gold or gear and I’d then place locations to go to find it. In the same way, character could instead seek allies or land or a title or entering a prestige class etc.
At low levels, gold matters. At high levels, gold is a means to an end (whatever end the PCs decide). So we’d just abstract it to cut down on the paperwork.
Based on my final idea, my final question is, how would a world with no potions, scrolls, or wands still appeal to players? All of these magic items are a spell in a can. They aren’t unique. They add power to a caster and perhaps overshadow non-casters a bit.
In a world without potions, scrolls, or wands, casters would have to use more of their spells and use them carefully. Solutions other than waving a wand around would be needed.
To offset the lowered healing, I’d introduce reserve points (from Unearthed Arcana). Reserve points equal hit points and replenish hit points on a 1 to 1 basis each minute.
So in a fight, reserve points change nothing (fights are still dangerous). In between combats, characters heal on their own instead of using wands. Similar solution, but based on the character’s will to live and not just a wand.
My first idea out of four is to change the big six magic items (weapons, armor/shields, and items that add bonuses to saving throws, ability scores, natural armor, and provide deflection bonuses) into automatically granted enhancement bonuses based on base attack bonus and level and drop magic items that usually provide those bonuses.
This change would free me up to provide unique and unusual magic items without sacrificing character ability. It would also reduce paperwork (ie dividing up magic items) by quite a bit.
Characters wouldn’t lose anything under this change, simply see current abilities shifted and more fairly and easily distributed. I’d likely hand out one magic item per character per adventure (in addition to the BAB/level based enhancement bonuses) valued at about half of normal character wealth.
My second idea to not use item creation feats. The magic of the world creates magic items.
Pathfinder Society already operates this way for player characters. The intent is again to cut down on the paperwork. It makes magic items more special as well as they have to be found not made.
In conjunction with this idea I’d like to do away with magic shops all together. Magic items wouldn’t be bought and sold but instead hoarded and perhaps carefully traded.
I have started working on a new Pathfinder campaign setting and world. I’m starting with rules first, before working on anything world specific.
My main idea is to make the character matter more than gear. A world like that sounds fun to me; big-time heroes who rely on their own abilities to survive and thrive and simply have some unique magic items to add flavor and an extra option or two.
I have four ideas. All, some, or none may be usable. I’d like feedback on each idea to see if the ideas sound both usable and fun. None of the ideas are set in stone. I may not end up being able to use any of them.
Feedback, thoughts, and opinions are appreciated.
I’m working on a variant rule to take out the big six magic items and replace them with static bonuses. While doing so, I started wondering if PF would still be fun without skills, traits, feats, and prestige classes. Skills and feats would only be gained from class abilities—ie the bard would need Perform and the rogue would need some special rules to use some skills. The game would have a more D&D 1E feel but using modern PF rules.
I could see the fighter and rogue becoming much more interesting with this change, as both became the biggest users of feats and skills respectively. No other class could easily steal the rogue’s skill at using skills.
Of course, some type of simple roll would need to replace skills. Maybe ability score plus half level plus d20 versus normal DCs (and the rogue would get bonuses--maybe full level for some skills).
If all of these components couldn’t be yanked, could one or more of them? Why or why not? Just looking for feedback—I’m not convinced the idea could work.
Seeker of skybreak wrote:
It is also a swift action to cast so you can use it the round you cast it. Plus it gives elecricity immunity.
If someone on the boat trusts the PCs enough, they could ask them to take the books that start the Carrion Crown 2 adventure. Payment when the books are received. Maybe some of the PCs have heard rumors of the professor or even knew him but couldn't make it to the funeral in time. Harrowstone (CC 1) might have been overcome by heroes who didn't know the professor.
James Jacobs wrote:
Not only did Sebastian win the internet, he even got James to agree with his initial post. Wow, just wow. I actually enjoy the pony's posts but even I was surprised by this turn of events.
+1 here. Put lots of PF rules in PF adventure paths. I know that sounds crazy, but I'm all for seeing rules I pay for used in adventures I buy that rely on the rules I pay for to run.
Heck, I don't use a computer at my games and I can't get wireless where we game (ironic since it is a LAN gaming location) so I just print stuff off ahead of time. If I had to, I could do that at a library if I didn't have computer access myself. Part of being a GM is prep. This is a hobby I choose to do not something I'm required to do, right?
I've introduced five players new to RPGs to playing Pathfinder in the last year. At first, I tried to do too much, even going so far as to help write up characters.
When we started Carrion Crown, I stepped back a bit. I went through character creation step by step and made sure each person wrote down what they need to know. We used the Core Rulebook and APG and I didn't restrict anything but I channeled gothic horror.
When we level up, I again go through step by step so nothing gets missed. I also throw out suggestions a character might know that the player forgets.
My biggest draw, though, is my energy. I go nuts when we play. Combat is full of battle cries, and violent crits, and kinetic energy. Roleplaying is a little less crazy, but I talk in character directly to each player's characters and draw them out. I also ask them a lot what they want to do next. Nothing happens if they don't make it happen.
I'm having a lot of fun. The players appreciate my efforts where my last group of all experienced guys was a bit jaded. I work a bit harder during the game, but my satisfaction has gone way up with GMing since the new guys started playing.
The PCs don't know who is spelling out a name in blood but as it goes on so too do the undead and hauntings increase. It shouldn't take PCs long to figure out that if they don't stop it, all the ghosts in Harrowstone will destroy Ravengro in a few weeks time. One or two knowledge checks could provide them some warning. The Splatter Man could even come after Kendra if he gets free.
That is a poweful motivation for PCs to find out what is going on if they want to protect Kendra. Learning that the only way to stop the Splatter Man is to go into Harrowstone drives the adventure. Seems like a PC would want to protect her which would require protecting Ravengro so he'd try to stop the haunts.
Ah, yes, Divinely sanctioned obedience. What leader wouldn't like that? Personally, that quote sounds like b!*$+@%& designed to tell the poor that they shouldn't uprise against the leaders that are squashing them because God put them there.
Make sure you leave out the rest of my post to make your point which I already addressed. Oh wait, that is what you did.