I can't believe I'm saying this, but I want a new edition...


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 912 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Albatoonoe wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Aiming at someone also doesn't mean you get to shoot at them before they react.
Hm, I'm not sure I agree. If the other person has their weapon drawn and ready to use, I'd agree, but if you are aiming your crossbow right at this fighter, he doesn't get to charge you and run you through before you get a shot.

He does get the chance to dive out of the way, however.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Aiming at someone also doesn't mean you get to shoot at them before they react.
Hm, I'm not sure I agree. If the other person has their weapon drawn and ready to use, I'd agree, but if you are aiming your crossbow right at this fighter, he doesn't get to charge you and run you through before you get a shot.
He does get the chance to dive out of the way, however.

Hm.

You know what? I actually like this, but I don't feel the rules support it. This is where the rules fall short, really. We need "reactions". Kinda like how Shadowrun 5 lets you hit the deck, at the expense of now being prone.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Technically, falling prone is a free action. :) A pity that free actions usually can't be taken when it isn't your turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Until I draw up some house rules concerning it, I'm just gonna let players hit the deck if their initiative lets them. Thanks for the idea, TOZ.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No problem!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Aiming at someone also doesn't mean you get to shoot at them before they react.
Hm, I'm not sure I agree. If the other person has their weapon drawn and ready to use, I'd agree, but if you are aiming your crossbow right at this fighter, he doesn't get to charge you and run you through before you get a shot.
He does get the chance to dive out of the way, however.

Hm.

You know what? I actually like this, but I don't feel the rules support it. This is where the rules fall short, really. We need "reactions". Kinda like how Shadowrun 5 lets you hit the deck, at the expense of now being prone.

Seems like something they could do by adding more immediate action options.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Chengar Qordath wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Aiming at someone also doesn't mean you get to shoot at them before they react.
Hm, I'm not sure I agree. If the other person has their weapon drawn and ready to use, I'd agree, but if you are aiming your crossbow right at this fighter, he doesn't get to charge you and run you through before you get a shot.
He does get the chance to dive out of the way, however.

Hm.

You know what? I actually like this, but I don't feel the rules support it. This is where the rules fall short, really. We need "reactions". Kinda like how Shadowrun 5 lets you hit the deck, at the expense of now being prone.

Seems like something they could do by adding more immediate action options.

I'd actually like more swift/immediate actions. Some classes have great uses for this action slot, while others never use it it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Aiming at someone also doesn't mean you get to shoot at them before they react.
Hm, I'm not sure I agree. If the other person has their weapon drawn and ready to use, I'd agree, but if you are aiming your crossbow right at this fighter, he doesn't get to charge you and run you through before you get a shot.
He does get the chance to dive out of the way, however.

Hm.

You know what? I actually like this, but I don't feel the rules support it. This is where the rules fall short, really. We need "reactions". Kinda like how Shadowrun 5 lets you hit the deck, at the expense of now being prone.

Seems like something they could do by adding more immediate action options.
I'd actually like more swift/immediate actions. Some classes have great uses for this action slot, while others never use it it.

I think that was one of the big missed opportunities of Pathfinder. In 3.5 swift and immediate actions were a bit clunky and poorly spread because they were introduced in later supplements. Pathfinder had them baked in from the CRB onward.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:

But the number rolled isn't the listed damage. 1d4 is.

Reference link.

Direct link.

i get you triomega. I get you. The others are putting their creative powers into the DM's side like a thorn.... or finely aged cheese.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

But the number rolled isn't the listed damage. 1d4 is.

Reference link.

Direct link.

i get you triomega. I get you. The others are putting their creative powers into the DM's side like a thorn.... or finely aged cheese.

You do know these rules work both ways right? Enemies with the Splintering Weapon feat or Thistle arrow work just fine vs PC's. I don't recall even implying this was a trick to 'get one over' on anyone. This how I rule it as a Dm and who I've had it ruled when I was a player. You might want to get your "finely aged cheese" detector checked because it's giving you a false result. I, personally, have never had a character that used bleed, static OR variable. I have no horse in the race...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
i get you triomega. I get you. The others are putting their creative powers into the DM's side like a thorn.... or finely aged cheese.

Honestly, I wouldn't even bat an eye at a table where the GM ruled the way graystone says. I just don't interpret it that way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, beside the bounded accuracy good/ no its the work of arch devils argument. I am gonna go ahead and put down what I feel PF 2e should go in. Recall guys this is just my opinions based off my own taste.

1: Something akin to Bounded accuracy. I want the mods cleared out, reduced and the math capped. It need not be done in the same way as 5e, but the lack of balance, rocket tag rules and the sheer amount of work at high end and with optimization drove me away from 3.x at last.

2:Spells need heavily redressed and the caster/non caster divide closed. Caster should not rule the game

3: BAB needs fixated and the ever worse extra attacks need dead. If you grant an extra attack its just that. Not a way worse attack

4:No more magic xmass tree/no need to have magic items. Magic should be cool and fun, not required.

5: I want healing for every class. You should not have to have a healer. If you want to call HP's vitality to make it not magical, cool.

6: Fewer classes but more customizable/ robust classes. Bake in the archtype concert and allow for broader classes

7: Please for the love of all that is holy, if you can not kill the evil that is Vancian casting. At the very lest add another non-vancian spellcaster class option.

8: Feats should be cool, not a +2 to this or a +1 to river dancing. They also should not be traps and all should be about the same power level

9: Some of those "feats" should be basic class abilities

10: Fix freaking saves

11: Ditto wth sklls DC and make fewer, but broader skills

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

But the number rolled isn't the listed damage. 1d4 is.

Reference link.

Direct link.

i get you triomega. I get you. The others are putting their creative powers into the DM's side like a thorn.... or finely aged cheese.
You do know these rules work both ways right? Enemies with the Splintering Weapon feat or Thistle arrow work just fine vs PC's. I don't recall even implying this was a trick to 'get one over' on anyone. This how I rule it as a Dm and who I've had it ruled when I was a player. You might want to get your "finely aged cheese" detector checked because it's giving you a false result. I, personally, have never had a character that used bleed, static OR variable. I have no horse in the race...

my horse is missing too... so if you're right, you're right... but honestly if you have ten cuts that all bleed at 1d4, just roll 1d4 once really... if we use your way might as well just cut to the chase - no pun intended - and just rule that you bleed 4 points per round period - again, no pun intended - if you have more than three or four cuts... (law of averages and all...)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Ok, beside the bounded accuracy good/ no its the work of arch devils argument. I am gonna go ahead and put down what I feel PF 2e should go in. Recall guys this is just my opinions based off my own taste.

1: Something akin to Bounded accuracy. I want the mods cleared out, reduced and the math capped. It need not be done in the same way as 5e, but the lack of balance, rocket tag rules and the sheer amount of work at high end and with optimization drove me away from 3.x at last.

2:Spells need heavily redressed and the caster/non caster divide closed. Caster should not rule the game

3: BAB needs fixated and the ever worse extra attacks need dead. If you grant an extra attack its just that. Not a way worse attack

4:No more magic xmass tree/no need to have magic items. Magic should be cool and fun, not required.

5: I want healing for every class. You should not have to have a healer. If you want to call HP's vitality to make it not magical, cool.

6: Fewer classes but more customizable/ robust classes. Bake in the archtype concert and allow for broader classes

7: Please for the love of all that is holy, if you can not kill the evil that is Vancian casting. At the very lest add another non-vancian spellcaster class option.

8: Feats should be cool, not a +2 to this or a +1 to river dancing. They also should not be traps and all should be about the same power level

9: Some of those "feats" should be basic class abilities

10: Fix freaking saves

11: Ditto wth sklls DC and make fewer, but broader skills

This sounds like a different game.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
i get you triomega. I get you. The others are putting their creative powers into the DM's side like a thorn.... or finely aged cheese.
Honestly, I wouldn't even bat an eye at a table where the GM ruled the way graystone says. I just don't interpret it that way.

You'd bat an internal eye or raise an arched brow as if you gave a slight pause, at least, as you'll get a deja vu from this thread... ... ...


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Ok, beside the bounded accuracy good/ no its the work of arch devils argument. I am gonna go ahead and put down what I feel PF 2e should go in. Recall guys this is just my opinions based off my own taste.

1: Something akin to Bounded accuracy. I want the mods cleared out, reduced and the math capped. It need not be done in the same way as 5e, but the lack of balance, rocket tag rules and the sheer amount of work at high end and with optimization drove me away from 3.x at last.'

Not really a fan of 'Bounded Accuracy.' However, I can totally dig tightening up the maths a bit.
Quote:
2:Spells need heavily redressed and the caster/non caster divide closed. Caster should not rule the game
Yeah, nah man, Spells don't need to be heavily redressed. However it's an either or thing. Either spells need to be heavily redressed, or martials need to be heavily awesomed.
Quote:
3: BAB needs fixated and the ever worse extra attacks need dead. If you grant an extra attack its just that. Not a way worse attack
Very much this. Stacking on low odds attacks is lame and slows the game down for little point.
Quote:
4:No more magic xmass tree/no need to have magic items. Magic should be cool and fun, not required.
No arguments here
Quote:
5: I want healing for every class. You should not have to have a healer. If you want to call HP's vitality to make it not magical, cool.
I can totally agree with this, and have basically worked it into the Heal Skill in my own games.
Quote:
6: Fewer classes but more customizable/ robust classes. Bake in the archtype concert and allow for broader classes
I'm down for this too. The class bloat in PF is kind of ridiculous- though it inherited much of that from 3rd edition. Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Cavalier, Gunslinger, Monk and Rogue are all basically different expressions of a Warrior Hero.
Quote:
7: Please for the love of all that is holy, if you can not kill the evil that is Vancian casting. At the very lest add another non-vancian spellcaster class option.
Yeah, there's no need to kill vancian, but alternatives should be in the game and should NOT be gimped the way Sorcerer and Oracle are.
Quote:
8: Feats should be cool, not a +2 to this or a +1 to river dancing. They also should not be traps and all should be about the same power level
A-f&$@ing-men
Quote:
9: Some of those "feats" should be basic class abilities
Yup.
Quote:
10: Fix freaking saves
What exactly is wrong with Saves?
Quote:
11: Ditto wth sklls DC and make fewer, but broader skills

What's the problem with Skills DCs? I concur with a refined Skill List though.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Ok, beside the bounded accuracy good/ no its the work of arch devils argument. I am gonna go ahead and put down what I feel PF 2e should go in.
This sounds like a different game.

It resembles my houserules.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
i get you triomega. I get you. The others are putting their creative powers into the DM's side like a thorn.... or finely aged cheese.
Honestly, I wouldn't even bat an eye at a table where the GM ruled the way graystone says. I just don't interpret it that way.

I get what you're saying too, though I'll admit I didn't at first as I've never run into someone doing it that way. It overall weakens variable bleed effects on both sides of the table, but that's not inherently good or bad it just is. Now that I get how you read it, I'd be cool with playing that way. it's just a different reading than I'm used to.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Ok, beside the bounded accuracy good/ no its the work of arch devils argument. I am gonna go ahead and put down what I feel PF 2e should go in. Recall guys this is just my opinions based off my own taste.

1: Something akin to Bounded accuracy. I want the mods cleared out, reduced and the math capped. It need not be done in the same way as 5e, but the lack of balance, rocket tag rules and the sheer amount of work at high end and with optimization drove me away from 3.x at last.

2:Spells need heavily redressed and the caster/non caster divide closed. Caster should not rule the game

3: BAB needs fixated and the ever worse extra attacks need dead. If you grant an extra attack its just that. Not a way worse attack

4:No more magic xmass tree/no need to have magic items. Magic should be cool and fun, not required.

5: I want healing for every class. You should not have to have a healer. If you want to call HP's vitality to make it not magical, cool.

6: Fewer classes but more customizable/ robust classes. Bake in the archtype concert and allow for broader classes

7: Please for the love of all that is holy, if you can not kill the evil that is Vancian casting. At the very lest add another non-vancian spellcaster class option.

8: Feats should be cool, not a +2 to this or a +1 to river dancing. They also should not be traps and all should be about the same power level

9: Some of those "feats" should be basic class abilities

10: Fix freaking saves

11: Ditto wth sklls DC and make fewer, but broader skills

1) I don't mind a bit of streamlining. If it even looks like it might slight look like 5e though, I'm out.

2) Don't mind an overhaul of spells as some have needed it since the game started.
3) I'm totally cool with things as is. The math isn't hard in the least and the balance of the weaker attacks works IMO.
4) I'd be cool with removing the majority of + items.
5) Not a priority for me. I don't NEED every class to be able to do it.
6) *shrug* Don't mind it as/is. Your trading one complexity for another.
7) I'd love to see something done with it.
8) Feats could use a clean-up too.
9) Could be, I'd need examples.
10) Could be, I'd need examples.
11) wouldn't mind a rework.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Your not gonna have Vancian Casting without "Gimping" the spontaneous casters. That is the "Balance" between the caster classes. This is one reason to re-address it and change it/do away with it. It is one of the shining beacons for 5e and should not be discounted.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:


This sounds like a different game.

Technically so was Pathfinder, and 3e and 3.5. To me it sounds like issues with the underlaying system I feel need fixed.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

What exactly is wrong with Saves?

What's the problem with Skills DCs?

Saves either you are really good at it or you suck so bad you are about bound to auto fail it. And the divide of Good vs suck is mighty wide

Skill DC is kinda the same issue, its more an issue of the system not keeping up with the DC's. You either are god at a skill or ya hope to gods you roll high as freak.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh crap, the fuzz is here!

Spoiler:
The fuzz is the warm fuzzy feeling everyone gets in the wake of the Tacticslion favorites train.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Ok, beside the bounded accuracy good/ no its the work of arch devils argument. I am gonna go ahead and put down what I feel PF 2e should go in. Recall guys this is just my opinions based off my own taste.

1: Something akin to Bounded accuracy. I want the mods cleared out, reduced and the math capped. It need not be done in the same way as 5e, but the lack of balance, rocket tag rules and the sheer amount of work at high end and with optimization drove me away from 3.x at last.

2:Spells need heavily redressed and the caster/non caster divide closed. Caster should not rule the game

3: BAB needs fixated and the ever worse extra attacks need dead. If you grant an extra attack its just that. Not a way worse attack

4:No more magic xmass tree/no need to have magic items. Magic should be cool and fun, not required.

5: I want healing for every class. You should not have to have a healer. If you want to call HP's vitality to make it not magical, cool.

6: Fewer classes but more customizable/ robust classes. Bake in the archtype concert and allow for broader classes

7: Please for the love of all that is holy, if you can not kill the evil that is Vancian casting. At the very lest add another non-vancian spellcaster class option.

8: Feats should be cool, not a +2 to this or a +1 to river dancing. They also should not be traps and all should be about the same power level

9: Some of those "feats" should be basic class abilities

10: Fix freaking saves

11: Ditto with sklls DC and make fewer, but broader skills

It's a dream, a nice dream though

If there is going to be a new edition of Pathfinder it will be a revised edition, not a total reworking of the system.

I can see the Unchained Summoner becoming a template for a reworked version of Druid class though.

Paizo makes small changes very slowly, so the game system does change without anyone noticing. Prestige classes are pretty much gone, the old Summoner class is gone too, and hybrid classes (ACG and Magus) are now integrated into the 3.75 system.


Morzadian wrote:
I can see the Unchained Summoner becoming a template for a reworked version of Druid class though.

I've just been using Hunter as a druid fix.


Petty Alchemy wrote:

Oh crap, the fuzz is here!

** spoiler omitted **

Cheese it!


thaX wrote:
Your not gonna have Vancian Casting without "Gimping" the spontaneous casters. That is the "Balance" between the caster classes. This is one reason to re-address it and change it/do away with it.

I've done so myself and I can tell you it's perfectly balanced. Just because people who've been playing since AD&D are horrified at the idea of someone who can freely cast any spell they know up -to the limit of their spell slots- gaining spell levels at the same rate as a prepared caster doesn't mean that it's not balanced.

Five years of playtesting alongside numerous diverse and varied system tweaks and with many different groups of players says that Spontaneous Casting [Limited Spells known] and Prepared Casting [Unlimited Spells Known but must prepare daily in advance] are quite well balanced without any other interference.


Milo v3 wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
I can see the Unchained Summoner becoming a template for a reworked version of Druid class though.
I've just been using Hunter as a druid fix.

Did it work out well?

My gaming group has only used the Slayer from the ACG. Not super familiar with the Hunter class, from memory they get teamwork feats, and a Druid animal companion, and some spell-casting.

We have house ruled the Druid gets a weakened animal companion like the Ranger. Still a powerful class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
I can see the Unchained Summoner becoming a template for a reworked version of Druid class though.
I've just been using Hunter as a druid fix.

Did it work out well?

My gaming group has only used the Slayer from the ACG. Not super familiar with the Hunter class, from memory they get teamwork feats, and a Druid animal companion, and some spell-casting.

We have house ruled the Druid gets a weakened animal companion like the Ranger. Still a powerful class.

So far it's been decent, having druid spellcasting as a 6th caster without having to deal with a druidic code is nice, and it has more concise flavour rather than the grab-bag of abilities druids possess.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
thaX wrote:
Your not gonna have Vancian Casting without "Gimping" the spontaneous casters. That is the "Balance" between the caster classes. This is one reason to re-address it and change it/do away with it.

I've done so myself and I can tell you it's perfectly balanced. Just because people who've been playing since AD&D are horrified at the idea of someone who can freely cast any spell they know up -to the limit of their spell slots- gaining spell levels at the same rate as a prepared caster doesn't mean that it's not balanced.

Five years of playtesting alongside numerous diverse and varied system tweaks and with many different groups of players says that Spontaneous Casting [Limited Spells known] and Prepared Casting [Unlimited Spells Known but must prepare daily in advance] are quite well balanced without any other interference.

So your version is getting castings equal to the number of spells, right? Sorcerer getting extra known spells according to stat, just like the wizard, instead of getting extra castings?

My overall problem is the Wizard still having to mem multiples of the same spells if he wants to cast the same spell more than once. Should be past that rot in 3.0, but got two mage classes instead.

As I have said before, there are Archtypes and a PrC that mitigate that disadvantage. I doubt we see to many Wizards in the Core Campaign.

Edit.. I will add this. The reason that the Sorcerer has less slots (known spells for him) is because he can cast whatever spell he chooses at the time of casting. The wizard does have more slots to put multiples in. In my mind, this is a very shaky way to balance the two classes.


thaX wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
thaX wrote:
Your not gonna have Vancian Casting without "Gimping" the spontaneous casters. That is the "Balance" between the caster classes. This is one reason to re-address it and change it/do away with it.

I've done so myself and I can tell you it's perfectly balanced. Just because people who've been playing since AD&D are horrified at the idea of someone who can freely cast any spell they know up -to the limit of their spell slots- gaining spell levels at the same rate as a prepared caster doesn't mean that it's not balanced.

Five years of playtesting alongside numerous diverse and varied system tweaks and with many different groups of players says that Spontaneous Casting [Limited Spells known] and Prepared Casting [Unlimited Spells Known but must prepare daily in advance] are quite well balanced without any other interference.

So your version is getting castings equal to the number of spells, right? Sorcerer getting extra known spells according to stat, just like the wizard, instead of getting extra castings?

My overall problem is the Wizard still having to mem multiples of the same spells if he wants to cast the same spell more than once. Should be past that rot in 3.0, but got two mage classes instead.

As I have said before, there are Archtypes and a PrC that mitigate that disadvantage. I doubt we see to many Wizards in the Core Campaign.

As a simple example:

Sorcerer gains each spell level at the same level a Wizard does [1 at 1st, 2 at 3rd, etc etc] and starts each level knowing 4 spells of his choosing and his Bloodline spell. He gains one additional spell known of this spell level at every level for the next three levels [culminating in a total of 8 spells known of every spell level 3 levels after acquiring the spell level.]

Spells per day go 4-6 [with the 6 hitting at the same level that a new spell level is acquired like in core, the total spells per day just starts a tad quicker to line up with the quicker spell level acquisition.]

Sorcerers do not suffer any handicap for using Metamagic Feats/Rods

Wizard is unchanged, and is actually quite well balanced with this arrangement. [I've played a Wizard under a rotating GM who adopted this rule and had a blast, right alongside a Sorceress.]

thaX wrote:
Edit.. I will add this. The reason that the Sorcerer has less slots (known spells for him) is because he can cast whatever spell he chooses at the time of casting. The wizard does have more slots to put multiples in. In my mind, this is a very shaky way to balance the two classes.

Pst, Wizard actually gets fewer spells per day than Sorcerer in the core rules, which sticks in my houserules. The Wizard's cosmic power is in his ability to obtain as many different spells as he wants.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Ok, beside the bounded accuracy good/ no its the work of arch devils argument. I am gonna go ahead and put down what I feel PF 2e should go in. Recall guys this is just my opinions based off my own taste.

1: Something akin to Bounded accuracy. I want the mods cleared out, reduced and the math capped. It need not be done in the same way as 5e, but the lack of balance, rocket tag rules and the sheer amount of work at high end and with optimization drove me away from 3.x at last.

2:Spells need heavily redressed and the caster/non caster divide closed. Caster should not rule the game

3: BAB needs fixated and the ever worse extra attacks need dead. If you grant an extra attack its just that. Not a way worse attack

4:No more magic xmass tree/no need to have magic items. Magic should be cool and fun, not required.

5: I want healing for every class. You should not have to have a healer. If you want to call HP's vitality to make it not magical, cool.

6: Fewer classes but more customizable/ robust classes. Bake in the archtype concert and allow for broader classes

7: Please for the love of all that is holy, if you can not kill the evil that is Vancian casting. At the very lest add another non-vancian spellcaster class option.

10: Fix freaking saves

11: Ditto wth sklls DC and make fewer, but broader skills

No all of these. I suspect I would just revert to the existing material and become a grognard rather than play a game that embraced even some of these ideas, much less all of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Could you elaborate Peter? What do you find so horrid about every single last one of them?


I would like to know the same thing.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
I think that was one of the big missed opportunities of Pathfinder. In 3.5 swift and immediate actions were a bit clunky and poorly spread because they were introduced in later supplements. Pathfinder had them baked in from the CRB onward.

Agreed. Things like the 5E shield spell are amazing cool uses of the immediate action.

Liberty's Edge

Aratrok wrote:
Problem is, it's straight up a fabrication. You never really grow out of being a local hero (again, unless you're a full caster with an army as a class feature), because there aren't really any threats that require the attention of anything greater- a direct result of low challenge creatures being able to threaten creatures far above them. The king's army is far more capable of taking care of problems than your PCs will ever be,

Have you played high level 5e enough to judge? Or is this just an armchair review?

The things is, one high level fighter will consume 1/10,000 the food, only needs one set of equipment, isn't noticed miles away, can fit through a doorway, etc.

Plus, fighters are pretty badass at high levels. They attack three times each round after level 11 all at their highest attack bonus, and can action surge to add three more attacks. They can choose to reroll saves, crit more often (no confirmation, just straight double damage) and have the most ability score bumps.
Can they be taken out by a hundred commoners with bows? Sure, but so could a Pathfinder fighter. The hitpoint difference isn't that great and a 20 always hits.

The power level of 5e has dipped down, closer to that of 1e/2e. Which is because the edition was meant to be more retro. In that regard it works well; I've been able convert 1e adventures on the fly just pulling monster stats. It's been much, much smoother than when I attempted to update the original Dragonlance modules from 1e to Pathfinder.

Aratrok wrote:
and monsters that were once big and bad (pit fiends and, hey, the Tarrasque got mentioned earlier) are really just smaller monsters re-skinned to pretend they're big bad threats.

I mean, the 5e tarrasque may have lower AC and attack rolls, but it has more hitpoints than the PF version, it just ignores nonmagical damage rather than resisting 15 points, it can just succeed three saving throws a day, and it can take up to four actions in a turn.

The tarrasque against four PCs can use it's frightful presence, bite, claw, claw, horns, tail and then claw, tail, claw.

The average damage (if all attacks hit) of a PF tarrasque is 117 points. For the 5e tarrasque is 228.
And 5e characters aren't assumed to have 24 magic items each when facing it, a half-dozen 9th-level spells, and everyone in the party flying. In 5e, if you take down the tarrasque, you feel badass.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Could you elaborate Peter? What do you find so horrid about every single last one of them?

Sure.

1. Bounded Accuracy, even on a smaller scale, is not a desired outcome for me. The massive differences between a 1st and 20th level characters flat number (attack bonus, AC, saves, spell Dcs, ect) are desirable to me. Even within a single level the relatively large differences between various stats (say my 15th level wizards 27 AC and the party fighter’s 38) are things that give the system life and variety. Any and all capping needs only exist in the form of bonus types that are allowed, and in the amounts they are allowed in (e.g. what already exists with deflection, natural, ect).

2. In combat my experience with a skilled GM suggests that the caster divide is the sort of thing that only comes up at heavily optimized tables (and I do not simply mean numerically) or those with relatively poor GMs. Spells and effects that I see people here claim win fights create headaches in my experience much of the time, and whatever people may say about ‘cleanup’ falls largely on deaf ears. In terms of the narrative power argument, I have some sympathy, but the solution to the relative lack of narrative strength built into the fighter / skill system lies with making changes to the fighter, not spellcasting writ-large. I thought some of the Unchained skill ideas went a long way towards redressing some of that divide, but in some plays not all the way.

3. Attacks made at full BAB would turn fighters, barbarians, and co. into more lethal killing machines than they already are – which is not a direction they need to go. Offensive power has never been the weakness of the fighter or barbarian, and generally speaking the first two or three attacks even against level appropriate foes hit. The last attack becomes something that can be thrown at weaker enemies. In any case, these attacks build the narrative strength of martial characters by allowing them to, if nothing else, punish lower level enemies. I think this ties to your bounded accuracy love though, where you view every attack not hitting against level appropriate foes as a bug, not a feature.

4. My own home game has reduced this effect by removing ability score enhancing items and adding extra ability score increases from levels. I like what it has produced as a whole in the game, but wholesale nuking of rings of protection, vests of resistance, and magical arms and armor is in no way desirable to me. Ability score items were targeted because they affected who a character was (how strong, how intelligent, how persuasive) which was not desirable (it also limited the power of the animal themed buffs, which we didn’t like). Most of the ‘christmas tree’ stuff though is something I like. As you grow more powerful you should use more powerful items. A magical protection ring at 15th level should be more powerful than at 5th. And deprived of armed and armor (and other swag) a character should be weaker. Again, feature of the system, not bug. Magic items are still plenty fun even with cloaks, rings, and so forth. Even more so though if you decouple bonuses from specific item slots (or remove the slots concept all together in favor of total number of effects).

5. No, abandons the entire teamwork framework the game is built on. You can relatively easily go adventuring without a healer right now. Whether you make up the difference with rest, treating deadly wounds, or consumables is up to you. But I don’t think that decoupling healing from a role is actually beneficial. Believe it or not, some people enjoy playing healing characters, but even in the current game they are not needed. Any push though as a whole towards general and complete self-sufficiency for all classes with no limitations is a negative one for me.

6. I don’t see in any way how more classes is a drawback, or how fewer classes is a bonus, assuming classes are built with the skill and standard that Paizo generally has. A reduction in class options and a complication for each class does nothing positive for the game. It creates more to learn for new players and less to enjoy for more experienced players.

7. I love Vancian spellcasting, and even though I appreciate other systems (words of power, true sorcery, ect) taking Vancian casting out makes the world more boring and lifeless, while also stripping away a core element of the game / many settings. For better or worse, Vancian casting goes back too far to rip it out now, and if you did so I don't know that I'd view the resulting system as D&D / PF. I might be sort of ok with another option being built in (Warlock, Occult classes, psionics, ect), but Vancian should be the standard.

10. I have no idea what you mean by “fix saves’ but I imagine it ties to #1, which is not desirable. A moderate gap between different classes is desirable, and any more than a moderate gap is likely the result of a specific style of play. Hard coding it into the game play rules is a limitation on my enjoyment that I don't need.

11. Skills were extremely streamlined by the 3.5 -> Pathfinder transition – and largely for the better – but frankly there are enough gaps in the system as it stands because of it. The way invisibility interacts with stealth. The way vision enhancers interact with perception. Plus the way in general it has become much easier to have a very wide array of skills on every character, which again eats at the variety in character creation. I looked at the consolidated skills options from Unchained and couldn’t stand them. Hell, there are even times when I miss the old 3.5 skill list (in general), though not the cross class nonsense. There is maybe one or two consolidations I could see, but the idea of a newly streamlined system is one that puts me off.

All of these ideas, frankly, feel like they borrow from the pieces of 4E / 5E that I liked the least. Why would I want to make Pathfinder more like another system in general?

Really though, what do I know. I'm about three steps from jumping ship into 2E anyway.


Jester David wrote:

The power level of 5e has dipped down, closer to that of 1e/2e. Which is because the edition was meant to be more retro.

This is not true of the games, at least as it relates to the Bounded Accuracy stuff. The suggestion that a 20th level caster in 2e in any way resembles a 20th level caster in 5e is a bad joke. The same is true of the fighter. The guiding design aspect of many of the early editions at higher levels was that high level characters were just flat better, often by huge margins. Perhaps not as much in hit points, but certainly in success chance on everything from skills to saves. This is, in fact, exactly the opposite of what 5E achieves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Biggest problem I see is that people want drastically different things, and the things people want, a new edition wouldn't give them.

No Class Bloat/More options?

These are on opposite sides of the scale. Pathfinder has finally gotten to the point I feel confident that I could make any character I dreamed up.

Starting from a new edition with the original 6-7 classes... The first thing I would want to know is when do we get the kits/archtypes/multiclass options to realize my particular dream.

Is there really a problem with too many classes? Why can't people just not use/not allow the ones they dislike the most? There are a ton of classes out there right now that I have zero use for, doesn't mean I care if they take up some page counts.

Alternate Spellcasting? We already have that. We have spontaneous casters and Words of Power...

Fix the saves? The saves ARE fixed. I LOVE the way the saves work compared to 2E. Back then you had the same saves whether it was a mind attack, endurance attack, or dodgeable attack. I REALLY love splitting them into three sections with bonuses based on high stats.

There are a few things I'd like to see changed up a bit... but taking a robust game with tons of options and rereleasing it as a barebones skeleton of a game (again) isn't a good solution.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Ok, beside the bounded accuracy good/ no its the work of arch devils argument. I am gonna go ahead and put down what I feel PF 2e should go in. Recall guys this is just my opinions based off my own taste.

1: Something akin to Bounded accuracy. I want the mods cleared out, reduced and the math capped. It need not be done in the same way as 5e, but the lack of balance, rocket tag rules and the sheer amount of work at high end and with optimization drove me away from 3.x at last.

2:Spells need heavily redressed and the caster/non caster divide closed. Caster should not rule the game

3: BAB needs fixated and the ever worse extra attacks need dead. If you grant an extra attack its just that. Not a way worse attack

4:No more magic xmass tree/no need to have magic items. Magic should be cool and fun, not required.

5: I want healing for every class. You should not have to have a healer. If you want to call HP's vitality to make it not magical, cool.

6: Fewer classes but more customizable/ robust classes. Bake in the archtype concert and allow for broader classes

7: Please for the love of all that is holy, if you can not kill the evil that is Vancian casting. At the very lest add another non-vancian spellcaster class option.

8: Feats should be cool, not a +2 to this or a +1 to river dancing. They also should not be traps and all should be about the same power level

9: Some of those "feats" should be basic class abilities

10: Fix freaking saves

11: Ditto wth sklls DC and make fewer, but broader skills

You have just described the reasons why I switched to 13th Age.

The game has quite a lot more going for it than these but with the exception of #7, all fits.
Instead of pure Vancian spellcasting, we have Arcana Evolved readied slots. And everyone can learn Ritual Spellcasting to do magicky stuff (it's a feat that let's you grab a book and be a wizard, it's just that casting anything takes ages - on the plus side, you can do anything as long as you research your ritual).

Regards,
Ruemere


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If you guys want to play 5e, play 5e, don't try making PF 5e instead.

As for LotR, the problem was that there really wasn't that many high level characters, they were all mid levels. Aragorn MAYBE hit level 9 by the end of the trilogy...that's a MAYBE.

IF he had been a 20th level character or higher, he could have marched into Mordor and basically slaughtered Sauron...maybe...others had done similar things and heavily wounded Sauron to say the least.

That party in LotR didn't have anyone who could even touch Sauron except maybe Gandalf and perhaps Galadrial...and they were trying to avoid the temptation of such things....that's why they had to do that entire ring quest.

If you want the high level characters, read the Silmarillion. There you have heroes that orcs really can't touch and can't slay. In some battles they literally have slain thousands of their enemies (orcs, trolls, etc) until Melkor comes out to fight them himself.

That type of story in the Silmarillion you can't replicate in 5e really, because that many orcs would kill them dead...dead...dead.

But you can in PF.

However, play what you want, but if you want 5e, play 5e instead of suggesting PF becomes the same game.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

1: Something akin to Bounded accuracy. I want the mods cleared out, reduced and the math capped. It need not be done in the same way as 5e, but the lack of balance, rocket tag rules and the sheer amount of work at high end and with optimization drove me away from 3.x at last.

2:Spells need heavily redressed and the caster/non caster divide closed. Caster should not rule the game

3: BAB needs fixated and the ever worse extra attacks need dead. If you grant an extra attack its just that. Not a way worse attack

4:No more magic xmass tree/no need to have magic items. Magic should be cool and fun, not required.

5: I want healing for every class. You should not have to have a healer. If you want to call HP's vitality to make it not magical, cool.

6: Fewer classes but more customizable/ robust classes. Bake in the archtype concert and allow for broader classes

7: Please for the love of all that is holy, if you can not kill the evil that is Vancian casting. At the very lest add another non-vancian spellcaster class option.

8: Feats should be cool, not a +2 to this or a +1 to river dancing. They also should not be traps and all should be about the same power level

9: Some of those "feats" should be basic class abilities

10: Fix freaking saves

11: Ditto wth sklls DC and make fewer, but broader skills

I also disagree with most of these.

1. IME Rocket Tag is a problem with playstyle, not the system. I've played several games into the low 20s where rocket tag never happened. The idea that offense trumps all leads to an emphasis on "glass cannons" who have to win initiative and kill the foes in one action, because they can't endure the counterattack. That is rocket tag, but you don't have to play that way if you don't want to. It's entirely possible to make balanced high level characters who will dish out less pain, but can also survive a few counterattacks. If you don't like optimization, don't optimize. It's not needed.
2. I would do this by giving martials more narrative options at higher levels. I would not do it by nerfing spellcasting.
3. Extra attacks that get worse is a 3.0 thing. In 1e/2e, all your attacks could be taken at full bonus, and while moving. I'd be okay with returning to that - if damage was also reigned in a bit. In 1e/2e you'd be lucky to be doing d8+4 with those attacks. In a system where 2d6+35 is very doable, having all those attacks all the time can be a problem.
4. Yes and no - unlike some people, I like basic +X items. How else do you represent a sword that is magically enchanted to hit more often? I do wish the assumption that PCs just get them as they level and the whole WBL system would go away.
5. Eh, some people like playing the healer. I'd have optional systems for those groups that don't want one.
6. Ok with baked-in archetypes. Class bloat is a feature of this kind of system IMO.
7. Against. I like Vancian casting and the lack of it is a big part of what made 4e "not D&D" to me.
8. Yes and no...making all feats the same power level is a pipe dream. Utility can vary depending on group style, composition, and setting. Feats could certainly use some guidance about when they are worth taking and when not.
9. I could be fine with this, as long as there are still incentives to play things like a smart fighter.
10. You have no details her so I have nothing to address. I don't think saves are broken.
11. I'd like to see skill DCs expanded to do more stuff like the 3.0 ELH. Acrobatics checks to run on water or Sense Motive checks to read surface thoughts at super high DCs give skill characters fun stuff at high levels, and give them some spell-style narrative power without magic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Changes 1-12
3. Extra attacks that get worse is a 3.0 thing. In 1e/2e, all your attacks could be taken at full bonus, and while moving. I'd be okay with returning to that - if damage was also reigned in a bit. In 1e/2e you'd be lucky to be doing d8+4 with those attacks. In a system where 2d6+35 is very doable, having all those attacks all the time can be a problem.

You're forgetting just how much hitpoint bloat has fattened the system since those days Ryric. Compare the HP of an Ancient Red Dragon in AD&D to Pathfinder.

Quote:
4. Yes and no - unlike some people, I like basic +X items. How else do you represent a sword that is magically enchanted to hit more often? I do wish the assumption that PCs just get them as they level and the whole WBL system would go away.

You don't. The PC's just get better to hit and if you want to give them a magic sword you give them something truly special and unique. [Now, if you actually DO want to give them a weapon that is magically enhanced to be easier to hit with, there are options. Things like the Singing Sword from Forgotten Realms which sang when drawn, announcing the bearer's presence but granting him a Morale Bonus to hit and damage. Badass unique s++@, not generic enhancement bonus.

Quote:
5. Eh, some people like playing the healer. I'd have optional systems for those groups that don't want one.

I believe SoSL is looking for a more diverse swath of characters who can heal the party, not to prevent the benefits of having a healer.

Quote:
8. Yes and no...making all feats the same power level is a pipe dream. Utility can vary depending on group style, composition, and setting. Feats could certainly use some guidance about when they are worth taking and when not.

Not a pipe dream. Just because Paizo currently doesn't value equivalent power levels among PCs doesn't mean that they couldn't begin to value balance-among-options more.

Quote:
11. I'd like to see skill DCs expanded to do more stuff like the 3.0 ELH. Acrobatics checks to run on water or Sense Motive checks to read surface thoughts at super high DCs give skill characters fun stuff at high levels, and give them some spell-style narrative power without magic.

Base this stuff on Skill Ranks, not DCs that spellcasters can easily replicate with a wave of their hand by shooting their skill check into the stratosphere.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

4. Yes and no - unlike some people, I like basic +X items. How else do you represent a sword that is magically enchanted to hit more often? I do wish the assumption that PCs just get them as they level and the whole WBL system would go away.

Okay, sure, but do we need 5 different stages of "magically enhanced to hit more often"? And do we need to make it mandatory that you have your weapon magically enhanced to be more accurate before you can add any other properties?

Imagine if you had an "Accurate" weapon property you could add to a weapon that gives a flat +3 to hit. So you could have your generic magic sword that allows the wielder to hit more often. Or you could have a Flaming Sword, which hits as often as a regular sword, but adds a chunk of fire damage.

One thing I would like to see is a small number of base enchants, with an increasing number of associated enchants. Something like the Synergy enchants that showed up in late 3.5. So you could do things like you have your base Flaming Enchant, then a Synergy that lets you summon a vortex of fire around you, a synergy that lets the sword shoot beams of fire, a synergy that grants the wielder resistance to Fire and Cold... and so on. So you get weapons with abilities that have a strong thematic link and tend to become more interesting than just adding more d6's to the damage.

Quote:

11. I'd like to see skill DCs expanded to do more stuff like the 3.0 ELH. Acrobatics checks to run on water or Sense Motive checks to read surface thoughts at super high DCs give skill characters fun stuff at high levels, and give them some spell-style narrative power without magic.

I think that Unchained's skill unlocks are a better way to handle this. At a certain number of ranks open up new higher level uses of the skill. I'd make an unlock come every 3 ranks instead of every 5, and make the higher level ones more effective than what is in unchained... but the core system of how it works is simply better than making absurdly high DCs you have to meet to do it.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seerow wrote:

Okay, sure, but do we need 5 different stages of "magically enhanced to hit more often"? And do we need to make it mandatory that you have your weapon magically enhanced to be more accurate before you can add any other properties?

Imagine if you had an "Accurate" weapon property you could add to a weapon that gives a flat +3 to hit. So you could have your generic magic sword that allows the wielder to hit more often. Or you could have a Flaming Sword, which hits as often as a regular sword, but adds a chunk of fire damage.

One thing I would like to see is a small number of base enchants, with an increasing number of associated enchants. Something like the Synergy enchants that showed up in late 3.5. So you could do things like you have your base Flaming Enchant, then a Synergy that lets you summon a vortex of fire around you, a synergy that lets the sword shoot beams of fire, a synergy that grants the wielder resistance to Fire and Cold... and so on. So you get weapons with abilities that have a strong thematic link and tend to become more interesting than just adding more d6's to the damage.

Sorry, I guess I just don't see the advantage gained by renaming weapon pluses into something like "accurate." A weapon's basic function is to hit and do damage, so it makes sense that enhancing that basic function doesn't need a special name. Honestly IMO we have too many weapon and armor special abilities as it is - I have to look up the list every time an AP drops a +1 frobnicating bamfoozled Morningstar.

I would, however, get rid of the idea that a +1 is needed before adding other properties. That's a change I can get behind.

kyrt-rider wrote:
You're forgetting just how much hitpoint bloat has fattened the system since those days Ryric. Compare the HP of an Ancient Red Dragon in AD&D to Pathfinder.

Well, that's a bit of a poor comparison, because an ancient red could be fought by 8th-10th level characters in 1e but is no where near CR 8-10 now. Dragons have scaled up quite a bit. One thing to note is that damaging spells have not gone up since 1e, in fact in several cases have gained caps that limit their damage while at the same time hp has bloated.

kyrt-rider wrote:
You don't. The PC's just get better to hit and if you want to give them a magic sword you give them something truly special and unique. [Now, if you actually DO want to give them a weapon that is magically enhanced to be easier to hit with, there are options. Things like the Singing Sword from Forgotten Realms which sang when drawn, announcing the bearer's presence but granting him a Morale Bonus to hit and damage. Badass unique s$&@, not generic enhancement bonus.

Sometimes you just want a magic sword like the one Conan finds in the 1980 movie. Just better at fighting, no fuss, no muss. It doesn't flame or sing or glow. It just is better at being a sword. Sorry, I'm a long way from being convinced that pluses on weapons and armor are a bad thing. They are predictable and not sexy, I'll grant that. But sometimes you just want the old reliable workhorse option.

kyrt-rider wrote:
Not a pipe dream. Just because Paizo currently doesn't value equivalent power levels among PCs doesn't mean that they couldn't begin to value balance-among-options more.

You think feats can be perfectly balanced? Regardless of playstyle/campaign/etc? Ok, let me give you two feats, if you can balance those I might believe you: Power Attack, and Waterway Caster. Balance them so that they are both equally useful in any build, for any character class, in both a social campaign, and one with a fight every 10 minutes, in both a desert and on a ship. Go for it. If you say "well Power attack is better for melee fighters," then it is now a trap option for casters. Ditto for "obviously you wouldn't take Waterway Caster in a desert with a barbarian." This is why I say perfect feat balance is a pipe dream. It can be done better, but a lot of avoiding trap options come down to giving good advice in the feat section. You can't eliminate trap options unless there are no real options. All you can do is help people pick the options that work best for their character.


Quote:
Sorry, I guess I just don't see the advantage gained by renaming weapon pluses into something like "accurate." A weapon's basic function is to hit and do damage, so it makes sense that enhancing that basic function doesn't need a special name.

The advantage would be to replace +1, +2, +3, +4, +5 with a single value that is a flat bonus high enough to be noticed but not high enough to upset the RNG.

I mean you could in theory just make +3 the only flat bonus weapons out there, but outside of the context of the scaling bonus, that just seems awkward.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's a difference between 'equally useful overall' and 'equally useful for every individual.'

You can eliminate blatant trap options that don't provide any real power to anybody, and you can clearly illuminate the intended recipient of a given option.

The PRD is filled with feats that as presently written are a waste of paper space. A +2 or 3 to a very limited scope of behavior under limited circumstances, or enabling you to do something you should already be able to do, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
6: Fewer classes but more customizable/ robust classes. Bake in the archtype concert and allow for broader classes

By baked in, do you mean like how 5e has Default class features then pick one archetype and you get scaling powers from it? If so... that's a really really ineffective way of achieving what we already possess, except it's more limiting because it has to be confined to placing x powered abilities at y level rather than allowing the designers to put swap any ability for any other ability of about the same power.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I suspect what he means, Milo, is that rather than having to try to squeeze in the Archetypes you want and being limited in that regard, the archetype stuff should be freely select able within the class.

Instead of being a Drunken Master, Zen Archer or Master of Many Styles, you might be a Monk who dabbles in all three, but masters none.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

I suspect what he means, Milo, is that rather than having to try to squeeze in the Archetypes you want and being limited in that regard, the archetype stuff should be freely select able within the class.

Instead of being a Drunken Master, Zen Archer or Master of Many Styles, you might be a Monk who dabbles in all three, but masters none.

That would be like the Star Wars saga edition way of doing classes - at certain levels you basically pick a "class feature" from a big menu of options. Some features have little prereq trees and such, and new books just add more options to the list for the various classes. I liked that system, and honestly that's what I thought 4e would be before it came out.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

I suspect what he means, Milo, is that rather than having to try to squeeze in the Archetypes you want and being limited in that regard, the archetype stuff should be freely select able within the class.

Instead of being a Drunken Master, Zen Archer or Master of Many Styles, you might be a Monk who dabbles in all three, but masters none.

Sooo... 4e rather than 5e.

Quote:
That would be like the Star Wars saga edition way of doing classes - at certain levels you basically pick a "class feature" from a big menu of options. Some features have little prereq trees and such, and new books just add more options to the list for the various classes. I liked that system, and honestly that's what I thought 4e would be before it came out.

Ugh... At that rate, I'd just go and play a proper point buy system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

I suspect what he means, Milo, is that rather than having to try to squeeze in the Archetypes you want and being limited in that regard, the archetype stuff should be freely select able within the class.

Instead of being a Drunken Master, Zen Archer or Master of Many Styles, you might be a Monk who dabbles in all three, but masters none.

Sooo... 4e rather than 5e.

More PF [Talents, Rage Powers, Discoveries, Combat Styles, Archetypes.....] than 4E really.

Just because the Archetypes might baked into class options doesn't mean they would be significantly changed.

351 to 400 of 912 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / I can't believe I'm saying this, but I want a new edition... All Messageboards