Remy Grondin's page

Has anyone been converting Rise of the Runelords yet? I’d like to see how it’s turning out…

I have a party of 3 level 1 characters (a Fighter, a Ranger and a Druid) played by newcomers to the RPG world and I want to create some easy encounters for their first session. I've decided to loosely follow the adventure published in the First Edition Beginner's Box and convert some of the elements to the Second Edition rules.

The very first encounter of the adventure is with a pair of Goblins. Looking on page 489 of the Core Rulebook, I've decided that this encounter should be a Trivial one, giving me an XP budget of 40 (I will not lower the budget because I have 3 players instead of 4). The Goblins' description on page 180 of the Bestiary give them as Creatures of Level -1.

That's where I'm wondering what to do. Do I count the Goblins as being 2 levels lower than the players (since they're Creatures -1)? If so, 2 Goblins would nicely fit within my XP budget?

Extrapolating from that assumption, if my players are Level 3 and I want them to tackle a bunch of Goblins in a Low encounter (60 XP budget), I would need to throw 6 Goblins at them (for Creatures -1, the Goblins are at Party Level -4)… is that right?

I believe that would be Weapon Specialisation. Past a certain level, characters gain a bonus to damage with weapons they are Expert or above in.

Specifically, 2, 3, or 4 for Expert, Master or Legendary. Some classes eventually gain Greater Weapon Specialisation, which doubles those bonuses.

Ah! Great! Thanks!

(must be something I read a tad fast… ;))

Can someone tell me what the W SPEC in the Melee Strikes and Ranged Strikes mean?
Where do I find the modifier that's going here?

Out of curiosity, are you going to have your daughter play as a solo, because that would seem to be pretty difficult to do the Black Fang as a solo, or do you have three other players interested in playing as well.

Actually, I have 3 players: my daughter, my girlfriend (who just seems to have her head boiling with all the rules [hehe]) and my daughter's godmother, who's a close friend of mine and have played TRPG a lot over the years. She'll be like their mentor in roleplaying, and that will ease my task of DMing since I won't have to explain every single rule for them! :)

I wouldn't want the PF1e beginner box to be converted tbh, its adventure is kinda... near non existent and the simplification isn't necessarily needed in PF2e imo.

I read the Beginner's Box's adventure and while I have to admit it's a bit straightforward and almost a bit boring, I think it's a great story to introduce TRPG to new players.

As for the rules, I won't be using the rules from the Box (anyways, since my daughter want to play a Druid so desperately, I have to fall back to the complete rules, whether they're 1E or 2E).

I could "convert" the adventure on the fly, using what I read from 2E, but I was a bit wishing someone did the conversion part already (after a hiatus of 20 years in DMing, I do feel a bit lazy… ;).

Second would be correct. Creatures and NPCs are no longer going to have attributes given, just their relevant modifiers. So since Familiars and Animal Companions are not PCs, they will just list the attribute modifiers.

Only reason PCs have Actual attribute numbers between 03-25 is for historical reasons and the fact that after 18 attribute boosts from leveling up have half the of the normal effectiveness. In part, I think this contributes to the indication that boosts that might take an animal's ability modifier above +4 should not curtailed artificially. (although I haven't looked to see where if anywhere that might occur, and under what circumstances)

Ah, so I was right! :D

Thanks!

I’m about to introduce my 14-year old daughter to TRPG (she’s a great fan of the Pathfinder card game, by the way) and I would like to use the adventure found in the Beginner’s Box (the one with Black Fang the Black Dragon).

So I was wondering if anyone converted it to the 2E rules…

And to answer any “Why don’t you use the rules in the Beginner’s Box?” questions, I’ll simply say that my daughter would really-really-REALLY love to play a Druid and I want to give the 2E rules a chance! ;)

I've been reading the 2E Core Rulebook and so far I like what I'm reading!

I do have one thing I'd like to clarify about Animal Companions.

On page 214, it's written « An animal companion begins with base ability modifiers of Str +2, Dex +2, Con +1, Int –4, Wis +1, Cha +0. »

So do I add those numbers to an Animal Companion's Ability Scores (if so, where would I find said Ability Scores) or are they the same modifiers as the ones shown on Table 1-1, on page 20 (thus, an Animal Companion with a Str modifier of +2 would have a Strength score of 14-15)?

I suppose my second hypothesis is the right one, but I just want to make sure! :)
And, if it's the case, does this means the Ability Scores, for Animal Companions at least, are not this important to know?

Thanks for your answers!

As for gaining confidence as a GM, I'm already tweaking the Master of the Fallen Fortress module to integrate it between the Beginner Box adventure (Black Fang's Dungeon) and the Rise of the Runelords. So, out are the troglodytes and I'm replacing them with goblins that have been "fused" with other species by an hobgoblin priest of Lamashtu (foreshadowing the events in RotL). There's even a half-dragon goblin, a poor victim of Tesskar's experiments! :)

And Black Fang has been recasted as a red dragon (its name comes from the fact that its teeth are strangely black), so that this dragon will become the red dragon from the fourth episode of the RotL (Longtooth). This way, the players will have a recurrent enemy throughout my campaign.

After 10 years of not being a GM, I'm surprised I still "have the touch"! :)

Hi!

I have PDF files from the Rise of the Runelords dating back to 2007 and it looks like they were created when Paizo was still working on the Pathfinder 1.0 rules and are thus in the 3.5 format.

Have the 6 modules been updated to the Pathfinder rules and, if so, is it possible to get PDF files of these updated modules (possibly replacing those in My Downloads)?

I've come back to RPG after a 10-year hiatus and having to convert monsters and calculating XP sound a bit too daunting for my rusty GMing skills and an updated version of the Rise of the Runelords would be more than welcome! :)

Thanks!

I think that rule was in the Beginner's Box only and was meant to prevent the case where you fired a ranged weapon and provoked an attack of opportunity (a reaction that was specifically excluded from the Beginner's Box rules).

So, if I understand correctly, if you use the full rules you could shoot a goblin at point blank with a composite long bow and that would be okay? Talk about splattering greeny blood all over the place! :D

Hi!

I remember having seen some rules variants in either the Players’ Manual or the DM Guide, but I don’t remember in which one… Can someone help me find them?

Also, there’s a mention in the Beginner Box’s Hero Handbook that you can’t use a ranged weapon against a enemy within 10 feet from your position, but I just can’t find that rule in the Players’ Manual… where is it? Is that rule still applied in the « bigger » book?

Thanks!

I would like to know where I could find the rules (both for Pathfinder 1E and the Playtest) to know how much a horse can carry (including a rider).

That's bugging me… Say a horse has +1 STR, which means it would be able to carry a maximum of 11 Bulk (in the Playtest). But how do you calculate how much an Human adventurer would cost in Bulk (along with his equipment)? Surely more than 11 Bulk (if we use the conversion method of 5-10 pounds=1 Bulk found in the Playtest, page 175)!

Or do I just don't care about the horse rider and just calculate the weight of both horse and rider's equipment?

I've just go to say that you're awesome and are clearly raising your daughter right. Rock on, and I hope she enjoys the game.

That’s also what I’m thinking! :):)

Considering all your comments (thanks, by the way!), and even though I spent a few hours printing all those 430+ pages of the Playtest (oh well, hello idle time reading!), I think I’ll stick with PF1 for the time being (starting with the Beginner Box and seeing from there where it leads us). And since I may have convinced my wife to try it too (and her only experience in RPGs was seeing someone play for hours when she was a teenager), a «Lite» version may be best suited for them.

Sticking with the PF1 Core Rulebook was also what I had in mind. I still have the RotL PDFs files somewhere and I might give that a try, even though we’re playing the card version of the Adventure Path and they may recognize a thing or two… 

But don’t get me wrong, though. I’ve read a lot of stuff from the Playtest and I’m so far interested by the changes Paizo is making. I certainly like the concept of your character’s background having a effect on your abilities, the 3-Actions method (I could add that up in my PF1 game…), and the new method of generating the Ability Scores. I do have some concerns with the way the elements are presented in the book (it’s a bit complicated to sort things out correctly and you do have to flip back and forth through the pages at times) and the apparent absence of a surprise round, but we do have to remember that it’s a Playtest, and PF2, like Doktor Weasel said, will change (maybe drastically, maybe not) from the Playtest presented to its final form.

wait....

your daughter was born in 2008 and is now 13 years old?
if she's able to manage that, she'll manage the complexity of PF too

I must be getting old… She was born in 2005, not 2008! :D

Oh my… 

EdOWar did conversions of all the PF1 classes to Beginner Box rules.

This document includes the druid

Class Conversions

Ah! That's great! That is just what I needed to make up my mind! :)

And along with all your commentaries, I think we'll try the Beginner Box (with EdOWar's conversions) and if my daughter likes RPG, I could introduce her to PF2 afterwards, if she wishes it.

Honestly, though, and in light of what you've all written here, I can't see why so many people are so negatively heated like that about PF2. It's a Playtest for crying out loud and Paizo did try some new things (without changing everything drastically). They could've simply just released PF2 as a "final product" if they wanted so, but instead went with the Playtest and asked for the players' feedback. That means that things WILL change when the final version will be released.

As a general rule in life, I realized that's it's easier to make comments pass more easily if they're said constructively and not by shouting and bullying others around… To me it's common sense, but it seems that more and more people are forgetting it.

That must be my age showing up… :)

Depending on what your daughter's interested in, you might have a look at Mouseguard, Tales of Equestria or the Star Wars RPG, all of which are good and appeal to a certain audience.

She's just out of her Little Pony phase, so I won't let her in it all over again! :)

I mean, I love Pathfinder, but simple it is not. There's no harm in starting her off with a game that fits her taste, and letting her decide whether she wants to graduate to the full complexity of Pathfinder once she knows more about the subject.

I know there's a lot of other RPGs out there, but since she already know Pathfinder from the card game, and that I do have a soft spot for the game, we'll go with it. :)

I don't know what to do.

When my daughter was born, in 2008, I ran a Pathfinder Rise of the Runelords campaign, using the PF1 Beta, along with my girlfriend and some friends of us.

Life being what it is, my girlfriend and I broke up a few months later, the campaign fell too and with my new status of a separated father, tabletop RPGing wasn't in my priorities anymore…

But I never lost interest in Paizo or their Pathfinder universe. I always found the world of Golarion to be an interesting universe and I had sometimes bouts of nostalgia about "the old days".

13 years later, by pure happenstance, someone sold me the whole Rise of the Runelords card game and I thought I could introduce the world of Pathfinder to my daughter.

She loved it!

One night, she watched Stranger Things with me and saw the kids play D&D. She asked what it was and I told her that it was an RPG, a bit like the PF card game. And when I told her I once played myself, she eagerly asked if we could play.

Oh, what a joy to hear that!

So, I went to the hobby store and bought the PF1 Beginner Box… When my daughter asked if she could play a character like Lini the Druid with the Beginner Box's rules, I said that those rules were meant to be easily understood, so, no, it wasn't possible.

Seeing the disappointment in her eyes, I was a bit discouraged.

And then Paizo released the PF2 Playtest.

I decided to give the Playtest a shot and downloaded the PDF files, even printing the whole thing so I could read it. I had the terrible idea to check Paizo's forum to see the players' reactions. If I'm reading all this correctly, PF2 is sooooo bad that it marks the end of civilization (and Paizo's) as we know it.

Here's why I don't know what to do.

I know that in the social media world of today, people are rabidly lashing at anyone not having the same opinion (whether good or bad) as them and that haters often shout louder than anyone else, but all this bad reaction to PF2 shook me.

So, I'm asking you, the Pathfinder community, your objective opinion about what should I do:

• Should I stick with the Beginner Box and see if my daughter love RPG?
  
• Should I make an exception and let her play a Druid along with the Beginner Box rules?
  
• Should I invest myself in PF1 and make her play with the complete PF1 rules? or
  
• Should I give PF2 a chance, considering it's a "work in progress" and see for myself?

From what I read of PF2 so far, there's some things I like (the 3-Actions-per-Round, the Bulk rules, the four-tier Skills proficiency, the Ability Scores building method, the Hero Points).

And what's your objective opinion about PF2, knowing it's still a Beta (I don't want vehement replies to tell me "how crazy I am to want to try PF2 since it's so bad")?

My initial, gut response is that the setting is too intimidating. It's something that so many of us know that we may unconsciously fear that we won't be able to do it justice. I think that there's also an argument to be made that, after so many years on TV and in film, the story lines have been somewhat played out. Mainly, though, I think that there is an expectation of realism and continuity in Star Trek that is difficult for gamers to recreate at the table.

Those are just my initial thoughts. Probably debatable on many levels, but a decent starting point, I think.

I'm (well, I really should say I was since it's almost but dead now, in my opinion) a huge fan of Star Trek and I've tried to start a campaign once or twice in the last couple of years. But, the fact is that you're right, Paris: the setting is intimidating, EVEN for a Star Trek fan. The Star Trek universe is one of the most diverse and deep I've seen and it's quite hard to run a campaign true to this universe while trying to be as imaginative as a D&D campaign (for example).

I faced the same problems back when I was in a play-by-email Star Trek group: it was too easy to disgress from the "canon" Star Trek stuff… In the end, I think we all have an idea of HOW Star Trek should feel like and we're a bit hesitating to swim in this universe.

There's also the fact that the game system, while being all in all innovative, was kind of daunting to learn and use. If Star Trek RPG would have used the D20 system, it would probably have fare better… Probably.

But I have to admit, though, that I sometimes miss those Warp Drives and Romulan ultimatums… I may run a Star Trek campaign in the future, but I think that I'll try to convert the game system to the D20 system (maybe that I'll even use the Pathfinder system as a reference!).

I really like the fact that there's no more Cross-Class Skill and that a +3 bonus is given to Class Skills. You can buy any Skill you like and Class Skills now have a REAL usefulness (other than complicating the Skills system!)… I just think that Bards and Rogues have a too easy time netting the +3 bonus (almost all the Skills are Class Skills to them).

I know that Bards are a knowledgeable bunch, but having EVERY Knowledge Skills as Class Skills is a bit overkill IMHO, as are all the physically-dependent Skills (such as Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, etc.). About the Knowledge Skills, a solution could be to make Bards select a number of Knowledge Skills at first level (3 or 4). This way, no two Bards would be perfect copies as they would be customizable. As for the physically-dependent Skills, a Bard is IMHO a performer, not a swashbuckler! Ditch some of those Skills (like Climb or Stealth)!

Concerning the Rogue, a similar method could be used for Skills "designed" specifically for them (such a Disable Device, Sleight of Hand, etc.). A stealthy-minded Rogue would thus have different Class Skills than a assassination-oriented one. They would both be more efficient in specific parts of being a Rogue (e.g. +3 on Stealth for the former, +3 on Bluff for the latter), but they would be able to perform other tasks, albeit less efficiently (e.g. Bluff for the former, Stealth for the latter).

Looking at the Class Skills, I really think Rogues and Bards are almost interchangeable where Class Skills are considered. Granted, they have far different Class abilities, but beside the Knowledge Skills, they almost have the same Class Skills…

Just checked the AR 2 so far and I've noticed that Paizo went back to a "rank-buying-for-Skills" system… Shame, since I rather liked what they did with AR 1. Oh, well, rank-buying it is then… ;)

Call me a numbskull if you like (I do admit I may merit it! :)) and maybe it's something someone already posted about, but I think the Acquiring Skills section needs to be a little clearer. It's said that "At first level, your character gains a number of skill ranks dependent upon your class plus your Intelligence modifier. At every level after that, you gain additional skill ranks. These skill ranks can be spent on any skill, but you can only invest a number of ranks into a specific skill equal to your total Hit Dice."

Okay, it took me a second (and maybe a third) reading before I realized that the limit set by Hit Dice refered ONLY to the numbers of ranks you could buy for a given Skill. So, if I were a level 2 Fighter with 10 INT (2 Skill ranks per level), I could only add 2 ranks to one Skill, or 1 ranks to 2 Skills. This said, I realized that one could put his entire collection of ranks at first level to a SINGLE Skill (a Rogue with 10 INT could thus put 8 ranks in Disguise if she wanted to).

Am I reading this thing right? Is there a set numbers of skills a character has to take a first level? Table 5-1 on page 37 reads Skill Choices, but if this indicates a set number of Skills, what are those Skills' Skill ranks? You see, it's not as clear as I think it should be… Or maybe I'm a real numbskull! :)

Any thoughts/suggestions/comment, anyone?

I like both Remy's and Salama's sheets.

Well, I think we both did a pretty decent job!

Thanks for your kind input, to you all… I'll keep all those suggestions in mind, but I'll wait the release of the next revision, which seems to be due in the coming days or so. Furthermore, that will give me the time to get a much-needed break from my work (working over 14 hours a day for the last 4 days is taking its toll on mine old 30-years old body… :)P). I'll also try to create a printer-friendly sheet in the process.

Salama, I noticed you have used the font for your "NOTES" very similar (maybe even identical) to the one Paizo used for their Pathfinder logo… Which one is it? Do you have a Mac version? That would be really appreciated! ;)

Thank you for your time, skills and generosity.

Damn! Should've read the thread before doing changes on my Sheets! :)P

Nevertheless, I've done some changes that were already suggested, like the Hit Points being at the top of the sheet and a "checkbox" for trained Skills.

Character Sheets 2.0

I've created two files: one with the Character Sheets proper, and another with only the magic items checklist (one page male and one female, depending on your Character's gender).

Taliesin, your comments are sensible and well thought of… And as soon as I get another break in my damn-too-busy schedule, I'll look upon what I could do! :)

About the size of the information, I had to juggle a bit with the space I have on a Letter-sized format (8,5” x 11”). I know that some of the information is close to be unreadable, but I surmised those bits of info would be "common knowledge" for all of us gamers and wouldn't need to be big. However, I have to admit it's sometimes just small enough to be annoying! ;)

Have you tried to print the PDF without Page Scaling? Since the Character Sheet was made on a Letter format, I don't know how it would react on A3/A4 formats though.

As for an editable version of the sheets, I've started something, but it's a hell of a job! ;)

This sheet is really nice. The only thing that irks me at all is the position of the HP area. I'd like it near the top. It looks really nice though and if I can get a group together to do some alpha testing this is the sheet i might just end up using. Good job :).

I know, I know… But where it is right now was the only space left when I crammed everything at the top… May have to rethink the sheets… again! :)

Remy, nice character sheet, but maybe you could change the colors to something a little darker, like your old sheet.

Otherwise, any chance that the fine folks at Paizo are going to come out with a Pathfinder Character sheet in the near future?

I used the "gold" color as a reminder of the "new" Pathfinder RPG logo, but I admit it's a bit hard to read. May have to darken the color a bit.

As for an official Paizo Character Sheet…

And if I have the time this weekend, I may check the sheet and sprinkle a few editable regions in it.

Also I'm pretty sure you cannot save this in Adobe Acrobat Reader, you need Acrobat professional, or some other program to save it. But you can print it.

You can't save it with Acrobat Reader… If you're on Macintosh, try Preview… Dunno if it save editable PDFs though.

I ran my first campaign using Alpha 1.1 tonight and my players are thrilled with the changes!

I wasn't sure about the new way of gaining Skills, but after a game sesssion, we all realized that it didn't changed a lot of things mechanically speaking (trained Skills goes up by 1 point every level). But to think about Skills as "either you have or you don't" had quite a impression on my players. They love it! And the trimmed-down Skill selection is also a welcomed change: For, why did we had to have Diplomacy AND Gather Information… Isn't it the same Skill (Diplomacy), albeit used in a different context?

There's one thing though: I think something should be do to make Skill like Craft and Profession more appealing… Maybe narrowing them down to a few main concepts (like the Knowledge Skills)?

Hit points:

1. Maximum hit points per hit dice.
2. If you have a racial hit dice, PC class level, or warrior NPC class level, you gain 20 bonus hit points at 1st level.

Maximum hit points per HD seems to be an unwritten rule nowadays. 20 hit points is enough to survive a bit longer, but restricting it to monsters, PCs, and warriors means that a commoner can still be killed with a single hit (which they should).

I agree about the Maximum HP "unwritten" rule. It should become a "written" one for starting HP. As for any bonus HP, I think the best solution is the racial bonus (p.11).

For my campaign, the starting HPs go like this:

Maximum Hit Dice HP + CON bonus + Favored Class bonus + racial bonus + feats (if applicable)

As for HP at higher levels, I may go with the 3.5 DMG variant (average HP) or with max HP… Not sure yet.

We just had our very first session using the new Pathfinder RPG and, so far, everyone is thrilled about the new changes!

However, the party's Cleric thinks that Turning Healing, as it is right now, could become abusive, both from a rule point of view than from a role-playing point of view.

From a rule point of view, Turning could now be regarded as a "cheap man's mass healing". The concept of healing—Allies AND enemies alike—is not the issue here (actually, the player finds it cool), it's just that he thinks that some mandatory situation should be required to actually use the Turning ability (like a turnable creature to be present).

From a role-playing point of view, he explained to us that Turning should be considered as a "gift" offered by the Cleric's deity (the turn effect) for his fervor (the turn attempt). Like it is right now, it seems to him that the whole "deity gift-giving" concept is a bit let aside.

So, we decided to simply rule out that the Turning mechanism is fine as is it, but we add a "trigger" for the Cleric to use it (a turnable creature present).

What do you think?

That's awesome.. do you have a non-Pathfinder version of that?

I have the one we're using until THE Conversion… You'll notice the word Card instead of Wt. in it: that's because we're using Item Cards instead of calculating the equipment weight. And even if it's written Pathfinder in the upper right, it's done with the D&D 3.5 rules in mind.

Old Character Sheet

If you really wish, I, could make the cosmetic changes needed to make the sheet more "standard", but it may have to wait until this weekend…

Wow very nice. I did one up but yours is much nicer. I think at the next upgrade we'll switch sheets.

Thanks for your kind word! As a desktop publishing technician, I can be quite a freak at times! :)

Would the creators of the alpha stat sheet mind me pasting them on my yahoo group..with authors name of course.

I adapted one using the Character Sheets we use for our current game. It's a little resembling the WotC sheets, but I've streamlined it so that all the necessary information is on the same page.

Rémy Grondin's Pathfinder Character Sheet

Feel free to use it as you wish!

Really, there is no reason to use a shield in D&D, since you're better fighting 2-handed (either with 2 weapons or a two-handed weapon) as the numbers now stand.

That's exactly why shields should have more gaming spotlight! ;)

humm nice but adds complexity and more rolls may slow down combat a bit but could be fun may have to test this .

It really adds only one roll (the deflection roll), but I admit the rule is a bit complex. Maybe the brave folks at Paizo could come up with something flashier and quickier to use? :)

An alternative I've thought of was to arbitrarily say that a wooden shield would break only if it blocked a critical hit, while a steel shield would be able to resist three such attacks before breaking. This way, blocking a normal attack wouldn't "hurt" the shield… But I find this arbitrary decision a bit simplistic… :)

I don't know, it might be a good idea. Every class gets a sidebar about the iconic, to show off the class, give someone an example, make a bit advertising for Pathfinder, and act as a bit of a muse to get people into the right frame of mind to create roleplaying characters. This could be a help for people new to the game.

I, too, believe this should be a great idea. Not only it would help newcomers, but it will add flair to the Pathfinder RPG, and from what I've seen of Paizo so far, they're all about flair! :)

Will Paizo create Character Sheets (available for download) reflecting the current changes made within the Alpha Playtest?

As I said in my earlier thread, I've adapted for my campaign a rule from an old RPG of my childhood—Lands of Legend—regarding shield use.

In 3.5 (and in Pathfinder RPG), strapping a shield only adds a number in your AC. In all my games, I've noticed that players were quite willing not to use a shield simpky because it didn't really gave something valuable to them. That's when my childhood games came back. After a bit of tinkering, I've come up with a rule that dynamically use the shield during combat.

RULE : SHIELD USE
Every shield in the game has a Deflection value which is given as a different die for each shield. Thus, if the wearer of the shield is hit in combat (even in the case of a critical hit), he rolls the corresponding die and, if he gets a 1, the shield blocked the attack. In fact, all the damage that he would have taken is instead applied to the shield (critical hits simply do their damage, if you use the Critical Hit Deck), much like the Sunder rule. In fact, you can almost take this roll as a Sacrifice Sunder (you sacrifice your shield in the attack, but you live to see another round).

Shield: Deflection Die/Hardness/HP
Buckler: 1d8/10/5
Light Shield (wooden): 1d6/5/7
Light Shield (steel): 1d6/10/10
Heavy Shield (wooden): 1d4/5/15
Heavy Shield (steel): 1d4/10/20
Tower Shield: 1d2/5/20

Of course, you don't add the shield's AC bonus to your character's total AC anymore, but all other numbers still apply. The only excpetions are magical shields: their magical bonus is added to the AC, since it is an Enchantment bonus to AC.

What do you think of this rule? Could it make it to Pathfinder? I'm waiting for your comments! :)

I've read the AR1 as far as the Spells section, and here are my observations/suggestions/comments:

Races: Small changes overall, but just enough to give the races a little "Pathfinder" flavor.

Classes: Excellent customization work, especially for the Rogue and the Fighter. I like the idea of the Wizard's Arcand Bond instead of the Familiar, as the apparent removal of the spellbook's page limit. When Paizo talked about streamlining 3.5, that's the kind of solution I was thinking about.

Skills: The new Skills list is far more "intuitive" this way! As for the removal of the Skill Points system, I'm not sure yet, although it does streamline the rules (you either have the skill or you don't).

Feats: Nice changes, but Feats being what they are, there seems to always be room for flocks or them… ;)

Combat: By far the best changes I've seen! The whole CMB concept is cunning, dead-on easy to use and brings a sense of dynamism that's perfect for fast-paced combat scenes. Turning is now grittier, meaniner… and better! Now THAT's what I call Turning Damage! As for the healing stuff, I'm not sure either for now, but the possibility of healing foes at the same time as your allies could bring some dramatic roleplaying scenes (should the Cleric turn the evil Sorcerer's undead troops, even if it also helps his living lieutenants?).

Spells: Haven't read this section yet, but from what I've seen with the Domain lists, the granted abilities/powers look great (and may alleviate, in my eyes, the fact that Cleric and the Wizard seem to be able to cast less spells now).

Suggestions:
• Hit Points: The tie between Base Attack Bonus and Hit Dice is clever. In my campaign, I use average, fixed HPs per level (maximum HP at 1st) and it could work the same way now with some customization possible (e.g.: racial and class bonus).

• Dying: You shouldn't fall unconscious automatically below 0 HP. This variant rule by Jester King (link) could be a nice change to do (I'm actually using it in my campaign).

• Shield Use: When I was young, I played an RPG called Lands of Legend in which the shield was used in a dynamic fashion (when you were hit, you rolled a dice and if you got a 1, you've blocked the attack with the shield). I've always felt the idea that the shield was only a mere variable in the AC sucked and veered people away from using them. When I'll get the chance, I'll post the rule I've come up with for my campaign about dynamic shield use.

Questions:
• XP: It seems you have streamlined the XP rules, but do you think it could be better if we had a XP calculation like the old times (no more messy arithmetics involved)? :)

• Character Sheets: Will you offer Character Sheets (in PDF format) reflecting the changes made in AR1?

That's it for now… I'll read the remaining chapters, put those new rules to work and write a new thread about it!

AWESOME!

That is all.

What could be add to this? Hmmm... Maybe...

"It's like, you know, FREAKING TOO AWESOME!"

:D

Sorry to have to bring this to your attention, Nick, but not everyone's happy.

(I'm moderately annoyed to be still waiting for it to arrive here in the UK, but that's another issue altogether and probably not your fault.)

I have a similar problem with receiving my Pathfinder stuff by mail, and I'm right up the frontier, in Canada!

Nevertheless, I'm glad that PDFs are available as soon as Paizo ships the items. This way, I can print them at work and use those printed PDFs in my game… And when I receive those nice packages from Paizo, I rip them open, admire the work done and put them with my other Pathfinder books, far from harm. And while my printed stuff gets messy, scribbled upon and beer-spilled, thos awesome piece of graphic and printing masterworks stay as "mint-condition" as I received them! (Okay, you can call me a freak, but hey, since I'm a graphic designer, I know all the hard work that has been put in all those books! :))

This said, since I can't really do a thing about those annoying delays from both Canadian and American postal services, I use this waiting to build up my excitement… Anyways, everyone loves to see a package protuding out of the mailbox, ain't that right? :)

I support anyone’s right to voice praise or criticism about 4e or 3.5 or Golarion or whatever they like (although I sometimes question the relevance of doing either in the case of 4e when there is so much we really don’t know); but the line should be drawn at leveling personal criticism or abuse at other posters. Discussion, great. Debate, fine. Disagreement, healthy. Flame wars should have no place here.

I've read rapidly this thread and some others from this forum and I agree that messageboards should serve as a forum where constructive discussion and debate can and should be encouraged. The Greek in Ancient Times have introduced the concept of "civilized" debating to the world and we should take pointers from them: "hate-threads" may help some to blow off some steam, but it's not the greatest, nor the smartest, way to make friends or to leave a good impression to others… In fact, it would do the exact opposite.

To be honest, some of the peronal feelings I've had about 4e were based on the slander some posters have thrown on the boards, but reading this thread have made me reconsider my position. Will I embrace 4e? Probably not, but now I know that it's only because I've recently re-acquainted myself to the world of Dungeons & Dragons with 3.5 and, for the time being, I do not feel sure enough about my Dungeon Mastering skills to learn a whole new sets of rules. Besides, I will base my own judgement when the official material will be officially released by Wizards of the Coast, and not on tidbits gathered here and there, tidbits most probably tweaked by others' biaises.

This said, I realized something: change scares people. "Why fix something that ain't broken"? Because that's how that something can evolve. Wheter WotC strikes gold with 4e or make a complete blunder with it, it will be all the better for them because either way, they will have dared to change. And the release of 4e won't spell the doom for 3.5: I'm sure there's people in the world still playing with the "old" First Edition rules!

As for I, I think that judging Paizo on the comments written on its forums is unfair for the people working for the Golem. They're caught in some kind of "no-win situation": if they control what is said on the boards, they'll be accused of taking away the posters' freedom of opinion and if they do nothing, they'll be accused of letting people say slander on the boards. I was about to put away my D&D books and quit RPG gaming when Paizo launched Pathfinder and, to be frank, the sheer quality of the stuff I saw then hook me back. I could see that Paizo had put its blood, sweat and tears in this product (both graphically and "gaming-ly") and my mind was set: I'd go where Paizo would go. If it means staying in 3.5, I'll stay. If it means having to learn how 4e works, I'll do. Golarion is a awesome campaign setting and one should not turn its back on the exquisite quality of Pathfinder simply because some people said awful thing on the boards. Anyways, whatever happens, they'll always be someone unhappy, right? :)

Although I'm not a fan of messageboards, I've seen what a great tool they can be a few months ago, when I received my copy of the Skinsaw Murders. As I red it, some questions popped in my mind and I decided to seek the counsel of the board's community. In only a few minutes, I was answered by none other than James Jacobs! To be answered by one of the authors on Pathfinder was really great and to discover, a few days later, that he even used his post as a legitimate blog entry was more that I could imagined. So, even for all the slander that can be seen on those boards, they can be powerful tools if used for what they're supposed to be: an ideal place for constructive debate and mind-sharing.

Finally, I'll end with this bit of advice I use myself everytime I can (but, alas, not as often as I should): before you're about to say something, think about how you would react to it. If you would react badly to it, maybe you shouldn't say it… ;)

I voted that I haven't yet decided. But the news thus far is pushing me more into the against camp.

I was finally getting myself accustomed with the 3.5 rules and WotC is shooting 4E at us… Yuck!

Seriously, I've not checked any blog, forum or website about the new D&D (I honestly don't really care that much about a company that seems interested only in profit and not about the players’ fun, but that’s just my opinion!) except the PDF linked in this thread and, for what I’ve read so far, D&D Fourth Edition seems to be more complicated than 3.5 (which is, IMHO, more complex instead, which is a big difference than being complicated).

Character Roles. Four Defense Values depending on attacks. Healing Surges. Action Points.

As for I, I’ll stick to 3.5. Just hope that Paizo will stick with it too… or, better, that Paizo launches a 3.75 Edition!

Oh! How I miss the good ol’ days when being an Elf was considered as a Character Class! :)

Nice! I'll definetly use this in my campaigns.

So will I! And it really brings back some role-playing flavor into the over-technical D&D rules!

The best analogy for a haunt is a trap. Treat them in play as traps, but traps that are evil and freaky and have a malevelont guiding intelligence behnd them.

Whoa... Thanks a lot! And I feel honored to receive a word of advice from Mr. Jacobs, none the less! :)

Why do I get this image of you as the fresh-faced private fresh out of basic getting sent to the front where you'll be greeted by a bunch of hardened, shell-shocked veterans?

I'm just kidding :) no bad feelings intended, just brought a smile to my face.

Well... I WAS a gaming veteran... 10 years ago! My (personal, professional, etc.) life took me away from table-top RPG for that long, so I'll no way take offense for your comparison, because I do feel exactly like a jaded private running on Juno Beach!

But, I thank you too for the links about 4th Edition, I'll check them as soon as I can. But I still retain the "gut-feeling" I had when I first heard about WotC going to publish 4th Edition... and that's "Why?" But, WotC looks to me like a company only concerned with making money rather than giving quality products to the fans... They did that with the Star Wars card game (which they "stole" form Decipher), I can't see why they couldn't do it with D&D... :P

Hopefully, there's companies like Paizo that, while they're willing to make money, they strive to please the gaming community by offering awesome products like Pathfinder and not mocking them. As I read up in this thread, "Wherever Paizo go, I will follow"! :)

I was checking casually the content of "The Skinsaw" and I have to admit that I'm eager to send my players in the Misgivings... What a freaky manor! :)

But, I have some difficulty understanding how to play the Haunts in the Manor... Not in the roleplaying sense, more in the game-mechanic sense. Can someone help me by giving me a "in-play" example about how to play them? It'd would be pretty helpful!

And on a side note, I've heard that Wizards was preparing a FOURTH edition of D&D (if THAT was really necessary :P)... How will it affect Pathfinder, if it affects it at all?

Thanks!

I used to run a campaign set in the Lands of Legend. It's a fantastic setting. I used the Dragon Warriors rules that they came with though. Did you use them or convert it into DnD back in the day?

In "ye old days", I used to play with the LofL rules, with some tweaks here and there taken from a couple of RPGs (skills from D&D, fumbles tables from... Rolemaster, if I remember correctly, etc.). When I decided, a couple of months ago, to get back to RPGs, I was going to use the old LofL rules, but as I was adding and adding a lot of stuff from 3.5, I decided to switch completely to 3.5, with ONE rule I loved in LofL: the tactical use of shields (you roll a d6 when you have a shield) which is, IMHO, something that should exist "natively" in D&D.

For now, I'm reading all the material I have from LofL (I never, curiously, bought the book with the Elementalists), especially the last book, and trying to picture the world from a D&D point of view (the religious pantheon is one tough cookie to figure out actually). Thus far, I've remade the maps... :)

I'm still a long way to go, eh? :)

Whoa... Thank you all for your advice! ;)

In fact, since I last wrote, a friend of mine decided to join my soon-to-be game and she asked to play something I've never considered, a satyr... And it gave me ideas for my campaign!

I think I'll take it slow first, as Ultradan and Orcus mentioned, and let things go by themselves, just to see where they will take me...

Hi!
I need a bit of help and some pointers, so if you can bear to read me 'till the last line, your opinions will be appreciated… :)

Almost a decade after the days where I played D&D with some friends from high school, I re-discovered the fascinating world of RPGs and of Dungeons & Dragons, version 3.5… A lot of things have changed since "da ol' days" and it seems that 10 years is a long enough time to lose the creative and imaginative spark that drove my friends and I into night-long sessions.

10 years have passed now… I've read the D&D Core Rulebook time and again and I'm ready to start off a new campaign. But two important things are still missing: a few good people to play with… and a campaign world to play into. While the first "problem" can mbe taken care of quite easily, the latter one is more difficult. One question always spring to my mind: where to start?

I don't even talk about the technicalities such as planar locations, currency, traditions, etc. I'm stuck at the beginning: what world should I use? As a "reborn" D&D player/DM, I'm a bit bewildered by the sheer amount of campaign settings published. What could be the best for a "rookie" like me (let's face it, 10 years without table-top RPG is too long a time to ever hope to stay "in shape"!), considering that the players I've "scouted" will also be newbies to RPGs?

I was considering the idea of adapting to 3.5 rules a campaign setting I used back then. It was The Lands of Legend, a campaign setting/RPG created by Dave Morris (does Cornumbria or The Selentine Empire rings a bell to someone?) that I'm quite fond of, but converting the material I have to D&D "standards" is a bit daunting to say the least…

Can you help a fellow RPG player? It seems I've lost the touch of "playing God" with the passing years… :)