The Red Death's page

I think one of the failings of 3.5 is in large parts to not clearly explain the math that's going on behind the hood.

When you read the 1E DMG, it goes on to explain how probabilities work and such. It also has a very inclusive, "we're both DMs, here's why I do this that way" kind of tone to it thanks to EGG.

I'd like to see this from Pathfinder. For instance, the long awaited, never published "High Level Handbook" explaining everything one has to look out for, specific ways to handle specific abilities and spells in adventure design, how to design encounters, et cetera. NOT a rehash of the vastly failed "Epic Level Handbook", I hope I'm clear.

I hope the keys to the system are given to the DMs more than it ever was done in any 3.X variations before. I'd like to see a work that makes the whole mathematics, intricacies, complexities of the system readily understandable to any aspiring DM.

Is that even possible?

Mine is "The Iron Mage", without quotation marks.

What's yours?

Let's send Friend Requests to each other!

Who's playing Halo 3 on XBOX Live?

What's your Gamer Tag?

If I order from the Paizo store directly, as it pertains to Pathfinder items, say, does that help Paizo more than ordering from other stores and distributors?

I'm paying more in terms of shipping, but I'm doing it gladly to support Paizo. I'm just curious as to how true this logic may be.

Insights?

It loads for me about 1/4 of the time. If I wait long enough.

The rest of the time it is just assflamingly slooooooowwww...

I know they're trying to fix a problem of server. That is just a major PITA right now.

This idea has been talked about over and over, that Pathfinder would be some sort of "new edition of D&D", with the implied "PRPG is what 4E should have been".

Anyone is free to share insights on the question and discuss them all here, but I hope the Paizo staff will come in and share their own opinions on the topic.

So here it is: is PRPG a new D&D edition?

Mike Mearls talking about an OD&D session he ran said:

" I think that OD&D's open nature makes the players more likely to accept things in the game as elements of fiction, rather than as game elements. The players reacted more by thinking "What's the logical thing for an adventurer to do?" rather than "What's the logical thing to do according to the rules?"

OD&D and D&D 4 are such different games that they cater to very different needs. For me, in OD&D things are fast, loose, and improvised...[OD&D players] are probably more likely to accept...a game that requires a bit more deductive reasoning (I disable a trap by wedging an iron spike into the lever that activates it) as opposed to D&D 4 (I disable a trap by finding the lever then making a skill check). (link to original post)"

Interesting observation, I thought.

I think he nails one of the main differences, here, and beyond, one of the main shift in D&D gaming during these past decades.

Just an idea popping here...

You get to choose for your character 1 Interest at the beginning of the game (level 1).

An Interest is like a skill. It is associated with an Ability score, and to make checks with it, you use the 1/2 level + modifier equation.

An interest is a hobby, something that your character does/knows/is interested in besides adventuring. Any craft, any particular knowledge not covered by the existing skills can be covered by an Interest.

Interest (politics) INT
Interest (painting) DEX
Interest (singing) DEX (or WIS?)

And so on.

You can buy Skill Training as normal to acquire a new Interest.

If you spend a Skill Training in an interest you already have, it becomes an Expertise, adding +5 to the check equation.

Expert (heraldry) INT

For instance.

What do you guys think? Problem solved, for those who wanted more skills to play with?

I saw this thread on ENWorld and thought this was an occasion for us to have a nice hypothetic conversation here on Paizo.com.

I think I wouldn't change a thing in 4E. Yet. I want to see how it plays out extensively before houseruling stuff I don't like.

But since I have to choose, so far, alignment doesn't seem to have too much impact on the powers, so I'd bring back Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good, I guess. I could survive without that houserule, though.

What about you?

While a target is marked, it takes -2 penalty on attack rolls for any attack that doesn't include you as a target. Also it takes radiant damage equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier the first time it makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target before the start of your next turn.

"it takes radiant damage equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier the first time it makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target before the start of your next turn."

I'm confused by this sentence. Does that mean that the target takes damage the first time it attacks someone else potentially every round, if it does so, or just the first time it does so after being marked, and no more for the rest of the encounter/until its unmarked?