Frosty Chiseler

TabulaRasa's page

140 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

If Pathfinder Online is very much about conquering and defending territories, how will you adress the fact that your player base might be spread across different time zones?

It would be sad if everytime Europe wakes up it discover that the land has been overtaken by North America overnight and vice-versa

Best regards and Merry X-mass

EVE online is given as an inspiration for Pathfinder Online. One thing I think you should directly take from them is their skill system.

Eve skill is very broad (a gazillion different skills) but very shallow ( only five levels from novice to master). It also accrete with time IRL (x hours/days to wait until next level)

I think it goes very well with a PVP oriented game. An older player is not inherently better, he is more versatile. This tends to level the playing field though an older player will continue to have an edge over a younger player.

It is very different from other game where level differences are huge. There is now way a level 40 can take on a level 60, which in my opinion will deter many people from PVP if you have to grind until you are maxed level wise.

The earning of skill level is also very good for keeping semi-active players involved. One thing I would change though I that I would go for a middle-ground. Your character should gain a set number of baseline xp per hour but should you decide to "grind xp" you would win additional xp.

Hence a player who put in the time will level faster but a player who does not will still see his character improve which will open new content to him an thus keep him in the game.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Congrats for the Dev blog. Your first posting was very informative.

You mention that developing theme park content is both time consuming and expensive, making it a poor return on investment. Your economic case was quite compelling.

However, I do not think you can skip on PVE content, especially when it comes to new players or older casual players.

Hence my suggestion: leverage your community by giving us the tool to do this for you.

Remember: Many of us are Dungeon Masters who would love to help you for the fun of it.

Developing good content with a limited set of artefacts (monsters/locations...) is challenging? Then challenge us. I think you could be surprised how creative your community could be.

Why not organise a contest a la RPGsuperstar? Give us a limited stock of NPCs, Monsters, Locations and other parameters you see fit and see what kind of interesting stories we can come up with.

It does not need to be complicated. Maybe the submission could take the form of a PDF with an outline of the plot, a limited number of cut scenes, a decision tree and a dungeon map? Nothing high-tech there.

... Not to mention that such a approach to content design would great a lot of goodwill and be quite out of the box and innovative.

Can you really say no to "free labour"?

EVE Online crops up in many descriptions of what Pathfinder Online could look like.

I am a player of EVE and one of the failing of this game (which I love by the way) is that PVE content is atrocious.

Yet most new players start with PVE. It is also a way to learn the game and "level" your character until you have the financial means to engage in PVP (losing ships costs). I wonder howbmany player CCP has lost to this and what does their new player attrition rate looks compared to other MMO. I would expect a much sharper drop owing to new player giving up on boring/repetitive content.

What would you do differently from the guys at CCP?

Pathfinder Online promises to be a sandbox type of game with an onus on PVP. Many parallels are made with EVE Online which is another example of sandbox type of game.

I happen to be a player of EVE and I do not understand exactly for what will we be fighting for.

In EVE, its pretty simple: Beyond the usual meta-game / big alliance politics (a.k.a. people with too much time and too much ego), people fight over resources or locations. I do not see how this can be easily applied to a medfan game.

Location: For those who do not know the game, you travel from solar system to solar system using jumpgates. Some solar systems have numerous routes flowing through them or are the only passage to access a valuable constellation. You fight to gain/retain control of those strategic points. You also develop technologies that allow you to immobilize your opponents so as to prevent him/her running away. How can you apply such a concept to a medfan game? I guess that in Pathfinder Online, you will be pretty much free to roam across the whole map. No strategic stranglehold you need to defend at all cost, except maybe a few bridges/ford/mountain passes.

Resources: EVE’s background is scifi. The universe is pretty high tech with mighty spaceshipd, long range weapons, sophisticated kit…etc. You need to gather lots of resources to build those ships, some of which can only be found in specific area (scarcity). Furthermore, building the said ships takes time and specialized manufacturing locations that you need to defend during the whole construction process. But in Pathfinder Online… how hard exactly will it be to craft my mark1 sword or my mark1 boiled leather armor? A lump of metal, a few hide… and there you go.

So, Dev, what exactly in your game will be worth me allying with other players and possibly dying for (or at the very least spending long hours in front of my computer)?

Best regards

I think this is a good question to ask. What lesson can you draw from the failure of other Medieval themed MMO?


I am a Game Master. By this I mean that I far prefer the role of GM than the one of player.

What will Pathfinder Online offer me?

Will there be a way for people like me to contribute content or adventures for the wider community to enjoy?



When will the beautiful Rise of the Runelords Dice Set become available? I thought they were for sale at the GenCon but when I ordered on the website they showed as pending....Please do not tell me you have already run out and that it will take 2 months to re-stock....please

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How did you convey to your players the backstory behind Nualia's revenge. The secret diary is an obvious ploy but it has already been used for Tetsuo.

I do not want to give the impression to my players that my big vilains spend their time writing down their feelings on paper rather than try to raze Sandpoint

Dear all,

I've bought the second book of RotRL. I am very interested by the City of Magnimar. However, when I look at the map, the numbers in the legend seem all wrong. Has Paizo published a correct legend?

Best regards

I am preparing myself to run the RoTRL adventure path but one thing that struck me is what I believe to be a weak rationale from moving from the Skinsaw Murders (chapter 2) to the Hook Mountain Massacre (chapter 3).

Basically, the players are given a mission to go and investigate a remote outpost that has not given any sign of life for a while.

I do find the idea of a mission a bit weak and wish that there would be a better idea to get the player to explore Fort Ranick by themselves. A letter from one of the Lamias to the other would be an easy ploy but sadly this one has already been used to link Foxglove to Magimar, so I would like to avoid this stratagem altogether.

My question is therefore: Has anyone found a clever way to link the Skinsaw Murder to the Hook Mountain massacre?

When will it be published and who will write it?.... oh come on, don't tell me you did not think about that one!

What do we know about the gods? Do we know who created the world? Did the gods create the races? How did the gods came into being? Where do they live? What significant actions did they take? What happens when you die?... In short, where can I find some handy information as to the gods of Varisa?


I am about to start Rise of the Runelords. I do plan to modify the adventure quite extensively and I have therefore a few questions to ask:

* Do we know what really happened to Cheliax?

If not I plan to use them as a looming threat. It's an extremely powerful kingdom (the new aristocracy killed a god!!!), they are probably evil and we haven't heard anything for the past 100 years (no one has ever returned). I plan some NPCs to be agent of Cheliax sent scouting the land because Cheliax has decided to take back its rightful colonies after a 100 year interlude...

Some powers in Varisia (Magimar?) are aware of the threat that Cheliax poses hence they have sponsored many expeditions in the Varisian ruins, looking for magical means strong enough to oppose the second Cheliaxian invasion. Such an adventurer was Mokmurian (which I intend to transform into a half giant), except that in his case he got more than he bargained for as he inadvertently awoke Karzoug. Now, the authority in Magimar who ordered Mokmurian's fateful mission also has a vested interest in the truth never getting out as it would be politically unhelpful if he or she were to be accused of having started what could be the apocalypse.

* Is there a reason why the runewell in sandpoint could not be a runewell of greed?

Why does it have to be a runewell of wrath. I do find it a bit confusing and would like my PCs to focus on only one runelord and sin magic

Why not use the same technique than the Special Manoeuver to set the DC of a tumble check?

If you want to tumble then you have to beat a 15+CMB Difficulty check with your accrobatic check. The difficulty increases by +2 for each enemy threatening your starting space.

It has always struck me as weird that it was as easy to tumble away from a clumsy opponent as from one which is supoernaturally agile.

What is the point of having different PCs having different set of vision (darkvision, low light vision, normal vision) except make life difficult for the DM.

Don't you find a bit sad when you spend some time describing something to a player and then turn to another player and politely ask him to forget all what you've mentioned because his character cannot see it.

What exactly do different set of vision bring to the game?

Dear all,

One of the thing I hate the most as a DM is tracking ability score damages for monsters. Change a characteristic and the change impacts everything (Attack bonus, AC, Saves, HP, Skills...).

It might be easy for a player to track ability damage but as a DM it quickly becomes a pain when you are running an encounter with 4-5 monsters. Having to recalculate all the above in the heat of combat requires a significant book keeping that I would gladly get rid.

I would like to explore in this thread any alternative mechanism you may have come up to replace ability score damage and make the DM work easier.

Any clever idea?

Combine further:

  • Geography & History
  • Dungeonering & Nature (aka anything that has to do with beasts and monsters)
  • Religion & Planes (where do the gods live?)
  • Local & Nobility
  • Disable device & Theft
  • Climb & Jump (now under Acrobatics) & Swim into Atheltics
  • Escape artists & Acrobatics into Acrobatics
  • Ride & Handle animal

Keep it simple

You should re-post this under the Skills and Feats section.

The modifier you add to your AC/subtract to your attack is now based on your INT score. It does not scale anymore when your BAB increase.

It's pretty useless as I doubt well see many fighters with an 18 in INT

I love the new Combat Maneuvers Bonus concept, it is a great improvement on the mechanics of 3.5

However, why not make it even more streamlined? Special combat actions should be encouraged. I propose the following changes to the general mechanics

  • Drop the attack of opportunity your oppopnent get. One less die to roll
  • Make all Special Combat Actions full-round actions and limit them to 1 attack per round.
  • The penalty for failing your CMB roll is that your opponent immediately get an attack on you as a free action


Why not make them full round action to restrict them instead?

It is simple and elegant. Less AoO means less time spent rolling dices and more special attacks during combat which are always fun and cinematic. The improved feats give you bonuses or better results.

Dear friends,

This thread is dedicated to what you would like to see changed with the hit point & dying mechanic of 3.5x.

It is not that the current system is not working but I believe that it could be better. The way hit points work have in my opinion something to do with two things I would like to see disappear from 3.5x:

  • The 15 min adventure day
  • Clerics having to convert all their spell slot to curing

Pathfinder’s answer is to attach healing properties to the Cleric’s turn undead. I am not a great fan of this solution because:

  • It looks artificial
  • Does not solve the fact that “someone has to play the cleric” if a group wants to have a genuine chance of survival

Please write down your issues with the current system and what fixes you would recommend.

Best regards

In response to a discussion in the combat & magic thread on interative attacks, I would like to propose the following feat

Feat: Follow through attack

"You swing your weapon in a broad arc and backhand your opponent with the return swing"

Should your first melee attack succeed in hiting your opponement, you may immediately make another melee attack against the same target with the same weapon as a free action.

BAB +3, Combat expertise or fighter class

* Iterative attacks are in
* The remain an halmark of the fighter class while being open to other classes
* Combat is speed up as only fighters are likely to have this feat and because you only roll the second dice if you hit first.
* The second attack has a decent chance to hit but this is balanced by the fact that you only get to roll if you hit first.
* Fighter get their secondary attack earlier in the progression

* You lose the ability to engage multiple targets. This is made so that you can't target a minion to trigger the feat which I would see as an exploit

Additional work
* Should you envisage a penalty on the second roll? (need to calculate some probabilities on this)
* Should fighter automatically get this feat at level 3?

Please discuss. Like it or not?

Dear Jason,

Please accept my sincere apoligies for such a corny thread title. I am indeed trying to grab your attention.

My reason for doing so is that after having read your alpha version, I do not think you've paid enough attention to simplifying the game.

3.5x is a great game but I believe it would benefit greatly from some simplifaction. To illustrate my point, I would like to point to you your cover rules which are overly complicated.

Also, when I look at your races, there are all those little +2 bonus that I find a pain to track. Seriously, how often does your dwarf get bull rushed? Not that often I suppose. So why the need to give him this +2 to resist bull rushing? Same with the visions. Managing light sources in D&D has become a nightmare between those who see things and those who do not.

Your approach is I fear to pile rules on top of a system that is already quite complexe and slow. I suggest the reverse. Make the game easier for the DMs out there who are swamped under the book keeping involved with 3.5x.

Best regards

I want to make the DM's work easier. Any clever idea?

Traditionally, the Sorcerer as a class has few spells to chose from but he can cast more of them. With the daily/at will spell of the Pathfinder RPG, the gap between wizard and sorcerer has greatly narrowed.

Suggestion: Do the reverse. Make the Sorcerer so that he can cast less spell BUT expand his spell selection to the size of the wizard's and make it so he does not have to prepare them in advance. In short, trade less spells for more flexible spells.

I want to make DMing easier. Who agrees/disagrees. Is the cleric spell flexibility such an important thing?

Dear all,

I am of the opinion that some spells in 3.5 detract from good story telling. I suggest listing traditional spells from 3.5 that you wished were taken out of Pathfinder RPG or seriously gimped/amended. Please, name them and explain why those spells should go

Simplifying and making DMing easier does not seem to be one of the goal of Pathfinder RPG or at least I fail to see how your proposed changes will reduce my workload during prep time or during the actual game.

So far, you've shown us with the Alpha what is in store for the players but nothing about what you are planning for the DMs.

Please, free us from the tedious bookeeping that comes with 3.5 for us poor overworked DMs.

You should break-up those messageboards in different sections.I suggest Class, Races, Feats, Skills, Combat, Death & Healing, Adventuring, Magic. This will make following rules discussions all that easier.


I think the points I am trying to raise are important if you want the fans to positively contribute to the Pathfinder RPG. Paizo has got to give us a bit more feedback as to where it intends to take the Pathfinder RPG. For example, I think it would be wise to know beforehand:

  • What objectives has Paizo set itself with the Pathfinder RPG?

  • How simple/complex do you want the game to be?

  • What feel do you want to achieve with your rules? Heroic? Realistic?

  • How far do you want the Pathfinder RPG to stray away from 3.5?

  • Which flaws in 3.5 would you like the Pathfinder RPG to solve?

  • What are the sacred cow you want to keep (because otherwise it isn't D&D anymore) and which one would you agree to let go?

  • How close do you want the Pathfinder RPG to come to 4.0? (because not everything is necessarily bad with 4.0x)

Knowing the answers to the above questions would make contributing useful feedback all that easier.

Could Paizo answer, please?

That's it. its official: "Fans" will do the conversion work for Paizo. I am sure that Lisa will argue otherwise but bottom line: 4.0 will not get the support and creative talent I was expecting. If you let fans do your work for you for free, what kind of quality control should you expect? Probably not a lot. After all, you only get what you've paid for...

I am quite sad because so far I've always liked Paizo's work and was hoping to continue my campaigns with them. I am planing to switch to 4.0 because as a DM I approve of the changes that 4.0 will bring. So far, the Pathfinder RPG is unimpressive (it's closer to 3.51 than 3.75) and fails to address some of the sacred cows we've been dragging since 1st edition.

What a sad day

... It's quite an achievement to make it in the Economist but I believe this is well deserved given the influence D&D has had. Well done

You seem to be out of stock for most of your apparel range. When do you plan to re-order?

“A throng of street urchins rushes past you. They make great noises as they jump in unison in the puddle of mud lining the alley.” – 25 words

I welcome 4th edition because we were due for it anyway if you look at how the game has evolved.

I was looking at the recent rule supplements (book of nine swords for example) and I was appalled by the power creep and complexity that has crept-up in the game.

This is not entirely surprising because, as the game grows older, WotC has to publish more and more overpowered feats/spells/Magic items to keep players interested…and buying

The result is sadly as a DM, I am personally fed up with players asking me if they can use that feat from this book that basically allow them to always win no matter what the circumstances or the stupid decisions they may have taken. I am also fed up to waste time on “special rules for this” and “special rules for that”.

In my opinion, 3.5x has become unbalanced, overcomplexed and is still carrying some serious conception faults (Vancian magic I am looking at you) that have been solved in other games about 10-15 years ago.

You may disagree with me on this one but I genuinely look forward to 4th Ed.

Best regards.

I am about to finish Shackled City and would like to embark next on Rise of the Runelords. I will very probably convert 4th edition because so far what I've seen interests me (faster & easier gameplay, less prep time for the GM, more dynamic combats....) and I might as well do it when I change campaign. Has Paizo given any thought about publishing an additional booklet for the conversion to 4E?

I guess you could publish something that basically tells you that for this and that encounter add/subtract X number of goblins whose characteristics are now as follows…

I am about to finish Shackled City and would like to embark next on Rise of the Runelords. I will very probably convert 4th edition because so far what I've seen interests me (faster & easier gameplay, less prep time for the GM, more dynamic combats....) and I might as well do it when I change campaign. Has Paizo given any thought about publishing an additional booklet for the conversion to 4E?

I guess you could publish something that basically tells you that for this and that encounter add/subtract X number of goblins whose characteristics are now as follows…

Paizo mentioned that they were thinking about launching their own proprietary version of 3.5 that they would call 3.75. I assume this would take the shape of a book like the player guide or the DM guide.

At first glance, I am not sure this makes a lot of financial sense. A couple of reasons come to mind:

  • For Paizo, it is a sure cost for what looks like very uncertain returns. Organizing a book like the player book is a massive endeavor simply on the graphic and formating side. I am not even talking about rule creation here. One thing is certain, it will cost Paizo a lot of money and management time.
  • Is Paizo capable of publishing this book and maintaining the quality of the work (scenario, art, derived products) on the pathfinder series?
  • Ideally you want to publish before 4.0 comes out. The people who will have switched to 4.0 early are unlikely to want to switch back again. Is there enough time to come with a quality product before 4.0 gets published in June?
  • Ok, let's suppose you manage to pull off all the above. Guess what?: your new product happens to compete with the number 1 brand in the sector which is just going through a re-launch. Good luck. Can Paizo really compete with WoTC in pure marketing $ spend?
  • What if 4.0 ends-up not being so bad after all (so far, we haven't seen anything). Well, the consequences would be negative for Paizo because players would have switched to 4.0 while Paizo has single handedly borne the cost of developing 3.75 for nothing
  • Seriously, how many publishing company have gone bust in the past 20 years despite great game mechanics? Are there lessons to be learnt here
  • if 4.0 is a dog, then it's a catastrophe for the industry as a whole. Hasbro pulls the plug, we loose our market leader and we can kiss goodbye innovative products (pre-painted miniature, tileset, items cards..... they didn't exist when I started playing). Not sure having a 3.75 vs a 3.5 will make a big difference in this situation
  • Can you even pull such a thing as 3.75 under the OGL? What about other independent publishers, will they follow onto 3.75?

Conclusion: stick with 3.5 for the time being or even better publish dual stats block (3.5 and 4.0) until things clear and you see which way the market swings.

Best regards and happy new year

Good evening,

I've seen a few thread regarding the supposed merits and the flaws of 4.0 on this forum. My question is very simple:

Does it even matter?

For me, what matters is a good story and a good backdrop to play this story against. The game system in itself is not relevant in my opinion. To prove this assertion I would like to point out 2 things:

  • I do not know of any DM who does not tweak the rules of 3.5 in some way, which tends to prove that this edition is far from perfect

  • I do remember very fondly some fantastic games with AD&D 2.0 (or even worse Rolemaster), which tends to prove that you still can have fun with a dog of a system (in my very personal opinion).

I think everyone should relax.

Best regards


I am running the Shackled city with one group and I am thinking about starting the Age of Worms with another.

I would like to know if it is possible to run the Age of Worm in the vincinity of the Chaudron (The Shackled City, main city)?

Having both group play in the same area would really help

Is it possible? What should I change?

I am thinking about skipping altogether Drathkar's Way because 1) I want to speed up the campain 2) We've just finished the Malachite Fortress and I think the two stories are too similar.

Actually I find Drathkar's Way rather weak because 1) yet another secret passage under a house which is far too reminicent of Life's Bazaar 2) The ever helpful Last Laugh guild points the PC in the right direction

Should I and if so what kind of crucial piece of info must I convey to my PCs? I don't think there is anysignificant plot points in Drathkar's Way


I love D&D. I have been playing it for 15years now but I must say that the current 3.5 combat system is a bit of a hybrid between on one hand a mini-oriented system and the other hand what I called a purely narative combat system. Sadly, the rules fall short of covering both aspects.

What would be interesting in my opinionis a serie of articles covering both aspects. Personally, I find that there are big holes in the current rules, especially if you play as I do a more mini oriented combat.

Some good questions need answering. The rules do not tell you anywhere how precise are spells like web or fireball? Can a mage be precise enough with his web spell so that to engulf his foes but not his friends fighting them in hand-to-hand combat? Apparently he can because there is no rule that tells you how you place the template. Also, why don't attack of opportunities do not block movement? Rogues under the current system are absolutely lethal with their sneak attack.

I am having trouble coming up with a good way for my players to map my dungeons. Describing the width & length of every single room is tedious. Moreover, error continually creep up in the plans my player draws which ends in them getting utterly lost. Is there a better way?

I was actually thinking about drawing my whole dungeon to scale (save the secret rooms, traps and doors) beforehand. Of course, I wouldn’t show where the doors are as to keep them a little bit confused.

I’ve bought a few flip maps so it could be possible to recopy the whole dungeon before game party starts. As my party moves from room to room I would actually show them where the doors are and describe each room.

Has anyone tried something similar or do you have any good tips to run a dungeon crawl?
I am already an user of the lowly monster-carrying/drawing-a-map-of-the-dungeon trick

I am using a grid and templates for my fights. The following rule questions have arisen.

Picture the following situation. The party’s fighter engages some goblins a few meters in front of the party’s wizard and to his right. The party’s wizard argues that he can cast his color spray so precisely as it to only hit the goblins and not the fighter though the latter is in H-t-H. Do you think it is fair?

Another example. My wizard casts a web spell so precisely so that only its foes are taken into the area of effect, not the fighters fighting them. Is that correct as well?

I am using the steelsqwire spell templates. They are a great help but I think I have a problem now: They are being used by my players in a way that maximizes their spells.

A typical example of this is the party wizard that carefully selects the centre of his web spell so that it encompasses his foes but not the party’s fighter. Very nifty indeed.

My player argument is that since his character has been training with magic since childhood, he knows exactly how to use his spells. Moreover, the spell description state that the caster can select any 2 points.

As I DM, I know I could ban this outright on the ground of power gaming. However, I do not want to frustrate my player and would like to find a middle-ground between his version (which in my opinion pushes the rules to their limit) and an outright ban. Any suggestion?

I my opinion, the Flip-Map series from Steelsqwire is the best thing for the DM since the invention of the d20. I suppose people from Pazio or Steelsqwire won’t be reading this thread but in any case I think something very simple could be done to improve what is already a very good product:

Add a 2x2 squares grid as an overlay to the grid already present. You could for example make the lines of the 2x2 squares grid slightly thicker.

The scale most commonly used on the Flip-Map is 1 square = 5ft. However, most plans in dungeons are drawn with a 1 square = 10ft scale in mind. Hence, having the 2x2 grid already drawn on the Flip-Map would save much time and avoid many errors in the re-transcription of the plan. 1 big square = 10ft, same as the plan. A simple yet elegant solution.