Remy Grondin's page

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?

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?

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?

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!

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 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")?

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 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)?

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?

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!

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… :)