booger=boy's page

guys, thanks for your input in this thread. It's given me some new games to evaluate. And it looks like I'm adding "Barbarians of Lemuria" to my I-will-purchase in the future list. It's amazing that people do find Pathfinder too be so slow yet it doesn't alienate them from the game. Maybe it has to do that people only play to level 7 or something. Makes sense to focus module production at that range if its the case.

booger=boy

pfinders,

10 years from now when we look back at the original edition of Pfinder what do you think we can say was a great contribution to the dnd line? Maybe it was just keeping the flame alive... or that new class of weapons that got added in Ultimate combat. The great things that have happened so far that will live on forever in our collective memories, what are they?

booger=boy

I don't see how people can classify Pathfinder with Rolemaster. I've looked at Rolemaster before and it looked unplayable to me. I don't know how anyone ever played that one.

I'm starting to think that I might put PFinder in the same boat as MERP in terms of play time. That'd be a 5 or 6. Someone mentioned the original Star Wars RPG, I guess that'd be my #1. That was a very simple game. Going from dnd to that back in the day was kind of a shocker. Rolemaster is definately a 10 or even worse... something turned up to 11. I'm having trouble thinking of something in the middle ground between PFinder and Rolemaster... there seems to be a gulf.

Guys I agree that if its slow than it doesn't automatically mean that it's no-fun. Those 3 sessions for one combat session could be one worthy encounter. But if it's always like that how can anyone ever complete an adventure or even a campaign?

booger=boy

I just looked it up. Noldor were the big bad elves who saw the light of the trees.

"Fingolfin in despair rode to Angband and challenged Morgoth to single combat. He dealt Morgoth seven wounds but perished, and he was succeeded by his eldest son Fingon, who became the second High King of the Noldor in Beleriand."

Let me get this straight. Morgoth is the equivalent of Satan, stronger than any of the Valar (or at least their equal).

This game designer doesn't see a problem with something like this? Translated into a game?

Tolkien may have had a big influence on fantasy, and indirectly on gaming, but if you translate his world faithfully it isn't going to be a very good gaming system.

Morgoth is the whole reason that there was evil in the TOlkein world. He had to be a bad bugger or evil wouldn't be an issue.

booger=boy

guys,

I thought about it and I think Pathfinder needs an Alignment book. Something that builds rules that make the game better based around alignment. Could call it "The World of Evil and Good" or something. Something that makes it matter more. I wrote in another thread that you could do something like Pendragon does with traits where if you are really strong in a trait it forces your character to act in a certain way. Maybe stuff like that. It just doesn't need to be such a simple stat.

what other subjects can you think of?
booger=boy

Balance is important to some degree.

In star wars, the Jedi SHOULD be the most powerful character. The Jedi will often outshine the others, but there is not alot of overlap.

I stopped playing D&D at 4e because it seemed to focus too heavily on balance, making all classes feel the same. They all became these cinematic wizards that you could picture doing things in an action movie. Balance is important, but I do not think it should be the alter of game design.

Im glad you brought up star wars. I lost all interest in the Old Republic MMO because the sith seemed watered down. I saw a stormtrooper almost take out a sith lord by resisting his force lightning. Then I saw a Jedi resist his lightsaber with her hand! It was too much too bear.

booger=boy

hi pathfinders,

I see the game speed come up quite a bit as an issue. I was just watching a Dark Heresy review and he was saying that game zoomed along quite well when the action started up. In your experience how does Pathfinder fit in, in terms of speed? I guess the fastest and the slowest games you've played would be the bounds of this scale. 1 being fast, 10 being sloooooooow.

booger=boy

booger=boy wrote:

mplindustries wrote:

My two (unpopular) changes:

1) Remove multiple attacks from the game. When you would normally get extra attacks (be it from Rapid Shot, TWF, Flurry of Blows, or even just high BAB), instead increase damage with your attack by some significant number. Create some sort of free provision for mowing through hordes of lower level enemies--maybe provide free Greater Cleaving Finish up to the number of damage bonuses you have from "extra attacks."

2) Remove PC access to spells and most access to magic items. Re-balance monsters accordingly.

way in the ol days I think fighters and their ilk were the only ones that had multiple attacks. And it wasn't ever that many... the highest I can remember was 3 attacks every 2 rounds or sometin.

booger=boy

Fighters progressed to 3/2 then to 2/1. It was only fighters; not Paladins, nor Rangers.

However Rangers could TWF.

And Paladins could get access to Holy Avengers...

It was an entirely different game really.

I swear the other fighterish classes progressed in attacks as well. I'll have to check later.

booger=boy

doug, if we ever get hp capped and reduced in the game I think it will get better for the fireball. I totally agree that HP has gotten *too big*. I'm not sure that I'd go back and cap HP at 400 points like 1rst edition but that might be a good score to stop things at.

booger=boy

I was excited for second than I wasn't. If we had bestiary 1-3 in one big book that'd be cool. Maybe next time.

booger=boy

TOZ wrote:

SwnyNerdgasm wrote:

Is it a majority of players that dislikes the alignment system, or merely a very vocal minority?

Does it matter? It's not going anywhere.

Well that's the thing, I am a huge fan of the alignment system and have calmly ignored all the players who have joined my game and tried to get me to stop using it. I was just wondering if I was in the minority here.

Alignment has its uses. I think it'd add more if it effected the game more in some way. I'd think something how Pendragon does with its traits. Give your Alignment a score, the larger it is the more likely that it will override the players control of the character and force the PC to act a certain way. On one hand that's evil, on the other it makes it do more for the game. If someone is the paragon of goodie goodie and he had a really high score in his alignment, with the hypothetical alignment system in place I'd force him to act a certain way in various situations. At lower scores, the player should have more freedom to act with less alignment zeal.

booger=boy

1) Create a Paladin for any alignment other than Neutral. I feel a Paladin should be a champion of a virtue and not just LG. The exact focus of the Paladin should be up to the player and not the rules. I would really love to see some Paladin codes for the various non-Neutral deities and have the player choose one of these or create their own code(at DM discretion of course).

2) Add an **option** for static hp progression per level instead of rolling for hp. I envision this being similar to pointbuy vs roll for stats. Both options are outlined and the system is designed to work with the static numbers by default.

3) Remove spell immunity.

4) Give Wizard and Sorcerer the same number of spells per day. (same for Cleric and Oracle)

These are mine and I see a few other ideas in this thread which I would support as well.

EDIT: Got a little overzealous and forgot about the *only 2* stipulation. If I only have two options I choose the first two.

I like the idea of Paladin not having to be lawful goodish. I'd make the stipulation that it should have to be Campaign specific. What if your in a godless campaign, then no paladin. Only a couple of gods, all evil than the paladin has to be an evil paladin. The default always assumes that theres a goodie goodie god to worship.

booger=boy

It is critical that, if you do have one PC who is more powerful than the others at the table, that character not make anyone else's character redundant. It's okay to have overlap to a point, but if you have, for instance, a more-powerful bard who is a better caster than your dedicated wizard or cleric, you're going to run into problems.

I've had redundancies in some of the PC gamer versions of dnd I've played. In those cases I never felt like they lesser powered character was redundant, still useful.

booger=boy

booger=boy wrote:

hi guys,

I've watched The One Ring rpg design videos and one of the main guys behind the game seemed to poo-poo the idea that the player options had to be perfectly balanced. In particular he was talking about letting players be Noldor elves or Rangers be in the game as player options. He thought it was ok that they were tougher as long as everyone at the table understood that this was just the way it was.

I liked that. I'm not someone who suffers from power lust, where my PC has to be the toughest guy on the planet to have fun. I could dig an above average fellow PC being around my character. I'd probably have fun with it.

Do you guys think we pfinders obsess too much over race and class balance?
booger=boy

TBH, i think a race/class has a problem if it is clearly overpowered on all levels. Any player can look at the classes and pick the best things they can and go total munchkin, but if the average player just playing his joe/jane is op, then the class probably needs a nerf. The main issue is we don't have a clear definition of overpowered. A properly played ranger will of course outshine a party of idiots, as a munchkin ranger will outshine a party of average joes. Its a whole lotta grey and this makes it a troublesome issue.

I took away from listing to the The One Ring RPG design video that they would be tougher and nastier than the other options. No biggie to me, that's the way they were in the ol books.

booger=boy

booger=boy wrote:

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

Remove Attacks of Opportunity and replace it with a system that automatically stops actions in progress with no need to have a player/GM make a decision and/or make a roll.

Change "per day" to a slow recharge rate.

I kind of like this recharge idea. I can see some point system per hour being put in place. It might even mean that you don't get a full refresh of yer spells ever 24 hours. Have some super duper spell, need a week to build up the power to cast it. Maybe even have the recharge rate differ per level so that the low level spells are easy to recharge as you go up in levels.

booger=boy

Iron Heroes uses tokens. Most classes use actions of some sort to gather tokens and then spend them on class abilities. Some classes automatically gain tokens for certain things -- the berserker for getting hit, for example.

It's an awesome system. Add that to my list of things I'd like to see in Pathfinder: TNG.

heh, if yer really an evil pc or npc maybe sacrificing critters or players would be a way to really amp up the power available to the spellcaster.

booger=boy

My two (unpopular) changes:

1) Remove multiple attacks from the game. When you would normally get extra attacks (be it from Rapid Shot, TWF, Flurry of Blows, or even just high BAB), instead increase damage with your attack by some significant number. Create some sort of free provision for mowing through hordes of lower level enemies--maybe provide free Greater Cleaving Finish up to the number of damage bonuses you have from "extra attacks."

2) Remove PC access to spells and most access to magic items. Re-balance monsters accordingly.

way in the ol days I think fighters and their ilk were the only ones that had multiple attacks. And it wasn't ever that many... the highest I can remember was 3 attacks every 2 rounds or sometin.

booger=boy

1. Get rid of hit points. I prefer damage saves and health levels, mutants and masterminds has a pretty good system, I would like to see something like that listed as an alternative rule set. I always hated how a character would take a 40 point hit and be fine, then take another 40 point hit and hes still ok, then takes a 20 point hit and dead.

2. No more taking 10 on defense. Thats kinda how the system works now, you get your defensive bonuses plus the base 10 (an average roll) to set AC. I would prefer to make it a die roll, I house rule this with deflection and dodge bonuses going to defence roll and armor and shield bonuses adding to damage saves. The players really seem to like it and it makes the combat seem more dynamic. The players feel like they are accually doing something on the defensive side of combat. This also alows for more flexability with story telling, making rare epic moments where the underdog pulls off the unlikely defeat of the obviously superior foe.

Some systems like Pendragon have a wound system plus hp. Your performance degrades as you acquire wounds. It's been awhile since I looked at the rules. Uncounscious level is something like 1/4th the hp you normally have.

booger=boy

hi guys,

I've watched The One Ring rpg design videos and one of the main guys behind the game seemed to poo-poo the idea that the player options had to be perfectly balanced. In particular he was talking about letting players be Noldor elves or Rangers be in the game as player options. He thought it was ok that they were tougher as long as everyone at the table understood that this was just the way it was.

I liked that. I'm not someone who suffers from power lust, where my PC has to be the toughest guy on the planet to have fun. I could dig an above average fellow PC being around my character. I'd probably have fun with it.

Do you guys think we pfinders obsess too much over race and class balance?
booger=boy

booger=boy wrote:

my list is simple:

some max on HP and AC. I haven't thought this through too much so I'm not sure where other changes would have to be made. Maybe hp progression would change and attack bonuses would have to be leveled off.

that's my "2",
booger=boy

Why would you want a max on HP or AC out of curiosity, i personally would hate having a max on HP.

I'd do this to make the game simpler and in some case quicker. Instead of a 700 hp dragon make it a 200 hp'er. Or a 150hper a 70 hper. Littler numbers should make things go by faster.

booger=boy

Remove Attacks of Opportunity and replace it with a system that automatically stops actions in progress with no need to have a player/GM make a decision and/or make a roll.

Change "per day" to a slow recharge rate.

I kind of like this recharge idea. I can see some point system per hour being put in place. It might even mean that you don't get a full refresh of yer spells ever 24 hours. Have some super duper spell, need a week to build up the power to cast it. Maybe even have the recharge rate differ per level so that the low level spells are easy to recharge as you go up in levels.

booger=boy

Mairkurion, I should have called this the "new" edition thread instead of .5 . I was trying to say "next edition" but failed.

sorry,
booger=boy

that's insane. You can't have that few of people working on the thing and succeed. I didn't think I'd see this day coming but maybe it's almost here.

booger=boy

my list is simple:
some max on HP and AC. I haven't thought this through too much so I'm not sure where other changes would have to be made. Maybe hp progression would change and attack bonuses would have to be leveled off.

that's my "2",
booger=boy

guys, I may be wrong about Cook getting the axe but check out the second post here:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/315187-wizards-coasts-annual-xmas-layoffs -8.html

the original 4th crew looks likes its almost gone. Releases are slowing down as well. How many people are going to be left working on that thing?

there can be only one!
booger=boy

Booby Amazons would be a good monster adventure to have. I always liked the Changelings in Deep Space Nine. Could need a more sinister version of the doppleganger.

orks all over the place,
booger=boy

Cook was giving condolences? I swear I saw that he got the axe to. I was really surprised to see Baker get it... I just got one of his games last year. Not that I liked it that much.

booger=boy

gamers and speculators,

I was reading enworld today and they said a whole bunch of dnders were fired. I know Baker is gone. Not sure if I read it right but Monte Cooks name came up as well. What can all this mean? Is it just their usual layoffs or is dnd going down the tube? I'm thinking this because some of those names seem like big gamer names to me.

maybe the end is near,
booger=boy

guys,

Do we have enough of the uber-cool critters in the game yet? Do we need more bad butt races like Drow or Githyanki to take the game to the next level? I mention Drow because they always get the special treatment it seems.

i love cool monsters,
booger=boy

that's cool. I have to admit that I'm not having a PFinder christmas but another game. Yet I wish I was having a PFinder christmas. :( I can only do one thing at a time.

booger=boy

there's a subforum? Where the heck is that at?

booger=boy

ho ho ho!

Christmas is not complete without a good ol roleplaying game under the tree and a stocking filled with dice. What pathfinder books are you getting for christmas? Anyone have a Pathfinder game on that magical day of endless gifts?

booger=boy

hi guys and gals,

where can we gamers go to talk about the MMO around here? Do we have a special forum that I can't find or isn't anyone talking too much about it yet?

I love dndish computer games!

booger=boy

i guess we need to ask if he could use it as a weapon? people here are talking about cutting it off...

boog_boy

this is a tough question. It's always turned me off that they started to take away boobs from the fantasy games. I'm sure there are others out there that must feel the same way. Dnd always seemed more rock and rollish to me than little kiddish. There is always something about it that offends someone. 2nd edition that stopped calling devils, devils cus it was too much for some.

I guess it always pays to pander to the masses a little but the gamers have to have a little integrity.

booger=boy

hi nakedfinders,

I was taking a look at some Colossus of Roads doodles last night and noticed one where the guy had his weiner hanging out. This made me realize that I've never fought a naked giant/titan. I'm not sure if it would affect game play or not: "You see a 50 foot man walking towards you with a spear. His weiner is hanging out".

I almost think my characters would run away from that. On the other hand it does make the big guy seem a little scarier... naked.

opinions?
booger=boy

SunsetPsychosis wrote:

Pathfinder offers the kind of character customization you just can't get in the 4E pseudo-MMO style, and Paizo has succeeded in not just revamping the old 3.5 rules, but coming up with a variety of flavorful additions to them.

The streamlining also makes it a lot easier for new players to pick up and play, and the system is much less combat-centric than 4E, which appeals a lot more to the roleplayers.

Really?!? Where do people keep getting this info? From someone who owns ALL 4E products and ALL Pathfinder products..this is just hogwash. What kind of customization do you get in Pathfinder over 4E? Pathfinder is similar to the D&D Essentials line, where you have basic cookie-cutter classes, where you basically get the same powers at each level. You get to custom feats and a few other things. Not saying there is anything wrong with that...but that is the nature of character. D&D 4E has you pick your feats as well, but you pick your powers/abilities from a large pool at each level. Like it or not, that is not less customization.

And what would make D&D more 'combat-centric'? If you have a lot of combat, then it is the nature of your specific adventure and the style of your GM. There is no rules element dictating how much combat vs. roleplaying is in a game. This is the same whether it is D&D, Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, or Hackmaster. (Well, OK...Hackmaster. :-)

let's not get too off topic here. :) Anyway, are you finding it easier to find Pthfinder playerz?

booger=boy

I know of one group who plays Pathfinder (well...they used to...they moved to Gamma World now). I personally know of well over a dozen local groups who play D&D.

Larger market share than D&D...right. First...find me this quote by the "CEO" before I would believe it (it is an edition warrior's urban legend). I doubt you would find anyone on Paizo staff who would believe such nonsense. And I think they are fine with that...they run with a much leaner staff, and are doing OK.

I'm not going to get into a figures gamey here, but the quote I've seen is here:

In it Lisa Stevens says that in most the markets she knows of Pathfinder is outselling dnd.

That's it!

booger=boy

probably GMs that can't play the higher level monsters right. Anyone ever find their dm playing the Balor just as he would an Ork? There's nothing worse in the game than a Balor that is acting like an Ork. Gamemasters need to be trained to play high level monster right! I understand the need to play every critter as a brute, but when you have a critter who can do somersaults as well, please try out the somersault option.

brut forever,
booger=boy

hi gamerfinders,

I thought this might be an interesting question to toss out there. I keep on seeing indicators of Pthfinders success, anywhere from #1 spots on Amazons seller list to the CEO saying that they have a bigger market share than dnd. Usually I see players reporting on how the game is selling in the bricks and mortar stores.

But maybe a more important gauge is to ask if it is becoming easier find Pthfinder players to have some fun with? Have people found dnders who resisted for a long time finally coming around to test it out? Are they finding people who've never played a RPG before wanting some Pathfnder?

I'd think that with an expanded market share that people would find the social aspects of the game changing for them.

what have you guys experienced?
booger=boy

Gorbax,

thanks for posting that link. It even has the CEO of this blessed company saying that they have more market share than dnd. I wonder if they get drunk when they start seeing their figures go up.

It kinda fits in with my observation that I keep on seeing the core book at the top of Amazonas top sellers. The CEO said that they are selling more "CORE" than ever before!

booger=boy

I don't know what it means for sure. The amazon top 100 list is startling at moments. Last time I looked there were 2nd edition dnd products outselling 4th edition stuff. That struck me as weird.

But... a Pathfinder product always seems to be number 1 when I look. Which is better than being outsold by 2nd edition dnd...

booger=boy

Hi pthfinders,

Pathfinder is still the #1 gamey sold on Amazon. I'd like to take a moment to congratulate everyone, game company and community, for this achievement. I think it bodes well for Pathfinders future that the core book is the highest seller. And the core book is like 3-4 years old already!

booger=boy

hi excaliburfinders,

I've started thinking about King Arthur and Pathfinder and am wondering how well that story and the game mesh together. I've found a supplement called "Legends of Excalibur" from 2004, but it's a dnd 3.0 book! Eeeks! It sounds cool but I haven't used anything from that far back, its like 3 years old!

Anyone out there started using the Arthur world for the Pathfinder campaign?

I don't know what to do,
booger=boy

geesh... maybe it is really doable. I found a cool looking supplement called "Legends of Excalibur" when I was researching Pendragon last night and it apparently has a different spell system! Well not that different, it uses spell points instead of the memorize and toss system.

booger=boy

How different did you have in mind? Unearthed Arcana outlines several variant systems for calculating daily spell availability for 3.5 d&d. I haven't read them lately but given the similarity of 3.5 and pathfinder I would guess they could be adapted easily.

Well, the system I was looking at that provoked the thought was an old Pendragon 4th edition. Its a really different magic system from what I can tell. Spells take a long time to cast and they may age you or you may have to go into a magical slumber to recover! There aren't any Firefarts or Lightning turds spells but it gives you guidelines for turning people into pigs. Spell casters are very rare and its doesn't seem likely that you would play one. You play knights!

That's what got me thinking about Pthfinder and what'd I'd have to do to remove its system and try something like Penddragons out. It doesn't seem doable to me.

booger=boy

hi spellfinders,

I've been pondering this question for awhile, just how easy is it for us to swap out our existing vancian magic system for something else. I'm not saying it's bad, but am just pondering the thought of whether or not its swappable with something different.

The question I think hinges on how deeply the system is woven into everything else. How many classes and monsters would we have to alter or eliminate if a group put a different system in place? That sound's like a lot of work! Which modules would need to be rewritten? Egads!

Anyway, it seems too labor intensive to me to easily be done. Maybe the combat system would be doable, but I'm doubtful about dat one too. They just aren't races or weapons that are easy to remove and fill with somtin else.

opinions?
booger=boy

hi orcfinders,

Orcs from what I can tell have gone through at least 3 different nose styles in its existence.

1rst edition: Pig noses
3rd edition: Very flat noses
Pathfinder: Humanish noses

I have no idea why they were pig men in 1rst. Were there cool pig monsters that dnd was copying at the time? Incidentally do we need a good pig headed humanoid? I've always liked the pig head.

3rd, I'm clueless as well.

Pathfinder, tada... I'm guessing that they wanted the Orcs to look more like Urak-Hai from Lord of The Rings. Its the only thing that makes sense to me. Kidos fresh from LOTR would love to fight bad guys from a nifty movie.

Any other ideas?
booger=boy

While I like 3.5/Pathfinder there are some things that I hate about it. The first and I think most crippling is multiple attacks. At low levels not so bad. BUT hit 10th-16th and the game comes to a crawl. No matter the shortcuts involve(using different color dice, random generators etc)it's still a drag on the game. My question is simple: Would it kill the game if every character had a base of one attack with higher up and maybe certain classes getting maybe one extra attack or something in that ballpark? Alot of people say "well the spellcaster would out do a fighter type in damage. But if the fighter type is doing +16 damage is that still the case?

After reading about Pendragon's deadly combat system I've toyed with the idea of a "Combat Intesification" multiplier for certain encounters. Basically, if an encounter appears evenly matched out I'd multiple the damage done by everyone, including the opponents, by N just for the sake of speeding things up. I haven't come to anything conclusive about it and was thinking about ditching the idea.

I have to look at how 1rst edition did its combat but I don't think it allowed for a gazillion attacks at those levels. Fighters advanced in the number of attacks. I'd guess it'd be 2 attacks per round for those levels.

booger=boy

I'd sit down and talk with the player after the events and see if you both can come to a mutual understanding of what kind of evil or good the acts were. That'll save any arguments that arise when you make mr. paladin chaotic evil for cutting down the innocent.

booger=boy

guys or dndfinders,

yer taking everything too seriously... again. People are going to get turned off by the community if we get too anal about being light hearted. This is supposed to be fun, not dumb.

booger=boy