Charlie D.'s page

I hosted a party once and put Doritos in a glass bowl on a table for my guests and myself to enjoy. I was glad Frito-Lay made the Doritos because I didn’t have time and honestly they were good at it. I worked hard on the table to make a fine presentation. One of the guests also brought a bag of Doritos to share which I really appreciated. I had done so much work to prep the table for the party and that little bit of extra help was appreciated.

However, when I went to pour the guest’s Doritos into a glass bowl to join the others on the table, he shouted at me. Frito-Lay, he demanded, always placed the bag out open to share Doritos. No glass bowls. It wasn’t done. Only a moron would use glass bowls.

To be honest, I was taken aback at the rudeness. I had done so much extra work to make the table nice for the party. While I appreciated the guest bringing extra Doritos to my table to share I was stunned that they thought that both they and Frito-Lay could dictate how my party was run at my table. And the party wasn't about the Doritos anyway. It was about the guests and me enjoying time together. The Doritos helped but the Doritos weren't the actual party.

When my guest realized I wasn’t going to change my table to meet his demands he grabbed his Doritos and stormed off. I was still perplexed but a bit relieved. While I appreciated the fine Doritos Frito-Lay worked so hard to make and the Doritos the guest brought to share, ultimately it was my table and my party and I was doing the work to host not Frito-Lay and not my guest. Maybe the guest could find another host who would do what the guest told them to do since I would not. Then I went back to the table and the party to enjoy my time with my other guests. They enjoyed the Doritos in a glass bowl just fine.

The first preview for Pathfinder 1E simply told us what was in the book and shared a personal favorite from one of the creators. What a long time ago it seems from the marketing speak of today. But at least Jason is still around.

Pathfinder 1E Preview 1.

If the white thing behind the shield is his mug then it looks like he lost his sword sheath. On the old art the sheath hangs down his left side. Looks like it is absent here.

Passages and Pathfinders

Thanks for all the replies. Mark, thanks for the quick answers. I have the information I need to make a decision now. I'm glad that a variety of approaches works for helping with playtesting.

At the very least, there's a free-form period at the end. So, you could collect your feedback and submit it all then, even if they don't have some way to submit feedback during the first part.

If I can't give much feedback I'm better off just waiting and looking at the finished rules in a year and a quarter (since my playtesting as a GM not using the rules for Golarion would not be taken into consideration anyway). If, however, the rules are meant to be used beyond just the adventure paths then my feedback would be usable (and hopefully useful).

I find it a bit odd that the playtest has a published adventure but only a PDF only for monsters. Seems monsters need playtesting quite a bit as well. I always thought of PF as the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary but maybe that is changing for the playtest.

If I ran PF 2 I'd want to make my own setting. Is playtesting and feedback only possible through the playtest adventure path? Or could a GM get just the playtest rules and just run a campaign of their own and still provide feedback?

How characters work is all well and good, but I'd like to see if the system will support adventure building, campaign development, and world creation as well.

Dwarves and elves. Monday is alchemists.

EJDean wrote:

Charles Dunwoody wrote:

Power Attack and Quick Reversal both sound really useful. And the 14th level shield ability oddly specific. Maybe it has more applications.

Yeah, +1 or +2 to Reflex saves requiring an action to activate. Not exactly thrilling for a 14th-level ability.

At level 14?

Imagine a +3 Shield.

Suddenly you're getting a +5 to Reflex Saves - Not bad at all.

Comparison:

A limited wish lets you create nearly any type of effect. For example, a limited wish can do any of the following things.

Duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 6th level or lower, provided the spell does not belong to one of your opposition schools.

Duplicate any non-sorcerer/wizard spell of 5th level or lower, provided the spell does not belong to one of your opposition schools.

Duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 5th level or lower, even if it belongs to one of your opposition schools.

Duplicate any non-sorcerer/wizard spell of 4th level or lower, even if it belongs to one of your opposition schools.

Undo the harmful effects of many spells, such as geas/quest or insanity.

Produce any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects, such as a single creature automatically hitting on its next attack or taking a –7 penalty on its next saving throw.

A duplicated spell allows saving throws and spell resistance as normal, but the save DC is for a 7th-level spell. When a limited wish spell duplicates a spell with a material component that costs more than 1,000 gp, you must provide that component (in addition to the 1,500 gp diamond component for this spell).

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

This is where the GM steps in and says "You don't have time to do that," end of issue.

WHAAAAAT?!

The GM, cannot, just, arbitrarily decide that a character is not allowed to do something if the rules say she can.

Why not? If it doesn't make sense the GM should make a ruling of no. The rules don't build worlds, write adventures, set up a place to play, invite people, teach the rules, buy the books and RPG extras, and make everything run smooth. Not even the designers do all of that.

The GM does. The rules flow from the GM, the rules don't run the game. The rules aren't Pathfinder any more than a recipe is the meal. The play at the table is the game just like the meal is what the chef is ultimately trying to create. And like a chef who finesses ingredients and presentation, so to the GM sometimes has to adapt on the fly. Often times actually.

Is rape and incest banned? Because that turned me off from the first AP.

This idea is interesting but I think the main problem is you won't get all the rules for monsters in one book. You'd have to buy two or three to play the game described in the core rulebook. You would have all the rules in one core book but the monsters spread across two or three books to play all 20 levels.

I'm guessing a truly credible version of that book would be at least 600 pages.

Are you willing to pay $60-70 for such a book?

I'm genuinely interested in people's answers, because to tell you the truth I am strongly considering a base monster reference that is significantly larger than Bestiary 1's 320 pages.

So... don't be shy about your opinions, please.

I would pay $60-70 for a 600 page starting bestiary.

I am also in the camp of a large bestiary with the best of monsters as well as the iconic ones. One of the big reasons I never jumped to 5e was because it does not have enough monsters to have a varied number of games.

How many pages would you be willing to pay for in the first Bestiary? Because I agree that more monsters is better.

I would be happy to see a Bestiary 1 the same size as the core rulebook (500 page plus) with the iconic monsters (the dragons and giants etc.) but also the best monsters for PF. I would love to see popular monsters from later books in the PF. I don't think just because it was in Bestiary 1 or 2 from PF1 means that it has to be in PF2 Bestiary 1 unless the monster really has traction.

Also the whole range of challenge ratings (or whatever they will be called in PF2). Have a book that covers levels 1-20.

What size Bestiary 1 do you want to see and what monsters should be in it?

Are opposed skill checks still a thing? Eg Perception vs stealth?

In the podcast you roll stealth against passive perception. Or if a PC is looking for an NPC they roll perception against passive stealth.

I think that's what I heard. Passive skill is the skill modifier plus 10.

So... I can't be the only one baffled by the 2E announcement. The desire for a system similar to 3.5 DnD is what drove Pathfinder's creation and what kept people coming back... why drop all of that now out of the blue?

If we give feedback, we can stop 2E. Surely Paizo will listen and realize this isn't what we, as a community, want.

I'm considering coming back for 2E. So it makes sense to me. And 2E is something I want. Perhaps quite a bit. Time will tell.

I'm not playing 1E now. 2E might bring me back as a customer though.

I believe it is this issue: Dragon 369.

This new game, which seems to be selling well over at DriveThruRPG has gotten my attention

Has anyone here played it and willing to offer up a review?

I haven't played it, but I've listened to the author online for a few years now. He has gone from doing videos for fun to going full time into writing:

Drunkens &
Dragons.

I plan to buy ICRPG as soon as I have the cash. The part I like best is effort. Effort is to succeeding at a task to what hit points are to winning combat. If a chest has a heart (10) effort you need ten points of effort to get it open. You can pick it, bash it, phase through, but it takes ten points.

Do you need the Pathfinder rules to play this, or does the book have all the needed rules?

If you like d6 dice pools and social combat you could check out Mutant: Year Zero. The skills use a d6 pool and the four attributes (ability scores) can all take trauma (damage to Strength and confusion to Wits for example). You can wear someone down in a social setting as well as on the battlefield.

The same logic could be applied to stop at level 5.

Then you could have lots and lots of APs if they were all just double-issues!

Yeah, no.
APs serve to market and showcase the game and game world. The game does not exist to market and showcase the limited scope of the APs.

However, lots of players run PF up to the middle teens. So stopping at level 5 would cause those players to miss out on many levels of popular play in SF.

Levels 16 to 20 have a much smaller audience, so small that Paizo publishes little support for those levels. So why include them at all? Cut them out, add in more spaceships, planets, and aliens.

In addition, some real balance issues come into play at those levels. I'd rather have the core rulebook designers spend more time on less levels and shoot for more balance and playtesting that way.

Jason, if we order a softcover of the first adventure during the kickstarter, can we pick it up at Gen Con?

Couple of questions~

1) In the interview with A Sword For Hire, it was mentioned "We also hope to have a first look at these core deities—as another update to the Kickstarter—in the form of a simple table detailing their alignments, portfolios, domains, favored weapons, etc." Is that still likely to happen, or should we wait for To Worlds Unknown?

2) Is there a (rough) timetable for the release of the Player's Guide

I'm interested in these two as well, for 5E. Especially the new races and maybe some new backgrounds (sci-fantasy backgrounds geared right to this adventure would be wonderful). Even a rough draft PDF to kick off a campaign would be really helpful.

I'm not sure if they will get any treatment or not, but having a few factions for 5E tied directly to the adventure path would also be great.

I am a fan of James Jacobs. As Steve said, Burnt Offerings and Red Hand of Doom (with Richard Baker) were great. And James has already worked on combining sci-fi and fantasy in his homebrew world, so his inclusion in this kickstarter if we hit 50,000 makes sense beyond just his name. Not that name recognition isn't good too.

Kickstarter is always a risk. But it is designed to spur on creativity. We already know that we are getting the first two adventures very quickly. Also, I really want more 3rd part 5E products. So the risk is worth it in this case, especially with the track record that Legendary Games has with its other two kickstarters and with other Pathfinder products.

I won't have time for the next few days, but I also want to post on therpgsite.com. Like rpg.net is isn't the friendliest place, but the posters do like old school adventures and science fantasy has that vibe.

There is a post on wizards.com on the 3rd party forum about the kickstarter.

Thanks for the quick response! I asked some questions on the kickstarter. The one I'm really curious about is, will the 5E version of the adventure be ready at Gen Con? I really want to run it at Gen Con....

Thanks!

I am posting about this kickstarter on some 5E sites. While the PF version may be the main focus, the opportunities this opens up for 5E cannot be overstated.

5E is a year old and we have the core rulebooks and two straight fantasy adventure paths. Plus the Frog and Goodman adventures and extras. This adventure path is just what 5E needs: new exciting content.

Legendary Planet is a kickstarter adventure path from Legendary Games. A 5E version is being created.

Although PF seems to get most of the attention, I am most excited about the 5E version. We have very little new options for 5E and this adventure path will open up the game quite a bit.

Another option might be to incorporate two 5E rules. Full attacks are a standard action and you can move anytime. And only one spell can be buffing at one time. If a caster has one active spell going and casts another, the first spell stops running.

Probably has a lot of balance issues, but I wonder if you could gestalt this problem? Each level you can take three classes following the gestalt rules if none of those classes have spellcasting or take two classes including partial casters or one class of full caster.

Psionics...ugh.

I've hated Psionics since the first time I saw them tucked away in the very back of the 1E PHB. I hate them for the same reason I don't like Monks in D&D: they just feel out of place for the game I want to play. If I wanted to play a game with psionics, I would play something like Gamma World where it seems more appropriate.

I really hope psionics don't become "core" and allowed for play in Adventurer's League.

/crotchety old grodnard rant

The playtest material addresses the rarity of psionics on some worlds:

Basically, psionics originates from the Far Realm and are common in worlds where reality is broken or breaking down:

Psionics is more common in worlds where the bounds of reality have been twisted and warped to stray far from the baseline D&D setting. The realm of Athas in the Dark Sun campaign setting is the iconic example of a world where psionics is common. The gods are absent, magic has been twisted into an ecological scourge, and the common threads that bind
many worlds of D&D have been sundered.

A quick read through looks interesting. A 5th level mystic with the immortal disciplines would be able to switch from speed to attack to defense each round using a bonus action. And then gaining more abilities powered by psi points.

Looks like a good start for a 1st rough draft.

D&D 5E psionics playtest

It will be months before a finished version is available. But I like the use of 5E bonus actions and concentration. And psionics being different from magic unless psionics is used specifically to cast spells (like a mind flayer using innate casting).

For those who had the pleasure of playing a 5th Edition game, are my concerns actually present in the game? Having a character adapt in response to their adventure experiences has massive appeal to me. A character that follows a set path and doesn't change with respect to their experiences strikes me as really boring.

I converted my D&D Next campaign over to 5E and played it to 21st level. We started a new campaign and are now up to 4th level.

I heavily use factions and downtime in the game to open up in world possibilities for character growth. While the PCs do choose some class abilities and ability score increases, and for some classes spells, it is factions and downtime that really make the characters unique.

Here are two examples. One PC choose a background of keeper (law enforcer) and another judge (like the traveling hanging judges of the Old West). Both backgrounds also exist as factions which the PCs can advance in. They can do so by completing quests that advance that faction's goals or by spending downtime working those goals.

I tied feats and multiclassing to factions. PCs who join factions get a big mechanical benefit but this option isn't necessary to make factions work.

Downtime also works wonders. PCs can pursue all kinds of activities, including improving skills. Or work in a faction, run a business, carouse, start rumors about enemies, and many other options.

So PCs grow, just not all in the same way. Some PCs increase faction renown, some work on making new items, and some work on building new temples and locations for their factions. The warlock looks for eldritch tomes of mind-blasting secrets while at the same time working in his family's growing merchant empire.

PCs also train at each level. This gives them even more exposure to NPCs who might be part of factions. And opens up new rumors of adventure as well.

All of this works in reverse as well. If a PC wants to learn a feat or multiclass, they can look around for a faction to join. I create one that fits the world. Or they might want training in a new skill; a new NPC mentor might fit the bill.

Add to these character building exercises all the weird and wonderful magic items they find (I use the tables in the DMG to make about half the magic items unique) and each PC is truly unique; shaped by both player will and the ongoing adventures and exploration.

I haven't had a PC want to make a magic item yet, but this would lead to a big quest with all kinds of challenges to overcome. Once completed, the magic item that came out of a quest would have unique powers and a history created through adventure.

The players just have to be reminded that their characters can try to learn and/or do anything. They just have to ask around, research, or seek answers to see how to accomplish what they want whether that is learning a new skill or getting a henchperson (flumphs make great henchpersons).

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Snowblind wrote:

How does this work out in terms of skills.

Are high level characters capable of super-human feats like climbing a brick wall covered in grease at night in the rain.

Or are worlds class climbers only 15% more likely to succeed than a novice?

Well, they're 55% more likely to succeed, and DCs cap out at 30, with the average being 15.

So...someone with a +0 succeeds at an average check 30% of the time, someone with a +11 does so 85% of the time, and thus almost three times as often.

There are also various magical and a few non-magical ways to increase that theoretical maximum. Including the aforementioned Class Abilities of various sorts.

In a lot of ways, it's pretty similar to E6, which has similar 'issues' with skills and attack bonuses not scaling beyond a certain point (the scale's a little bigger in E6, but I don't think either goes beyond about +20 or so), just spread out over more levels and with up to 9th level spells.

So an expert rock climber falls to their death 15% of the time.

Sure if you aren't playing 5E? Otherwise you follow the rules which state (unless the DM has a good reason to override the rules of course):

To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC. If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success—the creature overcomes the challenge
at hand. Otherwise, it’s a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM.

thorin001 wrote:

Charlie D. wrote:

thorin001 wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?

It is the concept that the dice should be a bigger factor in determining success than character ability.

What? That is not even close to accurate or factual.

Really? Biggest possible modifier at 20th level is +11 (stat+proficiency) The D20 has a swing of 19. The die is far more relevant than ability. And it is even more pronounced at lower levels. Add to that the fact that no auto success due to high skills was a big part of the design philosophy. So my comment is both accurate and factual.

How does this work out in terms of skills.

Are high level characters capable of super-human feats like climbing a brick wall covered in grease at night in the rain.

Or are worlds class climbers only 15% more likely to succeed than a novice?

Most likely a super-human feat would be very hard (DC 25) near impossible (DC 30). A rogue could have +12 or higher to a Strength (athletics) check with Expertise so it would be tough but not impossible. A 20th level barbarian may also have a +12 to Strength (athletics) check. With advantage a character might also get two chances to try to succeed. A normal human at +0 to +4 cannot succeed at very hard or near impossible tasks at all.

A rogue may have Expertise and double his proficiency for climbing to make the harder DCs easier to hit. Reliable Talent makes proficient skills that roll a 9 or less a 10 so he or she also succeeds on easier checks more often.

thorin001 wrote:

Charlie D. wrote:

thorin001 wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?

It is the concept that the dice should be a bigger factor in determining success than character ability.

What? That is not even close to accurate or factual.

Really? Biggest possible modifier at 20th level is +11 (stat+proficiency) The D20 has a swing of 19. The die is far more relevant than ability. And it is even more pronounced at lower levels. Add to that the fact that no auto success due to high skills was a big part of the design philosophy. So my comment is both accurate and factual.

Biggest possible modifier at 20th level is +13 (+6 proficiency, +7 Strength mod because barbarians get their Strength and Constitution caps upped to 24 at 20th level.) =p

Exactly. Class features are what make bounded accuracy work. Not just proficiency or a die roll.

Charlie D. wrote:

thorin001 wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?

It is the concept that the dice should be a bigger factor in determining success than character ability.

What? That is not even close to accurate or factual.

Really? Biggest possible modifier at 20th level is +11 (stat+proficiency) The D20 has a swing of 19. The die is far more relevant than ability. And it is even more pronounced at lower levels. Add to that the fact that no auto success due to high skills was a big part of the design philosophy. So my comment is both accurate and factual.

Class features have a long bigger impact due to bounded accuracy not the dice roll. If you play 5E without classes or anything other than ability scores and proficiency than maybe what you are saying works. Otherwise, not accurate or factual at all since you have to ignore basically the whole rest of the game to say only the dice matter.

Kalindlara wrote:

I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?

It is the concept that the dice should be a bigger factor in determining success than character ability.

What? That is not even close to accurate or factual.

I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?

If you have read the responses so far you have only heard a small part of what bounded accuracy is. First, a wizard does not have a +6 to hit with a long sword like a fighter. A wizard is +0 to hit with a longsword. And a high level fighter attacks four times (eight with a class feature) while a wizard attacks once. From Basic D&D for Players here are what proficiency is added to:

• Attack rolls using weapons you’re proficient with
• Attack rolls with spells you cast
• Ability checks using skills you’re proficient in
• Ability checks using tools you’re proficient with
• Saving throws you’re proficient in
• Saving throw DCs for spells you cast (explained in each spellcasting class)

And here's the explanation about bounded accuracy. There are six reasons explained as to why it is used in 5E:

bounded accuracy explained by Rodney Thompson

The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game that the player's attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster's hit points; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character's increased hit points. Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases.

I suspect the same incompleteness would be true of any game that's developed enough. Core 5E feels complete because there hasn't been much added. Core PF would feel complete and is perfectly playable on its own. It's only when compared with the rest of the game as it's developed that it seems incomplete. The only way to avoid that is to not introduce any new concepts after the core is out.

5E isn't getting many new supplements. Since the DMG has come out only a handful of PDFs have come out, many only playtest rough drafts, one POD of around 30 pages, and a hardcover adventure. One more adventure is on the schedule for this year developed by Green Ronin. And that is all that has been announced.

So core 5E won't change very quickly as long as the current brand manager is in charge.

Factions? I'm not even sure what factions are. Are they part of the core rules? Or a setting thing?

Factions are in the DMG. Organizations the PCs can join. The more things the PCs do that match the factions goals the higher they can go, the more influence they have, the more benefits they gain, and the more enemies they can make.

In the setting I'm running there is a faction for law enforcers and one for judges. A different PC belongs to each one. Sometimes their factions come down on the same side of an issue and other times they disagree. Working it out and also dealing with the criminals and the assassins those criminals may send after highly successful enforcers and judges spices up the game.

I am playing 5E now and I don't think Pathfinder needs to go down that road (although Unchained has some 4E/5E isms like using feats to multiclass). 5E is seen as simple here on the Paizo boards. What drives character builds in 5E are more backgrounds and factions rather than class building. I like this because factions in particular really tie characters to the world and to each other if designed well.

As to PF, the only really weird thing about the Core Rulebook is that is has many outdated things when compared to PF. Take 5E out of the picture completely.

Core has no traits or archetypes. It has prestige classes. Core is missing main rules that as far as I can tell are considered standard now. And it has prestige classes that as far as I can tell many of which are completely useless in a majority of campaigns.

And that is strange. If I was brand new and I bought the Core Rulebook and found out many prestige classes don't work or that I shouldn't use a crossbow as a fighter I would be confused. And when other people were talking about archetypes and traits I would also be confused. Or how fighters and rogues suck. Or how overpowered clerics, druids, and wizards are.

It would just be tough to get the Core only. I'd feel I was missing out and way behind in understanding the system. And I'd feel like a part of the big book I just bought is full of suck. Especially if someone showed me the Unchained fighter, monk, and rogue (and maybe barbarian).

I think I would also have a damn hard time understanding the Christmas tree effect and even how to level up (all new players I've introduced to PF have struggled somewhat with leveling up). If I remember correctly, the Core doesn't even talk about or define the Christmas tree effect. That is a pretty core concept of the game.

I don't have a solution. But the Core Rulebook does not seem to represent Pathfinder completely anymore. And I personally and as a total opinion find that really weird.

5E is likely too streamlined to appeal to the majority of PF players. But at least the PH feels complete and is a solid next step from Basic D&D.

This blog post is not light on details.

"Fight alongside Drizzt Do’Urden in the new Dungeons & Dragons storyline on computer, console or tabletop this Fall."

Drizzt is the next big thing for D&D 5E. But not for me. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Sweet.