Stefan Hill's page

There will never be "the edition", asking for PF 2.0 is simply a stepping stone to asking for 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, repeat...

The trick is to have fun 'within the limits' of the version you are playing.

To paraphrase Mel from Serenity:

"Perfect RPG, that's a long wait for a train that don't come."

Likely been covered, late to the discussion...

But I like the contained stats of 5e (and previously 1/2e). Gives me context that I can relate to. The unbounded and HUGE numbers of 3e/PF made stats seem alomst meanginless. I have a 50 foot long dragon that is at a disadvantage in "pluses" against a human in an arm wrestling competition? Never sat well with me. It seems like a new things but 1/2e were bounded but it never had a name. Actually human women were bounded even further to 17 STR... Let's not get into that discussion.

My views of course are coloured by the main period I played D&D.

I really like 5e, and wish that (for me) this came out as 3e WAY back in the early 2000's. I would have had far more time to play!

S.

I don't mind options, what I don't like is minor variations on a theme for classes that basically fill the same niche. If I want a Witch I can have one using either a Wizard/Sorcerer or Cleric - or a multiclass of these. Hexes you cry - er, I think the spell Curse also fits that bill. Charm Person seems right for a Witch also. I don't think 'but it uses a different stat' is reason enough for a whole new class.

Do we have a STR based caster yet? What about Brute Caster: using strength alone the caster rips open the very fabric of the universe spilling motes of raw magical energy. These motes are molded in the vice-like grip of the Brute Caster releasing the spell! Now we just find all the spells that fit the strength theme and write down a few level abilities and class done. Pad out with fluff and slap $39.99 + postage on it.

I would far rather Paizo focus its considerable talents on awesome adventure paths, adventures, and perhaps setting material (on the fence about this).

My only real PF gripe, the rogue/thief - give it back the uniqueness of abilities it had in 1e/2e. 3e did a huge disservice by making 'thieves abilities' effectively open to everyone.

Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:

Those other people are more than free to play the literally hundreds of other options out there for tabletop RPGs.

I am not there in person, so I can't quite see the guns being held to the heads of those complaining about Pathfinder while they roll the dice, hands shaking for fear of having their brains blown out if they choose another competitive option.

With f&!+ing who?

We don't play Pathfinder because it's good, we play it because it's f!$@ing popular and getting together a table of a better game is nigh impossible.

"Play something else" is f#+~ing useless advice.

Its the VHS vs Beta Max argument all over again...

I also think bloat is personal era dependent. Back in the dim dark past there was really only the red books, and then Expert. From there I moved to 1st ed. and brought all the books (PHB, UA, DMG, MM, MM2, Fiend Folio, and Deities and Demigods). I guess you could class UA as 1st ed. bloat? Then moving onto 2nd ed. I brought EVERYTHING that TSR spat out, campaign settings, 'complete' books the works. That was bloat of the first order. Even the author of The Complete Book of Elves has an apology on YouTube video for that piece of crap. Still I was in my early twenties and bloat was good, more options, more rules, more, more, more!!!

Now in my mid-40's bracket I can't be bothered with all that b@$~$+!s, I want simple straight forward rules. If I was twenty again I would be begging Paizo to release more 'bloat'. As it is I care little for the splat books these days, interesting to read but I don't really care to learn the new rules. Back then I had no money but shed loads of time, now I have money but no time. Ironic...

20-25 years ago I had a completely different view of what I wanted out of an RPG. Great thing is with an RPG you can play the way you like and Paizo are unlikely to send out the police because you aren't playing the 'one true way'.

2 cents,
S.

I vote we also advance the spell progression charts a bit to even out the spellcasters.

Of course, we'll need to create 10th - 19th level spells so that they can advanced to having something more powerful than they begin with.

If you don't want a tonne (or ton) of lawyers coming down on Paizo then 10th level spells are out. Dark Suns (2e) had 10th level spells and it wasn't part of the OGL I believe. So Casters can have levels 1-9 and then 11-19 spells only I'm afraid. To balance out this how about all Melee classes start with only one leg? They of course can get another by spending feats.

Other than that, I like the way you are going with this Kthulhu.

I had a halfling paladin once ;_;

Is it dead? Say yes and make my day ;)

I would rather see Paizo produce its Adventure Path's and setting for 5e D&D and continued support for its current PF game rather than see Pazio spend time on a 2e PF Core rule set.

will be a success in spite of WotC, but certainly not because of them.

I take it you mean others at WotC - the design team of 5e ARE WotC also. I give them huge credit for what they have achieved. I am sure that WotC management above were aware and supportive of this creation. I find it difficult to believe that 5e is a product of after-hours and weekend work.

S.

If Hasbro wanted to sink D&D I'm not sure letting WotC produce the very well thought out (not perfect, but what is?) 5e D&D was the correct move. Unlike 4e, 5e seems to have cemented rather than polarized the D&D crowd. Or perhaps they just want us all in on place when Hasbro lets the hammer fall? Sneaky darn evil corporates.

4e killed my long time D&D group (fact), 5e brought it back together (fact).

S.

There is no denying it has fewer points of customization than 3.x though.

And far fewer 'trap options'. Simplicity is something I think works in 5e. Well until they ruin it with the inevitable splat books.

Knocking things out. No fluffing around with 'non-lethal damage'. On the hit that the thing would have been killed you can just say I'm knocking them out rather than killing.

One of my players actually bothered to read the rules rather than relying on Mr DM. I had my evil captain of the guard about to be killed after a non-battle mat fight (I'm TotM with the odd scribble if required). But on the killing blow the player announced first he wasn't killing the chap and then what page number in the rules as a stared at him.

He was completely right. Simple but really awesome rule. The player described he, at the last minute, reversed his sword stroke and bashed the dude between the eyes with his pommel. Chalk one prisoner up for the PC's. They finally released him for some concessions from the evil Barron.

****************************************

Also we are finding not having to so heavily rely on magic items makes for a better story at times. We have no Wizard (so take that into account), but I had the players arrested, which they decided was the best way into the castle. Now under 3e/PF removing all of the players items in such a fashion to throw them in prison would be met with cries of how the GM had ruined their character. Not a peep under 5e, in fact, as I said, this was their plan.

So the heroes being the heroes rather than organic attachments of the magic items is a huge win of 5e for me.

S.

After all the chat about Old Greyhawk on another thread, I'm going back to 1st and 2nd ed..no 5th for me.

Which was always an option from the time 3e came out. Still some do not really like the 'mother may I' that is usually leveled at 1e/2e AD&D.

Still I have been re-reading the 1e DMG cover to cover and I'm always surprised how much of the 'new and cool rules' attributed to the wonderful d20 system were already in 1e and as far as rule went worked fine.

S.

I think Hasbro seems to have gotten out of the "selling brands" business after Hasbro Interactive/Infogrames/Atari. I suspect that they'd rather mothball a brand they don't wish to actively support instead of selling it.

Besides Paizo and Pathfinder is its own brand now. Most players of D&D are well aware of Pathfinder. Not sure that Pathfinder becoming D&D is really needed.

I'll gladly carry around my iPad with all my RPG's and enjoy it.

And I like using Masterwork Tools Pathfinder OGL on my android tablet!

But neither means you aren't invited to my D&D by candle light game with books and dice after civilization as we know it comes to an end.

PDFs are tricky things. They are convenient... they save trees... they're cheaper...

Compared to paper made from sustainable forestry PDF's are worse for the planet. You need to have a powered device to view a PDF and renewable power is still just a fraction of the global requirements. Do the planet a favor and buy a book.

That and after the zombie apocalypse, killer plague, meteor strike, alien envasion - I'll be whiping out my books and dice and playing D&D. I feel sorry for those in the post-apocalyptic world that need to wait for power generation to be invented again to play. Still, class this post as an open invite to my game :)

It has already been said, but the truth is there isn't the 80/90's market around anymore. I have nearly every supplement from the 2e era, I didn't eat some weeks to afford the next Ravenloft splat book. That rabid desire in the 21st century is for video game based entertainment. My hours and hours of time spent reading the 1e/2e paper printed (no PDF's) monster manuals thinking of adventures to inflict on my players (which I had NO problems finding, in fact I had a waiting list) is more likely now spend on Destiny or Halo etc.

Nothing WotC (or Paizo) can do will change that. The table-top game is now a shadow of its former self. I don't blame Hasbro for wanting to make money, they are not a charity (neither is Paizo), and computer based entertainment is where it is at.

I don't think TTRPG's will die, thanks to companies like Paizo and WotC (D&D) running in a financially viable way our niche (very niche now) hobby will continue to tick over for decades to come.

So I do not think WotC - D&D is evil, in fact I thank the people in the D&D pen & paper division keeping the paper version available. It must be a hard sell and getting harder to convince Hasbro to commit resources each year. The team at WotC are all that stands between D&D TTRPG and D&D being solely an electronic game based brand.

S.

Interesting question. We have own own campaign world and we write our own stories (adventures). Pathfinder Unchained was a surprise to us. But the balancing of core classes against other core classes makes the whole playing core more enjoyable and some of the optional rules (like damage threshold) for us were very welcome. We like gritty, and even though Unchained warns against the death spiral - assuming your GM isn't a dick this can lead to surrender rather than slug-fests until one side is destroyed. We like that idea.

So in answer, the continued quality, art work and readability - even of books we don't use in play add to our continued support of Paizo. I even splashed out on the Werewolf AP - not so closet Ravenloft fanboy from WAY back. Haven't played it but ideas became part of OUR game. So I'll continue to purchase PF RPG books and read them because they give me ideas. I would buy a Corebook 'revised' (better core class balance etc) but would need to think hard about any Corebook V2 that invalidated anything that went before.

Actually while I have your attention... :)

A version of the rules that like 2e/5e D&D didn't hard code the use of miniatures in the combat rules. We are firmly Theater of the Mind in game and sometimes the PF combat RAW make this difficult. I know MANY love the battle board and I have No issue with how others play. But if PF could possibly cater for the non-battle board/miniatures style of play it would be awesome!

So what about releasing 'Pathfinder Core RPG - Pen & Paper only version'?

Cheers,
S.

Are you going to keep expanding your "free rules" campaign as more free pdfs get released, such as the new elemental stuff? Also, keep checking back in the basic rules, as WotC supposedly will keep updating and slowly expanding them.

Yep, as they release free stuff. As my players get more comfortable with the game I'm sure they will think about buying the full rule books. But for now and until the gun-shy reaction that 4 e caused wears off we'll just keep adding 'free' bits and pieces as WotC release them.

Good sign for 5e is with the Elemental release my players decided to have another 5e bash rather than PF CORE. Not a comment to which game is better or worse but I do like DMing 5e. Oh the power ;)

(1) Ravenloft adventure (original 1e redo VERBATIM as 5e, nothing related to the less than appealing 3.5e version).

(2) Ravenloft setting as a hardback (last 2nd ed. version as a template)

That's about it really, quite easy to please me :)

The industry can be best described as "cottage". It will eventually all be kickstarter type stuff for a dedicated core of people holding on to their favorite hobby. It is never going to be as big as it was in the Eighties, sorry.

And the most depressing comment of decade goes to...

Mainly because I can't help but agree. I blame that new fangled microchip, we only had the potato chip back then.

This will likely be an unpopular view with some but... exactly none. Feat bloat makes games like 3.5e/PF a maze of trap options and really specific cases. 5th ed. has that nice open air feel. The more rules that take place under specific situations the more you, in my opinion, restrict the game and the input of the players imaginations.

Still nothing wrong with options that we can choose to ignore, meaning I hope any extra feats, and whatever else, are stated as options. The 4th ed. 'everything is core' was a pain in the butt.

Jester David wrote:

The catch is Paizo has been expanding a LOT in the past five years, really increasing their production. Monthly Player Companions, five hardcovers a year, and more. I've heard comparisons to TSR in it's peak. Having done the numbers myself, Paizo is comparable in terms of RPG books, even if you include the Realms and campaign settings (it does fall behind when you consider the magazines though).

We've just learned from our German translation partners that there are now more Pathfinder products in German than there have ever been D&D products—ever, regardless of edition. And while our French translation partners haven't actually counted, they believe the same is probably true for their language.

While I sometimes have issues with the underlying 3.5e mechanics, Paizo just make a darn beautiful product and given the level of staff interaction with the community, I'm not surprised at all.

Paizo being the new(ish) kid on the block has had to do the hard yards to prove themselves. I think WotC at times has relied on past, read as TSR, glories to sell their product.

I do think that 5e shows a new willingness of WotC to re-connect with the people who buy/play the game. But in this WotC are playing catch up, Paizo are the experienced masters at creating and maintaining a lively community.

Hats off to both companies, I like and play both games whenever I get the chance.

S.

I'm also on board with the randomness of advantage as opposed to numerical mods. Is this situation worth +1? +5? +7? Tough call, DM. Let the dice decide! You rolled a 5 and a 19? I guess it was worth +12 today, congratulations!

That is what we find with the Advantage/Disadvantage system, it has stopped the 'bean counting', every action has a degree of randomness.

I think WotC achieved what they were after a Roleplaying game with the charm of 2e AD&D.

I have found that in 1e/2e I used to use the lack of HP recovery after an encounter to help with the pacing and placement of further encounters. In PF for sure CLW have changed the way I design an adventure. To start with it really bugged me, the players were nearly always on full HP's straight after the encounter. The idea of beaten and broken heroes facing the odds and winning through still appealed to the GM in me. Then I discovered 'conditions', I now use those liberally in adventures. It is quite normal for my players to safely have all their HP's but have conditions to deal with. For me at least the HP's resource I see as a static number at the start of any combat, but the conditions my players are afflicted with change the encounter.

If adventuring were easy every one would do it ;)

It says a single move action only. And talking is a free action. So no talking.

And fair enough, ever tried talking while throwing up ;)

Ok, I'm going to take the plunge. When I can make my way to the FLGS I'm picking up the PHB. I like what I'm hearing, I liked most of what I saw in the Basic free PDFs, so Hasbro gets a second chance.

Where houstonderek goes others will follow :)

What I like about 5e so far is you can't do this:

So much complete loss of control of the rules

I spent 4 years getting a 1st ed. Magic-User to 16 level (playing nearly every lunchtime at school) and I don't think he managed 600 hp points of damage in TOTAL.

I am NOT saying PF is a bad game, just any semblance of in game controls to keep things sensible left by Teleport Without Error several years ago.

For me the huge strength of 5e is Adventurers are cool and do neat stuff but they are still just Folks (as Mal would say).

Funny how sometimes you have to choose between keeping your cake or eating it.

I hope that a 2 edition is a LONG way off. Backwards compatibility never really works, anything 100% backwards compatible is be default reselling you basically the same game. So a 2nd edition of Pathfinder will make some of the splat books not really useable 'off the shelf'. I don't mind the complexity of PF, with a I want a more rules light system than there is alway 5e D&D.

I am REALLY unlikely to buy PF books I already own just because they changed a few rules and added some new art. I like the sideways thinking of Paizo, the Occult book will be a nice addition for me.

S.

Stefan Hill wrote:

I do like the simple approach of 5e and it does make me think of 2nd ed a lot. But then I think, why don't I just play 2nd ed?

Probably because the 2nd edtion had problems.

The major problem I found with 2nd ed. D&D was it was fun. I found that from 3e onwards they seem to have cured my issue with 2nd ed. ;)

"Werewolf: Damage Immunities bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing
damage from nonmagical weapons that aren’t silvered."

This pretty much sums up what I like they have done with 5th ed. The whole 'if I hit hard enough with a stick I can kill anything' of 3e/PF drives me nuts. I had zero issues with some creatures being almost unstoppable with the players were dumb enough to go against them unprepared. Running away IS a valid tactic.

This retro-rule alone means I will be giving 5th ed. a real good go.

I do like the simple approach of 5e and it does make me think of 2nd ed a lot. But then I think, why don't I just play 2nd ed?

If it allows an easier entry point for new players into the RPG hobby, rather than computer based RPG's, then WotC gets the thumbs up from me.

I think Paizo is awesome also, but there is no comparison between Pathfinder and 5e other than they are both fantasy RPG's. They aren't in competition as they don't 'do' the same things, they are merely different ways of telling shared fantasy stories.

Glad BOTH games are going to be on the market.

Stefan Hill wrote:

After reading I am happy and will leave my Amazon pre-order in place.

You're not going to convert over from 2nd edition AD&D are you? :-(

Simply put... No. 5th still suffers from every race can be every class (shudder) and no level limits for demi-humans. Not to mention that demi-human is seen now as a racist term ;)

Can't make a world to play in with any d20 game!

Paladins are Human, full stop. Anything else is pure fantasy, er...

I think that WotC releasing the Basic D&D has allowed me to make an informed choice about buying into 5th, meaning PHB, DMG, and MM. After reading I am happy and will leave my Amazon pre-order in place.

Seems a very nice thing WotC has done. There were lots who complained, including some of my players, that they brought 4th (PHB/DMG/MM set) and thought WTF?! This sux, its WoW on paper, etc,etc...

Read the Basic rules and for ZERO dollars you can decide if the rules suit you and your group.

+1 to WotC from me.

Nice, something for free that isn't overly complicated and doesn't assume a combat grid.

I believe they did what they said they wanted to do.

Pleased.

Sebastrd wrote:

Hama wrote:

Won't buy, won't play. I will never, ever again touch anything with wizards of the coast logo.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

Hello there! I see you have met Darth Hama :)

I can understand a major lack of social capital when it comes to WOTC. The whole "never ever buy something from them again" seems a bit extreme. Companies can change folks. I think its prudent to never say never.

Agreed. Anyone buying Hugo Boss or Volkswagen? If we can get over WWI and WWII I would think that WotC crimes against humanity can be safely swept under the rug.

Bill Dunn wrote:

Terquem wrote:

anyone that is put off by the rendition of an upright walking, bipedal, human sized, Dragon headed, winged (or not), fire breathing, sentient, heroic, weapon wielding, five fingered (with opposable thumb), fantasy character, because it has breasts, is being, in my opinion, a bit ridiculous

Oh, I don't think so. I can easily see a legitimate criticism against the need to put breasts on a lizard woman to pander to juvenile male desires.

We're talking about a fantasy game race. The word "need" doesn't enter into anything.

This is just a case of certain people having just enough suspension of disbelief to allow for owlbears and beholders, but not enough to allow for breasts on something with scales.

As when I started playing D&D so I was literally a juvenile male I appreciated breasts on basically anything. That and chainmail bikinis.

Elmore and Parkinson are my childhood D&D artist heroes.

Sorry I was playing it wrong all those years then.

Never said you were. All I was saying was that 1e AD&D by Gygax et al and the tidy up called 2e was NEVER a generic fantasy game. That was it, end of my observation, no personal comments on your play style past or future.

The authors of 1e and 2e have written in their respective rulebooks why they believe limits are in place, if you choose to disagree with their reasoning then that is up to you. But make NO mistake the limits are there because the authors decided they needed to be there to make the game (called D&D) as they saw it should be - they are not an error or bad game design.

One thing I enjoyed about 2nd edition was the players I played with, and their attitude towards the numbers. As in, they didn't care about the numbers. People around me were happy with a 15 or 16 for their highest stat. Now if you don't have a 20 or 18 in a stat, people say your character is crap. It was a sad day when my group broke apart and I had to go into the sea of unknown people. And ever since 2003 when they revised 3rd edition, I only come across people who care about the numbers first and foremost, and they might come up with a character. They may even write a 2 sentence backstory if I am lucky!

I love the Pathfinder system, but I miss that feeling of playing with other people's characters, not other people's numbers.

I get what you mean. But I don't think the problem is people can't, just that you need to put a lot of time, into the so called System Mastery, to have a character that doesn't suck in 3e+.

I think in 1e/2e class was more important than stats (not that stats didn't help of course). So your character was rolled and ready to go in a short time and you knew it 'would work', under 3e+ if you aren't careful even with good stats your character could actually not be that helpful to the party.

S.

memorax wrote:

I completely and utterly disagree about a lack of level for Demi-humans as being a good thing. The explanation given to me always felt like the 2E devs liked playing humans. So to screw over someone wanting to play a Demi-human level limits were imposed. 3E is far from perfect. Good bye and good riddance to leave limits. Nor will anyone convince me otherwise. Any 2E game I'm running while have no level limits. Avoiding any 2E games as a player where level limits are implemented.

Yeah, that was a bad feature. I get the intent, but it didn't really work. You get to play the more powerful character now, but then you'll be crippled later.

Fair enough I suppose, if you're playing the kind of old school game where the thrill is the challenge of keeping the weak character alive long enough to earn a powerful one, but pretty useless in other styles. We'd usually just make a guess how long the campaign would last and pick a race class combination that would work the whole way. If you're stopping at 8th level anyway, who cares if you're limited to 9.

My emphasis - 1e/2e wasn't a generic fantasy RPG it was D&D. Never intended for 'other styles'. Like saying my screwdriver is really bad because it won't bang in nails.

By level 9 or 10 you were 'Name' level. Also remember that the common population was running around with 6-8 hp and really awesome castle may have a unit of 1st level fighters. High level fighters were reserved for running taverns it would seem...

3e+ changed expectations not only rules. Adventurers were truly special in 1e/2e - now the local lute player (say an Expert level 8) could beat the snot out of a low level fighter.

With 3d6 for stats the average is 9-12, that means classes like Druid, Ranger, Paladin etc made up a VERY small proportion of PC's and NPC's a like.

Comparing 1e/2e and 3e+ is rather silly (IMHO), COMPLETELY different games in terms of both mechanics, play and feel.

S.

Save or die poison and effects.

While simple bad luck could result in a death, raising people (well except Elves) was possible (-1 CON afterwards). Such effects did mean thinking was sometimes involved at the table rather than only during the character generation step.

Also, anybody who says that 2E was fun because the combat was FASTER than 3E was probably not playing it RAW. Unless you are possibly comparing playing without mini's in 2E to playing with minis in d20 and counting the set up time.

But 2e by default didn't use miniatures, 3e+ by default does.

That aside.

I prefer 2e IF you play core only. The Complete books and the Options really didn't add anything that seemed to improve the fun of our sessions.

My only issue with core 2e, and this has been pointed out, is a high strength Fighter using Darts machine gun.

I would say the initiative system of 2e for me is the best yet implemented by a D&D game. Added uncertainty each round and made tactically round to round decisions mean something.

3e+ allowing every race to play every class and have unlimited progression completely destroyed the D&D feel for me. Gnome Paladin! Give me a break. In 1e and 2e very good reasons are given for limits and advice NOT to change them. Arguing those limits were wrong is like arguing Gygax got the average height of an Elf wrong...

D&D was NOT a generic fantasy game, it had its own flavor independent of any setting.

S.

Not overly worried about the setting. We have used 1e Greyhawk (1986 boxed version) for every edition including PF.

Rathendar wrote:

I feel old now because i both remember and played all of Shinhakkaider's and Houstonderek's listed games above.

Thanks Guys!

/cry

Ha I ran a game of Rolemaster last night.

What you mean us you are still making up characters you started in the 80's... ;)

despite the fact that I miss 1e/2e dearly.

Given you can buy both these core products new (or really cheap 2nd hand - and in some case in better nick than any 4e/PF book) why don't you just get a group together and play either 1e/2e?

I do not understand the idea that if it isn't current it isn't playable?*

I give everyone my word that the CIA or FBI will not (at the urging of Hasbro of course) arrest you for playing an out of print game. And you can quote me.

*I am assuming that games are face to face. Perhaps wrongly.

As my only two 3pp works I own are Liche Lords and Dragon Lords by Mayfair games for 1e, I am not really worried about any sort of OGL.

3.5e/PF/4e having such a formal reliance on miniatures in play turned me off seriously adopting any of these games. I learned my D&D under 1e at High School were we played at lunch time (about 40 mins game time). We managed to play many adventures from TSR during a year due to the game not having a formal miniatures structure making combats much longer.

OGL never was something that made me want to try d20, it was more that it was the 'latet' version of a game I really liked.

My point... DDN doesn't assume miniature play so I am interested in having a bash and even if there is zero 3pp publications it won't influence my opinon of the game.

It is a tricky one, with the relese of the old D&D's from WotC all editions are sort of current. I know retro-clones have been around for a while. But why would I play those when I can buy a brand new copy of 1e?

Well done WotC I say. Good for the hobby, getting people involved for free. Don't care if they then move on to another game, just keeping Pen & Paper RPG's in the public eye is great.

The 1e character sheets had a line for each weapon so it wasn't such a pain to keep track of. No where near the seeming endless modifiers of 3e/4e.

I could run a battle from start to finish with players vs a dragon, some ogres, and an angry fish using 1e in about the same time it takes me to write down the initiative order in a d20 game... Modern mechanics, was a definite step in A direction.