Cayden Cailean

DGRM44's page

Organized Play Member. 484 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.



1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Paizo adventures can be run in a simple system with ease (I ran Serpents Skull using DCC and it took roughly the same amount of prep time as it would have taken if I'd used pathfinder). I think paizo flavour will be sellable to D&D:Next fans, even if the game is substantially simpler.

I agree. I will continue to buy their adventure paths and campaign material regardless of the system I use. Top notch stuff. In fact, when I roll out C&C the players are going to start out in Sandpoint and enjoy all the flavor and wonder of Golarion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover wrote:
But when I finally wanted to move out of the basement and be treated like a grown up, Paizo was there and so was their game. Just as I'll always Make Mine Marvel, so too will I strive to support Pathfinder and it's many 3PP partners.

One of the things that I love about paizo is their active interaction with their customers and fan base. If you are happy with their direction then great. I'm not 100% happy and have found issues in our ongoing games and I hope paizo listens and finds a way to meet my groups needs. If not then so be it. I can only communicate and see if anyone listens.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have been playing pathfinder for several years on and off. Two of my biggest issues (and in fact many of my co-players as well) have been.

1. Power level of the players.
2. Complexity of rules.

Without going into a bunch of details that have been outlined in countless other threads the basic theme of Pathfinder is make the characters very powerful and hard to defeat. For some this is great, for others it makes the game lose a lot of the element of danger and fear and even respect of the players. My group will walk into just about any encounter with almost not a care in the world. They fully expect to win and if they do end up seriously injured they furl their eyebrows in confusion. Gone are the old school days of the players arguing about who has to go first, now its a race to the front of the pack to be the one to slay the monsters. Like I said, some like this others miss the fear players used to have in older games. Btw, this is just from the Core Rules, we haven't tried adding Mythic powers. I can't imagine why you would need them. My players already feel like gods on earth. And yes, I know you can find ways to challenge them (Please spare me the posts explaining how you do it as I already have my own ways that work), but the game system is arguably designed with player power baked in and at the forefront. And it only continues to grow and grow and grow with each new release.

D&D Next seems to be trying to find more of a balance by lowering the power level of the players from the start. This I really like and look forward to seeing how it develops. But everything I have read I like so far, like lower Armor Classes for the characters.

As for complexity, lets face it we have a zillion feats, spells, class powers, archetypes, monsters, monster templates, conditions, prestige classes, race abilities...heck we even have story feats. I am all for options but after several years I have only used Core, Bestiary 1, 2, some adventure path stuff and some background stuff. That's it and we still haven't scratched the surface. Creating an encounter for a higher level group takes time. It takes time to build out detailed NPCs. It takes time to build out unique monsters.

I don't know that D&D next is going to be able to fix this, however I have read that they are taking a more modular approach to the rules, maybe this will allow simplification I don't know. Honestly for this one, I don't know if there is an answer other than moving to a simpler system which in fact I am currently exploring.

I have enjoyed playing Pathfinder and likely will continue to do so, but I am looking for a game that brings back the danger element and if it can give me the ability to throw together encounters quickly with cool monsters and NPC's then awesome. D&D Next may turn out to be that system, so far I like the direction they are going in.

As a side note, I am also currently reading Castles and Crusades and it is very interesting merge of old school and new school. This will likely see some play time as well and see how it goes. I think my players will be stunned at the lack of mega weapons and powers but when the fear kicks in after seeing their friend go down from a simple goblin, it just might create a more vivid and memorable gaming experience.

I guess I could summarize Pathfinder as the Wal-Mart of RPG's for players. Its got anything and everything and its all cheap. I think me and my group want something smaller and more expensive. When the players get a new power or magic item it will be a big deal to them. I think it will mean more to them. We shall see, I will begin play testing in a couple weeks and will gladly share my findings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secane wrote:

Namely, it is very confusing and hard for TOTALLY NEW players to understand.

The Core Rule Book for instance in clearly written by those that have played D&D from the very start. :) This shows in the current layout. It can be very confusing for a new player to find out what to do. From how to make a new character to what happens when I level? What body slots are there? What is concentration?...etc

What I would like to see in a "Pathfinder 2.0" would be a more user friendly version of the current Pathfinder. NOT a new system, the current one works fine, but a more easy to UNDERSTAND version of Pathfinder. (Specifically the CRB.)
One more like... the Beginner Box set's layout. Something that I can pass to a friend (With no RPG experience) for a week and he can pop up at the table with a character that work.

PF 2.0 could be a simple "updated" look for PF. Like a updated version of a software. It can still do all...

THIS!!! THIS!!! THIS!!!

May I place my pre-order...or better yet, why not have a KICKSTARTER driver for this? I could care less about video games, but I would be happy to donate for a new more USER FRIENDLY version of the Core Rulebook!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am glad that there are forum participants that take the time to post the errata for us. Hats off to all the errata posters on this thread. It does make me believe that the pathfinder players are all working together to make a great game!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank you for your participation in these forums. It is very cool.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Please post any house rules you currently use in your Pathfinder Game. Thanks!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Great thread...just added to my lists.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is Rise of the Runelords a good pathfinder series for a new group to run/go thru? Is it have any problems for a new GM?

With no one to help, what is the best 'path' that a new GM should take to learn the pathfinder system and teach his group the system? Currently we are running combat scrimmages to learn the combat rules, but there are a TON of feats and a TON of spells to know. Also a TON or monsters and a LOT of additional rules. I like all the crunch and it seems to fit together nicely, but to remember all the available options is quite the challenge!


12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

So how do reach weapons work relating to diagonals? Technically the second diagonal is 15 ft away, but the first one is only 5 ft. so where is the 10 ft reach limit drawn?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Epic Meepo wrote:
Case in point: specific cars and ships, when referred to individually, are feminine ("She's a beauty."), yet are not female. They just happen to be arbitrarily assigned to the feminine grammatical category that exists outside of any genitalia-related consideration. Should I, as a male, feel excluded by automotive reviews that (if grammatically correct) refer to specific

Great point. I don't think that most women are joining Rpg games because of the inclusion of she/her in the text and I dont think they really care either way. I think a lot of MEN who are trying to pander to a specific group made this decision. It is just ashame that some kind of polictics has to make it into our fantasy worlds. And it is also hypocritical in many aspects. (I am a better person for including she/her, but we diligently work on a game that includes fantasy violence as a key selling point). We can handle the violence, we can also handle he/his without needing a nod to some group that demands political recognition. I love women and have many in my life and in my RPG game. They dont care about this Bologne, they really don't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This word is being thrown around and I don't think some know what it truly means.

mi·sog·y·ny   /mɪˈsɒdʒəni, maɪ-/ Show Spelled
[mi-soj-uh-nee, mahy-] Show IPA

–noun
hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.

he/his in writing does not equal misogyny in the author(s) makeup.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does the core rulebook give the lifespan of Elves? In the racial description it calls them 'long-lived'.