It says they must select one of the two as well...it lists two, it would say one of the five if it had five. This no more means there is all it can ever be done much like sorcerer and bloodlines, it tells ya to pick one..but ya can always add more
Halfling Love. I think I've been to that website....
I am NOT the webmaster of that site.
Really.
...
I confess, I create extra feat chains for my rangers and add them into the options available. I don't see anything wrong with this, myself, it's just adding variations.
Careful now....the Rule Zero Police are watching.....
I confess, I create extra feat chains for my rangers and add them into the options available. I don't see anything wrong with this, myself, it's just adding variations.Careful now....the Rule Zero Police are watching.....
There is nothing wrong with using Rule Zero. The problem occurs when you are claiming something isn't a problem because you can use Rule Zero to fix it. Then you are just making a fallacious argument.
Something has to actually be a "problem" for you to have to "fix" it with rule zero. For example, "I want more options for the Rangers in my campaign" isn't a problem with Pathfinder. "I want a fighter variant that can fly and has a good will save" (as another example) isn't a PROBLEM with pathfinder. Someone wants something they don't have, not something that is MISSING. There is a difference. A whole lot of that goes on in these boards. People see a problem with the system because they don't see everything they want. In the immortal words of the great Justin Timberlake, cry me a river.
I am very happy so far with Pathfinder, however I really haven't played as much yet to find out the inevitable kinks.
I really welcomed the opportunity to get rid of all the extra 3.5 splat books and get back to basics, since by the end of 3.5 there were so many options that the game felt needlessly bloated.
I welcome the addition of some more options beyond the core rulebook with the Advanced Players Guide, but I hope Paizo keeps the number of splatbooks way down in the future and doesn't fall prey to power creep.
Especially I'd like to avoid possibly broken combinations like the gishes which were possible at the end of 3.5, with combinations like Dustblade/Wizard/Abjurant Champion/Eldritch Knight or other such nonsense.
I'd love to see more combat trees for the ranger as well. The ranger really does miss a two-handed Aragorn-style combat tree. :p
I welcome the addition of some more options beyond the core rulebook with the Advanced Players Guide, but I hope Paizo keeps the number of splatbooks way down in the future and doesn't fall prey to power creep.
Be careful. You'll get shanked with a shiv fashioned from the plastic case from someone's Gunslinger Girls boxed set for saying you don't allow 3.5 rulebooks in your campaign.
I welcome the addition of some more options beyond the core rulebook with the Advanced Players Guide, but I hope Paizo keeps the number of splatbooks way down in the future and doesn't fall prey to power creep.Be careful. You'll get shanked with a shiv fashioned from the plastic case from someone's Gunslinger Girls boxed set for saying you don't allow 3.5 rulebooks in your campaign.
Apparently not by my players, who were all okay with it ( well, one whined 5 minutes about it ^^ ).
I welcome the addition of some more options beyond the core rulebook with the Advanced Players Guide, but I hope Paizo keeps the number of splatbooks way down in the future and doesn't fall prey to power creep.Be careful. You'll get shanked with a shiv fashioned from the plastic case from someone's Gunslinger Girls boxed set for saying you don't allow 3.5 rulebooks in your campaign.
Personally I find it interesting that so many people are unsupportive of the 3PP creating additional options for PF, you know given that Paizo start as a 3PP itself.
Personally I find it interesting that so many people are unsupportive of the 3PP creating additional options for PF, you know given that Paizo start as a 3PP itself.I welcome the addition of some more options beyond the core rulebook with the Advanced Players Guide, but I hope Paizo keeps the number of splatbooks way down in the future and doesn't fall prey to power creep.Be careful. You'll get shanked with a shiv fashioned from the plastic case from someone's Gunslinger Girls boxed set for saying you don't allow 3.5 rulebooks in your campaign.
I really prefer to let make the guys at Paizo the decisions what is balanced for their game and what is not. A lot of the old 3.5 spells and feats are severely unbalanced and I got *no* desire to have a.) re-balance all that stuff by myself and b.) then get arguments from other players to let their pet feats, PrCs and spells into the game.
If I wouldn't be willing to let Paizo do the work of balancing, I wouldn't feel it necessary to shell out the 80 bucks for the Gamemastery Guide and Advanced Players Guide later this year. I still got all my 3.5 splat books, after all.
Apparently not by my players, who were all okay with it ( well, one whined 5 minutes about it ^^ ).I welcome the addition of some more options beyond the core rulebook with the Advanced Players Guide, but I hope Paizo keeps the number of splatbooks way down in the future and doesn't fall prey to power creep.Be careful. You'll get shanked with a shiv fashioned from the plastic case from someone's Gunslinger Girls boxed set for saying you don't allow 3.5 rulebooks in your campaign.
Well, around these parts some seem to froth at the very concept of it. I didn't really have any problem from my players either, but I've had more than one person on these boards tell me they'd leave my game if I'd imposed that sort of decision on them.
Well, around these parts some seem to froth at the very concept of it. I didn't really have any problem from my players either, but I've had more than one person on these boards tell me they'd leave my game if I'd imposed that sort of decision on them.Apparently not by my players, who were all okay with it ( well, one whined 5 minutes about it ^^ ).I welcome the addition of some more options beyond the core rulebook with the Advanced Players Guide, but I hope Paizo keeps the number of splatbooks way down in the future and doesn't fall prey to power creep.Be careful. You'll get shanked with a shiv fashioned from the plastic case from someone's Gunslinger Girls boxed set for saying you don't allow 3.5 rulebooks in your campaign.
Well it might be how they came to support PF, versus say, sticking with 3.5. If they were told that by going to PF, they could continue to use all of their splatbooks because of the "compatibility" of PF, then you might be able to understand their frustration if those options where suddenly pulled out from under them. They might feel they were sold a false bill of sale.
I want to re-post something I said in a thread on one of the more obscure forums which pretty much sums up my thoughts on this:
<snip>...not everybody is perfect, but I personally do feel, and of course it is my opinion, that the Pathfinder rules set has been as close to perfect as 3.X can get and certainly is the closest it's been so far. Perfection, of course, while a reasonable goal, is virtually impossible to achieve, it remains a fact that I've had to come up with houserules and argue with players very very little in comparison to previous editions.
I know there are some vague passages here and there in the Core Rulebook, but I've been able to make very reasonable judgment calls on these, most of them, in the end <sic> ruled in exactly the way I called them, proving that although they're vague mechanically, the spirit of them is clear enough for reasonable people who don't get bent out of shape about stuff like this to surmise their intent and make a fair judgment call.
The Paizo staff has earned my complete trust...</snip>
Well it might be how they came to support PF, versus say, sticking with 3.5. If they were told that by going to PF, they could continue to use all of their splatbooks because of the "compatibility" of PF, then you might be able to understand their frustration if those options where suddenly pulled out from under them. They might feel they were sold a false bill of sale.
Not if the DM puts the ground-rules on the table from the start.
For the moment my group is only using Pathfinder and the download of the APG. We want to see how everything works out before trying to see what we can add back in the game from 3.5. We have imported a few house rules that were used in 3.5 and we felt like they were a good fit.
Natural Spell is not allowed. It isn't the casting in a fighting form that is the problem, it is going as small as possible and casting away on an enemy who can't find the tiny guy we have a problem with. It's harder to counter than invisibility.
Perception is a class skill regardless of class. This is a carryover from 3.5 when no one could fathom why the fighter couldn't perform as a sentry. Armies are made up of these, but they can't guard themselves? No sense, no sense at all.
Swim and Profession: Sailor are class skills for everyone. This is due to the setting taking place on an island chain more than anything else.
The skill things make sense, I gotta say.
Those sound like reasonable houserules for your campaign. I've kept a few myself (such as almost all Teleportation spells having a 10-minute casting time).
For the moment my group is only using Pathfinder and the download of the APG. We want to see how everything works out before trying to see what we can add back in the game from 3.5. We have imported a few house rules that were used in 3.5 and we felt like they were a good fit.
Natural Spell is not allowed. It isn't the casting in a fighting form that is the problem, it is going as small as possible and casting away on an enemy who can't find the tiny guy we have a problem with. It's harder to counter than invisibility.
How is this happening? Even if the druid maxes his stealth ranks, and makes himself tiny he still needs cover or concealment. Cover normally blocks line of sight/affect, so I don't see how he is hiding. Another thing is that once you attack your position is given away.
Well it might be how they came to support PF, versus say, sticking with 3.5. If they were told that by going to PF, they could continue to use all of their splatbooks because of the "compatibility" of PF, then you might be able to understand their frustration if those options where suddenly pulled out from under them. They might feel they were sold a false bill of sale.Not if the DM puts the ground-rules on the table from the start.
I agree, but the comment was about statements made on an message board.
Consider two different play groups. Group 1, likes 3.5 but is convinced by their DM to switch to PF. The DM tells this group that they can still use all of the splat material from 3.5, it is just the core stuff that is switching. This is the selling point for this group as they liked 3.5's additional content. Now consider Group 2, this group had gotten fed up with all of the 3.5 splatbooks. They wanted to stick with something close to 3.5, but powered up a bit. They see PF fulfilling that role, not as powerful as 3.5+splats but more powerful than 3.5 core.
Now consider a player from Group 1 coming into Group 2's game. Would they be satisfied? Probably not, because including the splats was what sold them on going to PF. Since Group 2 does not allow those, the main selling point for them is gone. Thus they will probably quit Group 2's game and look for a group more like Group 1.
I agree, but the comment was about statements made on an message board.
Consider two different play groups. Group 1, likes 3.5 but is convinced by their DM to switch to PF. The DM tells this group that they can still use all of the splat material from 3.5, it is just the core stuff that is switching. This is the selling point for this group as they liked 3.5's additional content. Now consider Group 2, this group had gotten fed up with all of the 3.5 splatbooks. They wanted to stick with something close to 3.5, but powered up a bit. They see PF fulfilling that role, not as powerful as 3.5+splats but more powerful than 3.5 core.
Now consider a player from Group 1 coming into Group 2's game. Would they be satisfied? Probably not, because including the splats was what sold them on going to PF. Since Group 2 does not allow those, the main selling point for them is gone. Thus they will probably quit Group 2's game and look for a group more like Group 1.
I don't think we're arguing about anything. LOL.
How is this happening? Even if the druid maxes his stealth ranks, and makes himself tiny he still needs cover or concealment. Cover normally blocks line of sight/affect, so I don't see how he is hiding. Another thing is that once you attack your position is given away.For the moment my group is only using Pathfinder and the download of the APG. We want to see how everything works out before trying to see what we can add back in the game from 3.5. We have imported a few house rules that were used in 3.5 and we felt like they were a good fit.
Natural Spell is not allowed. It isn't the casting in a fighting form that is the problem, it is going as small as possible and casting away on an enemy who can't find the tiny guy we have a problem with. It's harder to counter than invisibility.
A tiny creature can use just about anything as cover. Also, re-hiding after an attack as a Tiny creature who's been twinked for hiding is NOT hard in any way, shape, or form against an average character especially at range. Think Call Lightning.
However, in Jason's campaign, since Perception is a class skill for all classes, that should be a little bit easier to counter if only through multiple spot checks and a bit of luck.
How is this happening? Even if the druid maxes his stealth ranks, and makes himself tiny he still needs cover or concealment. Cover normally blocks line of sight/affect, so I don't see how he is hiding. Another thing is that once you attack your position is given away.For the moment my group is only using Pathfinder and the download of the APG. We want to see how everything works out before trying to see what we can add back in the game from 3.5. We have imported a few house rules that were used in 3.5 and we felt like they were a good fit.
Natural Spell is not allowed. It isn't the casting in a fighting form that is the problem, it is going as small as possible and casting away on an enemy who can't find the tiny guy we have a problem with. It's harder to counter than invisibility.
A tiny creature can use just about anything as cover. Also, re-hiding after an attack as a Tiny creature who's been twinked for hiding is NOT hard in any way, shape, or form against an average character especially at range.
However, in Jason's campaign, since Perception is a class skill for all classes, that should be a little bit easier to counter if only through multiple spot checks and a bit of luck.
I know creatures get bonuses for being far away, but most fights don't start out past 60 feet. I have not been in too many that start out past 30, even if I was outside. I guess I will have to try it(being tiny) to see how it works.
This is always baffling to me. Why do the publishers of Dragon Magazine get so much trust in handling game balance?
I've seen you mention this before. Why do you label Dragon, as a whole, as being such a problem? I never had anywhere near as many problems with material presented in Dragon causing me to have to dramatically alter my campaigns as I did with WOTC books.
I guess it would be helpful if you could spell out what showed up in Dragon that caused problems for you.
I really prefer to let make the guys at Paizo the decisions what is balanced for their game and what is not. A lot of the old 3.5 spells and feats are severely unbalanced and I got *no* desire to have a.) re-balance all that stuff by myself and b.) then get arguments from other players to let their pet feats, PrCs and spells into the game.This is always baffling to me. Why do the publishers of Dragon Magazine get so much trust in handling game balance?
Because Pathfinder is the most balanced version of 3.X ever and arguably about as balanced as it can be and they published it.
I've seen you mention this before. Why do you label Dragon, as a whole, as being such a problem? I never had anywhere near as many problems with material presented in Dragon causing me to have to dramatically alter my campaigns as I did with WOTC books.
I guess it would be helpful if you could spell out what showed up in Dragon that caused problems for you.
I think it's meant to be diminishing. Whatever. All I hear is "burka burka burka".
I really prefer to let make the guys at Paizo the decisions what is balanced for their game and what is not. A lot of the old 3.5 spells and feats are severely unbalanced and I got *no* desire to have a.) re-balance all that stuff by myself and b.) then get arguments from other players to let their pet feats, PrCs and spells into the game.This is always baffling to me. Why do the publishers of Dragon Magazine get so much trust in handling game balance?
I agree MiB, and while getting paid to do something often means you know what you are doing, there are enough broken _______ to know the DM should be the final authority of balance especially since playstyle determines balance to a great extent. Blind trust is never a good.
Because the standard of writing was low. Game material ran a very wide gamut of balance, and the writing quality almost always ranged from very low to very low. Pretty much every dodgy spell in Spell Compendium came from Dragon, for one.
Well, I guess if this is how you feel, this is how you feel. The first part of your statement really isn't much of a commentary, except you were never a fan of Dragon and you take a pretty broad shot at the magazine quality as a whole.
As to the Spell Compendium issue, here is the thing . . . many of the spells, as they appear in the Spell Compendium, aren't exactly how they originally appeared. Many had casting times changed from standard actions to swift actions, or got extra effects, or some other alteration in the transition between the mediums.
The same thing happened with spells that originally appeared in Forgotten Realms sources, which not only changed casting times and limitations, but also took spells that were specific to one faith available only with a feat and made them general cleric spells.
There were indeed some problems with the Spell Compendium, but many of those problems originated with the translation of the material, not with the original source.
I've seen you mention this before. Why do you label Dragon, as a whole, as being such a problem? I never had anywhere near as many problems with material presented in Dragon causing me to have to dramatically alter my campaigns as I did with WOTC books.
I guess it would be helpful if you could spell out what showed up in Dragon that caused problems for you.
Because the standard of writing was low. Game material ran a very wide gamut of balance, and the writing quality almost always ranged from very low to very low. Pretty much every dodgy spell in Spell Compendium came from Dragon, for one. You can't blame Jason Bulmahn and Erik Mona for all of it, but they were the ones at the switch.
Because Pathfinder is the most balanced version of 3.X ever and arguably about as balanced as it can be and they published it.Circular. I trust that Pathfinder is balanced because the publishers are the publishers of Pathfinder, which I trust is balanced because...
That's not what he said. He thinks that the Pathfinder Core Rulebook is balanced very well. Paizo wrote (the changes) and published it. He trusts Paizo to keep Pathfinder balanced.
Opinion and faith, but not circular.
I know creatures get bonuses for being far away, but most fights don't start out past 60 feet. I have not been in too many that start out past 30, even if I was outside. I guess I will have to try it(being tiny) to see how it works.Outdoor fights not starting past 60 ft is baffling to me. I know if I had a longbow against something that didn't I would start shooting while they were well out of range.
My fights have normally(always) been in wooded areas. I have never had a fight in an open plain. That would allow spells with a range of long(400ft +)to come into play, and that is something I have yet to see.
|
There's also That Damn Crab. :3
Damn you, I had forgotten about that bloody thing and you had to go reminding me of it...
There's also That Damn Crab. :3Damn you, I had forgotten about that bloody thing and you had to go reminding me of it...
Did you ever use this thing? How was it in play?
Never did and never would. Sorry I can't give a playtest report. :(
I somehow missed the spells, and the 3d6 strength damage among other things.
Edit: I have written my share of bad encounters, and had to bail players out so not to much I can say though.
Creative Director
|
EDIT: I decided it wasn't constructive to take part in this thread. Carry on.For what it's worth, That Damn Crab is teasing. Everyone makes mistakes, and it can't be fun to have those mistakes on display in perpetuity. Writing one terrible monster doesn't make you a bad writer forever.
Hm. Apparently the Rays of Light article is from Dragon Annual #5, which was under WOTC. I wonder how much of the bad Dragon writing I remember is from the WOTC period rather than the Paizo period.
For what it's worth, teasing gets even Creative Directors annoyed. And for what it's worth, the design philosophy for 3.5 vermin and Pathfinder vermin is pretty different.
And also for what it's worth, "bad writing" is different than "unbalanced game design."
And finally for what it's worth, Dragon was often used to test the boundaries, to try out new things, and to present some experimental new ideas. Slaving oneself to the gods of game balance is a great way to never innovate.
EDIT: And also, i strongly suspect that the development process that "That Damn Crab" went through was a lot less rigorous than what in-print stuff went through. I also developed and designed the giant crab for the Pathfinder Bestiary, which I hope proves that I've gotten better at designing monsters over the 7 years or so between the two.
|
|
I somehow missed the spells, and the 3d6 strength damage among other things.
Edit: I have written my share of bad encounters, and had to bail players out so not to much I can say though.
We were actually talking about the second monster, the CR 3 with 66 HPs and a 40ft movement speed, dealing minimum 10 damage per hit, with Improved Grab and a +19 Grapple check. It's a creature you can't melee with at a level where you have little other options and you can't escape because it runs faster than you. A prime example of why 3.5 Grapple was borked.
I can totally see why James would be a little irritated to have it thrown in his face again. I offer my apologies on that.
What's wrong with the crab? It looks balanced to me.
Hm. Apparently the Rays of Light article is from Dragon Annual #5, which was under WOTC. I wonder how much of the bad Dragon writing I remember is from the WOTC period rather than the Paizo period.
Paizo did a very good job, in my opinion, of being the caretakers of Dungeon and Dragon magazine. That having been said, the 3.5 issues are much more solid than the 3.0 issues, and the absolute best issues came after the "relaunch" period with Erik Mona and James Jacobs at the helms of the magazines.
I also remember back in the day when there would be discussions about monsters in adventures, for example, not matching up with CR, and often times it was WOTC's standards for how monsters had to advance that got in the way.
Paizo actually managed to "retrofit" some monsters that didn't work at their CR either up or down, but as I recall, the process of reissuing stats was a bit more arduous than the potential benefits of getting WOTC to agree to the changes.