Daniel of Florida's page

I'd say that on average Pathfinder battles has better sculpts than the old D&D minis did but and this is a big but, the material for D&D minis was far superior to what is currently being used in Pathfinder Battles. The smooth finish to the pain job keeps the older minis from catching on things as often, and I have never had on break on me whereas Pathfinder minis break at the drop of a hat.

Also the old D&D minis line had a weird problem where the sculpt quality took a nose dive immediately following deserts of desolation. Does anyone know what major changes took place that resulted in all of the weirdly proportioned and cartoony sculpts in post DoD minis?

Yeah, art from 4th edition. The Fire Archon, Rage Drake, and the new Troll were some of the first 4th edition miniatures.

Looking to play in AP from the beginning. Roll20 only and not on Saturdays.

Good, that's Friday morning for me, that works ^^

I can play tonight, but is this repeatable for credit?

I can play late those nights email if you get some things. I am new to VTTs but I soon as I get handle on them I can GM.

You can be honest about why it is not a good idea, even if the RAW technically allows it,

you can explain how the game would not work well if any NPC could trivially get a real Tiger for minimal investment, even though the RAW allows that...
so sometimes it's just best not to do anything the RAW allows, because the RAW isn't always perfect.

If it's necessary, you can say that this just isn't the type of thing you want in the games you are GM'ing,
no reason to be...

It shouldn't be the GMs job regulate balance. Turning away character options may fly in a home setting, but it's unreasonable in an open event.

PFS let's their tigers run free but makes sure to tell every that the level 1 squires should stay within the confines of their purpose.

Actually PF nerfed casters pretty hard from 3.5.

Are PF casters stronger than 3.5 PH casters? No, and that is just from the spell list nerfs. All PF did was make the base caster class more attractive such that people didn't feel the need for 2-3 prestige classes.

PF casters only "appear" stronger.

ASIDE: No amount of caster nerfs will make martials more fun. It's a complete logical fallacy to entertain such an idea.

I disagree, its simple human nature, when option A becomes less appealing option B by default becomes more appealing.

And what uses does rope trick have besides resting?

Rope Trick is one of the few things that can give the players some assurance they can get a good night's sleep and taking it away is just going to make them assume you're planning night attack dickery.

Are you kidding...

Off the top of my head

I use it to avoid a avalanche
I use it to hide bodies
I use to set fire to methane clogged sewer to kill enormous carrion crawlers (party actually did this to me.

wraithstrike wrote:

It seems the problem is like it was in 3.5. Some of us want our martials to be strictly martial, anything we consider to be magic or too far beyond "normal" makes us not like it. Others of us want our martials to be able to do extraordinary things and we can see accept that level X martials can do these things without being magic because they are that damned good.

The core game is not being rewritten, so an add-on system such as the mythic system or TOB's would fit. That way GM's/groups the want it can have it, and those that don't care for it won't have to worry about it.

Thanks. I agree with you.

May I ask though, why people say they want their martials to be strictly martial...anything we consider to magic or too far beyond "normal" makes us not like it...when every martial needs to know how to fly, have a wizard/cleric cast buff spells on you and gets all sorts of gear that emulate magic? I don't even understand this thought, I'd appreciate if you can try to explain it better.

Deeply intrenched fictional bias

If you really want to have your cake and eat it to you may want to to consider the following.

1. The NPC in general needs to be weaker then the weakest part member, such as 3-5 levels lower. You may find this enjoyable because you will need to be very cleaver to feel like your contributing.

2. The NPC will need the PCs more then PCs need the NPC. This is why I feel comfortable with my horse/animal companion/familiar. These NPCs are not as powerful as me or anyone in my party, and the moment they become more powerful then me or anyone in my party I consider getting rid of them.

3. Know that at anytime said NPC could be asked to go away and that is alright.

Once again just some considers, all games/game groups are different.

Whatever happens with the next version of Pathfinder, I think Paizo has identified a ton of areas that could be improved and would do the right thing by revisiting them. Many, many aspects of the system were more or less blindly grabbed and tied together as a system. It's created oddities. As Paizo has released its own systems from the ground up they've worked generally really well but they still feel off given the core of the system. I think most of the issues for martials arise out of this as a lot of the base assumptions from previous editions remain unchanged. Once Paizo gets around to revisiting them it will be a lot better. But, I think that's years off. While they do need to evolve the system with the times making a new edition inevitable, I don't think the current system has exhausted itself yet in spite of the potential gains a new one has.

I new version may not be as far off as you might think. Change in editions, for the most part, is driven by the market. I would agree that they have not yet plumed the deepest depths of d20 system, heck they could make APs forever.

WotC's Next may be winner. It maybe a gamble to build a game foundation on a al carte system but if it works it may pacify the edition war. If it does fail I could see Pathfinder 2.0 being a collection of most popular Next rule modules.

I don't know of 3rd party reference that breaks down magic items into raw components. I would be leery of the system that does.

What if there was a items that requires trolls blood say something like a healing potions. The party then goes out a slays a bunch of trolls to harvest their blood, this may cause a serious wealth problem. This is just something to consider.

Formulas are pretty easy to add to campaigns without creating a big list of components. You could also use Skyrim disenchant mechanic where you destroy an item but learn it's creation formula. I would making this a feat or better yet level restricted, so at CL 3 can gain craft wondrous item but you need CL 10 to disenchant wondrous items.

This thread makes me question the future of the 20d system. When they went from 3.5 to Pathfinder they had raise the power on all of class (including wizards and their ilk), why because no one would be interested in playing a game where the version of their favorite class is less powerful then it's predecessor (sorry druids)

We all know its not the martial classes that are the problem but the spellcasters. Their power should have been dialed back. But doing this would make the wizard majority very upset and upset people don't buy books e.i. 4E.

The reason its a no-brainer is that basic commerce is typically boring and players just want stuff that will make their characters better. So really to avoid this you have drastically change to the foot print of magic items in your world.

Here are few ideas

1. Recipes, all items need some type of formula to for their creating. This will keep players shopping mentality. This also makes good items for treasure troves and quest rewards.

2. Use story devices to give out awesome loot. The pool that enchants weapons, the dragons hearts that make flaming weapons.

Anything that takes the spot light off the players in usually bad. I suggest you find a society game to play in or take a short break and let one of your players be the GM.

Every level a character gains a 1 build point and then use the point system to increase their abilities. Points can be saved and spent at later level, so it you want to move from 20 to 22 that will take 9 levels.

The point of this rule is to give a leg up to MAD classes and promote more well rounded characters.

Daniel of Florida wrote:

Unlike the it's 3.5 predecessor the rope can not be removed or hidden. So it a great opportunity for the GM to set up an ambush when the PC's emerge or dispel the rope trick to force an encounter.

Also remember abilities like scent which most monsters use to track down their prey.

This requires the would-be ambushers to know enough about magic to know that the rope hanging from nowhere is a rope trick, and not just a rope. Sure, a troll might watch the rope hanging from the air for a few minutes, but would it spend hours watching it?

Perhaps, if the troll finds his slaughtered brethren and the scent trails leads back to a mysterious rope. If he didn't sit and wait the area would a least be on alert.

Unlike the it's 3.5 predecessor the rope can not be removed or hidden. So it a great opportunity for the GM to set up an ambush when the PC's emerge or dispel the rope trick to force an encounter.

Also remember abilities like scent which most monsters use to track down their prey.

Have you considered making charm/dominate a concentration duration. They could also skip a round of concentration but the subjects gets a another save; I would even say with a better chance of break free say +2 for each consecutive round skipped concentrating.

The problem with the rogue is that it is built on the lousy 3.5 foundation. Rogues were never really awesome in 3.5 they were the 1 or 2 level splash class. This idea that rogues are the skill class is only cool in till most skills become obsolete.

The foundation for the "rogue" class should have been the 3.5 Factotum. The rogues should start at the crossroads of all other classes with the option of being the jack-of-all-classes or near masters of a few.