I’ve Got Reach's page

Long-time player of D&D3.5 and PF1e, just now diving into the PF2e rule set. O bought what apparently was a 1st run hardcover core rulebook and a later version of the same book in pocket version.

I'll preface this rant by saying that D&D3.5 had a ton of errata - MOSTLY RULE CLARIFICATIONS.

As I'm reading - just made it to Druid, I noticed the text of number of cantrips in the text (5) didn't match the table (4). Red flag. And a deep dive online followed. Found out there have already been multiple editions (printings) of the books and determining which version you have is in itself an adventure.

Finally made it to the PAIZO website and found the voluminous amount of errata in three different printings. Sure enough, Druid has 5 cantrips like everyone else.

I'm pretty disappointed in this original release. I can understand errata that clarify rules, but many of the changes ARE the rules, and as crunchy as this PF2e is, it makes first run core rule books ideal to lend to people to learn the game, but after that, they are pretty much garbage.

But I started playing Kingmaker recently and I am compelled to tell anyone willing to listen, and especially game designers, engineers, talent and contributors, that the Kingmaker PC game is hands down the best CRPG since Baldurs Gate. An absolute masterpiece.

Thank you!

I've Got Reach

This "evil" campaign is what brought me back to the forums after an eight year absence. Looking forward to reading and running it.

You weren't alone. Its been years since I've been to the Paizo website. And when I returned a few days ago to buy a Pathfinder module, I almost couldn't complete my order using Chrome.

But where there is a will, there is a way, and I steadfastly refused to use IE.

Hope it was a glitch and not the typical experience when ordering something using Chrome.

I’ve got a question I’d like to pose to what I think might be a significant minority of the gamers here at Paizo – specifically those gamers that are playing their own home-grown fantasy gaming system:

> Have you renamed the game, and if so, what did you call it?

I ask because our gaming group has designed a home grown game but are at odds with what to call it. I’m seeking inspiration.

One more question:

> Seeing that I will be running the game, I would like to use a Pathfinder product if possible, given my satisfaction with Dungeon in the past. Are there any Pathfinders that are low-magic and in based in a rural or wild setting?

No.

+1

My 4e days are numbered once we get our home-brew out the door. We'll take some lessons learned from the game and use it in the new one, but overall I find it (4e) quite the bore.

For starters, all crits are simpley max damage, including extra damage such as energy and sneak attack damage.

Interesting - you chose the one biggest gripe I have with 4e, crits. Max damage crits? That killed most of the drama of combat. Now combat has been reduced to a mathematical game of attrition.

The part of 4e I think is the improved battlefield mobility. People are all over the place - sometimes too much so. But thats better than being nailed to a 5ft square.

That, and my growing hatred of the solid fog + blade barrier combo, of course... :-)

I'm sure you meant this in partial jest, of course, but like Jason Nelseon suggested in painful detail, what is a buff?

This is a subject that requires careful consideration, and something I must consider as I write the magic rules section in my own home-grown game.

I must say that as much as I despise 4e, they really nipped this problem in the bud.

My gaming group has been playing 4e for a better part of a month or two and its fair time to write an opinion on the game. In short, 4e is starkly different than previous renditions. It can be stated that there are competitive games on the market that are now closer to D&D’s original roots than 4e is. That’s not to say its bad, just that its different. I’ll spare the in-depth and detailed analysis for others, just to say that this rendition, in my eyes, is no better than 3.5. Both versions have inherent strengths and weaknesses. In the end, it’s a wash; and if it’s a wash, why abandon the investment of the previous edition for a lateral move?

The biggest hang-up of this edition is the ridiculously long combats, even at the lowest levels. UUggghhhhhhh – make it stop!!! The official Wizards videocast of a 45 minute-long edited battle should have tipped us off to what was to come.

We played last Friday, and we invited the DM’s daughter to play with us. She’s 12 years old, plays DDR, has a chic cell phone…i.e. nothing out of the ordinary. She was skeptical of playing the game from the onset. Here’s her comments during gameplay (in chronological order):
“This is tiring.
Is this fun?
This fight is too long.
This game never ends.
Why is it I only get two options?
When are we gonna be done?
It’s been fun.”

Now, in defense of the game system, she did stick it out and play the entire session. I think we are going to continue playing 4e through 2008 and a portion of 2009. The group considers going back to 3.5 a better option than Iron Heroes, and haven’t really considered Pathfinder. In light of these events, we will be playing a home-brewed fantasy game now in production some time in 2009.

Just out of curiosity, how did you imagine they would do it?

Well, I've seen my fair share of good and bad roleplayers in the 23 years of gaming I've been involved in. I don't necessarily expect them (good roleplayers) to be leeping out of their chairs like idiots and demonstrating their actions, but at the very least I expected "professional" roleplayers to immerse into their character at least a little bit.

One of my closest roleplaying buddies has confided that even though he may play an elf, a dwarf, a orc, even a female, that he often acts out of character and does something HE would do. But he at the minimum NEVER refers to his character as "I".

I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, I know, but just sharing my thoughts.

I'm not great with the "linkified" thing, but this is the address:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4arch/pod

The video one is the new one at the top of the list.

Occasionally my gaming group would visualize what it might be like to play with celebrity gamers, adventure writers, and professional game designers. We often would become a little jealous hearing a game designer talk about their “Thursday night” group escapades. We envisioned that the quality of the game would be much greater. It would be like playing basketball at your local “Y” and having 3 NBA players on your pick-up team.

Then came the latest video podcast at Wizards D&D website. Consider that “Myth Busted”.

The wizards professional table looked no more fluid than our table, and we were running that abomination of a game called 3.5. Rules and ability descriptions were still cross-referenced and players sometimes were uncertain of what their characters were going to do. Five rounds into the podcast lasted over 30 minutes AND the video was edited (shortened). An improvement, yes but hardly a huge improvement in game speed over 3.5

Of particular note and surprise is that these “professional” roleplayers referred to their characters actions as “I”. Example: “I use (insert ability here) on the Mind Flayer.” Just sayin…

To take a sports adage: They put their pants on the same way we do.

As for 4e, which is why the video was made in the first place, I was once uncertain about whether I would like it or not. My Take: The game is different. Some aspects are better, but others are worse. I think the games are equal. And if they are equal, why should I abandon the old one? In business speak, the upgrade just doesn’t “pencil out”. I think I’ll steal what I like from it (and good ideas from other sources) and build an in-house game. Which works as long as the players involved are long-term….If the group breaks up, all bets are off.

My 2 cp.

IGR

Return to the Pool of Radiance. Yeah, its a video game. Well, more of a virus than a video game, really.

Table Top? Star Fleet Battles. Not really a role playing game, but uber-complex none-the-less.

To answer most of your post in one sentence: One of Jason Buhlman's goals in Pathfinder RPG is to maintain as close a proximation to 3.5 as possible while cleaning up some of the troublesome aspects of the game. That would explain skill availability to certain classes among other things.

If you liked 3.5, then this version should be a gem.

If you let fans do your work for you for free, what kind of quality control should you expect? Probably not a lot. After all, you only get what you've paid for...

LOL

Like WotC produced "quality" products. They tested the garbage you bought, like, never. (And by the way, thats their words, not mine. Listen to their podcasts for the proof).

As I will likely state in another thread, to say that I was surprised by this "unexpected maneuver" (said in my best Darth Sidius voice) in the unveiling of Pathfinder RPG is an understatement.

Although I haven't read the rules yet (and I understand that they are free for downloading), the fact that Fly is a skill, leads me to believe that this may be a high-fantasy game. In my game world, you can go ahead and "white-out" the fly skill right off your character sheet. No PC will fly, and only select monsters (which are rare in and of themselves) will fly.

Thanks Vic.

Just that some threads have cool little "X"'s, open envelopes, or something of that ilk to show you posted and/or someone else has posted also.

9 Pages of posts about some guy that decided not to spend $40 bucks at Paizo because of message boards?!

That in and of itself is reason not to visit the message boards.

I've noticed in my own internet behavior that I tend to join an online community (like Paizo) and spend a year or so with them, and then my interest wanes and I dissapear from the message boards. However, I've been here at Paizo for a long time. I wouldn't go as far as to say I'm an original or anything, but its been a long time. In that time, I've noticed that many of the original posters are either gone altogether or post only very rarely. I think I might be one of those that will be quietly riding off into the night as well. But not because of any ill will on anyone, any company or any game. I think it might be because my interest in the game is waning.

All that said, I don't see the logic in associating a company and its products with its message boards. Sorry. Makes no sense to me. Thats like me not buying Big Macs because someone flamed me on the Super Sized thread. After all, if Pathfinder is good, its good, right?

BTW, what would help these threads in the future is to adopt a format that shows which threads a user has posted to.

Sorry for the slight tangent.

If my gaming group goes 4e only, I just might hang my gaming hat up for good.

A lot less straight eighteens than I anticipated. Last time I had players "roll" their characters, the numbers had the age range of a High School Prom night.

I've only ever posted at WotC to flame the Star Wars morons. And there are plenty of them.

Gary was instrumental in the creation of D&D cartoon series as well - my favorite cartoon of all time.

Needless to say that his groundbreaking work provided the foundation for all the games I play and have played.

Call of Cthulhu and Twilight 2000 were both designed to be gritty and deadly. However, experienced gamers will be quick to exploit flaws in the systems that will ensure survival. In Twilight it's possible to create a total bullet sponge that can live through anything but the rules are so convoluted why would anyone besides my friend Tim who enjoys the challenge bother with them?

Bullet-Sponge? I'd like to hear (read) a little more behind this.

On the other hand, I'd love to hear the plan he came up with. I may hate MacGuyver players, but I'm never above stealing a good idea from them to use agianst my own players. ;-)

Yeah, Right! Like the NPC bad guys you create need MacGuyver tactics! :)

Trannies not withstanding, I'd be interested in seeing how easy it is to create the maps and how usefull they are in actual gaming situations.

More importantly, I hope this spawns better gaming tools that can be used without the need for internet.

Other alternatives include Mage Knight and HeroClix...

Duncan beat me to the punch! :)

To elaborate on the idea, PC named Jacoha Meetsak gets hit with a heightened Destruction, Fort save DC 26 by evil cleric Rellik. Too bad for Meetsak, he fails the save.

He doesn't drop immediately (as his body is going through the beginning stages of crumble-fest), and instead can act normally until the beginning of Rellik's next turn (or, alternatively, the end of Meetsak's).

This gives Meetsak and his allies a round to kill Rellik before he succumbs to the spell. Also, Meetsak and his allies could cast a dispel magic on the inflicted Meetsak to end the condition, provided they make they caster check roll.

Monte wrote:

The big huge things that we learned was that D&D players want a really good game and are willing to change and accept change more than we even thought.

Wow ... just wow.

What "WoWed" you? The premonition of change in 4e, or “big huge”? :)

Is it just me, or are there a lot of "alternative" rules for 3.5 floating around out there in the last couple months? ;)

I like save or die spells, and I like that they work both ways.

But for the complainers, how about this option (stolen from our transformers game):

Save or die spells are not instantaneous. The character dies after one full round. AND the spell can be negated with the death of its caster.

We call that a "Get To Work" gun, and it makes casting it risky as (s)he becomes Public Enemy #1.

Note also that the duration allows someone to counter it before its effect takes place.

Given the gaming style at your table, looks like running this module will be a bit of a challenge. One that you should relish.

My advice - search the threads on this forum - there are already threads out there that will give you exactly what your looking for from groups that ran this module (released over a year ago I believe).

That said, this was easily one of my favorite modules, and thats with my players missing the side-trek fights the module offers. In summary (I go into more detail in a seperate archived thread), at each course I handed out small goodied that the players had to eat (diet crackers, generic brand wafers, etc) and had a table diagram that showed how characters were seated. The meal itself didnt take long.

Keep in mind also that the players get to be creative in the gift to appease Prinze Zeach. I sent my players home one night with goal of them to come up with an elaborate gift and secretly tell me (or write it down) and then I would unveil the gifts to everyone.

This module is just another masterpiece by Richard Pett.

I'll put aside my agenda as a DM and answer this for my gaming group:

1) Do you plan to convert to the new edition of D&D?

Undecided. I'd put it at 50/50.

2) If Paizo converts its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?

System version will not affect purchasing patterns of Paizo products.

3) If Paizo does not convert its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?

System version will not affect purchasing patterns of Paizo products.

Answers to 2 and 3 are based on the assumptions that once all three adventure paths have been concluded (AoW 100% completed, STAP 80%, SCAP 60%), we will move toward Pathfinder products regardless of the system we play. Assuming I am the DM, it will be a NON-WOTC fantasy game using Pathfinder as the story-arch. If I am not the DM, then what version of D&D we play is up in the air.

Good luck auditing this. I'm not saying its bad, just saying it seems like it could easily become confusing.

Let me instead simply recommend Iron Heroes to you.

D&D is the best game to play, in my opinion. Other games are well and good, but in D&D you can do anything.

Plus, in D&D there are kobolds.

Then I guess the irony here is that I call D&D the "You Can't Do That" game, largely because of the structured mechanics. But I'll give D&D this edge: It does have kobolds!

In fairness, I think that D&D can do alot, but I tend to believe any system can. Instead, there are a few factors that work for or against your story potentials:
1) Your players - are they kick in the door miniature/strategy game players, or do they enjoy roleplaying?
2) The genre and the storyteller - This can work for and against you. A good story teller can tell story after story in a seemingly limited environment, while one with limited creativity will suffer early on from writers block.

While any of the above comments are valid (and I'm inclined to agree with RatPunk), I would also add that at this point in time, the dragon hordes, even if found, might be inconsequential to the outcome.

I'm wondering if your PC and your PC friends celebrate by jumping on a bed at the end of a successful adventure?

That scene was weird.

Carefully disguise your poison as something that can be smoked; alternatively, you could disguise your poison as a fast, convienient meal. It might take a lifetime, but it'll catch up with your enemy, and provide you with profits, too.

Snorter wrote:

It is if someone agrees to join your D&D game, drives 20 miles to your house, to tell you about his character that he's plotted out for 20 levels, and you stop him with "Aah. Hmmm. Did I forget to tell you about my homebrew system?".

Well, yeah, but I wouldn't do that. 'Cause, you know... not a d!@#.

If and when I ever do get around to hammering out my full homebrew rules, I'd show them to my players and ask if they wanted to play. I've already discussed some ideas with them, so they wouldn't be a total surprise or anything.

Full disclosure is always the best policy.

That said, its my experience that makes me wary of a gamer who desires to play the game by the rules as written.

This is one cool adventure that seriously kicked our butts at Gen Con.

A little taste of your own medicine? ;)

Kvantum wrote:

So... you basically don't want to play D&D at all anymore?

How do you define D&D? I define it as High Fantasy, so all of those rules changes still fit.

I swear I had this same phone conversation one hour ago about the topic: "Do levels and classes define D&D?"

LOL

I think Sean hit on some of the other ideas I had in changing 3.X. No hit points is pretty radical, though. Most of the game systems I have or have played use hit points, only a handful did not including any d6/d10 system (WEG Star Wars d6 and Whitewolf games d10), James Bond 007, the Marvel Super Heroes card-based roleplaying game and Paranoia.

Star Wars uses a condition track. I wouldn't use it verbatim, but it might get you on track. It doesn't quite work for Star Wars because you still have hit points which means now you've got two things tokeep track of instead of one.

If (a BIG if) I were to run D&D again, I would make the following changes:

1) PHB only.

2) Attack Option: One Big Swing - As a Full-Attack Action, for every attack you elect not to take, you gain additional damage equal to the weapon type.
Example: Boris Backbreaker caries a Great Axe and has a BAB of +11, giving him three attacks at +11/+6/+1 (we’ll ignore all the other modifiers for this example). Boris knows his opponent is both difficult to strike and has a lot of stay power (hit points), so he elects to make only one attack at +11. If he hits, he will deal his normal damage (1d12 plus modifiers, plus 2d12 for the attacks he had foregone. As a side effect, you’d be amazed at how fast combat might flow when implemented.

3) Power Attack: 1 BAB for 1 damage, one handed or two. Give the guy with a shield a reason to live.

4) Limited Spell Selections: Not all spells are available from the PHB. Those that remain may have their spell levels modified. Other spells (polymorph, alter self, shapechange) will work exactly as the spell was intended to, no more, no less.

5) Active Defense: Perhaps the most radical change to the game is an active defense. That is, no more AC. Someone attacks, you dodge, parry, block (gives the guy with a shield a reason to live – see #3), resist, or give, all requiring a roll. Depending on how ambitious I am, there may be new attack options available as well. (This combat system, tried and true from our home grown roleplaying games Transformers and Marvel Super Heroes, would be used as a model).

6) Critical Hit Charts: This is a component of #5 above.

These are just a few of the changes I have in mind, and truth be told, I have a gaming system that does all of the above without conversion, so I don’t really see a need for conversion. The question is really whether players would want to play with these constraints. Time will tell.

One thing is certain: I’ll never run a RAW game again.

Hello Paizo! First post here - be nice to me :).

I have an character idea kicking around in my head but as I'm alone in the middle of India I need some help fleshing out a key detail.

The character would be a ranger/rogue "thief-taker". The details aren't too important but I would like her to be able to use her animal companion spider as a mount. Any suggestions on possible races?

Cheers

Go for it.

The rules probably say no, but in the interest of having fun, a wise DM might say yes.

Whoah.

What they are doing to make the game run faster (such as reducing number of attacks) seems to be nullyfied by things such as the cleric's aura..

Feel free to discuss...

Doesn't surprise me at all. Thats exactly what WotC did to Star Wars Saga.

Just checked it out at speed-reading level. Can't believe you banned Mordenkainens Disjunction. At the game table, thats very nearly the only tool I have as a DM to put my munchkin players in check.

There were both things I liked and disliked in the document, but thats to be expected given different gaming experiences.

Thanks for sharing.

Rugby players at the gaming table? THIS is going to be fun! :)

Really, I think it would likely be a blast. Some of the most memorable experiences come I have had has come from new players that have no preconcieved notions about how the game works.

Rules for called shot to the head!

A phrase uttered in repeatedly at our game table while playing Transformers: The Roleplaying game, I never thought I’d see it.

IMHO D&D has always been the WORST system to facilitate "cinematic" game play. D&D is as cinematic as a miniature game, no more, no less. And should that surprise you? The game is developed with miniatures in mind.

Want a cinematic game? Play d6/d10 systems. Its a trade-off: ambiguity (the d6/d10 systems) or crunchy number-driven strategy gaming (d20).

That said, I'm indifferent about the new death and dying rules. 3.X version blew, and 4.X does too. If I run the game (big IF by the way), this is definately going to be house ruled.