Online-Roleplaying.community

Online-Roleplaying.community (http://online-roleplaying.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Pathfinder Society (http://online-roleplaying.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1857)
-   -   The Grand Lodge [For Visitors and Applicants!] (http://online-roleplaying.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12453)

LeadPal 29th of August, 2011 16:32

The Grand Lodge [For Visitors and Applicants!]
 
All you gamers in the wings, hello!

Marcus316 31st of August, 2011 09:52

Never played Pathfinder ... are there online resources available?

LeadPal 31st of August, 2011 10:46

d20pfsrd.com

Mercutio 31st of August, 2011 11:13

It has almost everything available in the game, including the newest book Ultimate Combat. If not for d20pfsrd, I'd be SOL.

zachol 1st of September, 2011 20:15

I still have no idea how or why that site is alright.
If it's intentional by Paizo that such things are possible, then I am damn well going to (continue to) throw all sorts of money at them.

Mercutio 1st of September, 2011 21:10

Not only is it all right, it's won TWO Enny silver medals for best website.

If you go to Paizo's own SRD, doesn't it have all the same information?

zachol 1st of September, 2011 21:16

"Ignorant" doesn't even begin to describe my awareness of what the SRD includes or how Paizo does OGL stuff.
I really don't care, except enough to say "well they must be doing something awesome if d20pfsrd is alright."

BigRedRod 1st of September, 2011 21:21

Well, Paizo are obligated to share a certain percentage of their stuff as they are exploiting the OGL. They go beyond this as Pathfinder (as an RPG product) is in a fairly tenuous position and they need to keep their fanbase "on side". It's fine to see WotC as a big faceless corporation, but Paizo really bank on a more personal touch (such as the public playtesting whenever they do a new big release).

Still, the reasons matter less than it being super useful to always have full rules access.

LeadPal 2nd of September, 2011 05:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercutio (Post 401447)
If you go to Paizo's own SRD, doesn't it have all the same information?

It updates a lot slower and doesn't include 3rd party material, but yeah, basically. Also, I think it's missing a lot of minor material, like the Pathfinder Companions.

Lune 2nd of September, 2011 14:15

And, honestly, it would be nice if they had some pictures even if they were simply clickable links.

But yeah, when Paizo set out to design Pathfinder they were making it as widely available as possible. Pretty much the polar opposite of T$R's previous standpoints. I feel the same way, z. Just haven't had the excess money to throw their way much yet. I own the core book and the beastiary and am hopefully going to be getting the Advanced Player's Guide soon too. I also would like to get Ultimate Magic but am less enthused with Ultimate Combat.

More than anything I just love the system though. IMO it fixes everything that was wrong with 3.5 and doesn't include the stuff in 4th that I dislike. So for me it is the perfect system. Or close to it. The flaws I see are minor and generally fixed by a couple simple house rules. (Such as animal companions not getting racial bonuses to skills like any other member of their species would.)

Linklegacy77 2nd of September, 2011 14:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lune (Post 401492)
And, honestly, it would be nice if they had some pictures even if they were simply clickable links.

But yeah, when Paizo set out to design Pathfinder they were making it as widely available as possible. Pretty much the polar opposite of T$R's previous standpoints. I feel the same way, z. Just haven't had the excess money to throw their way much yet. I own the core book and the beastiary and am hopefully going to be getting the Advanced Player's Guide soon too. I also would like to get Ultimate Magic but am less enthused with Ultimate Combat.

More than anything I just love the system though. IMO it fixes everything that was wrong with 3.5 and doesn't include the stuff in 4th that I dislike. So for me it is the perfect system. Or close to it. The flaws I see are minor and generally fixed by a couple simple house rules. (Such as animal companions not getting racial bonuses to skills like any other member of their species would.)

Having reviewed the system since we last spoke about it, I will say the balance is closer than it was in 3.5 and it's generally a better system in a lot of ways, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it fixes everything, and there are a number of things I think 4.0 does a lot better than 3.5 (like making magic items for example). I can't agree with your opinion that it's a perfect system, but it is a good system.

zachol 2nd of September, 2011 15:06

In 4th edition's favor, it's hard to make a character completely useless in combat (unless you actually try). You just get your various attack powers and they're all mostly acceptable.
Contrast with my attempt at a witch earlier. She would've been excellent in a certain kind of game, but not one where combats happen. Especially combats with undead. It wasn't that I was designing her around that, I just stepped back at the end, looked over her sheet, and realized "yeah this isn't happening."

Lune 2nd of September, 2011 16:53

I don't want to get into another 4 vs. 3.5 debate.

I'll suffice it to say that no system is perfect. That is why I specified that "...for me it is the perfect system. Or close to it."

By the way, magic item creation in Pathfinder works different than 3.5 too. I'd recommend checking it out. Not for this game though as it is disallowed in PFS play.

z, I think your witch character would have better as a cleric who channeled negative energy or a necromancer wizard that was just roleplayed as a "witch". I know you were likely more interested in playing the class but I don't so much think it is a fault of the system that some classes are stronger in certain types of campaigns. I think thats just the nature of the beast so to speak. That can happen in 4th edition too. Even in 3.5 I could pick a ranger and instead of picking his favored enemy be undead I could pick animal. It would be a suboptimal choice for the campaign but it is a conscious choice I would be making as a player to do so.

zachol 2nd of September, 2011 17:29

Well it's not like I actually prefer 4e, I just like that aspect of it. Pathfinder is awesome.

Mercutio 2nd of September, 2011 20:40

Quote:

That can happen in 4th edition too.
Well, yes, you can have a character better suited for a certain kind of campaign. But what you can't have is a character that is completely useless in a combat. Everyone has attack powers and they're all roughly the same thing. It's both a good aspect and bad aspect of 4E. It means everyone can contribute the same in a combat, but it also means that there isn't a whole lot, mechanically, that differentiates between a rogue's Deft Strike and a fighter's Cleave. Which can lead to feeling stale as each class, while it has its quirks, has powers that are pretty much just reskins of other powers, maybe with a different "Special" here and there.

In any case, no edition wars, please. Each system does its own thing and each has its own strengths and weaknesses.

Time for some monkish ass-kicking. Or dying. But I'd like to avoid that. So far the unarmed monk has the highest AC. Which doesn't bode well...

Tashalar 2nd of September, 2011 21:49

Either you have a high AC or... you just kill the opponents really quickly. My barbarian is better suited killing than surviving as well. ;)

Darius 2nd of September, 2011 22:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercutio (Post 401522)
So far the unarmed monk has the highest AC. Which doesn't bode well...

Eh?

The monk and the magus have the same "base" AC. And the magus has access to the shield spell and Combat Expertise. Of course, I'm not likely to actually hit anything... but I'll look good doing it.

Tashalar 2nd of September, 2011 23:05

Looking good is what this game is all about. Yes!

(your character has expert duelist as well, Darius)

Mercutio 2nd of September, 2011 23:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darius (Post 401540)
Eh?

The monk and the magus have the same "base" AC. And the magus has access to the shield spell and Combat Expertise. Of course, I'm not likely to actually hit anything... but I'll look good doing it.

For some reason I thought your AC was 16.

I wasn't taking Combat Expertise into account. I think the monk will be doing a lot of readied actions and fighting defensively.

Darius 3rd of September, 2011 00:43

True. So total AC is 17+1 for expert duellist (when faced with only one foe) +4 for shield + 1 for CE= 23. Not bad for a lvl 1 character. And the penalty for CE will be offset by adding a +1 to attacks from the arcane pool.

Linklegacy77 3rd of September, 2011 04:37

Hi, I'm an archer. Don't let things near me please. Thanks, I appreciate it.

Marcus316 3rd of September, 2011 04:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linklegacy77 (Post 401586)
Hi, I'm an archer. Don't let things near me please. Thanks, I appreciate it.

LOL, sounds like a character I would make. ;)

Marcus316 3rd of September, 2011 05:05

Also, I registered for the Pathfinder Society, so maybe when space opens up I'll have a character ready. ;)

Mercutio 3rd of September, 2011 05:38

Well, AbidingDude just had to drop out, not that he had the time yet to get a character posted.

hacknslashn 4th of September, 2011 01:29

Hello folks. Any games going on this weekend?


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 22:25.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Graphics by Koert van Kleef (T0N!C) and Lyle Warren