We have been trying out various changes from Unchained in our PF-core games. We use the more gritty HP system and now are using the Variant Multiclassing. The verdict is we like it a lot. It has toned down some of the silliness yet still opens up players to have unique character concepts.
Anyone else try the variant rule out?
I must express my gratitude at Paizo once again producing a beautiful product. Pathfinder Unchained is glorious to look at. I'll admit many of the Paizo Pathfinder RPG range my group does not use many of the 'advanced' rules as for us the game becomes to complex, but that doesn't mean I don't proudly show off my Pathfinder RPG book collection!
We currently play our version of Pathfinder Core (meaning Core rule + Bestiary 1 only), but with Unchain we have started using Wound Thresholds and will let the Unchained 'Core" classes in likely.
Well done once again Paizo, you cemented my ongoing RPG subscription - yet again.
We have just finished a campaign using only the free downloadable rules. A few of the group were not keen on spending MORE money on ANOTHER game after 4e took our money but failed to really grab us. We all like PF but with all the books in play it has moved from fun to full time job to make a character*.
So we all agree Free 5e stuff only. It was some of the most fun RP sessions I have had in ages. Due to the more DM-friendly style of game it wasn't really a problem that the rules do cover everything and never slowed the game play down.
Anyone else for either moral or financial reasons going Basic 5e?
*We do like the idea of PF core and that will likely be our next game. Still 5e plays at the table very well in my opinion.
Back in the day where the choices were Basic/Expert D&D or AD&D (1e) we used the full table of weapon to hit modifiers against armour class (when it went from 10 down).
We had a retro-game using 1e AD&D the other weekend and again used the weapon vs armour adjustments. We were reminded how good they were at making weapons different and interesting. For example against a platemail + shield opponent a Long Sword gets a -2 to hit, whereas the Footman's Pick get +2. A full 40% advantage using the pick against a heavily armoured person. The reverse is true against unarmoured opponents.
-7 to hit with quarter staff against platemail + shield!
I really like this. I think unlikely, but I would like to see this as an option in d20 type D&D.
I'm not sure which versions I have downloaded and have become confused (more so than usual). I thouht that the 'full' versions had hyper-links in the PDF's the lite version did not. Then I fine both my full and lite version of 6th printing Core don't have links but both the full and lite versions of the 3rd printing Bestiary do?
Can someone kindly clear this up for me.
This sort of came up in another thread but got me thinking. How do people treat social skills. The extremes being, player say I do X and a dice is rolled and the other where the player spells out word by word how the social skill will work and then a dice is rolled (or perhaps the GM allows for auto-success or failure based on what was said?).
My personal approach is;
As GM I never let the social roll happen unless the player can describe what they are trying to achieve and how. Not the details, just the intent and the general idea of how they mean to go about it. For example the player might wish to make a soldier angry. That is the intent. They then would say how, insult his fighting skill? Imply his wife was also into a bit of extra martial sword play? The more background and story they inject into the scene the better. Then I'll usually assign a bonus or penalty. Generic insult against an NPC they know quite a lot about would be a minus to the roll, but using that knowledge to hit him where it hurts a bonus.
So at least in social skills I demand some Roleplaying before the Rollplaying is allowed. There are massive array of combat rules but bugger all social rules and I believe both are equally important in an RPG. Games like The Burning Wheel treat them pretty much equally - and I try to in PF. Combat is relatively boring and codified by Jason et al, players talking in character around the table with a few rolls and the infinite realm of imagination, now that is awesome. <note my personal opinion of GoodRightFun>
There is a thread for players to give an opinion on the Ultimate 4 person party.
So how about a thread about how, within the PF rules for encounters, you as GM would TPK such parties? Make the hours the players spent trolling the books, and posting for advice on these very forums, a one encounter waste of their time. If the players have to run away like frightened Kobolds I think that is a still a win.
One rule is no countering with NPC's and only using PF rulebooks.
I haven't really chosen an example yet, so I won't start the ball rolling.
Be nice to have a few tricks up my GM sleeve I can pull out when the players are being smug CharOp'd annoyances...
I am a self confused Magic Shop hater. As mainly a GM I find that magic shops kill the wonder and excitement of finding magic items in an adventure. No point dancing for glee as the Identify tells you the sword you hold in your hand is a mighty +2 weapon when the guy beside just brought 3 +5 Dragon Slaying swords on special at the local mall.
That aside... On page 460 & 461 of the Core book the myth of the ultimate magic shop in every town is dispelled (well for me).
Community size is the tab the GM can adjust to make sure that while a magic shop exists it doesn't offer 'buy-now' options.
Armed this this my latest campaign starts the characters (1st level) in a Hamlet with a Village not too far away - but enough to get into trouble. So where they have started their adventures they have a 75% chance of getting an item 200 gp or less they are specifically after, along with the d6 randomly determined minor magic items. The village along the road will up the ante to 500 gp or less and some random medium items. If I decide to use the biggest community (the metropolis, 16,000 gp limit) then still items in the +5 power range can't be specifically purchased off the shelf. Roleplaying, random luck, making, or adventuring is required for these god-like magicks.
So I must apologise to Paizo for my nerd-rage cries against their system that neutered the GM's power over 'giving nice things'.
This came up in game - the player had also missed (or conveniently forgotten) this particular set of rules. But in the end RAW came to my rescue. The complaints I hear now is that they don't know where to find a city. Glorious thing about home brew campaigns, the players don't have a GPS like knowledge of the entire planet...
Our group has discovered the existence of the Potion Miscibility Table in the Playtest Magic Item section.
It's little inclusions from the D&D of old that make this upcoming version so exciting for us. No more will characters be knocking back multiple potions prior or during a fight/encounter without the potential of something untoward occurring.
Now if we can only get the teleportation table put back in...
A few minor things we don't quite either get or like in D&D Next to date, but overall, and given its early days, and excellent foray into bringing D&D into the new decade. If they keep it up I can see D&D Next being the main stay of our gaming group (mid-30's to 40's age bracket).
Firstly, I really like the idea of limits to stats. Another simple way to control bonuses. I see they have gone for a flat max of 20. I would like ultimately to see an optional rule based around race (as of old). Racial stat maximums always made sense to me. I think 18 would be a good ceiling for humans and then but perhaps each non-human race could have two stats where one tops at 20 and the other 16?
Or something like that.
We have been giving D&D next a serious playtest (meaning serious time). With the release of the levels 6-10 in the playtest we discussed how we think the game is going some far. One highlight of the game for us (we generally agreed) was the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic. We find it fast and produces great results without making things a certainty (boring) or being too underpowered result-wise. Having an Advantage doesn't seem as fun as seeing someone roll a disadvantage - we had the extreme of a 20 and 1 the other night. The crest fallen look on the players face has she had to take the 1 and not the vaulted and coveted 20! Classic. D&D next to date is producing 'old school' joy with a very streamlined set of mechanics.
D&D next is really coming together nicely. I hope they keep the KISS approach (Keep It Simple Stupid). So far a winning formula.
4e I tried and played because I thought I should, it was fun but with a lower case 'f' - D&D next is on my advanced Christmas list.
So levels 6-10 here we come!
I always liked this type of system to circumvent some of the modifiers in a skill test / combat etc ever since first encountering it in Blue Planet V2 (~2000).
It is such a powerful yet simple simple to move the odds either in favour or else of a roll without adding more cumbersome modifiers.
For me I a HUGE fan of this. But what do others think? Like? Dislike? Don't care?
I'm hoping they keep this system but I guess it'll come down to feedback from the play testing.
So far 5e is shaping up to be the fantasy system I have been looking for. I would love to see race/class restrictions (I'll live without level limits however).
I'll also add I think the development of the "saving throw" to the new mechanics is so obvious but is genius!
I was thinking that 5e (from the play test) is a great counter-point to PF. PF is the behemoth evolution of 3.5e that gives those who love the character optimisation with numerous widgets to play with a, let face, awesome game with massive publishing values.
From the playtest 5e material I have now read it is actually old school feel in a modern wrapping! Now I discounted comments of 'old school' regards 5e, before I read the material myself. How could a new game have an old feel? Well I was at least based on playtest material at least took me back to sitting around with friends on the floor 27 years ago looking in wonder at this thing called D&D.
I didn't see 5'-steps, or squares, or any of the 3e/4e things that annoyed the crap out of me.
If 5e continues to develop this way I can see myself investing in the core PHB/DMG/MM set without thinking twice.
For those curious I would recommended the 15 minutes out of your RPG life to download the playtest material and read it.
I am NOT a WotC fan-boy, it took me a year or so to give 4e ago and even now I would rather play 4e Essentials rather than 4e Core. But I have warmed to this new 5e D&D (and I think this time it REALLY is D&D) on first reading.
I have started playing (as in yet to have our first session) in a group using Google+ Circles. The person running the game is going to be using The Burning Wheel Gold, I brought a copy ($25 for 600 pages...), that has yet to arrive.
Has anyone played this game? Anything I should know about the game before playing? We had a one-off called Lady Blackbird, a steampunk sort of affair that got us using the dice mechanics, but other than that I'm new to this system. 600 pages will be a lot to take in before we start making characters...
Any thoughts, including a character idea that would work for a Renaissance Italy era fantasy (low magic) game would be appreciated.
Hi Paizo Publishing LLC (given I believe under law Paizo is a person right),
I would like to thank you for the Lite version of the rules that I can nimbly access from my mobile devices. All for the price of, er, zero dollars extra beyond what I have paid.
It is my personal belief that when Pazio formed it started with and attracted "The A-Team", it follows then that 'other companies' got stuck with the B-Team. My opinion and I'm claiming 1st Ammendment rights.
Although your class/feat-bloat drives me nuts as a DM (oops, I mean GM)your products are like Roleplaying Cocaine. Darn you - but keep making them you hear!
Regards and happy gaming,
I met a group of 5 persons who were still playing PF Beta using v3.5 MM's. They had no interest in my new flash 5th printing PF corerules whatsoever. They, on average said they disagreed with many changes made from beta to final production version. I did point out that the 5th printing had many changes from the 1st printing - as Borg they told me beta works why change? Hard to argue with that.
That got me thinking, does anyone else still use the beta rules?
Of the 5, 3 had actual Paizo printed beta rules and 2 had print outs.
Hit Points in 3e+ is perhaps one of the central 'mechanics' that caused silly power bloat. By bringing back a maximum number of 'rolled + CON bonus' hit dice, designers (and DM's) will then have once again limits on damage output required to make a challenge a challenge. The 3e+ system (actually made worse by PF) is just crazy. Monsters and characters with HP's numbers higher than I can count, to no real purpose that I can see. It is not too much of a problem to increase a PC's abilities without requiring massive amounts of HP's (and therefore damage output).
If not RAW than an option in 5th ed. would be appreciated.
Down with HP's...
[I like the simple concept of HP's just not the HP inflation that has plagued D&D since 3e]
I'm been a little out of the loop regards the new sneaking rules and their effect on some of the monster abilities.
So are these in force now? Are they or will they be in later printings of the Core Rulebook and Bestiaries? Or is this just going to be an FAQ web-type rule change?
Many thanks, and apologies if this is a dumb-arsed question.
I have always had issues with the idea of magic item shops, but after actually reading the rules (had to happen sooner or later) I find they aren't bad as I had figured they would be.
So I have been applying RAW, meaning the 75% of finding an item of X gp value or less depending on the size of the community. Some of my players have begun noticing that the base value is actually not that high - and given my home brew setting the largest community (they know of) is only Large City scale, meaning a base gp value of 8,000 gp. The fighter is complaining that means he has only a 75% change of getting a +2 weapon from this city.
I feel I'm just applying the rules as presented and don't have to change a thing, whereas 2 of 5 players want the gp value restriction removed because it limits their ability to 'choose' their magic items to meet there optimization requirements.
Players are only 4th level so not a huge issue yet.
Should I remove the limit? I personally, as GM, like the limit.
What do other people do?
I was thinking about 5e and playtesting. I then got thinking what can 5e bring to the gaming table that Pathfinder and 4e doesn't already? As pointed out Pathfinder is a modified 3.5e. 4e stood out from PF due to the 'powers' mechanic. If 5e keeps the powers mechanic then will 5e really only be 4.5e? If 5e goes back to Vancian casting etc, then what can it do that Paizo hasn't already done?
I think WotC have backed themselves in a corner and will have to really come out fighting to maintain D&D as 'the brand'.
What can 5e do to make Races or Classes any different in function? The d20 mechanics are pretty much well established, and other than tinkering, what can be added?
So 3e's wow factor was the d20 system, 4e's wow factor was the power mechanics, 5e's wow factor ???
Right now PF and 4e give different gaming experiences due to the mechanical differences. If 5e moves away from 4e's structure where could it move? Towards the 3.5e/PF ideas - I don't see the point, Paizo have now had enough experience with 3.5e OGL to 'fix' quite well many of the 3.5e complaints and continue to refine. In short Paizo has shown it can do as good of a job advancing the 3e d20 mechanics as WotC.
So what direction can 5e take?
My take is they need to continue along the path 4e has set them on rather than trying to find 'something new' or 'taking a step back'.
As an aside from another thread the topic of targeting came up. I see this is pivotal in the feel of the game.
(1) Warcraft-like: click the foe and spam keys.
(2) Skyrim-like: run after the foe and spam keys.
(3) Something else
What floats your boat?
For me Warcraft-like with AoE's hitting friend/foe within the given radius.
Thanks for making 2011 a role-playing year of fun and interesting things.
Hope the holiday season gives you all time to unwind and relax with family and friends before us needy gamers start complaining, I mean giving helpful suggestions, to you in 2012.
Thanks for the hard work guys, it's nice to be able to receive products that show care and passion went into their creation, rather than something off the production line.
Kindest Regards and hope 2012 is even better than 2011 for you,
PS: Thanks also to all the persons on the boards for interesting discussions and thought provoking topics. Sometimes it's good to be a geek :)
A thing that would really make this game stand out for me, and turn it into a must play game, would be having the concept of ecosystems.
If herd animals were attacked by prey animals, if animals rather than having a set respawn population had rules like the simulation "Life" type programs. Running past the same 5 deer every time no matter on day/night/season/weather is dull in WoW/WAR/nearly every MMO game.
Are we at the level of computing power where the environment, and I'm thinking initially animals here, can have a life of their own? In a skill based game where blacksmith, and I guess skinner/tanner is a valid option, such game enhancements would really make PF Online stand out from the crowd.
Would anyone else be interested in the game not having a cardboard cutout for the environment?
Imagine a bad winter, and suddenly resource X or Y is in short supply - adds interest for me.
It would appear that this game will be Pathfinder in background only. While Paizo has excelled at creating a world, players expect things to behave in a certain way, i.e. the d20 mechanics of PF. While this may be a good game, it won't be Pathfinder as the PnP crowd know it.
Obviously this means that if you are expecting a Pathfinder experience in-silico you will be sorely disappointed even if it turns out to be the next big thing in MMORPG's.
Does this matter to you?
Wouldn't simple solution be to base who can PvP on relative levels. PC's of about the same level can bash each other, but not lower level PC's. Perhaps justify in terms of low level PC's just not being worth while and high level PC's are too dangerous. That means the world can be always ON for PvP, but you will only ever face off against those of similar power. Also would stop the Warcraft 'baiting' where a PC of roughly your level and you go PvP and then their Uber-level friend decloaks and one-shots you.
What you think?
First let me say nearly all of my PF games are Core Only, so feats/rules from UC/UM or Settings books I'm very fuzzy on. Please bear with me if this is a stupid question.
I get the RAGE (it's a Barbarian after all)
But POUNCE, the only reference I can find is in the Bestiary. How does AM BARBARIAN get pounce?
Given I believe the damage is calculated based on doubled damage with the LANCE that the AM BARBARIAN is mounted. So am I right in assuming the POUNCE is from the mount? If so. How does the POUNCE ability get transferred to the Barbarian on it's back? Isn't that sort of like having one Wizard piggy-back the other then saying the he now gets all of the (Ex) abilities of the Wizard on the bottom?
I would get if you say BOTH mount and Barbarian are charging giving the mount ALL it's attacks and the Barbarian a single attack - but I don't see how the Barbarian ends up with all her attacks also?
Trying to understand,
I was wondering what the End Game will look like. Is this going to be a Warcraft clone, by this I mean 'instances' where you kill a boss and then repeat tens to hundreds of times so everyone gets the 'drop'? Warcraft fails horribly to maintain a 'roleplaying/questing' aspect at the highest level.
Any thoughts on being different? Warhammer tried to make PvP the central theme to differentiate from Warcraft - what will PF Online be looking to do?
Of course Warhammer as gone the way of the dodo.
My 30th anniversary edtion Call of Cthulhu book arrived today and the care at which it had been packaged was impressive to say the least.
Even had the plane it was on when it flew from the US to NZ had crashed I'm sure the search and rescue recovery team would have found the Black Box and my book still intact and in perfect condition!
Thanks for taking such care in shipping this item, nice to deal with people who seem to love books as much as I do.
It will now sit proudly along side my 20th anniversary edition.
Back in the good ol' days Halfling were Figters and/or Thieves. In fact all the races had limitations on which classes they could be. Along came 3e and this was erased along with level limitations. Now I can live with the removal of level limiations but the every race can be every class just seems completely un-D&D. I like my Pathfinder to be played like D&D, so for me D&D = Pathfinder. But 3e really lost me on the D&D feel, and Pathfinder inherited this.
I've been thinking that it is not the rule mechanics but the underlaying philosophy that I'm missing. I think the biggest problem is this cosmopolitain approach to race/class. All my experience with fantasy has lead me to believe that Dwarves don't cast spells - runes yes, spells no, Hobbits/Halflings don't become necromancers, etc. Gnome barbarian, really?! I guess the natural stat bonuses of the races lead people to not make Halfling Paladins? Paladins are humans - simple, why because D&D told me so. Why did this did changed?
I have my 1e books to guide me on the classes in the PF Corerules, but the classes in the UM/UC are a little harder to place. Witches aren't too bad to place - Human, 1/2-Elf, Elf, done. But Inquisitors?
Any suggestions? Do other feel that the d20 equal opportunity emplyment act makes life a little more difficult for the GM when creating a world?
Interested on your thoughts,
I have 3 players all new to "D&D". I tried to get them started on Pathfinder, but it's more daunting than 3.5e when you read the classes. I never thought I would be saying 3.5e is less complicated than anything - but Paizo wins for adding more choice than a new players brain can handle. So I whipped out my 3.5e corebooks (blew of the dust) and they seems far more comfortable with the more limited choices. Question is, what should a party of 3 look like to give them a fun game in 3.5e? Been a while since I've looked at 3.5e so suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Remember new players to d20 D&D that I don't want to scare off. I'll wear kid-gloves while DMing but I want them to do fun things. They'll be 5th level in a one-off game to start.
Our group is now of a level high enough for a player to take options from the Critical Focus feat tree. That got us looking at them in a little more detail, rather than just being aware they exist.
Bleeding, Mastery, Staggering and Stunning all seem fair enough.
But Blinding, Deafening (even worse), Sickening, Tiring, and Exhausting are (and excuse my language) freak'n silly. Mechanically I'm sure they are fine and fill a role but in terms of trying to imagine how they would come about?!
What if my M sized fighter is fighting a giant of 30' in height and blinds or worse deafens the giant with a sword! All I see is a fantasy version of the Three Stooges. Larry the warrior runs up the giants knee and pokes him in both ears?! We can only assume it's one ear at a time as driving a sword through the giants head to get to both ears would result in death of the giant one would think. Sickening - perhaps the monsters was male and you caught him in the dangly bits, but other than that? All PCs/Monsters can fight FOREVER until their hp's run out but appearantly by some unimaginable feat (no pun intended) the Tiring/Exhausting trained warrior can wearout the monster?
For me these are cases where mechanics were written with little thought to the greater context - i.e. a role playing game.
I know this seems late in the piece, but we only just got to a level where these become possible in play.
How do players/DM handle these? Mainly the size problem of a blinding/deafening strike - most H/G creatures should/would be immune to an M sized opponent doing this you would think. I like to run things RAW but these feat leave me cringing.
I'm trying to decide whether to cancel my RPG subscription to avoid the Beginner Box or not. Part of me thinks given the postage to NZ is worth more than the game (nearly $50US postage) I'm stupid to get it. However, another part of me thinks that I'll have far more chance getting people interested in Pathfinder if I don't present the Core-'tomb-o-doom' rulebook and scare them off. So my question is what levels/classes are present in the Beginners Box - the Pazio advert page doesn't really say - or I missed it. Either way could some kind soul enlighten me please?
I ordered "Classic Horrors Revisited (print edition)", but have received "Undead Revisited (print edition)". I'm happy keeping the Undead book, it is very nice, but I would like to order the Classic Horrors book, as I was more interested in that. If I put an order in for the Classic Horrors book could you please, please check that is indeed the book being sent. More of a Vampire/Werewolf classic horror sort of guy.
The packing sheet has the right book, only the book is the, er, wrong book.
Stefan Hill, Order # 1718838.
Fact all of the Pathfinder hardback books are of the highest print standard with some of the freshest and best fantasy artwork currently available.
The Bestiaries are no exception to this. Why would I call them 'trophy wives'. Well, because they are fantastic looking, great in bed (or if you prefer to read on a couch, there too), but ultimately shallow and unsatisfying. These books are not what I would call a bestiary, more of the manual - but that word is taken. These bestiaries are more like the manual to get with your car or toaster. Nothing in them is there to spark imagination. Many complained about the 4e Monster Manual having a shallow treatise on critters, but after reading the description of the various Dragons (iconic creatures) in Paizo's offering I'm left wondering what people who haven't lived through 1e --> PF really get out of the books other than a list of walking/flying/swimming CR's.
The 2e Monsterous Manual is a good example of a good balance between cruch and fluff. But the approach taken by Black Industries in their 2e Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay Bestiary almost bring tears to the eye it is such a thing of beauty. As a DM I stumble over player's section of this book with adventures and ideas firing every neuron I own (that's right ALL five of them). For those who haven't had the life changing experience of viewing the 2e WFRP Bestiary, it's divided rough in half. The first half has what commoners and learned experts know of the creature in question. No stats such glorious prose. Second half has functional descriptions and the cruncy-bits. It is art, oh and has nice artwork also.
Now back to Paizo's Bestiaries. Stats = YEP, Art = Oh, Yes!, Imagination sparking content = Zero.
Would any others, well other than I, REALLY appreciate a Gazetteer & Gazetteer 2 that has nothing but 'stuff' about the creatures from the Bestiaries - slant it to Golarion by all means. The Adventure Paths from Paizo show that they have an awesome eye/ear/nose for a story and imagination. They CAN make every creature an adventure waiting to happen, rather than being nothing more than part of a CR-budget for encounters.
A DM, ahem, GM, that wants to be inspired,
Alter Self gives you +2 STR if you take on a medium humaniod shape and +2 DEX if you take on a small humaniod shape.
Huh? So I go from being say a Medium human into let's say another human with lighter skin (different race) and I gain +2 STR, why? Conversely if I was say a Gnome and become a Medium human I gain +2 STR but do I lose the bonuses for being Small? A 16th Druid can have either +2 STR or +2 DEX all the time. Halfing becomes a Gnome and gets +2 DEX, etc, etc.
Something just doesn't seem right about this spell,