Sell me on Pathfinder


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Decimus Drake wrote:
A friend and I have a theory that the core classes in 3.5 were made as plain and boring as possible to drive players towards getting other books for the PrCs.

I am pretty sure some classes were designed to be more beginner friendly.


pres man wrote:
Decimus Drake wrote:
A friend and I have a theory that the core classes in 3.5 were made as plain and boring as possible to drive players towards getting other books for the PrCs.
I am pretty sure some classes were designed to be more beginner friendly.

Tell that to the Barbarian.

EDIT: whups, I see what you were driving at. Yeah, there were several classes in 3E that were pretty beginner friendly. Moreso than their PF counterparts.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I was still playing a hybrid game until I had the APG and Ultimate Combat. APG handily replaced the Player's Handbook II, Complete Warrior, and Complete Arcane, whereas UC was a true expansion to the combat milieu. 3.5 didn't really have a book that was saying, here, have guns, also vehicles, tons of feats, combat-oriented archetypes, etc.


RJGrady wrote:
3.5 didn't really have a book that was saying, here, have guns, also vehicles, tons of feats, combat-oriented archetypes, etc.

They had several books like that in 3rd edition. Almost every book had a ton of feats, several books had vehicles for siege, travel, and fantastic mount, and several books came with variants after the idea came about. I think the only thing I can't find in my old 3rd edition books is firearms.


MrSin wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
3.5 didn't really have a book that was saying, here, have guns, also vehicles, tons of feats, combat-oriented archetypes, etc.
They had several books like that in 3rd edition. Almost every book had a ton of feats, several books had vehicles for siege, travel, and fantastic mount, and several books came with variants after the idea came about. I think the only thing I can't find in my old 3rd edition books is firearms.

There are firearms in at least one of the 3e books, but I can't remember which one. They are a lot less clunky than the pathfinder firearm rules. I don't think there was a class based around them, though.


MrSin wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
3.5 didn't really have a book that was saying, here, have guns, also vehicles, tons of feats, combat-oriented archetypes, etc.
They had several books like that in 3rd edition.

Complete Warrior, Complete Adventurer, and Complete Champion had all the combat-related stuff to varying degrees (as did other, more setting-oriented books, though those were far less focused.)

Quote:
I think the only thing I can't find in my old 3rd edition books is firearms.

Check the DMG


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Check the DMG

Well that's the last place I'd look! Was busy looking at pirates. Page 145 apparently. There's also an old dragon magazine article on them, 321.

Anyways, yeah! 3.5 had a lot of stuff. I think people overlook it sometimes. Format maybe? Maybe its that OGL thing? Still, kind of off to see "Yeah, 3.5 didn't have archetypes" when yeah... they had variants. Or they didn't have optional rules when several books had optional rules for environment or setting. They also had traits, subraces, and other things I've already named.

More on topic, if you do move to pathfinder a lot of the material is for one setting. Golarion is the one setting for pathfinder, and a lot of the books happen to be about Golarion. The book full of PrCs? Golarion. Divine casters? Golarion. Adventure paths? Golarion!(Natch) All the player companions? Golarion. Very few of the books conent(if any) is for "hey build your own setting!". So... hope you like Golarion?


MrSin wrote:
"Yeah, 3.5 didn't have archetypes" when yeah... they had variants.

They also have Alternate Class Features, which are easier to combine than archetypes/variants.


MrSin wrote:
More on topic, if you do move to pathfinder a lot of the material is for one setting. Golarion is the one setting for pathfinder, and a lot of the books happen to be about Golarion. The book full of PrCs? Golarion. Divine casters? Golarion. Adventure paths? Golarion!(Natch) All the player companions? Golarion. Very few of the books conent(if any) is for "hey build your own setting!". So... hope you like Golarion?

Since I don't have any of the Golarion books, that fact actually simplifies things for me a great deal.


137ben wrote:
MrSin wrote:
"Yeah, 3.5 didn't have archetypes" when yeah... they had variants.
They also have Alternate Class Features, which are easier to combine than archetypes/variants.

That too, though in turn classes usually didn't have much to give. Barbarians had rage, fast movement and... illiteracy? A lot of later classes tended to fill in the blanks a little better. Core 3.5 classes standing next to their PF counterparts almost always look empty or worse, with maybe the exception of the cleric.


beej67 wrote:
It's at least 4.5 times more fun than mowing your lawn.

Plus, 60% of the time it works... every time.

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber
MrSin wrote:
More on topic, if you do move to pathfinder a lot of the material is for one setting. Golarion is the one setting for pathfinder, and a lot of the books happen to be about Golarion. The book full of PrCs? Golarion. Divine casters? Golarion. Adventure paths? Golarion!(Natch) All the player companions? Golarion. Very few of the books conent(if any) is for "hey build your own setting!". So... hope you like Golarion?

The hardbacks in the RPG line -- the ones that show up in the PRD -- are all designed to be setting-neutral, however. Of course, the very mechanics already specify something about setting (i.e. high-magic fantasy with these kinds of classes in it) And, a wee bit of Golarion pokes its head in the form of the deities in the Cleric section of the CRB, and in the form of the Pathfinder Chronicler prestige class. It's not too hard to swap in your own deities, however. There are quite a number of books in that core line now too. It's just as easy to run a "D&D-style" game using those books as it ever has been using any edition of D&D.

All of the other books (the Player's Companion, Campaign Setting, etc.) lines are all Golarion-specific. You can, of course, mine them the way you can mine any RPG book from a setting you aren't using.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow, didn't expect to generate this long a thread with my original question, proves the point several folks have made about the active community being a bonus! I suppose the thing to do now is start to convert my house rules to PF, or drop them since PF appears to have done a bit of what I did myself (in a few cases much better!). I will most certainly be seeking the community's wisdom on that project.
Thanks everyone.


Java Man wrote:

Wow, didn't expect to generate this long a thread with my original question, proves the point several folks have made about the active community being a bonus! I suppose the thing to do now is start to convert my house rules to PF, or drop them since PF appears to have done a bit of what I did myself (in a few cases much better!). I will most certainly be seeking the community's wisdom on that project.

Thanks everyone.

You're welcome!

And, trust me, you probably won't regret it ;)

Roll Against Regretting It: 1d100 ⇒ 54

Hrm. Seems the dice are suggesting some parts of the conversion may be rocky... They always have been cynical. But, ignore them!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Java Man wrote:
... I suppose the thing to do now is start to convert my house rules to PF, or drop them since PF appears to have done a bit of what I did myself (in a few cases much better!). I will most certainly be seeking the community's wisdom on that project.

I have absolutely nothing against house rules. I have a few of them myself. And I hope to start a campaign this fall that will actually have a lot of them.

Having said that, I would suggest trying PF a bit first just as it is written. Not necessarily a full AP, but maybe a couple of module one-shots or a short arch. I know of at least 2 people that put in a bunch of house rules to 'fix' issues that PF doesn't really have. ><

It does have some minor issues, don't get me wrong. No system is perfect. But it is difficult to see what the issues might be (from the perspective of your gaming style) if you don't investigate what it actually is rather than just assuming from a quick read.

>< Things like:

  • The healbot is still necessary and no one wants to play a cleric, so he gave every single class some heal spells. In reality: Healbot is not needed. Condition removal is more difficult than healing hit points. Healbot is not necessary. Cleric is one of the most popular classes. Healbot is not necessary. He was amazed that, even with his rules, 3 of 5 players made clerics (not one was a healbot).
  • Paladin is too weak to justify taking it, so he gave it a bunch of extra powerups. In reality, the paladin is now one of the more powerful classes. Especially the archer paladins. I actually didn't build a paladin because it would have been stupidly dominating and boring.
  • Read that rogues could sneak attack most things when flanking and declared them too powerful. So he nerfed that ability. (Don't remember exactly how.) In reality, most people will agree that the rogue is the weakest class with respect to straight up combat.
  • Etc...


Java Man wrote:

I'm tooling up to start my next campaign soon, and debating switching over to PF from 3.5. I'm well versed in 3.5, and building up a decent knowledge of PF. This would be a home brew game with primarily core and a few house rules whichever way I go, players have a basic knowledge of both and will happily play either.

So, sell me on why putting in the work (enjoyable work) to do the conversion is worth it.

1. Good modules = consistency of game despite time constraints of personal growth.

2. Most of the stuff you know and love, hasn't moved too far away from the surprising wit and insight of the original creators (starting to).

3. Prd has all the books all in group need to play = balance and equality in source documents (no fishing dragon magazines, dubious sources and creating headaches for players and unbalancers for DMs.


LazarX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The big change from 3.5 was the APG. Its really what made pathfinder not just 3.5 with a few house rules but an actual revolution. It introduced archtypes with swap out and change base class abilities for more specilized thematic ones that are built around a theme.
The other big change was that in general, core classes stopped being a thing to escape from by going into a PrC as soon as possible.

Maybe but that is possibly less to do with them being great and more to do with the PF PrC's being generally poor. If the whole panoply of 3.5 PrC's were available to you I suspect you would see just as many core PF classes leaping to a PrC as ever you did in 3.5.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MrSin wrote:


They had several books like that in 3rd edition. Almost every book had a ton of feats, several books had vehicles for siege, travel, and fantastic mount, and several books came with variants after the idea came about. I think the only thing I can't find in my old 3rd edition books is firearms.

Yes, they certainly did. I'm glad Pathfinder isn't so much of a chicken run.


RJGrady wrote:
MrSin wrote:
They had several books like that in 3rd edition. Almost every book had a ton of feats, several books had vehicles for siege, travel, and fantastic mount, and several books came with variants after the idea came about. I think the only thing I can't find in my old 3rd edition books is firearms.
Yes, they certainly did. I'm glad Pathfinder isn't so much of a chicken run.

On the other hand, there are more player companions for pathfinder than there are hardcovers for 3.5. Some of good quality, others give us the groomer and torch bearer archetypes. The hard backs for pathfinder are sometimes iffy too, giving us things like Acrobatic Stunt(a feat equivalent you take if you want your rogue to commit suicide).

Content is bad, but I like my content to be quality content.


andreww wrote:
LazarX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The big change from 3.5 was the APG. Its really what made pathfinder not just 3.5 with a few house rules but an actual revolution. It introduced archtypes with swap out and change base class abilities for more specilized thematic ones that are built around a theme.
The other big change was that in general, core classes stopped being a thing to escape from by going into a PrC as soon as possible.
Maybe but that is possibly less to do with them being great and more to do with the PF PrC's being generally poor. If the whole panoply of 3.5 PrC's were available to you I suspect you would see just as many core PF classes leaping to a PrC as ever you did in 3.5.

Not quite. 3.5 PrC's would actually be up for consideration and be taken from time to time though, unlike PF PrC's.

That was one of Paizo's big mistakes, IMO. Depowering the baseline expectation of PrC's at the same time as pumping up the base classes. Paizo-published PrC's are seldom worth the ink they're printed with.

(Granted there were a large number of duds in 3.0/3.5 as well, but those editions had a gems as well.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder PrCs are great for flavor and niche builds, not so great for optimization. That's the way it should be as far as I'm concerned.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ipslore the Red wrote:
Pathfinder PrCs are great for flavor and niche builds, not so great for optimization. That's the way it should be as far as I'm concerned.

Can't I have both? *puppy eyes*

Devalueing prcs and multiclassing as a whole wasn't cool imo. That's actually something about pathfinder that really irks me. On the upside, its not totally required to function.


MrSin wrote:
Ipslore the Red wrote:
Pathfinder PrCs are great for flavor and niche builds, not so great for optimization. That's the way it should be as far as I'm concerned.

Can't I have both? *puppy eyes*

Devalueing prcs and multiclassing as a whole wasn't cool imo. That's actually something about pathfinder that really irks me. On the upside, its not totally required to function.

Ya pretty much this. I'm glad that PF *increased* the value of single classes, because quite frankly there was 0 reason to go single classed in 3.5. The problem is that they did so by hammering PRCs and multiclassing very hard. All it did was trade one problem for another.


Spend a lot of time at d20pfsrd.org and invest heavily in Hero Lab - who needs rulebooks?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:
invest heavily in Hero Lab

I can't advocate this course of action at all. The times I tried building a character for a Hero Labs campaign it was like I was playing an entirely different game. The GM kept saying things like "Hero Labs doesn't support this, or it interprets that differently, or or or or...."

I'm sure Hero Labs helps people who don't have the time to master the rules themselves, but in my opinion it's a large step downwards from having a GM who either knows them inside and out or deliberately plays fast and loose with the rules with confidence in his playstyle.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I fear I'm no salesman, I can only speak on what it is about Pathfinder that I prefer over 3.5

I enjoy playing Sorcerers and Bards in 3.5, yet felt restricted compared to wizards. The Sorcerer in 3.5 felt like it should be comparable to a wizard, yet fell short. Our house rule of giving Sorcerers eschew material feat for free helped, yet not all groups agreed.

Enter Pathfinder. Sorcerers were no longer treated like neglected stepchildren (in my opinion). Eschew material feat was given to them freely and bloodlines gave them a much needed boost to be comparable to wizards.

Another bonus, I don't have to get rid of any 3.5 books. Oh, there's minor adjustments needed, yet not as severe as say - trying to convert GURPs or Palladium Fantasy products to 3.5/Pathfinder. It's usually something like prestige class prerequisites should have 3 less ranks in skills required when using them from 3.5 to Pathfinder, and such.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
invest heavily in Hero Lab

I can't advocate this course of action at all. The times I tried building a character for a Hero Labs campaign it was like I was playing an entirely different game. The GM kept saying things like "Hero Labs doesn't support this, or it interprets that differently, or or or or...."

I'm sure Hero Labs helps people who don't have the time to master the rules themselves, but in my opinion it's a large step downwards from having a GM who either knows them inside and out or deliberately plays fast and loose with the rules with confidence in his playstyle.

That's quite possibly the first time I have EVER heard that. Seriously. Hero lab aids in character management (PC and NPC) and aids in encounter building. It's not an arbiter of rules or anything of the sort, short of handling the math for levels, skills, feats, etc.

If you know of a item that is not handled properly in Hero Lab, it is usually fixed relatively quickly after being reported. As far as character stats and generation, if there's a discrepancy between what Hero Lab outputs and what the GM is saying, it's likely the GM is wrong... just saying...


It would seem that perhaps those three GMs I attempted this with weren't sufficiently familiar with the technology.

(Then again, I'm on the FAR end of the spectrum as a GM/Player. The only program I use to manage my stuff is a folder full of .txt [such as those produced by Notepad, for example] data.)

Shadow Lodge

I know it has a few features that can be useful for in-game play, but I have only ever used Hero Lab in the character creation / leveling process. I then print out a paper copy of the sheet for actual use in play (often transfering the information to a sheet I designed in Excel that I prefer).

[before anyone asks if they can take a look at my sheet, you should know that it doesn't do ANY math for you. I used Excel to make the layout exactly like I wanted it. I can do simple arithmetic, I don't need to spent hours pumping formulas into the sheet to avoid a couple of minutes of arithmetic.

Sovereign Court

Hero lab IMO is some serious scratch and not worth it. I'll save the money and make my own (N)PCs. I can understand why some may not have an issue paying for the convience though. I guess im just one of those walk a mile to save a buck type folks.

As to the OP, PF is free so there is no risk to trying it out.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
invest heavily in Hero Lab

I can't advocate this course of action at all. The times I tried building a character for a Hero Labs campaign it was like I was playing an entirely different game. The GM kept saying things like "Hero Labs doesn't support this, or it interprets that differently, or or or or...."

I'm sure Hero Labs helps people who don't have the time to master the rules themselves, but in my opinion it's a large step downwards from having a GM who either knows them inside and out or deliberately plays fast and loose with the rules with confidence in his playstyle.

I totally agree, if only because my friends did that, and it often gets things wrong.

The creators are quick to fix such problems when they are brought to their attention, but as the game grows larger, they can't really keep up with all the little problems that inevitably slip through.

What's more, it can be quite limiting if the mechanics of the program don't allow you to use a certain corner case rules interactions to better your character concept--which is a big part of what system mastery is all about.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm a Herolab junkie. I love the program. But I'd never ever claim that it was anything near a viable substitute for knowing the game.


Kthulhu wrote:

I know it has a few features that can be useful for in-game play, but I have only ever used Hero Lab in the character creation / leveling process. I then print out a paper copy of the sheet for actual use in play (often transferring the information to a sheet I designed in Excel that I prefer).

[before anyone asks if they can take a look at my sheet, you should know that it doesn't do ANY math for you. I used Excel to make the layout exactly like I wanted it. I can do simple arithmetic, I don't need to spent hours pumping formulas into the sheet to avoid a couple of minutes of arithmetic.

Correct, that the ingame stuff is pretty limited. Basically not much more than a state and initiative tracker. I don't see much need for that personally. I guess the iPad app is decent as a live character sheet, but I, again, haven't felt a need for that. I use it, as others have suggested, as a character manager (generation and leveling, tracking, etc.). I create my character, and then print the sheet. Some great things are that you can print relevant ability and spell description sheets as well. Avoids having to dig out books during play. After a session, when I get home, I update the character in Hero Lab, from all my pencil scratch on the sheets, including journal entries for the events of the session, then reprint the updated pages to nice new clean sheets to be ready for the next session.

GM uses Hero Lab during play as an encounter builder (a relatively new feature of it, from earlier this year). As we're playing a pretty adlib campaign, it makes it really easy for him to whip up encounters on the fly, making little tweaks and such while seeing the CR effects live. Also, him having all our character sheets available in the program to easily check on saving throws and skill checks (so he can do secret checks and such) is so much easier than leafing through a stack of statblock sheets.

He's also just started using Realm Works, Lone Wolf's new campaign management tool. Since we're playing in his own home-made setting, it is invaluable to be able collect and create the world as we go.

My last GM had his own custom world, with quite a few house rules (background traits, subrace variants, etc). With a few days work, and the great help of the Lone Wolf forum, I was able to code every one of those house rules into Hero Lab as an optional addon, that I could then distribute to the rest of the group.


Ravingdork wrote:
What's more, it can be quite limiting if the mechanics of the program don't allow you to use a certain corner case rules interactions to better your character concept--which is a big part of what system mastery is all about.

Not to drag this more off-topic, but I'd love to hear some examples of these 'corner case rules interactions' that it doesn't support.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
What's more, it can be quite limiting if the mechanics of the program don't allow you to use a certain corner case rules interactions to better your character concept--which is a big part of what system mastery is all about.
Not to drag this more off-topic, but I'd love to hear some examples of these 'corner case rules interactions' that it doesn't support.

Cheekily mentions a bug-report he put in a few weeks ago.

A paladin wielding a holy avenger doesn't report extra holy damage. Which is a bit odd for a +5 holy cold iron longsword.


Like this? HolyAvengerWorking.jpg

Spoiler:
No, this isn't fixed yet, but i made the fix myself in about 5 minutes after I read that it was a problem. I think that is really my favorite part of Hero Lab (not that there are problems, but that it's fully customizable, like adding house rules, or quick fixing issues like this until they notice it and get it into the next patch.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
What's more, it can be quite limiting if the mechanics of the program don't allow you to use a certain corner case rules interactions to better your character concept--which is a big part of what system mastery is all about.
Not to drag this more off-topic, but I'd love to hear some examples of these 'corner case rules interactions' that it doesn't support.

I was speaking generally and don't have any specific examples.

In any case, it can't possibly make all of the characters in my character gallery quite like I can, which means it is automatically inferior to my just doing it manually.

Shadow Lodge

Pan wrote:
Hero lab IMO is some serious scratch and not worth it.

If you insist on having all the data files, and all in one go, yeah, it will be expensive.

If you pace yourself with them, it's a lot less expensive. Especially if you don't feel the need to load up on ALL of them.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
In any case, it can't possibly make all of the characters in my character gallery quite like I can, which means it is automatically inferior to my just doing it manually.

That might be due to your tendency to stretch RAW in ways that Reed Richards didn't know something could be stretched.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm pretty creative, but I can't think of too many instances where I knowingly stretched RAW. Perhaps you could cite a few examples from the gallery.

In any case, even if you can, the point is moot. If a program doesn't have the versatility to allow you to do that, it's basically worthless in a game of imagination (which, by definition, is supposed to have far fewer limits than, say, a video game).


But character creation isn't imagination, it's mechanical RAW.

"Program won't let me cheat" isn't a fault with the program.


That was kind of my point with the Holy Avenger tweak above though. IT DOES have the versatility to allow you to do that. You can tweak and adjust pretty much anything in the game - you could create an entire new game system in there if you choose. It's all scripting. If you want to avoid the scripting, there are adjustments than can be applied to pretty much everything to make special case tweaks if you so choose.


Ravingdork wrote:

I'm pretty creative, but I can't think of too many instances where I knowingly stretched RAW. Perhaps you could cite a few examples from the gallery.

In any case, even if you can, the point is moot. If a program doesn't have the versatility to allow you to do that, it's basically worthless in a game of imagination (which, by definition, is supposed to have far fewer limits than, say, a video game).

If anything, a program like Hero Lab is perfect for someone who tries to make a huge collection of characters (like yours). It handling the picks and math help to avoid a lot of the oversights and misses people typically make when generating characters (especially when trying to create high level characters from scratch). In just the first character I look at on your page, I found a missed calculation (Garr's rage rounds/day), and that was only a 2nd level character.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CraziFuzzy wrote:
That was kind of my point with the Holy Avenger tweak above though. IT DOES have the versatility to allow you to do that. You can tweak and adjust pretty much anything in the game - you could create an entire new game system in there if you choose. It's all scripting. If you want to avoid the scripting, there are adjustments than can be applied to pretty much everything to make special case tweaks if you so choose.

There's someone out there who's been creating agames with the Authoring Kit. I just downloaded his module for the DWAITS game.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
invest heavily in Hero Lab

I can't advocate this course of action at all. The times I tried building a character for a Hero Labs campaign it was like I was playing an entirely different game. The GM kept saying things like "Hero Labs doesn't support this, or it interprets that differently, or or or or...."

I'm sure Hero Labs helps people who don't have the time to master the rules themselves, but in my opinion it's a large step downwards from having a GM who either knows them inside and out or deliberately plays fast and loose with the rules with confidence in his playstyle.

I totally agree, if only because my friends did that, and it often gets things wrong.

The creators are quick to fix such problems when they are brought to their attention, but as the game grows larger, they can't really keep up with all the little problems that inevitably slip through.

What's more, it can be quite limiting if the mechanics of the program don't allow you to use a certain corner case rules interactions to better your character concept--which is a big part of what system mastery is all about.

Herolab is becoming more important to me as GM tool than a Player tool. It saves me a hell of a lot of work when GMing Pathfinder APs and Modules since there is now a Community download which has the bulk of the characters and critters statted out. Even if I had to do it myself, it's handy in keeping track of resources such as spell casts and other abilities.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Doesn't the PFSRD often stat out templated monsters and the like who appear in the adventure modules?


Ravingdork wrote:
Doesn't the PFSRD often stat out templated monsters and the like who appear in the adventure modules?

PFSRD is limited in the AP info it can share, due to licensing (the AP's, being based in Golarion, are not entirely open source). Hero Lab, being a licensed product, is able to include pretty much everything having to do with the game setting. It has a ton of AP specific options, includes special AP items, feats, traits, etc.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Doesn't the PFSRD often stat out templated monsters and the like who appear in the adventure modules?
PFSRD is limited in the AP info it can share, due to licensing (the AP's, being based in Golarion, are not entirely open source). Hero Lab, being a licensed product, is able to include pretty much everything having to do with the game setting. It has a ton of AP specific options, includes special AP items, feats, traits, etc.

Actually those options aren't included within Herolab but are the product of a Community Bestiary maintained by one Shadow Chemosh of the Herolab forums. It's referenced on the D20PFSRD site.


LazarX wrote:
Actually those options aren't included within Herolab but are the product of a Community Bestiary maintained by one Shadow Chemosh of the Herolab forums. It's referenced on the D20PFSRD site.

Sorry, yeah, the monsters are community. I was referring to the feats, traits and items that are in the pathfinder core (but only are available when enabling the adventure path in the character configuration).


Number one appeal of pathfinder for me is
lots of options, spells,etc for players to use
and vast array of baddies and rewards for GMs to use

101 to 150 of 156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Sell me on Pathfinder All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.