Ozreth's page

Ozreth wrote:

BenS wrote:

Ok, glad to see some decent interest in these. Let's do this. I'll cap the winners at 3.

Ozreth, thanks for offering to split them even though you were the 1st claimant. You'll get the boxed sets. Send me a private message w/ your name/address and I'll get these out to you in the coming days.

Sounds good, thanks! Strangely, I seem unable to send you a DM, I am not seeing the option anywhere. I'll keep poking around, but feel free to initiate a DM with me if you see this.

I had to figure this out myself. Go to Account Settings > Privacy Settings > Private Messages, and check the box so that Paizo.com members can send you private messages. Presumably that allows you to send them as well. When that option is checked (not sure if you need to leave site and come back for it to "take"), if you click on my BenS name, you'll arrive at my Profile page and have an option to send a private message.

Got it! Message sent.

Ok, glad to see some decent interest in these. Let's do this. I'll cap the winners at 3.

Ozreth, thanks for offering to split them even though you were the 1st claimant. You'll get the boxed sets. Send me a private message w/ your name/address and I'll get these out to you in the coming days.

Sounds good, thanks! Strangely, I seem unable to send you a DM, I am not seeing the option anywhere. I'll keep poking around, but feel free to initiate a DM with me if you see this.

if something falls through and the AP ones come available - I would love to have them. we play in person with miniatures, and we do APs, but the miniatures don't always have the right mini, so we are starting to use Pawns (only 1 set so far), so any more would be welcome.

Of course, let the first response have claim.

If Ben is ok with splitting them, I'd be happy to let the AP boxes go to you, sounds like your group is far more AP focused than mine.

Ozreth wrote:

I would love these and would use them extensively as I still play in person and we are miniature heavy. What do I need to do to be eligible? I live in the SW United States.

My preference would be the 6 bestiary boxes over the AP specific ones if I had to choose, but do imagine I can get use out of all of them.

Very kind of you.

Hi Ozreth.

Posting 1st and telling me you'd actually use these is all you needed to do. I'll give this thread until tomorrow evening to see if there are others interested as well.

I should have pointed out 1 thing for those of you maybe not familiar w/ these pawn collections. They require plastic bases, which are found only in the boxed sets. The AP-specific collections have only the pawns, no bases, so you'd either need to have your own bases from your own boxed sets or...I'm not sure if PF (or a 3rd party) ever sold bases independently of the boxed sets ?

Mentioning this b/c if, say, Ozreth gets the boxed sets while someone else gets the AP-specific collections, the latter person(s) needs to understand they'd still need to get plastic bases elsewhere. It could still happen that Ozreth gets everything, in which case this is all moot ;-)

I'll post again by no later than tomorrow night, and we can follow up w/ private messages for name/address mailing info etc.

Thank you! And those bases are sold online and in most FLGSs that carry a good selection of miniatures, at least in my experience : )

I would love these and would use them extensively as I still play in person and we are miniature heavy. What do I need to do to be eligible? I live in the SW United States.

My preference would be the 6 bestiary boxes over the AP specific ones if I had to choose, but do imagine I can get use out of all of them.

Very kind of you.

Hi all,

I felt like spending a couple of hours on photoshop so I came up with a map for running the Red Hand of Doom in Faerûn.

As you might know, the map of Elsir Vale is a near-perfect fit to the Channath Vale (Shining South, between Halruua and the Shaar), so it was not too hard. The map is based on an excerpt of the "Shining South" map of the western Shaar and I re-did it so the region fits perfectly to RHoD. I also added the missing locations.

I hope that this is fine in terms of copyrights. Otherwise, please, could someone from WotC let me know and I will remove the file from my server.

You can visualise the map here:

http://www.bocklin.net/d&d/The%20Channath%20Vale%20in%201373%20DR_RHoD_ Final.jpg

If the link does not work, just try to list the following directory:

http://www.bocklin.net/d&d/

Comments and suggestions welcome!

Bocklin

Hello, unsure if you are still around but is there any chance you still have this map available?

Diego Rossi wrote:

Ozreth wrote:

Set wrote:

so much that the mechanics like 'per encounter abilities' or whatnot weren't constantly snapping you out of the immersion/experience/fantasy adventure story like a stagehand caught on stage midperformance.

And early 3e had very little of this, and when it did it was mostly per day stuff, not per encounter. Later 3.5 and then especially Pathfinder added a lot of the "dissociated" mechanics.

3e (and previous editions) had facing. The 360° sight is one of the things is one of the things that always feel a bit off, together with the "6 seconds round" that allows you to do more than the old 1 minute round of AD&D.

My first edition I ran and played was D&D 3rd Edition, and facing was not a part of D&D 3.0.

The 6-second round was definitely a part of 3.0, but got more attention with 3.5 and the introduction of the swift action.

It’s true that it didn’t have legitimate facing, but miniatures were considered to have “face”, which made movement very awkward. When the transition to 3.5 happened there were heated debates about this and the prevailing argument in favor of round based was “why have square and rectangular bases that imitate facing without actual rules for facing?”

From the 3e PHB:

“Face

How much area a character occupies in combat. Face is essentially the border between the square or rectangular space that a character occupies and the space next to it. These faces are abstract, not "front, back, left, and right," because characters are constantly moving and turning in battle. Unless a character is immobile, it practically doesn't have a front or a left side-at least not one that can be identified on the tabletop.”

Regarding the 6 second round: for many years people complained about the 1 minute round and how little you actually did in that time. This is mostly because people failed to understand that the rounds emulated a LOT of combat happening and your roll to hit was just to see how much damage came out of a lot of combat that you didn’t actually see unfold. This is how units in Wargames worked.

People wanted the actions they rolled for to better represent the actual actions their characters were taking, which is how most other RPGs were doing it. This was finally acknowledged in the 2e Combat and Tactics book which I think changed it to 10 seconds?

There’s a funny story about Cook and Tweet spending hours making Skip Williams imitate everything a character could do in a certain amount of time with a stopwatch and they ended up with 6 seconds seeming about right.

Swift actions weren’t in core 3.5 but came pretty soon after in a couple of the splatboooks. My group still plays a 3e/3.5 hybrid and we don’t use swift or immediate actions.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Ozreth wrote:

Set wrote:

so much that the mechanics like 'per encounter abilities' or whatnot weren't constantly snapping you out of the immersion/experience/fantasy adventure story like a stagehand caught on stage midperformance.

And early 3e had very little of this, and when it did it was mostly per day stuff, not per encounter. Later 3.5 and then especially Pathfinder added a lot of the "dissociated" mechanics.

3e (and previous editions) had facing. The 360° sight is one of the things is one of the things that always feel a bit off, together with the "6 seconds round" that allows you to do more than the old 1 minute round of AD&D.

I feel like every edition has stuff I liked, and stuff that I tried very hard to forget, like weapon speed factors and those weird armor class adjustments based on weapon type, or whatever (which I'm not describing well, because we never used them!). Ug. 1st edition had some real nit-picky pain baked into it!

Adjusting your initiative count based on what spell you were casting, and being able to be interrupted if someone had a fast weapon speed weapon capable of reaching and interrupting you, like a thrown dart? Yeah, fun. NOT.

Slowly but surely, these things have fallen away. Some of them, like Vancian casting and alignment, I never thought were going to die, but hey, the future slowly slouches towards Bethlehem, it seems.

The 360 view I feel makes sense when you consider that the explanation for founds has always been that characters are ducking, weaving,parrying etc. and that it isn't just one swing per round. They are active and moving. This is the 3e to 3.5 explanation for round bases and removal of facing (which wasn't legitimate facing in 3e anyways). If they are constantly moving in a round then it makes sense to me that they are not just facing one opponent the entire round.

I love Vancian casting because I am a fan of Dying Earth and all of the other Sword & Sorcery that the game was based on. The further back you go you find that most of the mechanics and flavor of the game can be tied to this or that S&S author. It was a literary game meant to emulate Sword & Sorcery, and we lost a lot of this over the decades. The game now is self-refferential, rather than having roots in literature, which was far more interesting. But nobody reads anymore, the designers of current D&D and PF are far removed from this literature tradition, and now we've ended up with imagery like you see on the cover page of paizo.com. And 5e is just as bad. A shame.

so much that the mechanics like 'per encounter abilities' or whatnot weren't constantly snapping you out of the immersion/experience/fantasy adventure story like a stagehand caught on stage midperformance.

And early 3e had very little of this, and when it did it was mostly per day stuff, not per encounter. Later 3.5 and then especially Pathfinder added a lot of the "dissociated" mechanics.

GURPS is also a tabletop RPG system designed to be played without computer support and it is far, far, far better at simulationism than Pathfinder is. I recall Gygax back in the day was quite clear on D&D being gamist rather than simulationist and I think later editions of D&D haven't particularly improved on simulationism. If simulationism is what you are after, to my understanding Pathfinder is really the wrong system to be playing. Yes, Pathfinder is mechanically dense, but it isn't terribly good at simulationist gameplay.

True, but as Dragonchess player implied, with 3.x you get some level of simulationism without losing the D&D, which is a sweet spot for many. Moving to GURPS or other much more simulationist systems throws all the D&D traditions out the window. Compare 3e to AD&D and you can see where Tweet, Cook and Williams took all the elements they liked from Rolemaster, GURPS, Runequest, Ars Magica etc and applies it to the D&D chassis. Which is what brought a lot of D&D players back into the fold after they left 1e or 2e for the above or similar systems.

3.x gives a mix of gamist, simulation and narrativist elements. Some much more than others, but it’s all there to varying degrees and I think that’s why it is so popular, although I don’t even like using those terms. We beat them to death throughout the 00’s.

For me to get the appropriate nostalgia hit it would involve going way back to AD&D which is markedly inferior.

I suppose I wonder if it has been so many decades since trying it, why do yu deem it inferior? At the very least, the quickness, simplicity of rules (in combat, at least), modularity and how easy house ruling is etc can be seen as a boon for AD&D 1/2e in the face of 3.x/PF1e, no? Not to mention characters staying within a reasonable power level at all levels, without loads and loads of abilities and feats and skill piling up to keep track of, especially during combat rounds. And the ease of running monsters! You can run a plant monster like an assassin vine, for example, without having to then go and look up all of the "plant traits" and keep track of those on top of everything already on the stat block, and thats just a simple example of a low level monster.

Arkat wrote:

To move on to PF2e would mean another huge investment. My friends and I are all approaching 60 years old. We're tired of buying new versions of games.

We're happy with PF1e, so that's what we're sticking with.

I have the same sort of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach. And PF1 has so many more possibilities than D&D 5th ed.

And I am even older, 64, and should properly be referred to as a "Great Old One". Memory declines with age and learning new systems becomes more difficult. So does sorting between different versions of the same system.

I am still playing the 1st iteration of Vampire and Werewolf. Another of my favourite games is Star Wars d20 saga ed. Sadly, aside from World of Darkness [which is still having new material produced despite there being a newer version] these games are dying as far as players go.

64, nice! Did you move through all the editions? Have you ever gone backwards and tries TSR editions again?

I am ideologically committed to player character-non-player character transparency, and PF1 gives me that.

Interesting, care to extrapolate on why such a commitment?

Ozreth wrote:

TxSam88 wrote:

Ozreth wrote:

TxSam88 wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

- Sunk Cost into PF1E.

This.... I'm way too tired of buying thousands of dollars worth of game systems just because there's a new hotness on the market.

Well, theres old D&D in consideration in the convo as well.

Well, if you want to have that conversation - IMO - 3.5/PF1 are simply the best versions up to that point of D&D.

Fair enough, what system did you come from before moving into 3.x?

of Actual D&D I've played

Basic
1st ed
2nd ed
3rd ed
3.5
4th
5th

I've also played many other FRPGs, including
Rolemaster
S&S
Amber
Ars Magica
GURPS
MERPS
Zweihander
Conan

plus a number of sci-fi and super hero RPGS.

All of the games have various merit - the actual D&D titled games have tons of merit due to how prolific they are - I've traveled the world and been able to find play groups - not so much with other games.

that being said, I think Rolemaster is the best game system, but difficult to find players. 3.5/PF1 has an extensive following even still and it's easy to find games, and IMO is better than what has succeeded it, not to mention the lack of desire to reinvest in more gaming books.

Awesome. And being a Rolemaster fan definitely translates into being a 3e fan from what I have seen of RM, though I’ve not played it.

My Saturday group will continue with our biweekly Return of the Runelords campaign.

I'm playing a Sorc4/Cleric3/MysticTheurge2. Yo, you heard correctly that I like spells.

Might make it up to 10th level tonight, but I kinda doubt it. I'll be ready to level, just in case.

Does your group level mid-session?

Ozreth wrote:

TxSam88 wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

- Sunk Cost into PF1E.

This.... I'm way too tired of buying thousands of dollars worth of game systems just because there's a new hotness on the market.

Well, theres old D&D in consideration in the convo as well.

Well, if you want to have that conversation - IMO - 3.5/PF1 are simply the best versions up to that point of D&D.

Fair enough, what system did you come from before moving into 3.x?

Pathfinder 2nd Edition dropped power-fantasy gaming in which the heroes are superior than everyone else due to optimization. The designers attempted to balance gameplay accurately, and they made sure that no character is grossly more powerful than the average for their level. Thus, a well-designed 4th-level character cannot defeat a squad of 2nd-level town guards, and will struggle against a 4th-level monster. My players are okay with this, because they prefer to win through teamwork rather than power, but some players who try PF2 are disappointed that they cannot win the campaign during character creation.

There’s the in between option of the groups who play 3.x as the designers intended and don’t look for loopholes or min max, and DMs who lay out what options are available in their game so that it doesn’t turn into a situation where players can “win the campaign.”

One thing that was lost in the early 2000s is the fact that the designers did not intend for their to be new classes beyond core. The new way to multi class and the addition of feats was supposed to allow you to make enough fantasy archetypes that you wouldn’t need a bloat of classes. You’ll notice that the first four 3e splat books did not have classes.

When Tweet, Cook and Williams were pushed out of 3e by Hasbro shortly after its release, the trajectory changed. 3.5 and later PF are not how the game was intended to be treated by its 3 core designers.

It plays best when you play close to core and pick and choose what you allow.

Much like 3.5E, the game is better if you ban some parts of Pathfinder, use some small houserules, and selectively allow quality 3rd party (or 3.5E) content. But mostly you accept that the game is going to be unbalanced. The same went for 3.5E.

This is any edition of D&D whether OD&D, AD&D etc. Groups should always house rule and pick and choose materials that suit their companion.

Lord Fyre wrote:

- Sunk Cost into PF1E.

This.... I'm way too tired of buying thousands of dollars worth of game systems just because there's a new hotness on the market.

Well, theres old D&D in consideration in the convo as well.

As the title says. There are newer games (5e, PF2e). There are older games (AD&D 1e/2e, BECMI, RC, endless OSR clones and even games like Runequest and others).

I’m sure many of you came from 80s and 90s games. I’m sure many of you have tried the newer games.

What’s your history and experience with these games and what about the rules of the 3.x/PF1 system have kept it as your go to system, if it is?

Subbing the CSotIO for GH is obvious, mist marsh becomes mermist marshes, Greysmere is Thunderhold.

But a lot of the GH lore in AoW is tripping me up for adapting.

Anyone know about well enough to help?

Was intro'd to AD&D2e as my first delve into RPG's in 1983. I was hooked and not long after started DMing and was the go-to GM for many years after. Being in the USMC at the time, moving around, groups came and went, and I intro'd quite a few to the game over my service time. Never moved to 3.5 or 4.

Stopped playing around 1992, the desire came back around 2013, started looking for a game and group at FLGS and they introduced me to PF. Never looked back.

The level of detail in the options and mechanics without being burdensome in play scratches an itch for my preferred style for RPG's. The "smoothing over" effect that the 5e and PF2 ruleset has sorta leaves that need unfilled.

But I value the groups I play RPG's with more than the ruleset we play. I participate in those other games, but won't invest resources in them and don't think I'll ever GM them.

Do you mean AD&D 1e? 2e wasn’t out until I think 1989.

And you don’t think the mechanics become burdensome in play? The situational modifiers, spells and items affecting PC and NP stats having wripple effects throughout the whole character sheet etc. What do you do to mitigate such things because the above are some of my very few objections to the whole 3e system.

Ozreth wrote:

A fair amount of people seem to be glancing at the title and seeing 1 / 2 and missing the AD&D part. I’m not talking about PF2, but that’s ok! All thoughts welcome. Have enjoyed reading the responses.

You said "people that started with older editions of D&D, why do you still play PF1?" What's the alternative that you're questioning against (on Paizo's website) if not PF2?

Remaining with AD&D 1e or 2e mostly.

A fair amount of people seem to be glancing at the title and seeing 1 / 2 and missing the AD&D part. I’m not talking about PF2, but that’s ok! All thoughts welcome. Have enjoyed reading the responses.

Decrying the "complexity" of 3.x/PF1 rules while admitting to not using all of the "simpler" AD&D 1st/2nd rules (because they took too much time) is just a bit inconsistent...

It isn't just that they were simpler rules, they were literally stated as optional rules. The game played more quickly without them. In 3.x, you don't get that option. It is nearly impossible to even figure out how to make the game do side initiative without it falling apart due to how interconnected all the small bits of the game are.

PS cool username.

Dragonchess Player wrote:

So, it sounds like you never dealt the AD&D 1st weapon speed factors and casting times... Or the weapon attack adjustments vs. different armor classes... Or the unholy mess of unarmed combat in the original Unearthed Arcana...

Did your group persevere with those rules? We ditched them early on. Referring to a table for every single hit roll was ridiculously tedious. And the initiative rules were so convoluted we basically went with PCs go first, then NPCs, unless the PCs were surprised.

Exactly. Roll 1d10, low roll wins, ties are simultaneous. Use modifiers if you need to break a tie. Nice thing is this was a fine way to play and didn't break anything major. Can't modify 3.x like that, which is something that is grating on me.

Ozreth wrote:

Azothath wrote:

Ozreth wrote:

All these years later, what is it you love about PF1 and/or 3.5/3.0 that you keeps you running what is arguably the most burdensome system to run as far as prep time and weight at high level play.

you have not clarified what "weight" means or what you were thinking about at the time.

Endless situational modifiers to consider for one single action in combat at higher levels (feats, high ground, flanking, favored enemy all together etc) to begin with. The intricacies of the various status effects and how they interact with those things, the variables that have to be considered to figure out how they work in a given moment. AoO, flanking, 5ft step etc on top of those things. There is just a LOT of moving parts in combat. More than any other D&D-like game that I know of, old or new.

So, it sounds like you never dealt the AD&D 1st weapon speed factors and casting times... Or the weapon attack adjustments vs. different armor classes... Or the unholy mess of unarmed combat in the original Unearthed Arcana...

I never did play AD&D 1, but in AD&D 2d we didn't use any of the optional modifiers. But that's the key, they are explicitly optional and leaving them out doesn't affect anything. We did use weapon speeds for ties though.

I wish I could do the same in 3.x but there are things I just can't seem to drop without the aftershock being obvious, and I'm not even good at system analysis, hell I can barely do high school math haha. But even so it is glaringly obvious how you can't shave much off of the 3e system. That's a shame because so much of it is wondeful.

Ozreth wrote:

All these years later, what is it you love about PF1 and/or 3.5/3.0 that you keeps you running what is arguably the most burdensome system to run as far as prep time and weight at high level play.

you have not clarified what "weight" means or what you were thinking about at the time.

Endless situational modifiers to consider for one single action in combat at higher levels (feats, high ground, flanking, favored enemy all together etc) to begin with. The intricacies of the various status effects and how they interact with those things, the variables that have to be considered to figure out how they work in a given moment. AoO, flanking, 5ft step etc on top of those things. There is just a LOT of moving parts in combat. More than any other D&D-like game that I know of, old or new.

Ozreth wrote:

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

However, as a total package, nothing beats the original format, and Pathfinder 1st edition executes that format the best. Even better than AD&D which I consider second best.

What's your reasoning behind placing AD&D second best? Why do you prefer running PF1e over AD&D as a DM?

Most of the thread is people asserting that they prefer running PF but with little explanation of why they prefer running those rules over the AD&D rules that they were running before moving to 3rd edition/PF1.

I totally agree with you that the old trope still can't be beat, for me at least.

I don’t know exactly why I like AD&D so much. It has a weird “X factor” about it where even its many flaws somehow add to its overall charm. I don’t think it is pure nostalgia either, because I started with basic D&D and I don’t feel the same way about that game. At least part of the reason for me is that AD&D fosters creativity and simultaneously a sense of mystery in a way no other system does. Sorry, if I am sounding vague, it is difficult to express the feeling in words, but what I mean is that when I used to build a campaign in AD&D it felt like I was discovering things as much as creating them.

Pathfinder is a better game because it has captured a lot of the essence of the original but cleaned it up so that it is far more playable. I sometimes find the game mechanics overly restrictive, especially as a GM building adventures, but overall I think they have gotten the balance right.

Interesting. You say it is a better game because it made the original game more playable, but you think that the mechanics can be overly restrictive, especially as a GM building adventures. It sounds like you know AD&D really well and have a lot of love for it, that it makes you feel more creative when running it as a DM and it is less restrictive. But you find Pathfinder to be the better game to run.

I happily left 1e and 2e behind because there were so many odd, arbitrary constraints. No female elf with a natural Strength of more than 16 - in a system where the ability scores usually produced the first bonuses at 15? Species who had glass ceilings placed on their character advancement beyond a certain arbitrary level (or were not even allowed to play a certain class combination)? Irritating ability score requirements for so many interesting classes (even though 1e's UA made it easier to get around that)?

These are the handful of things that are dropped with little to no consequence on the game, you don't find even more troublesome/heavy/awkward lifting to do in 3.x when running the game? Endless situational modifiers, massive monster stat blocks that need cross referencing, etc?

From '80-'85 I played AD&D, Runequest, Rolemaster, I think Car Wars was in there somewhere, but by '85 me and my brother were playing Marvel Super Heroes. Yeah, we liked comics, but that wasn't the reason we played.

In Marvel and the Advanced version as well, you could make your own hero. dependent on random rolls you could make nearly anything, from a robot that turned into animals to a mutant with a sentient weapon. I know there was also Villains and Vigilantes or the DC Heroes one and whatever, but our game was Marvel.

The point was: you could customize your PC to be anything, do anything. There weren't classes and set advancements and specific spells/magic items that the GM handed out to you; as a player you had TOTAL control to make your hero whatever.

As far as D&D clones over the years, unless I was willing to play GURPS (I wasn't) you didn't really get this much control until PF1. Arguably you could customize a lot in 3x/3.5, but PF1 you could customize feats, skills, favored class bonuses, swap old spells for new on spontaneous casters, pick archetypes, take traits and so on. You could really cobble together whatever you could think of.

I agree with all the stuff TXSamila has in their 10 points above, but I'll add this as my #11 - PF1 is a game that gives players the ability to make what they WANT to make instead of trying to shoehorn their concept of their character into a generic class.

On a side note, that's why of all the full BAB martial classes in PF1 I still favor Fighter over everything else. No 1 set gimmick; tons of archetypes; loads of class ability subs to really flesh out who YOUR fighter is versus every other one. Dip a couple levels into this class or that and suddenly you've got a truly unique martial PC with plenty of character baked right into their personality AND mechanics.

All good points that I mostly agree with, but is this why you prefer running 3.x or why you prefer playing it? It sounds like the latter.

I think my question was a little more specific than a lot of the responses are realizing.

However, as a total package, nothing beats the original format, and Pathfinder 1st edition executes that format the best. Even better than AD&D which I consider second best.

What's your reasoning behind placing AD&D second best? Why do you prefer running PF1e over AD&D as a DM?

Most of the thread is people asserting that they prefer running PF but with little explanation of why they prefer running those rules over the AD&D rules that they were running before moving to 3rd edition/PF1.

I totally agree with you that the old trope still can't be beat, for me at least.

TxSam88 wrote:

Aaron Bitman wrote:

Ozreth wrote:

All these years later, what is it you love about PF1 and/or 3.5/3.0 that you keeps you running what is arguably the most burdensome system to run as far as prep time and weight at high level play.

One point I didn't address in my earlier post here was the "weight at high level play" part. High level play isn't an issue for me when I choose a gaming engine, because I HATE high level play! During my BECMI years (the 1980s) when I got a copy of the D&D Companion Set, I practiced with it by using it with my own PCs, solo. I had been using those PCs, slowly running all of them through adventures from 1st level, so it was quite an achievement, actually, to advance some of them as high as 18th level. However, that experience taught me that high-level play is too overwhelming, due to the power level and the options. Other than that one practice solo campaign, I never advanced any character past 15th level, nor statted out any NPC with more than 15 class levels, in any tabletop RPG.

15 is where the fun stuff begins..... we always stretch our games to go levels 1-20...

Here here!

Did you both start during D&D? How do you feel about running those levels comparatively?

In the 80s we played mostly by DM-fiat, as the "rules" by Gygax were haphazard, incomplete, fluid, grossly interpretable -- it was a much more free-flowing, free-form game where DMs had full control of the mechanics and how the game played. That was fine; we were young -- gaming was new.

It took a while before we switched to 2nd in the 90s but the game was much more "controlled" and "designed" -- and we got Really into 'story' and 'atmosphere' and character development. Effectively, we went from Gygax and Arneson to Tracy Hickman and Carl Sargent. And we had the FR novels.

3E was not appealing at all at first -- I remember looking at the invention of "Feats" (still by far the WORST design in the history of any universe that should be eradicated out of existence) and being flabbergasted at the design stupidity. But the d20 system itself, as a whole, is spectacular.

While true that the tragedy of losing Chris Pramas from the writing/developing of the Players' Handbook crushed the chance of near perfection from the 3.0 Core Three (by allowing a no-talent hack to finish it), and forced a quick need for 3.5 wherein the gross design errors of the 3.0 PHB could be corrected -- the d20 system itself was still absolutely great.

Sadly, WotC kept the hack that finished the 3.0 PHB for the 3.5 (while erasing the real talent from the company) and 3.5 didn't really get much better. Worse, WotC kept publishing more expansions -- each and every month -- wherein the latest "MTG Card" had to be more powerful, more 'broken' than the last.

As horrible as WotC was being for D&D, at least we had Paizo as the Silver Lining to make Pathfinder. A great start on fixing the problems with 3E and deleting all the 3.5 baggage that made it unplayable.

So now,.... Why do I still play Pathfinder and not PF2? Because for over 20 years I have been playing this d20 game and know it in-and-out. There is no need to try to learn a brand new system written, frankly, for an illiterate-friendly customer...

So in short you think that the core of the d20 system minus feats and a handful of other things that you hate about it is worth running it over AD&D 1e and 2e which you also know and ran? Your sweet spot seems to have been 2e.

you've never played Rolemaster obviously....

1. we spent a lot of money to switch from 1E to 2E because it was supposedly better
2. we spent a lot of money to switch from 2E to 3/3.5E because it was supposedly better
3. we spent a lot of money to switch to PF1 because it was an extension of 3.5E and supposedly better
3. It's a worldwide system, plenty of people play it, so you can go from town to town and find a group
4. spent money trying 4E, 5E, and PF2 which were not better.
5. Felt no need to spend a large amount of money again
6. have plenty of Adventure Paths/modules to last 15-20 more years.
7. Prep time is not as burdensome as you think, using Modules and Adventure Paths, combined with Combat Manager, I can have a great game prepared that I can modify on the fly to meet the strengths of the party. In far less prep time than it takes to build an adventure from scratch.
8. Didn't want to learn a new system again
9. it's a very "complete" rule system - with rules for virtually anything. We have yet to find anything major that there's not a decent rule for.
10. There's more classes and archetypes than we can ever play in our lifetime, so the game doesn't grow stale.

need I go on?

I think every one of your points except for maybe 3 (although I'd argue in 2024 you can find people playing AD&D quite easily as well) are relevant to every edition of the game if you already have all of the material for AD&D as well. None of the points actually speak to 3.5 on its own merit or what you enjoy about the rules vs 1e/2e rules. The rules for everything might be the only point that does.

And I run it myself, so I have my own reasons, just curious about other peoples reasons.

I posted this in the PF1 section as well.

All these years later, what is it you love about 3.5/3.0 that you keeps you running what is arguably the most burdensome system to run as far as prep time and weight at high level play.

All these years later, what is it you love about PF1 and/or 3.5/3.0 that you keeps you running what is arguably the most burdensome system to run as far as prep time and weight at high level play.

As an update, I love one of the primary hooks from the Hall of Harsh Reflections and incorporated it into RHoD. ** spoiler omitted **

How did this campaign end up?

I posted this in the AoW forum as well but realize it gets little to no traffic these days.

I've just begun running age of worms, they are nearing the end of the first dungeon in Whispering Cairn, four sessions in. There isn't much buy-in presented in this adventure, but my PCs have some hooks that I'd like to tie into this AP.

1. Two dwarves from Greysmere, one looking for an alchemical substance to help thwart a disease that is growing on the fungus farms kept underneath Greysmere. Another who is looking for a lost artifact of St. Cuthbert.

2. A wild elf whose warrior lover disappeared overnight.

3. A monk from the Twilight Monastery living in Diamond Lake to protect the trade envoy who trades Kalamanthis between the Moanstery and Diamond Lake, and works as a barkeep to gather intel on the town ever since the violent conlfict between DL and TM years ago.

I'm thinking potentially the hills that the Monastery harvests Kalamanthis from and the fungus farms at Greysmere are potentially becoming infested with Kyuss worms, and the PCs learn of this after returning from the Cairn back to Diamond Lake.

Maybe the lost lover replaces Alastor Land? Perhaps being last of the bloodline was drawn to the Cairn, unsure why when he died he remained in limbo (is this even explained for Alastor?), but needs his remains buried and wants them buried in the Bronzewoood Lodge cemetary. Upon arriving, they find that other elves/druids etc remains are missing. The wild elf PC had previously shunned the inhabitants of the lodge and their studies/worshipping as pointless, but now may feel some attachment.

Now, a rant:

I regret not having read through the whole adventure before running it, and definitely should have waded through the many threads on the AP. The entire first adventure seems very disconnected and pointless to me, and more like a way to impose a bunch of irrelevant GH lore onto the party. It seems to take until the end of the second adventure before the party even have a real reason to be invested in anything at all, and even then, why should they care about a worm and some prophecies?

I've read through the overload and see some promise in the overall adventure, I can see how it plays through to the end epicly, but it feels like it will be a chore to get there. But I'm sort of taking that as a challenge. It seems almost universally praised (though all of the praise comes with caveats about all of the issues), and I want to see if my group gets enjoyment out of it the way others have. Things often play out differently than they read.

I've just begun running age of worms, they are nearing the end of the first dungeon in Whispering Cairn, four sessions in. There isn't much buy-in presented in this adventure, but my PCs have some hooks that I'd like to tie into this AP.

1. Two dwarves from Greysmere, one looking for an alchemical substance to help thwart a disease that is growing on the fungus farms kept underneath Greysmere. Another who is looking for a lost artifact of St. Cuthbert.

2. A wild elf whose warrior lover disappeared overnight.

3. A monk from the Twilight Monastery living in Diamond Lake to protect the trade envoy who trades Kalamanthis between the Moanstery and Diamond Lake, and works as a barkeep to gather intel on the town ever since the violent conlfict between DL and TM years ago.

I'm thinking potentially the hills that the Monastery harvests Kalamanthis from and the fungus farms at Greysmere are potentially becoming infested with Kyuss worms, and the PCs learn of this after returning from the Cairn back to Diamond Lake.

Maybe the lost lover replaces Alastor Land? Perhaps being last of the bloodline was drawn to the Cairn, unsure why when he died he remained in limbo (is this even explained for Alastor?), but needs his remains buried and wants them buried in the Bronzewoood Lodge cemetary. Upon arriving, they find that other elves/druids etc remains are missing. The wild elf PC had previously shunned the inhabitants of the lodge and their studies/worshipping as pointless, but now may feel some attachment.

Now, a rant:

I regret not having read through the whole adventure before running it, and definitely should have waded through the many threads on the AP. The entire first adventure seems very disconnected and pointless to me, and more like a way to impose a bunch of irrelevant GH lore onto the party. It seems to take until the end of the second adventure before the party even have a real reason to be invested in anything at all, and even then, why should they care about a worm and some prophecies?

I've read through the overload and see some promise in the overall adventure, I can see how it plays through to the end epicly, but it feels like it will be a chore to get there. But I'm sort of taking that as a challenge. It seems almost universally praised (though all of the praise comes with caveats about all of the issues), and I want to see if my group gets enjoyment out of it the way others have. Things often play out differently than they read.

I just wanted to come back here and say that I've been using the method that DoomedHero presented here for close to 6 months now and it hasn't failed me. It works wonderfully :)

Sooo in my last homebrew campaign I dropped the first levels of Thistletop, as well as the surrounding area into my game because I was short on prep time. Now, months later I'm actually running RotRL and they are about to head to Thistletop. I can still use the Dungeon Levels because I didn't use that before but what should I use for the rest of it? Suggestions? Thanks!

It depends. How are they build? If a Paladin has a high strength and is built to be a front-line fighter then he's a primary melee character. If, however, a paladin was built with a decent Wisdom, high Charisma, and seems designed more to take advantage of the Paladin's healing abilities (which can become truly spectacular at higher levels) then he's a utility character.

The same goes of course for Druids. And for other characters. If they are meant to go toe-to-toe then they are likely melee characters. This can include a rogue - if the rogue takes Combat Expertise, Improved Feint, and Offensive Defense then the Rogue is well on his or her way to becoming a frontline fighter (especially if a few other feats are tossed in to enhance damage). I'm talking about someone who, with Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike, could be doing 12d6 damage with a Rapier at 17th level before magic enhancements.

-------

I take it the group doesn't want to break into two smaller groups? It would be a lot easier for you. And it would mean they won't be stuck at lower levels for some time.

I see. Well here is the group makeup and what I think each falls under...

Barbarian (melee)
Scout (utility)
Bard (utility)
Swashbuckler (melee)
Druid (utility)
Druid (utility)
Knight (melee)
Shaman (not sure yet..)
Fighter (melee)
Inquisitor (back ported to 3.5 since we're stil using that)

As far as them splitting up, probably not. My last homebrew campaign had 9 of them for 8 months and it worked out, mostly because I didn't worry much about balance, I just put monsters where they made sense to be and they could either fight or run. It was very sandboxy. They are all of my best friends and we work well together so I have no problem "handling" them at the table. I'm just concerned here because an AP is much more balanced and structured than running your own sandbox.

I ran a game with 10 players for nearly three years. It can be very hard to challenge a group of that size because they have 2.5 times the action economy the game is built around. In order to challenge them, you have to upgrade your enemies in a way that doesn't make them outclass the group in terms of CR.

Standard party makeup is 1 Primary offensive caster, 1 Utility, 2 Primary melee.

For every primary melee character beyond 2, add 50% to each enemy's HP. (an average melee character is expected to deal between 25 and 75% of an enemy's HP a round. Adding 50% means the extra melee characters will be needed.)

For every Utility character beyond 1, add 1 enemy of CR equal to the average party level. (Utility characters are usually defined by buffing the party or controlling the battlefield. Adding extra baddies means they might not control everything, giving other characters something to do)

For each Primary caster, add +1 to enemy saves. (Monsters that fail saves against primary casters are usually out of the fight. You want to make it so the bad guys have a better chance of making their saves so that other casters have a reason for being there. Beware multiple casters spamming AoE control/damage spells. A few failed saves in a row, and the fight is over on round 1.)

Lastly, Maximize all monster HP.

This isn't a perfect formula for every group, but it works as a pretty good gauge as to how much you should boost encounters to still challenge the party.

Finally, and I can't stress this enough, mixed groups of enemies. If you run a bunch of enemies of similar types, they'll crush them. If you're running goblins, throw a pet giant scorpion in and some goblin dogs. If you're running giants, add giant eagles and summoned elementals. Make them diversify their tactics.

Do not simply tack on Hit Dice. It creates a ton of problems, mostly linked to special ability DCs and saving throws that outstrip what the party can handle. Adding Hit Dice will quickly neuter...

Doomed, you truly are a hero. This sounds like a solid formula. It goes into practice tonight and I'll report back! Thanks!

Just for clarification, do you consider Druids and paladins utility? And am I ignoring things like rogues, rangers, scouts etc? Thanks!

I'm having problems linking, so go to Community Created Stuff, and scroll down to the bottom of page 9 to Willot's message. They should be OK to use.

Sweet! So do I need to blow those two maps up to a certain size?

Do you mean this one?

Whoa! Awesome, but I have to buy it. I suppose I will. Now, I need it for Monday so ordering it won't help. If my FLGS dosen't have it I'll DL the PDF...but then how do I get something like that printed effectively?

So I was wondering if anybody has designed a large, 1 inch scale map of the goblin assault area that I could have printed at a printer and laminated for my players to battle on?

And if so, whats the best way to print something like this out? I've never printed anything so big ha :p

Thanks!

Thanks guys! I'll let them read it as is. I guess I was mostly worried about it killing some of the mystery and intrigue of coming to a new setting, or ruining something down the line, but it seems safe.

Also, we are still using 3.5 so the old version works perfectly. Thank you! :)

Is it a solid handout for the group before the game starts? Are there things that should be added or taken out? Changed?

THOUGHTS!

Soooo I'm about to start running Burnt Offerings with 10 players. Has anybody run it with even close to this many? What can I expect? What is a simple way to alter things to keep some resemblance of balance (I'm not stickler on balance, but something resembling it would be nice haha.)