Search Posts
The Agent class as found in the Northern Crown RPG (Atlas Games) is a very nice write-up. Warehouse 23 (SJGames) was selling each of the two hardbacks for $10 a little while ago, and may still have that deal available. If not, the .pdf is available. Best,
Thanks guys. I appreciate it. :)
Mongoose publishing made a trilogy of books called the Drow War to take you from levels 1-30, that may be a bit high for you however!Have you had any experience with that product? I was at a hobby shop yesterday and i happened to see this very product, a couple different books actually, and was curious about it. Jason, do they have Book One in Hardback? If so, please let me know he name of the place, and the town it is in. I'm trying to track it down. Thanks.
That's not, it seems to me, a question of 'genuine or not' so much as opinion as to what it all means. Like you, I joined in because PFRPG was supposed to keep 3.5 alive and yet I think that not only does it look set to do that (depending, of course, on what the final result is), it also looks set to be better than 3.5 whilst still being backwards-compatible. That, however, is clearly my opinion; you entered with the same motivations as I and have found things different to the way I did (thus I think that it's not a matter of 'genuine' or otherwise, but just of what we understand by terms such as 'backwards compatible' and how we intepret the changes that appear to be likely to appear in the final version. I suppose it is best we leave it at that, then. Here is to hoping everything turns out better than expected. Over/out
I'm having a hard time figuring out why your in the market for a new game. Your quite happy with 3.x SRD and have all the DCCs your ever going to need and not taken with Golarion as a setting ... what was PFRPG going to do for you? I wish I was as happy with 3e as you are. I had hoped that Pathfinder was going to keep 3.5 alive. That was the reason for my participation in the Playtest. I wish you and the ardent supporters of PF much happiness in the months and years ahead.
Perhaps you are poking fun. Regardless, I stated that while I CAN use one game system to play an existing adventure for a different game system, that ability does not mean the two systems are essentially the same. To further clarify, although others have articulated these very thoughts already (and for some time), if the touted claims of BC were genuine, less would have changed, and what would have changed would have advanced the existent structure of 3.5, rather than creating a new game system which is substantively similar, yet different. I really don't think these points I, and others, cite need to be explained any further. Some are on-board with PF, others are tentative or marginal, and others are off-line.
Among them are the execution of a lack of Dead Levels in the core 11 classes, although not all of the measures are quite what I would want. The Skill System insofar as the no Cross-class skills, and the +3 to Trained Class Skills v. the more cumbersome L+3 method. Src Bloodlines, although I found them to be haphazard and uneven. Energy Channelling, although other OGL authors had already done that sort of work years ago. I thought the three Advancement speeds are an interesting idea, but the math seems off to me. Perhaps even the Favoured Class +1 HP/SP rule (divorced from the Racial stereotypes which I abhor), simply because I enjoy players to have characters that feel as though they were as fully realised as possible given the shorthand of game-code. I think that sums the changes that I will bring into my 3.5 game. That all said, I intend to purchase the Hardback simply to see how much has changed. Perhaps more will be to my liking than is currently in the Beta. Thanks for your interest in my motivations. :)
This did bring a smile to my face. Thanks! :D
If my lol offended you, I most sincerely apologise. Where I come from, we've thicker skins, and apparently, harder hearts. I read somewhere here in this thread that Basic D&D and AD&D are convert on the fly BC, too. Which should I gauge my ability to convert based upon? Again, why ought I need to?
A PC in my game is a Blood Rage Barbarian/Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer/DD, and it is working well for him. His only 'complaint' is that the Dragonform duration is 'too low', but he isn't sweating it.
lol. Hardly. I CAN run Vault of the Drow using the Character Rules for CAR WARS published in the old Autoduel mag, but that doesn't in any way mean that they are compatible.
I guess the main reason I have few, if any concerns, is that I always ran my games with quite a few house rules anyway. What I dont like, I will just house rule. But, that isn't the same as a solid rules-set, let alone the touted claims of BC. For every person who simply house-rules something in PF, there are those who seem to understand that this simply isn't what was promised. Whatever, ...I give up.
As KEJr has said. Why should I need to adjust on the fly is PF is BC?
Why? Ernest Mueller, Try not to be condescending in your greatness, sir.
I think it's funny that the only person who appeared to have been PO'd by the OP was you, Abe, and your response was many times more caustic that the good-natured request for assistance the OP requested. But, what the heck do I know? lol.
I think Mongoose made a phb out of the SRD. Yes, the 3.0 Player's Guide. Nice format-size, like the Arcane and Divine spell books. Too bad it is out of date; doesn't have the GM stuff; and doesn't have the basics of monsterdom. :)
The one thing I want when the hardback comes out is either a section or web content pdf that actually just lists every rule, feat, skill, and class/spell change in the book between it and 3.5 so that if your curious about somnething it's right there wih a page number to see the change. That way you don't have to be PF expert to play 3.5/PF game. just my 2cp. That would do a lot to smooth things over, IMO.
The latter, although I don't agree that "3.5", via the SRD, couldn't STILL be done by another party. If I had the money, I'd be that other party. In the meanwhile, I hope someone else will do so. A girl's gotta' dream... :)
I'm pretty much floating in the opposite direction. I like a lot ofthe things Pathfinder did that made the maddening accountant-feel of 3.5 go away. SPs, and CMB especially. I dont really mind the faults some people have found with these subsystems. The ease of use factor far outweighs that, imo. That's cool. I guess in a lot of ways, folks who might have otherwise gone to 4e may prefer PF for its greater, um, 'compatibility' with 3.x material. I just find the modifications to be disingenuous with Paizo's continued claims that PF is BC with 3.x. The more things change, the less useful 3.x books are, and the clearer that Paizo's plans (IMO, all along) have been to supplant 3.x with PF. If they'd just had the fortitude to come out and say that from the get 'go', I'd have more respect. --As a b!tching aside, if the 'Into the Darklands' is the 'shape of things to come', I am angrily disappointed with the low-value to cost ratio of PF's 'replacement' products. As I don't like Golarion, nor do I purchase their APs, I'm not mesmerised by the slick production to high-cost ratio. I have all of the GG DCC adventures I'll ever need, many of the very best TSR modules, and whatever I liked from the WotC adventures -- not to mention a fecund and twisted imagination all of my own. So, if PF works for you and many others, and their IP is something you like, and they are great people and all that, that's so much better experience than I am having with PF, that I'm genuinely happy for the lot of you. Personally, I've lost 'faith', but because I started the PF-playtest, I will continue it until (at least) Hardback, because I am a woman of my word.
A player has retcon'd a 14th level character into a Druid, so I'll see how it plays.
1). Changes that seem to defy reasons why they were changed, and no explanation given. Feats such as Power Attack; Fly-skill and screwy rules that force naturally flying creatures to roll when they oughtn't; changing spells that very few folks ever complained about, simply to seemingly be re-done to Paizo-staff satisfaction. Dropping Assassins spell-casting without replacing it with anything worthwhile, and invalidating who-knows-how many Assassin spell lists from various sources. 2). 'All of this may change' or 'Went to extremes to see how far we could go'. Characters made under Beta may need to drop Racial Favourite bonus HPs or SPs when the Hardback goes live. In general on this point, the 'Woohoo! Who knows where she'll stop?!' philosophy/sophistry. 3). Uneven power-ups (Universalist Wizards, I'm looking at you), while not really solving other existing issues, such as making 15+ level Fighters the Melee masters over Rogues (worse now than ever). Instead of focusing the diffuse Druid and making them on-par with Clerics (and Clerics and Druids on-par with Wizards), still leaving Sorcerers as the red headed stepchildren with bizarre combos of powers that leave them below (supposedly broken) Druids, while stripping Shapechange of useful qualities. Etc. 4). New Feats (that seem to have been invented while stuck in traffic as a fleeting thought) that likely won't have been Play-tested enough for inclusion in the Hardback being introduced late into the evaluation cycle. 5). The general plan to subvert 3.5 and supplant it with Pathfinder while still claiming backward compatibility (the CR and XP reward system, taken with Crit/SA issues regarding monsters, and all of the other changes are taken together essentially create another game system entirely).--I won't be buying the Bestiary (I have all of the WotC monster books, and more importantly, Advanced Bestiary and the Deluxe Book of Templates, etc.) That's most of what I don't like. * What I do like: Lots of little things that may still find their way into my 3.5 games, as AE, WoW, Midnight, and Iron Kingdoms have. Pathfinder won't replace my 3.5, it will supplement it.
Did you make any changes to the tibbit in regards to Pathfinder? Or are you playing 3.x? Running her as a Pathfinder Halfling in her Tibbit form, but have kept the cat-form (3.5) write-up, and suggested that Tibbits are actually cats that shape-change into Tibs. Since then, she has picked up an EL in Catfolk, so she now has three forms, as well as a feat to allow her to speak in cat-form.Her association with the Shadow organisation has proven to be the best RP aspect of the package. Thanks for your interest. :)
Some changes have occurred...
** Brendan the Cleric has left
* Desmond has RetCon'd to Druid * Smyslov is a Wiz (Enchanter) 13 * Lesyll (NPC) Elven Half-Celestial Paladin of Freedom 10 * Sharn (NPC) Ranger 2 has foolishly joined the party, and already died once Fighting along side 'teh Drowz' to stop a BBE minion from erupting a volcano. Good clean fun. Heh.
Pathfinder Open Kit Exchange Moderated Open Notice? (POKEMON) ROFL!!! I do hope Green Ronin is among them.
In the overall Micro-skill v. Macro-skill debate, Use Rope is of relatively little concern, but does show the need for either: 1). A Freer-form system (unlikely given PF's status and mission)
As specifically regards the quandary of where Rope Use-type skills are bundled or allowed to stand alone, I would ask that something close to the following be done: A). Provide a metric for Knot DCs but do not rely upon a specific skill to govern that operation. Instead, state that those with the following Skills (including Profession) be allowed to apply their modifiers (Ranks +x) to attempt the Knot DC. B). Provide a detailed explanation of how long it takes to bind a creature, including in the math, the Size Category of the creature being bound, and that of the binder(s). This will not require an explanation of Grapple effects, because: --1). Only Grappled or Incapacitated (including Held, Paralysed, etc.) creatures can be bound using the Knot DC
Confusing the two circumstances, I think, has somewhat muddied the waters of this issue. Doing both A and B would mean that Use Rope would disappear as a skill entirely, and be subsumed under an umbrella of skills/backgrounds; and, that combat binding would simply require the resolution of 'hitting' with the binding medium. Once the binding medium is in place, regardless of whether in or out of combat, the rules would handle how being bound is like being Grappled, with the medium dictating material Strength, Hardness, and Hit Points.
While the above sounds complex, in text it is simple to differentiate the two issues. Likewise, this method does not touch upon the 10, 12, or 15 CMB CD maths, which must be discussed separately.
** Toy Robots, ** I'm not certain if something in my previous post offended you, but if it did, I most certainly apologise for my text tone of voice. :) Best,
Which, I would think, would be a good indication of how poor a choice making the entire manoeuvring of a flying creature/caster be dependent upon the current PF Flight rules. Flying creatures fly with at least as great ease as land creatures walk or slither, and water creatures swim, etc. If PCs had to make Walk or Run checks each time they moved I think the novelty of the spasmatics would quickly fade. YMMV, though.
Because Sailors aren't trained Escape Artists.
I must have miss-read your post. Sorry. Rodeo-ropers, though, are lickity-split fast when tyin' them li'l doggies. ;p
Please, consider the following information: * Rope "Usage Rope is of paramount importance in fields as diverse as construction, seafaring, exploration, sports and communications and has been since prehistoric times. In order to fasten rope, a large number of knots have been invented for various uses. Pulleys are used to redirect the pulling force to another direction, and may be used to create mechanical advantage, allowing multiple strands of rope to share a load and multiply the force applied to the end. Winches and capstans are machines designed to pull ropes." * Knot I can't agree with Sleight of Hand, and instead favour Survival, Craft, or Profession. "Knot tying skills are often transmitted by sailors, scouts, climbers, cavers, arborists, rescue professionals, fishermen, and surgeons." Thanks,
The Advanced Character Guide: Arcane Archer, on DriveThruRPG is worth checking out for ideas. It is a 20-level class, but the product also includes various PrCs and new spells, etc.
> shudders at 4e 'alignments' < There is a precedent for a 10th Alignment in the D&D line.
That said, I believe it is best handled as a House Rule.
Peace, folks. I don't think the previous poster was making any indictments, merely asking a question, and as was said, they didn't understand your (Quandary) reasoning. This is just a game, and these are simply fan-based ideas, after all...
Freesword, I like your solution very much. |
