| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think dragons should have spells unless they take levels in a spellcasting class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer drakes to dragons.
*Burned to death while also being bombarded with spells*
Wyverns are also far cooler than dragons. Especially if you up their size and upgrade their capabilities.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer drakes to dragons.
*Burned to death while also being bombarded with spells*
Wyverns are also far cooler than dragons. Especially if you up their size and upgrade their capabilities.
I'm still a fan of the Council of Wyrms setting, and I SHUN THEE!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still a fan of the Council of Wyrms setting, and I SHUN THEE!I prefer drakes to dragons.
*Burned to death while also being bombarded with spells*
Wyverns are also far cooler than dragons. Especially if you up their size and upgrade their capabilities.
Thank you, I feel like I belong here.
Now to plan to play some Dungeons & Drakes later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now to plan to play some Dungeons & Drakes later.
Weapons & Wyvarns is far superior to the pitiful Dungeons % Drakes. Everyone knows that.
Contributor
|
I don't think dragons should have spells unless they take levels in a spellcasting class.The Xorvintaal Dragon template (Monster Manual V (3.5), pg 38-45) loses spellcasting but can gain a bunch of other features that are more typically thought of as iconic to dragons (advancement to its breath weapon, draconic roar, etc).
It also has a bunch of alternate lore which suggests building a campaign around Xorvintaal dragons, but you don't actually have to use those to utilize the template, you can just play it like a dragon.
I always wanted to do something with that concept. ^_^
I don't think dragons should have spells unless they take levels in a spellcasting class.The Xorvintaal Dragon template (Monster Manual V (3.5), pg 38-45) loses spellcasting but can gain a bunch of other features that are more typically thought of as iconic to dragons (advancement to its breath weapon, draconic roar, etc).
It also has a bunch of alternate lore which suggests building a campaign around Xorvintaal dragons, but you don't actually have to use those to utilize the template, you can just play it like a dragon.
Hmmm...I'll have to dig that out. Thanks!
Confession the First: I have a massive penalty to my will save to resist calling out pseudoscience, antiscience, and quackery.
Confession the Second: I have never played or ran a Pathfinder game. I don't that will ever change.
Confession the Third: I am confused and baked by the constant bickering unhappiness in the rules forums. There are other games folks.
I love 1 & 3.
But as for 2? You're a "Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber"- and you dont play the game, never have, never will????
I've got a reasonably complete library of PF products and subscriptions but have only ever run games using the Core Book only and have only run a handful of modules using PF rules.
I like reading Pathfinder stuff (especially the flavor) but the game isnt to my group's tastes and that seems very unlikely to change (unless a 2nd edition PF rolls around).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... Book five of Wrath of the Righteous... Still not sorry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really irked by those who derail threads.
I think no advanced fire-arm Gunslingers are weak...Conversely Gunslingers with advanced fire-arms are overpowered.This is actually demonstrably untrue.
Advanced firearms are actually WEAKER than primitive firearms for the simple fact that Advanced Firearms don't have the Double Barrel Pistol, which lets a Gunslinger crank out twice as many shots per round.
The only advantage Advanced Firearms really have is that they need to reload less...which is meaningless when Gunslingers can reduce the reload time to a Free action anyway.
Have you actually looked and compared the two?
Yes and did you look at the consequence for reducing it to a free action?
I left Pathfinder for D&D 5E and have never looked back....except to look back at the Forums for it, for no reason :p
I'm still interested in the Adventure Paths...just not the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Zero interest in published adventures, very little interest in setting fluff, Primarily here for the game [as an extension of 3rd edition D&D]
Can't handle it anymore. 3E/Pathfinder is too tedious, too bloated, too soulless and bureaucratic. I'm glad there's a better alternative now.
The adventure paths and campaign setting are great, but I'd much rather run them in a lighter, more flexible system that doesn't feel like I'm auditing fantasy taxes when I sit down to prep a game. My hats off to you though; I don't know how you manage to find time to prep all original stuff for a game that cumbersome.
|
But as for 2? You're a "Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber"- and you dont play the game, never have, never will????
I can understand why he would have the Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, and Pawns subscriptions. You can convert the APs to another system, most of the Campaign Setting books are about 90% flavor to 10% mechanics, and the Pawns are completely system neutral. The Player Companion and Roleplaying Game subscriptions are a bit harder to grok. He might want the Player Companions for the bits of setting material.
Or, like me, he's cursed with the personality quirk of being a completist.
I don't "make up" anything, Hamth, Riom, and Alod are real places that I get to see when I close my eyes
Like Unkhoor and Dar-Shalul in my setting. Real as I want them to be.
But as for 2? You're a "Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber"- and you dont play the game, never have, never will????I can understand why he would have the Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, and Pawns subscriptions. You can convert the APs to another system, most of the Campaign Setting books are about 90% flavor to 10% mechanics, and the Pawns are completely system neutral. The Player Companion and Roleplaying Game subscriptions are a bit harder to grok. He might want the Player Companions for the bits of setting material.
Or, like me, he's cursed with the personality quirk of being a completist.
Agree. Especially if you are converting it to a simpler system, e.g. okay he is on +20 to hit, that is a d10 (or many d10s depending on the system).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I make my own character sheets. I really dislike the official ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I occasionally change monster's abilities, depending on how my players are behaving.
If my players are being cocky, I'll double a monster's saves, or give them additional actions.
I love Evocation. I think it's the best school out there and is by far my favorite. I've used it to greater effect than any other school.
I also don't believe monks, fighters, or rogues are bad, and I think sorcerers are better than wizards.
Your turn.
PS: Not an argument thread. Just a thread where you confess your dirty little gaming opinions that may go against the status quo.
Sorcerers are better than wizards!