Community poll: What is your preferred abbreviation for Pathfinder 1st Edition and Pathfinder 2nd Edition?
All of which could just be put into a new printing of the CRB. Call it PF2 if you will. It still doesn't need a new rules set.
I loved Dungeons & Dragons. I played 1st ed through 3.5 but 4E killed that game for me by destroying the game system. Pathfinder, being a continuation of what I feel is the best system for the game (personal bias and all) is the game that I love. I love all the so called sacred cows, including the Vancian magic system.
Here is the issue for me... I don't mind a new edition. I object to a change of rules and a change of rules that invalidates an entire collection of books.
Take a look at Call of Cthulhu. The game system is the same as it was when the game was first released back in the early 80's. CoC has a strong following just like D&D and Pathfinder. It shows quite clearly that game doesn't need to change it's system. That has always been the problem with D&D in the last twenty years. Each change of edition since 2nd has invalidated the previous edition when all it needed was an update on the current rules.
As for the collection of books, I'm not prepared to buy a whole new game system - and let's be honest here, that is what PF2 is - when the current rules system is perfectly fine.
Good luck to Paizo in this endeavour but I won't be with them. I shall stick to PF1 as my fantasy game of choice.
Dragonchess Player wrote:
Also, there's another limitation: Multiple ships means the need for multiple crew members in the pilot, gunner, etc. roles; you have to actually be on the ship to fill a role during combat!
I was thinking of a party with one bigger ship and a pilot character in their own one man fighter.
I'm currently toying with the following idea.
Sargasso in Space.
Perhaps some ships have survivors or descendants of those whose ships were trapped here. Perhaps one has an alien threat on board, sleeping until the party disturb it. Maybe one is run by robots who decide that the party are the perfect replacement parts for their ship (ripping off a Doctor Who episode for that one admittedly), but somewhere is the source of the Sargasso.
What cool ideas are you fine folks working on?
Sorry if this seems like a silly question but after reading the rulebook twice I can't see that this is covered.
It is assumed that a patron gives a ship to the party and as they level they get to spend BP to enhance the ship, right? What happens if you have a character, say a pilot, who wants their own fighter? Would only that character get to spend BP on it or would you allow the party to spend on it splitting the points across both ships as they see fit?
Almost never. I don't think most GM's even want to do it. I did it twice as a GM. Every other attempt was stopped by people moving or schedule changes.
I'd like to run it but even with extensive GM experience I find it very hard to come up with scenarios, encounters and environments that aren't run roughshod over by the powerful characters. Presumably because it doesn't happen often enough to get experienced at running such high level games.
Maybe not quite what you are looking for here but I'd like to see add-on packs that cover more monsters from the bestiaries, magical items, barriers, generic locations and so forth. Basically stuff you can add to your game.
I've played the games but I'd like the game to be more open. In fact i'd like to sort of run the PFACG like Pathfinder itself and create my own campaigns/adventures. Adding extra card packs of things that could be used as such or just added in to enhance the games would be nice.
The idea is to write up a description of the classes as they fit in a game world. Not the class descriptions and mechanics but what the class... I guess... "represents".
One of my players mailed this as a basic idea:
"Rangers are almost bounty hunters. They excel at hunting things, whatever species it may be. They are also not exclusively found in the wild, but urban areas as well. They are quickly able to adapt and use their surroundings to their advantage, but do not form a bond with it.
A hunter on the other hand, is a person who forms a close bond with nature and animals. So much so that he is able to exhibit the traits of animals. He is a warrior of nature and generally found most commonly there."
It's good but I want to be able to go beyond that and actually be able do a write up.
Something of an odd question. What is the "in world" difference between a Ranger and a Hunter? How would you differentiate them in a game world when they are fairly similar to one enough in concept?
I'm trying to come up with a decent description of how the classes would be in the world I am designing but both seem so similar that I'm having trouble.
You can play whatever you want but I have always found that you need certain roles to properly have a balanced party. A good GM will always balance a scenario or campaign to accommodate whatever the players bring.
My personal preferred 4 player party build would be:
* A dedicated melee combatant. Two in a 5 player party.
That's good to know. Thanks.
I'm currently on my third attempt to play through Rise of the Runelords. In each attempt we have found it very difficult to fit any downtime in and especially early on there is next to no time for buying and selling.
Same thing can be said for the others that I have played and completed: Legacy of Fire and Reign of Winter. When I ran Mummy's Mask there was plenty of time early on for downtime but not later in the campaign, but there was opportunity to buy and sell.
Having read but not run the Giantslayer AP it looks to suffer the same problems.
I don't think they are too long but then I'd like to play one that went from 1st level all the way up to 20th rather than petering out mid teens.
I have noticed however, that the middle sections of most published AP's don't quite work very well and slow down the pace a little too much might help explain why they may feel like they drag out.
Other than wrapping up at higher levels the only thing that I would like to see different in future AP's is time for downtime and the opportunity to actually shop. AP's seem to be rather fast paced with little time built in for the characters to do their own thing or craft items. There also seems to be little opportunity to buy and sell easily. It is something that I think my group has felt while playing several AP's over the last few years.
I never touch third party products. There are gems amongst them I am sure but I remember the great bloat of third edition D&D. These days I prefer to stick to purely Paizo for my books.
Now that said, I do think that at the moment there are too many books out of Pathfinder and more constantly adding to the mechanically bloat of rules, spells, feats and the like. I personally would much rather see Paizo focus on the campaign setting rather than more and more rule books. We still need countries, continents and the bits in between fleshed out in further detail not just the Inner Sea Region.
Would this help from the FAQ?
Two-Handed Weapons: What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?
As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).
posted March 2013
Several years ago before my group got into Pathfinder we had a 3rd ed D&D group going. One of the players who joined us (a friend of mine before he took up gaming) was what the rest of us at the table called an over-optimiser. We don't play especially optimised characters, especially at the time, but he could only play characters that were as powerful and as strong as he could make. It got to a point where no one else at the table was happy with his style of play compared to our own.
We spoke to him away from the table and simply asked if he could tone his characters down and better match the rest of us (GM included). His reaction was simply a massive rant about how the rest of us played c**p characters and how we were forcing him to waste his time playing something he wouldn't enjoy. It caused a lot of grief and bad feeling but ultimately real world events caused him to leave the game before we had to say anything for the betterment of our game.
My point is, and I raised it with him at the time, was that if a player joins a group they should play to that group's play style. If the group doesn't over-optimise and/or the GM can't handle it then you need to either play down or, quite frankly, find another group. It's not fair to force players on either side of the problem into a play that they don't enjoy.
My personal opinion is that everyone in a group should share a similar play style if everyone is to enjoy the game.
Ultimate Campaign has largely been a waste of time for me. I don't like the drawbacks mechanics, and I just cannot get my head around how the buildings/business thing is supposed to work. If my players have a downtime opportunity I prefer to let them tell me what they want to do and I'll either decide what happens or maybe make it into a short scenario.
Ultimate Intrigue and Ultimate Horror are on my shelves waiting to be read but from what I gather flicking through there are elements that might see use in my games once I have time to examine them more deeply.
Background Skills from Unchained are probably the most used change to the standard rules in my games.
I'm still working on the detailed back story but here is what I am thinking of playing. Basic idea is that he remembers working in his lab, something about a strange woman asking for help and then waking up in an asylum beaten black and blue.