ronaldsf's page

Back to the original topic from way back when... I think that the Beginner Box introduces a prototype "rules-lite" version of PFRPG that people can use.

Pathfinder has a reputation of being complex because there's a lot of subsystems built on top of it, but the Beginner Box takes away a lot of those subsystems.

The things I've noticed so far that impact play the most are:
1. No attacks of opportunity. You simply CAN'T cast spells if you're next to an enemy. The main effect I see this having is that it makes it easier for the Rogue to move in to backstab.
2. No armor check penalties.
3. No domain spells.
4. No combat maneuvers.

Off of this foundation, you can introduce other parts of "full" Pathfinder that you like: perhaps introduce the AoOs for movement ONLY, and use the Acrobatics skill for moving past creatures. Or just hand-wave that a player can't swim because he's in medium or heavy armor. Or incorporate domain spells for the limited number of domains that are included in the Beginner Box. Grapples can be opposed BAB+strength checks, with the loser being immobilized for a round until they get out of it.

I think a lot of Pathfinder's complexity comes in at higher play, or with certain other classes (such as those with animal companions or eidolons).

One thing I think would be great for someone to do is help young players venture into levels 6-20 by making a pared-down list of high-level feats and a pared-down list of 4th through 9th-level spells, with 10 spells for each level and with four-line spell descriptions in the style of the Beginner Box. (Sure, some things would need explanation, like negative levels for people raised from the dead...) Because one problem for people new to the system is the sheer amount of options available, so having shorter lists would help. I looked at the class tables for the fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard just now and it seems pretty easy to run them up to 20th level using simply their pages from the CRB and the Beginner Box rules.

Personally I prefer the tokens, because I can make my own. I might be able to fab the pawns, but I'd have to find a source for the plastic bases.

The Beginner Box comes with 20 bases and you can take the cardboard pawns out and replace them. Unless you're planning some mega battles, 20 should be enough.

Personally, I don't know of a single gamer who would be happy playing at 1st level for six weeks or two months (which is roughly the 8 levels in a year pace you mentioned). - assumes weekly sessions.

*Raises hand meekly*

Off of what Lincoln Hills says above, there is a dramatic power difference when leveling up that kind of gets me out of the story of my character. But everyone's different I guess.

1. The single biggest reward a PC can get is advancing a level. And the most exciting will be the first time they do it.
2. The single biggest advancement in power and survivability is from 1st to 2nd level.

These are important considerations. At the same time, sticking to the first 5 levels using a faster XP track means planning to cut the campaign short fairly quickly.

(That is, unless the OP uses an E6 kind of system, which I forgot to mention is another path you could take. Google "E6: The Game Inside D&D" for the original game idea. Basically, you go up to 6th level, and after that you earn feats every time you level up. This applies to NPCs in the game world, too.)

#1 is true, but there are other rewards that you can throw at your players: magic weapons, rescuing a powerful NPC who joins the party for the next dungeon, finding a magic item that lets you traverse what was once an impossible obstacle, etc., etc. And rewards feel more like rewards if you face the obstacle first, which the reward lets you overcome. Spoiler for the Beginner Box:

#2 is also true, but the OP can also make sure the players don't face something they can't handle. Also, you may want to be careful with critical hits at Level 1. Your players are brand new to the game and you'll want to lessen the danger of a TPK.

But this set is much more complicated than the BCMI set. In those days I could write up a character on a beer mat. The rules of the red box has been so simple that I could explain them to a newbie in 3 minutes.

Now even with the simplified pathfinder in this box I need a full sized sheet of paper and I have to explain all these bonus modifiers, spells, skills etc. This says all. Maybe you as a designer and hard core fan you are too much into the rule system to be able to correctly evaluate the complexity of pathfinder (even the version in the new box) to a newbie.

Thats not to say that I dont appreciate your effort to produce this great set. I absolutely like it. IMO its a beginning that rpg companies finally recognize the value of simpler rules sets for the future of the industry and their own future. This makes me optimistic.

I'm not worried at all. I went through the original Red Box when I was around 10. Granted, I was kind of an advanced reader, but if a kid is really interested and excited in something they won't really stress about this or that rule. They'll jump in and make mistakes.

I have my own copy of the Beginner Box now. It has a solo adventure that is about as easy to go through as the original Red Box's solo adventure. Then the bulk of the Hero's Handbook deals with character creation step by step. One thing that's very useful are the letters in bright green circles on the character sheet -- every single instruction in the Hero's Handbook tells you which letter to go to fill in information.

There's a lot of math, especially when you get to Skills. None of it goes beyond basic plus/minus arithmetic, however.

And come on, let's face it -- unless you're math-averse, part of the FUN of the game is dealing with all that math and seeing how powerful your character is going to become at the end of the process. :)

Also, let's not forget that Pathfinder might have the appearance of being more complicated, when actually it's because it's more user friendly. The original BECMI box has very simple stat blocks: but that's because you had to page-flip to find saving throws and To Hit charts in the middle of battle. With Pathfinder, having AC and saving throw bonuses all right there makes things much easier. Where Pathfinder gets more complicated is when options and powers are added on top of the basic foundation, which comes at higher levels.

The flip side of the statblock is the character creation process (because your character sheet is a giant statblock after all). Granted, "rolling up" a character is much longer in Pathfinder than in BECMI, but the purpose of this is to create a PC statblock that is robust and can be easily used in play.

Another thing about the Beginner Box is that every spell description is now reduced to four lines, which actually is simpler than the original Red Box.

Thanks for all the helpful responses!

I plan to run the Beginner Box rules for my three kids (ages 7-11), and though I would like them to feel some sense of advancement, I would like to keep them in the Beginner Box rules for quite some time.

If everything goes as planned, I hope to playing short, but frequent sessions with them every weekend for a long time. I'd like advancement to be slow so that they can play some of the same characters and campaign for years to come. I plan to largely use adventure of my own creation.

I haven't run a level-based game since 2nd Edition AD&D, and with weekly sessions over a year, if I recall correctly, I'd have players around 8th level or so. That is the sort of 1st/2nd Edition AD&D advancement rate I'm looking for. I'm guessing I should probably look to using the "slow" experience tables?

Thanks again for all the comments.

You're very welcome. I love kids, and one thing I'd love to be able to do is introduce Pathfinder to people between 7 and 16 years old especially. People that age are so full of excitement and imagination that it becomes more fun for me also. Running it with your own kids must make it even more special! Don't be surprised if they start adding their friends to the game and/or GMing also!

It sounds like for you that the Slow XP track is the way to start. You might even need to reward XP more slowly on top of that: D&D from 3rd Edition forward has "programmed" it so that the default rules for XP mean that you level-up quite quickly compared to previous editions. (In fact, the rate of advancement in 3.0 and 3.5 is closest to Pathfinder's Fast XP track -- Paizo dialed things back a bit when releasing the Pathfinder core rules.) And if you're doing combat-heavy adventures, then this rate of advancement will be even quicker than what Pathfinder's rules expect.

One tip is to put the PCs in situations where they have to go through many CR+0 encounters before they get a chance to rest and replenish their resources. That should help in slowing down the "real-time" level advancement a bit.

Also, could I ask you a favor?

I'm hoping a thread starts here, about young people's reactions to the Beginner Box. I have very limited time and so I can't do much playing these days outside my own group; and so to experience the thrill of hearing about young people experiencing the Pathfinder RPG for the first time would please me to no end.

So if you could post a report here about how it goes the first time, I'd love to read it!

Exiled Prince wrote:

Will this really be good for a 10/11 year old ? It seems a little complicated.

I think it's perfect for a child of that age. My 5th grade teacher used the blue box back in the day to pretty much teach my entire class how to play D&D. He used it as a trick to get us to write—he split the class up into several groups and ran us through encounters at lunchtime one after the other... but wouldn't run the next encounter for any one group until they wrote up the previous one as a short story.

Anyway... a whole classroom of 10-11 year olds learned to play the game using a much less graphically intensive product, so I think this one will do quite well.

That sounds like a great teacher. I'm curious -- was this before the "D&D = The Devil" hysteria or after?

I'm personally EXTREMELY excited about seeing Pathfinder get more exposure via the Beginner Box. Perhaps there can be a plan to donate it to local libraries if it's not cost-prohibitive? Also, maybe bookstores and toy stores can have it on display, or perhaps even have it available for free play at a table. Will you guys ship out cardboard stands to various chains perhaps?

If you find the provided Slow, Medium, and Fast tracks limiting, then perhaps you should resort to a GM's Secret: engineer the desired rate of advancement in a campaign. For example, you can multiply the XP at the end of a session by some factor before announcing it to the players. :) This "x" factor can also be adjusted in between sessions, as the GM gets more of a sense of how fast he or she wants to go.

Alternatively, the GM can hand-wave level advancement. Some GMs prefer this because they want the PCs' level to cohere with where they are in the story. But on the other hand, many players like to add up and track their XP.

Perhaps talk first with your group about what rate of advancement you'd prefer. Some people like having frequent rewards or want to experience the "feel" of high-level play quickly. Others like the feeling of being rewarded only after a significant amount of time or only after great risk, or dislike the idea of the PCs going from relatively-average people to superheroes in a small amount of game time.

Once you guys agree, then start from that base assumption and see whether the rules are giving you the rate of advancement you're looking for. If not, then change it.

I'm new to Pathfinder, and I'm just wondering how long it takes to get to 5th level in terms of sessions (figuring four hours or so per session)?

How much do the three different advancement rates change this? Does the Beginner Box assume a particular advancement rate?

The Beginner Box assumes the Medium XP track.

Assuming that all encounters have Challenge Ratings (CRs) that match the Average Party Level (APL) of the characters, then every advancement of level takes 13 encounters in the Fast XP track, 20 encounters in the Medium XP track, and 30 encounters in the Slow XP track.

The intro adventure that comes with the Beginner Box has about 10 encounters and takes you halfway to 2nd level, assuming a Medium XP track.

So if you double that, that might be a good guess of how long it will take you to go up a level. It's hard to say how long that will take - every group is different. Also, this also assumes you're always doing solid dungeon crawling. Campaigns that have more storytelling, roleplaying, and exploration tend to take up more time compared to the amount of XP you get.

Personally, I prefer slow advancement. But then again I'm a GM -- I'm sure my players would think differently. :)

Vic Wertz wrote:

On the other hand, if your product idea helps transition people to the Core Rulebook, that's something we'd like.

That is my goal, for sure.

"Hey, you are new to gaming, maybe new to GMing, wanted to try this whole roleplaying thing with your friends--fighting monsters, winning treasure. Well here is something for you! And here is how to continue the fun with the core rules!"

Remember, one of my passions is getting people started, getting them to try a new system. Necromancer got its start with the award winning Wizard's Amulet, a freebie pdf designed to help people new to 3E get up and running an adventure using 3E within 15 minutes. I love that idea.

Clark

I'm really looking forward to what you put out, and thanks for letting me know about Wizard's Amulet.

I assume you're already doing this, but it would be great if the new modules also were compatible with the existing pawns in the Beginner Box, too.

I mentioned this in the Beginner Box Preview thread, but I think these things deserve their own thread.

Pawns:

I LOVE THEM

Paizo, I think you should seriously consider a line of these things. Think about the plus side:
• You already have the artwork
• They must be relatively cheap to make (compared to minis)
• They could be sold by the sheet or in campaign packs
• You could also sell the bases separately

From our end:
• They are easy to store
• They are easy to assemble
• They are light-weight
• They are durable
• They are simple to use
• They match the art from the books
• They don't need to be assembled

A win/win all the way around!

+1

Also Paizo, I think in future promotional materials it's worth noting that the Beginner Box includes pawns for ALL the monsters in the included bestiary. It's a great feature and it really hits home that this really is a complete set.

What I think needs to happen is some more output from Paizo that "ramps up" to the full Core Rules. "Intermediate" materials, if you will.

I'm thinking of the following as "intermediate" items:

1. "Graduating from the BB to the Full Rules" material. When Pathfinder was released, there was a PDF for how people could transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder. What I'm thinking of is based off the same idea, but would be somewhat more extensive.

First, there would be a brief summary of the main differences: combat maneuvers, attacks of opportunity, skills not included in the BB, etc.

Second, these subsystems would be given more treatment and new/young GMs can incorporate them into their campaigns as optional additions. Each rule subsystem could be an "add on" to the rules. They would be both a "reading guide" to the Core Rulebook with page references to the CRB, but also include illustrative examples, with accompanying math, that show how a charge is resolved by the GM, or how an attack of opportunity is resolved, etc., etc. In fact, if these are available on the Paizo site, they can be useful to new GMs who start with the Core Rulebook who want to see the different rule subsystems play out in actual examples.

2. Some ADVENTURES that build upon the "lessons" built into the BB's GMG. There are other aspects of simply how to run a game that are useful for GMs to know. For examples, when the characters approach a door, how do you determine whether the monster behind the door hear them approach? How do you resolve a rogue trying to backstab a sleeping ogre?

My first GMing experience (and tabletop roleplaying experience period) was running my friends through Crypt of the Everflame. That module is a good one for new GMs in that it's straightforward to run compared to other Paizo modules, but I STILL had questions. For example

As for publishing entire APs in a "Beginner Box style," that isn't necessary. I think that such a treatment is only necessary in modules that are explicitly trying to focus more on teaching new GMs. This necessarily means mostly for new low-level adventures.

If there is going to be an anniversary edition of Rise of the Runelords, I think that having some more handholding in that volume would be important to have as well. For one, the prospect of running players through a WHOLE TOWN with lots of possibilities is pretty daunting to me, let alone to a young teen who is brand new to GMing. I also am not quite sure simply how to run a typical day in town: "Where are you going to sleep tonight? What do you today?" etc., and when and how to spring "events" on PCs...

First off, I want to say thank you Paizo for the Beginner Box. It's very well-done and it's gorgeous.

I'm looking at the saving throws for the Fighter and Rogue in the Hero's Handbook PDF, pages 22-25. It looks like they need to be corrected.

A 1st level fighter is to have these saving throws:
"Fortitude Save +2
Reflex Save +0
Will Save +2"

In the Core Rulebook, the fighter has +2 in his Fortitude save only. The fighter's increases for each level-up are correct, but not the the 1st level saving throws. (This discrepancy is also repeated in Valeros' pregenerated character sheet.)

Also, on page 25 the 4th-level Rogue gains a +1 in her Reflex save and a +1 in her Will save -- the latter should probably read "no change".

I hope I didn't spoil the party! But my OCD self couldn't remain silent. :)

I'm looking over the PDF and I must say CONGRATULATIONS PAIZO for another success.

Not only does this beat out other beginner boxed sets from the past 20 years, it blows them out of the water. As someone who does page design, I know that a tremendous amount of work and redrafting went into the graphics and layout work here. There is a tremendous amount of polish here and it's dripping with visual appeal.

I do have a few nitpicks, but they're nitpicks. Overall this should awe many new gamers.

IIRC, This is one thing I'm interested in about the beginner box. Apparently TPTB are also concerned about clarity in rulebook presentation, and the Beginner Box is supposed to benefit from it.

While I don't want a Pathfinder 2.x yet, I wouldn't mind if they cleaned it up a bit.

I've picked up a copy of the original 3.0 Player's Handbook (with the 3 authors' signatures and for $10 no less!), and I was surprised to see it had numerous examples to illustrate the rules, at least in comparison with the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.

I suppose Paizo prioritized fitting everything into one volume and so had very few illustrative examples. Also, their audience was largely people who had already been familiar with 3.5.

After the Beginner Box arrives, I hope Paizo publishes "intermediate" material that (1) summarizes the changes going into the full rules and (2) has more newbie-friendly material, including examples, to illustrate the new rules.

Actually, the iconics from UC are stated out. Check out Pathfinder Society, Pregenerated Characters

They're working on the APG Iconics last I heard.

This is great - in fact it looks like the "clearing house" for the pregens of the iconics. Hopefully, they eventually post up the APG iconics and the Magus. Thanks.

You've missed character mini-bios for most of the APG, UM, and UC Iconics, except for poor Feiya. And I suppose Balazar and Imrijka, but nobody really seems to be missing their mini-bios.

And of course there were 1st level stat blocks for all 6 of the APG Iconics included along with the Free RPG Day 2010 release Master of the Fallen Fortress. You can still grab the PDF of it for free.

But no higher-level stat blocks for the APG Iconics, or ones of any level for Magus-Seltiyel, or Lirianne, Hayato, and Reiko from UC.

Thanks a lot - I didn't know about these, and I will definitely keep the Fallen Fortress stat blocks handy. :)

Aww, I'm sad

I can understand why Paizo stopped including pregenerated characters at the back of their APs. Still, I like being able to turn to them if for some reason I want a quick Level 1 character in a particular class, with feats and gear.

But it appears that they stopped publishing pregens with Kingmaker, after which they had only created pregens for the 11 core classes. Still, we have iconic characters for the 9 new base classes, but no stats or mini-bios for them.

Or have I missed something?

For example, for a lot of people, the way 3e/PF handles magic items is unsatisfactory. Personally, I don't mind it too much, but I would also welcome a change to make magic items mostly unnecessary, if and when a new edition comes around. I wouldn't be surprised at all if PF2e changes things in a way that many basic kinds of magic items are neither present nor required. That means you might get a sword that does fire damage rather than physical, flying carpets, and the like, there won't be belts of strength, +X weapons, cloaks of resistance and the like, and the system will be adjusted so the CR assumptions will reflect this.

This is on the top of my wishlist for a later edition (whenever it comes). I don't like the "Christmas tree effect" at all. It also undercuts what ability scores are supposed to represent - 18 used to mean superhuman strength, but what does that mean when a typical 10th level fighter walks in with say a 24 strength?

I listened to the podcast that's linked to above, and I loved to hear that you guys did actual playtests with focus groups of 15- and 16-year-olds. The results sounded like they were veeeery interesting.

Maybe in a future preview, could you guys share a bit more on how that process went? I'd love to hear about new gamers' reactions to the Beginner Box!

I assume those nifty new blank character sheets will be available on paizo.com, yes? :)

I'm throwing caution to the wind and predicting that this product will usher in a rebirth of interest in the pen-and-paper RPG hobby.

It answers 3 common complaints I hear from people who are considering PnP:

"It's too complicated."
The BBox simplifies the rules, and takes you by the hand by introducing the rules step-by-step through an intro adventure.

"It's too expensive."
No longer does a person have to worry walking into a brick-and-mortar store, and see that not only do they have to buy multiple player books, but also a bestiary, a GM book, miniatures, dice, flip-mats, etc. All of these components are provided in the BBox.

"We don't have a GM."
The BBox has an intro adventure for the GM, and introduces rules-knowledge on running the game in the context of an actual playthrough. For me, I think this is the most important part of the BBox for growing the hobby: exciting new young people to become GMs and taking them by the hand and showing it can be fun, rewarding, and learnable!

Now, one thing I can't evaluate yet from the preview is whether the prose is as respectful of its audience and as evocative as the Mentzer Red Box text that I first read at the age of 9, going through the intro adventure and rolling my dice. The 4E Red Box booklets were very uninspiring to me and did nothing to open up my imagination, perhaps dreaming of growing powerful and someday encountering on a red dragon, etc. (I mean nothing bad about the 4E system; just the 4E Red Box booklets.)

It would be great if the BBox intro adventures were as evocative as my first experience with the original Red Box. There are things that tabletop roleplaying makes possible that simply can't come from video game RPGs, such as the emotional involvement, the Shakespearean drama, the tension of wondering what the GM is hiding behind a particular door or whether there is a trapped hallway, the fact that you can take any action you want, a genuine fear of character death, and so on, and so on...

I'm wondering, did the Paizo staff think of this aspect while preparing the BBox, and perhaps look back on "classic" box sets that grew the hobby?

<< By the way, when a Paizo staffer responded to someone suggesting that point-buy be included in the BBox by saying "Rolling dice is fun!", I knew you guys were onto something and you won my faith in this product. :) >>

I love how this product is intended not only to be a tie-in to other products, but that it really stands alone as a complete package by itself. The quality of the counters (very thick cardboard!) and of the flip-mat, all look like they're designed for long-term use, even when "graduating" to the full Pathfinder rules.

From the get-go, you win over new gamers to your company by showing you focus on making a good, long-lasting product. Add my voice to the many thanks that have already been expressed.

I see this thread quickly became a debate about whether Smite Evil is overpowered, but actually looking at the original post it seems to me that this became an issue because a frikkin dragon at APL+2 was killed in the first round, when they were hoping for a more epic battle.

Remember, that CR is a rule of thumb, and not a science. And it doesn't take into account for specific party combinations and synergies that can get out of control at the higher levels. If a GM is looking to stage an epic encounter and you see that one of the PCs can kill the monster in one round, then the GM needs to learn from experience in designing future encounters. And at the table, if this is your BBEG and you realize you made a mistake in the design, I think it's fair for the GM to fudge the HP upward.

Back to the main question of this thread: is Smite Evil overpowered? Well, if a PC, of any class, is using a certain ability over and over again to cakewalk through encounters, then it's time for the GM to adjust the encounters and vary the challenges, and force the players to think more creatively. At the same time, you do want the PC to get some reward for the skill they've invested in. GMing is as much an art as it is a science.

Chuck Norris has his own class. He did not allow Paizo to publish it. All that is known about this class is that a level 1 class feature is:

Round House Kick

As a free action the ****** strikes with one of his feet in a roundhouse kick action.

Every object and creature within a 30 ft must make a Fortitude save or die. The DC of this save is 25 + 2 the ****** level + the ****** Strength.

LOLOL

Salarain wrote:

Lunamaria Hawke wrote:

20 lv in monk/paladin/fighter/gunslinger/rouge/ranger

Are you saying 20 for each of the classes or all in one? So you think he has paladin and Rogue in career? I do think the rest does work.

first 20 levels in each to he would be a LV 120 character.

second he fights evil bad guys by roundhouse kicking in the face so has have a way to do one shot kills and the rouge is just there for s### and giggles.....

Dude that's awesome! How much XP does he have then? Using Core Rulebook 21+ rules... ;)

Sure, Ron's fine. KY -- can I call you KY? :-P -- the game sounds interesting, lots of rolling maadness, but I'm not inclined to learn a new system. However, I do like the idea of rolling d4s with a d12 to gets me some Rolling Elegance, and those special dice look cool. And I much prefer the d12's shape over the unsatisfying d4...

The d4 doesn't even ROLL, for chrissake! It just... drops.

Like a caltrop. And it's funny you guys mention caltrops -- I vividly recall getting an ouchie once stepping on a d4. Now if it had been a d12 with it's classy smoothness that would have been more like foot massage instead of a dagger to my soul.

I see that the PF Beginner Box is going to include a d12 in the set, which actually is completely fine with me. But it raises the question: WHY BOTHER?

I mean, I know of only rule in the game that calls for a d12: when rolling up a Barbarian's hit points after first level. And she's the only class that calls for a d12. Perhaps there are some high-level monsters in the Bestiary that use it, but in my experience gaming our d12s sit lonely and unused. (Mind you, we don't have a Barbarian.)

Is the d12 dead? The current game design philosophy favors the d6 -- you see damage for spells, sneak attacks, etc. scale up with the d6. The d12 doesn't get much love.

I must admit, though, that the d12 is the most aesthetically pleasing. There's something beautiful and zen-like about pentagons positioned at odd angles to create a completely symmetrical die. Still, what use is beauty in still form, if it is never rolled?

Now I'm not asking PFRPG to banish the d12. Quite the contrary -- if you're not going to retire it, then create some more rules that use it. But this uncertain middle ground leaves me agitated and asking the question...

Why bother?

What an awesome story! I don't have a Plot Twist Deck, not seeing the utility in it. But seeing other people's examples of how they might come into play just might convince me to :)

My personal preference for a ToEE turn-based system aside, I think that the first studio-produced CRPG product with the Pathfinder brand on it would need to be a pause-and-play simultaneous combat system. I think that's part of the reason why the Baldur's Gate series, which pioneered this style of play, resuscitated the CRPG genre and opened it up to a broader audience of gamers. Most CRPGs since have adopted this style, and it allows for more action-oriented D&D noobs to jump in without the high learning curve that the ToEE/D&D 3.x system demands.

This first, if only to "break open" the industry again to allow for rich, BG-style storytelling again and to establish the Pathfinder brand as a major contender. Then, a subsequent product can appeal to the smaller audience that is clamoring for turn-based tactics.

The lackluster critical and commercial reception to Dragon Age 2 -- the sequel to the game now seen as the flagship game in the CRPG industry, the one that "represents CRPGs" -- leaves things open for a quality CRPG to jump in and attract the same media hype that DA:O attracted. IMHO, DA:O's limitations were somewhat glossed over in the "true successor to BG" hype that accompanied its release, showing that both the industry and gaming media really wanted so much to revive interest in what in the computer gaming industry was once its most important genre way back in the day. I think the time's very ripe for another player to enter the arena.

On a side note, it is *really* hard to get players to stop calling it D&D. I started running PF for my daughter and some younger friends, and they had no preconceptions. Then, one day, someone's dad said "Oh, you're playing D&D." Now they all call it that.

Yeah, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, in your daughter's case at least. "D&D" is kind of a default term for the hobby. It's not so important to call it Pathfinder as the fact that she's actually playing Pathfinder - it's almost a good thing and a relief that your daughter and her friends don't really care. And perhaps also it's just that D&D is easier and quicker to say :P

Whether "Pathfinder" becomes the new default term will play itself out on its own, quite independently from the nomenclature we insist upon within the hobby - it'll depend on the growing popularity of the game system. On that front, things are looking pretty good.

Bare minimum? The core rulebook and the AP. Next most important beyond those would be the Bestiary - essentially a part of the Core Rules is contained in the appendices: there you'll find the mechanics of monster abilities and the abilities of monster types that are not in the CRB. In fact, having that stuff is ESSENTIAL because that stuff will be referred to in the AP, it's just not as-necessary a purchase because it's also reproduced in the public PRD and is relatively easy to print out.

I would also allow your player to have the Witch by printing off the class description from the PRD. It's overwhelming to give a new player an entire splatbook and say "pick something from here." But as the GM if you have already familiarized yourself with the material then I'd suggest talking the players through their character concept with them and say, "oh, what you'll want to play is a witch actually" and show them only what they need to see. You can even point them in the direction of a specific archetype - new players will be learning each new power as it comes anyway, "learning as they go" with your guidance primarily.

That's my suggestion, because a key ingredient for your campaign is your players' investment in their characters - if they can be especially excited about their character, that might spawn ideas for character arcs that you can tie-in to the AP.

On a related note, when selecting your AP find out what flavor actually excites you and your players - if you guys want an urban adventure with political intrigue go with CotCT. If you guys look forward to turning down the lights and upping the level of horror, go with Carrion Crown.

Fake Healer wrote:

I have always imagined a game where you play in turn-based for combats but afterward could view a cinematic that replays your party's moves in a realtime setting to show the combat realistically.

I had that idea, too! I thought about this for a Heroes of Might and Magic game, where you don't get to see your whole army - you have your commander standing off the actual battlefield and then 7 stacks, which represent one or more (can be thousands) critter of the same exact type. So the difference between a small army and something you can conquer worlds with isn't really a visual one, except when you look at the numbers.

So I thought it would be fun to have a cinematic round-up of the fight after the fight, the way they sometimes have fighting scenes in the cut-scenes.

Unfortunately, I don't think a cinematic replay can work out - turn-based combat is inherently different from simultaneous combat. One creature changes position on the battlefield, and this informs how the next creature is going to act. It simply isn't possible to portray this in a way where everyone is moving at the same time.

The tactical richness of turn-based combat would need to be diminished to evoke the excitement/realism of simultaneous combat. Unfortunately in this situation, there truly is a give-and-take.

That's also why you can't "flip the switch" between true turn-based combat and real-time combat. Games like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights used a pause-and-play mode that also altered the strategy of tabletop D&D combat. Still, those games were big successes... just wanted to point out that once you're talking cinematic replay or simultaneous movement then PFRPG combat becomes a different beast.

A couple of weeks ago I only new of one person that played Pathfinder, and he had just recently moved out of state... so i would say that, then, it was extremely difficult to find Pathfinder players.

Then, I said "You know, this Adventure Path looks awesome - I'm going to run Pathfinder," and suddenly I have a full play group in a regular game of Pathfinder, and another full play group that is excited to get a chance to try it out.

...I suppose that is a sort of "cheating" when it comes to finding players though, since they are all the guys I play other RPGs with.

To address the OP's overall question, I think that thenobledrake's story illustrates what it will take to actually fuel the growth of PFRPG: it won't necessarily be the appeal of the ruleset to potential players, but its appeal to GMs who will then recruit players.

There's a marketing term for this: brand advocates? (Not sure) So I would think it's more telling of the future health of PFRPG if there are more people who are so excited by the system that they are ready to use it to bring together their friends and tell their stories, etc.

If you haven't seen it check out Dominions3. The graphics are outdated, the interface takes some learning, but it is by far the deepest fantasy strategy game I've come across. It's not Pathfinder based, but has it's own world, based more on myth than on modern fantasy tropes. It's not for everyone, but if you like that kind of thing, I can't recommend it enough.

I haven't heard of it before - how does it compare to FFH2? I'm willing to try it out.

Instead of a good RPG (which I'd enjoy too) - I would really like to see a good empire-building Pathfinder game. Fantasty Civilization basically. The best game of the type, in my opinion, is Master of Magic from 1994. That's a very long time without a great fantasy XXX game. (That is explore, expand, exterminate, not the other type of XXX game :P)

I LOVED Master of Magic, and am unhappy there has been no update to that game. Have you by any chance tried Fall From Heaven 2, the Civ 4 mod? There is one example of an excellent fan-created production. It was developed over the past 5 years by a team of 20+ people headed by someone who had been a long-term D&D player and designed the civilizations after nation-states from his long-running D&D campaign.

First of all, A HUGE CONGRATS to Lisa and the rest at Paizo for PFRPG's success.

Debates among fans about who should develop a PFRPG computer game are just that: debates among fans. The first question: is there a group of fans willing to do this? If not, what ideas for a computer game can we generate that would create interest among fans or from a software developer?

I'd like to throw my two cents in about what I'm looking for in a computer game. While we have ToEE, Baldur's Gate, and Neverwinter Nights as recent frames of reference, let's not be bound by what those games achieved.

I, for one, am looking for rich interaction with NPCs and a "world" that the old Ultima games provided.

More specifically, what you saw in the Ultima series from Ultima 4 through Ultima 7. I want character portraits, dammit! By the time Ultima 7 came around, the NPCs were almost like living, breathing people, with their own quirks and motivations that you decided whether you cared about and which may or may not have much to do with the overarching plot. They not only went about their day-to-day lives, but you could catch them stealing bread or having affairs or what-not. You really did feel like you were in a small town with its local personalities. Every town would have its reputation: the pirate cove would have its wenches and pirates, the goody-tooshoo Abbey would have its religious nuts.

With the RPG games I have played since Ultima 7, I have felt that NPCs are just frustrating, boring dialogue trees that you have to schlep through to get the vital information needed for your quest. Not interesting at all.

As for game design, I think Kingmaker would be the ideal starting point. You can start with a wide-open space and allow for future expansion as fans expand on the basic structure: adding adventures and dungeons - heck, even porting-in entire Pathfinder modules by placing them in a hex on the map. However, I think there would need to be a small town that is an intermediary between the big cities and Oleg's.

And as compelling as the "yeah...it is a game, based on an old version of a game, which when to a new version, spawned this spin-off. We went to this version because we didn't want our old rules to change, which they did with Pathfinder. And we didn't want to buy our products all over again...which uh...we did when Pathfinder products came out." From what I have seen at conventions, the new influx of Pathfinder gamers is not great.

I think it will be interesting to see how successful the Beginner Box is at reining in new young players.

As for the success of the D&D computer games, I think the D&D brand was so recognizable that it could support the release of computer games that attracted buyers who weren't necessarily PnP players. I was never a pen-and-paper player until one year ago, but I bought Pool of Radiance, Baldur's Gate, and other games for the longest time because they were associated with D&D.

There would need to be a paradigm shift in the general public and the media's eyes as to who the bigwig on the scene is, I think, before Pathfinder's brand can do the same.

Shinmizu wrote:

Azure_Zero wrote:

I can argue against that, look at mods of some games, Like I don't know, Counter-Strike (which started as a mod made by half-life players).

I'll second you and bring up community mods for Morrowind and Oblivion as further examples. Several of the texture and model mods are stunning.

Thanks for the back up.

If we all tried to learn the skills and put our resources together we Pathfinder players could make our own Pathfinder game / mod (non-profit so no royalties, and may require Paizo's permission) and show that a Pathfinder game is profitable to make commericially and those that worked on it may get hired to help in the commercial version of the game.

There's some diversity of opinion here as to what kind of game people are looking for. I see votes for:

1. A Temple of Elemental Evil-style game: isometric view, turn-based combat that tries to preserve all the combat options and skills of the original game.
2. Neverwinter Nights: single player, 1st-person (with optional overhead) perspective, Dragon Age/Baldur's Gate style simultaneous turns (pause-and-play). This would inherently alter the Pathfinder rules.

Personally, I would prefer a ToEE-style game, set to an epic story of the quality like was seen in the Baldur's Gate series. I love the Pathfinder rules and would prefer to play with them without modification. And there already is a community of people, Circle of Eight, who have been modding ToEE. They'll have some know-how as to the inner workings of the software engine.

On the other hand, Neverwinter Nights has the advantage of being designed from the get-go to allow for people to create their own adventures and worlds.

I'm very proud to support a company that puts out its core materials for free on the internet so that people can try it out and see if they like it.

Thank you, Paizo!

I'm really looking forward to the "finishing moves" myself :)

Some call me Tim wrote:

Dabbler wrote:

The pattern is always:

Calculate base damage, multiplying for vulnerabilities if needed.
Then apply the effects of saves.
Then apply any resistance or DR.

Do you have a rules quotation for this?

Sadly no. It's logical though:

If a creature takes extra damage from a source, or you inflict extra damage (from extra strength or Empowering a spell) it multiplies at the start.

Then any saves or divisions take place - a reflex save represents getting out of the way, for example.

Only then does any DR or resistance apply to the final actual damage that are inflicted.

I'm guessing this isn't addressed directly in the rules, but I agree with your logic. In a sense, it "starts" from the attacker's end and ends with the target's natural resistances/immunities.

However, one could also theoretically say that the swarm first tries to avoid the attack, and it's only after this that the effects of contact (e.g. extra 50% damage) apply.

ronaldsf wrote:

Okay, let's say theoretically I'm a 5th level sorcerer and I cast Burning Hands on a swarm that has DR 10/-. I roll 11 damage, and the swarm makes its saving throw.

Area effect spells have a 50% damage bonus against swarms.

So... what do I calculate first? I get a different result every time. Assuming that DR applies either first or last, which of the following shows the right order we apply these effects?

DR doesn't apply against spells.

Thanks, you're right.

I'll keep the original example unchanged because people are answering my question.

Besides, this same question would come up when using a slashing weapon against a swarm of Tiny creatures (reduced to half damage) and other situations.

Okay, let's say theoretically I'm a 5th level sorcerer and I cast Burning Hands on a swarm that has DR 10/-. I roll 11 damage, and the swarm makes its saving throw.

Area effect spells have a 50% damage bonus against swarms.

So... what do I calculate first? I get a different result every time. Assuming that DR applies either first or last, which of the following shows the right order we apply these effects?

CHOICE 1:
Area-bonus, then saving throw, then DR:
11 + 50% = 16
16 / 2 = 8
8 - 5 = 3

CHOICE 2:
Saving throw, then area-bonus, then DR:
11 / 2 = 5
5 + 50% = 7
7 - 5 = 2

CHOICE 3:
DR, then area-bonus, then saving throw:
12 - 5 = 7
7 + 50% = 10
10 / 2 = 5

CHOICE 4:
DR, then saving throw, then area-bonus:
12 - 5 = 7
7 / 2 = 3
3 + 50% = 4

I know, it feels like taking the SAT. :p

Thanks in advance!

D&D is full of monsters like that. It's a time-honored tradition of D&D and one of the things that makes the game great.

The Lurker Above (It's a ceiling that eats you), the Trapper (and a matching floor!), and the Exectioner's Hood (it's a hood. It eats your head.) were all recently revised by paizo into one creature, and they did a fairly decent job of it.

But you know what they didn't try to do? Save the Spanner. The Spanner is one of those monsters that was so stupid people have literally forgotten it existed. It's a giant stone bridge. That Eats You. As Bill O'Reilly would say: You can't explain that!

There's also Stunjelly (It's a wall. That Eats You.), Cloakers (It's a cape. That Eats You.), the goldbug (It's a coin. That Eats You.), and while my desperate need to preserve my sanity says it ain't so, I know I've seen several attempts at It's a Sword. That Eats You.

But the best of them all is the Ragamoffyn. It's a pile of dirty laundry.

THAT EATS YOU!!!

I'm loving all this. And don't forget about cursed items. My favorite title for a magic item is still "Armor of Arrow Attraction" :)

And treasure chests... that punch you?! That is so full of awesome.

When I got my first copy of the 1E Monster Manual, imagine my surprise to find this weird Chinese toy in the game. Turns out that Gary Gygax had bought this exact same bag of plastic monsters for use as minatures, and declared this weird looking thing a rust monster...and gave it powers to scare fighters into tears.

It wouldn't surprise me if the intellect devourer began as a rust monster toy with the tail and feelers cut off.

Wow, what a find! As for the Gelatinous Cubes, I remember playing Ultima I (the very old role-playing game by Richard Garriott) and walking down a hallway. It was in a first-person perspective, revolutionary for its time. When you walked down a hallway, you could see a monster approaching from a distance and decide whether you were going to run away. Not so with the Gelatinous Cube! You would just walk into it and take damage! Hence the "birth" of the Gelatinous Cube! :)

Another addition to the list of monsters-created-to-torture-D&D-players would be the Mimic! A monster has evolved on the basis of adventurers looking for human-constructed receptacles for treasure? Not likely - more likely candidates evolution-wise would be to impersonate a magic item, or gold itself. But no... it's more entertaining for evil GMs to have a treasure chest eat an adventurer who has just fought a hard battle!

Rust monsters don't poop - they don't even have an anus. They are almost perfectly efficient at metabolizing oxidized metals, and have no water content in their bodies. The tiny amounts of residual non-ferrous material that remains in the oxidized pile created by the rust monsters rusting ability take two forms: hydrocarbons from oils and zinc.

These hydrocarbon oils are stored in the body and lubricate the rust monsters internal functions (since they have no water in their bodies), such as muscles. These oils are drawn in a layer of specialized organs surrounding the stomach, and begin continuously working their way out of the creature's body. Eventually they are "sweated" out of the creatures pores, giving the creature's skin a waxy sheen.

Meanwhile a second set of organs form ducts leading from the stomach to small (almost microscopic) vents along the creature's lateral lines. If you were to run your finger along this line, you would pick up a waxy, white residue. This is a combination of zinc and the oils mentioned above.

This material, whitewax, is perhaps the finest sunblock in the world, but is produced in such small quantities that its harvest for commercial purposes is nearly impracticable. A "farm" of 50 rust monsters would produce a bottle with 5 uses every year, and the cost of feeding the creatures would make that bottle worth about 5000 gp. A single application of whitewax provides the benefits of an endure elements spell (hot environments only) for 24 hours, or until washed off with alcohol (whichever comes first).

What does a Mimic poop?

There is no ecology to the rust monster. They are simply the creation of evil DMs/game designers who wanted to see their fighters run away and freak out when they saw them coming.

Gelatinous cubes fall under this category as well. Square shaped see-through monsters? Psht.

With the rule changes from 3.5 to PF, it is now a legal tactic to try and sunder the wizard's bonded item. Having to make a concentration check each time he tries to cast a spell and losing the free spell is a significant disadvantage for him.

And with the introduction of the witch, the familiar has become a valid target. Ok, not in a random or surprise encounter, but if you plan to engage the witch tomorrow, it's always a good idea to try and do away with the familiar.
And the witch should better take precautions that this doesn't happen.

I agree with this. I noticed the rule in the CRB just yesterday -- that wizards who lose their bonded item must use a concentration check for every spell they cast -- looks like a legitimate target in the heat of battle to me. Not sure how the PCs are supposed to be able to find out which is the enemy wizard's bonded item, however. I guess they'd have to use divinations or do some investigating?

Targeting a witch's familiar can lead to some fun scenarios: imagine a rogue investigating the witch's hut and trying to take out Kitty. The witch finds out what the rogue is trying to do, and so sends out an illusionary cat to set up a trap!

It seems fair to me to require wizards and witches to come up with a plan to protect their bonded objects and familiars from being identified against more intelligent opponents who have a reason to target it.

Perhaps the "second step" would be tied in with one of Paizo's adventure paths?

I understand that Paizofolk must necessarily stay mum on these things, but when I noticed that one of the pieces of artwork for BB was supposed to be in Sandpoint (am I imagining this?), I immediately thought that Paizo planned to point new players to Rise of the Runelords as a "Hey! So, have you found out that you like PFRPG? Get a taste of what our entire line has to offer by jumping into one of our Adventure Paths!"

And this would coincide with a Pathfinder-compatible re-release of RotRL of course. :) And also, it doesn't hurt that the Jade Regent AP, which apparently also has its origins in Sandpoint, would begin at around the same time that BB comes out. Also, introducing people to a specific town in Golarion will also hook people into the official campaign setting as well.

Yeah, I like the idea of treating Kitty as equipment, unless the PC uses it for scouting, etc. There's already enough to worry about managing in running a combat.

LazarX: I haven't run a game with a wizard yet, so it never could've been an issue then.