Search Posts
I just wanted to check something. If my ranger character with Favoured Enemy of Outsider (Evil) encounters such a creature on its home plane I still get the bonuses to attack, damage and skill checks yes? The fact that they are not outsiders on their home plane doesn't suddenly mean he forgets the best way to overcome them does it? Thanks in advance!
So: Medium masterwork barding for a dog would cost double the base price of the equivalent armor plus 150 gp (masterwork; do not double). Crafting it would only cost 1/3 of that. Enhancing it would cost the same as enhancing a regular humanoid armor of the same type--size and shape do not matter. Thanks for the response, and I am glad I wasn't missing a FAQ with clarity on the magical enhancement issue. I think I may have doubled the masterwork cost, but as that was done several scenarios ago I am not that bothered (having erred on the side of caution the build isn't illegal). Now that I am looking to make it magical though, knowing I shouldn't double the cost is good!
I just wanted to ask a quick question that I couldn't find a clear answer to by searching these forums. Barding for a medium sized animal (e.g. a medium size dog) costs double (PF p162). Making that Masterwork presumably costs an additional 300 gp (double the normal 150 gp to make masterwork armour). However, if I then want to make that barding magical, is the cost of that doubled too? I imagine it is about imbuing magic into an item, and so that shouldn't be too much different than doing so for normal armour, thus I wouldn't expect this to be doubled too. However by RAW I can see that it should be. Is there an official ruling or FAQ? As this will be for PFS play I am keen to get it right.
Just a bump to indicate that I am still looking and that in lieu of a group to join I am looking to start my own. I am aiming to GM using the published scenarios for the Eberron setting, namely:
I aim to host at my house and am looking for a total of four players; I already have a couple of potentially interested parties. Would any of you be interested in joining? I am looking for players able to commit to one Sunday a month (with some flexibility for holidays etc) and a willingness to read up a bit on the rules (free on line, plus I have a couple of spare Players Handbooks) and setting (I have a spare setting book too) - this is so that we can cram in as much gaming into each monthly session as possible and not have to do massive info dumps or in depth explanation of the rules (having said that I am happy to teach the rules as we go, I just don't want to be explaining how to make an attack roll three sessions in!) I am considering a 10:00 to 16:00 Sunday game with lunch eaten as we play (e.g. pizza ordered in) and likely lasting for a dozen or so sessions (so over a year commitment to play). This is likely to start in September or October. If anyone is interested please post here or message me and we can arrange to meet for a coffee or something so we can see whether our playtyles are likely to match up, and that we are all likely to get on.
All, Whilst I currently game in a mix of systems and settings I would very much like to join or form a regular group that plays Dungeons & Dragons 3.5, ideally using the Eberron or Freeport settings (maybe combining both) or even Dark Sun (using the Paizo Dungeon and Dragon magazine articles). I would like a group who can play serious but also have fun, and who know the system and / or setting fairly well (but by no means need be experts) so I don't have to explain everything and drip feed rules and setting. I would be happy to join a group as a player or even GM. If GMing I would likely run the published scenarios for Eberron and Freeport. I would like to play regularly, either a weekly game on a week night (though not Friday), or less regularly but for a longer session on a weekend day (for example a game every two or three weeks on a Sunday running for a 6 hours with breaks). Any interest?
Thanks for the ideas so far. The druid is a bit of an all rounder, maxed out Diplomacy, Grapple feats, and several defaults sets of spells for whatever role is needed (healer, combat, magical support, survival). His dog does go into combat. What books are Wild Armour Enchantment and Greater Dire Collar in? I have core, APG, Seekers of Secrets, PFS Field Guide, and a few other slim books.
My Druid character has just got to level 10 in PFS play and I have just over 14,000 gp to spend. What would be a worthwhile purchase (or purchases)? He already has:
I was wondering whether to make his Masterwork Cold Iron Great Axe magical, or maybe upgrade one of the +2 items. Or maybe buy a magic item for his animal companion dog? Any idea welcome!
Luckily I have the 5pp and the 200gp cost (10 X level 4 X 5 days) is not slot. Theoretically, I could actually get the benefit of proper spell casting (albeit 1 spell a day) for one level and retrain just before hitting level 5. But as I said, I don't see him being a spell caster, just someone who dabbles with magic items (hence the UMD).
If the character hasn't been played at level 4 yet, the level which first has a change for the added archetype, then surely it can be added without retraining? At least that's how I read things. The character hasn't been played at level 4 yet, however I believe the other posters are saying that theoretically I would have had to have chosen the archetype at character creation (despite not getting a benefit until level 5) because I should have given up the ability to spell trigger magic items.
Well, when you have the extra coinage, it is only $10 for PDF of Ultimate Campaign. It as part of the humble bundle last year if you did that. Yeah, I guess I could buy the PDF, though it seems a waste to spend $10 just to allow my character to take the archetype (I doubt I will find any use for it for anything else).
I just read the PFS Roleplaying Guild Guide and noticed that Retraining requires you to own the Ultimate Campaign book, which I do not. So retraining is not possible and I am stuck unable to take the archetype in the book I do own, just because I wasn't aware of the archetype when I made the character :( Oh how I wish I had continued to incorrectly think I had to make UMD checks to use the wand and in effect unwittingly taken the archetype from level 1. Maybe you can semi-retire this character and start a new one as a skirmisher from the beginning. I wouldn't do that, its taken me nearly 3 and half years to level up to where I am, and some of the key boons that make the character are not available. Oh well, it looks like I am stuck (I wish I hadn't asked the question to be honest!) TBH I like the idea of a not spell casting ranger now, so will likely just ignore the spellcasting feature from now on anyway on principle and go back to using UMD for my wand.
Hmm,that sounds a bit harsh to have to have spend 5PP + 400 gp to have had the benefit of using Wands of CLW without a test for 3 levels (16 charges) just because I wasn't aware of the archetype until now. Ironically my character does have a half decent UMD rating because he picked up the Dangerously Curious trait (UMD is class skill and has a +1 bonus) at character creation and has max ranks, so he could likely have made the UMD checks to use the wand anyway (or more likely passed it to a team member who could use it). In fact I think I initially did make UMD checks because I had forgotten that you didn't need to be able to cast spells to use a wand just have it on the class' spell list. You could wait until 5th, so you have access to spells for atleast 1 level. Still expensive, but I won't be doing this as I know my character will be a skirmisher.
I have a Ranger character who has just hit level 4 and I thought I would take a look at alternative class features and saw the Skirmisher archetype in Advanced Players Guide (page 128). This archetype gains Hunter's Tricks at the expense of spell casting. I am very much interested in taking this archetype, but I cannot do so until level 5, however I just wanted to confirm that although I would gain no benefit until level 5 I would need to choose not to take the Ranger spellcasting feature at level 4 - correct? So I give up a benefit I would get at level 4, for a benefit I won't get until level 5. If so that is cool with me, I just hope the character doesn't die before then! :) A related question though is that, up until now I have been using a Wand of CLW without making a UMD check as it is a spell on the Ranger list. Now I have effectively had that benefit through three levels, however because I have now decided on my intention to take SKirmisher, I presumably should start to have to make UMD checks and handwave / retcon how I was able to use my wand to easily previously. Correct? Thanks in advance!
The illustration is actually by the soldier background, however this could indeed be the best way to implement a samurai mechanically in 5e. Basically, give them History and Intimidation proficiency, proficiency in Calligraphy supplies or similar artistic toolset, some appropriate gear and a feature that reflects their code of honour and also the respect and privilege they gain from that. You are even allowed to create a custom background in their Adventurers League organised play campaign.
I must admit I was a bit surprised at WotC's release strategy but I think they have learnt that the splat book treadmill is not always well liked, so they are going broad rather than deep with the D&D brand - smaller number of releases but covering more mediums e.g. table top RPGs , miniatures games, PC games and even another go at a new movie! Personally I am more than happy with the options in the core books, it feels like each class has greater choices with their pathways at level 3, plus Backgrounds are amazing to differentiate characters allowing mage theives, religious rogues, and artisan warriors. Whilst there may not be as many choices in character creation / levelling (though still not sure about that) I find that 5e encourages more options in play. For example, if you have a decent Athletics then you can elect to trip, push someone back or grab them. In 3.5 and PF unless you have the feat you are dissuaded from such an option due to AoOs etc. Other examples are two weapon fighting, finesse weapons etc that allow players to choose those options without needing feats. Finally, the way spells prep works again encourages more options. You no longer have to choose between that utility spell that *might* come in handy and another instance of that combat spell that will definitely get used; often the latter wins out in PF and so those utility spells don't see as much use as they perhaps should. In 5e you can prepare both spells and then during play decide which to cast and use up your spell slots - so you could cast that combat spell twice, or you could cast it once and use the utility spell. And if the utility spell is a ritual you can probably cast the combat spell twice and still use the utility spell! In this 5e took the best options from 3.5 & 4e. Overall, 5e is great and really makes me think why should I keep any of my 3.5 or 4e stuff (Eberron setting books is the answer plus the possibility of playing in a 3.5 or 4e game in the future). What I really wish WotC would do is run their organised play campaign more like Paizo - allow home play of Expeditions!
Having read only 33 pages of the Basic Rules (and undertaken a couple of the playtests, running a short campaign in it) I have to say that 5th edition seems to me to be the best edition of D&D yet. It combines the best of both 3.5 and 4e whilst changing stuff that I felt was odd or didn't work well. It streamlines things, makes loads of things optional from feats to using a grid, and supports both simple character creation and customisation. And I love Backgrounds (sort of like 4e's Themes). If I hadn't just started a 3.5 campaign I would likely have chosen to run it using 5e.
The best way I can see this handled is if the GM, for each permanent magical item, simply states "Please raise your hand if anyone is interested in claiming this magic item" Then, as long as a player isn't intimidated into not raising their hand (and if that is happening I would be more worried about whether that player even enjoyed the game), they wouldn't have to say a word other than to state the number of permanent magical items their character already has. After it is indicated that more than one player character wants an item, argument and debate doesn't come into it - its just a comparison of magic items and if necessary a dice roll. The only other thing that could go wrong is people being bullied into withdrawing their interest in an item. But again if that is happening I would have bigger concerns.
For those worried about a revised edition (or even 6e) coming down the line soon, this article might put some of those fears to rest: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140623 Basically, it looks like WotC will continue with some rigor and possibly even player input into any "fixes" they feel are needed. Basically, Errata done right IMHO.
How does treasure work? The page linked above just said something about certificates? It is discussed here: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/news/advleague3But in summary: Gold and other monetary treasure (total is divided evenly amongst surviving characters), nothing scary about that. For consumable magic items (1 to 3 per scenario) it is up to the group how to divide them up, though it is suggested to lean towards giving them to characters that possess the smallest number of permanent magic items. So, this might be a bit scary when the consumable is one that every player wants - the shy people may not be able to put their argument forward well enough to get them. For permanent magic items, if there is a unanimous decision on who should get the item, then that happens (this could be scary if there is peer pressure to award it to one person). If there is not a unanimous decision, then for those who state they want it, the character with the fewest permanent magic items gets it. If there is a tie, determine randomly. So if a DM handles this well and asks who would like this item, then as long as a shy person can raise their hand, it should then come down to number of perm magic items and perhaps a dice roll - no peer pressure or arguments. The key thing is, once you have accepted a permanent magic item, your number of permanent magic items can never decrease meaning you are less likely to get new permanent magic items in future (even if you have a certificate that allows you to trade it, you must trade it for an item of the same rarity). So you really only want to ask for a permanent magic item if its something your character would really benefit from. I can even imagine some scenarios where a permanent magic items goes unclaimed by any player.
i've moved on, pathfinder works for us, i can't afford 2 RPGs at the moment so i'll stick with what i have and continue investing in that one:) If you can't afford the time, that is fair enough. But if you're talking about finances, then that shouldn't stop you playing D&D 5e as the Basic Game will be available for free.
If 5E has a SRD available and utilizes an OGL, I will check out the rules and make a determination at that point. If the only legal way of getting my hands on the rules is to purchase them, I won't do so. The good news is that you will be able to get the Basic D&D in PDF for free! Levels 1 to 20 for the Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue with races of human, elf, halfling and dwarf.
Pathfinder is not my main game, so it will probably not be a question of switching. More likely I will get the next D&D after it has started to see Eberron support and continue to play 3.5 and even some 4e. If however, WotC can put together an organised play campaign that is as good as PFS and ideally doesn't rely on Forgotten Realms as the setting (I am not a big Golarion fan, but at least that doesn't have the history and baggage that FR does) then I could see myself dumping PF entirely as I only play it for PFS at conventions (which means I only tend to play maybe half a dozen sessions a year).
Not that I am the target market for this, but I love the idea of Quest Cards. They are one aspect of computer games that D&D 4e suggested to use and work well, especially in games with complicated plots and / or where game sessions do not happen that often (e.g. once a month). Glad to see Paizo introducing them too.
One way you could re-introduce such a spell would be to put conditions on it, e.g. it will only work if the character has loss less than 10% of their maximum Hit Points (minimum of 1 hp loss). E.g. Bradden is a 5th level fighter with a CON of 14, his hit points are on average (10 + 5.5 + 5.5 + 5.5 + 5.5 +(2x5) = 42. If he has suffered only 4 hit points of damage (less than 10% of his HP) Cure Minor Wounds could be used four times to heal those four HP. E.g. Glub the 0 level commoner only has 8 HP, 10% of that that is 0.8, but with the minimum of 1 HP loss clause, it would allow that 1 HP to be restored as long as Glub has only lost 1 hp. I.e. Cure Minor Wounds only works when the patient has suffered only minor HP loss.
Mike has stated, over and over again, that a note on the chronicle referencing the ITS with how much gp spent is sufficient on the chronicle. Unfortunately not every PFS player reads the forums, and even those that do may not have seen those posts (I haven't, though I have seen posts that speak of such posts). But okay, so if I buy the following items after a scenario:
Chronicle Sheet Notes Section
Inventory Tracking Sheet
Correct? If so that isn't much extra effort (but it is still spreading the same info across two different pieces of paper, more if you have already filled up the four Consumables spaces on your ITS forcing you to put the Thunderstones on new ITS sheet). Also, you do have to create a subtotal and then a final total, rather than just create a final total. Also, would you have to add the three Alchemist's Fires to the ITS in order to track their use, even if you haven't had to add them to the ITS because they cost less than 25gp each? Or do you track their use in some other way? If you add them to the ITS do you put "NA" in the Cost as the cost of those items has been tracked on the Chronicle sheet? Its a bit confusing if you ask me.
Please see my edit at the end... Nosig, the "20gp for stuff" is sufficient for the chronicle side.But this does not list what you bought? Where are we listing the things we bought? Nowhere? That is my understanding, and why I have an issue with the new rules for using the ITS (not the ITS itself). As I understand things, anything purchases of items that are individually under 25gp can just be written up collectively on the chronicle sheet as "Misc Purchases 200gp". In fact I am not sure you even need to do that, you just record the GP spent on the Chronicle sheet and don't even have to highlight the fact that there is a difference between GP spent on the Chronicle sheet and that spent on the ITS. 20gp means that my PC could have a flask of Alchemist Fire, or 2 flasks Acid or a dose each of Vermin Repelant and Clearear....or two 1st level spells scribed to a spell book... And your example shows why I think the ITS does not help with auditing small stuff, it actually makes it worse, the ITS as it stands just helps with auditing the big value items. If you buy something for your PC, shouldn't there be a record someplace of what you bought? Yes I think there should, my preference is to log everything on the ITS. EDIT: Actually you are right, v5 of the PFS Guide says in relation to the Chronicle Sheet on page 35:
So we do have to record every purchase on the Chronicle Sheet (both stuff that costs under 25gp and stuff over 25gp. But that does mean categorically that the ITS is extra paperwork, duplicating effort of writing down purchases of items valued at 25+gp.
Gold spent is still tracked on the Chronicle sheets. So the price of those consumables should still be tracked. True, but now with the introduction of the ITS there is no need to record what that gold is spent on. So basically now there is less of a requirement to record your purchases and thus less ability to audit. I personally track all my purchases, down to my 2cp pair of earplugs in the Confirmation, and I wish that the rule was to record all transaction. Yep, either that or perhaps enact a rule that items under 5gp or something are freely provided by the PFS and thus do not need to be purchased - so ammo etc doesn't need to be tracked. The ITS does not allow players to ignore tracking their ammo, because just because a purchase is under 25gp does not make it free. Yep, but now it is harder to catch a player not tracking ammo.
Alkali Flask are under 25gp and as such aren't required to be tracked on the ITS.You haven't read much of the thread. I've pointed that out like half a dozen times. Hmm, so if a consumable is under 25 gp, as well as not logging its purchase, do we also not need to log its consumption? I had though the ITS section labelled "Wands/Ammunition/Alchemical Items/Other" was meant to be used to track all consumables? So if a player purchases 20 arrows for his bow - you never need to show on the ITS the purchase of those arrows or their consumption. Is that correct? So presumably the ITS does nothing to prevent a player "cheating" by using the same 20 arrows in each scenario? There is no way to audit that the player has replenished his spent arrows if there is no way to audit that some arrows have been used (especially in light of the 50% chance to reclaim arrows that miss their target). Effectively does the ITS now effectively allow for players to ignore tracking their ammo?
The other problem with the ITS is that 25 GP limit. Love it or hate it, it will cause holes. My archerologist shoots an average of two tangleshot arrows a session. At 20 GP they don't need to be tracked. I usually buy 4 at a time.So that's 80 gold. You don't think you should put that purchase on the tracking sheet? Because individually they don't meet the minimum? I would be surprised if we were supposed to add such to an ITS if individually items do not exceed 25GP, but collectively they do. If that was the rule you would get inconsistency, with different results as to what is recorded depending on how many you buy in one go. When I asked them why it wasn't on their ITS, they said because it was given to them as a boon on a Chronicle sheet, or they just hadn't written it down. That is interesting - if the item was genuinely not purchased, but was simply provided to the character as a boon, then it is arguable that it shouldn't be included on the ITS. Isn't it also a bit weird that you are supposed to track consumption of ammo on the ITS, but for regular ammo you don't actually need to record its purchase on the ITS? 20 arrows is only 1gp, even 20 Cold Iron arrows are only 2gp.
I also like this feature and I put EVERYTHING I buy on it on individual lines regardless of the cost. I have some characters that are up to 2 sheets. Hmmm, would any GMs have issue with Inventory Sheets being used to track every purchase regardless of cost? Even if that means taking up more sheets? If not, would GMs have issue with a printout of an Excel spreadsheet that listed everything? All my characters are in Excel and I have just started to use a Log worksheet that details all purchases, sales, uses and rewards (including GP awards).
Hmmm, having only played one Season 5 scenario I hadn't twigged that you didn't need to detail individual purchases on the Chronicle sheet itself anymore. That does raise a question though - if I buy a Starknife (24gp), Longsword (15gp) and Hide Armour (15gp), those purchases don't get detailed anywhere? There would just be a discrepancy between the GP spent on the Chronicle sheet and the Purchases on the Inventory Sheet of 54 gp, with no way to reconcile it? Could that possibly lead to a player cheating by declaring that he actually has a Heavy Flail and not a Longsword when he realises the scenario will involve fighting lots of Skeletons with DR/Bludgeoning? Not really an issue for me as if a player really wants to cheat as long as it doesn't ruin the other players' fun I am not bothered (though I don't condone it, but I also don't waste time auditing chronicle sheets). Personally, I like to track all my purchases (including those below 25gp) and so will continue to write on the Chronicle Sheets all my purchases and list just the 25gp+ stuff (plus ammo) on the Inventory sheet.
Saving throw is an abstract concept that requires abstract terminology to describe. So is a Power (whether At Will, Encounter, or Daily). The same can be said for an Attack Roll, a Skill Check, Ability Score etc. "wargame" is just slang, It implies that the mechanic basically assumes the game is mostly combat with adjoining sections that are just an excuse to do more combat. Which "encounter power" exemplifies this. I think we will have to agree to disagree - "Encounter" in 4e is not synonymous with "combat" indeed you have Combat Encounters and Non-Combat Encounters. So for me Encounter is more like "Scene" and thus is no more wargamey than "Saving Throw", "Skill Check" or "Ability Score" IMHO. As far as PCs being different than NPCs. Only to an extent. Part of the (overused word) verisimilitude of being a PC is knowing that you are working with the same rules as your foes. What you do is something that an enemy can do. But in PF that isn't necessarily true if the NPC doesn't have the same build as your PC. Your Rogue may be able to Sneak Attack, but that Fighter NPC can't for example. Also, as soon as a GM uses some resources to create NPCs that he decrees as off-limits to PCs, e.g. Evil prestige classes, Monster Races, Feats, Spells etc then you have that divide between PC and NPC creation - what the NPC does cannot be done by your PC. Breaking to far away from this begins to make the tabletop feel like a WoW dungeon. I am glad I don't get that impression; for me a tabletop RPG is a tabletop RPG (I don't enjoy computer games really so that is important).
I am hoping this isn't an April Fools as these would be good for Star Wars d20, or any Sci Fi game that uses minis. I would love to think that this could mean Paizo would also do some modern day map packs e.g. Office Block, Downtown, University Campus etc, however I think this map pack might be tying into the downed spaceship in Numeria (or whatever that region in Golarion is called). Didn't I hear there is going to be an AP called Iron Gods or something? That would fit with this.
That was just an example of how 4e tended to put the meta-wargame wording first with the thematic elements hidden somewhere in the rules. I would hardly called the text "hidden", and whilst I agree that the term "Encounter Power" is metagame terminology I don't see how it is "wargame" terminology any more than Pathfinder's "Saving Throw" is "wargame" terminology ("Saving Throw" is also metagame terminology) (for example, the great divide between the PCs and the monsters in terms of mechanics is another verisimilitude killing aspect) I guess for some that is an issue, but it isn't as big a deal for me since I have always seen stuff like this in other games like Spirit of the Century (and other Fate games) where you have Minions and Companions, and even to a lesser extent in games like Shadowrun and M&M where you aren't obliged to use the same limits for building NPCs as PCs. Mind you, even in PF do you give NPCs max hit points for their first level? Do you only use PC classes and not NPC classes? Even PF has different rules for PCs than for NPCs.
Are there such abilities in PF? I would be curious to know which. Is it really that hard to say, "after using this ability, you can't use it again until you rest for a minute."? So its just the term "Encounter Power" you have an issue with, not how the mechanics actually worked? I just see the phrase "Encounter Power" as shorthand - an abbreviation to save space in a stat block. But in the end, an Encounter Power in 4e is pretty much what you said (except it requiring a 5 minute rest):
Encounter Powers [...] You need to take a short rest (page 263) before you can use one again. A short rest is about 5 minutes long.
That said, skills, skill challenges, and everything outside of combat is very...sparse. Out of interest, how do you feel PF compares (which doesn't have Skill Challenges)? Do you feel PF has more non-combat support than 4e? I see the opposite - 4e has everything PF does and more. Skill challenges are just "Roll X X and X. Okay well done you get to move on." Yes, I can fluff it up through description but ultimately it's kinda boring. That isn't quite fair, players can come up with ploys that allow them to use other Skills in the challenges, and even come up with other things than Skill checks to help out. I find Skill Challenges promote thinking of interesting ways to use your other skills, e.g. History to recall an incident and the consequences of the King failing to come to the aid of their neighbouring state, Streetwise to recall any shortcuts in town instead of an Athletics test in a chase etc. 4e demands a grid which makes power of imagination play difficult. I agree that whilst it can be played gridless, it is more difficult, but then I think the exact same of PF. That said, I like Pathfinder because it finds a nice balance between focus on combat and focus on story. Paizo's adventures rock. I wonder, is your opinion thus based more on the adventures put out by Paizo, rather than the PF system itself?
What do you mean by that? For me, accepting 4e for what it is means accepting it as a roleplaying game. Maybe one that is quite crunchy, and one that has a strong focus on combat, but no more so than Pathfinder; especially when comparing to RPGs in general including games like Call of Cthulhu, Don't Rest Your Head or Fate. I think 4e provides some great advice and tools to support roleplaying: I have quoted the 4e DMG in discussions about Call of Cthulhu & Trail of Cthulhu and the problems creating investigative scenarios. Having never been interested in playing Wizards in 3.5 or PF, the idea of At Will powers and always prepped cantrips immediately conjured up cool ways to narrate roleplaying actions. E.g. sitting at a table in a tavern and with a waive of a hand lighting the candles - something that in 3.5 would have required prepping and expending a cantrip, and in PF still requires prepping of the cantrip, which would probably mean that narrative flourish wouldn't take place. I have run entire sessions of 4e with no combat,but instead challenges involving tracking, investigation and negotiations - and I got help from the mechanics that 4e provides.
And despite some of the bad press it has received the Skill Challenge mechanic actually provides some extra mechanical support for stuff like investigations, explorations, social interactions etc over and above simple skill use (which 4e also has). I find Skill Challenges encourage players to come up with ingenious ways to play to their character's strengths, and have all characters get involved rather than leaving the diplomacy to the one character. It is interesting that more than a couple of suggestions of what to do in PF2 are things that 4e actually did. Paizo may want to take a look at 4e and see what stuff it did well and perhaps learn from that.
Whilst Pathfinder made some great improvements over 3.5, it also made quite a few changes that imho make the game worse. So be careful about "upgrading", make sure that PF fixes the issues you have with 3.5 and that overall the benefit of those fixes to you outweighs any problems you may feel PF introduces. Personally I still prefer 3.5 over PF and as a player would not play a PF game unless it was PFS. So I suggest checking out the free PRD and asking on these forums how PF handles some of the stuff you have issues with in 3.5. But as for a new edition, I personally don't see it happening anytime soon, even if I believe it could do with a revision.
I have had similar things like this happen in PFS play - my character doesn't use a spell because I figure we might have tougher foes later that day but then we don't and we get to rest. It hasn't led to a TPK, but I didn't get a chance to showcase my character's power by pulling out the big guns. This is one thing I loved about D&D 4e - encounter powers; a middle ground between stuff you can always pull off and daily powers. Encounter powers allowed you to pull out some of your big guns knowing that you wouldn't be "wasting" them on a fight and leaving yourself out of ammo for a bigger encounter later that same day.
I have seen something similar in other RPGs, stuff like only having a maximum of 3 bonuses apply to a roll (so you don't have to worry about every tiny bonus, just identify the 3 best). I think it was Earthdawn that had that rule. It can simplify things, but to be honest, if Paizo were to implement this they would be best to do so as optional "Campaign Limits". Basically just listing stuff like you have "max total bonus to a roll / stat", "max number of attacks", "max number of skills" etc. Of course there is nothing stopping anyone implementing such campaign limits themselves in their home games.
The attacker always has to use his move action, before attacking, to approach the enemy. He never will get the chance to 5 ft step during his attack, because he has to move to begin it. Not if, as in my example, the attacker uses a round to move adjacent to the defender but doesn't attack. The defender never gets his readied action that round and so doesn't 5 feet step. Now when the defender gets his next go he can 5 feet step back and ready to attack when being attacked, but if that readied action triggers he cannot 5 feet step again.
In round 4 Blaze doesn't have to use her move before the attack unless Adam chooses to move and then ready, in which case Adam cannot 5 feet step as part of the readied action and Blaze would get her standard attack in after moving up and after Adam's readied attack.
|
