nikadeemus327's page

nikadeemus327 wrote:

Also, I'm not so sure about the Shifters having a penalty to wisdom. They strike me as a strong candidate class for druids and rangers. That -2 would hurt. I feel like it should be a +2 wis and -2 cha.

Granted the penalty to wisdom does hurt them as druids and rangers, as well as clerics, but it is not an insurmountable penalty. Plus it does fit the idea of a race that is on the edge between animal and "human." The bonus to Charisma is actually an adaptation from 4e, which is where I was converting them from.

This is the part that confuses me. In 4e both the Longtooth and Razorclaw Shifters get a bonus to wisdom. That's why I commented.

nikadeemus327 wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

nikadeemus327 wrote:

I didn't play 3.5e. I don't know or care about those promises. The issues I and others have still exist. If Paizo wants to make a quality product they will listen. I'm still looking for the point in your post.

*checks n327 post history*

Ah, you consider 3.5 ruleset to be archaic. Three AC types, three save types are "convoulted". PF might be the wrong game for you.

Why? I like Golarion. It's a great setting. Paizo also produces great modules and adventures. It is because I don't feel the system is 100% perfect so the whole thing must not be for me and my opinion is void? Pft.

You can play in Golarion using other systems, in fact many folks around are doing so. Settings and rulesets aren't joined at hip.

Your problem doesn't lie with peripherals of the ruleset, they lie with things at the core. Changing them would likely alienate a major group of PF players. If I saw Pathfinder toss three-tier AC and Saves system away I would likely ignore it altogether. Paizo's decision to keep with 3.5 wasn't a sudden brainfart, it was a calculated move.

So? I still have issues with a Paizo product. The issues are such that I may not pay them money in the future. I don't really care what their business model is. Using that as a way to disregard my opinion is asinine. Business models change away and often change based on customer feedback.

nikadeemus327 wrote:

I didn't play 3.5e. I don't know or care about those promises. The issues I and others have still exist. If Paizo wants to make a quality product they will listen. I'm still looking for the point in your post.

*checks n327 post history*

Ah, you consider 3.5 ruleset to be archaic. Three AC types, three save types are "convoulted". PF might be the wrong game for you.

Why? I like Golarion. It's a great setting. Paizo also produces great modules and adventures. It is because I don't feel the system is 100% perfect so the whole thing must not be for me and my opinion is void? Pft.

nikadeemus327 wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Are you seeing Iron Heroes* fly off the shelves and compete with 4E for the top sales? Well, there goes your answer.

Answer to what? He didn't ask a question.

Also, Pathfinder selling well doesn't mean the system lacks issues.

The question (asked by many) is why didn't PF go further away from 3.5 (which would mean possibly "fixing" the "issues").

The answer is that even if it fixed every possible 3.5 problem and we would have all the usual herpers praising the game for being what they wanted it to be, the final product would be so far away from 3.5 that it would never generate a substantial profit. At best, it would be some obscure clone played by d6 people per city.

And Paizo, as much as I hate to break it in for some folks, is a company that exists to earn money, not to pursue some holy grail of making an ultimate RPG that would be "balanced" and make Cirno/MiB/Kirth/ET say "I approve". Which, by the way, wasn't stated as a design goal of Pathfinder, for all you "failed to deliver promises" out there.

You know they can fix issues with the system and still make money right? They have done/are doing it (see beginner's box and stealth rules playtest) These two things aren't mutually exclusive.

I didn't play 3.5e. I don't know or care about those promises. The issues I and others have still exist. If Paizo wants to make a quality product they will listen. I'm still looking for the point in your post.

Are you seeing Iron Heroes* fly off the shelves and compete with 4E for the top sales? Well, there goes your answer.

Answer to what? He didn't ask a question.

Also, Pathfinder selling well doesn't mean the system lacks issues.

Also, I'm not so sure about the Shifters having a penalty to wisdom. They strike me as a strong candidate class for druids and rangers. That -2 would hurt. I feel like it should be a +2 wis and -2 cha.

I like.

A phase step spell like ability would be pretty cool for Eladrin. I'm not sure off the top of my head what the base spell would be. Fortune seems pretty strong, maybe too strong. Still looking at the rest.

Just about everything has low light vision. Not sure it that's really necessary. I could see the changeling not having it.

Roman wrote:

If 5e is to be a game designed to draw back lapsed customers, it does not grow the RPG market (well it still does, of course, but it does not gain a bulk of its users that way) and the competition becomes much more zero sum. A good metaphor might be nearby plants competing for sunlight - they can still both grow, but they hamper each other... and it is just possible that manages to take enough sunlight to sun-starve the other.

It wasn't an analogy, it was an expression. Of course it's not perfectly applicable.

Even if 5e is meant to bring back lapsed customers, those customers don't stop being potential Paizo customers. The goal is not to have more fanboys or more people who like Pathfinder best, but to have more people buying Paizo's books.

Also, Paizo is in the business of selling Golarion more than it's in the business of selling Pathfinder. (Or so I understand; I'm given to understand that APs, PFS-related goods, and setting books outsell rule books other than core, no?) Given licensing terms that don't leave them beholden to a licensor, there's no reason they couldn't go back to being setting people if 5e completely ate PF's rulebook business.

I hope they never stop producing Golarian content.

The problem is if you as DM ask the player to make a sense motive roll.....

Doesn't that mean the player has the same reason (general unease) to be suspicious without meta-gaming, and use other information sources....

Not necessarily. If the paladin failed his roll his character would probably have no reason to be suspicious.

Kthulhu wrote:

deinol wrote:

I definitely think that 4E's biggest flaw is that at launch it had few (if any) quality adventures to showcase the strong parts of the system...

Has that really changed? Admittedly I don't follow 4E, but as far I can tell, they barely seem to put out any adventure stuff at all.

They're getting better, in my view. They aren't back up to paizo's level yet though.

Most 4E material is digital these days.

I agree with this. I prefer the core of 4e better (especially essentials).

The early modules WotC produced were pretty poor. Combine this with a bunch of different settings that didn't have a strong focus and I can understand why people were pissed off.

However, over the last six month the Nentir Vale (WotC's points of light setting) has received some love. The majority of their old setting generic articles from the dungeon and dragon magazines have been integrated together and its shaping up to be something cool. Not as awesome a Golarion though.

There is where I like to use the idea of passive perception, passive sense motive, etc. If its outside of combat assume they take 10. You don't even have to roll, just narrate what happens.

EDIT: I have my players write down their passive perception long before I ever have to use it. I just look at what their values are and start narrating. They are non-the-wiser.

nikadeemus327 wrote:

LazarX wrote:

It pretty much boils down to this.

IF you really really hated 3.X, Pathfinder is not probably going to be your cup of tea.

If you thought 3.X and especially 3.5 was just a bit out of tune balance wise, Pathfinder's improvements in balance might just be the tipping point you were looking for.

I think this assessment if a bit lacking. Many people, like myself, haven't played 3.5 prior to Pathfinder. They've come from a different system, 4e only being one of many.

Than quite frankly, there is no real answer for you. Balance is essentially a nebulous subjective concept, and if you have no experience with 3.X, there really isn't a reference point for you to judge Pathfinder by. (I've met 1st and 2nd edition grognards, Gygax among them who swore that 3.X couldn't be properly called D&D).

If you've done your whole gaming life by Storyteller, you're liable to find any D20 based system rather stifling and rolebound. If your usual cup of tea is Heros and GURPS, you'll find the game very restrictive and arbitrary compared to what you're used to, but neither game is going to give you any solid reference points for judging Pathfinder.

If 4th edition is your standard of balance, you're probably going to find any 3.X and derivative system .... unbalanced. The subjective call however will be whether that relative lack of balance is going to be an important dealkiller. That, no one can answer for you.

I don't understand the whole "its subjective" argument. It sounds like a way to brush discussion under the rug. If two people place the same importance on certain characteristics of a system then you can find an objective answer.

The OP specifically asked about balance. He seems to think its important. I do too. At this point it's pretty easy to discuss balance between two system and how we can measure it. In fact, a number of metrics have been used by people in this thread to measure balance.

EDIT: Fixed stuff.

It pretty much boils down to this.

IF you really really hated 3.X, Pathfinder is not probably going to be your cup of tea.

If you thought 3.X and especially 3.5 was just a bit out of tune balance wise, Pathfinder's improvements in balance might just be the tipping point you were looking for.

I think this assessment if a bit lacking. Many people, like myself, haven't played 3.5 prior to Pathfinder. They've come from a different system, 4e only being one of many.

nikadeemus327 wrote:

Good for you? Do you want a gold star for posting?

4e is much better about making sure characters contribute to all aspects of the game in their own way. They can still fail. Horribly so.

I guess no more than you.

In case it was missed the OP was not interested in how you think 4e is better balanced than PF...he has played 4e and is looking at using a different system.

You brought your pro-4e post, I brought a counter post. Don't get all butthurt.

I was using 4e as an example because he's played that. It was nothing but a meter stick. Balance is a pro of 4e and many other systems when compared to Pathfinder. If he would have said GURPS or Savage Worlds it would have been much the same.

nikadeemus327 wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

This. I really don't care if the power level of everyone in the party matches perfectly. As long as they all have their time to shine, then it's all good. Yeah, some of you WIZURDS R GODS! folks can contrive situations in which the fighter doesn't do so well. But you know what? I can contrive situations when your wizard doesn't do so well.

Making sure all characters feel useless at different times is one way to balance things I guess.

Making all classes feel exactly the same, and boring to boot, is another.

Or you can have each player/character contribute to the encounter (this includes non combat encounters too) in different ways so it feels like a team effort instead of one player's chance to solo for awhile. How you get boring out of that I do not know. Maybe some people have to be the singular center of attention to have fun.

This. I really don't care if the power level of everyone in the party matches perfectly. As long as they all have their time to shine, then it's all good. Yeah, some of you WIZURDS R GODS! folks can contrive situations in which the fighter doesn't do so well. But you know what? I can contrive situations when your wizard doesn't do so well.

Making sure all characters feel useless at different times is one way to balance things I guess.

cranewings wrote:

If your party has a sorcerer that can spam sleep, the party will always win against humans.

Until those humans get above 4 hit dice. Or someone gives them saving throw dice that don't always roll ones.

It's that way on my witch with slumber. Sure, I don't sleep as many and it doesn't always stick but its enough to ensure the fight is a cakewalk.

News flash to Maddigan: The balance DOES affect the fun.

If you play a Fighter and eventually end up as dead weight in combat (because if the group has people who know how to actually play, you probably will not get any chances to do anything useful except MAYBE make a bit of damage on some foe) and out of combat (how many skill points did a Fighter get again?), you will very likely NOT have fun.

I myself am one of the (apparently) rare people who want a healthy mix of game balance and roleplay value. I am equally hostile towards min-maxers and munchkins as I am to roleplay obsessed maniacs and basket weavers. I know casters are overpowered in comparison to melee classes, and I am shocked that people believe that the melee classes shouldn't be made stronger so they can keep up with the casters.

And it's been proven countless times that Pathfinder failed to deliver on this. The melee/combat feats were weakened, while casters gained higher hit dice. I don't see the Caster>Melee issue being fixed in any way by both of those. Also, to those who speak of the Combat Maneuvers giving the Fighter an edge, go check the bestiary a second time. Unless the GM or the Fighter cheats, he could never Trip or Grapple the appropriate monsters in certain levels, the Dire Crocodile being an example I saw once being mentioned. (And now I can anticipate someone replying to this post with an "ad hominem" or then replying with something that makes no sense whatsoever)

Sounds like your experiences have been similar to mine. The balance is out of whack is so many ways. I've only played PFS but tier 1-2 is such a cakewalk that its boring. Tier 4-5 is harder I guess but its really just annoying with the number of ways I effectively lose my turns. Having my samurai knocked out of the fight for 5 rounds with a color spray isn't fun. I didn't get to participate in the fight at all. The caster got to go first with its very high initiative, walked up to me and I was down.

Don't even get me started with the scaling at tables of 6 players. I might as well just phone it in.

I dunno. Maybe its just my experiences with other role playing systems but its a pretty glaring problem to me.

nikadeemus327 wrote:

I'm finding Pathfinder to be noticeably less balanced than most of the 4e stuff I've ran/played. This includes the balance between player classes (ie how much each class contributes to different parts of the game). Everyone usually gets a more equal share of face time across many different tasks. The balance between the party and the monsters they fight (a lot of the new 4e material have been rather brutal) is a bit better too. It does get a little wonky at paragon and epic tiers. Takes some adjustment.

I have notices the 4e I ran/played to be more bland in the way that everyone needs to get a gold star for participation rather than have some excel at certain times.

Good for you? Do you want a gold star for posting?

4e is much better about making sure characters contribute to all aspects of the game in their own way. They can still fail. Horribly so.

I'm finding Pathfinder to be noticeably less balanced than most of the 4e stuff I've ran/played. This includes the balance between player classes (ie how much each class contributes to different parts of the game). Everyone usually gets a more equal share of face time across many different tasks. The balance between the party and the monsters they fight (a lot of the new 4e material have been rather brutal) is a bit better too. It does get a little wonky at paragon and epic tiers. Takes some adjustment.

I'd try the Beginner's Box if you want to stick to Pathfinder. I haven't played it yet but it looks pretty good.

Otherwise, bring him/her to D&D Encounters. I run that all the time and it's tailored made for new players. I have them pick out a pregen, catch them up on the story. When its their turn I tell them what options they have. Of course, it depends on the DM.

Just remember, when you take control away from your players they feel the same way you do now.

At the very least, give them a monster knowledge check to determine what they may know about it. If they succeed give them a useful tidbit or two depending on the roll.

I know other systems have better support for this, but I want the feats like power attack, the wondrous items from the handbook, the system with saves.

I want the class features, and other things.

I want all the items like harlberd, all the armors like they are.

Sure, a lot will be free-formed, and rules will be re-written. But I like the wands and rods of fireball, and the wide variety of spells.

In short, I like the feeling of dnd and pathfinder, the flavor.

There's no reason you can't adapt Pathfinder to GURPS. That's kinda what its made for. Hence the Generic Universal part of GURPS.

You're essentially deigning a new system that has a lot of stuff in common with GURPS. You could also find another system and use that with Pathfinder.

Sounds like GURPS Fantasy and/or GURPS Dungeon Fantasy might be what you're looking for.

Thanks guys!

I was talking to a fellow player about his PFS character. He said he was planning to pick up some item (I think he said amulet of mighty fists) with an agility enchant to add his dexterity modifier to damage rolls. I can't seem to find such an item. Does this it actually exist? Thanks.

Don't bother with the armored kilt. Pickup a Haramaki (+1 ac, 0 spell failure, 0 armor check) from Ultimate Combat for 3 gp.

I'd say you're missing misfortune and slumber. I play a witch in PFS and I've trivialized so many fights because of these two abilities. Sure, you'll feel kinda worthless when the baddies save but when they don't its GG.

Also, I'm not sure how awesome Accursed Hex is. You'll eventually (within a level or two) have enough options that you don't have to cast the same hex over and over and still feel like you're contributing to the fight.

While I can understand not allowing the advanced race guide playtest, it would be nice to have a few more race options.

nikadeemus327 wrote:

hogarth wrote:

I'm not too proud to admit it -- I like having my characters survive.

Even as a DM I want my player's characters to survive.

I'm of the opinion that death should be the punishment for stupid. So long as my players play smart they deserve to live.

Noone wants their characters to die, and most GMs don't like it when they kill one. But if death is irrelevant, the game loses a lot of it's fun. In this case, challenge = fun (which is the case for me). It's probably the #1 reason I left LFR.

The threat of character death isn't the only way to provide a challenge. This is especially true when your players have things they care about besides their character being simply alive or dead. This includes things like attachment to the story, setting, and npcs.

I'm not too proud to admit it -- I like having my characters survive.

Even as a DM I want my player's characters to survive.

I'm of the opinion that death should be the punishment for stupid. So long as my players play smart they deserve to live.

We run 7 frequently and it doesn't seem any worse than a 6 player table.

This is my experience too. The scenarios simply don't scale well to a 6 or 7 person table.

EDIT: I play at two different venues. One I always play at a 6 person table. The other one I play at a four person table (occasionally 5). The quality of my experiences are like night and day.

While I approve of banning 7 outright the same problems with occur with 6.

Right, but the value of each of those criteria is subjectively determined by the individual. Hence, the resulting ranking of RPG systems in how 'good' they are would be subjective.

You can objectively say one game is easier to play or is more balanced by using certain metrics (ie number of rules, number of choices, length of turns, preparation time, mistakes made, decision trees, etc). Sure, individual people may assign different weights to those metrics but its entirely possible to find an objective measurement of good.

That may well be. I am unfamiliar with the extent of support WotC currently provides for its settings. From what I have heard, it seems that the flavor conversion of those settings to 4E has been a mixed bag, with Forgotten Realms violated, Eberron done OK and Dark Sun done very well. As to post-conversion support the settings have...

There's simply not a lot of depth to any single setting released during 4e. Each setting gets a player's guide, a campaign setting and maybe an adventure or two. Compare that to Paizo where its all about their setting.

I strongly disagree with the opinion that 3.5e/Pathfinder is a worse ruleset than 4e. There are no objective criteria to judge how good a ruleset is, since we assign different value to different ruleset features. For example, I assign a rather large value to mechanical diversity between classes, so that's one reason (though by no means the only reason) why I find the 3.5e/Pathfinder ruleset far superior to the 4e one. You might not be too bothered by that and might instead value balance between classes (which I also value, but often less than inter-class diversity) more, in which case your preferences would be the reverse of mine.

I dunno. You just listed a number of objective criteria right there. Rules complexity. Number choices. Balance. Ease of learning.

Regarding your setting assessment, I also disagree. I think WotC has some very good campaign settings. Dark Sun was awesome, as were others. Golarion may or may not be good - I am not familiar enough with it to be able to judge, but I am familiar enough with the WotC settings to say that they have some real gems there.

I will rephrase that. WotC does have a number of great settings. I mentioned earlier that Eberron is still one of my favorites. However, WotC simply doesn't support their settings was well as Paizo does. I feel that's an objective fact based on the amount of material Paizo has produced for their setting.

Pathfinder solved some 3.x problems, retained others and created new ones. No system will be perfect.

Of course not but you can still compare the relative strengths and weaknesses of each. For Paizo its the strict adherence to the 3.5 ruleset. For WotC its their limp campaign settings.

Okay so I'm thinking about getting the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, notice I said thinking. And I wanted people opinions on the game. You see I'm playing a 4e DnD game and am not really getting a good vibe (not to say I don't like the game cause I do). But I am also working with AD&D 2e and its too rules heavy. So would you guys suggest Pathfinder? (Yes I'm looking for biased answers because I want true fans opinions)

P.S. I never played 3.0 or 3.5

I cannot recommend Pathfinder if you're looking for something rules light (or trying to avoid something rules heavy).

I can recommend Pathfinder if you're looking for an engaging setting with great adventures.

What do you want?

nikadeemus327 wrote:

sunshadow21 wrote:

nikadeemus327 wrote:

I don't think they are cooking up a 5th edition at all. If they are, its a long ways out.

I would have to go with the latter statement. Unless they are radically departing from 3.5's life cycle, which the timing of Essentials makes seem unlikely, 4E is on the backside of it's supported life. It still has a ways to go, but to think that they haven't at least started thinking about it's replacement seems a bit naive given WotC's history.

I don't think they are actively looking for a replacement edition. They are looking to improve their system where it needs improvement. That may or may not warrant a new edition.

I think Monte's hiring, as well as the ruminations of Mike Mearls in his (now former) online soapbox, indicate that a 5th edition is definitely in the works. Maybe not for release next year, but sooner than you might think, and perhaps in a form you didn't anticipate. You might wanna catch up on those articles; this whole thread has (at least ostensibly) been about a possible 5th edition and its' effect on Pathfinder.

I've read those articles. It doesn't mean what they're working on is a new edition. The same cries of "new edition" occurred leading up to the Essentials line. Once published people realized it was just a bunch of new options despite being a rather large production.

nikadeemus327 wrote:

I don't think they are cooking up a 5th edition at all. If they are, its a long ways out.

I would have to go with the latter statement. Unless they are radically departing from 3.5's life cycle, which the timing of Essentials makes seem unlikely, 4E is on the backside of it's supported life. It still has a ways to go, but to think that they haven't at least started thinking about it's replacement seems a bit naive given WotC's history.

I don't think they are actively looking for a replacement edition. They are looking to improve their system where it needs improvement. That may or may not warrant a new edition.

Okay, well, let's run with that. So, you must believe that essentials was a gaming system technology leap (or at least, an incremental step) forward for 4th edition, right? I mean, it's newer than the original 4th edition, so it must be better, yes? Advancing technology and avoiding stagnation and all that.

Yeah, I think the Essentials line is solid a improvement to the 4e system. It helps to solve a number of problems I had with the original 4e material.

There's also the monster updates 4e did after the second monster manual. Then the skill DC changes. All pretty large, system wide changes.

These are incremental steps that add to and improve the core 4e rules. I'd like to see Paizo do more of that. I'm hoping the beginner's box will deliver.

Is continuing development and revisement of essentials where you think 5th edition should go? Or do you think WoTCs' secret R&D labs are cooking up something far more revolutionary and earth shattering? Some sort of gaming tech which will be to gaming what jet planes were to aviation?

I don't think they are cooking up a 5th edition at all. If they are, its a long ways out.

nikadeemus327 wrote:

(I really wish Drizzt would just die).

That's crazy!!! How dare you! I.....

.....hmmm, actually, I kinda agree with you about that. Maybe nicely, though, like in his sleep or something?

I do disagree about the campaign settings, though. In keeping with the advancing technology of the 4th edition, Wizards moved the forgotten realms "forward" both in time and, in their opinion, conceptually and look at the horrid mess they caused. A grotesque mockery of the world that was loved by many. Is that progress, sir?

I'm not arguing in support of Forgotten Realms. Eberron is a different story (still my favorite setting to this day) but that's stagnated because of lack of updates.

WotC's progress has been with the core rules.

"Held back" in what way?

Using Pathfinder (or 4E, or Savage Worlds) seems like a non-factor when it comes to adventure quality. The amount of effort required to write an adventure? Absolutely. But story/setting quality? Not so much.

Paizo's biggest strength is the quality of their setting and adventures.

In fact, I'd say when it comes to settings (ie Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, etc) Wizards are the archaic ones (I really wish Drizzt would just die).

EDIT: Held back as in not coming out with a new rules edition/version.

nikadeemus327 wrote:

Marc Radle wrote:

nikadeemus327 wrote:

... I often convert Pathfinder modules to 4e because it makes for a better experience for my players and myself.

I really feel they are being held back by the archaic 3.5 ruleset.

Wow - I could not DISAGREE more with this.

Good for you? It is much easier getting people new to table top gaming into 4e, especially Essentials, than it is for Pathfinder. I'm pretty such Paizo knows this. It's why they are releasing a trimmed down version of the game that is intended for beginners. See the beginner's box.

Everyone is different. I have had no problem teaching new people how to play Pathfinder. I agree that the Beginners Box will make it even easier, especially when it comes to younger players, which is a good thing.

What I primarily disagreed with was your statement that Paizo is "being held back by the archaic 3.5 ruleset"

3.5 is not an archaic ruleset. It's been around but it's not archaic. One could perhaps argue that First edition AD&D is archaic by today's standards, but not 3.5 and CERTAINLY not the Pathfinder RPG.

I am fine with someone saying that "4e makes for a better experience for your players and you" because that's your personal experience. My personal experience, as well as every single RPG player I know, is that the 4E was not a good experience - Pathfinder, however, has been a joy.

Archaic in the sense that it's old fashioned. Yes, I'd say that's true. How many mechanics has Paizo been forced to keep so they can maintain backwards compatibility? It leads to a convoluted system. Take how defenses work. You have AC, touch AC, flatfooted AC, etc. Then you have combat maneuver defense. Then you have three types of saving throws. Don't even get me started about the host of design issues that occur because of multiclassing.

Paizo should not be afraid to move forward and change the system. That will, above all things, cause stagnation.

nikadeemus327 wrote:

... I often convert Pathfinder modules to 4e because it makes for a better experience for my players and myself.

I really feel they are being held back by the archaic 3.5 ruleset.

Wow - I could not DISAGREE more with this.

Good for you? It is much easier getting people new to table top gaming into 4e, especially Essentials, than it is for Pathfinder. I'm pretty such Paizo knows this. It's why they are releasing a trimmed down version of the game that is intended for beginners. See the beginner's box.

Should Paizo release a 2nd edition of the PFRPG to compete for novelty value? No, they'll just annoy existing players that way.

I dunno. They are kinda doing this with the beginner's box. While not a second edition per say it will be a trimmed down version of the PFRPG from the way I understand it.

It seems to have the same goal as the essentials line from wizards. Attract new players by making a product that reduces the learning curve.

Ignoring new customers is just silly. Paizo is getting big enough to where they can provide products that attract new customers while still supporting their current ones.

nikadeemus327 wrote:

Paizo has one of the best settings I've ever read (and wonderfully written adventures too). However, I often convert Pathfinder modules to 4e because it makes for a better experience for my players and myself.

I really feel they are being held back by the archaic 3.5 ruleset.

You're wrong :P.

Ok, more seriously, the OGL is what 10 or 11 years old? I'll be 40 in two months. If it's archaic what does that make me? Old enough for Table 3E?

Even more seriously, I never dug into the GSL, but can you share your conversion work online somewhere? Is there a Pathfinder-to-4E group on yahoo or somewhere? I'm sure you and Scott aren't the only two in existance.

My conversion work is nothing out of the ordinary for 4e. I rebuilt the combat encounters using the rules from the DMG and monsters from the compendium. For just about everything else I used the DC appropriate for the difficulty of the task they were trying to complete. I didn't even bother with skill challenges for the most part.

I DM both 4e and 3.PF. Its much easier getting new people into 4e. Maybe the beginner's box will change that for Paizo.

Paizo has one of the best settings I've ever read (and wonderfully written adventures too). However, I often convert Pathfinder modules to 4e because it makes for a better experience for my players and myself.

I really feel they are being held back by the archaic 3.5 ruleset.

I really love painlord's section on roleplay. I ran into my most dreaded type of player yesterday. The person who thinks playacting like an idiot is roleplaying despite having nothing to further define his character concept.

Mark Garringer wrote:

Copy spells - unlimited.

Alchemical crafting - unlimited.
Animal Training - 1/session.

Copy spells (monetary cost, Spellcraft check required, failure prevents copying until next level) - unlimited

Alchemical crafting (monetary cost, Craft (alchemy) check required) - unlimited.
Animal Training (no monetary cost, Handle Animal check required) - 1/session.

Each of these has at least two costs if we include time as a commodity. Pathfinder Society Organized Play does not use time as a commodity. In the case of both scribing spells into spellbooks and alchemy, the monetary cost remains, while training an animal would have only a skill check. The limit on number of tricks one can learn per session is to compensate for the removal of the secondary cost in this specific case. We currently have no plans on changing this, as it has worked fine up until now. People only started complaining about it when they discovered they needed to train their Int 3 animal companions.

Did the animal training rules really work fine? The big reason (to my knowledge) people increased their companion's int was to bypass these rules.

Also, spellbooks aren't threatened during combat in the same way animal companions are. When a wizard copies a spell into their spellbook they can rely on that spell being accessible to them forever. Yes, something could happen to a wizard's spellbook but that's rare, unlike an animal companion that's expected to be in the line of fire often.

Tricks are tied to a companion and not a character. This is the part you're missing and why the above cost (ie one trick per session) is excessive and hurts the character when bad things will happen to their animal companion.

A few extra bonus tricks at first level could solve this problem.

You could always take a large musket (or whatever) as your starting weapon. That's 3d6 weapon damage iirc. The -2 hit might hurt early on but with a full BAB and attacking touch AC it'll be worth the cost.